DOCSLIB.ORG

Fare Free Future, a Vision for a Simpler and More Equitable

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fare Free Future, a Vision for a Simpler and More Equitable Fare Free Future Humphrey School Capstone Report The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Dillon Cummins Caroline Ketcham Erika Shepard Jed Hanson PA 8081 Capstone Workshop Transportation Planning and Policy Instructor: Lyssa Leitner, Adjunct Faculty Spring 2021 Partner Organization: Metro Transit Fare Free Future A VISION FOR A SIMPLER AND MORE EQUITABLE REGIONAL FARE SYSTEM A CAPSTONE PROJECT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH METRO TRANSIT DILLON CUMMINS, CAROLINE KETCHAM, ERIKA SHEPARD, AND JED HANSON MAY 5, 2021 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .........................................................................4 1. Executive Summary .....................................................................5 2. Introduction .................................................................................6 2.1 Planning a Simpler Fare System .................................................6 2.2 Who Rides Transit? ........................................................................6 2.3 Permanent Reduction in Commuters .........................................7 2.4 Focus on All-Purpose Riders ........................................................8 2.5 Report Overview .............................................................................8 3. Vision .........................................................................................10 3.1 Near-Term Vision ..........................................................................10 3.2 Medium-Term Vision ...................................................................12 3.3 Long-Term Vision .........................................................................12 4. Existing Conditions ....................................................................14 4.1 Metro Transit Fares ......................................................................14 4.2 Metro Mobility ...............................................................................17 4.3 Demographics ...............................................................................17 4.4 Budget ............................................................................................18 2 Table of Contents 5. Peer Examples ...........................................................................19 5.1 Indianapolis ...................................................................................19 5.2 Portland ..........................................................................................19 5.3 Washington, D.C. ..........................................................................20 5.4 Kansas City ....................................................................................21 5.5 Los Angeles ...................................................................................22 6. Recommendations ....................................................................24 6.1 Near-Term Recommendations ..................................................24 6.2 Medium-Term Recommendations ............................................28 6.3 Long-Term Recommendations ..................................................30 7. Conclusion .................................................................................36 7.1 A Roadmap for the Future ..........................................................36 7.2 What to Explore Further ..............................................................37 7.3 Parting Thoughts .........................................................................37 Appendices ....................................................................................38 Appendix A: Literature Review ..........................................................38 Appendix B: Civil Rights and Accessibility Compliance ...............42 Appendix C: Cost Estimates ..............................................................43 References ....................................................................................45 Table of Contents 3 Acknowledgements This report was made possible thanks to the knowledge and assistance of transit profes- sionals, researchers, and stakeholders in the Twin Cities and across the nation. The authors are thankful for the contributions of the following agencies, organizations, and their employees or members. • IndyGo • Maple Grove Transit • Metro Transit • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Department of Transportation • Move Minneapolis • TriMet • Twin Cities Transit Riders Union • University of Minnesota • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority The range of contributions include sharing through interviews, providing data, establishing key stakeholders, and identifying literature and reference material. This report is shared and adaptable under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. An empty light rail vehicle with advisory COVID-19 signage. Image source: Metro Transit. 4 Acknowledgements 1. Executive Summary The COVID-19 pandemic radically altered Metro Transit’s revenue system, likely with lasting change to transit ridership. This disruption is an opportunity to evaluate Metro Transit’s fare system. This report provides recommendations to reach a vision for a simplified and more equi- table fare system. These recommendations are developed from background information on Metro Transit and its riders, documentation of existing conditions, review of relevant literature, and interviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts. Recommendations focus on the conceptual level and center all-purpose riders. Recommendations vary in their complexity and impact. Metro Transit can effectively simplify the current system just by paring down its sheer number of fare offerings. Beyond simplifica- tion, Metro Transit may improve ridership and mobility through simplified pass and needs- based programs combined with heightened enrollment efforts. In the medium-term, a fare capping policy may achieve much of these recommendations across rider groups. Finally, this report recommends eliminating fares. A fare-free transit system best achieves the stated goals of this report: a simpler rider experience, revenue stability and growth, and improved mobility for all-purpose riders. Metro Transit continues Transit Assistance Program outreach events during the COVID-19 pandemic. Image Source: Metro Transit. 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Introduction 2.1 Planning a Simpler Fare it also presents an opportunity to rethink fare structure to make Metro Transit services more System financially accessible. Barriers to accessing transportation and other needs have expanded under the COVID-19 2.2 Who Rides Transit? pandemic. The pandemic prompts evaluation of Metro Transit’s fare system. Peer transit agen- Transit professionals often default to catego- cies are experimenting with their fare systems, rizing riders as: ranging from fare simplification to free fares. • “dependent” riders, who rely on the transit system for fundamental mobility The pandemic created immediate impacts in needs, and lost revenue, both from dramatic decreases in • “choice” riders, with multiple mobility ridership and loss of other funding. It may lead options, which transit agencies must to long-term changes in travel behavior. The competitively capture from other trans- pandemic has exacerbated existing income and portation modes. racial disparities, which intersect with transit ridership. The confluence of factors opens This is not an accurate way to frame who is on an opportunity for creative strategies for fare board and why they are riding. This report will changes. discuss transit ridership in three groups defined by TransitCenter, a New York City based transit Evaluation of Metro Transit’s existing fare system think-tank. will identify successes and areas of improve- ment, so Metro Transit may better respond to 2.2.1 All-Purpose Riders the travel behavior and income changes brought on by the pandemic. This report provides anal- All-purpose riders regularly use transit beyond ysis and recommendations related to: work trips. They ride to all types of destinations, ranging from groceries to movies. Within all-pur- • fare simplification, pose riders there are two groups: contented and • low-income and needs-based fares, and discontented riders. Contented riders prefer • exploration of free fare systems. transit to driving or do not plan to buy a vehicle. Discontented riders would drive if they had The recommendations from this project will access to a car. All-purpose riders are generally help Metro Transit build back lost revenue and the largest group of transit riders.1 mitigate some of the challenges disproportion- ately felt by transit riders. 2.2.2 Commuters Commuters use transit for work trips. One of Metro Transit’s guiding principles is inno- Commuters ride for reasons ranging from vation, which encourages employees to think affordability to avoiding traffic. Commuters creatively and challenge the status quo. The pandemic has led to immense challenges, but 1. Higashide and Accuardi, “Who’s On Board 2016,” 28–29. 6 2. Introduction rarely or never take transit to other destinations. Metropass creates a set-and-forget experience This is generally the second largest group of for commuters, since many pay for Metropass transit riders.2 through automatic payroll deductions. This in-turn creates a stable source of fare revenue 2.2.3 Occasional Riders for Metro Transit. Occasional riders take transit for situational reasons. They may ride when a vehicle is being The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new repaired, to attend a sports event or a concert,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • [Title Over Two Lines (Shift+Enter to Break Line)]
    BUS TRANSFORMATION PROJECT White Paper #2: Strategic Considerations October 2018 DRAFT: For discussion purposes 1 1 I• Purpose of White Paper II• Vision & goals for bus as voiced by stakeholders III• Key definitions IV• Strategic considerations Table of V• Deep-dive chapters to support each strategic consideration Contents 1. What is the role of Buses in the region? 2. Level of regional commitment to speeding up Buses? 3. Regional governance / delivery model for bus? 4. What business should Metrobus be in? 5. What services should Metrobus operate? 6. How should Metrobus operate? VI• Appendix: Elasticity of demand for bus 2 DRAFT: For discussion purposes I. Purpose of White Paper 3 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Purpose of White Paper 1. Present a set of strategic 2. Provide supporting analyses 3. Enable the Executive considerations for regional relevant to each consideration Steering Committee (ESC) to bus transformation in a neutral manner set a strategic direction for bus in the region 4 DRAFT: For discussion purposes This paper is a thought piece; it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion and a means to frame the ensuing debate 1. Present a The strategic considerations in this paper are not an set of strategic exhaustive list of all decisions to be made during this considerations process; they are a set of high-level choices for the Bus Transformation Project to consider at this phase of for regional strategy development bus transformation Decisions on each of these considerations will require trade-offs to be continually assessed throughout this effort 5 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Each strategic consideration in the paper is 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • Motion No. M2020-69 Funding Agreement for Capped Contribution for Rapidride C Line Improvements
    Motion No. M2020-69 Funding Agreement for Capped Contribution for RapidRide C Line Improvements Meeting: Date: Type of action: Staff contact: System Expansion Committee 11/12/2020 Recommend to Board Don Billen, Executive Director, Board 11/19/2020 Final action PEPD Cathal Ridge, Executive Corridor Director- Central Corridor Chris Rule, HCT Project Manager – Central Corridor Proposed action Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute an agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to reimburse the City of Seattle for $1,730,000 and King County Metro for $2,800,000 to provide a total funding contribution of $4,530,000 for bus speed and reliability improvements to the RapidRide C Line serving West Seattle to South Lake Union. Key features summary • This action authorizes Sound Transit to enter into an inter-local agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to reimburse the City and County for costs of up to $4.53 million for speed and reliability improvements to the RapidRide C Line. • The Sound Transit 3 (ST3) System Plan includes a capped capital contribution of $65 million for bus capital enhancements to design and construct transit priority improvements that improve speed and reliability for the Madison BRT project and the RapidRide C and D Lines. • In 2018 the Sound Transit Board established the RapidRide C and D Improvements project and approved an initial study of potential improvements performed by the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions project team. • In September the Board of Directors moved that staff bring forward an agreement for a limited near- term authorization for RapidRide C Line improvements pending a more comprehensive program realignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Template
    The Challenges of Planning and Executing Major Underground Transit Programs in Los Angeles Bryan Pennington, Senior Executive Officer, Program Management • Nation’s third largest transportation system • FY2018 Budget of $6.1 billion • Over 9,000 employees • Nation’s largest clean-air fleet (over 2,200 CNG buses) • 450 miles of Metro Rapid Bus System • 131.7 miles of Metro Rail (113 stations) • Average Weekday Boardings (Bus & Rail) – 1.2 million • 513 miles of freeway HOV lanes 2 • New rail and bus rapid transit projects • New highway projects • Enhanced bus and rail service • Local street, signal, bike/pedestrian improvements • Affordable fares for seniors, students and persons with disabilities • Maintenance/replacement of aging system • Bike and pedestrian connections to transit facilities 3 4 5 6 7 • New rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) capital projects • Rail yards, rail cars, and start-up buses for new BRT lines • Includes 2% for system-wide connectivity projects such as airports, countywide BRT, regional rail and Union Station 8 Directions Walk to Blue Line and travel to Union Station Southwest Chief to Los Angeles Union Station 9 • Rail transit projects • Crenshaw LAX Transit Project • Regional Connector Transit Project • Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Critical success factors • Financial considerations/risk management • Contract strategy • Lessons learned • Future underground construction • Concluding remarks • Questions and answers 10 11 •Los Angeles Basin •Faults •Hydrocarbons •Groundwater •Seismicity •Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide 12 •Crenshaw LAX Transit Project •Regional Connector Transit Project •Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Section 1 • Section 2 • Section 3 13 • 13.7 km Light Rail • 8 Stations • Aerial Grade Separations, Below Grade, At-Grade Construction • Maintenance Facility Yard • $1.3 Billion Construction Contract Awarded to Walsh / Shea J.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Project
    Attachment B Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum Kent Station Parking and Access Improvements Noise Technical Analysis Memorandum 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826 September 2019 Table of Contents 1.0 Noise Technical Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Fundamental Concepts of Noise ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Fundamental Concepts of Vibration ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.0 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 14 6.0 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 17 7.0 References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix A Noise Measurements List of Figures Figure 1. FTA Noise Impact Guidelines .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How to Win Back America's Transit Riders
    Who’sDrew to add cover On Board 11 Charts done 2019 How to Win Back America’s Transit Riders TransitCenter works to improve public transit in ways that make cities more just, environmentally sustainable, and economically vibrant. We believe that fresh thinking can change the transportation landscape and improve the overall livability of cities. We commission and conduct research, convene events, and produce publications that inform and improve public transit and urban transportation. For more information, please visit www.transitcenter.org. Publication Date: February 2019 1 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004 www.TransitCenter.org @transitcenter Facebook.com/transitctr Who’s On Board 2019 How to Win Back America’s Transit Riders Acknowledgments Steven Higashide and Mary Buchanan of TransitCenter are the authors of this report. David Bragdon and Tabitha Decker provided additional writing and editorial review. The authors are grateful for thoughtful review from Evelyn Blumenberg, Nicholas Klein, Alan Lehto, Tom Mills, Michelle Poyourow, Jarrett Walker, Aaron Weinstein, and TransitCenter’s Jon Orcutt and Hayley Richardson. Resource Systems Group (RSG) served as the lead research consultant, conducting focus groups, developing the survey questionnaire, and analyzing survey results. The authors gratefully acknowledge RSG’s project manager Ben Cummins. Greg Spitz and Alex Levin of RSG and Jed Lam of Aeffect also contributed to the research. The authors thank Emily Drexler of the Chicago Transit Authority for assistance with recruiting for focus groups, as well as Linda Young and Preeti Shankar of the Center for Neighborhood Technology for providing AllTransit data. Contents Executive Summary 1 All Transit Ridership is Local 6 Findings 14 1.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL Summary Minutes of Extended
    CITY OF BELLEVUE CITY COUNCIL Summary Minutes of Extended Study Session May 11, 2015 Conference Room 1E-113 6:00 p.m. Bellevue, Washington PRESENT: Mayor Balducci1, Deputy Mayor Wallace, and Councilmembers Chelminiak, Lee, Robertson, Robinson, and Stokes ABSENT: None. Kirkland City Council: Mayor Amy Walen, Deputy Mayor Penny Sweet, and Councilmembers Jay Arnold, Dave Asher, Shelley Kloba, Doreen Marchione, and Toby Nixon 1. Executive Session Mayor Balducci called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The Executive Session was moved to the end of the meeting due to the joint meeting with the Kirkland City Council. 2. Oral Communications Oral Communications were moved to occur following the joint meeting discussion. 3. Study Session (a) Special Joint Meeting with Kirkland City Council Mayor Balducci opened the meeting and said this appears to be first time these two Councils have met. She recalled Bellevue’s previous meeting with the Redmond City Council and suggested the three cities might want to meet together in the future. Redmond Mayor Amy Walen provided opening comments. Councilmembers from both cities introduced themselves and identified how long they have served their respective cities. 1 Mayor Balducci left the meeting at 8:22 p.m. May 11, 2015 Extended Study Session Page 2 (1) Overview of Bellevue Council’s Vision and Key Initiatives Dan Stroh, Planning Director, provided a broad overview of key initiatives under the seven strategic target areas of the Council Vision adopted in 2014. He presented information on the growing population and increasing diversity. He described the Council’s adoption in December 2014 of The Diversity Advantage cultural diversity plan.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Rapidride? March 20 Thru September 17, 2021
    D Line WEEKDAY/Entre semana D Line WEEKDAY/Entre semana SNOW/EMERGENCY SERVICE ➜ NW 100th Pl To DOWNTOWN SEATTLE ➜ To CROWN HILL 7th Ave NW SERVICIO DE EMERGENCIA/NIEVE Downtown Downtown Seattle Uptown Ballard Crown Hill Crown Hill Ballard Uptown Seattle 3rd Ave NW During most snow conditions this route NW 100th Pl 15th Ave NW Queen Anne 3rd Ave Terrace St Prefontaine 3rd Ave Mercer St & 15th Ave NW NW 100th Pl CROWN HILL Holman Rd NW will operate via its regular route shown at & & Ave N & & & Pl S & & Queen Anne & & Mary Ave NW 7th Ave NW* NW Market St* W Mercer St* Pike St* 5th Ave* Yesler Wy* Pike St* Ave N* NW Market St* 7th Ave NW* left. In the rare event that Metro declares Stop #28680 Stop #13271 Stop #2672 Stop #431 Stop #1710 Stop #1610 Stop #578 Stop #2370 Stop #14230 Stop #28680 NW 85th St an emergency, this route will continue 4:57 5:06 5:18 5:27 5:35 4:05 4:10 4:20 4:31 4:40 5:13 5:22 5:34 5:43 5:51 4:55 5:00 5:10 5:21 5:30 NW 80th St to operate as a designated Emergency 5:25 5:34 5:46 5:55 6:03 5:20 5:25 5:35 5:46 5:55 Service Network route. During such an 5:35 5:44 5:56 6:05 6:13 5:40 5:45 5:55 6:07 6:16 15th Ave NW NW 75th St 5:43 5:52 6:04 6:14 6:22 6:00 6:05 6:15 6:27 6:36 event, it is expected to operate with the 5:51 6:00 6:13 6:23 6:31 6:10 6:15 6:25 6:37 6:46 5:59 6:09 6:22 6:32 6:40 6:20 6:25 6:35 6:47 6:56 NW 70th St same route number and follow the same 6:07 6:17 6:30 6:40 6:48 6:28 6:33 6:43 6:55 7:04 Ballard High School routing as shown in this timetable.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint International Light Rail Conference
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C145 July 2010 Joint International Light Rail Conference Growth and Renewal April 19–21, 2009 Los Angeles, California Cosponsored by Transportation Research Board American Public Transportation Association TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010–2011 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Associate Administrator and Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair Ronald R. Knipling, Principal, safetyforthelonghaul.com, Arlington, Virginia, System Users Group Chair Edward V. A. Kussy, Partner, Nossaman, LLP, Washington, D.C., Legal Resources Group Chair Peter B. Mandle, Director, Jacobs Consultancy, Inc., Burlingame, California, Aviation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Daniel L. Roth, Managing Director, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Rail Group Chair Steven Silkunas, Director of Business Development, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Transportation Group Chair Peter F. Swan, Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management, Pennsylvania State, Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, Freight Systems Group Chair Katherine F.
    [Show full text]
  • Line 744 (12/15/19) -- Metro Rapid
    Saturday, Sunday and Holiday Effective Dec 15 2019 744 Northbound on Van Nuys (Approximate Times) Southbound on Van Nuys (Approximate Times) SHERMAN VAN NUYS PANORAMA PACOIMA PACOIMA PANORAMA VAN NUYS SHERMAN OAKS CITY CITY OAKS 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 Sepulveda & Van Nuys Orange Van Nuys & Van Nuys & Van Nuys & Van Nuys & Van Nuys Orange Sepulveda & Ventura B Line Station Roscoe Glenoaks Glenoaks Roscoe Line Station Ventura 6:02A 6:17A 6:28A 6:50A A5:12A 5:27A 5:36A 5:46A 6:36 6:51 7:02 7:25 A5:36 5:55 6:06 6:16 7:10 7:26 7:39 8:03 A6:06 6:25 6:36 6:46 7:40 7:57 8:10 8:34 6:35 6:54 7:05 7:16 8:10 8:28 8:42 9:07 7:05 7:24 7:35 7:46 8:40 8:58 9:12 9:37 7:33 7:53 8:06 8:17 9:10 9:28 9:43 10:09 8:00 8:21 8:34 8:46 9:40 10:00 10:15 10:42 8:30 8:51 9:04 9:16 10:10 10:30 10:45 11:12 9:00 9:21 9:34 9:46 10:40 11:00 11:15 11:42 9:30 9:51 10:04 10:16 11:10 11:30 11:45 12:12P 9:59 10:21 10:34 10:46 11:40 12:00P 12:16P 12:43 10:28 10:50 11:04 11:16 12:10P 12:30 12:46 1:14 10:58 11:20 11:34 11:46 12:40 1:00 1:16 1:44 11:27 11:49 12:03P 12:16P 1:10 1:30 1:46 2:14 11:57 12:19P 12:33 12:46 1:40 2:00 2:16 2:44 12:27P 12:49 1:03 1:16 2:10 2:30 2:45 3:13 12:55 1:18 1:33 1:46 2:40 3:00 3:16 3:44 1:25 1:48 2:03 2:16 3:10 3:30 3:46 4:14 1:56 2:18 2:33 2:46 3:40 4:00 4:16 4:44 2:27 2:49 3:03 3:16 4:10 4:30 4:45 5:13 2:57 3:19 3:33 3:46 4:40 5:00 5:15 5:43 3:27 3:49 4:03 4:16 5:10 5:30 5:44 6:12 3:58 4:19 4:33 4:46 5:40 6:00 6:14 6:41 4:29 4:50 5:04 5:16 6:10 6:29 6:43 7:10 5:00 5:21 5:34 5:46 6:40 6:59 7:13 7:40 5:30 5:51 6:04 6:16 7:10 7:29 7:43 8:09 6:00 6:21 6:34
    [Show full text]
  • As a Di‘Erent Route Through Downtown Buses Continuing INTERBAY Swedish S
    N 152 St to Shoreline CC Snohomish County– to Aurora toAuroraVill toMtlk to Richmond NE 150 St toWoodinvilleviaBothell 373 5 SHORELINE 355 Village Beach Downtown Seattle toNSt Terr to Shoreline CC toUWBothell 308 512 402 405 410 412 347 348 77 330 309 toHorizonView 312 413 415 416 417 421 NE 145 St 373 308 NE 145 St ­toKenmoreP&R N 145 St 304 316 Transit in Seattle 422 425 435 510 511 65 308 toUWBothell 513 Roosevelt Wy N Frequencies shown are for daytime period. See Service Guide N 143 St 28 Snohomish County– 346 512 301 303 73 522 for a complete summary of frequencies and days of operation. 5 64 University District 5 E 304 308 For service between 1:30–4:30 am see Night Owl map. 512 810 821 855 860 E N 871 880 y 3 Av NW 3 Av Jackson Park CEDAR W Frequent Service N 135 St Golf Course OLYMPIC y Linden Av N Linden Av PARK t Bitter i Every 15 minutes or better, until 7 pm, Monday to Friday. C HILLS weekdays Lake e 372 Most lines oer frequent service later into the night and on NW 132 St Ingraham k a Ashworth Av N Av Ashworth N Meridian Av NE 1 Av NE 15 Av NE 30 Av L weekends. Service is less frequent during other times. (express) 373 77 N 130 St Roosevelt Wy NE 372 weekends 28 345 41 Link Light Rail rapid transit North- every 10 minutes BITTER LAKE acres 8 Av NW 8 Av Park 5 NW 125 St N 125 St Haller NE 125 St E RapidRide limited stop bus for a faster ride 345 Lake NE 125 St every 10–12 minutes 346 PINEHURST 8 Frequent Bus every 10–12 minutes BROADVIEW 99 347 348 continues as LAKE CITY 75 Frequent Bus every 15 minutes 41 345 NE 120 St Northwest
    [Show full text]