Bicycle Weekends are underway for Summer 2025. This year, Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) is hosting ten Bicycle Weekends between May 17 and September 21. During a Bicycle Weekend, Lake Washington Boulevard between Seward Park and Mount Baker Park’s Beach is closed to cars from 10am on Saturday to 6pm on Sunday. The Boulevard is open to people walking, rolling, and cycling.

People walking and cycling on Lake Washington Blvd (Bob Svercl)

The remaining Bicycle Weekends are:

  • June 14 – June 15 (This weekend!)
  • June 28 – June 29  
  • July 12 – July 13
  • July 26 – July 27
  • August 9 – August 10
  • August 23 – August 24
  • September 6 – September 7
  • September 20 – September 21
People walking and cycling on Lake Washington Blvd (Terry Holme)

Notably, both of the weekends adjacent to holidays (Independence Day and Labor Day) are not on the schedule. SPR could have taken advantage of the long weekends but opted not to do so.

Bicycle Weekend Map. Click the map to view at full-resolution in a new tab. (SPR)

Getting to Lake Washington Boulevard

Walking/Biking

The north end of the Bicycle Weekends path is near Mount Baker Blvd, a calm street that connects to the fairly new MLK bike lanes, the Rainier Valley Neighborhood Greenway, and Mount Baker Link station.

The middle of the path passes Genesee Park which connects to the Rainier Valley Neighborhood Greenway in Columbia City.

The south end is close to the east/west Neighborhood Greenway in Rainier Valley, via Seward Park Ave.

Transit

The north end of the path is close Route 14’s southern terminus. Route 50 runs somewhat parallel to the path between Genesee Park and Seward Park. Routes 7, 106 and the Link 1 Line stop within a 30 minute walk from the Bicycle Weekends path. Route 9 is labelled on the map, but does not run on the weekend.

Driving

Numerous parking lots along the boulevard are free and open during Bicycle Weekends. These lots are labelled on the map.

This is an open thread.

79 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Lake Washington Boulevard Bicycle Weekends”

  1. Will the weekend veloway be able to smoothly reach Jimi Hendrix (Judkins) Park Station? What would be the best vertical connection between the bike tunnel and the roadway?

    1. It’s worth noting that MLK has new protected bicycle lanes between Rainier Ave (Mt Baker Station) and I-90 (east of the Judkins Park Station’s east entry/exit). They opened in the past year.

    2. continue on lake washington blvd until irving street and then enter then tunnel.

      for mt baker station there’s mt baker blvd

    3. Go through the bike tunnel, up the short, steep hill on 1/4 block of Irving St. and then along Lk Washington Blvd through the park.

      That steep section is a crux. You can ride the new MLK lanes down to Franklin High School, then over McClellan to Lake Park Drive. There’s a hill no matter how you go.

  2. The LWB closure is nice to do for a weekend.

    However, the street is an essential neighborhood access road, especially on weekdays. All the streets between Genesee and McClellan are very narrow east of Rainier Ave. There are two elementary schools among these narrow streets and it’s entirely residential. A permanent closure would add traffic in this area, resulting in the local streets becoming less safe 24/7/365.

    1. As a park, Lake Washington Blvd. is much more pleasant without cars, even for people walking on the sidewalk. Cars are noisy, the park atmosphere is much better without them.

      Of course, houses along the street need some form of vehicular access, but the street definitely does not need is cut-through traffic from people trying to avoid traffic and stoplights on Rainier Ave (which is what most of the traffic likely is). If LWB is closed permanently, nearby local streets can be given traffic calming measures to make sure that all the cut-through traffic doesn’t go there instead.

      Part of the problem also lies with the big tech companies that control the mapping software that some 80% of drivers use to navigate. The software tends to be very aggressive at telling drivers to cut through neighborhoods to save maybe 10 seconds off the trip, according to some algorithm. Simply having rules in place requiring the software to suggest arterial roads, when possible, would help a lot, in and of itself.

      1. Yeah, the key is to close it off to through-traffic while allowing local access. The easiest way to do that is to form dead-ends in places. Along certain sections there would be one-way access. It gets a little tricky in places but it can be done.

        All the streets between Genesee and McClellan are very narrow east of Rainier Ave.

        Sure, but people wouldn’t shift to those streets. They would shift to Rainier. Currently, Lake Washington Boulevard is an as alternative for longer trips. It essentially a shortcut for some trips. But if you eliminate that shortcut then the only people who use it are people in the neighborhood and there simply aren’t that many people in those areas.

        For example consider some typical trips. In all these cases the driver started south of Genessee and made their way to the shoreline before heading north. None of these trips would be considered “local”. Sometimes Google even suggests cutting over when you are *on* Rainier Avenue. It is borderline but I can definitely see why a driver would prefer that (I would if I was driving it). I could also see how a driver who takes that trip on a regular basis would drive quickly along the road. It may be more pleasant but you also want to save time. As you can see there are a lot of potential drivers taking that trip.

        Now consider this point. Imagine the road is washed out right there. You can’t get through either direction. All those drivers just head east to a main corridor. For most the best option is to just head west to Rainier. At that point some will angle north on MLK or even dogleg to 31st (using McClellan). Very few people would drive on the side streets because very few people live in an area where driving the side streets would benefit them. No one would try and navigate the side streets as an alternative to any of the trips I mentioned. That doesn’t mean nothing would change in the area. I’m sure you would see an increase in traffic in a street like 38th (an arterial) but it would be minimal. You would also see an increase in traffic along east-west streets (like Genesee and Orcas) but it still wouldn’t be huge. Likewise the increase in traffic along Rainier, MLK and 31st would be fairly minimal compared to existing traffic.

        Lake Washington Boulevard is unusual because it is a coastal bypass road. The only other one I can think of is around Alki but it makes no sense as a bypass (it adds a lot of distance and is very slow). But consider some areas that don’t quite have a bypass. For example imagine if the Burke Gilman was accessible by cars between the UW and Kenmore. You could reach it via Sand Point Way at various spots. For those going from driving from Children’s Hospital or the U-Village it would be an alternative to very busy streets. Drivers would work their way over and it would reach capacity. It would be used by some locals (a trip like this would be much easier). But mostly it would be used as an alternative to working your way over to Lake City Way. Drivers along Lake City Way (even as far north as 125th) would occasionally leave the (congested) highway, work their way down to the lake and hope to save a couple minutes versus slogging along Lake City Way. But of course, none of that happens. As a result, traffic along the quiet side streets east of Sand Point/Lake City Way remain quiet. The only people who use the side streets are the people who live there, and there aren’t that many people who do.

        It is easy to assume that drivers will still follow the same basic route when a road is out. They follow nearby side streets instead of the arterial. But sometimes it leads to people completely rethinking their route. This would be one of those times.

      2. “All those drivers just head east to a main corridor. For most the best option is to just head west to Rainier. At that point some will angle north on MLK or even dogleg to 31st (using McClellan). Very few people would drive on the side streets because very few people live in an area where driving the side streets would benefit them. ”

        Rainier is 3/4 to 1 mile to the west. Hunter Blvd and 38th Ave S are through streets in between. They’re shown on Google Maps as through streets. 38th Ave S is about 25 feet wide with on-street parking because the homes have no driveways. SDOT put in traffic calming already.

        Meanwhile, the capacity on Rainier Ave has been halved. Traffic can back up on Rainier several blocks now. None of this congestion existed 10 years ago. (Now people in City Hall want to halve the capacity of MLK as well.) This is why traffic volumes have been surging on LWB in the past 10 years.

        Meanwhile, LWB in this area doesn’t connect to any jobs, schools, retail or medical. Closing it off is almost entirely recreational. Having is available to recreate on summer weekends is great! It’s just that a permanent closure has very little to no use for recreation on a chilly, rainy Tuesday night in November.

      3. LWB in this area doesn’t connect to any jobs, schools, retail or medical.

        Which is why it should be closed off to cars. It is a very popular bypass road for cars. Now make it a good road for bikes instead.

        Rainier is 3/4 to 1 mile to the west.

        Yes, obviously. That is where a lot of drivers are coming from (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n8jSTe7GdrbxPwu5A). Notice the driver is literally on Rainier Avenue heading north and yet Google says it makes sense to work your way over to the waterfront. Notice that the more obvious alternative is just to stay on Rainier a little bit longer and then go north on MLK. What doesn’t make sense is this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GnDZoGKE48quss9N6. That is way too much turning back and forth and dealing with relatively slow streets (like Hunter/38th).

        Hunter Blvd and 38th Ave S are through streets in between.

        Yes, but they don’t make sense as an alternative to Lake Washington Boulevard for most of the drivers who are using LWB. LWB is not a road used only by locals. It is a regional bypass road which is the problem. But if you close it off it doesn’t mean that people drive streets that are similar — they avoid the area entirely.

        Look, you want to make Hunter or 38th even slower be my guest. I think that is quite reasonable. But it is silly to think that everyone will flood that street if LWB is closed.

      4. Meanwhile, LWB in this area doesn’t connect to any jobs, schools, retail or medical. Closing it off is almost entirely recreational.

        So you are saying it doesn’t matter if we close it off to cars because the only people that drive it are doing so for recreation?

    2. LWB needs access retained but through running deleted. Have some blocks where the roadway is turned into pedestrian/bike/park and traffic diverted onto other local or arterial streets. LWB doesn’t need someone going from UW to Genesee going down it, or Madison to Seward Park. There are ways to preserve connectivity while simultaneously lowering speeds and making streets local access only.

      1. Yes, exactly. You create dead ends in various places. Some sections are one way (likely southbound) to allow access to the houses. This also means more room for the bikes. Some sections wouldn’t have cars at all. I think the tricky part is where there is beach parking. It is also a bit tricky to the north as the shoreline street becomes Lakeside Avenue and there are houses along the shore.

    3. “As a park, Lake Washington Blvd. is much more pleasant without cars, even for people walking on the sidewalk.”

      Somehow the pleasantness of a few hundred elementary students walking to school every weekday morning and again every weekday afternoon seems more important than the visitor who occasionally walks along the lake.

      1. It is highly unlikely that any increase in traffic along any of the schools would be noticeable. For most of the drivers who use Lake Washington Boulevard it wouldn’t make sense to drive that way.

      2. > Somehow the pleasantness of a few hundred elementary students walking to school every weekday morning and again every weekday afternoon seems more important than the visitor who occasionally walks along the lake.

        This is just grasping at straws and a worse rationale than saying the traffic would be worse earlier. If lake Washington boulevard had stayed as a park would anyone talk about converting into a road to lessen cars nearby schools?

        Should we convert the chief sealth trail into a road so there are “less” cars next to maple elementary or Grover Cleveland high school? It’s a ridiculous take

    4. Disagree. I live in this neighborhood and both bike and drive Lk Washington Blvd. It is not “essential.” It feels nice for people who live <5 blocks from the water. If we were serious about providing safe spaces for kids, we'd have closed the part of Lake WA Blvd with zero residences on it (Mt. Baker Beach to the Rowing Center) years ago.

      What it has been is a place that is low traffic where you can reliably drive well over the speed limit and sometimes feel for 5-10 seconds that you live in the fantasy that is a car commercial. It is not essential.

    1. Speed cushions is better than nothing, but it doesn’t really reduce the volume of traffic, only the speeds, and even then, the speed cushions are pretty far apart, so drivers can just slow down for the cushions and speed up between them. The only way to really reduce the volume of traffic is to add barriers to prevent thru traffic.

      1. I actually think speed cushions are worse than nothing … if the point of putting ’em in is to encourage biking over driving, speed cushions are worse to hit on a bike than in a car. Treatments that narrow down the road width at intersections affect (wide) cars more than (narrow) bikes — that’s what we should do if we’re not going to restrict through-traffic properly. At a few intersections I sorta think they should put in 4-way stop signs, which would slow people down and make turns less stressful — I think 43rd Ave S is the big one I’m picturing but there are others that would be good candidates.

        Before someone accuses me of being a speed-demon roadie… my current bike has Grip Shift! I want to add 4-way stop signs to a popular bike route and I’d even obey them (at least up to the point of yielding)! IDK, some people also seem to think I hate speed cushions because I don’t know the difference between “bumps” and “cushions”, and … whatever you call ’em, I go over the ones our city installs on its Greenway network every day. Frequently while carrying stuff. Frequently at night. I know what they are and I hate them. Speed “bumps”, “humps”, “cushions”, with or without cut-outs… riding over them sucks.

        Meanwhile … if we supposedly are doing Vision Zero, and we look at where roadway deaths actually take place (concentrated on and around the biggest car-arterials), and if speed cushions are good at slowing down cars … then obviously the streets they belong on are Aurora, Rainier, 4th Ave S, and the car lanes of the big downtown avenues.

      2. “Meanwhile … if we supposedly are doing Vision Zero, and we look at where roadway deaths actually take place (concentrated on and around the biggest car-arterials),…”

        I’ve made this point earlier as well about Vision Zero, Al. SDOT keeps spending money on projects without an analysis identifying specific locations where they’re needed — and yet often justifies each one under the Vision Zero umbrella as a generally-endorsed safety strategy.

        We have spent lots of time and money in the past decade intent on reducing accidents and fatalities. Where are the problems most notable? What has worked? What has no effect? Does anything make it worse? Are there contributing issues (like bad street lighting or bad sight distance) that are important to resolve?

        Without site specific analysis, SDOT staff proposing and installing projects begins to look like a bunch of second graders playing with city streets based on what a vocal advocate or maybe just the staff itself can dream up.

      3. I think we (advocates) and they (officials) tend to conflate Vision Zero work with bike network work. And in Seattle they’re often different things in different places. We have a lot of streets that are quiet and safe, that don’t really need traffic slowed down, but do need connections across arterials to make them useful and connect the bike network.

        LWB is a bit of an exception… it’s an existing bike and pedestrian route where safety from cars is a big factor preventing more people from using it, both for recreation and transportation. It could use some calming and diversion… it just shouldn’t be these awful bumps.

    1. Would sure make a great TOD on the Link line to Ballard. Instead of a station in the middle of nowhere, could be now in the heart of a new development maybe also with an interchange to Sounder with a new station there too. TOD here would also stitch together Magnolia and Queen Anne Hill.

    1. thanks, are there any outstanding new projects? maybe we could have an article about the psrc list. one thing i saw new is BAT lanes on sr 303. also i see the “Chinatown-International District Station | Multimodal Improvements”.

      the “Seattle Priority Transit Lanes” listing roads for improvements looks interesting too.

      actually it looks like for most seattle projects there’s extra detail not included in the seattle transportation levy

      1. I haven’t looked through it very carefully. Some of the Renton projects around the south Renton TC look interesting

      2. @John D

        do you know what “Grady Way BRT Access” is? on the map it looks like hte overpass they wanted to build over rainier but i don’t understand how the brt would use it.

      3. WL:

        I may be speculating but other projects on the map mention a proposal to turn the 405 western entrance and exit ramps there into short frontage roads with both crossing Lind Avenue at grade before reaching the 405 mainline as ramps.

        So this project would appear to take the buses over towards Lind Ave so that they could use Lind Ave to get to/from 405.

        Sadly, it would have been great if the Renton TC and garage site was between Grady and 405 and between 167 and Lind. The proposed interchange changes would be so much better for serving Stride.

        But car dealers are more sacred to protect than churches are, right?

      5. That “Seattle Priority Transit Lanes” list sure is interesting. A few corridors don’t even have transit service today or have very little service to justify transit priority investment.

        – N 145th Street (west of I-5)
        Route 333. Sort of the main street for Shoreline South TOD.

        – Roosevelt Way south of 92nd St to the cut
        Route 67. Have parking lane on both sides today.

        – NE 50th St from Green Lake Way to 15th Ave NE
        No service west of Roosevelt.

        – 12th/11th Ave NE south of N 80th St
        Route 67?

        – NE 75th St from Roosevelt to 25th Ave NE
        Route 79.

        – W Nickerson St from 15th Ave W to Fremont Ave N
        Route 31/32. Have parking lane on both sides today.

        – Queen Anne Ave N and 1st Ave N from Denny to Roy
        Multiple routes. Bus lane partially exists today.

        – E Olive Way from 3rd to Denny
        Multiple routes and bus lane exists west of I-5. No service between of I-5 and Denny Way.

        – Fauntleroy Wy SW between SW Edmunds and SW Morgan
        773??.

      6. Good point, HZ. There are some strange projects in there. Some of them appear to be contradictory. For example they show “Tier 1 Transit Capital Corridor” for James from Yesler to Broadway. There is nothing between 3rd and Yesler but the rest of it would be great. That would make a huge difference on the 3/4. But then it also shows the bypass (using Yesler) that would be unnecessary if James was faster. I guess it makes sense to consider both (might as well hedge your bets). But it also shows no improvements on Broadway itself while it shows a RapidRide route running on 12th. It would be really expensive to move the streetcar over to 12th and a really bad idea to run a bus on 12th instead of the same corridor as the streetcar. It would make way more sense to treat 12th as a transit corridor (doing what we can with the poorly planned, poorly implemented streetcar) and then moving the bike lanes to 12th. If they are hedging their bets with James (by having an alternate routing involving Yesler) then why not do the same with Broadway.

        Overall I don’t put much faith in a lot of these types of projects. Some of them clearly have gone through a decent amount of planning. Their estimates for various things (like making a highway wider) are probably accurate even if the project itself is unnecessary. But a lot of the transit projects look like a first-draft brainstorming session.

      7. Comparing HZ’s list to SDOT’s 2024 levy proposal and Metro Connects 2050:

        145th west of I-5: Not in SDOT (Shoreline is more interested in 145th). MC: three routes. Rt 1019 on 145th from Aurora to 35th NE, extension of route 65 to Shoreline CC. Rt 1998 on 145th to Meridian, Northgate-Mountlake Terrace route. Rt 1512 on 145th from 3rd Ave NW to Link, Shoreline South-Magnolia-Smith Cove route.

        Roosevelt south of 92nd: In SDOT as already done. For RapidRide J (south of 43rd)? For route 67 and a future J Line extension?

        50th west of 15th NE: In SDOT as already done. MC 1994, on 50th from Latona to U Way, Northgate-Latona-southern UDistrict route.

        12th/11th south of 80th: Sounds the same as Roosevelt?

        75th from Roosevelt to 25th NE: Not in SDOT. MC 74-79 (unchanged through-route in 2050).

        W Nickerson St from 15th W to Fremont N: In SDOT as already done. MC 1018, Magnolia-Children’s (almost identical to route 31).

        Queen Anne and 1st N between Denny and Roy: You said it. All the west Queen Anne routes use it. Not in SDOT. MC 1074, Smith Cove-QA-Denny-Boren-Rainier-MLK-Henderson-south Rainier Beach (Rainier & Seward Park Ave, serving Safeway). That’s the only MC route on those streets. (Note: RapidRide 1061, the route 8 replacement, stays north of Denny on Mercer-5th-Fairview, a Smith Cove-Madison Park route.)

        E Olive Way between I-5 and Denny Way (west of Bellevue Ave): Not in SDOT. Not in MC. Could be bike/ped improvements or infrastructure maintenance?

        Fauntleroy Way SW between SW Edmunds and SW Morgan: Not in SDOT. MC 2003 express, Westwood Village-ferry-Avalon-99 tunnel-SLU. (Note: The only route in the 99 tunnel.) No other MC route.

      8. @ross @mike

        > Overall I don’t put much faith in a lot of these types of projects.

        It’s a bit more important when it is listed here actually then in the seattle transportation plan. The psrc projects are when seattle is actually asking money from federal / state government. that’s why they take it slightly more seriously and filled it out with more details.

      9. It’s a bit more important when it is listed here actually then in the Seattle transportation plan.

        You are saying it is more likely that these sorts of things get built before the projects listed in the levy we just passed? I really doubt that. Adding bus lanes where buses don’t run (and probably never will run) just doesn’t make much sense.

      10. @ross

        I just meant they take it more seriously. The transportation plan is just for Seattle itsslf. The psrc is when they actually ask for funds

      11. I wouldn’t say the PSRC list is “first” or “more likely” than the levy. Some projects may be fully funded by the levy, while others may be only partially funded. SDOT may prioritize projects however it wishes, and it could put some PSRC ones first or not. It depends on how urgent SDOT thinks each one is, and who’s advocating for it.

      12. Either way in the psrc they list more details as they are actually asking for money. If you read the Seattle transportation plan it’s quite vague for some projects while the psrc one they are more explicit about what they are asking for

        For instance the mlk proposed bike lanes (south of rainier) they specify the cost and phasing it in. It was a lot vaguer in transportation plan. It just has 3 money signs

        In the psrc they list out the 70 million dollar cost

      13. Yeah, the PSRC plans list the dollar amount. That is probably the biggest thing it adds to the discussion. That is what I was getting it. If you are curious what it costs to widen the East Valley Highway (in the way they specify) they estimate it to be $12 million. But that doesn’t mean that will actually happen.

        In contrast the city plans on building every proposal that is part of the Seattle transportation levy (https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/Funding/Levy/2025_SDOT_Transportation_Levy%20Delivery_Plan.pdf). That doesn’t mean they will build everything but with the PSRC it is obvious that a lot of those projects won’t be built either (simply because they don’t make any sense). The difference is that the city has made the various parts of the levy a priority while it can ignore a lot of what is in the PSRC plan.

      14. MPO’s RTP is like the ultimate list that is just better than nothing. It bring all the state, county, and municipal projects into one plate no matter they are funded, sort of funded, or not. Including a project/feasibility study to RTP is a decision with very small commitment. That’s why you see all sorts of things there.

        In my previous job which involves dealing with RTP somewhere else, I only assumed that the funded or committed projects are in my baseline (or some people call no action or no-build) condition (I think in PSRC’s context are projects marked as Approved in MTP status).
        Only when the projects are funded, the rest of information are credible. What’s tricky are those sort of funded projects. I just had to ask the agency if I had a hunch that certain projects might have been committed.

        I read into the “Seattle Priority Transit Lane” item because it gave awfully detailed when it comes to corridor extent, which made me wonder where did they come up with this list. It just like looking at Metro Connect and speculating bunch of thing and nothing more serious than that but that’s all we got. Most of the future talks we are having here are speculating and putting faith on things that will happen in the long-term. I think transit lane is more like a quick-fix compared to regional light rail extension, so I would put much more faith to it because it takes less time for it get funded and built than some of the more committed things like Ballard Link Extension.

        However, I don’t know how long certain items have been in the list. It could be there for 5+ years and we just found it now, which makes it less creditable.
        I wonder if PSRC has a quarterly amendment short list that focus on those changed items. If I am treating this as my work, my RTP screening effort would focus on the amendment of past 5 years and see what are the changes. 5 years is the longest time for a funded project to remain unknown in my opinion.

      15. @Mike

        “Roosevelt south of 92nd: In SDOT as already done. For RapidRide J (south of 43rd)? For route 67 and a future J Line extension?”

        Future route 77 which is part of Lynnwood Link Extension restructure will also be on this corridor.

        “50th west of 15th NE: In SDOT as already done. MC 1994, on 50th from Latona to U Way, Northgate-Latona-southern UDistrict route.

        I think MC1994 is the 20 that was cancelled. Will it really make a come back??

      16. I think it’s important to look at the RTP in context of other transportation planning happening.

        RTP’s must be adopted in order to spend Federal funds for transportation projects. Metro areas have considerable leeway about how forward-looking that their RTP can be. Many just do the bare minimum and treat the RTP like it’s merely a tracking tool about what local governments and state DOTs want to do. In that sense, it’s not advancing planning as much as it’s just tracking and repeating what other plans have. It ultimately comes down to what role the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has in a designated area.

        MPO’s are required to maintain a reasonable travel demand forecasting process. This is done to keep agencies from assuming wildly different scenarios for land use and transportation that would create things like wildly different travel forecasts. So the RTP’s value is probably best viewed as an exercise in objectivity if all the local governments and state DOTs got their wanted projects built. For example, Sound Transit Link ridership forecasts must have consistency with planned HOV lanes and local transit service as well as a common local land use assumption in their funding requests to FTA.

        In past decades, with many metro areas building and expanding highways and freeways and transit lines with generally available funds, it was useful to make sure that they all coordinate. Now with lots less money to expand systems without dedicated revenue sources that specify projects (like ST3 or Express Lane tolling), it’s increasingly less relevant.

        It’s certainly a further endorsement of a project if it’s in the RTP. But that doesn’t make a project a certainty. It’s just a comprehensive vision of everything that may get built in the long term.

        So I wouldn’t get too focused on if a project is in the RTP or when it’s scheduled to happen. Unless it’s slated for work in the next few years (in which case it would be in the TIP too), its completion year is speculative.

        Consider how many times that RapidRide R has been proposed by Metro and how its opening date has been repeatedly pushed further. I’d be curious how many RTP’s have included it and how it’s changed over several RTP cycles.

      17. 50th west of 15th NE: In SDOT as already done. MC 1994, on 50th from Latona to U Way, Northgate-Latona-southern UDistrict route.

        I think MC1994 is the 20 that was cancelled. Will it really make a come back??

        Probably not. Even if it did it makes way more sense to run on 45th. That is where the 44 runs and you want to consolidate service (and right-of-way).

        It turns out the 20 didn’t run on 50th, it ran on 45th. I think it was the old 62 that doglegged on 50th. I think they were also going to run the new 20 on 50th but changed their mind (for good reason).

        A really long time ago they used to run an express version of the 44 on 50th but I just don’t see them ever doing that in the future. It makes way more sense to just take lanes on 45th.

      18. @hz

        The projects have an approved, candidate and unprogrammed state. Candidate are more likely. There’s also an estimated completion date. Yeah i agree the ones more than 5 years away like 2031+ can kinda be ignored though it is still good to know the cost estimates.

        Those 2026, 2027, 2028 are the most likely to be built (besides the already approved of course)

      19. The SDOT list is a representative list so that the agency has some wiggle room to defer/delete/add/modify things in it.

        “I think transit lane is more like a quick-fix compared to regional light rail extension, so I would put much more faith to it because it takes less time for it get funded and built than some of the more committed things like Ballard Link Extension.”

        Yes, the city and Metro and ST could accomplish a lot with some low-cost quick fixes, but first they have to decide to do that. That’s where the sticking point comes, because often they only want to build some shiny new thing and refuse to do the other stuff. It’s getting better: the unaffordable RapidRide projects have given way to Transit+ projects like the Route 40 upgrade that’s under construction now. And SDOT now has its sights on the Route 36 corridor.

        ““Roosevelt south of 92nd”

        Future route 77”

        … will be on Lake City Way, not Roosevelt.

      20. ““50th west of 15th NE: In SDOT as already done. MC 1994, on 50th from Latona to U Way, Northgate-Latona-southern UDistrict route.”

        “I think MC1994 is the 20 that was cancelled. Will it really make a come back??”

        Those are different visions at different timescales made at different times. The 20 was deleted because Metro didn’t have enough service hours or drivers to serve it an all its higher priorities. That doesn’t mean Metro sees no merit in a Latona route ever again. Other streets have lost service but Metro wants to bring them back someday, and has brought them back, or it proposes deleting them in the Interim network and later putting another route on them later in the 2050 network. This has happened not only with Latona but also with NE 55th Street (deleted in 2010s, later re-added) and the MLK part of the 8 (proposed deletion in Interim network, a different route added in the 2050 network, although these may be superceded now).

        The 20 went on Latona to 45th and U-District station. The 2050 concent has some differences: it goes on 50th, serves U-District station, but continues south to the lower U-District and Pacific Street. Those parts may or may not have some merits, but it’s a new idea that should be considered. There has been talk of a 50th Street route that would bypass the 45th congestion, and maybe to serve the upper U-District better.

        Metro Connects is an unfunded vision. It requires more service hours than current. The county has talked about a Metro Connects levy since 2016 but still hasn’t put it on the ballot.

      21. “I think it was the old 62 that doglegged on 50th.”

        The 62 was created in 2016. I don’t think it has changed since then.

        In the 80s, 90s, and 00s there was the 16, from downtown to Seattle Center East, Aurora, Wallingford, Tangletown, Greenlake, 1st Ave NE, and Northgate. The 26 went from downtown to Westlake Ave, Wallingford (40th), Latona, and terminated at Greenlake.

        With U-Link the 62 was created. I think it replaced the 16. The 26 was extended to Northgate to backfill the 16’s northern half.

        With Northgate Link the 26 was deleted, and the 20 was created to backfill Northgate-Latona to 45th.

        Some of them may have jogged differently on 50th; I don’t remember. What I recall is the east-west segment on 55th in Tangletown, first by the 16, then by the 62.

      23. I think the last bus that ran on 50th (for more than a couple blocks) was the 46. This was an express version of the 44. It is no longer a good idea. We are much better off focusing our efforts on making the 44 faster (and more frequent).

      24. That proposal would be implementing part of the Metro Connects concept, and would also allow it to through-route with the 74 (50th, NE 20th, Ravenna Blvd, 55th), but it wouldn’t server U-District station.

        The 74 (30) went through several incarnations west of University Way. Originally it went to Eastlake-Fairview-downtown. Then it went on N 40th (a prototype of the 31/32). Then it terminated on 50th a few blocks west of the Ave. The latter would seamlessly connect with that 50th-Latona proposal.

        But several things superceded it. There was a desire to connect Latona to U-District station and UW. 55th got attached to the new 75th route (79).

  7. It was a big day in local mass transit today. Not only did DRLE move back to full capability, but we got our first look at interlining between IDS and LCC looks like. Finally.

    I headed out early this morning to check out the interlining test. It was awesome. I spent most of my time between Northgate and LCC because I wanted to be able to see what was happening.

    The line was obviously more active with two lines running at a combined 4-min headway. And stations often had trains arriving/departing simultaneously much more frequently than normal.

    Station train arrival screens were mainly just displaying a testing message, with no real time arrival info displayed. One display in a tunnel station was even just displaying a standard MicroFlaccid wallpaper. However audio announcements were mainly accurate.

    Train timings were not exactly at 4 min intervals. I timed variations of up to 2 mins from ideal, although a few trains were within 30 secs of what should be predicted. So not too bad for a first attempt.

    I stopped at LCC and loitered on the platform for a bit. The trains seemed to have no issues using the crossovers north of the station for reversing moves. There was never a conflict with a third train entering the station area at the same time as both tail tracks being full.

    There were several ST staff members standing around at LCC and taking notes while timing arrivals and departures. I spoke with one ST employee who claimed not to be in charge, even though he looked the part. He said that there had been some issues with bunching and a few missed test trains, but that overall things were going well.

    That ST employee also claimed not to be aware of the fact that passengers should be able to ride the test trains during the upcoming August test. But I’m not sure if maybe the conversation was just getting a little too detailed for him so he was trying to cut it off.

    But, in any case, it appears that the test went well, and there didn’t seem to seem to be any major issues.

    So hopefully it is full steam ahead.

    1. The trains have turned back north of LCC nearly every time I have been there since October.

      1. LTC is designed with the interlocking to the north of the station. The next closest interlocking to the south is quite far away at 220th st. It’s a bit different than ALS, DRS, or the future FWDS to have the trains use an interlocking and tail track rather than be first in first out, but I believe that if run correctly with hostlers to take the trains out immediately after pulling into the tail, the throughput is higher than with fifo. Maintaining that headway is mostly down to how well KCRail will handle operations, but I have faith that they can pull it off. It may take some practice though.

      2. @D M,

        The reversing operations at LCC seemed to work really smoothly. Even the ST guy who claimed not to be in charge was pretty calm throughout. And I suppose that the extra set of crossovers south of the station just adds flexibility (should they ever need it).

        I did not observe the reversing operations at IDS. My local coffee shop opens at 7 and the test ended at 9, so there is only so much one person can do. And the approx 2 hours I had available worked pretty darn well within my one tap. And I always tap.

    2. Thank you for doing that. Just imagine when those one-car trains are four-car trains, and are in-service and picking riders up, unlike today. That’s going to be some excellent frequent Link service.

      1. @Sam,

        Thanks Sam. It was great to see, and I don’t mind going out and reporting on it.

        Capacity on the interlined segment goes way up once interlining starts. I don’t expect both lines to be at 4@8, so there should be lots of potential for increased capacity later on.

        But all in all, a very good day for mass transit regionally

    3. Has anyone reported what the phantom 2 Line trains reversed after the ID-C Station? Did they use the 2 Line track and switches or did they turn around at the Stadium siding or OMF??

  8. Question for everyone. When the first Link train operating under its own power crosses the bridge (which hopefully may happen late this month or early next month), where do you think the start and end point for the next phase of testing will be? CID to South Bellevue? Judkins to South Bellevue? Judkins to Mercer Island? Something else?

    And I’m not talking about future simulated service. I know that will be from LCC to Downtown Redmond. I talking about the next time a Link test train crosses the lake.

  9. Another benefit to closing LWD permanently is, for just bikes, the street really doesn’t need to be anywhere near as wide as two car lanes. So, in the sections where there are no driveways, you could put the bike path one one side of the street and landscaping on the other. The landscaping could include trees, presenting an easy opportunity to grow the city’s tree canopy.

    It’s amazing what ideas one can come up with if we start thinking of the space as part of a park, rather than a parkway to move cars.

  10. Eastside Transit has an excellent little Timelapse of yesterday’s interlining test. They even recorded how the tail tracks were used.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyUzCz1oT8A

    All in all the test seemed to go very well. I just wish we didn’t have to wait until August for one that we can (supposedly) ride on. We need the added capacity, and we need it NOW!

    1. If all those extra LRVs could be stored along the 1 Line, then some of them can be assembled into extra peak trains.

      If 1-Line trains drop to three cars after the Great Conjunction, then they could do so now, and add short-run trains between CIDS and Northgate. There’s no time like the present (post-Club-World-Cup) to test different service patterns.

    2. Has ST said we can ride tests in August? Or in final testing? Where does that “supposedly” come from?

      1. You mean having staggered station to avoid having two sides of platform at the same cross section like it was described here? https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/master/guide/roadway-and-station-configurations/station-configurations#station-configurations

        Also, I saw Ogden Express (a UTA BRT service) make bus run on the left-hand side so that they don’t need special buses for island platform. It might only work for them because they have a wide arterial and some buffer separation between general-purpose lane bus lane to avoid some wrong-way driving panic.
        https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B012'20.7%22N+111%C2%B056'55.2%22W/@41.205737,-111.9493087,231m

  12. So I don’t know if ST deliberately ran more trains today, or if it’s just how the schedule shook out, but around noon, Link was averaging 1 train every 7 minutes rather than 10. Which was much appreciated with so many people traveling to UW graduation and the No Kings protest. Coming from the north, hundreds of people were still being left behind at Roosevelt and U District stations, but the trains were frequent enough that it wasn’t too painful.

    1. I heard via a friend that there were so many people attempting to board Link at Roosevelt that at one time the station was backed up onto the sidewalk OUTSIDE the station. That is a lot of people!

      But apparently everyone was well behaved and just waited in line, although I’m not sure how ST managed to prevent the platform from getting overloaded.

      1. As Poirot said to Hastings, “You have a remarkable ability of stating the problem and the solution in the same utterance without realizing it.”

        When I was at Lynnwood station on opening day, security guards blocked the escalator up to the platform until a train came and everybody came down and the people on the platform got on the train. When the platform was empty, then they allowed the next batch to go up. So the line you saw may have started on the mezzanine, empty at the upper escalators, then starting again beyond the escalators. Or maybe there wasn’t anybody on the mezzanine either, in which case it would take only a short line to reach the sidewalk. A train acommodates about three rows of people, while a line is only one row, so it’s three times as long.

        ST has to worry about people on a full platform falling onto the tracks, so it does anything it can to avoid a full platform.

      2. @Mike Orr,

        Blocking access to the escalators is the obvious solution to problems like this, and that is what they do after things like Husky football games, but it’s hard to imagine ST was prepared in advance to do that. And prepared to do it at all the stations experiencing severe crowding up and down the line.

        But ST must have a way of handling this on short notice as the problem develops. But I’d be curious how they handle the staffing in such a situation. I wouldn’t think that ST would always have adequate staffing available to handle situations like this, and just shutting the escalators off is a non-starter for safety reasons.

        And Roosevelt Station has two entrances. You’d need to staff them both.

        But the obvious solution is as Larry suggests — increase the operating capacity to boost frequency. Just going from 8 min headways to 7.5 mins represents a 6.7% increase in delivered capacity. Add enough capacity and Link will be clearing the platforms faster than the escalators can refill them.

        But hopefully ST will get the 2-Link open across the lake someday. When that happens ST should have lots of capacity available for events like this.

  13. interesting i checked the transit signal priority map and i don’t see any on 23rd avenue. did they really not install any transit signal priority while rebuilding the entire corridor?

    1. It may be difficult to do, given that so many of the cross streets are, themselves, major bus routes. If signal priority for one bus route hurts another bus route, it kind of defeats the purpose.

    2. The 23rd Avenue project got watered down. It was going to get transit-priority lanes but car interests killed them. Several other things also happened within a few years from each other.

      The Move Seattle levy had a RapidRide 48 upgrade, but Move Seattle’s budgeting proved overoptimistic, so the RapidRide 7, 40, 48, and 62 projects were canceled.

      With U-Link the 48 was split into the 48 and 45. It was assumed the southern half would be the ridership workhorse (thus the RapidRide upgrade), but when people voted with their feet they flocked to the northern half instead. I think that’s because the northern half became the University Way route, serving a lot of overlapping trips between UW station and Roosevelt station. If the 48 had gotten that segment, maybe the fortunes would be reversed.

      The Montlake freeway stations closed, so people stopped transferring to the 48 to the U-District or to the new UW station. That dropped ridership further.

      The 23rd project installed holders for the gap in the trolley wire (between John St and Jefferson St), but didn’t install the wire itself. That would be a significant cost, and Metro never did it.

      So with all those small cuts and the drop in ridership, there’s less enthusiasm for doing anything on the 48 corridor now. Except to fill that gap in the wire someday so that it can become a trolleybus. But there’s no date for that.

      1. I think it’s important to note two key things happened several years ago to Route 48:

        1. U-Link’s opening took riders off of Route 48. It’s hard to say how many as the Route split (45/48) happened then too. Consider that Route 48 had about 13K riders a decade ago while the two routes added together today are at about 9K.

        2. SDOT eliminated the time-consuming directional split phases on 23rd Ave when they reduced the part through tge CD from 4 to 3. Buses on 23rd Ave have less signal delay than they used to have.

        I’ll add that the ridership on Route 48 may increase once Judkins Park Station opens in 2026. It will be interesting to see how much.

      2. 1. The drop in ridership is typical for a lot of areas. For example the 3/4 used to have over 11,000 riders a day. Now it struggles to get over 8,000. This is despite fairly strong population growth in the area. Part of the reason is that the 3/4 is considerably slower than it used to be.

        2. They added some things but traffic is just a lot worse. Mike is right, they blew an opportunity to make improvements on a key corridor. It is worth noting that at one point this corridor was going to be served by “RapidRide+” buses. These were designed to be like RapidRide, only with more right-of-way (like RapidRide G). I think such designations are silly (just like I think “BRT” is often silly) but it is clear this was — and is — a very important corridor that they are now neglecting.

      3. There was a pandemic in between, and people shifted to traveling less and taking transit less.

      4. IIRC, the prior street width for 23rd Ave was narrower through the CD than they were climbing the hill south of Montlake. It was a real squeeze! The sidewalks were also right up against the curb and there were lots of poles blocking the sidewalk and wheelchair access. I’m not so sure if adding a bus lane rather than what SDOT did several years ago there would have been very safe.

        The old signal timing only gave about 30-35 percent green time in each direction where the new timing gives about 55-65 percent green time in each direction to the Route 48 movement. So even though it’s not explicit priority for buses, it’s still much better than it used to be for buses. Had SDOT instead just made one a bus lane with signal priority, it looks like it would have been harder to get that much additional green time.

        All of this is on top of how many high ridership routes cross 23rd at almost every signal (all the busiest ones) that others mentioned. The biggest delay today to Route 48 seems to be at Madison Street (as well as the new 520 intersections) with the newly opened RapidRide G.

        I think putting in transit priority is a great concept! I think transit only lanes can work well! It’s just that like every transit investment (or any other transportation investment), it has to be context sensitive.

        Keep in mind too that Route 48 riders south of Jackson St will be within walking distance of that new 23rd Ave entrance to Judkins Park starting within the next year. The new access may add some riders to Route 48 but also may take some away. It’s why I think it will be curious to see what happens with the ridership.

      5. To quote Frank:

        Much-needed (and welcome!) road diets on 23rd … will make transit lanes unworkable, so buses will run with traffic in … the CD, though they will have bus bulbs and signal priority to stay speedy.

        So they never planned on adding BAT lanes the whole way. But if you look at the actual documents (page 83) they planned on adding BAT lanes from the UW to 23rd & Madison. They also proposed BAT lanes between Jackson and Rainier (where the BAT lanes have been added or will be eventually). These sorts of projects are not “all or nothing” nor should they be. Often you get the much bang for buck by making small changes like a queue jump. The problem with this corridor is that the city basically just abandoned it in terms of transit. They came nowhere near delivering on the promises made by the Murray/Kubly administration. Partly it is due to the fact that they knew they didn’t fund it adequately (and knew so at the time of the vote). But every administration since then has basically ignored it.

  14. That looks amazing! 🚲 We live in Vienna, Austria, and we have a few similar car-free weekends near the Danube — always such a great way to enjoy nature and relax with friends. I love how well Seattle supports cycling and walking ❤️

Comments are closed.