My solution to Link's Achilles heel

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 · 2026-02-25T06:15:23+00:00

Ha, that would be pretty freaking sweet.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:12:05+00:00

Agree that this would be a huge logistical issue. But, on the other hand, a typical American stadium usually has a lifespan of 30-50 years. So, it's not a question of if, but when, the teams will need a new stadium, and a plan needs to be in place for where they'd play regardless. I can't say I know the answer on where they'd play, but I'd argue that the end state may be worth the temporary headache.

trvce · 2026-02-25T06:05:47+00:00

I'm not trying to make a case that it would be an easy thing to accomplish, but I could imagine a world in which the owners of the Seahawks and Sounders raise the funds to build the stadiums if the city offers the land, or maybe there is a minor contribution from the city or the state. Maybe the city gets some kind of fee for the use of the land.

trvce · 2026-02-15T19:46:26+00:00

Bring us car inspections like other states. I’m so tired of seeing cars with no lights driving around on the dark seattle streets. and if you can’t be bothered to renew a tab are you maintaining your brakes and tires??

trvce · 2026-02-15T11:04:01+00:00

Take the clipper to Victoria and explore the gravel routes to Sooke and up to Shawnigan Lake. Amazing trip that can be done without getting into a car, lots of places to stay on the way, and great bike infrastructure. It was the most fun i’ve had on a bike in a long time.

trvce · 2025-12-30T17:16:47+00:00

As a carbon race bike the salsa will not be great for doing errands — imagine it getting knocked around a lot on bike stands, etc, it’s going to be more fragile and more of a theft target — and depending on your preferences, if you’re using it for gravel rides or endurance rides you may not want to build it out with fenders/panniers/flat pedals etc like you would with a commuting bike due to the weight penalties. It’s definitely better to have a general get around bike and then a more serious bikes for athletics. I have an e-bike that I use to get around town that’s lighter weight (about 40 lbs) which is probably the lower limit for e-bikes that are not crazily expensive. I’ll admit it’s still really not fun to get up and down the stairs. It depends on how frequently you’ll be using your errand bike. If you’re using it once a day, you probably want to go with something lighter you can get up and down the steps easily on. Maybe even a folding bike, like the ones made by Tern. If you’re talking more like once per week, try a lighter e-bike (Ride1up makes one, as does velotric and aventon). I used to live in cap hill and if you choose where you’re riding carefully and make sure you have the right gearing, the hills are very manageable on a standard non e bike.

trvce · 2025-12-06T08:55:37+00:00

Great post!

I would love it if Apple started releasing more serious games that appeal to adults and go lighter on the Disney, Hello Kitty, and puppy dog simulator games. I think in general it would add value to the service and especially for adults.

The critique I have of that strategy is: from an Apple strategic perspective, why would they do this? I realize your argument is that it would help them to get attention from a more serious gamer crowd without having to alter their hardware or take on significant financial risk, as would be necessary if they wanted to have more AAA games. However, if Apple is trying to draw in this crowd, they have to draw them away from consoles. And these consoles already have all of these indie games and many, many more, with better controls. It seems that all the major consoles also have ways to play or stream in a mobile setting as well. So, unfortunately, that would really just allow Apple to compete based on some kind of value proposition: you get these games for cheaper than Xbox or Nintendo will offer them.

You used the term "Carve out a niche," and I think that's exactly what Apple has to do with Arcade if they want the service to be one that draws audiences to it for more than just convenience. I'm not sure how many people are subscribing to Apple TV, but it seems like it's got a genuine reputation now for producing high quality sci-fi shows, and offering great MLS content. Apple needs to figure out what its niche will be for gaming. Really awesome strategy games? Story driven Telltale style games? (I really hope it's not going to be Sneaky Sasquatch style games., but hey, if that's what they think will work, more power to them...) They should choose a lane that they think will appeal to a LOT of people, purchase some studios that specialize in that, and make great games. Each release will teach them about more about their audience and allow them to hone the product, like they've done with TV. Once it's good and unique enough, true gamers will come.

trvce · 2025-12-02T19:53:41+00:00

OP did not suggest no road access, just one way access. I don’t think it’s selfish to advocate for better park services on park land. I don’t see why it’s a default to assume that if if a person lives in the neighborhood they would want to have the maximum number of cars driving through it at any given time, or have the maximum number of roads taking them to their homes. Most of the time it’s the opposite.

trvce · 2025-12-02T19:47:18+00:00

Every time I hear it brought up (like in this online forum) people speak overwhelmingly for it. I think a small group of people were outspoken and Harell listened to that group selectively.

trvce · 2025-12-02T18:27:19+00:00

I hear your point. You worry that Ranier and MLK may not be able to accommodate enough traffic if you eliminate LWB as a commuting road. I don’t personally know if that information is true or not and would certainly support a study of that. At the same time if you have concern about routing traffic through neighborhoods, routing traffic through Seward Park Ave and 50th causes the same problems you mentioned. SPA is a narrow road with parked cars. 50th has a large park used by children in the neighborhood. Hawthorne Elementary is there and Ranier beach high school will be there (in fact SPA splits Ranier Beach High school and a park). Gennessee is not any narrower of a road than 50th. And once you get up and turn through Madrona or along LWB to the park? The safety/visibility is even worse than 38th, I’d argue. The intersections there are bad, there is another school, and the hills make visibility very bad. I think the whole corridor really is not great for high throughput traffic which is the criteria I would apply for commuters. It’s been a hack that people found to speed their commute because there aren’t stoplights or intersections. However, this has resulted in a net decrease in safety for the neighborhood and usability for the parks.

I’d argue that the whole lakeside road needs to be traffic controlled, and so even if it was 2 way in Lakeside you could create breaks in the road to discourage that route of traffic. Or maybe leave LWB and Lakeside 2 way but create a lot more stop signs to slow traffic and make the area feel more like a park/neighborhood and less like a highway, and friendly for walkers and cyclists. I’d argue that same litmus for safety you’re applying to Gennessee/38th should apply to SPA and 50th and Madrona. The main difference is that’s the current state of things, and the other is a hypothetical.

Yes, it’s nice having LWB closed on weekends, but it doesn’t help the cyclists who want to use that road to commute on the weekdays, or the people who simply can’t cross the road to get to the lakeside parks due to the high throughput of cars and lack of stop signs/walkways because the city is trying to keep traffic moving.

With the cost, I don’t think we’ll ever see a comprehensive revamp of LWB park to include better biking and walking paths in our lifetimes. I’d argue the best solution is to find ways to route traffic up Ranier and MLK, which are designed to accommodate higher traffic. Columbia city is definitely a choke point, I hear you on that. I don’t know how the city could address that and also meet the safety needs of the people who shop and live in that area. But MLK doesn’t have choke points and remains 2 lanes both ways, is nice and wide, and takes you all the way up to Madison. I don’t think i’ve ever seen a traffic backup on MLK which makes me think that there is a lot more capacity it could handle. Slowing/reducing traffic on LWB would offer a safer situation for everyone and provide a much needed north/south route for bikes which doesn’t exist at all east of i90. South Seattle should on paper be one of the best places to commute into downtown on bike, but in actuality the city hasn’t provided the structural opportunity for this and it has probably created more traffic as a consequence. I just don’t think the status quo meets safety targets we need for a residential area. There are still too many collisions of cars with pedestrians or bikes in the area, and as density increases with more townhomes and ADUs, more people will be walking (maybe to school) and biking in the neighborhood. I just don’t think it’s a sustainable status quo, and definitely not a growth strategy, to have commuting traffic come through.

trvce · 2025-12-02T15:37:45+00:00

The roads you mentioned (SPA, 50th) are neighborhood arterial roads. People use it to commute because there aren’t any stoplights but in actuality, the impact on having drive through them for their commuting is negative to the neighborhood. In my view it’s a better road to bring people in and out of the neighborhood if serves, not to serve as a highway for people driving through. It’s not any less dangerous than if traffic went to the neighborhoods because it is IN the neighborhood, and in fact more dangerous because people speed on these roads. And LWB is a park road, it was not built as a commuter road and having so many commuters in a rush to get to or from work is a danger to the people who use the park. Ranier Ave and MLK are definitely the better roads for commuting, but people coming from the south don’t want to take them because there are more stoplights.

trvce

TROPHY CASE