An excellent new essay on HistoryLink explains the history of Community Transit (CT), the public transit authority of Snohomish County. The essay divides CT’s history into seven chapters:
- The 1970s: Transit Makeover covers the formation of the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (SCPTBA) in 1976;
- Hello, Community Transit explains how CT got its name in 1979 and early expansions;
- New Directions discusses decisions made in the 1980s;
- The 1990s: Out With the Old includes a dramatic story involving a federal grand jury and highlights CT’s rollout of the nation’s first articulated buses;
- Into the 2000s documents difficulties and victories at the turn of the millenium;
- The 2010s: Recession and Expansion covers CT’s response to and rebound from the Great Recession of 2008
- The 2020s: COVID and Recovery brings us to today.
After the jump is a recent episode of CT’s ongoing series “That Transit Show” highlighting CT’s maintenance workers and facilities.
This is an Open Thread.
Oh my gosh Sound Transit NOW HAS THE FULL SCHEDULE FOR 2 LINE SIMULATED SERVICE ACROSS THE LAKE AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE SCHEDULE FOR WHEN THE TRAIN CROSSES THE LAKE!!!
You can go to their website and see February 14 or March 29 for the 2 Line schedules, OH MY GOSH!!! I think this is the best day.
Soon to be an even better day, when the simulated service actually starts!
It’s tomorrow.
According to the trip planner 21 min between CID and Bellevue Downtown
https://www.soundtransit.org/tripplanner/to/station:112197/from/location:transit_151_34/after/1774889100000/travel-by/bus,train/route-option/fastest%20trip/max-walk/1609
Existing Bellevue DT – Redmond Technology is 13 min.
So CID -> Redmond Technology is 5 min slower than estimated 11 years ago (I couldn’t find a more recent publishing of estimated travel times).
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Partners/erp/background/ST_ERP_ST2LinkTravelTimes_02july2015.pdf
That’s because trains seem to run so slow on the eastside. I really don’t understand why they can’t speed things up. We voted for rapid transit… trains pull into stations at a snails pace on the eastside and dwell times seem longer. Hopefully this changes.
Interestingly this is about tbe same speed and distance as Skytrain’s Langley extension (16km in 22 min travel time) while that segment has 9 stations (King George to Langley CC) vs link 5 stations (CID to Bellevue DT)
I took the SL from South Bellevue to Redmond Tech for the first several months after it started, and I got 20 minutes. 5th & Union to South Bellevue on the 550 is 20-30 minutes depending on traffic, for a total travel time Westlake-Redmond Tech of 4-50 minutes plus transfer.
I’ve also gone from South Bellevue to 4th & Jackson a few times in the past year, and I got 10 minutes minimum.
@Ian, yes, Langley doesn’t have a big lake in the way.
Still, alas for the lack of stations at North Beacon Hill and at Bellevue Square.
I wonder if they can start line 3 service this year. Line 3 , a limited service from Downtown Bellevue to Sea Tac, serving limited stops every 20 minutes. After Judkin Park trains pass ID and head south. This may require construction of new switch over tracks, but would enhance the system until West Seattle and Ballard Lines are built.
We would probably need more cars for full line 3 service, but limited service could operate two car trains every 20 minutes.
That’s a trip that Stride 1 would enable. It however only takes a rider to TIBS rather than SeaTac. It is expected to run every 10 to 15 minutes.
A light rail trip like this has several hurdles. First there are no east-south connecting tracks to allow a driver to take a train on this path. It’s why there is a third track in the middle of CID where trains can reverse — but that requires a driver to change ends of the trains. ST would need to build a new track connection, which would be difficult especially given its setting in the midst of I-90 ramps and the cost involved.
The second major one is MLK. Squeezing one more train in makes the street operation even more challenging. It would disrupt the spacing of the 1 Line too.
Your idea does reveal a bigger issue, which is that ST is not planning for flexibility in train operations that could enable a new line like this generally. Not only will the trains not be able to make this movement, but the 2 Line tracks won’t connect to DSTT2 either. The DSTT2 tunnel would begin at Holgate, well south of these tracks. In fact, the current SODO track configurations does even allow for an approaching train to switch tracks easily between DSTT and DSTT2 if some sort of service disruption occurs.
There is one much easier improvement that could help make a trip between the Eastside and SeaTac: Adding down escalators and elevators at CID to help transferring riders. Again, there is no design plan or funding to make this happen. (I’m expecting an interest in a CID station overhaul to happen at some point, like adding a lid that not only could facilitate adding vertical devices at multiple points but would also improve weather protection for waiting riders — and could even have a building added on top.)
It could be possible to add a gated crossing south of the CID platforms to allow level transfers but with a train headed one way or the other every 2-3 minutes it would be hard to create a gap between trains that would allow riders to walk across the tracks.
Some suggest a second center platform to allow level transfers. It appears possible at Pioneer Square (CID has the third track sitting in the way) — but when ST installed one temporarily in 2020, there was great concern about if the platform is actually safe because it is rather narrow. Again, a permanent center platform has not been planned nor funded.
“Your idea does reveal a bigger issue, which is that ST is not planning for flexibility in train operations that could enable a new line like this generally.”
This is the primary issue. ST is not going to build an east-south connector because it’s focusing on DSTT2, such a connector is not in ST3, and it would mean a year’s worth of weekend tunnel shutdowns when everybody wants a break from the constant closures for a while.
Look at how many closures it took to set up the East Link connector, when we thought Connect 2020 was all that would be needed. Look at Pinehurst station, which has had a hundred closures or single-trackings in the past year just for one infill station. Do we want to go through that again just for an east-south connector?
We’ll have enough of that in the 2030s when DSTT2 or non-DSTT2 gets underway. Let’s have a few years of normal service between now and then, please.
Yesterday’s GTFS update includes simulated service as others have pointed out, but it also has a separate calendar entry for March 28. Curiously, the actual schedule on March 28 the 1 and 2 Line are the same as previous simulated service Saturday schedules—i.e., there are no stops scheduled at Judkins Park or Mercer Island on that day. I sort of assume that the special calendar entry for March 28 is there so that they can add the special opening day service when it’s announced.
Is that because on 28th, full 2 Line service didn’t start right at the beginning of the day at 5 am but later after the ceremony?
I have vague memories of, back around 2008, Community Transit used to run hourly buses to Darrington, 6 days/week. While driving on highway 530 to hiking trails on a Saturday morning, I would almost always see a Community Transit bus going the other way.
That service is now gone, but they’ve gone a long way to make service in the more populated parts of the county more usable, with SWIFT, and now, the new 900-series, providing more direct service to Edmonds, Mukilteo, and even Stanwood.
I thought that in 2008, the 230 was still peak only. Though it did run on Saturdays.
It’s puzzling how Everett keeps refusing to merge with Community Transit. I have a feeling that at one point in the distant past, Everett had better transit than the rest of Snohomish County, but these days it’s significantly worse. I wonder what Everett is thinking.
I hope they merge, Everett can’t live with their kind of transit.
I would assume one of the biggest hurdles is the difference in sales tax rates: .6% for Everett Transit vs 1.2% for Community Transit.
Everett long refused to merge. In the latter years at least it said its residents were poorer on average and couldn’t afford the higher tax rate or fares. With the post-covid fiscal convulsions threatening the long-term viability of Everett Transit, its position softened and it began negotiations with Community Transit about merging. I don’t know the status of that now. Having a long-term plan doesn’t necessarily mean it has definitively rejected merger again, because it needs the plan if a merger fails to happen.
Part of the motivation for a merger is it would increase transit service in Everett. Service is so limited because of ET’s low tax rate and low fares.
Since this is an open thread, here’s an NYT article about free buses:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/free-bus-rides-mamdani.html
The op-ed mentions many pro arguments, but doesn’t mention cons, such as, if the buses are already full, making fares free can produce overcrowding unless additional money is available to not just maintain service, but to increase it.
It also doesn’t say how many of the additional trips due to the bus being free are actually replacing car trips vs. walking trips. It is a lot easier to justify hopping on a bus to go three blocks, rather than walk, if the bus is free.
I’ve never looked at it systematically, but what I observed when I lived there was that the busiest bus routes in New York were the ones connecting areas without subway service to the nearest subway station. Of course if you are connecting to the subway, the bus ride is already effectively free, since you’re getting a transfer.
The places where you’d think it would be most useful to take a short bus ride – Midtown, Downtown – the buses are so much slower than walking that they really aren’t very crowded.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to make the buses free, but I’m not sure if it would be transformative there. There are a few trips that are poorly served by the subway, but not too many, and you generally end up transferring to the subway anyway. The share of transit trips being made purely by bus in New York is rather low.
I doubt anyone is going to switch to the bus from driving because the fare is lower. It’s already far cheaper than driving.
My understanding about NYC transit is that the subway is only really comprehensive within Manhattan. In Brooklyn and Queens, the subway exists, but the lines are much farther apart, and only go in the direction towards Manhattan, so buses are needed for cross-town trips. Outside of Manhattan, NYC has plenty of trips like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vo2fsofZPHHdEkp37), where the only transit option is the bus, which takes far longer than driving, and nearly as long as walking.
The busiest bus in NYC is the M15, which basically parallels a lot of the subway lines in Manhattan. Rather than walking over and catching the 4 or 6 (and then maybe walking back) riders just catch the bus. This is despite the fact that New York Subway stations are close together and close to the surface. Go figure. This is a very strong argument for the Second Avenue Subway.
I do think the biggest weakness in the subway system is what adsf2 mentioned. There are plenty of gaps as well as weaknesses in the network. That is why this proposal makes so much sense: https://transitcosts.com/a-better-billion.html. It would take years but when the dust settled you would have a much better transportation system. If this came with less-restrictive zoning in would make New York way more affordable. Places that are relatively cheap would also be a lot more convenient by public transit, which means fewer people would own or use a car.
asdf2,
Mamdani promised free bus service in New York City. It’s perfectly OK to disagree with that, but let’s be perfectly clear. Adding more buses to New York City in the next 4 years (Mamdani’s term as mayor) is absolutely not possible.
It might be possible for Mayor Mamdani to somehow scrape up the money for free bus service…. or maybe not. But free buses are just a matter of finding the money.
Improving bus service is a much bigger lift. Step one is finding the money…. step two is finding more buses… step three would be to hire more drivers and support workers. Mamdani can’t do this is 4 years. It’s not possible to get done in his first term.
Mayor Mamdani, love him or hate him, is politically brilliant. He stays far away from promising things there is no possibility of getting done in 4 years.
asdf2 isn’t advocating for more buses as an alternative to free fares. He’s saying free fares may cause overcrowded buses. That would necessitate more buses, which you can’t pay for because free fares took the money, or leaving people behind. The latter means people can’t get around via transit, unless maybe they take the subway (which will still charge fares). Otherwise they’ll have to drive, walk, scooter, bike, or not make the trip.
Mike Orr,
Overcrowded buses? I really doubt that, but it could happen. People use transit to get from point A to point B. I doubt free transit does much of anything to NYC buses other than a modest uptick in ridership… and saving the working class of NYC money. Mamdani isn’t an idiot… the places not reached by subways are where the poorest riders live. The guy needs to deliver for the people who actually voted for him
If you really think the fare box needs to be part funding transit (I absolutely do not) then are you supportive of cutting transit if the fare box funds have a drop? Because it doesn’t work both ways. The more transit depends on the fare box to cover costs, the more cuts have to happen in a recession.
TriMet is cutting back right now and not like State government or Portland City government is going to step in.
Transit coverage rises and falls with fare box numbers and cycles of recessions and periods of economic growth. That’s the way things are now.
“the places not reached by subways are where the poorest riders live.”
Was the Upper East Side poor before the 2nd Avenue Subway?
I visited somebody in southeast Brooklyn where the subway doesn’t go, the house where he’d grown up, and it was one of those small suburban houses like Levittown made for middle-class people. If that was the poorest riders, I guess there were no low-income in New York then.
I have long felt that free buses are best when they work as circulators or last-mile options. By keeping the route distance short, they can provide a critical free connection for food shopping, local errands and students — yet not be burdened by things like long joy-riding or a mobile jobless encampments. Plus, I hate to see agencies lose revenue if employer transit subsidies go away.
If the buses in New York “are full” there is absolutely no reason to reduce fares ganerally. Reduced fares are normally advocated to increase ridership, but by definition, if buses are “full” they can’t carry more people.
There may be good arguments for spending more on reduced fares for the economically or physically disadvantaged, but not for complete elimination.
It’s stupid.
Article on the technical part of building light rail on a floating bridge. As someone clueless on engineering and physics, I should research the principles behind those bearings. I also wonder if they have any issues with keeping the antennas in contact with the overhead wire, protecting the tracks from lake water, and if they have to slow down if another train is passing by on the bridge. (Somebody I was talking to at a bar said this was a main stumbling block.) Also, what do they mean by “shortening” a rail?
https://www.fastcompany.com/91489785/seattle-crosslake-the-worlds-first-light-rail-on-a-floating-bridge
I trust that corrosion, grounding and other lake water issues have been well vetted. I imagine that monitoring and replacement will be ongoing topics.
Even though the floating bridge is very unique, running next to water or on a bridge near water is not. Many light rail and heavy rail systems encounter water issues, including many coastal cities with water much more corrosive than Lake Washington is. I’m sure many have even had short-term flooding incidents.
If somehow ST (and their many nationally known consultant engineers) has neglected to think about these things, it would be shocking and shameful. Since ST seems to not hire people who have maintained high-use systems elsewhere for several years, there is always the risk that something was missed. Given how many entities have been involved though, it would be a major scandal if this was the case.
Sound Transit’s video about the various engineering challenges has a short visualization of how the track bridges work: https://youtu.be/-tImk5T3iiU?si=ND70qVNHs2KlfL_a&t=201
Basically, the roadway has a hinge that cars and trucks can handle but would be too sharp for trains. The “track bridges” spread the bend out to avoid snapping the track.
Contact with the overhead wire is maintained by constant upward pressure from the pantograph (the “antennas”); they’re basically spring-loaded to keep a constant connection regardless of how train moves relative to the wire.
I don’t think Lake Washington commonly sprays onto the bridge deck, but
since it’s freshwater it wouldn’t be significantly different than rain water.
There’s be a lot of online speculation about operations for passing trains but no statement from Sound Transit about it that I’ve seen. I think it takes 1-2 minutes for a train to cross the bridge, so even if there could only be one train on the bridge at a time, it wouldn’t significantly impact frequencies or travel time.
Off topic from CTbut I’ve lately been wondering if, before the World cup, metro is going to standardize it’s use of “fares required” on destination displays
It currently seems like a hodgepodge wino rgymevorcreqson as to which coaches display it. I could see that being a little confusing during the tournament. A year ago it was on nearly all trips butvit has slowly switched back. Is there a plan?
It was probably just for the initial surge of the new fare enforcement policy. There was a new message Wednesday and Thursday, “Go Seahawks!”, that may still be on now. Not having a “fares required” sign doesn’t mean it’s free, and people from other cities wouldn’t think that because 99.9% of bus networks in other cities aren’t free.
During the pandemic they didn’t charge to ride the bus. Then they started charging, and added “fares required”. They are finally getting rid of it with the new Spring service change (see my comment below).
Fares were on again in 2022 or so. “Fares Required” went up last March when Metro’s new fare enforcement strategy went into effect.
When I went to Innotrans in 2016, a regional twansit day pass (extending all the way out to Potsdam) was included with each day ticket for the trade show. It came as a barcode printed on the ticket.
It’d be neat if the World Cup tickets had something like that included in their purchase price.
Portland does this for Timbers games, tickets are good as tickets on TriMet. With a proof of payment system it could be as easy as just saying the ticket counts to fare inspectors. I suppose there maybe be some payment negotiation for lost fare revenue in Portland, but not sure. That’d be harder to do for something like the world cup
I’ve heard all German large events do this.
My understanding is that Kraken tickets include free transit but Seahawk tickets don’t. Go figure. Yes, I agree. It would be nice if World Cup tickets included a day pass (or at the very least, counted as free transit before and after the game).
It depends on the team owners making an arrangement with the transit agency and paying for the service. The state could mandate this across the board, and that’s probably what Germany does. Climate Pledge Arena has a lofty goal in its name, so its marketing image depends on including transit to fulfill its climate pledge. The Seahawks are probably more focused on tailgate parties.
I’ve lately been wondering if, before the World cup, metro is going to standardize it’s use of “fares required” on destination displays
I got an email about it from the Transit Riders Union. They basically pushed them to get rid it and sure enough, they will go back to the old days (when they showed the route number and destination). The change will happen with the Spring service change. This is especially helpful for those wondering if they should chase after a bus or not.
Oh good; I’ve been annoyed at that lately.
Isn’t an additional message after the destination?
I was looking at the ST ridership page data. I discovered — by clicking on a January
20362026 box in the month pulldown menue — that ridership is retrievable for Link on the Link tab:https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership
The number on the graph looked off, reporting 159K average weekday riders for Link in January. That seemed unreasonably high, so I changed the access tab to “Day”. Sure enough the data for the each day in the last two weeks was suddenly about double the first two weeks. I suspect there will need to be some repairs made to the data.
With such a glaring anomaly it’s hard to make any assessment about January ridership yet. But it is rather curious!
January 2026 (not 2036)
[ed: revised]
Comparing data between the 2 Line and 1 Line, the pattern isn’t the same. Was there a big return-to-office push mid-January? If so, the bump might be real.
I am pretty confident that it’s wrong.
The last two weeks show data well in excess of 200K on a weekday. That 200K estimate was what was reported yesterday as the Wednesday Super Bowl Parade Day on Link — and reported as the busiest day ever for the system.
https://komonews.com/news/local/sound-transit-may-have-set-a-ridership-record-for-super-bowl-parade-link-rail-train-bus-route-traffic-car-highway-seahawks-12s-football-nfl-celebration-fans-million-crowd
Yeah, it does seem like the automatic counters started double-counting sometime on Jan 19 and got fixed on Jan 30.
This dashboard has some funny behavior. When viewing monthly data, it offers two “plot metrics”: “total boardings” and “average boardings by day”, which makes sense so viewers can accurately compare weekdays to weekends. However, the “average boardings by day” appears to just divide the total boardings data by the number of days of that type in the month. It does this to daily totals, too, so when you set “plot axis” to “Day” and “Plot metric” to “avg boardings per day”, it divides the weekday totals by the number of weekdays in the month (~20) and the saturday and sunday totals by the number of saturdays and sundays (4-5). Very silly.
There was a return-to-office push in January, wasn’t it Microsoft?
@Mike Orr, no, Microsoft isn’t till March.
A note about this: Since 2 Line will start carrying almost half of the riders boarding north of CID in February, January 2026 probably will be the highest 1 Line (alone) average weekday ridership for many years or maybe ever. That number appears for January 2026 to be about 110K-115K. The 2 Line will siphon off at least 30-40K of those riders starting mid February. I’m thinking that April data will be 65K-75K for 1 Line and 60K-70K for 2 Line, for example. Even Pinehurst + TDLE + WSLE additional riders aren’t predicted to be enough to reclaim the boarding average high from January 2026 for the 1 Line. It will take significant natural growth on top of riders added from those projects to surpass the number for January 2026.
Even with the ridership reduction, the 1 Line may retain its status as the highest individual light rail ridership in the US for a single line (not a whole system but instead just for a single line). LA Metro’s A Line and San Diego’s Blue Line will also in the rough ballpark. Boston’s Green Line would be the biggest if it was counted as one line, but I consider each “branch” to be a separate line (B, C, D and E branches which overlap only in Boston’s Back Bay though Downtown).
Good point. I would also note that after this, focusing on the ridership of one line or the other gets a little silly. They really aren’t different, independent lines — they are branches. Calculating ridership patterns gets trickier as well. For example right now we can sum up all the ridership on the East Side stations. Some of the riders may be transferring at South Bellevue (to get to Seattle) but otherwise it is all trips within the East Side. When the train goes across the bridge you won’t really know the pattern.
“… focusing on the ridership of one line or the other gets a little silly.“
Agreed — and admittedly it’s trivial info that rarely gets mentioned beyond geeks following transit ridership. Sometimes though I will see press references to things like “it’s the highest ridership line in wherever” when a reporter or PR person doesn’t want to get that most multi-line systems are branched in some way across the world. What one system calls “branches” another will call separate “lines”. They gravitate to wording that sounds the most sensational!
I’m reminded of DC Metro, who has spent years debating the service patterns of the Blue, Orange and Silver Lines that share the same tunnels through most of the District. Had DC branded it as just one line with three branches, the service pattern controversies and debates would have been mere administrative matters. As it is now, the Silver Line ended up being split in Maryland anyway due to reversal issues, and could have easily been rebranded as two lines rather than one!
London has lines with several branches. New York has eighteen letters and ten numbers.
Have you seen the Berlin tram map? Virtually nothing is an independent line. Many of the US streetcar maps probably looked similar.
https://www.bvg.de/dam/jcr:d45105f2-6752-4ec5-b882-8936572053c3/TramMetro_12_2025-Internetversion.pdf
Nit:
Community Transit didn’t have the first articulated buses in the USA. However, they did get the first low floor articulated buses.
Where were the first articulated buses?
Did some googling. Looks like in the US, Baltimore takes the prize, with an articulated bus being built by Twin Coach in 1938. Italy seems to have the US beat by a year, with Alfa Romeo building one for Milan in 1937. I figured it would be 40s or 50s; I’m a little surprised it’s prewar.
Does anyone know where the 222 has its layover?
I took it south this afternoon from its first stop in Cottage Lake, and I saw that the bus was coming eastbound on Woodinville-Duvall Rd. Until today I’d assumed it was laying over in the shopping center right at that intersection, but apparently not. I hope they’ve found a layover closer than Woodinville?
(I should’ve asked the driver, but I didn’t think of it till I’d already gotten off the bus.)
Based on the Fall 2025 Route Book, the relief point for route 222 is at Woodinville Park & Ride.
Thanks!
Ouch! That’s four miles away, and Woodinville-Duvall Rd gets somewhat backed up at rush hour!
Okay, if we can’t find a closer relief point, can we extend the 222 there in regular service? The 931 runs along the same route, but it’s peak-only and weekday-only. Might get a few riders, and if not then it won’t take any longer.
As an Everett resident with inside info, it’s true: one of the biggest hurdles is the difference in sales tax rates: 0.6% for Everett Transit vs 1.2% for Community Transit. The latter is in part to support a well-paid group of “chiefs” who each make more than the state’s governor. Last I checked a few years ago, CT had more managers than ET has employees. They’re not proportionately larger. Conversely, ET is a flat organization. It also goes towards an emphasis on marketing (videos, ads, social media, etc.) that rivals Sound Transit’s as one of the highest in the region and along the West Coast. Think about the last time you saw an ad for King County Metro.
Also, the median income in Everett is 1/2 of Bellevue’s and 50% less than Seattle’s. Even though we pay Sound Transit’s taxes, we only get one all-day bus route, the 512 that follows I-5. Compare that to multiple all-day routes on the eastside, south end, etc.
Speaking of which, there is also no guarantee that Everett will get more service if there were a takeover. It’s a takeover and not a merger because CT is calling the shots, they have said that there will only be one seat for Everett on their board, even though its population warrants having at least two. CT will happily take the taxes, but the new service could end up in Bothell, Sultan, or Snohomish, amongst others. Frankly, their service projection if they did take over ET was not impressive or proportionally higher.
Currently, Everett’s seven councilmembers oversee ET, much like the King County Council oversees KC Metro. It gives Everett local control, the same argument that CT used to keep itself from being merged into a regional transit authority similar to Tri-Met several years ago.
Last I heard, the consolidation idea was put on hold. However, ET is planning to seek a 50% increase in their sales tax, to 0.9%, at the beginning of the next decade. It also should be noted that ET subsidizes CT’s Swift Blue Line within its borders and has for some time, well over $1 million/year.
Here is a link to the study CT and ET did a couple years ago. It shows that service doubles in Everett over a 3-year period, with many new routes, increased frequency, and increased span of service. Notably, it eliminates the forced transfers between CT and ET routes at Everett Station.
And yes, ET contributes to Swift Blue line operation, because the city doesn’t pay into the CT service territory taxing district. Blue Line costs $20 million a year to operate, ET chips in less than 10% of that cost, despite the city having over half the stations and 60% of the boardings and alightings. So actually, it’s CT subsidizing Everett significantly. This is because ET cannot deliver frequent service within the city, it needs to rely on CT for that.
https://www.everettwa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/16503?fileID=91713