Following the COVID lockdowns, many transit agencies had to contend not only with recovering lost riders but also ensuring service reliability and delivery. In addition to the pandemic itself, subsequent crises in staffing and supply chains hit transit systems hard. Drivers and maintenance staff were hard to find and spare parts needed for vehicle maintenance were often held up in other parts of the world.
Even as riders were slowly returning to transit, this double whammy meant that bus trips were often getting cancelled either due to a lack of an operator or lack of a bus. Anecdotally, I experienced this a lot myself throughout 2021-2023. Early on, it was hard to find information about what was cancelled and it wasn’t uncommon to find a scheduled trip never end up going “live” on real-time apps like OneBusAway.
It wasn’t until the tail end of 2023 that I started observing trips being restored and less uncertainty around arrivals, which presumably was due to some stabilization in both staffing and supply chain flows. I don’t think these issues have fully resolved but a general improvement is certainly noticeable.
Earlier this year, I requested a log of all service cancellations in 2022 and 2023. Coincidentally, Alex has also been collecting data on trip cancellations via GTFS as part of his personal project portfolio. Although his work requires more backend work to neatly publish and visualize results, our findings were fairly consistent.
As part of my public records request, Metro returned a huge collection of data that is broadly referred to as coordinator service records (CSRs). CSRs are a sort of record-keeping system for Metro to log service loss for any number of reasons. Ultimately, they were able to send me a breakdown of all “work cancelled” by base, route/run, and reason for cancellation.
A quick footnote about the data: on the operational end, it’s easier for Metro to track cancellations at the unit of a “work piece,” which is more or less analogous to a “run.” A run can encompass multiple trips because it represents a driver’s own discrete assignment: deadheading from base to a route terminus, driving any number of that route’s trips back and forth, deadheading to another route, deadheading back to base, etc. So when a base is short an operator with no extraboard (i.e., spare operator) to fill in, then that entire piece of work is cancelled along with its corresponding trips.
The data I received is at the level of cancelled workpieces. The implication here is that a single piece of cancelled work translates into multiple trips, which is orders of magnitude for impactful for riders. For example, one cancelled full shift of around 8 hours may consist of several trips lost.
At any rate, my main objective was to uncover if cancellations were generally decreasing over time. My first exploration of the data was to plot an aggregate count of cancelations as a monthly time series, broken out by operating base.
All cancellations by operating base
A few noteworthy observations:
- Cancellations across bases largely trended together, suggesting generally systematic factors driving the cancellations
- Although I don’t have 2021 data in hand, there was a very noticeable precipitous drop in the early half 2022
- There is some evidence of stability through the middle of 2022, followed by more erratic spikes toward the end of 2022 and throughout 2023
Although there is some evidence of peaking in December and the summer months (July and August), there don’t seem to be very obvious seasonal effects. As such, I found it worthwhile to break out the data further by cancellation reason. By and large, the two most common reasons for cancelled work were a lack of coach (“NoCo”) and lack of operator (“NoOp”), which is where I focused my analysis.
Cancellations by lack of coach or operator
Breaking things out by “NoCo” and “NoOp” yield a pretty stark picture. Operator-related cancellations plummeted from the beginning of 2022 and have remained more or less stable since mid-2022. Coach-related cancellations, on the other hand, were largely insignificant until a fairly extreme spike toward the end of 2022 into early 2023.
This suggests a kind of duality: Metro’s reduced service in 2021 and lack of operators likely meant relatively low vehicle maintenance requirements. But once service was restored and operator staffing stabilized, maintenance needs appear to have skyrocketed. Around that same time (early 2023), I coincidentally had reached out to a friend who drives out of East Base, who offered the following observations:
On Wednesday, there were twenty pieces of work canceled with plenty of operators available. The [coordinator responsible for routing coaches in the yard] didn’t want me to write up a minor maintenance issue since they are short coaches. So that’s one data point to indicate Metro is struggling to hire enough vehicle maintenance personnel…
…Metro has been low on vehicle maintenance staffing for quite a while now. During the pandemic, it wasn’t as much of an issue since they weren’t trying to run more service.
Based on this anecdote and the data, it looks like Metro’s lack of coaches was simply due to its inability to maintain them. When I broke out “NoCo” cancellations by base, it was evident that this was a system-wide problem, although some bases were more heavily inflicted than others.
Very lastly, I wanted to explore how “NoOp” (lack of operator) cancellations trended when broken out by operating base.
When plotting operator-related cancellations against time, the picture is promising and buttresses the narrative that service reliability has been improving because there are now finally enough operators to fill the seats.
Across all bases, there was a steep decline from early 2022 and, with the exception of Central Base in July 2022, a steady trend downward since then. There is some evidence of a very modest increase at the end of 2023, which could be holiday-related but I don’t have enough to data to detect regular seasonal effects.
To corroborate what I gleaned visually, I also ran a few simple statistical tests to detect a downward trend across the 2022-2023 monthly time series. Both tests — a linear model and Mann-Kendall test — affirmed that operator-related cancellations have dropped over the entire time period in a statistically significant way, but not coach-related cancellations, presumably due to that spike in early 2023.
I think it’s fair to presume that the “NoCo” spike was a one-time phenomenon as a kind of lagging indicator of service delivery. In other words, the more buses you put on the road, the more maintenance you need for those buses. In a sense, it’s a good problem to have and it appears Metro was about to make adjustments by the second half of 2023 to support its service delivery targets.
Overall, the data tells a positive story around the recovery of Metro service. It validates my own experience in the past year, where I’ve had much less occasion to deal with missing trips and unreliable service. Although we still have a ways to go on the road to transit recovery, steps are being taken in the right direction.
Im guessing the steep drop in 2022 aligns with service being realigned/cut. Once the schedule matched the new operator count cancelled trips stabilized. Then they were forced to realize more mechanics were needed.
@Stbfan,
Ya, these charts don’t really tell you much without the other piece of information, and that is what level of service Metro is trying to deliver.
Cutting back service or simply reducing frequency is the quickest and easiest way to correct for an operator shortage. Metro was a bit reluctant to do this initially and the result was huge numbers of cancellations and the resulting unreliability. Eventually they were forced to cut back and things improved.
The same goes for coaches. It isn’t just maintenance levels or staffing. There could be any number of reasons for the spike in NoCo cancellations.
The NoCo spike around January, 2023 was related to the repair of 208 busses impacted by the steering column recall.
Curious when/if we might see service restorations in the near future?
Even when the service hours come back, they may not come back into the same routes. For instance, as drivers and coaches become available, I can see the extra service hours simply being absorbed by RapidRide route I and G, rather than bringing back removed trips from other routes.
For me, I really do hope the 255’s 15-minute evening service comes back, but I also have very low confidence in that ever happening, due to equity pecking order reasons.
The 301 304 and 320 are largely coming back this fall, albeit as different routes as part of the Lynnwood connections. So that’s good news.
The 190 will likely be replaced by the 1 Line when that opens.
There is a lot that goes into the equity process.
Anecdotal i know but i ride the 255 at night to u district during the evenings, and I do find the buses to have substantial amount of room. I dont know about the eastbound direction though. Plenty of other 200 series routes which now operate hourly which is a bit too infrequent. We will see.
It’s important to consider that East Link connections goes live next year, save for the route 221 (i think thats what it is) getting new connections this spring with the starter line. Also, Federal Way opens too. and that will impact most of south king county. I expect service
You see a significant number of working-class people on the B, as is to be expected since wealthier people are more likely to drive and lower-income people are less likely to have a car or be able to afford gas. I’d expect the same on the 255 and 245.
The 221 did change in April. I have notes on that transfer I’ve been meaning to put into an article. (Any day now, Sam.)
The 255s ridership has been hurt my construction around the Montlake area killing reliability, especially during off hours, which are most likely to see bridge closures and ramp closures.
The construction is finally getting close to done. But, the route may never get a chance to prove itself without these problems if ridership data from the route with these problems tells Metro that it’s just a low ridership route, and that the service money is better spent elsewhere.
Do you think the 255 would lose riders and Kirkland-Seattle connectivity would be harmed if the 255 is moved to Lake Washington Blvd?
The Swift Blue Line plus 1 Line is taking care of former 301 riders. The service is thereby replaced by other agencies, albeit with Metro drivers in the case of the 1 Line.
Please tell me Metro is not wasting drivers, buses, and CO2 emissions on an Aurora Village to Northgate Station bus that bypasses North Shoreline Station.
The 255 will probably be hurt by moving to Lake Washington Blvd, but I think not significantly, and RapidRide K likely has more to gain from being on 108th. From what I’ve seen, most riders get on/off the 255 at Kirkland TC or the South Kirkland P+R.
I hope by the time 255 is rerouted, KCM fixes the button hook that buses do when entering the P+R from Lake Washington Blvd (see: the 250’s routing)
I really wish Lake Washington or 108th had a freeway stop so that N/S routes out of Kirkland were connected to buses across the 520. Maybe one could still get slotted in at 108th?
Or maybe some kind of transfer point at Northup and 108th? It seems like a bit of a missed opportunity for RapidRide K to connect to all the 520 buses
Lynnwood Link Connections with the final network proposal that will start August 30.
The only expresses I see remaining are the 303 and 322. Both of them stop at Link stations along the way for transfers to Link. Both of them go through South Lake Union, then eastern downtown, then First Hill, so they’re going to job centers Link doesn’t.
> I really wish Lake Washington or 108th had a freeway stop so that N/S routes out of Kirkland were connected to buses across the 520. Maybe one could still get slotted in at 108th?
I guess we could have 255 exist on 108th using the hov ramps and then back track to lake washington boulevard. It would be a bit slower but that would allow nearby bus stops at northup way and 108th ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/itpuDL29K81u3wgHA
@WL I think the plan post-K is already to have the 255 stop at the South Kirkland P+R and enter/exit the freeway via the HOV ramps on 108th.
I was thinking of connecting the K (and perhaps 249) to 520 buses like the 545 and 542. It seems to me there will always be a need for Redmond-Seattle buses via 520, and it would be great to have a better connection to them from Kirkland.
@Brent White,
I don’t mean to imply that CT upper management has no brain, but extending Blue Swift to 185th St Station is an absolute no-brainer.
The Blue Swift route between Aurora Village TC and North Shoreline is fast and efficient, the transfer to frequent Link service will also be fast and efficient, and the connection to Link will serve the needs of a large number of Blue Swift riders. It’s an obvious choice.
But….
“ Please tell me Metro is not wasting drivers, buses, and CO2 emissions on an Aurora Village to Northgate Station bus that bypasses North Shoreline Station.”
Ah, check out the proposed 303. It does exactly that.
The 303 basically bypasses all the Link stations until it gets to NGS, and then it rejoins the freeway until it gets downtown and then fights it out on the street grid until it gets to First Hill. And it is infrequent and peak only.
Riders wanting to go from Aurora Village TC to First Hill would be better served to simply take Blue Swift to Link, and then transfer to the bus of their choice in DT Seattle.
Better, quicker, transfers, more frequent all day service, and it is traffic free until the transfer to a downtown bus.
I don’t think the 303 is going to last long. But Metro hasn’t invested much in it, so it probably doesn’t really matter.
@John
> I think the plan post-K is already to have the 255 stop at the South Kirkland P+R and enter/exit the freeway via the HOV ramps on 108th.
Gotcha, yeah the other route 271 is just using the lake washington boulevard ne exit so was wondering if they’ll use the 108th one or not when they move the route 255.
For connecting to the 542 and 545, for the rapidride K it’ll reach the wilburton station. But I guess they could potentially extend the hov ramps at 108th continuing onto the other direction as well heading east from 108 onto i-405. This would allow the freeway buses to exit onto 108th and then quickly get back on.
I haven’t seen any studies or plans about this concept though.
Here’s an example of what I mean. Just a first thought; there’s likely a better way to do this
https://i.imgur.com/xdk6CIQ.png
– Add freeway bus stops to the 520 HOV ramp
– Add crosswalks and a sidewalk
– Add a transfer point for buses travelling down Northup
“The 303 basically bypasses all the Link stations until it gets to NGS”
The 303 appears to get on the freeway at 185th, so maybe it can stop for Link transfers there. If not, the 348 will serve 185th, which is a broad swath of northern Shoreline.
“Riders wanting to go from Aurora Village TC to First Hill would be better served to simply take Blue Swift to Link, and then transfer to the bus of their choice in DT Seattle.”
We’d need somebody to try that trip and see how long it takes to transfer downtown and take the 3/4 to Jefferson Street, and that can get frustrating. The 3/4 takes an inordinately long amount of time to get up and down James and turn at 9th & James due to the traffic at the freeway entrance. Going to SLU is another question. We’d need somebody to try Link and the express bus alternative and see what they’re really like, rather than just guessing on the map.
There’s also the perception of transferring downtown being unsafe.
We should be glad Metro has reduced the number of expresses to two, and that they go to somewhere else rather than 5th & Pine. That’s progress. If the routes perform poorly, it may be politically feasible to delete them at the next recession. Right now you have all the people asking for a one-seat ride, and saying downtown is unsafe, and Link will take unreasonably long to get to First Hill or SLU, and lower-income people work at First Hill medical facilities, and patients need medical workers from Northshore and Shoreline. It’s hard to convince people otherwise when Link isn’t running yet so you can’t do a direct comparison. My own suspicion is that I-5 congestion will bog down the buses so much they won’t be competitive with Link. If people are commuting regularly, they’ll get caught in a traffic jam from 45th to downtown at least a few times.
@Mike Orr,
“ The 303 appears to get on the freeway at 185th, so maybe it can stop for Link transfers there”
LOL. Ah, no.
The 303 will travel on Meridian to 175th where it will join the freeway, conveniently missing the 185th St Station by about 10 blocks to the west, and exactly 10 blocks to the south. So much for the transfer opportunity!
But there are other threats to the 303 ridership base besides just the speed and reliability issues of uses traveling in traffic on the freeway. Consider:
A). Current Blue Swift riders changing to the 303 at AVTC are likely to just stay on Swift Blue and transfer to Link at 185th St instead.
B). Any 348 riders currently transferring to the 303 are likely to just stay on the 348 and transfer to Link at 185th St instead.
C). Any riders driving to AVTC to board the 348 are likely to simply drive to 185th St or Mountlake Terrace Station and board Link there instead.
D). Any 303 users who find the current infrequent, peak only, 303 scheduling inconvenient are much more likely to simply adjust their commute to take Link instead.
Also, there is no freeway access at 185th St.
@john
Yeah those are “flyer” bus stops . It’s probably possible just relocated onto 108th. Around factoria has similar bus stops
Honestly maybe there is such a proposal somewhere. I’ll ask kcm and Kirkland . Perhaps part of the problem was jurisdictions with the 108 ramp in Bellevue but it’s mainly useful for Kirkland
Does equity also refer to geographic equity like with Sound Transit expansion or does it only refer to having adequate numbers of BIPOC?
255 is one of those routes that should go downtown again plus also be a Sound Transit route. Kirkland-Seattle is kind of a major connection, Kirkland has high regional significance and doesn’t have ST service now nor has it. Sure it will with Stride but that’s one station in the middle of a highway interchange a good distance from downtown. The 255 got the shaft and not surprisingly ridership is down. Many have given up on it with its infrequent service and forced transfer at UW station which is terrible for transfers.
Not many riders board either bus along 108th. But, I do have some operational issues with moving the 255 to Lake Washington Blvd. Specifically:
– The right-turn from State St. to 68th is to sharp for all but the smallest buses to be able to make it. So, if the move were made, all trips on the 255 would have to shift to small buses. Would that cause capacity issues during rush hour? (This could be avoided by taking the snow route, which follows Lake Washington Blvd. all the way to Kirkland Way, but no bus does that presently).
– The detour into South Kirkland P&R is worse coming from Lake Washington Blvd. than 108th. It could be mitigated by having the bus stop on 38th Pl., next to the park and ride, rather than in the park and ride itself, but that would require Metro to think outside the box, and I have zero faith in them every doing that.
As to the question of should it be rerouted downtown again, its worth pointing out that the overhead of the Link transfer to go downtown is very close to dropping considerably. Within the next month or so, the bus will have an HOV off-ramp to exit 520 onto Montlake. Within a couple years (when the full 2 line opens), Link trains between downtown and UW will be running all day every 5 minutes, rather than every 10 minutes. At the same time, rerouting the bus downtown would increase the route’s running time, which would force further frequency cuts. So, unless you want weekend service cut to every 30 minutes or service after 9 PM cut to once per hour, switching the bus back to downtown feels like a bad idea.
“– The right-turn from State St. to 68th is to sharp for all but the smallest buses to be able to make it. So, if the move were made, all trips on the 255 would have to shift to small buses.”
You have it backwards. It’s more difficult for a 40 foot bus to make a sharp right turn. It’s easier for a 60 foot bus.
The 255s ridership has been hurt my construction around the Montlake area killing reliability,
Yes, which has cascading effects on the whole system. You have to add buffer time to deal with the potential of the bus taking a lot more time to follow the route. This means more drivers on a system that is obviously spread really thin. The 520 fixes will make a huge difference for those riders but it will also help everyone else.
255 is one of those routes that should go downtown again plus also be a Sound Transit route.
Sorry, no. That is like arguing that the 41 should be resurrected, and go downtown. Sure, a lot of people at Northgate would love that. They get a connection to Link and keep their one-seat fast express to downtown. Run it every few minutes, like they did in the past (at least during rush hour). The problem is, there is no money to pay for that. By truncating the 41 you inconvenience some riders, but it is a relatively minor inconvenience.
But you save a huge amount of service! The same goes for the 255. But there is another issue. What about getting to the UW? Send the 255 downtown and you’ve inconvenienced those riders a lot more than you’ve inconvenienced those headed downtown (who have to transfer to Link).
Metro made the right choice, it is just that their timing was off. They should have waited for the 520 work to be done before sending all the buses to the UW. In the meantime they should have sent the 271 to Bellevue via Bellevue Way (so that it could stop at the freeway stations). Then riders (from the old 255) could transfer at a freeway station to get to the UW, while retaining their one-seat ride to downtown.
In the context of Eastside routes, the 255 is not really low ridership, even now. It doesn’t have the ridership of the B, but is on par with the 271 despite being a shorter route, and has more ridership than competing routes like the 245 and 250.
It is worth noting that the current 255 is sort of like the old ST 540 except with a lot more frequency/span of service and stops. ST canceled the 540 with COVID, but I wonder if the case could be made that they should subsidize the 255 a bit in return for Metro taking over the route and providing valuable feeder service to Link.
Re: the 303:
Seems like if your trying to serve north riders with a First Hill connection, some sort of Capitol Hill – First Hill connector would make a lot better use of the service hours.
@Glenn,
“ some sort of Capitol Hill – First Hill connector would make a lot better use of the service hours”
Ya, running the 303 all the way to First Hill is currently sort of a dumb idea, but when Link opens to Lynnwood that dumb idea will become an absolutely stupid idea.
Metro needs to take a page from CT and truncate/extend some of these obsolete routes to 185th St Station instead. Then use all those saved service hours to do something like what you suggest on the south end.
It’s really not that hard. CT is planning on doing it with Blue Swift, Metro can too!
Ya, running the
303510 all the way toFirst Hilldowntown is currently sort of a dumb idea, but when Link opens to Lynnwood that dumb idea will become an absolutely stupid idea.MetroSound Transit needs to take a page from CT and truncate/extend some of these obsolete routes to 185th St Station instead. Then use all those saved service hours to do something like what you suggest on the south end.It’s really not that hard. CT is planning on doing it with Blue Swift,
MetroSound Transit can too!Fixed it for you.
Do you work for Sound Transit Lazarus? I’m just curious as to why you ignore the fact that Sound Transit is doing the exact same thing that Metro is doing — only worse. I’m not saying the 303 is a good idea (it isn’t) but the 510 and 586 are much worse examples of the same basic problem. Yet I have never heard you criticize ST for running those routes.
@Ross B,
“ I’m just curious as to why you ignore the fact that Sound Transit is doing the exact same thing that Metro is doing”
Funny. Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you have highly selective memory. Because I have been highly critical of ST in the past, and I think ST has done some incredibly boneheaded things. Like decide to built the Potemkin Station at 130th.
No worse transportation decision has ever been made. $240 Million for a station that was originally projected to add zero (0) net new riders to the system.
But Potemkin Station was not a transportation decision. It was a political decision designed to buy an ST3 endorsement from a local politician who was more focused on political gain than on good governance.
Ditto for some of the 500 series buses. Some of those are just CYA for a board and a local population that doesn’t yet comprehend the enormity of what LLE represents. But they will go away once their ridership goes into the tank. And the language to make that happen is apparently already in place.
And ST’s gap and spare ratios are clearly a problem. But ST’s O&M staff actually are Metro employees, and they take a decidedly Metro approach to things. So I don’t see this changing until ST gets its own dedicated staff.
As to whether I work for ST. You seem to think this is an insult, but I wouldn’t see it that way. ST is finally bringing real mass transit to the Seattle region after we suffered for decades without it. And they are doing a good job of it. I find that to be a generally positive thing, and something worthy of thanks.
But to answer your question, no, I do not work for ST. Or any other transit agency. Or any of their suppliers. So you can put that conspiracy to bed.
That said, I was approached once about serving on ST’s COP. Some people at ST apparently thought my knowledge and experience were a good match for their needs at the time. But I respectfully declined.
And, for the record, I do think respect is important. Even on this blog. It’s why I always try to keep my comments positive. And why I avoid personal attacks.
> No worse transportation decision has ever been made. $240 Million for a station that was originally projected to add zero (0) net new riders to the system.
Really the worst transportation decision? Seems kind of odd to fixate I’m kinda surprised for the east link alignment you choose this one. Not say skipping bellevue way or even for overlake transit center station location?
> As to whether I work for ST. You seem to think this is an insult, but I wouldn’t see it that way.
I don’t think Ross meant it as an insult, but more that you seem overly forgiving of Sound Transit and overly critical of King County Metro for similar situations.
“$240 Million for a station that was originally projected to add zero (0) net new riders to the system.”
I like how you throw existing riders under the bus, not. The important point is it makes transit faster and more convenient for an entire regional center (Lake City). That’s what transit should do. We should have a good network, not a bad network, even if it doesn’t add any riders. Because it improves mobility options for existing riders, and gets Seattle closer to the international norm.
You might say, “But it only benefits Lake City residents, and they’re a small fraction of Seattle’s population.” But it’s important that all of Seattle’s regional centers and large urban villages are well-connected to the transit network. It’s not just Lake City residents that use it, but people going to Lake City businesses or visiting people there. And because Lake City is a significant regional center, that’s a lot of people. It also makes it easier for people to move to Lake City and still get around without a car. That’s important when Seattle doesn’t have enough housing options in walkable neighborhoods.
And I disagree it won’t add new riders. It may not under the FTA criteria ST has to use, but that criteria doesn’t capture everything. It doesn’t know what people will do in the future; it can only guess. People’s attitudes can change in unpredictable ways. People might choose to move to Lake City because its transit access has improved. There may be larger upzones than the city had committed to when the decision was made. Or construction may get closer to the zoned capacity limit than it has in the past. People may get more serious about personal climate responsibility. All this will probably add more riders in the long term than ST’s estimate suggests. If we build it, we create the possibility that that will happen. If we don’t, it definitely won’t.
“But Potemkin Station was not a transportation decision. It was a political decision designed to buy an ST3 endorsement from a local politician who was more focused on political gain than on good governance”
Again, you throw thousands of riders under the bus, as if they don’t matter. Only one politician’s feeling and reelection matters. During ST2 there was a petition with hundreds of signatures asking ST to include 130th station. It was the second-biggest thing in the public feedback after a Lynnwood station alternative (to not encroach on Scriber Lake Park). That wasn’t the one politician faking all the other signatures; it was real people like myself signing it. ST should have included the station in ST2 on transit best-practices grounds, and the large public feedback should have nudged it off the fence. But ST failed in ST2, and finally agreed to correct it in ST3.
Thanks, @Mike – you’re precisely correct, and I signed that petition as well. It’s odd (or maybe not so much) to come back here after some time away and find the same specious arguments made years later. The station also, of course, serves Bitter Lake, an area that has a ton of room to grow. Growth will continue to occur in Lake City and Bitter Lake, and they will each be mere minutes from Link at 130th.
The only thing wrong with NE 130th (aside from it not straddling the street for better bus transfers, but that’s relatively minor), is that as of now the 75 is not planned to serve the station but to remain on its route to Northgate via 125th. That routing made sense when there was no reason to go to 130th/5th, but with a station there, not stopping within 0.4 miles is a major mistake. Simply continuing up Roosevelt and turning onto 5th with a stop there will serve Link directly from Sand Point Way neighborhoods from Matthews Beach north and add even more service for Lake City riders at no cost. Having to stay on the bus to Northgate is a 6-8 minute penalty in each direction as compared to a stop near the NE 130th station (Northgate is twice as far by bus from Lake City, with much worse traffic). Making this change would add a minute or two to trips going to Northgate but would make service to Link much faster. In most cases you would make an earlier train or bus every trip by making your transfer at NE 130th.
There is only one stop on 125th, westbound, that would be lost (and it would literally just move across Roosevelt); there are NO stops eastbound along 125th between Roosevelt and 5th. I really hope Metro will reconsider this legacy routing – as has been discussed about other stations above, Link is a game-changer and will be the most important destination for all of these buses.
@Lazarus — It is funny that you are extremely critical of Metro for not designing routes that benefit Link, then you turn around and criticize Sound Transit for not making that process easier. The obvious disconnect there is mind boggling.
The issue with the station at 130th is cost: $250 million and rising.
A secondary issue Lazarus raises which is legitimate is adding stops adds trip time, so if a station is estimated to generate zero new riders BY SOUND TRANSIT for $250 million when WSBLE is looking less and less affordable, and there is a station at Northgate and more and more riders will now board along Lynwood Link, the station is not worth the cost, unless money is limitless. Especially a station 130 blocks from downtown Seattle. Unless you live near the station at 130th and your trip to Link might be 6-8 minutes quicker than Northgate although there is almost no area to create TOD at 130th, except pie in the sky ideas about developing the golf course.
Why not add Link stations everywhere to save riders going to the station 6 minutes? East King Co. Subarea has probably the most ST tax revenue. Why not add 3-6 additional stations along East Link despite future ridership being less than half what ST estimated. What about TDLE. Why not add stations before and after Fife, let alone in Tacoma. Why not both Tukwila stations? Who cares if they generate zero new riders. Each station is only $250 million. Of course if you ask the public if they want more “free” stations they will say yes, and usually the only ones who respond are those who directly benefit.
Or how about stations that would actually generate new riders, like in Belltown. Ballard has a brutal slog to downtown, but folks in Lake City or Pinehurst can’t take a bus to Northgate God forbid, or Shoreline South.
I personally would have ended Link at Northgate. Instead we are going to Everett, apparently because it will save some time instead of taking a bus from these outlying areas with very little density to Northgate to catch Link. And no doubt if the local citizens are asked they will vote for more stations from Lynnwood to Everett to save a few minutes on their trip to Link.
I am surprised that those on this blog who question the wisdom of the cost of WLE compared to new ridership (which is at least more than zero) think a station at 130th is a good use of funds for the entire subarea, not just those who live by 130th and don’t want to stay on a bus to Northgate. Lazarus is a pretty generous grader for ST but he got this one right.
75 is not planned to serve the station but to remain on its route to Northgate via 125th
To be fair, the restructure plans are largely based on the period before 130th Station is added. Theoretically they could extend the 75 a bit closer (as you suggest).
The 75 is weird. It was truncated at Lake City in Phase 2 of the restructure. Then it was restored with final revision. To a certain extent I see why. I think service on 5th is justified.
But there are other ways to serve 5th. For example I could easily see a bus going up 5th then crossing to the other side of the freeway. Just about any option would involve less looping. The part of the 75 that has issues is the part they took out initially, then decided to put back.
Overall this was one of the more flawed restructures that Metro has ever done. First they completely forget to provide service on Lake City Way. Did they really not know that ST was abandoning the corridor? Don’t they pay attention to local transit issues? Then they replace a good 65 with a ridiculous 77. The “Phase 2” 65 was a straightforward route. If you started in Bitter Lake, you were always going south and east, until the hook at the very end (at the UW). This means that just about every trip pair made sense. Even really long ones, like Bitter Lake to U-Village. Yet that isn’t the case with the 77. Half way through the bus gets to Roosevelt (one of the bigger destinations). But Bitter Lake to Roosevelt makes no sense (people will just transfer to Link). The 77 is basically two routes, very awkwardly connected together.
From a network standpoint it is flawed as well. Do we really need two buses from Pinehurst to Northgate (serving two entirely different bus stops) but no buses from Pinehurst to the UW? Why not send the 348 to the UW? That way Metro saves money (by eliminating the 67) while riders get a one-seat ride to the UW.
There are just so many flaws with the new network. The plan is to make minor changes when 130th comes on line (basically just extend the 77). I hope they think bigger, and redo the whole thing. The worse part is, this isn’t the worst restructure Metro is planning. The changes around the RapidRide G are worse. Buses are way too infrequent, and the planners are partly to blame. They just aren’t doing as well as they used to.
The issue with the station at 130th is cost: $250 million and rising.
It would be really cheap if there were no stations at all. Actually it wouldn’t. Lynnwood Link will cost somewhere around $3 billion. This makes the cost of 130th station seem trivial. Each station is quite similar. None of them are destinations. All of them have very limited options when it comes to development. That is because they are all close to the freeway and various greenbelts.
Yet they all work well with the buses. This is critical. Holy cow, take a clue from our nearest neighbor, the one that is kicking our ass when it comes to transit. People expected the Canada Line to struggle with ridership. Yet it greatly exceeded expectations, averaging over 150,000 riders a day. Why? Bus connections! You can just see it on a map. The buses go east-west, and the train goes north south (quite frequently).
The same is true with 130th. The same is true for every Lynnwood Link station. 148th will get the bulk of its riders from the 522 corridor and those transferring to get to Shoreline Community College. 185th will get most of its riders from Swift and the 348. Mountlake Terrace is a transit center serving several CT buses. So is Lynnwood, and it will serve as the connection point for a bunch of buses from the north, east and west.
I get why someone wonders if Lynnwood Link is worth it. It is extremely expensive. But if you are going to do it, then it makes sense to add stations, especially 130th, that has such an obvious value from a network standpoint.
Why not add Link stations everywhere to save riders going to the station 6 minutes?
Now you are getting it. Link should have a lot more stations. Unfortunately, it is damn near impossible to fix once you build it (especially if you didn’t plan for it). That is why we won’t add a station at First Hill or 23rd & Madison. That is why the UW only has two stations (1.5 kilometers apart!). That is not standard stop spacing for a metro — especially in the second most urban part of the state. OK, maybe Downtown Bellevue is second, but it is shortchanged when it comes to stations as well (although that has more to do with location, not number). The point is, what we are building is not normal. There aren’t nearly as many stations as there should be. As a result we will end up spending a huge amount of money building it (and a huge amount maintaining it) but not get as many riders as we could have.
So yes, there should be a lot more stations. In most cases though, it is too late.
Thanks, Ross. It’s all about the damn network particularly in a city where it is notoriously difficult to travel east-west by whatever means of transport. Northgate is effectively a terminus station for the most part because E-W transit is by definition taking a often lengthy detour simply to get there; NE 130th will be an intercept station for the most densely populated neighborhood north of Ballard/the U District and another one with a ton of potential to upzone and grow. It’s a mile from Bitter Lake and 1.5 miles from Lake City. It is how people in those areas get to the transportation spine and have forever (I-5 and soon Link); not via Northgate with far more traffic congestion even with only a remnant of the mall still there. Hell, it’s even a bit closer/easier to get to from Northwest Hospital. Sure, it would be nice to be able to upzone more around the station, but the purpose of this station is to serve already upzoned neighborhoods nearby that are outside of a reasonable walking distance.
I’ve lived in Belltown the past 6 years and yes, the transit there sucks compared to what it should be in a very dense urban neighborhood – just one N-S street with bus service and no high-capacity transit whatsoever although at least the service is quite frequent. As in many other cases, the Forward Thrust plan would have served the City better here (as it would have in Capitol Hill, Ballard, Lake City, etc.); that is not what politics and finances dictated when we actually decided to build a system. I lived in NE Seattle for decades before that and know that area extremely well. I would love for Ballard (a frequent destination for me) and Belltown and First Hill and a whole lot of other places to get better transit and was involved in that effort before some on this board were born; some like Ballard will eventually get it, some like Lake City never will – save a station at 130th.
(I don’t think we even need to get into the equity issues here with Lake City/Bitter Lake vis-à-vis Ballard and Belltown….)
Thank you Sherwin.
“When plotting operator-related cancellations against time, the picture is promising and buttresses the narrative that service reliability has been improving because there are now finally enough operators to fill the seats”.
The last phrase could be reversed. In fall 2023, Transit finally suspended routes and parts of routes to bring the number of trips it was attempting to fill in line with the number of operators. The number of operator seats was reduced. In general, many weaker one-way peak-only routes were suspended; operators could no longer bid on those assignments. See: https://kingcountymetro.blog/2023/05/11/metro-will-adjust-schedules-on-sept-2-to-improve-trip-reliability/
Metro is attempting to hire, train, and retain more operators. For a few years, Metro appears to have been over confident about those margins.
Sherwin,
You are doing the Lord’s work. Thank you.
Nice post. I wish the Pantograph website was working for me right now, but it’s not. They have a section called Missed Trips. They even break it down by route. You can also change the date in order to look back on past missed trip data. I know that before September 2023, the amount of missed trips was abnormally high. But, after Metro’s service cuts at the start of September of that year, missed trips went down to almost zero. So, for example, if before Sept ’23, let’s say on average 8% of all trips were missed, after that date it went down to about 1%. Again, I wish I could verify that, but Pantograph isn’t working for me right now.
When using Pantograph, it’s a good idea to confirm if a trip is RUNNING, but you cannot verify why a route is being missed. If Metro sends a cancelation alert, that’s likely it (although sometimes because of last minute developments after the alerts team goes home a run can be filled). If a trip is marked as canceled in GTFS-RT, the trip will not track, even if it runs.
Also, there can be an issue with transmitting real time data. This can be bus, route, or base specific, or it can be all of Metro. So do use caution with Pantograph.
Awesome data-based piece!
I can’t help but wonder whether Metro would be better off now if it had kept all its willing drivers on payroll in 2020, even if it had meant granting every request for leave of absence.
I also have to wonder how badly Pierce Transit et al are suffering because Metro is outbidding them for new drivers.
Of course, available buses in service is also a limiting factor.
Brent: yes, of course. Management laid off about 200 part time operators.
It is frustrating when a bus is canceled and we get no warning. It is one of the reasons why I always take the transit earlier than recommended. However, there are times when that is not an option and when your bis is scheduled and it doesn’t arrive, and all tracking sites say it already came, is a problem.
And sometimes when it says it already came, it didn’t come. Several times I’ve been at a bus stop and the display or OBA says “Now”, “Now”, “-2”, but the bus never showed up, and no bus appears until the next run.
Two things I definitely prefer about PDXBus over OBA:
• if a trip has been cancelled, it shows up as a big red X though it.
• There is a “Located [x] Seconds ago” indication, so you can tell if you’re working with fresh data, and have a decent idea what your margin of error is.
This is great information on how trips and cancellations work, thanks for putting it together. Transit in the area has gotten much more reliable, in that I no longer even think to check whether a particular trip is running. In 2022, the 44 had a couple days when 50% of its scheduled trips were missed. A year ago, the 269 was in a similar situation, where it was running at worse than 1 hour headways. These days, maybe a couple trips are missed per route, which is really not much worse than the days before COVID.
That these trips are part of larger work pieces makes a lot of sense, too: I remember before COVID the 44 had problems with its short-turn trips being canceled regularly, presumably because an operator called out. These trips would start as a 43, run to Ballard, and then make a couple trips to “UW STADIUM” (in reality, they would only run to where U-District station is now, despite the sign). The first trip would turn around and head back to Ballard, before returning and then going out of service as a 43. Despite being signed up for alerts for the 44, I would never actually get alerted for these cancellations, until I figured out that Metro was only sending alerts for the 43 but not the 44. I complained but ended up signing up for the 43 as well and just knew which 43 trip matched the 44 trips I cared about.
Now, though, Metro has finally figured out that far more people care about the 44 than the 43, and actually sends out alerts for both.
I’m moving this to a higher level, since it mixed up with another topic. Poncho asked about routes that are currently suspended. As eddie mentioned up above, these are:
15, 16, 18, 29, 55, 64, 114, 121, 167, 190, 214, 216, 217, 232, 237, 268, 301, 304, 320 and 342
It is highly unlikely that the 301, 304, 320 and 342 will be restored before Lynnwood Link opens. That means they will be replaced by new routes, as described here: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/lynnwood-link-connections.
Every since Link got to Northgate, Metro has run a handful of peak express buses. These aim to take advantage of the express lanes to downtown (which are very fast) while covering areas of downtown that Link does not (like First Hill and South Lake Union). They also tried to offer express trips to Link. For example the 302 went from Richmond Beach to First Hill, but stopped at Northgate along the way.
They have not been very successful, and have been scaling them back ever since. With Northgate Link, Metro will offer only two of these peak express buses: the 303 and 322. Both will serve South Lake Union, First and Cherry Hill. Both will serve Northgate Station. They will run every half hour, and combine for 15 minute frequency at Northgate.
I see several flaws with these routes in general, as well as one big one with the 303 (mentioned above). I’ll start with the 303.
The route of the 303 is terrible. The biggest flaw with the network in the north end of Shoreline is that Swift will not serve Aurora. This 303 makes the same mistake! There are only a handful of potential riders on Meridian. If this was the only service on Meridian I could see it, but that isn’t the case. It will get all-day service connecting it to Link, while various parts of Aurora get nothing. This gets both a peak-only and an all-day connection to Link, while this gets nothing. Again, most of the blame goes to Community Transit and their poor choose of routing for Swift. But Metro deserves a lot of the blame for failing to mitigate CT’s mistake.
But the overall approach is unlikely to succeed. There are a number of reasons, but it largely boils down to frequency. Consider the various trips:
1) Typical one-seat ride (e. g. Kenmore to First Hill). In some cases this will be perfect. Riders who can time it just right will save quite a bit of time, especially if they are headed to South Lake Union (which is served before First Hill). But a lot of riders don’t want to time it just right. A lot of riders will take a different bus (e. g. the 522) transfer to Link, and then walk or transfer to another bus.
2) One-seat ride from Northgate Transit Center. In this case you have fifteen minute frequency, which is much better. The problem is, not that many people live close to the station. There are quite a few people who live within a mile, but very few within a quarter mile. This leads to the next option.
3) Two-seat ride (involving Northgate). Fifteen minute frequency is not bad if it is a one-seat ride or it is combined with really frequency service. I suppose that is the case with some riders on 5th (a short and frequent bus ride to Northgate). But it doesn’t make sense to transfer from Link to one of these buses. If you boarded at Mountlake Terrace are headed to South Lake Union you ride the train to Westlake. The buses running from Westlake to South Lake Union can match the frequency of the 302/322. It would work for some riders (especially those headed close to the lake) but not a lot.
4) Riders who drive to Northgate and then take one of these buses. Again, I could see this working for some, just not a lot.
5) South Lake Union to First/Cherry Hill. I suppose this works, but it is only peak-direction. If you live on First Hill and commute to South Lake Union you are out of luck.
I see some potential and think this is better than a lot of similar, previous routes, but I don’t think it will work. Again, I think the biggest weakness was not having the 303 run down Aurora to 175th. Not only would this benefit those on Aurora, but it would benefit those on 175th (those on 175th have a very slow connection to Link). Overall, this just looks like it will fail. I see this as the last chapter of this approach. It would not surprise if both of these routes are canceled when they restructure for the 130th station.
The Blue Swift route between Aurora Village TC and North Shoreline is fast and efficient, the transfer to frequent Link service will also be fast and efficient, and the connection to Link will serve the needs of a large number of Blue Swift riders. It’s an obvious choice.
No, the obvious choice would have been to stay on Aurora, since it is faster than doglegging to Meridian. (There are no bus lanes on Meridian, but there are on Aurora.) It could then have stopped at 192nd, where there are a lot of potential riders. That means a lot of additional riders while the bus would be faster and more reliable. That is the obvious choice.
The 303 was basically one mistake piled on top of another (by a different agency).
RossB is correct on both Route 303 and Swift. Route 303 will fail to attract enough riders to make it worthwhile. Routes 303 and 322 will serve the same pathway between SLU and First Hill used by routes 63, 64, and 309 between March 2016 and fall 2021. It failed once; it will fail again. They compete with Link. Link connects with a robust network of First Hill service; see the FHSC and routes 2, 3, 4, 9, 60 and the G Line; (see Route 40 soon?).
At North 192nd Street, Swift and the E Line would have common stop transfers and Swift could be used by auto-access riders between the P&R and Link. The Aurora pathway has one turn; the Meridian pathway has three turns.
The 303 is attempting to replicate the 301, which was an express to the 175th exit, Meridian Avenue, and Aurora Village — not Aurora Avenue. Aurora Avenue would be a new service area, and is too out-of-the-box for Metro’s brain to contemplate without exploding.
Except the original 301 (before the pandemic and Northgate Link) went down Aurora: https://web.archive.org/web/20200929102630/https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/schedules/pdf/03212020/rt-301.pdf. Even one of the listed stops (on the schedule) was 192nd & Aurora.
The 301 was a hybrid of sorts. Part of the route was designed to cover areas that would otherwise have no service. But it was also an express overlay for the RapidRide E. An express overlay makes sense when the main bus is running so frequently (to deal with crowding) that just increasing frequency (on the main route) doesn’t help the riders very much. In other words, if the E is running every 3 minutes, it doesn’t do riders much good to run buses every couple minutes — you might as well run an overlay. The overlays have three features:
1) Alleviate crowding on the main bus (in the case the RapidRide E).
2) Provide some riders with an express.
3) Save the agency some money. Running an express is cheaper (since it makes fewer stops). In this case it was significantly cheaper, as it went via I-5 (not Aurora).
With all that in mind, going via Aurora to 175th was definitely the right choice. You pick up more riders, which means you alleviate crowding to a greater degree.
In this case the dynamic is a bit different — Metro isn’t worried about crowding on the E anymore — but going via Aurora is much better than Meridian. You just pick up a lot more riders. With only a half dozen or so trips (if that) this mistake won’t have a huge impact. But I can’t think of a more obvious blunder. I’ve searched for an explanation (e. g. park and ride lots along Meridian) but it still doesn’t make sense. Maybe the people who created the maps made a mistake.