As Issaquah continues to grow, traffic has become a challenge. With I-90 running through the city and with major elevation differences between west and east, the few arteries are getting clogged. Now the city is considering another I-90 crossing. Would that address the problem? Or would it be better to increase transit options such as adding a gondola?

Issaquah’s latest Mobility Action Plan talks about the growing number of car trips. It points out that many trips go through Issaquah to Bellevue and Seattle downtown but many trips also stay in Issaquah. If you want to shop both at Trader Joe’s and PCC or Costco, you need to get back in your car and cross one of the bridges to get to the other side of the freeway. Issaquah envisions building another bridge over I-90 to link Pickering Square with Gilman Village by extending Maple St over I-90 towards Lake Drive. While that may simplify such shopping trips, it would also bring even more traffic into these shopping areas. As these roads ultimately connect the same arteries, you may get stuck on the same arteries (such as NW Sammamish Rd) as before.

When I reached out to the city, they also pointed out that the bridge would allow for multi-modal access. While I could see this improving bike access, I cannot imagine many people walking over I-90 while getting passed by other cars.

What if you could park or take a bus to the closest entry point into Issaquah and from there rely on high-frequency transit?!? That would drastically reduce traffic within the city. In fact, it would pull its neighborhoods together effectively into a 15-minute city. Issaquah already has transit centers with park & ride facilities on the southwest entrance and the northeast corner of the city but bus service in between is neither frequent nor fast. If Issaquah would add a gondola line in between those centers with mid-stations at Swedish Hospital, Downtown, Gilman Village, and Pickering Square, then all major destinations would be reachable within minutes. Buses such as the 554 wouldn’t need to traverse downtown Issaquah anymore as the gondola would be more reliable. The bus service hours from current downtown lines could be reallocated to serve the gondola stations more frequently. Cyclists wouldn’t have to climb the hill towards the Highlands or cross I-90.

Once Issaquah gets served by a Link station along Rainier Blvd by the Issaquah Creek, the gondola would allow riders to reach the Issaquah Highlands and both transit centers to park or connect with other bus lines. That might be faster than diverting all buses downtown to the Link station.

Before Issaquah invests into another bridge, it may want to consider a gondola to bring its various neighborhoods closer together, reduce traffic inside the city, and therefore make it much easier for its citizens to visit multiple places across its neighborhoods without having to drive and search for parking.

69 Replies to “Issaquah Gondola”

    1. I love the idea. I’ve lived in Issaquah all my life (for credibility) Gondolas are just plain cool and people would ride it just for fun. Actually that might be the majority of riders!

      1. What kind of transit network would allow a cross-section of Issaquah residents to meet some of their everyday needs without a car?

  2. I’m skeptical of an Issaquah gondola from a transit perspective but it definitely makes more sense than another road.

    Even though the ideas shown on the map would be a good substitute for the new road I think I would start with something much simpler. Basically just Highlands to lowlands. These would be the start and end points: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1jEVaTGUp3sJivDB8. As the crow flies it is 1.15 miles (or 1.84 km) between there. That would take about five minutes by gondola — thus just as fast as a car when there is no traffic. Gondolas have headways measured in seconds (not minutes). The wait time is essentially based on how busy they are. I could definitely see a gondola of that nature being popular for a variety of reasons and being better than another road.

    1. Interesting idea! If it doesn’t dramatically raise the cost to put an intermediate stop on a gondola, I’d put one at Swedish Issaquah. It’s a third of a mile from any bus stop, and somewhere that could use better transit.

    2. Why follow the roadway? You don’t show any intermediate stations. Doesn’t a direct path make more sense?

      Is there some ownership issue that would bar adding pylons?

      1. You wouldn’t follow the roadway. I thought I made that clear. It would be a direct path between the two points (that is what “as the crow flies” means). Just take that map and measure the distance between the two points. That is your gondola line (more or less).

        I’m not trying to get into the details. I’m just saying something like that — a direct line between the Highlands and the main cultural center of Issaquah — is quite feasible. The length is right and you create a shortcut of sorts.

      3. Because there is no quick and easy way to draw a direct line in Google Maps. It also allows me to show how *driving* between the two points takes about five minutes. Sorry this was confusing. Here is an alternative way of explaining it:

        Build a gondola between these two points:

        Point one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/daaZ1vBM4erKrNvB9
        Point two: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cZWTPhN7MMtJ2FXm9

        Since it is a gondola it would go straight between them (obviously). As the crow flies it is 1.15 miles (or 1.84 km) between there. That is about five minutes by gondola. If you drive between those two points it takes five minutes: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1jEVaTGUp3sJivDB8. Thus the gondola — traveling at a much slower speed — would take about as long as driving (simply because it would be going directly between the two points).

      1. I know. I have made dozens of Google My Maps. It is kind of my thing. I didn’t want to make a My Map when it is something this simple. It is just two points and neither has been given that much thought. With Google directions (or a link to a point) it is just something you make and forget about. With My Maps it is something that sits in your drive until you get rid of it (and if you link to it you are hesitant to delete it because then you have a broken link). I literally have dozens of maps that are just sitting there and I’m not sure which ones I can get rid of (it makes searching for a map a bit tedious). Yes, I know there are ways of handling this, but in this case it is simply two points.

  3. In the meantime, the biggest short-term change coming to Issaquah transit is that people who currently catch buses at Issaquah Transit Center or Issaquah Highlands P&R decide to drive directly to the (2-line) train, rather than drive to a bus to take to the train, leaving all the existing parking garages along I-90 as mostly white elephants.

    Yes, they will get some use as overflow for late-morning commuters if South Bellevue P&R fills up, but that will be about it.

    1. If South Bellevue fills up? My second friend in north Lynnwood says the Lynnwood Station P&R is already full in the mornings and she can’t park there.

      (I found out I have two friends northwest of Ash Way P&R who don’t know each other. I thought the second one lived on 164th but they don’t. The second one has a car; the first one doesn’t.)

      1. Yeah, it seems like a similar situation. There are some pretty good feeder-bus alternatives — including park and ride alternatives that are quite frequent — but that doesn’t stop the Link parking lot from filling up.

      2. Well, then, the manure is about to hit the air impeller. Is Mountlake Terrace full also? I think any overflow will go there first. Shoreline North is pretty hard to get to from the north, so it probably won’t attract Snohomians.

        So, any additional ridership is going to have to come from the feeder buses soon. Will it be there or is Link simply handling the same people who rode the expresses before more efficiently?

        We will see.

      3. I haven’t been able to find information about the status of the various park and ride lots. It is well known that Lynnwood fills up fairly early. I have heard (anecdotally) that there is a lot more room at Northgate now. (Northgate is weird because there are actually four different lots and the situation is complicated. In a couple of cases you can park on only designated floors.) But I don’t know about the other park and ride lots. One thing that is noticeable is that ridership at those other Lynnwood Link stations is really low. I guess that doesn’t prove anything — maybe the parking lots are filling up and very few people are taking feeder buses.

        The lack of information on the park and ride lots is a problem. They build a system that is highly dependent on them (which is not really a good idea) but they don’t have a way of easily determining which lots are full and which aren’t. This would be very useful for those that want to commute that way. It should be possible to check on the status in real time. There should be a website and an app. If I leave the house and it saves the Lynnwood lot is full but the Mountlake Terrace lot is at 50% capacity I’m heading to Mountlake Terrace.

      4. “I think any overflow will go there first. Shoreline North”

        Typically it goes the other way. E.g., people find Mercer Island full, so they try South Bellevue, then Eastgate, etc. So if Lynnwood is full they’d try Ash Way and on further north.

        My friend isn’t quite ready to park at Ash Way and take a feeder bus to Link. Since Lynnwood P&R is full, she drives to Seattle, and waits for the Link extension to Ash Way to open. Maybe someday she’ll take a feeder, but not yet.

      5. The Thornton garage at Northgate (underneath the movie theater) is never full (90% empty) on any day of the week.

      6. Typically it goes the other way. E.g., people find Mercer Island full, so they try South Bellevue, then Eastgate, etc. So if Lynnwood is full they’d try Ash Way and on further north.

        I think it is the opposite. They start by going to the nearest Link station. For a lot of people in Snohomish County that is Lynnwood. If it is full they go one of two directions (both literally and figuratively):

        1) Drive to a feeder lot.
        2) Drive to the next nearest Link park and ride.

        I think very few people do the former. Some do, but they are more savvy. Those riders are likely to know whether the lot will be full or not (based on experience) and just go to the feeder lot from the get go. Most will at least initially go with the second approach.

        In the case of Lynnwood that would be north to south (Mountlake Terrace, 185th, etc.). Mountlake Terrace and 185th are not that easy to access from the north but they it is still quicker then skipping a station. Eventually they end up at Northgate (or just give up and drive to their destination if that is an option).

        For East Link the only people who are closer to Mercer Island Station are people who are on Mercer Island. If the lot fills up then it is quite possible they try their luck at South Bellevue. But the vast majority of people will start at South Bellevue. The island doesn’t have that many people — everyone else is closer to a different station.

        South Bellevue Station is the closest park and ride for a lot of people. It is the closest station if you are anywhere south of I-90 (e.g. Factoria, Newcastle, Issaquah). It is the closest station if you are south of 520 and west of 405. It is only when you are east of 405 and north of I-90 that some of the other stations become closer. Even then you have to be relatively far north. If you are anywhere near I-90 then it is faster to go to South Bellevue (in a single-occupancy car). South Bellevue will be the primary park-and-ride lot for a lot of drivers on the East Side.

        If and when it fills up things look to get fairly messy. The next lot is Mercer Island and chances are it is filled as well. At that point you are looking at Bel-Red (which is likely full) and the Redmond stations. Not only will they probably be full but that is not a trivial drive. Fifty years ago that would be a reverse commute but now it isn’t. Hard to say what will happen. Anyone with paid parking on the island will do good business. Many of the neighborhoods have restricted parking (https://www.mercerisland.gov/system/temporary/filefield_paths/01-07-2025-master-tc_north_free_public_parking.pdf). Some of the places that don’t might end up adding them.

        I don’t normally suggest advertising the buses but I do think it makes sense in this case. There are potential riders who don’t even consider a two-seat ride (especially one that involves driving). Even though Ash Way is well designed as a park-and-ride/shuttle-bus location it would not surprise me if a significant number of people have never considered it.

    2. In the meantime, the biggest short-term change coming to Issaquah transit is that people who currently catch buses at Issaquah Transit Center or Issaquah Highlands P&R decide to drive directly to the (2-line) train, rather than drive to a bus to take to the train, leaving all the existing parking garages along I-90 as mostly white elephants.

      It is not clear that will happen. I think it depends on the parking lot. I could definitely see Eastgate Park and Ride being a white elephant. By the time you’ve reached that lot you might as well keep driving to South Bellevue. But at the other extreme is the Highlands. During rush hour it can take a really long time to get from there to Mercer Island or South Bellevue. In contrast the bus is quite fast and will be fairly frequent during peak. Issaquah Transit Center is somewhere in between. The 554 doesn’t go to Mercer Island — it leaves the HOV lanes and heads towards South Bellevue. Thus there is a smaller section on the HOV lanes (where the bus is faster). I would imagine some of the ridership at the Issaquah Park and Ride come from north of the freeway. It does seem like a lot or riders will just head towards South Bellevue rather than go over the freeway and park at the lot (to then catch a bus heading back to the freeway).

      A lot depends on the frequency of the buses. I seem to remember previous plans having a lot more buses from Issaquah Highlands to Mercer Island during peak. That may have been scaled back. But without good headways people will just drive. A feeder bus from a parking lot to a station with a big parking lot is very dependent on frequency.

    3. The 2 Line opening within the next year will result in some shifts in park-and-ride facility choices. It seems reasonable to respond to that once it’s happening.

      Besides South Bellevue, someone could try Mercer Island for parking! (rolling my eyes…)

      For example, does ST need to add “parking facility shuttles” that overlay on top of the Metro routes during the peak commute hours?

      A gondola investment is a long term idea — so parking shifts should be known before it gets very far.

      1. I don’t think that many people will drive to Mercer Island and park. South Bellevue is basically on the way. The only reason I can think of why you would head to Mercer Island is if you are vanpool. That would give you the same HOV advantage as the buses.

        I suppose it makes sense in the middle of the day, but only if it has space and South Bellevue doesn’t.

    4. All the P&Rs are full on the 1 Line from Lynwood to Northgate unless you get there at the crack of greylight. And the got rid of most of the bus lines that were around before the light rail, so it’s bus or drive to Northgate. And the busses to get to the other stations take longer. They made a huge mistake not making larger P&R lots. They also messed up reducing the express bus routes since the 1 is packed now. Too full at times. Still all for it. It will get better.

      I used to live in Issaquah and moved to Seattle because of the commute when I started working downtown (shocked there was no light rail when I moved here 25 years ago when I was a kid). Those P&R lots will be full. The 2 line will be packed. It will be too packed for a while. It will be a pain until they figure it all out and then it will be great and maybe I’ll move back to the Highlands!

      1. The problem with just making the parking bigger is that a parking garage costs over $100,000 per space, but each stall enables just one daily rider (theoretically, people could carpool to the train; in practice, they don’t, so it’s just one parking space, one person). Parking also takes up a huge amount of land.

        If Sound Transit really wanted to go all in on parking, the way to do it would have been to buy out the entire Northgate Mall property and turn it into nothing but a giant parking garage with around 10000-20000 stalls, (with the Link station shifted north a bit to be near the center). Since this would be literally billions of dollars just on parking, the only way to pay for it would be to end the line at Northgate and cancel the Lynnwood extension entirely. So, Lynnwood drivers get their essentially unlimited parking, but they have to sit in traffic all the way to Northgate to get to it, plus the local traffic getting into and out of such a large parking garage is also guaranteed to be awful. Seattle drivers have a shorter drive, but they lose the ball as a place to shop, and the city loses the Mall’s property tax revenue (plus sales tax on all the merchandise sold there), blowing a direct hole of several million dollars per year in the city budget. And, in the meantime, a person without the car benefits nothing from all that parking, they still have to ride the same old bus, only the bus now gets stuck in traffic from all those people driving to the train.

        So, yes, you *could* design a system around huge parking, but it’s usually not a good idea.

  4. How much would a gondola like this cost, compared to the cost of extending Link to the Highlands?

    1. As an upper limit, consider the Peak2Peak gondola at Whistler, which set a world record for the longest span between towers when it was built: it moves up to 4100 people per hour across a 2.73 mile route, and it cost $51 million in 2008 Canadian dollars. For a more typical project, I’ve seen the range quoted as $4-$12 million per mile.

      Pocket change, in other words, compared to extending Link – even for a top-of-the-line system with difficult engineering challenges.

      1. Because of link fleet shortages, ST is now proposing to run the Issaquah-Kirkland line at 16 minute peak headways (worse than the planned headways for the 554 after the 2 line opens)

        One idea is to replace Issaquah link with BRT running 5-10 minute headways and use the cost savings to construct a gondola like this. The cost of adding bus lanes and freeway ramps in would be much cheaper than Link, and serve more destinations at lower headways.

        Even if the costs are tripled due to Seattle madness and inflation, Gondola + BRT would serve more of Issaquah for less cost than Link and higher frequencies.

      2. With lower frequencies and automation, long stretches of this line could be single tracked — especially in costly or environmentally sensitive areas. The thing I like about automation with single tracking is that the driver cost of higher frequency trains isn’t a factor. So that could save some money.

        A train every 15 or 16 minutes won’t appeal to riders. At least automation would get that number lower to make it something more attractive to use.

        The 4 Line has a few macro planning issues that need to be faced that could change the project at its core:

        – South Kirkland ridership is horribly low.
        – Transfers at East Main require walking across tracks.
        – The 4 Line tracks and 2 Line track merging will run through Mercer Slough and could be more disturbing to the wetlands than a 4 Line that stubs at South Bellevue (with its center platform).

        Dare I suggest that the gondola concept may be more productive between Bellevue college, Eastgate TC, Factoria and South Bellevue Link (at least until the 4 Line opens)?

      3. @Al S:
        Can automated trains interline with the rest of the 2 line, either at S Bellevue or E main?

      4. “Can automated trains interline with the rest of the 2 line, either at S Bellevue or E main?”

        I’m not a vehicle expert but it seems possible.

        I think it’s better to just stub the line rather than serve South Kirkland. South Kirkland has the lowest estimated future boardings of any Eastside station. (https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/)

        So drop South Kirkland and have an automated train end at a separate shorter platform — maybe one level above or below the 2 Line platform. A 4 Line train would simply be waiting for a rider from a 2 Line train when they arrive at the station from either direction.

        The OMF is a related issue. However it’s possible to run automated trains in manual mode to get to the East OMF. It’s just that a track connection and common power source would be needed.

      5. Al, South Kirkland is foolish unless there is a plan to extend it up the CKC, atleast to Totem Lake.

        So where else should it go?

        How about Redmond? Or at least Redmond Tech. Cutting headways between South Bellevue and Tech makes a lot of sense; with short headways (can the street running east of 132nd support trains between the 2 Line runs at eight minutes?) Link becomes a better way to downtown Bellevue for folks in a two-mile wide strip along it.

        I get that you’re proposing automation, and the street running makes that a little sketchy. But it would only require that three street crossings be replaced with underpasses to make it work.

      6. “Dare I suggest that the gondola concept may be more productive between Bellevue college, Eastgate TC, Factoria and South Bellevue Link (at least until the 4 Line opens)?”
        @Al, I have been discussing with Ross various options for Bellevue College, will cover those soon.

      7. An Issaquah-South Kirkland line doesn’t have to go north to Kirkland; it could could also be extended west, going to Seattle over 520 (yes, the bridge was designed that it could theoretically get rail added to it later by adding additional pontoons without needing to completely rebuild the entire bridge).

        I don’t see this happening for a very long time, but in a year-2100 situation where the 2-line is constantly over capacity crossing the lake, I could see talk emerging about a second line along 520, with an extension of Issaquah-South Kirkland being the most logical way to do it.

        But, again, this is getting into territory that is extremely speculative. If it happens at all, it will be far enough into the future that nobody reading this will be around to see it.

      8. This thing has got to go to Downtown Kirkland. A short little branch to a park and ride in the middle of nowhere makes no sense.

  5. The map mainly illustrates to me that Link should not terminate at the transit center. It’s just another instance where people who don’t understand transit have sited things badly. It almost reaches a walkable downtown or shopping district but stops short in favor of stopping at a big suburban parking facility on the edge — just like Kirkland, Everett and Tacoma. The drafters of ST3 thought that Link is a commuter train like Sounder! However in this case the current transit center is almost at Squawk Mountain and park as well as Cougar Mountain nearby which really limits TOD potential there even more than these other end stations.

    If the station was moved to be between I-90 and Gilman it would be lots more efficient for any feeder bus or gondola. I realize that a freeway light rail station has its overall problems — but in this case it may be both better and cheaper.

    Better yet would be for Link to have two end stations like Redmond — one with a big garage and TOD, and another for a walkable village with TOD. It’s a far enough distance to where just having one station (especially if the optional Lakemont station isn’t added) seems like a less effective investment.

    In other words, I think Issaquah and ST need to revisit what they want from a transit network centered on a high capacity transit station (or two) generally before adding a feeder gondola.

    1. Issaquah has zoned a regional growth center on the west side. It’s the justification for the Link line. Can somebody find its boundaries, and when it might see some actual development?

    2. Sound Transit suggested to build the station on Gilman Blvd, others on Rainier Blvd & Holly along the old railway tracks. That’s why I suggested a gondola station on Gilman Blvd & Front Street which would be fairly close. The Transit Center was built as it allowed easy access for cars for parking, but it is too far from Issaquah’s center to make it a good Link station. Brandon Zuo discussed extending it further, but I don’t think Link could climb up to the Highlands. It would not serve the area north of I-90 either.
      https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/03/30/perfecting-issaquah-light-rail/
      The gondola line would then connect both TCs, major shopping destinations, downtown and the Link station (if it gets built).

  6. Is this a joke? Did April Fools’ Day come early this year? The last thing we need is a gondola over the freeway.

    2. What would be the problem with a gondola over the freeway?

      I would love to see a gondola over the freeway right here in Seattle: Denny Way will always be a transit bottleneck, but a gondola system could rise above it all, providing a direct connection from the future “Denny Station” (on the Ballard extension) up to Capitol Hill station.

      Gondolas could make a lot of sense in a city as hilly as ours. If they provide practical transportation in Medellín, La Paz, Caracas, Ankara, Hong Kong, and Singapore, why couldn’t they do the same here?

      1. I’ve been discussing gondola ideas with Martin (via email). Suffice to say that I’m more skeptical of them then he is. But we both agree that one of the most promising areas is to go from Capitol Hill west. This is an old idea presented on this site a really long time ago and on this site: citytank.org/2012/02/21/a-gondola-with-a-cherry-on-top/.

      2. Best gondola route for me would be Columbia City to White Center via Georgetown with extra capacity Friday and Saturday nights

  8. Trying to think of a worse idea than a gondola in Issaquah to help with congestion, but I can’t.

    1. Well, there was the idea that the author linked to (building a new road). If you really think that will help with congestion you don’t understand traffic. The idea has science behind it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand) and is such a common idea that it has become a meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/one-more-lane-bro-one-more-lane-will-fix-it). It isn’t that the gondola will eliminate congestion (the only way to do that would be to charge money to drive the roads) but it at least would give people an alternative.

    2. @Mark,

      Monorail? Ya, that’s the solution. Will solve all the transportation problems and cost nothing. Perfect!

      2. If I had the opportunity to go back in time and murder whoever wrote that irritating Simpsons episode, which has poisoned an entire generation against a mode of transit which is comfortable, practical, and even scenic, I… probably wouldn’t; but I’d be really bummed out about it.

      3. @Mars Saxman,

        Conan O’Brien wrote it. You want to go back in time and “murder” Conan O’Brien? I would suggest that doing such a thing is a reasonably bad idea.

        And let’s face it, “Marge vs the Monorail” is hilarious. And accurate too.

        Maybe someday there will be a sequel, “Gladys vs the Gondola”.

      4. I’d certainly like to murder the episode, which has made it difficult to have any meaningful conversation about monorails. I’ve never seen it, and doubt I ever will, but I’ve heard it quoted often enough to last the rest of my life and then some.

    1. The problem with the southeast Issaquah bypass idea is that it really didn’t solve congestion, just moves it down the Issaquah-Hobart Road. The proposed bypass went from I-90 behind Issaquah High School and ended up on the Issaquah-Hobart Rd, further south than the current 2nd Avenue/I-H Road connection. There was no proposal to close 2nd Avenue, since that is the ingress and egress to and from Issaquah High. So, instead of two roadways entering Issaquah-Hobart, there would have been three roadways, increasing congestion even further. Issaquah-Hobart, which is the bottleneck, will not be widened in our lifetime because it’s a multi-billion dollar proposition and would destroy wildlife habitat and rural farmland through a big swath of south King County. Also, GMA/UGB. SR 18 to I-90 widening is the only viable by-pass option, and finding the funding for that project has been a challenge, although the I-90/Snoqualmie interchange is under construction. Short answer: the SE ByPass would have cost millions and only made congestion worse.

    1. And nobody in Issaquah takes transit, or wants to take transit, or doesn’t have a car. Except they do.

  11. I suppose I don’t go to Issaquah very often, but I really never see much traffic there. If there is a problem with congestion crossing 90, the first thing I would suggest is to toll the existing crossings.

    Gondolas have very low capacity. I am already quite skeptical of the long-term feasibility of buses here, where we have some of the highest wages on Earth. Gondolas would be even worse.

    1. With the proposed route I avoided flying over residential areas, it mostly follows existing right of way.

  13. It will be interesting to see whether any parking commuters will switch from Issaquah to Marymoor Village Station’s 1400- stall parking garage when the full 2 Line opens. The Issaquah Transit Center itself pretty far from Marymoor, but I could see some Sammamish riders making the change.

    1. Yes, for Sammamish riders the Marymoor parking garage is quite attractive. Even some bus riders may go that route.

  14. Funny to mention Costco. The Costco serves North bend, Snoqualmie, Preston, fall city, Sammamish, and Bellevue. These people aren’t going to be riding transit if they also need to go buy something at target with Costco goods already in their vehicle. A lot of people go to Issaquah who don’t live there because the cities to the East don’t have many of the same amenities.

  15. In 1972, my family moved from Renton to Morgantown W.Va..My father was a civil engineer for Boeing, in the days when Boeing was the pride of the Northwest, but I digress.
    The project he was working on was the PRT, it is celebrating 50 years of existence and operation this year.Boeing built the line and all vehicles were originally assembled in Kent.It is a continuous electric loop train that runs separate cars to distinct locations with no stops in between.I haven’t ridden it since 1979, but that sort of transit option should have been considered over a decade ago.It would work great in a town like Issaquah.
    Interested in the idea take a look at the PRT online,An added caveat was that the design also took my family to Okinawa in 1974 where Boeing built a smaller track system for the World’s Exposition of 1975.
    Anything to reduce the traffic in what was once was a slow little hamlet sure would be nice, Issaquah can’t breathe anymore due to congestion.

Comments are closed.