Sound Transit expands night-owl service to Lakewood, Redmond – not Everett

59 Replies to “Sound Transit expands night-owl service to Lakewood, Redmond – not Everett”

1. The 597 as planned is basically the worst possible Link shadow/night bus. Skipping the only major nighttime destination in Pierce County (downtown Tacoma) and skipping all of South Seattle and not connecting to Capitol Hill.

   It’s great that the airport will have 24/7 service, but is that really the only non-park and ride place between Seattle and Lakewood in need of better service? I get the service planning constraints, but this bus would be vastly better if it terminated in served any stop in SE Seattle and downtown Tacoma and skipped Lakewood.

   1. I think the primary purpose of a freeway running night owl route is to get you close enough to home so that Ubering the rest of the way costs you $20, rather than $100. For that, the 597 serves its purpose.

      Note: If you order the Uber from the bus, you can time it to arrive at the stop at almost exactly the same time the bus does, making for a very fast connection.

      1. I think the primary purpose of a freeway running night owl route is to get you close enough to home so that Ubering the rest of the way costs you $20, rather than $100.

         So all those folks who work the late shift at SeaTac are supposed to take a cab every night? Please. Keep in mind that the 574 (which has the same basic flaw) is busiest between two and four in the morning. Obviously it is easier for some to drive to the Tacoma Dome instead of Federal Way but that still means driving. But if you went downtown you would not be far from a lot of apartments, where presumably a lot of those workers live. This means they wouldn’t have to drive at all.

         1. Pierce transit should be the one running overnight local service, maybe the 1 but with a deviation to Tacoma Dome station bus stop. Sound transit is supposed to be doing express, not going into the dead end of Tacoma dome and loop back.

            You already see sound transit backing out of those downtown Everett night service throughout the years, I think now it is especially clear that regional buses are to serve major hubs instead of dropping off at your door step.

         2. Pierce Transit doesn’t really have the money to do night owl service right now. Most service already ends at 9 to 10 PM with the last buses exiting service between 11 PM to 12 AM on the 1. We’re already having to hope the PT ballot initiative passes in November to expand service hours and improve frequency, night owl service is not of mind right now even if the ballot iniative passes.

            You’re honestly looking at something that could happen in the long term (i.e. 10-15 years) once the Nite Link service is more established, but not right now.

            Community Transit is likely in a similar boat, their focus would likely be on improving frequency of core routes, expanding network coverage to reach underserved areas, and more Swift Lines to make criss crossing urban Snohomish easier. Night owl service would be a nice to have service on Swift Blue and Orange lines with maybe half hourly or hourly service, but not a priority.

         3. I think now it is especially clear that regional buses are to serve major hubs instead of dropping off at your door step.

            Downtown Tacoma is a major hub! You can’t say that about half the places this bus serves.

            Pierce Transit doesn’t really have the money to do night owl service right now.

            Agreed. Besides, that would be an entirely new route. I’m not suggesting that Sound Transit (or anyone else) create a whole new route. I’m just saying that this particular route should serve Downtown Tacoma. It doesn’t take very long at all. You are already going from Seattle to Lynnwood. You are already exiting the freeway and serving the Tacoma Dome. Might as well use the other freeway ramp (in Downtown Tacoma) to get back on the freeway. This adds maybe five minutes. Keep in mind the bus also serves the Tukwila Station. This means an extra loop around the station area instead of just getting on the freeway from SR-99. That probably takes as long as it would to serve Downtown Tacoma.

         4. “Sound transit is supposed to be doing express”
            “think now it is especially clear that regional buses are to serve major hubs”

            Sound Transit is supposed to connect regional centers faster than taking a local bus between them. Downtown Tacoma is a regional center, as is Lakewood’s center, with housing and retail and jobs that generate walk-up riders. Tacoma Dome station and the Lakewood Sounder station are not: they’re in the middle of nowhere.

            “Pierce transit should be the one running overnight local service”

            You’re missing the point. The 597 goes to Seattle. It’s not Pierce Transit’s job to run express to a city 35 miles away. We’re talking about what the route to Seattle should do, not how to connect Tacoma neighborhoods to each other. If Tacoma Dome represents downtown Tacoma (as ST’s routing suggests), then Tacoma Dome to Lakewood is a legitimate regional trip for Sound Transit, a trip between regional centers. Taking the 1 to some minor stop on Pacific Ave would not be, because that stop is not a regional center.

      2. So all those folks who work the late shift at SeaTac are supposed to take a cab every night? Please.

         Ross, most of the people who take the late night 574 night owl runs to/from the airport for work are already using the P&Rs in Lakewood, Tacoma, and Federal Way. Very few are taking a cab once they get to Tacoma or Lakewood to go home.

         1. Exactly. That was my point.

         2. I bet a lot of others are getting dropped off and picked up by loved ones at those stops. Sure beats having to drive to Seatac and back again twice a day. Especially where gas prices are right now. So it has its use case. Although since it is going in to Seattle anyway, making the stop at Capitol Hill is not a hard ask. Quite a few people need to get between Capitol Hill and the airport at odd hours.

         3. Pierce Transit is definitely running the route since King County wants nothing to do with routes going into other counties. As a driver for Pierce, I would know, since im running the route first thing in the morning on the 30th.

   2. The night routes open up the park and rides to people who work odd hours. For example, someone who lives in Federal Way and works from 7pm to 3am could park at Federal Way, take Link to work, then take the night bus back to their car. Ideally the night route network would serve both P&Rs and the Rainier Valley and Tacoma, but ST has prioritized serving the P&Rs.

      1. Yes, exactly. If they served downtown Tacoma then a lot of those night workers wouldn’t have to drive at all. It would cost ST pennies in terms of service (at that hour). This is just Sound Transit once again treating Tacoma like a big suburb instead of a real city.

         1. This is just Sound Transit once again treating Tacoma like a big suburb instead of a real city.

            There’s not a lot of destinations to serve downtown Tacoma in the dead of night, Ross. Commerce St Station as a transit hub is mostly dead by 8 or 9 PM with the last local bus leaving around 11:17 PM and the last 594 express leaving Commerce Street around 12:52 AM for Lakewood. Also there’s not really a P&R facility attached to Commerce St Station. There is technically one, but its a private paid garage.

            Also, ST likely has a lot of boarding data from ORCA and theif internal boarding metrics to give them guidance on building 597 as a bus route. The data they have likely says that they don’t have a lot of riders who get off at Dwtn Tacoma stops late at night for the 594.

            In my experience as a frequent 574/594 rider, most people get off at Tacoma Dome to get to their car, be picked up by a friend or family member, or catch a taxi/rideshare. There just aren’t a lot of people who get off at Commerce St at night. I mean, Sound Transit is cutting the dwtn Everett stops on the 510 and 512 because the ridership simply just isn’t there.

         2. Commerce St Station as a transit hub is mostly dead by 8 or 9 PM … Also there’s not really a P&R facility attached to Commerce St Station.

            Again, that is treating the area like a suburb. People live in Tacoma. They work late at night in Tacoma. Sound Transit is treating Tacoma like it is Federal Way and it isn’t.

            The data they have likely says that they don’t have a lot of riders who get off at Dwtn Tacoma stops late at night for the 594.

            They won’t have a lot of riders anywhere. That is the nature of late night service. That is why so many agencies are hesitant to provide it. It is not about ridership. It is about coverage. In this case you can cover an important area for very little money by just taking a different route back to the freeway. You also have to consider the overall geography. Not a lot of people live right in Downtown Tacoma. But plenty of people live nearby (look at the census blocks or just search for “apartments” on Google Maps). Now imagine someone works graveyard at the airport and takes this bus. It is the difference between this and this. And if you are thinking “No one is going to walk that far– they will buy a car” you are absolutely right. That is my point! Late night bus service is coverage based. It is for those who have no alternative. Now you are telling them that they still have to drive but just not as far. That is still a major burden as anyone who has ever been in that situation can attest (and I have).

            In my experience as a frequent 574/594 rider, most people get off at Tacoma Dome to get to their car, be picked up by a friend or family member, or catch a taxi/rideshare.

            Yes, because the whole system is designed that way. You design it around the assumption that everyone will drive to a park and ride. Next thing you know, everyone drives to the park and ride. Big surprise. Seriously, the 574 basically just serves a giant parking lot in Tacoma so it is no surprise that most people take a car there.

            But if you look at the (old) data from the 594 it is evenly split between the downtown stops and the Tacoma Dome. It is really only the 590 where the Tacoma Dome dominates Tacoma ridership. But that is because it is peak-only. Long distance commuter buses (and trains) have a disproportionate number of well-to-do people. They are more likely to be a doctor instead of a CNA. Of course they own a car (maybe two) and driving to parking lot is no big deal. But when you look at the midday ridership (of the 594) it is evenly split between Downtown Tacoma and the dome. This suggests that late night service would be the same if not more titled towards downtown.

            Oh, and both are much higher than Lakewood/Dupont, which is a lot more costly to serve. If ST is really pinching pennies here and focused on ridership then Blumdrew is right — just end in Downtown Tacoma. But this is a coverage route and despite the very low ridership south of Tacoma it is worth it. But if you are going to do that then you should at least cover Downtown Tacoma, given it costs so little.

         3. Yeah, I think both the board and staff are suffering from elite projection. They can only picture themselves driving to a park and ride to access Link, so they are considering those where access to a car is expensive, difficult, impossible or all 3. Very frustrating.

         4. @Cam — Agreed.

   3. If you are forcing people to have to drive to a park and ride to use the nightowl, than if they are driving anyway, just terminate it at Tacoma Dome, or better yet, downtown, and skip Lakewood. It’s just 10 minutes up the road, so if you are driving anyway, park at the dome if you need a nightowl.

      Then you can serve all the apartments downtown instead, but serving Commerce instead of Lakewood.

      1. “Then you can serve all the apartments downtown instead, but serving Commerce instead of Lakewood.”

         A night owl 590? Why not just have the 597 serve Downtown Tacoma in the first place so it can mimic the 594? Oh yeah that’s right, they’re mimicking the 574 not the 594.

         I agree with serving Downtown Tacoma overall. But why skip Lakewood though? Lakewood should still be served.

         1. Oh yeah that’s right, they’re mimicking the 574 not the 594.

            Exactly. And they made the same mistake with the 574. Tacoma is getting screwed. Every city wants people to visit their downtown. They spend a lot of money promoting it. Not only for business but for tourists as well. Tacoma has a lot going for it — world class museums, a spectacular view of Rainier, some nice old buildings, and just enough big motels to satisfy all of those who want to stay there. Yet you are supposed to take a train to Federal Way, then a bus to the Tacoma Dome, then some sort of bus or cab from there? The vast majority of people will just say “screw it” and take a cab from the airport. Day or night, it is a blown opportunity. It is surprising no one in Tacoma is raising a stink about this but my guess is they just don’t pay attention to Sound Transit (as Tacoma has plenty of other issues).

            Not to mention the SeaTac workers who live fairly close to downtown but a long ways from the Tacoma Dome. Ironically this is actually better than in the day time. At least it is a two-seat ride instead of three. Sound Transit has completely blown the Federal Way restructure by failing to address these issues. They’ve built a system that is highly dependent on Park and Ride travel and you can bet that a lot of people will just skip the Tacoma Dome and drive to Federal Way.

   4. Thats the reoccurring story of Tacoma for 65 years… skipping Downtown Tacoma for Tacoma Mall/South Tacoma. Every decision over the last 65 years and going into the future favors going to Tacoma Mall over Downtown Tacoma.

   5. It can easily serve Downtown Tacoma and Lakewood. That is what the 594 does. Since this is a late night bus, the time spent serving Downtown Tacoma is minimal. There just isn’t much traffic at that hour.

      1. This is Tacoma. There isn’t traffic at any hour. It is incredibly slow going to Pac Ave (I have chased it down on my bike), but that’s because the signal timing between 25th and 10th is about as bad as I’ve ever seen it on any road.

         1. There is bound to be some traffic during rush hour. More to the point, I would hope that the traffic lights favor the major throughways late at night.

   6. I agree. I will add that Capitol Hill is Link’s second busiest station during operating hours, so stopping the service less than a mile away and not serving the station seems pretty stupid. This is overnight so there’s not heavy traffic in the way.

      And saying that Metro overnight service covers it is unfair. Capitol Hill residents pay the same taxes to ST as Lakewood residents do — and pay an extra Seattle levy for overnight service.

      1. Based on the route planning it really seems like they skip stops when there’s overlapping Metro night owl service. I can see no other explanation.

         It is entirely unfair, but also pretty consistent with ST’s pattern of screwing the city and using our money, political will, and bonding capacity to benefit the ‘burbs (see: Ballard Link, the multiple stations in the urban core that suburban board members voted to skip in the aughts, prioritizing fare gates over car tab enforcement…)

   7. If any route would serve Capitol Hill, it would be the 517 (planned Everett – Seattle night owl route) but no Capitol Hill stop is planned. Besides, Capitol Hill, U-District, and the Rainier Valley already gets night-owl service so there could be the idea of taking ether the 547 or 597 to Downtown Seattle and then connecting to a night-owl route from there.

      I assume Lakewood Station and SR 512 P&R are being served because they are major regional transit hubs so no way they wouldn’t serve that. Rainier Valley, again, because they already have night owl service with Route 7 even if it’s stops a bit away from the Link Stations.

      I do agree with one commenter, the goal is to get you as close to home as possible. Not always going to be perfect however, flaws are going to present always.

      1. MLK and Rainier are not the same. And Seattle residents pay extra for things like night owl service. So unless ST gives money to Metro to run night owl service, ST should provide it.

         And Capitol Hill is the second busiest Link station overall and probably the busiest after 9-10 pm. It would barely be more than 5 minutes for a bus from Downtown to reach it. And it would let upcoming buses from the north skip it.

         1. MLK and Rainier are not the same

            No, Rainier is better. A lot of people who take Link to SeaTac have to walk to MLK. A bus that connected SeaTac with Rainier would force some riders to walk extra but a lot of riders would come out ahead. Overall it would be a major improvement. I agree — ST should help subsidize the cost of an extended (late-night) 7. Seattle shouldn’t have to pay for it themselves.

            Meanwhile, Capitol Hill has other buses connecting it to downtown. Again, there is nothing special about the location of the station. It is just one stop on Capitol Hill, which is just one part of the Central Area. Thus the 49 is actually better as it covers more of the area. The combination of the 3, G and 49 is adequate for trips from downtown to the Central Area. The key is to coordinate with the regional bus service so that riders don’t have to wait on the street downtown. You should be able to get off the Sound Transit bus and get onto a waiting Metro bus.

         2. I think there is a safety issue here too. Many people don’t feel safe Downtown at 3 AM. It feels scary enough to wait for the first bus but a rider can time their arrival at the initial stop with OBA. Transfers can be very long waits in contrast..

            Adding Sound Transit service adds even more buses to transfer from or to.

            So rather than say “it’s covered” on a system map, both agencies should be proposing a way to make transfer waits short and safe. Then, schedules and destinations can be set with that as a starting point.

            It’s too bad that there isn’t a spot in Central Seattle to park that many buses at once.

            I have friends who are bartenders and they get off work on Capitol Hill. They usually take Lyft home at a high cost because they do not have a direct bus from there to their home. They live in places like West Seattle or Ballard or Columbia City.

            I have other friends who are flight attendants and often have late planes and they live in Capitol Hill. They drive to SeaTac and pay for monthly parking because of the late night uncertainty.

            It’s a ray of hope that these routes are starting up. But it needs a more thoughtful approach beyond saying which stations the routes will stop at and declaring Seattle covered.

         3. both agencies should be proposing a way to make transfer waits short and safe.

            That is what I wrote! Just look at my comments:

            The key is to coordinate with the regional bus service so that riders don’t have to wait on the street downtown. You should be able to get off the Sound Transit bus and get onto a waiting Metro bus.

            Or how about the other comment thread when you suggested the same thing:

            1) Coordinate with Metro. This may not cost any money at all. But it means that you can get off a bus and transfer to another bus that is waiting there. Once you do that, going to Capitol Hill isn’t that big of a deal. That’s because the 49 connects Capitol Hill with both downtown and the U-District. Thus you could take a bus from Everett to the U-District and transfer to the 49. Or you could take a bus from SeaTac to Downtown and then take the 49. Either way the transfer is straightforward (you aren’t backtracking).

            Come on Al. You keep pushing for the 570 to go to Capitol Hill while ignoring the big picture. The 570 only covers a small subset of Link trips. It doesn’t even cover Rainier Valley! It doesn’t serve Beacon Hill. Meanwhile, riders who are headed to downtown or the U-District will just take the 49. Sure, it would be nice for airport workers not to have to transfer but that is nothing compared to the airport workers in Rainier Valley that not only have to transfer but have to backtrack.

            If we are going to the send the 570 there, should we also send the 36 to Capitol Hill as well? Oh, and the C and the H — send all the buses to Capitol Hill at night just so riders can avoid a transfer. Sorry, that is ridiculous. You can’t possibly build a late-night system that eliminates a transfer. There are too many people going too many places.

            The answer is to have timed transfers with layovers that allow people to board. The 49 should be waiting downtown at 3:00 am. The 570 should go by at around 3:05. The 49 should leave at around 3:10. If the 570 is over five minutes late (which would be rare) then the 570 bus driver should ask riders if they are transferring and call to hold the 49. It isn’t that complicated.

            The same thing is true for the entire network. I have no idea why Metro no longer links the 7 and 49 at night. This is probably a lot more valuable then an extended 570. But unlike an extended 570 it costs nothing (theoretically). I could see other buses being combined in the same way (e. g. the C and D should be combined late at night). But with most combinations you are just going to have to transfer. The key is getting that transfer right as I have now written several times.

2. Honestly a little frustrated that the North Route is getting delayed. I got stranded the other night after the shutdown due to the derailment. Really could have used a late night bus back to Lynnwood.

   1. It looks like I’m not the only one who’s been stranded going north.

      I haven’t gotten stranded in Seattle but one time when I went to watch The Super Mario Galaxy movie in Bellevue, the movie ended at 11 pm and I missed the last Swift Orange Line to Edmonds College at Lynnwood City Center Station. I had to walk all the way home.

      An overnight 535 should have been considered in the 2026 Service Plan (not just the interstates that parallel light rail), and if the 535 ran overnight (or at least until 12 am) it could have boosted me to Lynnwood in like 40 minutes and I would have catched the last Swift Orange Line to Edmonds College at 12 am.

      Though if Link ended early as part of the 2027 Service Plan, I would have taken the 547 and then get stuck in Seattle. Though I’m not too worried about a scenario like this since the 517 will be running by 2027, nor do I see it happening but it’s a possibility.

      It looks like Community Transit is having graveyard shift bus operators on the 517 as part of their service expansion. If they consider adding night owl service to their regular bus routes the Swift routes should be the top tier candidate for that kind of service. Then maybe the 101, 166, and the 201/202.

3. Well this is devastating, couldn’t the 517 be at least operated by Metro? I would love to hear “Lynnwood City Center Station” or “Everett Station” in the King County Metro voice.

   Too bad bus routes like the 560 that aren’t in their operator’s county are a thing but no Metro operated buses operate north of Mountlake Terrace…

   What I mean by that is since King County Metro gave the 560 to Pierce Transit because they couldn’t operate it anymore they should apply that treatment to the 517 operator issue too. That way everyone wins.

   1. Metro isn’t going to run a bus to Lynnwood, let alone Everett. The best bet is Community Transit cooperating with Metro. Run Swift Blue late at night, timed with the RapidRide E. Unfortunately, the Swift bus doesn’t run between midnight and 4:00 am.

      I could see Metro trying to fill the big gap between TIBS and Rainier Valley. Late at night (when Link has stopped running) they could extend the 7 to SeaTac (as an express). It is not trivial — it takes about 15 minutes — but it would make a big difference for some riders and be completely within King County.

      1. “Late at night (when Link has stopped running) they could extend the 7 to SeaTac (as an express). It is not trivial”

         It doesn’t make much sense to extend the 7 to SeaTac. It’s already long enough, it already ends at Prentice St, and it runs on Rainier Ave not MLK. But I do see your point, and I agree it is not trivial. Therefore simply increasing the runs of the 124 to SeaTac at night would solve that last minute gap though the A Line already does solve that and will run more frequently at night this fall but transferring is such a cow at night.

         1. It doesn’t make much sense to extend the 7 to SeaTac. It’s already long enough, it already ends at Prentice St, and it runs on Rainier Ave not MLK.

            So what?

            1) A night owl doesn’t have to duplicate Link exactly. Rainier is actually the busier street. (Link should have gone on Rainier but it is too late now.)

            2) The bus doesn’t serve Prentice late at night.

            3) The bus would not be “too long”. At that hour the bus moves very quickly (since traffic is minimal).

            4) It wouldn’t be trivial (unlike serving Downtown Tacoma) but it also wouldn’t cost that much either. The 7 already runs late at night. So it would be an extension, not a brand new route.

            The 124 doesn’t serve Rainier Valley so it doesn’t help at all (which is too bad since it does run late at night). The one major late-night gap that exists with the plan is Rainier Valley to SeaTac. You can get from SeaTac to downtown (via the 570). You can get from Rainier Valley to downtown (via the 7). But you can’t get from Rainier Valley to SeaTac without backtracking all the way to downtown. Ideally ST would fill this gap but it is possible Metro would.

   2. “Metro isn’t going to run a bus to Lynnwood, let alone Everett.”

      It will if ST pays it to do so.

      1. Rather high marginal costs to running overnight service if you haven’t previously done so. Need a road supervisor or two, security contracts, a dispatcher, and someone at the garage to sign drivers in.

         It’ll take a bit for CT to stand this all up.

      2. I assumed Scooby Doo was suggesting that Metro pay for it. But otherwise it is just a matter of money, yes.

      3. “I assumed Scooby Doo was suggesting that Metro pay for it.”

         He said “operated by Metro”. He knows enough about transit to know Everett is far outside Metro’s service area, so Metro wouldn’t initiate the route or pay for it. But Metro will operate routes for others if they pay for the service hours and bus expenses. PT runs King County routes, so there’s no reason Metro can’t run a Snohomish County route. It’s uniquely positioned to accommodate night owl service because it has several other night owls. If ST’s negotiations with CT hit a snag that jeapordized the on-time opening of the north night owl (as actually happened), ideally ST would ask Metro to operate it, either permanently or until CT can accommodate it. It’s possible the snag with CT happened too late to ask Metro, since Metro needs 6-12 weeks’ lead time for logistics. Or it’s possible Metro said no. Or that ST just didn’t think about asking it. The latter would be a disservice to Snohomish subarea taxpayers, who were promised new night owl service this fall.

         1. “Or that ST just didn’t think about asking it.”

            That is likely the case.

            “The latter would be a disservice to Snohomish subarea taxpayers, who were promised new night owl service this fall.”

            Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to do here. That’s a violation of subarea equity and disrespects Snohomish County residents like me.

      4. “It will if ST pays it to do so.”

         Yeah and ST already plans to do so. The problem with the 517 not running until 2027 is operator availability from Community Transit.

         Having Metro operate the 517 until next year is the low hanging fruit solution for those Everett night owls feeling left out. This demonstration has been done throughout Sound Transit’s service area and could be the solution for Community Transit’s operator problem.

         I wish Sound Transit could change their TDP and do this! Idk if it’s too late to do so.

4. Night buses have amazing express routing. If only that routing goes into actual routes most people use in the day.

5. Funny how ST will send a bus meandering on Bellevue city streets yet they can’t just run up MLK and Rainier to Jackson even though it’s a pretty straight shot in the middle of the night.

   1. They already have the Rt 7 for this.

      1. And Seattle residents pay an extra levy that pays for the nighttime service yet pay the same taxes to ST. Plus Route 7 runs on Rainier south of Mt Baker while Link runs on MLK so it’s skipping three stations.

6. I like these however, there better be serious security and actual cops checking to see if these are legit riders using them and no NDRs. Or make sure they’re paying if they are NDRs anyway. I drove 8-9 years ago, the old 84-85-86. And it was borderline scary. 90% of those on there were NDRs that used it for shelter. While clearing the buses of those people was actually ok, no one bothered to control them getting on. I’m afraid the same thing could happen with these routes and they would end for this reason, not enough revenue and thanks to NDRs and homeless riders, regular people didn’t feel safe using them.

   1. Assuming “NDR” means “Non-Destination Rider”, is the lack of a destination what’s deterring “regular” riders, or is it other behavior?

      Perhaps the focus should be on deterring disruptive behavior regardless of social status. There’s no good reason to denegrate riders who may be unhoused or not have a destination in mind when they board transit. We don’t deter people from walking or driving without a destination in mind.

      If folks are using the bus as a shelter, the focus should be on providing that shelter where its needed. Perhaps that shelter should be as low-barrier as riding a bus.

      1. Again I’m a bus driver who’s seen this first hand. Look up a video from 2-3 years ago of an early morning ST 1 Train (before it went all the way to Federal Way) at the end of the line. It was gross. Sorry about Non Destination Riders, but realistically if you’re not keeping that under control on an overnight bus, regular riders especially Women, eventually won’t want any part of that.

         1. I’m just saying it’s lame to lump all NDRs together when not having a destination isn’t the cause of the issues you’re describing. If a rider is unhygienic or disruptive, then focus on those aspects.

            If you’re using NDR as a euphemism for visible poverty, then skip the pretense and be honest.

         2. Because the regular population can “hide” them on transit.

            Give them a place to not be “homeless”, get those with the mental health issue the help they need.

            With that in mind, even those that are unhoused have just as much an obligation to work within basic society as the rest of us.

            I’m with scott on this, even the homeless have to be a regular part of society, with the appropriate behavior.
            (And yes, I’ve had to deal with inappropriate behavior in that regard)

   2. Being longer routes, NDRs could sleep longer before the route ends on the planned new overnight routes. And if they’re using buses with nicer seats, it will almost certainly happen.

      1. The MCI bus will be used on these routes. The most comfortable bus available. Sleeping homeless people will surely be an issue when clearing the bus at the end of a run. Narrow walkway and one door up front.

7. Exactly! I don’t think some of the non bus drivers quite get it. Serious safety concerns.

8. Finally happy that there will be some type of halfway reasonable service between Seattle and Tacoma. Would I like it to go to Capitol Hill and Downtown Tacoma… yes.. but thankful to get something besides locals and rapid ride.

   1. Regional overnight bus service is great and needed!

      I do think it could be optimized better. These routes should terminate in Capitol Hill at the very least. Given their length, going further less than a mile seems like an easy thing to do late at night. Even if it’s just one of the two routes it could be useful!

      I even wonder if ST wants to discourage ridership on these routes. Skipping late night areas besides the airport is a way to ensure lower ridership.

      Finally, I think it would help to have a known guarded transfer point somewhere. Riding late at night can be scary for some people, especially to those with luggage from the airport. Waiting for a bus to transfer to would increase that fear. King Street seems really well-suited for this.

      1. Ending in downtown is quite reasonable. It helps to consider the entire (late night) network. Once they run the night owl service to the north I would prioritize things like so:

         1) Coordinate with Metro. This may not cost any money at all. But it means that you can get off a bus and transfer to another bus that is waiting there. Once you do that, going to Capitol Hill isn’t that big of a deal. That’s because the 49 connects Capitol Hill with both downtown and the U-District. Thus you could take a bus from Everett to the U-District and transfer to the 49. Or you could take a bus from SeaTac to Downtown and then take the 49. Either way the transfer is straightforward (you aren’t backtracking).

         2) Run a bus from SeaTac to Rainier Valley. The cheapest option would be an extension of the 7. This avoids the huge detour for riders trying to get from SeaTac to Rainier Valley at night. Riders heading from SeaTac to Beacon Hill still have to backtrack, but it isn’t as bad.

         3) Have the 597 serve Downtown Tacoma before (or after) serving Lakewood. This shouldn’t cost that much since driving the surface streets at that hour is not that expensive. Yet the bus would get a lot closer to a lot of apartments (and everything else). Unlike Seattle, Tacoma doesn’t have any other late-night service.

9. Everett continues to get the short end of the stick with regard to Sound Transit service, even though it has more low-income residents than the other areas, and still lacks any ST bus service to any airport, not even Paine Field…nor is any planned. Most ST bus service in Everett is peak-only, Seattle/Bellevue-commuter oriented, a couple of streetside stops, while its counterparts in the Eastside and the south end continue to enjoy numerous in-city stops and multiple 7-day-a-week express bus service choices, including Sea-Tac service that gets them closer to the terminal than Link. I’d love to see an explanation as to why. Is it because Snohomish County kingmaker Somers browbeat all of the local politicians to follow his edict to have trains dogleg to the Everett Boeing plant (despite BRT, which he has shunned trying, and express buses serving that plant for years/decades), which cost billions more and so far 10 additional years vs. the 2031 estimate for the I-5 alignment? The trains don’t stop at any other Boeing plants, or is there another reason(s)? Where is Sound Transit board member and Everett Mayor Franklin when her city residents could use her advocacy for at least a night train to the South Everett freeway station? Oh, that’s right, she’s now advocating to raise the regressive sales tax on her mostly low-income residents without a vote of the people, thanks to her senator friend in a neighboring city, by 0.6%, double what Seattle’s voters will soon be weighing in on, and triple what Spokane’s voters just voted on.

Comments are closed.