King County Metro has announced that it is adding a new zone for Metro Flex, its on-demand microtransit service, in Delridge and South Park. Service in the new zone starts Monday, July 22nd.
Metro Flex is a service offered by King County Metro that lets users book rides on-demand within a certain zone. Riders use the Metro Flex app to request a ride during operating hours. The app will direct users where to wait for the vehicle (usually a short walk, typically much shorter than to a bus route), and the service will automatically route drivers to each waiting passenger.
Originally debuting as Via to Transit in 2019, this service began as a way to connect riders to Link stations. After a hiccup in 2020 that completely suspended this service for a time, Metro has expanded the number of zones and piloted similar services in Kent and Sammamish under different names and partnerships.
Since 2023, these services have all been consolidated into one service called Metro Flex, operating service in seven (soon to be eight) zones. The new zone in Delridge and South Park is bounded roughly by the Duwamish Waterway, SW Roxbury St, and 35th Ave SW, except narrowing to around Delridge Way SW in the north, and with a few other cutouts to follow the street grid around the river. Service is available seven days per week, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
This zone is served by many routes, including the RapidRide C and H Lines, 21/21X, 22, 60, 113, 125, 128, 131, 132, and ST 560. However, within the zone, there are some significant gaps in service, such as between SW Thistle and Sylvan Way SW. Even in areas where service is close, that effective distance is often lengthened by the hilly terrain, making service less accessible. For people already close to fixed-route transit service, having Metro Flex service available adds options for connections that would be otherwise impractical, such as a South Seattle College student catching a ride to connect to route 132 to go home.
Bus service improvements starting September 14
In addition to the new Flex zone, Metro is adding trips to routes 60 and 125 in September, funded by the 2020 Seattle Transit Measure and SDOT. Route 125 is getting Sunday service partially restored, with 23 of its 50 pre-pandemic Sunday trips coming back. It is also adding 23 trips on other days. This could bring Saturday service back to half-hourly rather than roughly every 45 minutes as it is today, and hourly service on Sunday, but we’ll have to wait for the schedule to come out to know for sure. Meanwhile, route 60 is getting more than 60 new trips. These are enough trips to make serious improvements to the 60, which currently has frequencies that max out at 12 minutes on weekdays, and 20 minutes on weekends. As with the 125, we’ll find out in September exactly when these trips will run.
UPDATE: Commentor and STB writer Mike Orr has pointed out that these service hours aren’t new, and are coming from routes 10, 11, and 12 from Capitol Hill. This is in the context of long term service reductions caused primarily by staff shortages, resulting in Metro operating fewer service hours than funding theoretically provides for since around 2022.
Those additional runs on the 60 and 125 are coming out of the 10, 11, and 12 by the way.
From the RapidRide G restructure survey I I wrote about in April: “The City of Seattle moved Seattle Transit Measure funding on routes 10, 11 and 12 to routes 49, 60 and 125 to better align with city goals.”
That’s “equity” at work here. South Seattle gains bus service at Capitol Hill’s expense. And who knows when routes like the 5 and 28, which were recently reduced, will ever get their service back.
The good news for Capitol Hill is that, except for those that both live right next to the line and are crippled, the 10 is not super essential. Just about everywhere along the route is within a 15 minute walk of a Link station (either Capitol Hill or Westlake). If the 10 isn’t doing well in ridership, my guess is it’s people voting with their feet and walking to Link instead.
(For what it’s worth, when I visit Volunteer Park, it would, for sure, take Link and walk, I would not consider waiting for the 10, absent some unusual situation, such as recovering from a leg injury).
It’s not all of Capitol Hill that loses, since the 60 and 49 go north-south on Broadway. The losers are 15th and 19th east of Broadway.
Also, the 10 and 11 will switch places between Olive/John and Pine. So when you say the 10 is “not super essential”, it’s not clear which 10 you mean. The 10 was moved to Olive/John in the U-Link restructure to bring a route next to the station, give 15th riders a Link transfer before downtown, and preserve Olive-downtown service. When people voted with their feet they switched from the 10 to the 11 to remain closer to 15th & Pine, so that’s where the ridership concentration is.
The 11 is relegated to the secondary Olive corridor. So the least-frequent route is paired with the lowest-performing corridor. This could be an interim step toward deleting the 11 and turning the 8 into a Denny-Madison route to Madison Park.
Yes, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is needlessly doing so. A decent restructure and all the buses in the area could run more often. Metro planning is broken.
I am sorry for whatever Paul did to Simon Peter, but Metro’s and the City’s investments in route 60 to expand 20-minute headway is making accessing the transit system at all a lot more tolerable for riders like me.
Save your condemnations for the dial-a-ride on-demand service.
Ross is proposing to advance Metro Connects’ concepts of an 8-Madison Park route, extending the 60 to the U-District, moving the 2 to Pine, and deleting the 11 and 49. He says this would free up enough service hours to make all these routes and the 10 10-15 minute frequent full time.
Metro’s and the City’s investments in route 60 to expand 20-minute headway is making accessing the transit system at all a lot more tolerable for riders like me.
Yes, while making it worse for a lot of other people. Despite some very dramatic improvements along Madison the 10, 11, 12 and 49 will run every twenty minutes. Twenty minutes! That is terrible. It is also avoidable, which is my point. Implement something like this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/.
This means this sort of thing when it comes to frequency:
12 minutes — 8, 48, 49 (replaces the 60)
15 minutes — every other bus in the area
Frequent corridors:
6 minutes — Broadway (streetcar and 60)
7.5 minutes — Yesler (east of 23rd)
7.5 minutes — Pike/Pine (between 2nd and 15th)
That is being conservative. It isn’t hard to imagine the 8 or 48 running every ten minutes given the savings. Likely it is easy to imagine the 2 and 10 running every twelve minutes, which means Pike/Pine would have six minute frequency (just like Broadway). That is what happens when you do a sensible restructure. Instead we are just shuffling service around — some people have it better, others have it worse. No one has it great.
Actually that isn’t true. It is great if are close to Link and are headed that way. It is great if you are along Madison (and headed along the corridor). If you are on that one, fairly short piece of Pike/Pine (between Bellevue Avenue and 2nd) it is great. But the great corridors are pretty damn tiny. We are building a system of haves and have nots in the most urban part of the state. Some trips will be really frequent, other trips are worse than getting from Windermere to Matthews Beach. The result is crap. Never mind the one-seat rides, the two-seat rides sound terrible. The restructure is like a giant add for Uber. Capitol Hill (and the greater Central Area) are getting screwed. Not by a lack of investment but by an adherence to tradition (or incompetence).
Keep in mind that a #60 running every 20 minutes is still less often than the First Hill Streetcar, which serves the same corridor. And also, that if you don’t want to sit through the Harborview detour, the section that the 60 actually runs in a straight line is short enough that it’s likely quicker to walk than to wait.
Of course, the City invested heavily in capital costs for the G Line.
South Park got some more bus shelters.
There is desperate need for lighting at the busy White Center stop next to a pharmacy that is now closed, but it is on the wrong side of the street for the City to help.
asdf:
There are multiple dates, factors, and margins. Both equity and efficiency are important.
Routes 5 and 21 and others were reduced in fall 2020 in response to SDOT pulling its TBD funds from lines C and D; Transit kept the lines split apart and cut trips on other routes, including shifting routes 5 and 21 to 20-minute Saturday headway. Route 21 got 15-minute Saturday headway in fall 2012; Route 5 has had it for decades. Lines C and D were split in March 2016 with STBD funds; rides attracted per line increased; rides attracted per platform hour declined significantly.
Routes 20, 28, 73, 79, 230, 231 and other routes had trips suspended in fall 2023 due to the operator shortage. See recent Sherwin piece. Several one-way peak-only routes were suspended.
IMO, for fall 2024, the Route 49 reductions and the Route 10 pathway revision were poor choices.
What do you think of the 49’s Pine-Broadway routing vs strengthening the pure north-south (Broadway) and east-west (Pine) corridors? How necessary is the turn?
Mike Orr: the Route 49 turn is no longer important (in was important in 2005). Link is a big deal. In March 2016, I favored Route 49M in the P2 options. Transit did not choose that. Later, SDOT chose a different alignment for what became the G Line.
So, when Judkins Link opens (2025?), I suggest some route consolidations to improve service frequency and reduce waiting on non-radial lines. We should let Link carry the radial loads; it has great capacity. Summary: restore Route 43; consolidate routes 8 and 48; consolidate routes 9 and 49 (between the U District and Rainier Beach station via Capitol Hill, Judkins, and Mt. Baker stations); revise Route 106 to serve 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way rather than Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson Street. Use the R Line capital to improve flow on routes 9-49.
The CC Streetcar is dead; shift several already funded routes to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue; candidates are routes 14, 36, 21, 24, 33, 124, 131, 132.
With routes 8-48, shorter headway and waits could be achieved; SDOT could provide bike priority on MLK between the G terminal and South Plum Street.
The Metro Connects RR lines came from the Murray-Kubly SDOT; that phasing failed. We need to complement Link better.
For newer readers, the 12 and 49 have been on their current routes for decades, after being split from longer trolley routes. (49/7 from 7, 12/13 from 13.)
In the early 2010s Metro favored a Madison-Broadway route; i.e.,if you changed the 49 from Brodway-Pine to Broadway-Madison, replacing the 12. This would serve the high-ridership part of Madison, and 49 riders would supposedly be content with being shunted to Madison instead of the retail district. (I had reservations about that.) Metro proposed it in the 2014 cuts; SDOT countered with an all-Madison route (1st to Madison Park); and public opposition arose to changing the 2 or 12. So Metro withdrew the proposal. Then Metro tried again with RapidRide G, a Madison-Broadway route, but SDOT still opposed it and won the day. That’s how we ended up with a G from 1st & Madison to MLK & Madison.
Thanks for this important bit of context. I’ll make a small note about this in the article, to make it clearer that Metro is not actually expanding fixed-route service here.
As a South Parker, I am a frequent rider of route 60, and so, a beneficiary of improved frequency on route 60.
The greatest need remains more frequency before morning bell, and after final bell, when the buses are crushloaded at Cleveland High, and pass-ups are still happening.
Among non-RapidRide Metro routes, route 60 is now tied for third for midday weekday headway, at 12 minutes. It is tied with route 44, and behind routes 7 and 36 with their 10-minute headway.
Beacon Hill Station is the stop with the most boardings outside of bell hours, probably by far.
I’m not sure why the midday headway is 12 minutes, unless that is the easiest approach to having enough buses during the crushload hours.
The drop down to 30-minute weekend morning and evening headway still feels steep. Having 20-minute headway during the off-peak times makes the most sense, especially if timed with route 107 to create 10-minute headway along the bustling 15th Ave S corridor, as I have written about a few times.
“I’m not sure why the midday headway is 12 minutes,”
My impression is that 12 minutes means, “It deserves 10 minutes and we want to do it, but we don’t have enough service hours at this time.” The 49 went to 12 minutes in the U-Link restructure. Similarly, 20-minute headways seems to mean, “We want to do 15 minutes but we don’t have enough hours currently.”
The streetcar is also 12 minutes. Running both every 12 minutes would mean 6 minute combined frequency if they were synchronized, and the 60 ran on Broadway (instead of zig-zagging). But they aren’t doing that.
While the SLU Streetcar runs every 12 minutes, the FHSC runs every 12 minutes only during peak, and 15 minutes midday and Saturday.
Improving frequency is unlikely without more fleet, which the City seems uninterested in acquiring outside of the “Culture Connector” project.
We’ll probably get farther by advocating sending the 49 all way down Broadway, and trying to time the 49 and 60 so that one or the other picks up at CHS southbound roughly every 5 minutes starting with the Great Conjunction of the 1/2 Lines.
Idea for a post. Let’s split the work up 50/50. I’ll supply the headline, and someone else can rides the routes, and write the story.
“I rode every Metro Flex route in King County. What I discovered will shock you.” (“Will shock you” is good clickbait).
Metro Flex is not routes. It’s a vehicle that goes between any two points in the service area. So your experience would depend on which two points you choose.
Mike, you said before the 2 Line opened that it was going to be very helpful to you during your trips to east Bellevue. Have you written anything about that yet, comparing whatever you used to take … the B Line + 226? to possibly the B Line + 2 Line + something else? I want to hear if it met your expectations. Or did you give up on the idea because of poor transfers at certain stations, like OVS?
Yes! I’ve done two round trips and I’ve written the article draft; I just want to tweak it a few more days before publishing it.
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/accountability/reports/2022/system-evaluation.pdf
See page 24 for Metro Flex table and paragraphs.
Metro Flex adds transit coverage. It is relatively costly, uses operators from the gig economy, and usually competes with local fixed route service. Both Flex and fixed route service require a combination of walking, waiting, and in-vehicle time. In March 2023, it was rebranded; the backroom computing power is supposed to deny Flex trips to intending riders who have a better option with fixed route service. In Houston and LA, in-house union operators are used their flexible services. In this new area, the West Marginal Way South area had no coverage. Perhaps Flex could have been added only to that narrow market.
Transit seems quite slow to change its fixed route service. Routes 60 and 128 were implemented in 1998; Routes 22 and 50 were implemented in 2012. The H line seemed like a time to restructure service. Ride2 was a failed West Seattle flexible service. RossB has shared the Jarrett Walker pieces on flexible service; it is a costly way to add coverage; it cannot scale well.
Perhaps most of funding for this Flex addition comes from the Seattle TBD or STM. Seattle could spend more to improve transit flow.
To date, Metro has not reduced a fixed route service while adding Flex. In Lynnwood Link, they seem to setting up revised Route 331 and Flex to compete with one another.
ATU: https://www.atu.org/pdfs/ATU_FalsePromiseofMicrotransit.pdf
The comments section has said (to use Sam’s idiom) that Piece Transit’s Runner service, which is like Metro Flex, is getting overcrowded with long waits, because it can only scale to a few simultaneous riders. All microtransit is in the same situation.
I saw three Flex cars on standby south of Rainier Beach station, so I’m guessing there are around five cars total in that district and it was a slow day. But if two more cars were engaged, that’s only five people who can travel simultaneously, or five groups of 2-3 people. In a district of maybe 11,000 people, that’s not much capacity.
Nice for the folks who use it, but it’s not scalable transit service. The only way these things can operate at a sane cost per rider is if they’re automated robo-taxis. Which is not a service that will ever be developed at an agency so union bound as KCM.
If we have robo-taxis then we could have robo-buses. Maintaining a (smaller) fleet of robo-buses (traveling fewer miles) is cheaper than maintaining robo-taxies. Either way it doesn’t work (since it doesn’t scale).
Why does it not scale? The primary reason microtransit doesn’t scale is the labor cost.
Physical space constraints, mostly. Once you start trying to solve traffic problems with robo-taxis, you quickly invent the bus.
Are there traffic problems on the local streets of South Park and south Delridge? These microtransit solutions are typically deployed in low density neighborhoods were there are minimal congestion issues within the local grid. If there’s a chokepoint somewhere (bridge, etc.), that’s likely where the bus runs.
Answered below in a separate thread.
@Aj
It’s not also about the space but about the circuitous routing and picking up each person and dropping off each destination. The local bus just keeps traveling in a route and maybe on a couple minutes to the next stop while these flex buses might take 10 minutes till the next person limiting it to 3~5 trips.
There are some “solutions” but all with drawbacks. One way is to consolidate to larger stops on the main road still point to point but must be from and to one of those stops. Though will involve more walking on both ends.
You might remember uberpool tried to do that with pickups closer to the main road
Why does it not scale? The primary reason microtransit doesn’t scale is the labor cost.
Space is one reason (as mentioned). Another is maintenance costs (as I wrote about above). It is cheaper to repair 100 buses than 10,000 cars. It is cheaper to maintain 100 trains that it is 1,000 buses. Transit scales. Not just for drivers, for all of it.
Even if the vehicles were automated robotaxis, the companies that control the tech will likely mark up the price until it’s only marginally cheaper than paying human gig economy drivers.
Because training the software is so time consuming and expensive, it’s a market with very high barrier to entry, which will likely lead to monopolistic behavior. Good for investors in robotaxi technology. Not good for members of the general public who just want cheap rides.
I’m of the view that robo-buses should in the near-term move under 25 mph (ir lower) and only stop at signed, designated points. That way, they are already focused on a generally fixed path and can detect obstacles more quickly. Some parts of Seattle have awkward streets and dead-ends too. Plus, non app users can board them. .trying to get into some house fronts can be challenging even for a human driver.
“If we have robo-taxis then we could have robo-buses. ”
Politicians and the public keep forgetting that. It’s like seeing battery cars as the climate solution, when battery buses can exist too.
Buses can be electrified, but there are technical reasons why electrifying personal cars is easier, starting with the fact that the typical car is only driven an hour a day, uses far less energy per mile than a bus, and has all night to charge at home.
Even taxi fleets, which do run all day, I would argue see easier to electrify than bus fleets. That’s because when a taxi runs low on battery charge, it can just return to base and charge up before picking up the next passenger; and if this happens sooner than expected (e.g. on a freakishly cold day), that just means the capacity of the taxi system is temporarily reduced, but everybody still gets picked up. A bus, however, is different. A bus runs a fixed route on a fixed schedule, and needs to be able to offer an ironclad guarantee that it can complete every single scheduled trip, with the scheduled amount of break time between trips, no matter the weather. Any missed trips due to low battery charge means passengers left stranded at the bus stop.
Really, the sole advantages that buses offer that cars don’t, from a standpoint of ease of electrification, is that their fixed route allows for fixed infrastructure, such as trolley wire along the route or rapid chargers at the layover points, in ways that aren’t feasible for a dynamically routes service.
But, even this approach has its limitations. It works well for routes that are very short and very frequent, allowing relatively small amounts of infrastructure to get a lot of use each day. It doesn’t work so well for routes that are longer or less frequent; the ROI of trolley wire is just not good if you need to install 20 miles of it for a single bus route that only runs every 30 minutes (or, worse, every 60 minutes), similar for high speed charging at the layover points – too much capital money spent on one bus route, with too few trips. Big enough batteries to last the entire service day are still too expensive (right now) to compete with diesel, so the end result (absent special subsidy funds for electric buses) becomes a future where taxis are electrified, but buses along the same corridor continue to run on diesel for cost reasons.
There is another elephant in the room here too, and that is flexibility. The trolley routes Metro operates today are difficult to extend or change because building or moving trolley wire is very expensive. This is why upper Queen Anne, for example, still has no bus to Fremont. If the 13 were a diesel bus, it would be easy to extend to Fremont (and beyond). Instead, the cost and complexity of adding wire over a moveable bridge leaves the 13 stuck to terminate at SPU, essentially forcing residents of upper Queen Anne who wants to Fremont to either walk, bike up a steep hill, drive, Uber, or detour way out of the way on the bus, only to transfer to another bus.
Even ignoring consideration of future restructures, flexibility also matters for operational resilience. Even today, existing trolley routes only work because Metro also has diesel buses they can swap in at a moment’s notice if something is wrong with the wires. The same would be true with battery buses that depend on fast chargers at layover points. The only way to avoid service cancellations if a layover charger goes down is to have buses at the base, ready to swap in, with enough energy on board to last the entire service day, plus a reasonable reserve (which, currently, effectively means diesel).
A taxi fleet, on the other hand, the chargers are likely to be distributed around the city, so if one charger goes down, the taxis can drive to another. Capacity is reduced, but the service still runs, and no passengers are left stranded.
Again, buses do have lots of advantages over taxi fleets, such as better scalability as ridership increases. But, except for a few core routes in the core city, ease of electrification is not one of them.
so the end result (absent special subsidy funds for electric buses) becomes a future where taxis are electrified, but buses along the same corridor continue to run on diesel for cost reasons.
Wait, what? You are saying that it is just fine to subsidize electric cars, but not electric buses?
This is why upper Queen Anne, for example, still has no bus to Fremont.
There are other reasons, such as the traffic on the Fremont Bridge, lack of a good layover in Fremont, etc.
Yes, from a system standpoint electric buses are far more expensive than diesel buses. You can make it work, it just costs a lot. But from a system standpoint cars (whether electric or gas) are way more expensive. Getting back to Mike’s point, the idea that every car on the road is electric would require a massive investment (public or private). Making a similar transition by electrifying transit seems no more challenging (just different). In some ways it is easier, in some ways harder, but the scale is just much smaller (since there are so many more cars than buses).
“You are saying that it is just fine to subsidize electric cars, but not electric buses?”
He’s saying electrifying bus routes have much higher costs given the state of the art in the technology. You need enough chargers to keep all buses charged throughout the day, and the chargers must be more powerful to handle the large amount of electricity a bus needs and their longer charging time. Charging time both takes the bus out of service for an extended time, and other buses have to line up behind it until the charger is free. These issues aren’t as significant for the same number of cars.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to electrify buses. I’m simply stating that, in terms of cost and technology, lots of vehicle types, from taxi fleets to garbage trucks, are probably easier to fully electrify than transit buses.
I do still think that transit electrification is worth doing, but it should be paid for with state climate funds, not at the expense of service, and the focus should be on driving the cost of the technology down to make it affordable without state money, rather than the direct climate impact of the King County Metro bus fleet (which is negligible in the global scheme of things).
I’m simply stating that, in terms of cost and technology, lots of vehicle types, from taxi fleets to garbage trucks, are probably easier to fully electrify than transit buses.
Yes, but just because it is easier per-vehicle does not mean it is easier overall. Imagine electrifying all of Metro’s buses. This means a lot more charging stations and a lot more wire. But I think it is a given that an electric bus is capable of at the very least finishing one run. For example Aurora Village to downtown (for the E). But at that point, it is out of juice. It takes a half hour to change up. This means a second bus is there (charged up). Thus you have to have all of these charging stations and maybe a bunch of wire and even then, you have a lot of buses just sitting there idle. The cost is huge.
But it is tiny compared to replacing all of the gas cars in King County. We are talking millions of cars that have to be replaced by what are still expensive vehicles.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying we should do anything different. There is nothing wrong with providing incentives to buy electric cars. Nor do I think we should spend a bunch of money converting our buses. But if the goal is 100% electric, it will cost a lot more to convert all of the cars than it will to convert the buses. It is politically easier to focus on the former just because people are willing to spend money on cars, but often ignore transit.
Oh, and I think there are differences between electrifying the transit fleet and automating the buses. Automating the buses would be a huge breakthrough. Costs would plummet. You could provide European style level of service for every sprawling city in America.
In contrast, electrifying buses would result in a tiny decrease in the amount of emissions. It actually makes more sense to focus on cars (since they emit) more. Of course it makes even more sense to focus on alternatives (like bikes and transit — even diesel transit) because they are just a lot more efficient.
I rode Flex in Sammammish a few weeks ago to get to Soaring Eagle park from Issaquah TC. I was pleasantly surprised to see there were already four people in the van when I got in (one of whom had a bike in the trunk), which isn’t appreciably less than some runs of the 269 we’ve been on.
I agree it doesn’t scale well, but I’m not as skeptical of it as I was before. I’ll admit this is one data point, though.
So it is consolidating trips. How many seats did it have? I thought Flex was sedan cars so a maximum of 3. We’re the four of them together, or how many people knew each other?
They use minivans from the picture looks like a sienna
It was a minivan, so two rows of three seats each. Each person got off separately so I think they were all independent trips. The wait was ~20 minutes so on par with the 269 too, plus got me a mile closer to the park.
Microtransit category at Human Transit.
2nd article, “What is ‘Microtransit’ For?”
* “operating cost is mostly labor”. A taxi has most of the cost of a bus.
* An example of where microtransit might make sense, where rivers force low-density neighborhoods into their own cul-de-sacs and there’s no straight line for a fixed route.
* ” ridership is the death of flexible service”.
3rd article, “What I Think We Know”
* Even “mostly empty” coverage routes get 10 riders/hour. Microtransit gets 3-4.
4th article, “Is Microtransit a Sensible Transit Investment?”
* Flowchart comparing microtransit with fixed-route transit.
9th article, “On the Limits of Ridesourcing and Microtransit PR: the Video”
* The photo series comparing how much space fifty people on a bus take up vs fifty people in cars.
Takeaways:
* Pierce Transit’s Runner is getting overwhelmed in Ruston, Tideflats, Spanaway, Puyallup, and JBLM because it can’t scale to more than a few riders.
* Fixed routes can serve 2-3 times as many people per hour even in coverage areas, so it would be more efficient to add a fixed routes than to spend the same amount of money on microtransit.
* If you add cars to address high ridership demand, they take exponentially more space.
A solution would be what other countries do. In areas like West Seattle or Rainier Valley, raise the existing bus routes to 10-15 minute frequency full time. Add a coverage route on every arterial so that almost everybody could walk to a bus stop. This would serve more people’s trips than the same amount of money could serve with microtransit.
The first PT runner zone that should be replaced with fixed route service is Ruston. That zone is almost a straight line that could be served with one or two routes. ( Former routes 13 and 15. The latter only existed as a seasonal trolley route for one summer.)
Especially since Tacoma’s waterfront park is along that route.
The reason all these Metro Flex districts are getting created is political.
One reason is that some people don’t like riding with strangers, so this makes the experience more car-like.
Another reason is some people think they can get a ride in two minutes rather than waiting for a half-hourly bus. Sometimes they can, but other times they’ll have to wait ten or thirty minutes for a car, so they haven’t really saved any time. But the taxi goes straight to your destination, while the bus may only go halfway, and there may not be any bus route on the other half.
The proponents of these put pressure on the transit agencies to offer microtransit, and King County and Metro have succumbed to some extent, and see it as an equity tool. Since Flex exists, people might as well use it. But it’s taking money that could go to more coverage routes and frequency, that would ultimately serve more people in the districts.
(Psst, Metro, you need to add West Seattle to the map.)
Yes, it is political. Some of is is ignorance. People have no idea what the costs are. People just assume that it competes well with transit. They also assume that because of newfangled software, it is now cheaper. That is nonsense, but a fair assumption since agencies seem to ignore data when it comes to these services.
They also assume that it is better. For some trips it is. In the middle of the day it is probably better than the frequency of a typical bus. But for a lot of people it isn’t. Hell, there is no guarantee you will get a ride. Check out the FAQ:
Will I always receive a ride?
If Metro Flex is experiencing very high demand or transit serves this trip, your initial ride request may not be accepted. But please try again in a few minutes. Once other riders have completed their trips, your request may be accepted.
So you might have a really long wait for a ride — sometimes longer than a bus. Worse yet, you can’t reserve a spot, which means you can’t plan for this. An infrequent bus is very annoying, but you can at least look at the schedule and plan around it. But with Flex you can’t.
But the bigger picture gets ignored. Some riders are getting screwed. Our buses don’t run as frequently as they should because someone gets a private taxi. It is quite possible the person getting the ride is quite wealthy, too. The service is geared towards low-density areas — which means houses, not apartments. Where it overlaps with regular bus service, it is bound to be more popular with low-density riders. For example, Flex serves the Othello area. If I live in an apartment, chances are I live close to the station or close to the 7. Flex offers very little for me. If I live in Upland Terrace (the area with the swimming pools shown here) Flex is quite handy. It is a free taxi. People with money are far more likely to fill out the surveys. They are more likely to show up at meetings.
So yeah, it is pretty easy to see why it is politically popular.
“People just assume that it competes well with transit.”
People probably assume that since it’s a small vehicle, it costs much less than a bus. And if they’re anti-union they can see it as a way to avoid spending tax money on prevailing wage.
“[If] transit serves this trip, your initial ride request may not be accepted.”
I was not aware of that until this week. So Metro is preventing people from abusing it for trips a bus route does. I don’t know how many other agencies are doing this. It’s not in their basic service information, and probably most Metro Flex riders are unaware of it unless they’ve gotten refused.
Still, if somebody tries to book a ride and it’s refused, they’ve only wasted a couple minutes. (That’s if they’re already signed up with the app and familiar with it. Otherwise it will take longer.)
I only know one person who has used it, and she said the wait was often really long. My guess is the times when they won’t even take your request are rare. More often (I’m guessing) they will tell you that you are booked, but it will take 45 minutes. That sort of thing.
There is a reason why Dominoes got big by promising 30 minute delivery (or your pizza is free). I used to deliver pizza (Pizza Haven). Sometimes we would time it right, and the pizza would get there quite quickly. Other times it took a while. Apparently Dominoes has gotten rid of their 30-minute promise. They now set a time for when you can expect your pizza. If there is a sudden unexpected rush, I’m sure it takes a while. In the case of Flex, it is similar, except by being a monopoly, they have may not care. They may have a set budget, and when the service is busy, people just have to wait.
“There is a reason why Dominoes got big by promising 30 minute delivery ”
It takes 12 minutes just to cook the pizza, and they also have to prepare the pizza, and the overhead of switching from one order to another and other restaurant tasks, and the driver has to go into the restaurant to pick it up. So the driving window is really only 10 minutes unless the restaurant has McDonald’s-like assembly and the driver is already near the restaurant. That may be the case for Dominoes, which had dedicated drivers years before smartphones and food apps existed.
I often wonder why more restaurants and supermarkets don’t have dedicated drivers and their own delivery service so they can cut out the middleman. Small restaurants could pool together so several restaurants in a small area could share the same set of drivers.
Dominoes was able to pull it off by having a fairly limited delivery range (while expanding like crazy). But I’m sure they also hired plenty of drivers (and gave away an occasional free pizza). Via (the company that runs Flex) probably hires extra drivers during busy periods. But they make no guarantees. In other words, they don’t give away free pizzas. It costs them nothing if people have to wait an hour for their ride. Those are the breaks — better than nothing, right?
I guess, but for the vast majority of riders, it isn’t as good as a fixed route bus.
“The reason all these Metro Flex districts are getting created is political. One reason is that some people don’t like riding with strangers, so this makes the experience more car-like. Another reason is some people think they can get a ride in two minutes rather than waiting for a half-hourly bus”.
I’m not so sure it is politics or convenience. . Otherwise, it wouldn’t be limited to equity zones. I think Metro Flex is designed to serve those who for some reason are not well served by regular transit. I am guessing that is either first mile access, especially for a disabled or elderly person who can’t walk to their bus stop, a lack of coverage so walks are very long, or just a lack of frequency or need for several transfers to get someplace critical like the medical centers on First Hill.
From what I have been told it isn’t convenient and you need to make a reservation well in advance, know exactly where you are going and will be coming back, explain the reasons why you need Metro Flex, and there is a pretty broad window you are picked up. It isn’t Uber for sure, but then the folks using Metro Flex can’t afford Uber or they would use Uber. You don’t see Metro Flex serving Laurelhurst. If you are looking for politics look at the huge park and rides cities demanded.
It certainly doesn’t scale if the goal is to replace bus routes, although some routes in S. King Co. and East King Co. are very expensive per rider just because of the distance and lack of density and riders (and sometimes cost of a park and ride). But buses and light rail simply don’t work for some people, and those are often the most vulnerable. What is the option for them if not Metro Flex? Never leave the house?
I also think Metro might be thinking this is the future of transportation once driverless technology arrives. The explosion in miles driven by Uber and Lyft with drivers show how popular that technology is for those who can afford it, and with work from home more and more public transit is becoming transport for those who can’t afford a car or Uber.
Some think when that day comes a public agency should just buy a million miles from Uber at a discount for Metro Flex because Metro will never have the technology to compete and so many already have the app on their phone and its labor costs for vehicle maintenance are so high. At this point I think Metro wants to leave their options open, and must somehow serve these poor riders who can’t get to a regular bus stop or from their bus stop to their destination.
I don’t see it as a waste of public resources, just like I don’t see some more rural bus routes in S. And East King Co. a waste because the cost per rider is so high. Coverage costs money if you want a grid and the ability to serve everyone with transit.
Compared to some of the costs for Link like a station at 130th that is estimated to create no new riders for $250 million Metro Flex looks like quite a bargain, as does the cost to electrify buses before current buses reach their large expectancy to meet some green agenda.
“I’m not so sure it is politics or convenience. . Otherwise, it wouldn’t be limited to equity zones.”
It’s politics in the sense that the county made the decision based on non transit-best-practices factors. It was the pressure of squeaky wheels demanding it. They didn’t even consider an alternative of more bus service, or raising money somehow for more coverage service beyond that.
I am guessing that is either first mile access, especially for a disabled or elderly person who can’t walk to their bus stop,
That is what DART is for. The fact that you didn’t mention DART in your long comment shows how effective the political aspect of this is. People just assume it is designed for those with no alternative. Flex is BS.
You don’t see Metro Flex serving Laurelhurst.
No, you see it in the Rainier Valley equivalent. Try to find the place in Rainier Valley where traditional transit is the worst. I think it is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/N2JG1QDxtb5xhz83A. The area with all those multi-million dollar homes (and swimming pools). Holy cow, your neighbor has a swimming pool, and you need one too? Maybe a tennis court? That is some serious money.
I don’t see it as a waste of public resources,
So where on the flowchart to do you see it? The choices are:
1) A nicer experience for fewer customer, less service for many.
2) Increased economic inequity.
3) It should be a fixed route.
You can pretend this isn’t the cold reality, but it is.
Access, not DART. Access is the go-everywhere vans for the disabled. You have to have a significant disability to qualify. Just having a walker or not being able to walk more than two blocks to a bus stop isn’t enough. Access is also expensive, $40 per trip, most of it subsidized. Access recipients can also get taxi vouchers, which cut half off the fare. It’s more cost-effective for Metro if Access recipients use the taxi vouchers when they can, because of the high cost of Access service.
DART is semi-fixed bus routes like the 901 and 903 in Federal Way, 906 Southcenter-Fairwood (now extended to Tukwila Sounder station), 914 in northeast Kent, and other routes in Auburn, Federal Way, Black Diamond, and Willows Road in Redmond. They have a fixed schedule and endpoint (a transit center or shopping-center transfer point), but they also have a flexible area at the other end where they can deviate.
DART is kind of the best of both worlds. A scheduled and predictable time so you don’t have to book a ride. Flexibility in the lowest-density neighborhoods.
“Otherwise, it wouldn’t be limited to equity zones.”
Equity zones are more widespread than many people realize. The Issaquah one serves equity areas. The Kenmore one may serve one too.
“I think Metro Flex is designed to serve those who for some reason are not well served by regular transit.”
Yes, that’s its purpose. We’re saying it would be better to put the microtransit money into making those areas better served with fixed or DART bus routes.
“explain the reasons why you need Metro Flex”
I don’t think you have to do that. It’s available to everybody travelling in the area. I’ve thought about using the Tukwila one to get to the Highline Botanical Gardens (with a sensory garden) in north SeaTac.
“What is the option for them if not Metro Flex? Never leave the house?”
That’s an issue the county hasn’t addressed, in areas that don’t have Flex but their transit is as limited as areas with Flex.
“Metro might be thinking this is the future of transportation once driverless technology arrives”
I doubt it. Driverless taxis have been coming in three years for fifteen years now. There are pilot projects in a few cities now, with vehicles limited to very low speeds, so only a ten-block area. The safety problems with autocars still haven’t decreased.
“some routes in S. King Co. and East King Co. are very expensive per rider”
They get more riders than many people think. The very worst routes were deleted between 2009 and 2014, so they’re no longer an issue. The street either has no service; or the route was restructured to attach the segment to a stronger route; or the segments were chained together into a new coverage route (like the 249); or it was turned over to a non-Metro operator (like the Valley Shuttle in Snoqualmie, which is semi-fixed).
“Some think when that day comes a public agency should just buy a million miles from Uber at a discount for Metro Flex because Metro will never have the technology to compete and so many already have the app on their phone and its labor costs for vehicle maintenance are so high.”
That’s what Uber’s marketing wants cities to believe. Some cities have completely replaced their bus network with subsidized Uber. Reports from there say the fares are double so lower-income people can’t afford to use it regularly. One group of people had great difficulty crossing a freeway barrier to access jobs and groceries because their bus route was gone and they couldn’t afford the fixed Uber fare. Metro Flex already has an app. What other technology does Metro need? Autocars are still vaporware, we don’t know what their ultimate costs will be, and it may be just as easy to get the technology from elsewhere than to pay Uber’s high fees.
I remember when I asked why Link should go through the Rainier Valley instead of next to Boeing through the Duwamish Valley, and I was told it’s because the Rainier Valley is a dense and walkable neighborhood.
Later, when I asked why the Rainier Valley needs microtransit, I was told it’s because the Rainier Valley is not a dense and walkable neighborhood.
That’s profound enough for me to not call it a troll. Only parts of Rainier Valley are walkable, those near MLK and Rainier Avenue. And Graham Street is famous for having no east-west transit. East of Rainier Avenue is a single-family area with hills, and it goes all the way to Seward Park. The 50 is an attempt to be a Link feeder, but it suffers from being only 30 minutes (the time period changes over time, and I think it started at 45 minutes to scrape hours to save the 42 and have a Beacon Hill-Mt Baker station shuttle). So it’s inconvenient for those wanting to get to the Link stations, and more car-oriented people won’t put up with it and asked for a P&R in Rainier Valley. The city refused because of an ordinance against any more P&Rs in Seattle. Then there’s Skyway, which has even less bus service. So all those are the primary areas Metro Flex is intended to cover.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/050
Route 50 has settled down to about 20-minute headway. For about two years, its west half was provided better service to address the bridge crisis.
Route 50 was implemented in fall 2012 coincident with the C line. Yes, its aims included feeding Link and the C Line, and providing crosstown service. After the VAMC expansion, it is the only route to deviate to the nursing tower. I expect the both halves suffer from poor on-time performance; together with a relatively long headway, it does not make for a good feeder route or a good crosstown. Both parts are indirect; it attempts to do too much and does none well. (There is a proverb about a horse designed by a committee coming out like a camel?)
If I were network czar, I would delete the west part west of the VAMC, restructure West Seattle service, and have the revised Route 50 use the VAMC driveway as its terminal and serve the Beacon Hill Link. The east half by itself would be more reliable and more useful. The segment between SODO and Beacon Hill on the slope of the hill attracts little ridership; Link serves that east-west segment better. VAMC riders with limited mobility could use a better connection with Link; able bodied riders have Route 36. See: where needs are greatest, essential workers, etc.
“Route 50 was implemented in fall 2012 coincident with the C line.”
Doesn’t it go back to the initial Link segment in 2009? Oh, I guess Othello Street was originally a route 39 extension.
That is because Flex is BS.
Rainier Valley is a mix. Some of it is dense, some of it isn’t. Some of it is wealthy, some of it is poor. But people associate Rainier Valley with poverty. So anything they add there is good, right? BS.
The people who benefit the most from Flex are those who live in the low-density (largely wealthy) areas. They don’t have to walk so far to a bus. For example this house here sold for 2.5 million (https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/5191-S-Spencer-St-98118/home/490551). It is a twelve minute walk to the bus: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WnbdbyEPWxa5rxiZ8. Here is a one bedroom apartment that rents for 1,400 a month: https://www.apartments.com/cascade-court-apartments-seattle-wa/4625shj/. It is across the street from the bus (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SwmAmS4Fn1eSJpRx5). Obviously the person living in that 2.5 million dollar house (which by the way is not expensive for the neighborhood) benefit far more from Flex than the person living in the (relatively) cheap apartment.
But Metro can claim it is serving low-income Rainier Valley (which is true, to a very tiny extent). Flex is BS.
> The people who benefit the most from Flex are those who live in the low-density (largely wealthy) areas.
While I don’t really think metro flex is scalable I also doubt many wealthy people living in a 2.5 million dollar house are using metro flex
I also doubt many wealthy people living in a 2.5 million dollar house are using metro flex.
Why not? A seventeen year old can either pay for an Uber (using his own money), walk a very long way to the bus or call Flex. Sure, if there is a long wait then he paying for Uber, but hell, Flex is free.
I agree WL. It gets tiresome on this blog when some boil everything down to class warfare. Especially when they personally are not poor.
If anyone thinks wealthy people go through the hassle of calling and arranging a time for Metro Flex to avoid a bus ride they are mistaken.
Wealthy people don’t use transit. Begin with that reality. Wealthy people don’t sit around wondering how to avoid walking to and waiting for a bus because they never take a bus. They drive, or take Uber.
Metro Flex serves poor people, like the vast majority of transit which is why transit is so heavily subsidized by those who don’t use it. Some poor people can’t get to a bus, or deal with the transfers, or from the bus to their destination, AND CAN’T AFFORD THEIR OWN CAR OR UBER. They are not abusing Metro Flex to avoid riding with strangers because that the poor, or trying to avoid walking to the bus by going through all the hoops and all the wait for Metro Flex. I am sure they would give everything they have to be able to walk to the bus stop. But they physically can’t. It is the same reason we have the ADA.
> Why not? A seventeen year old can either pay for an Uber (using his own money), walk a very long way to the bus or call Flex. Sure, if there is a long wait then he paying for Uber, but hell, Flex is free.
The flex zones are limited to the area, for othello basically they could only go to the safeway, othello station or rainier ave for the restaurants.
I just don’t really see a scenario where someone buys a 2.5 million dollar house and doesn’t get a car and is using metro flex to buy groceries. Like maybe? they use metro flex to reach othello station and commute downtown but even then it’s probably faster to just park outside the rpz and walk to the station.
Like you have to stretch and think of some convoluted scenario where someone with a 2.5 million dollar house would be using metro flex. And even then for the 16/17 year old scenario you cited where they can’t drive a car — that seems fine if they are truly stuck at home with no way to get around for them to reach othello station I’m not sure why that is bad.
“Why not? A seventeen year old can either pay for an Uber (using his own money), walk a very long way to the bus or call Flex. Sure, if there is a long wait then he paying for Uber, but hell, Flex is free”.
I thought youth 18 and under (no matter how wealthy their family is) ride transit for free. Youth Ride Free – myORCA
Wealthy people don’t use transit.
Bullshit. Do you think everyone in Paris, London or New York is broke? Get real. Lots of wealthy people take the subway. They ride buses. No, not billionaires, but plenty of upper middle-class people use transit. Especially those that live in liberal cities. They may be wealthy, but they aren’t snobs.
If anyone thinks wealthy people go through the hassle of calling and arranging a time for Metro Flex to avoid a bus ride they are mistaken. They drive, or take Uber.
Flex is like Uber! You get on your phone and request a ride. It is basically just a publicly subsidized version of the same thing, but with a more limited service area. Again, you are confusing it with DART, which serves low-income and mobility-challenged people, and has done so for years.
It gets tiresome on this blog when some boil everything down to class warfare.
Says the guy who claims this is for the poor. I can’t emphasize this enough. It isn’t! The vast majority of people who are poor live in areas that could (or should) have good fixed-route transit. This isn’t serving rural Kentucky. This is serving the city and wealthy suburbs. The areas that are low density are not poor! Are you really arguing that point or do you not realize how it completely obliterates your argument?
Look at the data. To quote from the report:
It has been shown to serve a younger, more affluent, and less diverse ridership than fixed route service.
Look, you want to make an argument that ignores class — fine by me. Flex is a waste of money, as it is serving areas that are much better served with fixed-route transit.
“It gets tiresome on this blog when some boil everything down to class warfare. Especially when they personally are not poor.”
The poor often don’t have the capacity and knowledge to advocate for themselves. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
So if they aren’t advocating themselves, and we aren’t advocating for them, how do you expect them not to be screwed over?
I thought youth 18 and under (no matter how wealthy their family is) ride transit for free.
Yes, you are correct. Flex operates like a Metro bus. Thus if you are 18 (and under) you can ride Flex for free. In contrast, Uber costs money.
“Metro Flex serves poor people, like the vast majority of transit which is why transit is so heavily subsidized by those who don’t use it”
That’s not true. Metro in particular has a high proportion of middle-class riders compared to other cities. All transportation modes are subsidized, and cars have the highest — society is structured to hide this fact and shift the cost to everybody except the driver at the moment.
“Metro Flex serves poor people, like the vast majority of transit which is why transit is so heavily subsidized by those who don’t use it”
I was actually reasonably impressed at how well used the 24, 31 and 33 are in Magnolia (experience pre-pandemic, YMMV, etc). The equivalent high income areas in Portland get maybe 1/100th of that type of ridership.
The metro flex area doesn’t run around mt baker/columbia city.
There’s two other area in rainier valley one in othello, it’s pretty small so basically only for east-west trips basically.
The other one from rainier beach to renton covers skyway which perhaps could be argued kinda duplicates the bus routes more
it’s pretty small so basically only for east-west trips basically.
Right. East-west trips that could be served at lower cost (and greater value) with fixed route transit (since it is not an extremely low-density area). I think that gets to Sam’s point. There are areas that are appropriate for microtransit. There are areas that are so spread out that nothing else will do. Once you have served all the other areas (with fixed route transit) it is quite reasonable to serve these extremely low-density areas with microtransit. But Rainier Valley is not one of those areas.
Folks don’t seem to get it. Microtransit is gadgetbahn. It is like a monorail. It is appropriate in a very limited set of circumstances. But because it is new and people think it is cool, it is being applied in way more places than it should be.
Yeah, TriMet has played around with microtransit a little, but mostly decided coverage routes like the 18, 51 and 34 are still cheaper.
I can’t tell from the map whether the full length of W Marginal Way is included in the service area.
In particular, is the Duwamish Longhouse in or out? Was the tribe consulted?
I don’t see it in the thread, but it needs to be recognized that recently-opened RapidRide H runs through the middle of this area on Delridge.
The area is also relatively flat in many areas, especially in the areas further south.
There is no Link station nearby, so it’s not a last-mile solution to a longer distance service. Plus, the coverage area is quite large but doesn’t include several neighborhood shopping districts just beyond its edges. So there isn’t a focused destination — and there really isn’t much reason for even a local resident to use it and they may have to wait awhile for the service.
So I don’t get why this large zone is particularly well-suited for Flex. It looks to me like the area’s boundaries were drawn without much logic, and targeted trip markets don’t exist.
Am I not seeing the unmet need being met by this service?
So I don’t get why this large zone is particularly well-suited for Flex.
Flex is political, not practical. Once you realize that it makes more sense. I’m sure they negotiate with Via, and figure out how much it costs to cover this area or that, but this is largely just a symbolic exercise.
“Flex is political, not practical. ”
I agree about that!
The sad thing is that with every costly and non-sensical political decision like this, the more inclined the general population will be soured on innovative transit and eventually transit in general.
Creating a half-baked Flex service zone hurts transit in many ways — both directly and in the long-term.
It’s
I have a buddy who lives dead-center here, and though it’s a bit of a walk, he feels well-served by the 131 and the H. When I visit him, I don’t mind taking the 574 to the 560. In the evenings the frequency goes to shit, and the return trip is untenable with the transfer and lack of reliability. I tend to have to rely on someone to give me a lift to the airport so I can grab a bus home to Tacoma.
I don’t quite understand this service though. Can I call them and they would take me to the airport? Or can I only take it to something in the zone like Westwood Village?
It has to stay within the zone as shown in the map above
Huh. Okay. I could see some very limited value for those very few homes and businesses at the bottom of the hill and in South Park, but see almost no value for the top of the Hill. Stupid waste of money.
It seems to me that Flex is best suited between 8 pm and 5 am when fixed-route bus service is reduced or not running.
Yet Metro runs it instead between 5 am and 1 am on most days and 6 am to midnight on Sundays. I’m thinking that the last hour or two gets denied trips, too.
I think there needs to be an overarching discussion about Flex service hours.
For example, if Flex was only offered between 8 pm and 4 am, there could be twice as many zones since the operations hours would be cut in half. Plus, that’s the time when traffic accidents and even pedestrian fatalities are more likely since drinking is often a factor in them. It’s also a time when people feel more unsafe walking. Finally, traffic congestion is pretty non-existent so the Flex trips take less time to complete, enabling more trips per hour.
Why should we pay for a Flex option when there is frequent transit service? Should it be targeted to evening and overnight trips?
Anyone know why Flex has different service hours for different areas. Metro Flex – King County, Washington
Juanita Weekdays 7 am to 7 pm. No service on weekends.
Kent Weekdays 5 am to 7 pm. Weekends 7 am to 7 pm.
Othello, Rainier Beach/Skyway, Renton Highlands and Tukwila Weekdays 5 am to 1 am. Saturday 5 am to 1 am. Sunday 6 am to 12 am.
Issaquah/Sammamish Weekdays 7 am to 6 pm. Saturdays 9 am to 6 pm.
Or what the annual budget for Flex is less fares.
The Urbanist has an article that implies that Metro Flex was chosen here due Metro’s driver shortage:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/07/19/metro-flex-on-coming-to-southwest-seattle/
“The Delridge/South Park Metro Flex service will operate as a pilot program for the next two years using an infusion of about $1.2 million from the Seattle Transit Measure, a ballot initiative which passed easily in 2020, raising roughly $39 million annually via sales tax revenue. Traditionally, the transit measure has augmented bus service, but Seattle has shifted some funding to over initiatives, as Metro has struggled to staff bus service hours due to its labor shortage.”
This also answers Rail Skeptic’s question about the cost. $1.2 million.
There is a precedent to using STM money for non-bus purposes due to operator shortage. In 2014 Metro had severe cuts from the 2008 recession and laid off drivers. A countywide measure to preserve service failed, so Seattle passed its own measure in 2015. By the time the vote came the economic recovery had already started, so Metro was rehiring drivers. It couldn’t hire them fast enough to restore regular service and provide drivers for all Seattle’s extra hours, so some of the TBM money went unspent for a couple years. I wanted the city to save the money until drivers became available, but instead it put it into free passes for public-school students. This was before the statewide free transit for youth program; it was the pioneer for it.
So now the city is putting unspendable money into Flex.