Community Transit ran its last bus to Seattle

81 Replies to “Community Transit ran its last bus to Seattle”

1. Thanks to everyone that rode the last 424 trip! Besides the guy almost loosing his wallet, it was one of my enjoyable bus trips I have taken. Although link is consistent, buses into Seattle can be faster and has a very different range of people who use it and prefer it. Still having the option to take the bus to Seattle rather than just link should still be an option. It also comes to me that the new options are less accessible in a way, with people who use wheelchairs having to take a bus, unload, then get up into link. In the bus, you also have the bus driver who can help you with thinks unlike link. RIP Rt. 424.

   1. Also did anyone notice the ex-community transit sound transit DE60LFR’s (Such as 9557) back in service but for pierce transit? What’s up with that?

      1. Pantograph says 9557 was last seen August 2024.
         It would be great if they could arrange transfer of some freeway express fleet to Sound Transit Pierce County service. Right now CT has to many of them not put to good use.

      2. Ok I just spot a deadhead D60LFR of same batch you mentioned heading south on I-5 north of Federal Way. Are they all transferred to ST Pierce Country service?

      3. 9557 and I believe 9558 are property of Pierce Transit for ST as of middle of last year, they were originally scheduled to return to service last September, then December, then March, and finally late May, but they ran into continual issues with wiring harnesses, wheelchair ramps, lights burning out prematurely, and other issues that needed to be addressed before they could get returned to service…..9557 seemingly was ready and did runs today, 9558 isn’t far off from what I know.

   2. Starting to see more of a reason for King County Metro to run the 256 to UW station, rather than downtown now. If everything is redirected to Bellevue, UW trips are effectively cut off, or made significantly longer.

      1. That would make Ross happy. He’s been pushing for a Woodinville-405-UW all-day express. It would complement the upcoming Stride 2 and provide a more complete transit network for the northwest Eastside.

         1. Yep.

         2. Similarly Stride 1 needs a better complement route than just the 111.

         3. Route 256 is very poor. It has earned a low grade for all concerned.

      2. Even along SR 522 delay is concerning and that is not gonna change with 908

2. “Community Transit plans to retire its entire double decker fleet over the next decade as the coaches age.”

   I guess this doesn’t impact fleet replacement decision of ST 510/512, does it?

   1. No, those are ST buses. CT has some double deckers for its own commuter services that it’ll phase out.

   2. I’m hoping they transfer them over to ST so they can be repurposed for other express routes. Pierce County could use some double deckers for its 574 and 594 service.

      1. Same here. They are just better suit for freeway express routes to Pierce County.

3. As of Route 424 cancellation, there appears to be no more 4## series routes left. Is that correct?

   If so, is it time to rethink the regional numbering system? I’m not recommending anything specific, but I am raising the question because it was a quick way to distinguish different bus service areas. It appears that there are several leading digits with no or few bus routes, and other leading digits like 1## that have duplicate route numbers.

   Some could argue that bus route numbering systems could be more irrelevant now that Link is here. Still others like the orderliness of a numbering system.

   1. Each agency uses the numbering pools differently.

      Metro uses 1-99 for Seattle routes, 100-199 for south King County routes, 200-299 for Eastside routes, and 300-399 for north King County routes. 400-499 was the Snohomish-Seattle express routes when Metro operated them. 600-999 are special services (vans, school routes, Link shadow number).

      Community Transit uses 100-199 for the core Everett-to-MT area, 200-299 for outlying areas, and 900-999 for expresses to Link (or “expresses” with airquotes as some of them have been called).

      Pierce Transit uses 1-9 for aspiring-but-not-yet BRT routes, 10-99 for core Tacoma routes, 100-199 for Gig Harbor routes, 200-299 for far south routes, 400-499 for Puyallup/east routes, and 500-501 for Federal Way routes.

      So Sound Transit chose 510-599 for ST Express since it wasn’t used by the other agencies, politely skipping over PT’s 500 and 501. The first two digits tell which highway it serves; e.g., 54x is highway 520.

      I like the geographical numbering groups, even if they’re inconsistent across agencies. I’ve always thought Community Transit should use 1-99 to avoid having three-digit core routes. But there is an advantage with its 100-199 scheme, since it’s distinct from Seattle and north King County. South King County is so far away the transit market doesn’t overlap.

      1. Community Transit is reconsidering a merger with Everett Transit, that way the core Everett routes would become 1-99.

   2. Duplicate numbers has never been an actual problem for me or anyone I’ve heard of.

      Link 1 Line vs Metro route 1: only a small number of people care about a Queen Anne coverage route, and they can probably recognize it. Link riders are unlikely to thing a bus stop with “1” is Link, especially with large signs in front of the Link stations. PT route 1 is too far away from Link for confusion, and I haven’t heard of any even with Link at Federal Way and getting closer to Tacoma.

      1. If I’m not mistaken, every single transit agency in Western Washington, clear down to Portland and Astoria, has an overlapping connection of some sort. There’s no way to not have some reuse of numbering schemes among all those systems.

         1. Skagit Transit has to bridge the gap between Whatcom and Community Transit routes, so they have a smattering of 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx, 6xx and 7xx routes. There are only 19 routes, but they have to avoid conflicting numbers with ST, WT, CT, ET and IT in the locations where they overlap.

            Eg: Skagit Transit 513 doesn’t go anywhere near ST 513, so they’re not too bad. CT doesn’t serve Anacortes, so it’s OK the 400 routes from Island Transit and Skagit Transit are up there.

            It definitely is nice to not have the confusion. For some years, both TriMet and City of Canby operated a route 99 to Oregon City Transit Center.

      2. If downtown seattle roars back eventually, this vouls end up being somewhat shortsighted, but who knows how long that might take..

   3. Regional numbering is such a mess right now. The massive deletion of 4xx triggers use of 9xx which King Country Metro has been using for some DART routes.

      It is unlikely they will coordinate that way. Many other regions have similar problem and it doesn’t concern a lot of people if those routes don’t meet. It is not rare to see multiple systems have overlap in populous area, but I get there is some confusion sometimes.
      Is there any region in the US that actually make sure transit agencies’ route numbering are unique to each other? I know Bay Area put some effort to create consistent transit schedules and transit facilities branding, but I don’t think the effort has reached route number uniqueness.

      I know places overseas that actually took this very seriously, but it was made possible by unique governing structure. There is a consolidated regional planning agency that overseas service planning and it is the mastermind of the whole region’s fixed route numbering. Then it will select proper transit agency is to operate the service.

      1. The massive deletion of 4xx triggers use of 9xx which King Country Metro has been using for some DART routes.

         It’s OK though, because they don’t overlap. It doesn’t matter that Community Transit and DART both have a 901 since they serve dramatically different places (Federal Way and Lynnwood). DART does serve areas to the north but they start in the 930s. It is quite possible this was done on purpose. CT wanted to use the 900s and talked to Metro and as a result, Metro “gave” them everything under 930.

         In general the numbering system works just fine. As long you don’t have two routes with the same number serving the same area there is no confusion.

      2. Not just different places but different purposes. Somebody using a CT 9xx express route is very unlikely to use a Metro 9xx van in the lowest-usage corridors that only local residents go to.

      3. The closest overlap I recall, which is now gone with the restructure of Community Transit’s commuter service, was Community Transit’s Route 412 and Island Transit’s Route 412. One went from Silver First to Seattle, the other went from Camano Island to Everett.

   4. No, it’s not time to rethink a regional numbering system. 99% of even regular transit riders wouldn’t even be able to explain how the numbering system works. Almost no one is aware of it, or uses it. You’re describing an imaginary problem.

   5. My personal take is that number duplication of traditional all-day, two-way routes is probably fine.

      I do think though that higher numbers maybe should have a leading digit that differentiates a non-standard service though. For example, having all one-direction, peak-only services begin with a certain leading digit. Flex services can have another leading digit. Supplemental services like special school runs can have a third leading digit. Owl routes could have another leading digit.

      An alternative to that would be to use a letter for anything that’s not a local, two-way, all-day service. There’s a whole alphabet available.

      A good example is how someone has to look at a ST Express schedule to determine if a particular route is a two-way, all-day service or just a few one-direction runs at peak hours.

      Seasoned transit fans are pretty hip about getting how to determine what each route does. The use of a consistent numbering system is more for those who rarely ride or have trouble retaining what routes do.

4. Kudos to CM for cleanliness, something metro lags behind by miles. However their lines are still chaotic, redundant, poorly synchronized and fail to serve as feeders to Link as clearly demonstrated by the parking problems at garages due to the poor service for riders to skip driving to the garages. Maybe this is something they will fix or not, but the Seattle lines were a needless distraction when they clearly are by meeting expectations in their own region.

   1. Paul’s only acceptable bus is the one that picks him up at his door exactly when he wants it to and takes only him and his personal friends to directly to his destination. The operator must greet him with a smile and wave, and it should be at exactly the right temperature and have cleaner, fresher air inside than outside.

      1. I guess when you can’t fight the argument you make it personal. Thanks?

         1. Your “argument” is a statement of your subjective experience. You extensively complain about CT and Metro, but you never state what your expectation of an acceptable bus system would be. So, I assumed those standards and provided them for reference. Am I wrong?

            Your complaints may be valid, but you should consider sharing constructive criticism instead of constant complaints, if you will continue commenting here routinely.

   2. [CM routes] fail to serve as feeders to Link

      What? That is simply not true. CT has gotten rid of their express buses to Seattle (the 424 was the last one). Lynnwood Station serves 15 CT buses. Lynnwood Station has more buses to it than Everett Station! The only reason to do that is to serve Link. Mountlake Terrace serves four buses and even 185th Station (which is not in Snohomish County) serves the most popular bus route (the Blue Line). It doesn’t make sense for *every* bus to serve Link — that just wouldn’t work. CT does a very good job of connecting to Link, arguably better than ST itself (which still runs a lot of express buses to Seattle)!

      1. overflow parking at the garages proves the poor job CM is doing. It is a simple metric of effectiveness and CM is failing.

         1. You still have not set a goal post for what you want CT to do with its buses.

            Not timed to the trains is a nonsense argument on its face, when trains come every 4-5 minutes all day.

            Are you saying some lines need to be more frequent? Can you name them? What would you propose if you were a CT service planner?

5. It looks like Westlake tunnel station service booth reopened during world cup, after how long?

   1. Reminder that our latest open thread was yesterday’s Friday Roundtable: https://seattletransitblog.com/2026/06/12/friday-roundtable-free-downtown-bainbridge-shuttle/

      Tomorrow’s Sunday Movies will also be an open thread.

      1. Sorry. Please feel free to delete this comment.

6. Memories, as one who drove in the early days of Metro remember vividly going from Federal Way to Everett. Had a layover at 9th and Stewart then into Greyhound for the north leg. Did most trips with a 4104 GMC Traveler. Sitting for around 40 and a stick shift. Also we also hauled freight. 432 was the southend and 406 the north.
   1 hour service! Oh, don’t forget the manual door for the front, and only, exit. Today’s riders don’t realize how lucky they are.

   1. Freight????? For whom?

      This had to be early ’70’s?

      1. Metro hauled freight, it was a carry over from Metropolitan. We had specific pick up locations throughout King County and also Greyhoud Everett to Seattle. When the travelers were retired in 1977, no more freight.

7. Going to miss the 424, it was my second most loved CT commuter route, with my top favorite being the 422.

   Hoping CT can introduce service into the Maltby, Clearview, Woodinville, and possibly Lake Roesiger areas, along with more service in Monroe.

   1. “Hoping CT can introduce service into the Maltby, Clearview, Woodinville, and possibly Lake Roesiger areas, along with more service in Monroe.”

      They can’t. They tried to annex Maltby, Clearview, and Cathcart in 2008 and failed (probably because they would end up like Index lol).

      Why Woodinville? It’s in King County, though I see what you mean. I like to envision a bus from Lake Stevens to Woodinville via SR 9 by CT though I suggested it and they said it falls outside of their service area and the corridor has low density. I did notice that the intersection of SR 9 & 176th has bus pullouts though. If we’re going to annex Maltby, Clearview, and Cathcart we got to give some to Woodinville too even though Woodinville already has CT bus service. I think you mean full service to the town center.

      Lake Roesiger? Probably not.

      More service in Monroe? YEAH!

      1. Transit serving wine tasters in Woodinville is woefully lacking.

      2. If CT can’t launch a route from Lake Stevens to Woodinville, perhaps Sound Transit could?

8. This is sad news. The Light Rail link to Lynnwood made my commute to downtown almost twice longer. It is slow and driving or transferring to Lynnwood TC wastes a lot of time for commuters living north of Lynnwood.

   The community transit buses were efficient and faster than the light rail.

   I ended up quiting my job in Seattle because of the light rail! Thankfully I found a job that I can work from home.

   1. Until regional rail is built, we need to continue regional buses. It’s a joke to think people are willing to double their commute time by using light rail, then question us for low ridership. The buses were already slow. The light rail and transfer is even worse.

      The only place the light rail saves time is south of TIBS to Federal Way, and between Westlake and UW. And people here actively want to add a billion stations in between to ruin that. So until they offer a fast alternative… Maybe they shouldn’t blame us for driving instead… Or skipping Seattle altogether.

      1. The “doubled travel time” is predicated under the bus experiencing zero traffic on I-5, which, during rush hour, is not very realistic. I-5 always backs up approaching Seattle, and always will.

         1. The buses are still faster even in traffic. The only time they’ve slower is in extreme traffic, and it’s not like light rail is immune from similar rare delays either. Some of which are even more devastating to commute time.

         2. The main time loss is possibly multiple transfers and deviations … transfer time versus a bus takes you there directly.

         3. “The buses are still faster even in traffic.”

            I see you’ve never taken an express bus from Northgate to downtown between 1pm and 7pm. The north end does have the worst congestion because it has only three highways (I-5, 99, and 405), while the south end has highways everywhere (509, 99, I-5, West Valley Highway, 167, 18, Maple Valley Highway, 405). So bus congestion may seem less acute in the south end. South end cities are also further from downtown with less in between than their northern counterparts, so Link’s maximum speed and surface segments make it less competitive.

         4. Revive I-5 fake traffic doesn’t count. It’s going away eventually.

         5. Plus buses are supposed to have ROW. If they did, Link wouldn’t even come close to competing.

         6. “Revive I-5 fake traffic doesn’t count.”

            It started sometime before 2012, had a respite in 2020-2022 in the pandemic, and then returned. It impacted the 41, 512, 522, and 71/72/73X until they were decomissioned.

         7. @South King Resident, it absolutely should count, because it needs to be mitigated somehow. The only question is who should fund the mitigation – and if you want WSDOT to be on the hook for all of U-Link, then I’m fine with that.

      2. Regional rail was built, its call Sounder.

         1. Not sufficient for most trips unless you’re lucky enough to live in South Kent / Auburn. Sounder North is closing too, and was too slow. Doesn’t run all day either.

   2. It’s a question of priorities. If they continued to run buses from Ash Way or Everett to downtown Seattle, then service would have to taken away from routes, which would likely mean other people’s service being reduced from every half hour to every hour.

      At the same time, the ability for such buses to actually deliver a faster travel time than transferring to light rail is contingent upon light traffic. For someone leaving early in the morning, say, 6 AM, this may not be a concern. But, for someone leaving at 8, traffic can be a big concern. And, even if I-5, itself, is moving fine, the time advantage of the bus can still easily be squandered by a long line of cars at the Stewart St. exit ramp.

      Ultimately, though, long-distance commutes are going to take a long time, no matter how you slice and dice it. It is good that you found a job that lets you work from home to avoid it.

   3. It is interesting to hear your perspective on this. It is definitely not the prevaling narrative! I am sorry to hear that the light rail has caused as much disruption to your life as it has. Your story shows that light rail cannot be the only public transport option between Seattle and the suburbs. There is still a role for express buses to play.

   4. I did the same. As soon as they announced the long term plans to eliminate commuter service I crossed Seattle off the list of viable places to work. I worked downtown at the time. When that job ended I simply removed the city from job searches.

9. But did the last person leaving Seattle remember to turn the lights off?

   1. The lobby keeping ST Express 510 to Seattle going suggests there are plenty of people who would rather bus from Everett to Seattle than work at Boeing.

      Whether riders would accept just getting to Lynnwood without the Ash Way loop-de-loop, if some more frequency were added, is an open question. Sadly, every time I have suggested more frequency on a connecting bus as the relief for accepting a 2-seat ride, the frequency boost never came, or quickly vanished, with the exception of my 60 to the 1-Line, which is the starting or ending leg of most of my trips.

10. I like the idea of sending the new Monroe bus to Bellevue instead of Seattle, but taking such a huge detour for a grand tour of Bothell is a real head-scratcher. The Woodinville freeway station already connects to ST522, for those that want that. And, having to get on I-405 north to go down I-405 south is just gross.

    One hopes that, when the I-405/SR-522 transfer center opens for STRIDE, CT will reroute the bus to stop there instead. But, for the interim period, the Bothell connection just doesn’t seem worth the service delay for everyone else on the bus.

    1. It does seem wasteful but not only do you connect to the college(s) but you also connect to other CT bus routes and the Metro 372. My guess is when they finish the 405/SR-522 transit center they will extend the other CT bus routes to the transit center (while the 372 goes away). At that point I would expect this bus to stop there instead of making the loop. From there it isn’t that far of a walk to the college. It is also worth mentioning that the 535 does a similar loop and gets a considerable amount of riders in Bothell.

       1. These connections would seem to be the reason for the new route to go through Bothell. As wasteful as it may seem, it may prove to be helpful for many people. I look forward to seeing if it is.

       2. I’m pretty sure the Bothell riders are the main use for the 535. It takes as long between Bellevue and Lynnwood as Link does, so there’s really no reason to ride it unless you’re going to some intermediate stop.

11. Two runs each way on CT 424 were replaced by five runs each way on CT 908.

    Timing is uneven with a wait of almost an hour between some of them.

    We’ll see what first-day ridership looks like today.

    In general, most of the frequency improvements planned in CT 2024 did not happen, while frequency got improved on Swift lines, without being part of CT 2024. I guess data and ridership trumped politics. 908 riders got lucky.

12. On the topic of everything and anything CT, I still don’t understand the thinking behind the messes that are routes 201, 202, and ST 512. They are each limited-stop semi-express routes that skip each others’ stops, except for Lynnwood Station, Ash Way Park & Ride, Broadway in Everett, and Everett Station. The 201/202 serves local stops on Ash Way, and Mariner Park & Ride, before skipping South Everett Freeway Station (which the 512 serves).

    I had to travel to Marysville last week. I took the 202 since that picked up at Lynnwood first. Per usual, nobody got on or off at Ash Way P&R. Having the 512 stop there, and not be timed between the 201 and 202, seems like overkill for such a low-ridership time-consuming loop-de-loop stop.

    The continued existence of ST 510 running express from Everett to Seattle (peak direction only) may be due, in part, to the 512 taking too long, thanks to the Ash Way loop-de-loop. I wish we could just have a true express between Everett and Lynnwood, both directions, all day, 7 days a week. Now that the 2 Line is running, the train service is (2 minutes) “faster”.

    BTW, CT 424 was merely the last CT-branded express bus to Seattle. ST 510 and 515 (which goes away with the fall service change) are the last CT-operated express buses to Seattle, I believe.

    1. “CT 424 was merely the last CT-branded express bus to Seattle. ST 510 and 515”

       Branding means Community Transit can choose whether to have the route or not, and where and when it goes to. CT has no control over the 510 or 515: it either operates all ST Express routes that CT decides to have, or it doesn’t get the contract. If it doesn’t get the contract, it doesn’t get the profit that comes with it.

       1. In a few years, ST will be operating most of its own express routes with its own operators.

          In particular, when CT is offered the opportunity to operate night owl 512, they might look at the costs of keeping its base open overnight, and decide it isn’t worth it.

          It will still make sense to serve Ash Way when the 201/202 is not running. Other than that, the 512 is probably losing more ridership than it gains doing the infernal Ash Way loop-de-loop.

    2. On the topic of everything and anything CT, I still don’t understand the thinking behind the messes that are routes 201, 202, and ST 512.

       It is just inertia. You have two different agencies and neither is willing to work together to provide complementary service. It would make sense for the 512 to skip Ash Way. The Mariner/Ash Way route of the 201/202 is elegant. The 512 is not. Once the 201/202 serves Mariner, it makes sense to go ahead and serve Ash Way (the road) before serving Ash Way (the Park and Ride). There is no backtracking. Those Ash Way places are “on the way”. In contrast the 512 has to backtrack to serve Ash Way Park and Ride. It has to wait through several traffic lights before serving the parking lot (and only the parking lot). This just isn’t worth it.

    3. Should the 202 be adjusted to no longer serve Ash Way if no one is getting on or off that route there?

       1. There are some getting on and off there, but nowhere near enough to justify having three routes serving it, along the way between Lynnwood and Everett Stations.

          It makes a lot of sense to have a real express route between Lynnwood Station and Everett Station.

       2. Swift Gold will replace the northern half of the 201/202 in the next decade, so the southern half may go way along with it.

13. On Friday, I took my last trip on the 424. 1 hour and 10 minutes door to door from Monroe, 0 transfers. This Monday morning, I was faced with a choice of the new 908 route into Bellevue to the Link, estimated time 2:05, or a 2-transfer bus route that went through Shoreline and was estimated to take 1:55. Needless to say I took option 3, driving, which got me to work in 50 minutes leaving at 6:50am (same time I caught the 424). I really enjoyed my time on the 424 and am sad to no longer have a feasible public transit option, but I understand that there just isn’t the money to maintain good transit service anymore. I’m sorry for those people who aren’t as fortunate as I am to to be able to afford the car as a replacement, and who have to just put up with the horrible service degradation.

    1. CT has a higher sales tax rate than other agencies. And it just got rid of lots of expensive Seattle commuter routes. So, money is not the main problem.

       When route deviations cost more time than they are worth, that is a route planning issue. Metro has guidelines for when route deviations are appropriate. I don’t know if CT has similar guidelines.

       But “We added this backtrack to a time-consuming park & ride because we had money to spend” is not an argument I have ever heard. More likely, ridership was already so low in the rural tail of 424 that they added a closer-in stop that would add least fill some seats.

    2. It’s an hour :10 for the 908 to get from Monroe to Bellevue.

       How much of that is the construction mess on I-405?

14. I was hoping they would add service instead of replacing the two route 424 round trips with just two 908 round trips. Happy to see that the new route 908 has five round trips!

15. What!? They better put double decker trains on that track. those trains suck they’re so crowded.

16. The lower deck is for commuters. The upper deck is for poets and people pretending they’re in a British movie montage. I Sat upstairs in the front seat and experienced temporary monarchy. 📍

17. N/A

Comments are closed.