Ridership Patterns for Community Transit Routes 201 and 202

37 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for Community Transit Routes 201 and 202”

1. Can’t wait for this to get a significant bump in ridership once the proposed CT-ET merger goes through. Seems like it will be a real workhorse.

   1. With a CT-ET merger, I would like to see a Swift Gold Line extension down Broadway to Everett Mall Way to Hwy 99 following the path of the Swift Blue Line (similar to how the 1/2 lines overlap) for higher frequencies (and faster travel time to Everett Station) as well as to respond to the upcoming surbarea plans of the College District (Edmonds College) and Hwy 99 (Lynnwood/Edmonds) whereas north of Everett Mall Way there’s not much development. The extension would also serve the future Hub @ Everett. It would also replace the ET 7.

      1. With such an extension, then Everett Station itself starts to become a very annoying detour, which begs the question of why Everett Station is such an important transfer to begin with. It also begs the question of, rather than detouring buses to Everett Station, it makes more sense for other buses that serve Everett Station to extend to downtown Everett, allowing the same bus connections to happen there, instead. For example, if the 512, 271, etc. all extended to downtown Everett, then Swift Gold could continue south on Rucker/SR-99, skipping Everett Station, while still offering the same connections.

         Of course, this would involve a large, controversial restructure involving multiple agencies, so I would give this very low odds of actually happening.

         1. 201/202’s data indicates that there is good amount of deboarding at Everett Station. Imagine a SWIFT Gold that doesn’t go to Lynnwood, there might be even fewer people skipping Everett. Everett Station is an important transfer because it has commuter/Amtrak and park and ride and relatively convenient access to I-5 express lane.

            I don’t see straighten SWFIT Gold helping many people. For those taking 512 transferring SWIFT Gold, that’s still a detour. You just past the C curve from SWIFT Gold to 512.

         2. A minimum condition for SWIFT Gold not serving Everett Station would include other routes that currently end there extending to downtown Everett. Thus, a person looking to connect to the 512 would still be able to make the same connection, just at a different location. Such a restructuring would also eliminate some other transfers, like Lynnwood to downtown Everett, but would require an increase in service hours to do it without service cuts.

            Even then, some people making connections would likely still object to having their connection be out on a street corner, as opposed to an off-street transit center with an attached restroom at the Amtrak station. Especially those who might have a 45-minute wait for an hourly bus.

            However, it cannot be avoided that transit centers come with tradeoffs. Buying and maintaining the facility costs takes some nonzero amount of money away from service, so having a transit center implies some (albeit small) frequency reduction on some routes. It also imposes longer trips on every passenger passing through the area, whether they are actually transferring or not – even if you’re staying on the bus, it still gobbles up precious time going in and out of the bus bays, especially if the bus is coming off the freeway and must wait at a bunch of stoplights to get to it. That’s why CT is running the Stanwood bus all day, as it’s primary purpose is not really about Stanwood, but offering *Marysville* residents an opportunity to bypass the slowness serving Everett Station in connecting to Link.

         3. I like Scooby’s suggestion but I don’t see that happening. Ending at Everett Station is quite reasonable given the ridership numbers*. Ridership south of there (along Broadway) is not particularly strong. One of the main reasons cities have transit centers is for bus layovers — might as well use this one.

            In contrast, I could see buses from the south being extended to the college. Those buses should not detour to Everett Station. Everett Station is not a big enough destination by itself to justify the detour. There is a train station there but my guess is very few people transfer from the bus to the train. There is a big parking lot as well but there are a lot of places to park if you are taking the bus in Everett. I think it is primarily a bus-to-bus transit station. Riders would be better off transferring on the street and avoiding the detour.

            Ideally you provide a grid. I don’t see that happening in Everett. I think you are bound to serve a handful of north-south corridors and that’s it. I think the best approach in that case is not a central transit center but several doglegging routes.

            At a minimum I would have the Everett Transit 7 (an otherwise excellent route) skip the detour to the station. I would also extend the 512 up to the college via Pacific and Colby. This means both the 7 and 512 dogleg east-west while they primarily go north-south. The 512 would replace the 19. There are plenty of other details to be worked out, but that would be the basic idea.

            *It is possible that a high percentage of the people transferring at Everett Station are headed to the 7, 8 or Swift (and would thus benefit from an extension) but I doubt that many are headed to just one corridor.

   2. How does this currently work with CT & ET separate? CT route the route through Everett but mostly avoids stopping? How does ET handle this corridor?

      1. The 201/202 run through Everett and such a merger would increase connectivity with the 201/202 (which more connections would be possible if we would transfer from CT to CT not ET to CT). If a merger would happen, maybe the 201/202 can make ALL the stops on Broadway and the 7 can not even exist. The 7’s path through Evergreen/Rucker would be covered by the Swift Blue Line (which would get infills along the path to recover from the 7’s loss) and the Everett Mall Way portion would be covered by the Swift Gold Line. The only transfer that would be challenging is Evergreen Way to Everett Mall Way but that’s not that challenging with a 112th transfer, a bus route transfer (one that goes along 7th Ave to Casino Rd), and/or taking a bus along 4th Ave W to the Swift Blue Line.

      2. The reason the 201/202 makes only a few stops in Everett is because Everett is not part of the CT district. The stops that remain are for the benefit of CT riders going to Everett or transferring to ET. It can’t just have no way for Marysville/Arlington constituents to get to the largest city and the county seat at all.

         The 201/202 is also predicated on there being no Swift Gold line, because that would make the northern half of the route redundant.

         So when Swift Gold comes, and if the CT/ET merger happens, the 201/202 will have to be restructured somehow. CT and ET have said the merger would lead to a significant increase in transit service in Everett. The reason it’s so low now is ET’s tax rate is so low. The City of Everett has long resisted a merger, saying in the 2010s that Everett residents are lower-income on average and can’t afford the higher CT tax rate. But now that budget limitations are threatening ET’s viability if it doesn’t merge, the city has become more open to a merger.

         But neither CT nor ET have said what the CT routes in Everett would be. Would CT just take over ET routes and add frequency? But most CT routes are much longer than ET routes. So would it create hybrid Everett/non-Everett routes? Would it add stops to the 201/202? Would Everett have a wholesale restructure? Would some CT routes be extended to go through Everett? I have no idea. I assume a wholesale restructure and hybrid routes is the most likely outcome.

         In the case of Swift Blue, ET is paying CT for the part of the route and stations in Everett; the route is a joint partnership. The Gold is likely similar. So these can just continue under the merger.

         The Gold Line map has five stations in Everett on Broadway between Everett Ave and 12th Street, in addition to the stations on Pacific Ave and Everett Station. Are these not in the best location? Don’t they serve downtown Everett and Everett CC adequately? I’ve only been to the Everett CC area once, when I transferred to the 4th of July shuttle. From Google Maps, it looks like the Gold should add a station on Broadway between 10th & Tower St. Or possibly detour to Trojan Way, but that may slow it down too much. It would probably be fairly easily to convince CT to add a college station on the way; it did so on Swift Blue at 200th/204th, because 196th was a rather long walk to the college. It would be harder to convince CT to reroute it, since that would break existing promises and may add to some trips’ travel time.

         1. I’ve heard from multiple sources that the routes would be based off the work in the More Transit Together report and ET’s latest LRP. A merger could potentially fufill most of ET’s LRP decades ahead of schedule.

            It should be noted that consolidation is being considered now because of the city realizing via a study that it needs to vastly up their transit investments. Even if the city maxes out their authority with a 2030 vote instead of consolidation, a lot of routes would not even be 30 mins in the 2040’s and we wouldn’t see the increased coverage that the MTT report demonstrates. Consolidation may prove to be an important boon for the area to be ready for future growth.

         2. ET long-range plan.

            So would these simply become short CT routes? Or are there many opportunities to attach them to other CT routes going beyond the city limits?

         3. From what I can tell, some will be like that. Others may get extended. We’d have to wait and see for when the draft Consolidated Transit Plans start coming out sometime later this year. No idea when that is going to happen, but I hope soon.

            Here’s that MTT report, its on the joint press release for the resumption of the Consolidation Study. Do note that it’s from 2023 so some things don’t quite match up.
            https://www.communitytransit.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/more-transit-together_final-report.pdf

2. I used to not know why the 109 overlapped the 201/202 on Ash Way between Mariner P&R and Ash Way P&R as the 201/202 were frequent but my prediction is that this tail was created to create an opportunity to transfer to the 109 from the 201/202 for people who originally transferred in Everett to Lake Stevens via the 280 or to Snohomish via the 270/271.

3. “These routes are the 4th and 5th busiest routes in Community Transit’s network, following the three Swift routes.”

   Hot take – this is why extending Link to Ash Way or Mariner is a good investment. Either terminus then becomes a major Link-bus transfer node serving 3 of the 5 busiest routes in the county. If the Mariner station includes a center lane exit, these routes can stay in the HOV lane and thereby be faster & more reliable. (Question – would these routes simply terminate at Mariner or is the local running between Mariner & Ash Way useful? )

   Suggestion – in exchange for deferring Link to Everett station, ST should offer to pay for extending the Gold line to Link (initially to Lynnwood, later to Ash Way/Mariner). CT will operate the line and pay for the service outside of the ST district. 201/202 would then go away entirely.

   1. I think Mariner is a fairly good extension; it has some of the highest residential density in the state outside of Seattle, and it seems like it would make a very good bus hub since it on fairly promising arterials for bus service (128th and 4th)

      https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html

   2. It has always been clear than an extension to Alderwood Mall and Ash Way would be relatively high performing, and I think it was part of earlier versions of Lynnwood Link. Mariner I’m not so sure of , but ST now thinks the 2 Line should reach Mariner, and maybe there’s merit in extending the 1/2 line service that far. One thing it would do is avoid the awkward transfer to the 201/202 to bridge the gap between Lynnwood and Mariner to get between Link and Swift Green.

   3. “I think Mariner is a fairly good extension; it has some of the highest residential density in the state outside of Seattle”

      Mariner has density? When I transferred there to Swift Green, I was disappointed to see one supermarket and a lot of surface parking lots, and lackluster housing. It looked like a place that might have potential in the future, but only if the city were to allow a lot of growth and discourage it from being car-centric.

      1. The built environment is maybe comparable to Crossroads in Bellevue, it’s suburban density, mostly stroads surrounded by lowrise walkup apartments/condos and strip malls. It’s not overly impressive but fairly strong by suburban standards. And numbers-wise, the density of the census tracts between 4th-SR 99 and 112th-Airport Rd is comparable to the junction in West Seattle.

         Here’s a typical street (on the Green Line) with walkup apartments on both sides:

         https://maps.app.goo.gl/52GjnRuMdPLb4fhv5

         And another, condos on both sides of the street:

         https://maps.app.goo.gl/6RsTkc58cNs48PRZA

         1. And expanding on that a bit: Mariner is (and has been for quite a long time) the densest residential cluster in Snohomish County. In retrospect I think it’s very disappointing that the Orange Line doubles up service in Mill Creek instead of heading to Mariner. It’s hard not to wonder whether that decision was made based on demographics. Mill Creek is a rich suburb, while Mariner is much more working class.

      2. At the block level, Mariner is quite dense at 10k to 30k per square mile. 30k per square mile at the block level is comparable to denser parts of mixed single family apartment areas in Seattle, but much less than somewhere like the Beacon Hill station block which has 160k per square mile. The block consisting of just the Seattle Spire (Denny/Wall/6th) has the highest in the state at 650k per square mile. 10k per square mile ranks as the 10th percentile of non-King County blocks state-wide, while 30k per square mile ranks in the 0.5th percentile. Data from OFM: https://ofm.wa.gov/data-research/population-demographics/estimates/small-area/

         All that to say it’s quite dense, and would probably justify an extension.

      3. Here is the latest Everett Link extension ridership from ST that I can find:

         https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/EVLE-factsheet-2026.pdf

         It shows that the three stations of Alderwood, Ash and Mariner added together are forecasted to have 11.1K riders. That’s more than an end station in Everett at 10.7K riders.

         The data can’t be taken too comparatively . Wherever the end station goes will get additional riders from feeder buses and such. So when Mariner opens, Lynnwood will lose riders, and if Mariner was the end station it would get lots more riders (similar to how Lynnwood today does) than these forecasts suggest.

         (Note that ST info doesn’t include how many riders Lynnwood will lose if Everett Link extension opens in this fact sheet, by the way.)

         Anyway, these three intermediate stations will get about 2/3 of all extendions’s intermediate station ridership. (I’m excluding Downtown Everett because it’s an end station and gets a ridership bump for that reason.)

         Among the interim stations, Ash Way and Mariner have the highest ridership (4.6K each) among the intermediate stations by far. That wouldn’t happen unless there was a reasonable amount of density to walk too. Compare that to the paltry 1.5K for the stop in the SW Everett industrial district.

   4. “These routes are the 4th and 5th busiest routes in Community Transit’s network, following the three Swift routes.”

      Hot take – this is why extending Link to Ash Way or Mariner is a good investment.

      I have the opposite take. These buses don’t carry that many people. A high proportion of these riders never go south of Everett. Of those, a significant number go between Everett and Mariner. That trip wouldn’t change (unless they added a center-lane exit, as you suggested)*. More to the point, less than 100 riders board the bus headed south from Mariner. Even fewer board at Ash Way. To be fair, Ash Way competes with ST buses on that trip (Mariner doesn’t).

      Overall this is what you would expect. Transit ridership in Snohomish County is both low and spread out. This makes sense given the development in the county. These are areas much better suited for two models. One is Swift Gold. This will be a limited stop express bus that doesn’t cost that much to operate and yet ties together a very large, sprawling area. The other is regular bus service, like the 101. Light rail can operate like either if there is enough demand to justify it (or you have old tracks you can leverage). But we don’t run light rail that way. Link is an expensive, full fledged subway line with wide stop spacing. Unfortunately, this area is inappropriate for that. It lacks density and proximity. There aren’t that many people headed to Seattle because it is too far. There aren’t that many people headed to other Link destinations because they aren’t that dense either. Again, this is relative. But look at the Mariner station area. There are some apartments along 128th on both sides of the road. But they are not particularly concentrated — they are spread out along the road. The retail is also spread out. Parking lots dominate the landscape, both for retail and housing. To access a lot of the parking lots you have additional roadways. There are similar places in King County (like this) that have no bus service at all. In contrast, compare the Mariner area with Downtown Edmonds. Edmonds has a lot more retail and housing density along with less surface parking and roadway. It is a real destination as well (if transit was better I would visit it more often). Mariner and Ash Way are basically just crossroads with big parking lots and a bit of density. If you are building a line anyway then for sure you would add stations there. But as an extension it just isn’t worth it. You would be much better off just improving the bus system.

      *They could add a center-lane exit for Mariner with or without a station. Given ST’s economic situation, it seems more likely without a station (as a substitute). It doesn’t look trivial. In contrast, it would be trivial to add a center-lane exit for Ash Way. Most of the work is already done. It could benefit riders with or without a Link extension.

4. Ash way and Mariner are used very differently. As a resident 10 minutes away from the two, during weekdays, ash way is ALWAYS busy during weekdays. It is located close to alot of places yet is still far from many residential area (most of it is across the highway). I think ash way is used more of a commuter or transfer lot, as people take the OR, 112, 121, or 166 to go to bigger centers that are closeby but far and terrible for walking. Mariner seems to be closer to a center and more residential areas, so alot of its ridership is more walking rather than driving. I notice that NO ONE ever parks at mariner really, and the massive lot is always quite empty except for 2-3 cars. People just prefer to park at other park and rides that are closeby such as ash way and mccollum park. I also think that either the 201 or 202 between the park and rides should deviate to serve the martha lake community across the highway, rather than just lake stickney. They currently drive down ash way which logically makes sense, but meadow rd is a very similar shape to ash way that is across the highway and is very isolated from any transit. That entire area has 1 outlet at the top on 128th St and one at the bottom ar 164th st, which are both an hour to 1.5 hour walk. This would help the community have some transit atleast.

   1. My friend in north Lynnwood has a choice of either walking 40 minutes to Ash Way P&R, or walking 20 minutes to the 119 and taking it to the P&R, to take a bus to Lynnwood station, to take Link to Roosevelt, U-District, or Capitol Hill. It takes as long to walk to Ash Way P&R as it does to walk to a supermarket, so she does most of her shopping in Seattle where the stores are close to Link stations. She also likes taking the Orange+Blue to things near Edmonds College. She says Ash Way seems busy to her, and the Lynnwood station P&R is always full in the morning so people have to find other P&Rs or other ways to get around.

      She takes the 119 when she can, but that fails when the 119 won’t come for an hour. I said she can take it the other way and it will go around to Mountlake Terrace station eventually, but she said both directions come at about the same time so it’s not worth trying to take it the other direction.

      Somebody here suggested it would be ideal if the 119 were simply extended to Lynnwood station; then it wouldn’t be a 3-seat ride to get to Seattle. But who knows when CT might ever consider doing that.

      1. “Somebody here suggested it would be ideal if the 119 were simply extended to Lynnwood station; then it wouldn’t be a 3-seat ride to get to Seattle.

         I don’t see that as ideal, not as ideal as extending the 269 to Mercer Island so that Sammamish riders don’t have to take three buses in order to get to Seattle. That would also be a really weird pre-2012 75-esque route where the bus route goes from two destinations that would rather be done on a more direct route. And how would the 119 get to Lynnwood? I’ll assume via I-5, that’s less ideal now.

         “But who knows when CT might ever consider doing that.”

         Probably never. If light rail to Ash Way is 11 years from now, I doubt they’d do that in those 11 years. Is the 119 to 512 market really that popular? I one time did that instead of taking a southbound 119 because it was raining and had got snacks at QFC with my friend. I was trying to get to the Mountlake Terrace Library that day, and I didn’t mind the time I only minded the wetness. If they’ll begin engagement on Everett Link Extension restructures I’d say in 2032 at the latest then we know they’re not gonna do that in 6 years. It takes FOREVER for Community Transit to roll out bus restructures and they haven’t done so in the past 4 years though they did tell me they were gonna present restructures in Spring 2026 for the public to give feedback on but they haven’t done so.

      2. “I don’t see that as ideal, not as ideal as extending the 269 to Mercer Island so that Sammamish riders don’t have to take three buses in order to get to Seattle.”

         The issue is the principle that local bus routes should go to Link stations if Link is the primary metro circulator it is. All of Chicago’s bus routes go to an L station somewhere as far as I can tell. You can’t always do this but you should try. Having a gap where taking Link is a minimum 3-seat ride is to be avoided if at all possible. It’s not always feasible. In South King County Link is only in the western half. The eastern half is so far from it that it’s difficult for non-east-west routes to get to Link, or for 2-seat bus+Link trip to Seattle to take less than an hour. But in the 119’s case, the Ash Way terminus is just two miles from Lynnwood station and it would be relatively straightforward to extend it to it. The 119 is one of the most disadvantaged routes in CT’s network, so that in itself is reason to improve it.

         “That would also be a really weird pre-2012 75-esque route where the bus route goes from two destinations that would rather be done on a more direct route.”

         U-shaped and L-shaped routes have purposes that may not be apparent at first glance. The purpose isn’t for passengers to go all the way around the U: that would be silly when there’s a much shorter route straight across. It’s really two routes interlined, or three routes interlined. Ballard to Northgate, and Sand Point to both Northgate and the U-District. When the U existed I thought it was stupid and should be split. But when it was split, I saw how that added overhead friction for trips across the middle, such as Lake City to Aurora or Greenwood. If the ridership turns over almost completely at the center stop, then it’s a good split. If a significant amount of the ridership goes through the center, then maybe splitting it isn’t such a great idea. I’m not saying the U-shaped 75 was excellent or that it should definitely be revived, but that splitting it had tradeoffs that perhaps weren’t sufficiently realized at the time. To some extent, the 61 now mitigates some of the split, since it connects Lake City to Aurora and Greenwood.

         The 119 is a U-shaped route, so the first thing to look at is whether its real function is as a route from Ash Way P&R to Edmonds College, and from Edmonds College to Mountlake Terrace station. I know little about the travel patterns and needs west of Jefferson Way, so I can only guess.

         Another issue is that Chicago is flat and has a full street grid in all directions, so bus routes are straight, from one end of the city to the other. Seattle and Pugetopolis is full of geographic barriers that hinder this, and the development patterns are such that commercial centers and transfer hubs that people are going to are scattered at random in a sea of residential-only low density, so routes have to turn and twist to reach them. And the bus agencies have very limited resources, so they try to make one route do two or three things to avoid leaving out one or two of them. This is how you end up with so many U-shaped and L-shaped routes: trying to serve all those corridors with fewer routes.

         The 62 is a very interesting L-shaped route. Nobody should take it from downtown to Magnuson Park: it’s a long and winding 55 minutes. But it’s immensely popular for a lot of overlapping trips between downtown, SLU, Fremont, Latona, Geenlake, Roosevelt, NE 65th Street, and Sand Point. If you split it as some have suggested at Roosevelt Station or Fremont, you throw off a lot of 1-5 mile trips through those points, and the benefit doesn’t seem to be worth it.

         “And how would the 119 get to Lynnwood? I’ll assume via I-5, that’s less ideal now.”

         I-5 would seem to be the best, since the primary issue is travel time. It should maybe be one of several restructures in the north Lynnwood area; I’m not an expert on that.

         “It takes FOREVER for Community Transit to roll out bus restructures and they haven’t done so in the past 4 years”

         Didn’t you like the Lynnwood Link restructure?

      3. “not as ideal as extending the 269 to Mercer Island so that Sammamish riders don’t have to take three buses in order to get to Seattle”

         The primary issue in Sammamish was just getting an all-day bus route in Sammamish at all. The fact that it got a sweet deal to Mercer Island station too was icing on the cake.

         And that’s a case of creating an all-day route or substantially increasing its frequency. We aren’t proposing that for the 119; we’re just asking for it to be extended to Lynnwood station.

      4. The issue isn’t just that CT doesn’t do the extension, or didn’t do in the Lynnwood Link restructure. I understand that CT has limited service hours, , and adding this extension might take needed hours away from another route, and it may not be possible to do a larger restructure in a win-win way while including a 119 extension. It’s also that CT doesn’t recognize this as an important problem in the transit network, and at least acknowledge it. It affects everyone in the northern part of the 119’s rideshed. It’s not just a matter of getting the agencies to do transit best practices; it’s also getting them to recognize what they are and acknowledge them. Once they acknowledge them, then it will be on their mind to solve it, and maybe they can find another way to solve it or some resources to. But you won’t find it unless you start looking for it.

      5. “The eastern half is so far from it that it’s difficult for non-east-west routes to get to Link, or for 2-seat bus+Link trip to Seattle to take less than an hour. ”

         That was the problem on the Eastside too until the 2 Line opened.

         A short 5 mile extension from Rainier Beach to South Renton/Renton Downtown/Landing/Southport would do wonders, and highly doubt would be too expensive if it remains elevated or at grade. Easy connection with Stride as well.

         Kent/Auburn ideally needs Sounder all day, but if not 167 express buses can do… Similar to how I-90 is coming along (Route 269 style routes).

      6. “A short 5 mile extension from Rainier Beach to South Renton/Renton Downtown/Landing/Southport would do wonders, and highly doubt would be too expensive if it remains elevated or at grade.”

         And that’s what we’ve been trying to get in Renton too, for the same reason. A route from Seattle that goes through to eastern Renton where most of the population lives. A 106/105 route would do just that. Why is the 105 so short? It’s not like everything you need in the Highlands is on the 105. And connecting Seattle to southeast Renton (Tablot/Benson/East Hill corridor) also makes sense. Extending the 160/I to Rainier Beach station would do that. Metro is planning an 106/105 variation (splitting the 106 at Rainier beach). It hasn’t acknowledged the need to extend the 160 yet. I wouldn’t extend a route to The Landing because I’m concerned that might overlap with RapidRide F too much. But a route from Rainier Beach could do “something else” in north Renton, such as something around the 240’s corridor.

      7. Extending the 119 to Lynnwood would be fairly cheap. You might as well. The same is true with the 109. Basically if you are bus coming from the north and planning on ending at Ash Way, you might as well keep going to Lynnwood. It is a quick ride, as there are ramps from both locations that connect to the HOV lanes.

         In contrast, there is no connection from Ash Way Park and Ride to the north. To get from Ash Way to Everett the 512 has to leave the parking lot and take three left turns — each involving a traffic light — and travel almost a mile before finally getting as far north as when it started. Obviously it would be great if they added ramps to the north. It wouldn’t take much — they already have the stub work in place (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vc2HbpweLuw2FbU57). But until then, the 512 should simply skip Ash Way. Riders trying to go from Ash Way to Everett can take the 201/202 (which elegantly avoids this problem by serving Mariner, Ash Way itself and the ramps at 128th). The 512 would be significantly faster. The drawback is that riders would have fewer trips from Ash Way to Lynnwood. Fortunately, extending the 109 and 119 would help backfill service there. (The ST also runs between there and there are other options for ST to add more service if they feel it is justified.) Ideally these changes would happen at the same time but that requires cooperation between the agencies. Fortunately, these changes can happen independently.

5. Thanks for the info, now I can cook up a restructure for Swift Gold Line based on these ridership numbers:

   Observations I made:
   – Both the 201/202 do well when they overlap. Though when they part ways, the ridership decreases.
   – The highest ridership stop on the 201 when it’s on it’s own is at State & 116th. Whereas the 202 does best when it’s alone at 43rd & 171st, which is a fairly new stop.
   – A lot of people based on the data don’t seem to continue past Everett Station on the 201/202 which is a good reason to split the corridor with the Swift Gold Line.
   – Most of the ridership on the 201/202 occurs between Everett Station and Lynnwood City Center, which that ridership will eventually be gobbled up with Everett Link Extension. The stops on Ash Way don’t seem to be doing well, though that deviation exists to serve Mariner P&R otherwise it would result in a really weird deviation off I-5 to 128th to Mariner P&R and then back to I-5 headed north which would really slow down travel times due to the time it takes to leave I-5 and then get back on it again multiple times. It’s better off to serve Ash Way as that way we don’t slow down travel times and we at least scoop up Lake Stickney, an underserved community.
   – Smokey Point Blvd seems stronger in terms of ridership than 51st Ave, though it won’t take long in order for those single-family residents to transfer to public transit with BRT around the corner. I’m sure they’re aiming for future growth not for current ridership, though I knew Shoultes/51st would be the low hanging fruit when CT was picking the Swift Gold alignment through Marysville as it’s already served by the 202.

   I’ll start work on the restructure soon and send it to Community Transit so they can review it. It’s just that I was thinking of posting it here but I don’t wanna rush through it and sound like I don’t know what I’m doing.

   1. Most of the ridership on the 201/202 occurs between Everett Station and Lynnwood City Center

      I’m not sure if that is true. I don’t have the actual numbers, but just by estimating the ridership it looks like there is more ridership to the north. I’m basing the estimate on the southbound alightings. It looks close. Anyway, not that it matters much. I am just a little surprised at how well the 201/202 does north of Mariner. It isn’t a big shuttle to Link as might be assumed. To be fair, it competes with the 512 on trips from Everett to Lynnwood.

6. IMO, what CT and ET are contemplating is not a “merger,” as while that meets the definition of “a combination of two things,” that implies that each side gets something from it, when in fact, that’s not the case.
   CT is acquiring ET: its staff, its buses, its bases, etc. Everett loses its local control of its service, the same argument that CT used when it was in danger of being acquired as part of a regional system a few years ago such as Tri-Met in the Portland area. Everett’s representation/control will shrink from 7 Everett councilmembers out of 7 people with oversight to a less-than-proportionate 1 Everett board member who has equal say on Everett routes to 11 others who don’t live in, have an interest in, aren’t put into office by citizens of, Everett. It would become much like Sound Transit’s board, where Renton got bypassed for light rail in large part to not having an ST board member when that decision was made. Issaquah, with less than 1/2 the population of Renton, but which had the Vice Chair of the ST board, did get light rail. We currently are watching ST board members arguing for their constituents, who elect them, and not holistically, the latter what their board position is supposed to do. Meanwhile, the transportation sales tax for residents doubles, matching the highest in the state (Intercity/Thurston County), but the only transit in WA at 1.2% with fares as well, and CT’s fares are double ET’s for seniors/disabled and 25% higher for adults. Lastly, and more importantly, Everett’s voters would get this imposed on them, not too unlike mid-decade redistricting in “red” states/authoritanism, in this case thanks to a sweetheart end-around by state senator Marko Liias.

   1. There’s a basic tradeoff between smaller city agencies vs larger county agencies. Smaller agencies have more local control, but they may have bad integration between the cities, or one city may have really good transit while the neighboring city is hostile to transit or neglects to maintain it. This affects people who live and work in different cities in the same metropolitan area, or go to adjacent cities for shopping or activities. This is especially common in American suburban areas where the suburbs are so small. Each community needs to decide what’s important to them, and have a realistic view of what their residents’ needs are as opposed to what they imagine their needs are, and to consider the quality of the specific cities and transit agencies.

      “CT used when it was in danger of being acquired as part of a regional system a few years ago”

      What regional system? There was never any proposal to combine CT and Sound Transit, or CT and Metro. What other larger regional entity is there? Skagit Transit is a small rural agency.

      Community Transit is a transit benefit district (TBD), which under state law is an arbitrary area that votes to tax itself for transit services. Most agencies here are TBDs. Metro is unusual in being a department of King County, and the County Council votes on restructures and fare policies and expansions. The Seattle Transit Measure (STM) is a TBD that raises money to buy additional service from Metro.

      Sound Transit was explicitly created to provide “regional transit” and complement the local agencies, not to absorb them or combine with them. Sound Transit is a unique situation with a unique goverance/representation system, a unique kind of mandate, and a unique relationship to the cities/counties. None of that applies to CT.

      Tri-Met is a different model, where the entire metropolitan area is under one transit authority. That may be good or bad, depending on the quality of the agency and whether it has the right priorities.

      Everett Transit has expressly failed at providing frequent transit for decades. Everett should have 15-minute service full time, given its size and international transit standards and the needs of any city’s population. Instead it has mostly hourly service, and has done nothing to improve that for decades while its residents and visitors suffer with limited non-car mobility choices. So that’s what Everett has done with its local control.

      What is Community Transit’s quality? We see it in the cities it already provides transit in: Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace. Its network has gotten much better than it was in the 80s, with straighter routes, with a transit center/shopping center at both ends of most routes where feasible, and more gridded service. The frequency and routes are gradually improving as CT gets incremental resources to do it. So that’s what Everett under CT would probably be like, and how its future would evolve.

      I don’t know who runs CT. Is it a separately-elected board? Are the members from subdistricts or at large? Those would be questions to ask.

      “the transportation sales tax for residents doubles, matching the highest in the state (Intercity/Thurston County), but the only transit in WA at 1.2% with fares as well, and CT’s fares are double ET’s for seniors/disabled and 25% higher for adults.”

      You have to increase taxes to get more transit service. That’s the money that funds it. The service is severely needed and essential. Everett’s current network leaves people without cars or who can’t drive largely stuck, only able to access a minimal circle of jobs and services, and wasting a lot of time to get to them. It’s so minimal most people won’t even use it and instead drive and demand large parking minimums. That has distorted Everett’s land use.

7. 905 needs to have longer service hours and add service for Sundays.
   It takes way too long for 201 and 202 to go through all the Marysville stops and traffic to get to Lynnwood.

   Either that or extend 512 from Everett station up to Smokey Point.

   Smokey Point transit station needs to be come a real Park and Ride.

8. This is a really interesting breakdown of how these two routes function more like a “paired trunk corridor” than separate services, especially with how the stops around Everett, Mariner, and Ash Way shape demand.

Comments are closed.