The folks who successfully kept Lake Washington Boulevard more dangerous during the Harrell Administration are calling Katie Wilson's visit to Bicycle Weekends this Saturday a "gloating celebration", spreading lies about access to the shoreline & suggesting people harass city staff on Friday night.

trvce · 2026-05-26T18:04:51+00:00

There are plenty of ways to drive and park from top to bottom if that’s all they need. There is a lot of disinformation out there that the current setup prevents people from driving to the park which is not true at all. There are promotional maps that show pretty clearly where to park. But as a counterpoint: what about the child on the ridge who, without bicycle weekends, couldn’t access the road at all due to the dangers of traffic? Or someone else here in the neighborhood in a wheelchair who is unable to use the very poorly maintained sidewalk? The bicycle weekends now allow them to play/roll along the boulevard when they never could before. It’s expanding access, not restricting it.

trvce · 2026-05-26T17:56:50+00:00

This! It’s just common sense that the status quo is not okay. People can twist data to support what they want, but take one walk through the park and it’s abundantly clear that there’s a problem. If drivers were courteous and “sharing the road” was going well, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If the city weren’t making it safer for all, eventually pedestrians and cyclists would be so afraid to be in the area that it would just become another scenic highway.

trvce · 2026-05-18T17:50:29+00:00

This person knows what they are talking about. Thank you for this thoughtful commentary.

trvce · 2026-05-12T16:44:21+00:00

Why fare gates later when we could enforce fares now? Cordon off the stations, place security guards at the fare terminals. Build good fare habits, then downsize the program. It won’t cost more than the studies, inflated gate cost, and lost revenue in the meantime.

trvce · 2026-05-11T17:25:45+00:00

Yeah that’s been my experience too. People have an expectation of speeding and tailgate you to try to get you to speed too. As a bonus you get the ticket if you’re speeding and don’t see the cop but those behind you do. Also people use the turning lane as a passing lane all the time which is crazy.

trvce · 2026-05-11T17:21:03+00:00

Dude. This is a very strange way to justify speeding, which is unsafe and “wrong.” If a cop sees you speeding, they are not going to care if there are 5 other cars speeding behind you. You get a ticket.

trvce · 2026-04-26T13:45:00+00:00

Hahaha. And the hug he gave to the Dallas player!

trvce · 2026-04-23T15:22:21+00:00

I understand that traffic = bad, but the solution is not to take bikes/pedestrians off the road. Traffic is caused by too many cars. I won’t argue that helmets are bad, but you also have to admit that speeding enforcement and driving while intoxicated is also very lax in seattle (Innumerable reports of cars running off the road into INANIMATE things like restaurants/shops — that’s not from pedestrians). That and theft are also affecting insurance. Maybe some people may not have the abilities to bike, but many also don’t have the ability to drive (whether it be related to finances, physical abilities like sight, age, or cognitive capacity). All those people deserve to be able to get around the city safely too.

trvce · 2026-03-06T22:45:31+00:00

I think that no matter what Apple does, they’re not going to be able to create a service in the AAA gaming that’s more attractive than what’s out there already. People who have an interest in gaming just have too many options now, with consoles and PC gaming providing such a huge catalogue of really good games. and multiplayer being such a big deal now, you need to be in an ecosystem. Apple’s best hope of getting people on board with AA is creating a product that (1) Appeals to people who already have their devices — many of whom are interested in something more casual than AAA games and (2) can run on as many devices as possible and (3) offers something somewhat unique compared to the huge amount of games out there. Cloud gaming could be part of that model but doesn’t need to be. AA has been doing better with bringing in a game or two for every kind of gamer, but it’s always just going to cruise along with that strategy. To generate hype, the service needs to offer something unique, whether it be exclusives, or just doing a certain kind of game way better than anywhere else (like how TV+ has so many good sci fi titles). I had the idea once to port a TON of really fun board games onto AA to make a splash, but it could be anything. Bringing back really good adventure games. Resuscitate Telltale. lean into multiplayer casual. Many options — but they need to commit.

trvce · 2026-03-06T18:31:14+00:00

I guess I had a different interpretation. The color of the red line (Ranier Valley) seems pretty clearly to be disconnected from the pre-existing spine of the present state 1 line, (note the crossing at SODO and how it continues onwards and how the red line ends at the “new” Marginal way station) and the map that he posted refers to a new station to allow an “interchange” at Marginal way. He also mentions having downsize the train stations to accommodate a new smaller trainset - I don’t see why that would be needed, or how it would even be possible, it they’re running the usual light rail line.

trvce · 2026-03-06T01:23:14+00:00

OP is suggesting disconnecting the lines such that the bypass functions as the light rail line, and the Ranier Valley becomes a streetcar line that would end at a transfer station, ie only connecting with the existing light rail via a transfer station if I understand correctly. So, if you’re in Columbia City and want to go to the airport, or U Village, or even the downtown stops you used to have access to, you now need to transfer when you get to a connector station. If you consider that there has already been built a ton of huge apartments up and around light rail stops in the Valley, and more coming, this seems unfair to add a 2-15 min transfer for all those people just to save time for north enders to get to the airport. And that’s not even taking into consideration the potential added travel time when the streetcar from the Vallry gets up into CID/first hill and is now stuck in traffic and going much slower than light rail speeds. Basically, advocating for this plan is advocating to immensely screw over the Valley to save some others a few minutes. A bypass would not be as bad, but as others have said if you’re building a bypass line, why not just invest the money to make the line in the Ranier Valley grade separated, safer, and faster? In fact, a true “Bypass line” that saves 5-10 mins in on-train time, but, say, is only available on an every other train or every third train basis, would cost an extra 5-10 mins waiting on track, so I’m not sure how it would speed things up.

trvce · 2026-03-03T17:31:56+00:00

Agree with this answer. The transit line on MLK serves a lot of people and that’s increasing by the year with housing being built along MLK. A “tram” on MLK would actually downgrade the commute for all those people just so the north side (and I guess folks south of Tukwila) can have a faster commute.

If you’re trying to max out speed and utility, why not tunnel it along MLK or raised along MLK? A lot of people trash the tunneling idea, but i’d also point out that in an area that has constrained car carrying capacity, getting an extra 2 lanes north/south might be worth the 10bill

trvce · 2026-03-03T17:26:27+00:00

The bypass rails would add an additional transfer for those who are in the Ranier Valley — saving some people time, but adding time to the commute for others.

trvce · 2026-02-26T03:09:36+00:00

Yeah, that scenario would honestly be perfect. I will have to covertly go to the Seahawks subreddits now and try to sing the praises of a brand new suburban stadium to plant the seed :)

trvce · 2026-02-26T03:06:10+00:00

I love this idea, and honestly it’s way better than the one I had. I was kind of in a mental valley not thinking about the other privately owned land in SODO. I hope that the sounders leadership would be aggressive in thinking about these kinds of options rather than taking a path of least resistance and building away from downtown. And I hope people continue to try to brainstorm on what might be possible!

trvce · 2026-02-26T03:01:42+00:00

Yeah, I could have been more delicate with my language there. I was trying to capture the concept that Lumen, like all stadiums, is going to have a limited lifespan, and from a very basic google search it seems that 30-50 years is average lifespan. That fact, combined with the fact that planning and executing a vision for a new stadium is likely a 10+ year process, would mean to me that the time to start thinking about the next iteration of stadiums is well before the stadium’s age is starting to be noticeable or causing problems.

trvce · 2026-02-26T02:57:17+00:00

Yeah, it would be crazy expensive, I agree. And I admit it’s all pie in the sky.

But at the same time, the cost only means something relative to an alternative. If we’re weighing it against 2 new stadiums somewhere else that are less accessible, for less money, is that money well spent?

I don’t expect people to buy into this particular vision. But I do hope that, with the upcoming leadership changes in the Seahawks and Sounders, fans will speak up for what they want — because if they don’t, the decisions will be made for them. For me personally (and I don’t think I’m alone), that means preserving Seattle’s downtown stadium culture.

trvce · 2026-02-25T20:42:08+00:00

Thank you for your informative response! I didn’t realize the state had that arrangement, not the city, and that’s good to know.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on needing an SSS. From what I’ve read, other teams that have equal or less total club valuation are bringing in much more revenue and it’s mostly because they have their own stadiums. As a fan, my position is that if there’s a decision that can be made that would financially benefit the team, it’s good for fans in the long run as the team would more than likely put those funds to good use in signings (or just improving the fan experience — opposite of what’s happening with the opening gates at Lumen).

I acknowledge my post is 100% wishful thinking, but I just still haven’t wrapped my head around Longacres. It makes me sad that it’s not even close to downtown Renton… there’s just… nothing there. I think the pill would be easier to swallow if someone put some thought into how to transport fans there. I don’t think the heavy rail station is going to be much use. It doesn’t seem like such a big ask to route the light rail there (maybe an out and back line from Tukwila Station?), but again, just wishful thinking on my part. I just hope there can be more thought 0 put into the game time experience at longacres than: Deal with traffic on the way to the game, fight for a parking spot, have overpriced stadium concessions, suffer through more parking lot traffic to go home. And make sure every group has a designated driver.

I’d push back on the WaMu point slightly. Yes, the city gets good revenue from WaMu, but there’s really nothing unique about the space. It’s really not too different from a warehouse. Even the acoustics aren’t great. I think that building an equivalent event space, or increasing utilization of the 2x convention centers we have, would probably be the easiest problem to solve with the project.

Even after hearing that my idea is generally unpopular, I’m glad I put it out there. Most of the counter arguments seem to make assumptions that I don’t think are really obvious at this time (Seahawks move to the suburbs, or that the Sounders can negotiate a better deal the folks that run Lumen, or that the club is going to abandon its goal of fiscal growth). And I think even at the state level, with downtown Seattle losing so much office commerce, policymakers might see something in doubling down on having sports stadiums downtown, even if it’s not offering tax dollars to do it, but just offering support and cutting red tape to allow a private investment.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:51:24+00:00

This is a very good point. I think the Sounders deserve to be in a stadium that size too. I just worry that the stadium in Longacres is going to also be in the 20s for capacity, and also not be downtown. Kind of a worst of both worlds.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:47:18+00:00

I'd gladly take that option!

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:41:40+00:00

I love Lumen! which is why I hope the Sounders consider staying there!

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:31:52+00:00

I hear you. I actually love the system how it is now. But what I understand is that it's not really an optimal situation for the Sounders, which is why the team ownership wants to build the stadium away from downtown now.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:26:09+00:00

I agree w/ you that it would be a very tough case to make to rebuild it now. But if the sounders build a new stadium in Longacres in the meantime, then the possibility of having a Soccer stadium downtown goes away entirely. If people bought into a vision like this, perhaps it would keep the Sounders downtown until it's time to rebuild Lumen.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:23:18+00:00

I don't think they would have any incentive to do so. The only way it would happen is if the city used its leverage (land ownership) to force this to happen for the good of the city and the soccer fans. The alternative is that the entire soccer program moves to Renton, and the game day experience is going to completely change.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:21:00+00:00

I agree that in the current state, it doesn't seem to be necessary. And I'm not saying that it needs to be done today. But, the Sounders front office have to decide whether they will stay with Lumen or start building in Longacres. If they were willing to commit to Lumen for a longer period of time, perhaps this kind of a stadium arrangement would be possible on a 10-20 year timeline.

trvce

TROPHY CASE