King County Metro’s fixed route bus network provides extensive coverage in King County. To complement fixed route service in some neighborhoods, Metro operates Metro Flex, an on-demand transit service. Metro began operating on-demand service 2019 and has used the Metro Flex branding since 2023. The neighborhoods currently served by Metro Flex include: Delridge/South Park, Issaquah/Sammamish, Juanita/Totem Lake, Kent, Northshore, Othello, Overlake, Renton Highlands, and Tukwila. Passengers can use Metro Flex within the same neighborhood, not to travel between Metro Flex neighborhoods.
On April 20, Metro will be updating the Metro Flex service boundaries for two neighborhoods: Northshore and Juanita/Totem Lake.
The Northshore service boundary will be adjusted to remove service from Snohomish County and parts of Lake Forest Park, in favor of a larger service area in Bothell. Metro is anchoring the on-demand service around the Kenmore Park & Ride, which has fixed route service from routes 225, 322, 331, 372, and ST 522.
Metro is also updating the service boundary in Juanita. This update removes service from parts of Finn Hill and Inglewood to provide more service around Totem Lake. Metro Flex will be anchored at the Totem Lake Transit Cener, which has fixed route service from routes 225, 239, 255, and 930. The Totem Lake Freeway Station is also served by Metro Flex and has regional service from routes 256, CT 424, and ST routes 532, 535.
The service boundary updates in Northshore and Juanita/Totem Lake are in response to lower ridership in both neighborhoods. In Metro’s 2025 System Evaluation, the two neighborhoods had the lowest ridership per platform hour and the highest cost per ride across all Metro Flex areas.
Metro Flex provides an essential connection for King County residents who cannot drive and live far from fix route service. Metro should strive to provide this service to as many people who need it as possible. These service boundary adjustments should help improve ridership, thus lowering the cost per ride.
I guess I’m not sure about Metro’s contract with Via, but most microtransit services don’t scale well. Higher ridership just means higher costs, since only one or two riders will ever be in a vehicle at once. Not to say I disagree with the principle of the service being available (though I’d be curious to talk to someone who uses it regularly), just don’t think serving more people is the best goal for efficiencies sake. Maybe more like “laying the groundwork for future fixed route service”
most microtransit services don’t scale well.
Yeah, that’s the problem. It is most effective when very few people use it. That is when a rider can expect a short wait or not much of a detour to their destination. But once you have high demand, it just doesn’t work. Thus you either have a system that ineffective for most potential riders or a system that is extremely expensive per rider.
Microtransit is basically just symbolic transit. It is a way to tell an area they are getting something, even if it isn’t that good. At the same time, it seems like it is great. Maybe even better than “normal” buses. It isn’t.
Yeah, it’s telling that the most efficient of the areas by rides per vehicle platform hour is half as efficient as the least efficient “regular” route at peak hours (though by regular I mean the DART 631, which is weird in its own right). The fact that Rainier Beach and Skyway – two places with a high density of transit riders and some of the most productive routes in the system – can only manage 3 rides per platform hour is impressive in its own right. That’s less than an hourly bus in the middle of the night doing coverage in single family home suburbs on the east side.
The current cost per ride seems much higher than what the fare would be to make an equivalent trip on Lyft or Uber. Which begs the question of whether simply paying for people’s Lyft or Uber rides would be more cost-effective.
Of course, the latter approach would some form of require rationing to prevent the funding from running dry, most likely limiting the subsidized rides to residents of the service area with incomes under a certain cutoff. And even then, there would have to be monthly limits on the subsidy available, and probably, a small co-pay that user would still need to pay for each trip. But, $30-100 to move one single passenger 2 miles or less feels insane.
Another issue too, of course, is that even just a 2-mile shuttle ride to the nearest transit hub at a relatively low price of $20/trip, still becomes $40/day or $200/week if used repeatedly for a work commute. So, even at Uber rates, which are still cheaper than Metro Flex, the per-person subsidy for people that really need it would cost more than simply buying them a car and fully paying for their fuel and insurance.
The real elephant in the room, I think, is that people who are unable to drive, either for cost or other reasons, shouldn’t be living in places so difficult to serve with transit in the first place. Which in turn, begs the question of whether money spent subsidizing transportation in odd places is better spent subsidizing housing in neighborhoods that can be served with transit in a more cost-effective manner.
Metro Flex is ADA accessible, and can move people in power chairs I believe. I’m not an ADA expert, so it’s not clear to me exactly what Metro’s legal obligation for providing accessibility for this kind of service is, but I think it has to be a motivator for offering it. Uber/Lyft cannot provide that, and that alone could be the cost difference, since being accessible means special equipment which means much higher fleet costs. And that’s before you consider the wage and worker elements of a public agency using something like Uber.
But you bring up a key point: services like Metro Flex are only doable if they aren’t widely used. The per rider subsidy is extremely high. It’s why you can’t go very far or travel between zones. When agencies do try to make these microtransit zones generally useful for a general person, it immediately becomes apparent that they can’t afford it. Pierce Transit ran into this when they had a zone spanning South Hill, Parkland, and Spanaway. It was too popular, and thus too expensive
Metro Flex is ADA accessible, and can move people in power chairs I believe. I’m not an ADA expert, so it’s not clear to me exactly what Metro’s legal obligation for providing accessibility for this kind of service is, but I think it has to be a motivator for offering it.
Uber/Lyft both have ADA accessible vehicles. Like Metro Flex, you have to specify it (not every driver offers it). There really isn’t much difference. It likely wouldn’t save Metro much money. They are contracting with a company that is similar to Uber/Lyft.
It is worth noting that DART is a similar service that has existed for decades. The difference being that DART was specifically focused on those who are mobility challenged — Flex is not. The whole idea with Flex is that somehow the basics of transit have changed now that we have more advanced software. But that was never the issue.
To clear up confusion on the differences between these services:
Metro’s ADA obligation is to provide paratransit (Access) within a mile of fixed routes. Some cities have only paratransit, but you can’t have only regular routes. Access has operated countywide for decades. You have to go through a qualification process showing your disability prevents you from riding regular buses. Riders have told me if you take a long-distance trip, they’ll transfer you from one Access van to another, so I guess Access has zones anchored around transit centers, but it’s not these zones.
Metro Flex exists because King County wants it; it’s not required by ADA. It’s a political decision: certain activists want it because it goes door to door. Metro creates Flex zones in areas that have the biggest coverage gaps and/or are equity-priority areas.
DART (Dial-a-ride transit) is a semi-fixed route model, and has also existed for decades. The 249 was converted to DART in March. A DART route has a fixed schedule and 90% fixed stops, but it also has one or more flexible zones, where you can make a reservation for the route to deviate to your house. The 249’s flexible area is between 104th and 108th Ave SE (Beaux Arts and Enatai, west of Bellevue Way).
Both DART and Metro Flex are alternatives to additional fixed coverage routes in those areas.
P.S. My main computer broke so I’ll only be occasionally occasionally online for the next week or two until its replacement is ready.
DART with some technology upgrades seems like it would be the ideal middle ground here
This may be the case in the suburbs, but these days Uber/Lyft IN Seattle is like $20-30 to go a mile or two. These services are incredibly expensive anywhere within Seattle city limits. Maybe Waymo will bring down the prices, but I’m skeptical.
And $20-30 to go a mile or two is still cheaper than the cost of operating Flex.
Ross said “The difference being that DART was specifically focused on those who are mobility challenged — Flex is not.”
DART stands for “Dial a ride transit” and is offered by both King County Metro and Community Transit with vans. Confusingly they operate differently.
Ross is likely referring to community transit, because that’s their paratransit service for those unable to use the CT/ST/ Everett Transit system. Think KCM Access and PT shuttle for comparisons.
King county metro’s DART is open to anyone and offers a combination of fixed route buses and off route deviations. The 930, for instance has a flex zone (play on words) near 132nd st between 124th and 132nd. Although those with mobility challenges can and do use it as all vans are equipped with lifts, it’s mostly regular riders who use this service. It’s contracted out to.Hopelink which aside from their contract they do a lot of good work in the community and mobility is their DNA.
I was actually referring to Metro’s DART, but it is the same idea. Metro’s DART was similar to Flex at one point but was always geared towards providing service for those in need. As mentioned, it is operated by Hopelink, a non-profit. The service has evolved to be more fixed route because fixed routing is simply better. It is like bees evolving to make hexagonal hives.
Metro’s DART has always been a semi-fixed regular route ever since I started using Metro in 1979. The flex zones are where the least coverage is, not where the most disabled people are. Outer Kent, Burien, Federal Way, Enumclaw, Issaquah, etc.
Demand response and micro transit didn’t exist naturally because it is just as efficient as fixed routes. A lot of systems have that and some systems only have that because it can be funded by FTA Section 5310 Program.
Without that context, it is, as you can imagine, poor use of money for or a metro area as big as Seattle.
Now I’m convinced Brier must have all-day bus service!!! CT must do something to address this riddance.
Just out of curiosity, what the heck was Metro’s rationale for serving Brier and the eastern half of MLT in the first place? Other than a few small shopping centers, it is all residential, so it would imply that King County taxpayers were paying huge subsidies to residents of south Snohomish County (such as myself) to get to destinations in Kenmore or LFP. Maybe you get 1 or 2 Kenmore or LFP residents a day going to the MLT transit center to catch a bus to the ferry? I can’t think of too many other use cases for the King Co residents. So if I was a King County resident I would extremely unhappy that they were ever doing this in the first place.
Before advocating that CT put more service in Brier, I would get the current usage data for CT111 – I suspect it is extremely low as I have never personally observed more than 2 or 3 riders on that bus. Also, as I pointed out to you earlier, there is no road running east out of Brier that is really suitable for large vehicles, and to the south you hit King County, so I think CT is probably doing all that they really can, which is to run a route from MLT transit into Brier. This is simply not a good place to live if you are not self-sufficient w.r.t transportation, whether it is a car, biking, or walking (and IMO it is very nice for the last two).
It looks like MLT station was technically in the service area, so they might have originally meant it to feed in to the light rail as opposed to the bus transit center. Thing is the light rail is a bit out of the way, and several decent fixed service busses run through there.
Brandon, what would be the motivation of Metro to transport King Co residents to MLT to catch the train? At that point in line 1, going south is almost the only option (sorry, Lynnwood) so why not Shoreline station?
@NoneOfTheAbove I was just speculating, and I agree with you.
From the chart it looks like the cost is about $90 per service hour, or about half that of fixed-route service.
Some of these service boundaries don’t really make sense to me. Like for Othello, if the 50 was bumped up, wouldn’t the entire region be within a short walk of <15m transit service?
I think the primary purpose is connecting people east/west in areas not close to the 50, which is really most of the area (since the 50 goes down to Seward Park). Like if you lived at Rainier/Graham and need to get to the airport for work, the recommended trip is the 7 to Link at Mount Baker. Not an egregious trip, but I think if you have limited mobility getting a ride to Othello station on flex is probably preferred.
There’s a discussion to be had if that is a service which Metro should provide, but in some ways the relevant point of comparison could be making the service competitive with Access, since that is even more expensive than Flex. I imagine that’s at least part of the appeal to Metro.
I’d argue that the major reason why Northshore and Juanita Metro Flex has had the worst usage is because they have the worst hours all the Metro Flex zones. They have the most limited hours (no evening) and no weekend service. Most people I talk to in North Kirkland find it completely useless because for lack of evening or weekend service.
Perhaps the hours were so crappy because ridership was low or the area that’s being jettisoned was particularly cost-ineffective to serve.
Thanks for the info on passengers per hour and per-passenger cost of all Metro Flex zones. We hear only the nationwide average and sometimes one zone.
Jarrett Walker has written that even the lowliest empty-looking fixed coverage routes usually get 10+ passengers per hour. You don’t see all of them if you’re just looking in the window or if you get off before they get on. I’d add that even those that don’t get 10 are close to it and could reach it if they stick around for another year or two. Demand-response services get 2 or 3 per hour, because there’s a lot of deadheading to the next client, and waiting for a client to summon you.
Examples:
906: I see 8 people on occasional Saturdays between Southcenter and Talbot
Rd. That’s only half the route; the entire route is 30 minutes from end to end.
226: Some middays I count 10 in my half of the route (either the south half or the north half), others less. Some days Eastgate P&R is a surprisingly productive transfer point, with 8 on/offs.
Snoqualmie Valley Shuttle: This runs between North Bend and Duvall every couple hours, and has DART zones at both ends. I counted 20+ riders from Snoqualmie to Duvall one afternoon. The day after Christmas there was only 5, but it was the day after Christmas and a little snow remaining.
Most of the Metro Flex routes are getting 2-3 passengers per hour as Walker predicted. Othello in its early years got 3-4 we heard, so that was better than average, but it seems to have slipped back to average. Northshore is struggling at 0.6, and Juanita at 1.6.
The cost of Access I’ve heard is around $40 per passenger, while most of these Flex zones seem to be $5-10 less. Access clients can also get discount taxi vouchers. Metro encourages Access clients to prefer the taxi vouchers or Metro Flex over Access vans when it meets their needs.
I think Metro Flex can be a better service if it was fully in house. Via has actually been utilized to take away fixed route service in numerous towns across the US and they provide the only form of public transit to the largest city in the nation with zero public transit, Arlington Texas. Arrington Texas is home to Six Flags over Texas the Texas Rangers and the Dallas Cowboys but zero public transit except for a service operated by via.
Taking away portions of a flex zone where there is no alternative means more people will drive and people in for example Finn Hill cannot use metroplex to get to the grocery store nor were they able to use it to get down into St Edwards State Park originally.
So again taking away service is making the system worse. Sure for Juanita Finn Hill Totem Lake we are losing Finn Hill and gaining the East half of Totem Lake but that doesn’t actively help as there are multiple bus routes over there already and there are none in the southern portions of Finn Hill outside of the 225 on 84th.
I have always wondered why there was no service in the evenings after 7:00 p.m. for Kenmore or Juanita / Finn Hill as some people might want to go to the grocery store before going home at Metro Flex would provide them more access to getting home easily then once an hour bus service in some parts of the area.
Also for every single zone that is not operated on the weekends I have one question, why? Is it a funding thing is it that historically those areas see less ridership on the weekends, what is it?
All I know is that I would use metroflex more if it functioned like King County Metro Dart rather than the crap that it is. I’m not against the service like this providing last Mile connections if those last mile connections stayed within X distance of a selection of fixed route bus routes such as a half mile radius around the entirety of the 225 or a quarter mile around the entire radius of the 930. Instead we have a zone where a good portion of the zone has zero fixed root service within a quarter mile and we’re getting rid of that entire area.
I really wish King County Metro would survey those who have used Flex to see what they think before doing any of these changes because it actively harms the community. Kirkland as an example needs way more bus service than it currently has but we’re now losing bus service not gaining despite getting place as many buses on the 225 on weekdays as we used to, before 8:00 p.m. to be fair.
So to wrap this up I believe that we should not be deleting any areas of the flex zones but instead working to get more drivers and working to make sure those drivers are properly trained on how to do the job they are being paid to do well also adding more areas as quickly as possible.
“I think Metro Flex can be a better service if it was fully in house.”
Not sure if it is true. The reason Via is wining so many markets in recent years is because it is more of a software company compared to traditional transit operation contractor. They not only provide contract drivers and vehicles, but also much better software than the dispatch system transit agencies traditionally uses, which was always the challenge for this kind of service.
Maybe a fleet of automated cars and it can be effective especially in lower density areas.
If everyone owns automated cars they can just have it deployed to pick up passengers all day, and make a quick buck.
Of course designed in a way to complement mass transit, and keep highways clear.
What is the total service budget for MetroFlex in each area, and what is the opportunity cost of it in conventional bus hours. For instance if the Flex area around Totem Lake were replaced with nothing, how much extra bus service could it buy on routes 225 or 239?
To be brutally honest, Flex is just not an efficient form of transportation, to the point where, for anyone with a car, it is more efficient for them to just drive it, and even people without cars, it is more efficient for them to order a Lyft or Uber (if they can afford it). Even environmentally, I would argue that a Flex ride probably produces more pollution than just driving the gas guzzling SUV the passenger presumably already has (due to the deadheading and engine idling while waiting for passengers), unless the Flex vehicles are electric (which I’m assuming they are not).
Really, the only virtue of Flex is allowing people who can’t afford Uber to access areas they couldn’t reach otherwise for one-off trips. But, even then, there are alternatives, depending on how far you are willing to walk or whether you have access to a bike. For instance, if you look at the map, the vast majority of most of the Flex areas are within a 30 minute walk of a regular bus route. Sure, it’s nice not to have to walk, but is avoiding a 30 minute walk really worth a taxpayer subsidy of $45/ride? Unless the person is disabled, probably not. This is the problem with micro transit.
Given the general success of Waymo and efforts to shore up lingering their safety concerns, I see Metro Flex eventually shifting to driverless vehicles. They’ll probably be supplemental at first, but will shift mostly over to driverless. Instances still requiring drivers will be assigned to Metro Access instead.
I don’t know how long Flex drivers will be around but it feels temporary. Once the vehicles become driverless, I think it will be lots cheaper per trip to provide and that could lead to more areas being introduced to the service. It may even begin replacing low-productivity coverage routes.
I just don’t understand why the Metro Flex areas are precisely where there are King County Metro routes already in service.
Metro Flex should be added to areas with weak bus service so people can connect to them more easily.
Even if there’s a route in the area, it’s not necessarily within walking distance of every neighborhood.
The Crossroads flex area are because Metro deleted a portion of route 226 east of 164th Ave NE (where I grew up, in fact), and the areas between the B, 226, and 222 have spotty coverage (and it extends west to 120th, which an earlier Crossroads Connect pilot included).
The Rainier Valley flex area is for areas like Seward Park and Rainier View. It’s partly because Metro didn’t make the 50 more frequent instead.
The Tukwila one is for areas like the Seatac Botanical Garden/Community Center and 24th Ave S, which are a distance from the 128 and further from the 124.
In each case, Metro is trying to solve a problem people and politicians have complained about. So it partly reflects the political weight of those complaints vs others. Some of the flex zones seem to be more arbitrary or have more arbitrary boundaries than others.
They all need fixed-route anchors for transfers out of the area.
The piece uses the verb “complement”. Metro says that, but it does not seem so. Before March 2023, Via and Pingo were used to compete with local fixed route service. They complemented Link and Sounder and any remaining express routes. After March 2023, the back room computing power was used to deny trips on Metro Flex that were better on fixed route. Both fixed route service and Metro Flex rides include walking, waiting, and in-vehicle times. Metro Flex includes the possibility of deviation. None of the Ride2, Via, Pingo, or Metro Flex services have made fiscal sense. Metro acknowledged that Ride2 was a fiscal failure; have the Metro Flex pilots been any better? No. Though the Metro text in the system evaluation reports says that Metro Flex is applied to areas in which fixed route service does not work well, most of them have it, so they are competing. Consider SE Seattle, Skyway, Renton, Kent, part of Tukwila, West Seattle. Some new coverage was provided; see Tukwila community center and West Marginal Way South. Most was redundant and competing coverage.
Consider Lynnwood Link Connections, fall 2024. The project set up Route 331 and Flex to compete with one another. Both had weak designs; both will fail. Consider the South Link project to be implemented in 2026. It will add Metro Flex atop routes 915 and 184; this will degrade productivity.
Consider the Kenmore anchor. Flex will retract from Mountlake Terrace Link. Route 522 will eventually be absorbed into Stride3. In fall 2026, with the shift of Route 522 to South Shoreline and changes to routes 72 and 77, will Route 372 be deleted? Was Route 225 reduced to hourly headway in fall 2023? Does Route 225 resemble a fishing knot in Totem Lake? Route 322 is weak; it is slowed by revive I-5? It competes with Link.
There are many areas of the county with no fixed route service at all. Could Metro Flex be applied there? Could fixed routes be truncated and Metro Flex applied to the tails?
Via may be partially owned by Uber.
I am a loyal satisfied user of Metro Flex in the Northshore area. I depend on it to get down to the bus stop (372) to go to the UW several times/week. This week, I find out that my whole area has been removed! I’m losing it next week!
I would like to persuade Metro to set the western boundary of Northshore to 35th NE or even west of that. The new boundary is 40th NE. There is no way to get from 35th NE to 40th NE because of the topography (big ridge!) None of the roads go through.
Please change the boundary of the Northshore area so I can get down to the bus stop on Bothell Way!
KC Metro is 10x the size of the next largest transit provider in the region, yet they’ve been the trailblazer in the Puget Sound region for micro transit. I commend them for delving into this arena long before other transits rather than throwing taxpayer dollars into expensive advertising campaigns where the biggest outcome is the money spent, not minds changed. Microtransit, once the barrier of “how do I use it” becomes overcome by the less savvy riders and non-riders, which is a steep learning curve that requires partnerships with management at common destination, is a golden opportunity to get new riders.
If we’re doing micro transit, it should be using cheaper automated EVs (like Waymo), and have limited trip options that are primarily designed to integrate with transit. It should not be door to door service either.
It should only be allowed for trips that connect with transit, and short distances. Basically get people to their nearest bus stop or P&R, so they can reliably take transit to their destination. A small fleet of vehicles should be able to service a community.
Metro Flex should not be a taxpayer subsidized Uber, which mostly teens are just using for free.