While the rollout of battery-electric buses (BEBs) has been slowed by the cost of building the charging infrastructure and availability of capable BEBs, Metro is upgrading and expanding its trolley bus network.

The current trolleys have only a small battery. That allows them to run briefly off-wire but not on steep hills. This helps in case of obstructions due to construction, accidents or events. During the Third Ave construction some routes (1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 36) have operated off-wire. During the Montlake construction Route 43 has operated off-wire. Once the trolley wire has been reinstalled, the routes will return to on-wire trolley operations.

Recently Metro started to upgrade the buses with larger batteries which will allow longer off-wire operations. They expect to upgrade all 174 trolleys by 2027. Metro is evaluating whether the upgraded batteries would allow Route 12 to operate off-wire until the overhead wire is completed on Pine St, currently scheduled for 2029. Metro is also considering trolley buses to operate off-wire for Route 48 until the gaps on the overhead wire are closed on 23rd Ave, currently scheduled for 2032. First it would need to improve power infrastructure though to accommodate the additional buses.

With the upgraded batteries and power systems, Metro hopes to run trolley buses throughout the week rather than powering the wires down for construction on Sundays.

PS: I updated this post as Metro contacted me to explain that the streetcar avoids the trolley wires by using its battery, not the other way around. Also, the current trolley batteries work uphill, but performance is poor making it unsustainable on steep grades.

47 Replies to “Trolley bus improvements”

  1. 43 is still off wire through Montlake. Lid area.

    Curious how its taking so long to close these small gaps? I get the 48 is more complex but for the 12 can’t it be done in house especially for the one block? Also why isnt WSDOT on the hook to pay and reinstall the wire they ripped down at Montlake? Is it going to be the same situation getting the wire back up for the 49 where it crosses 520?

  2. Do Link trains have battery backup too? I could see value in having enough onboard power to least allow the train to limp to the next station during a power cut and open the doors to let people off.

    1. There’s a few experimental pilot cars with a battery backups that let them limp ~200ft, but traction batteries large enough to allow an off-wire run to the nearest station (2+ miles of range) would be an enormous and expensive undertaking.

      1. Maybe for the elevated section between Rainier Beach and TIBS, that’s not practical (~5 miles, uphill), but 2 miles of range on flat terrain isn’t that much energy. You can stretch the battery range by reducing speed to 5 mph, and the train would presumably be moving during a power cut, so it’s existing momentum would take it a good chunk of the way.

        I think the main issue with battery backup for Link, though, would be hills. Even a slight uphill grade takes a lot of energy to get up for something as heavy as a Link train.

  3. Some bus routes drop their trolley poles for the Capitol Hill Streetcar? I wasn’t aware of this and it wasn’t that way originally. I know the street car has a battery and runs its return route to Pioneer Square off wire, but was not aware that any trolley buses had to drop their poles for the streetcar. A lot of work was put into the intersections where the bus trolley wire intersect the streetcar wire, and I thought it all worked without anybody needing to drop anything.

    1. Hmm. In San Francisco, where trolley buses crossing a trolley wire there is just a short insulated crossing and there are marks on the street (for streetcars, single and bendy buses) where to let off the power and coast to avoid big sparks. For MUNI Metro (light rail with pantograph) there are energized metal guides which push the pantograph far enough down to avoid the bus wires, then rise to where the pantograph is back in wire contact. On Market Street, trolley buses use the streetcar wire for their left pole. PCCs use just the left wire, and ground to the rails, as usual). LRVs don’t generally go there. On Church Street (shared by LRVs and PCCs going to/from the yard, and the 24 trolley bus) the PCC pole stays on the left wire like the bus, while LRV pantographs follow the metal guides per above. Works like a charm.

      1. yes, South Henderson Street between Rainier Avenue South and MLK Jr. Way South as well as a turnaround loop. Metro and SDOT have had three attempts at this connection: in the aughts with the initial Link segment, in the teens, and with the R Line. Supposedly, the R Line budget is approved; I wonder why the overhead has not been provided yet; I wonder if the budget assumed some FTA grants (who runs the federal executive branch today?). Note the direct connection between the Rainier Beach Link station and the south part of Rainier Avenue South is important; that it is a branded red bus is hardly important at all.

  6. The current trolleys have only a small battery. That allows them to run briefly off-wire but not uphill.”
    This is not true. Off-wire trolleys can run uphill.

    “Some routes even do this on regular basis for example to avoid interference with the overhead wires of the Capitol Hill streetcar.”
    This is also not true. No trolley route regularly goes off-wire to avoid the streetcar overhead.

    1. Metro’s Jeff Switzer told us when we asked questions for this article, “We have been limited in our ability to operate Routes 2/13 and 12 off-wire due to the steep grades of the segments of those routes impacted by construction and the performance of the existing battery systems.” So they can go up some hills, but not all Seattle’s hills. The article overgeneralized a bit there. And part of the problem is the existing batteries in the current fleet, which will be rectified when new buses with larger higher-duty batteries arrive. I ride through the 12’s gap between 15 & Pine and 16th & Madison, and I wouldn’t call it steep, but what do I know?

      1. RossB has commented on the fall 2024 Madison Street restructure. The pathway that the ordinance uses for Route 12 could have been served by Route 11; it is a hybrid coach. Riders on the tails of routes 10 and 12 would have been better off with the Thomas-John pathway at serves the Capitol Hill Link station directly. Route 12 could use the overhead of routes 43 and 10 with switches at 19th Avenue East and East Thomas Street, east to north and south to west; switches would be less costly that the block of overhead needed for Route 12. Given six-minute headway on the G Line, the chosen Route 12 pathway seems duplicative.

  7. One critical first step is figuring out how to build a layover point at Mt. Baker Station that allows trolley riders to conveniently access the station and gives the drivers plenty of time to rest. There’s plenty of space west of the Link tracks (behind the station) with access from Forest St. or Winthrop St. with planning underway to densify that area. If Metro misses out on the opportunity to improve bus/Link connections, that will be a major disappointment.

    Then,
    1 Kinnear and 2 West Queen Anne are twinned in a live-loop route from QA to Pioneer Square. Frequency is every 15 minutes between Pioneer Square and lower Queen Anne. Then, every 30 minutes on the Kinnear leg and on the Counterbalance (supplemented by additional Counterbalance service from the 13). The 2 Madrona then thru-routes with the 4 East Queen Anne/SPU. The 2S/4N combo likely matches span and frequency needs better than the 2/13 combo.
    3 Summit to Madrona/34th has no major changes, (maybe eliminate the short turnbacks?).
    4 Judkins Park is upgraded to 15-minute service between the new Mt. Baker Station terminal and downtown Seattle. The Lighthouse loop either disappears or is connected via van service to Mt. Baker Station and Judkins Park Station. Then, to improve reliability on the L8, the 8 is then turned back at Jackson St.
    7 becomes the RRR. The Prentice Loop could remain trolley service to RBS, but likely the Loop would be dieselized and connected to another route at RBS
    10/12 remain mostly the same
    13/14 are thru-routed from Mt. Baker Station to SPU. The legacy Mt. Baker terminal loop of the 14 disappears or is connected to MBS and JPS with van service.
    43/44 no major changes
    48 becomes a trolley route and uses the new Mt. Baker Station terminal.
    49 no major changes

    1. Well, I think a better solution is to have the stops relocated to be directly under the platforms, for the thru running routes at least. There’s more than enough clearance for a two lane busway.

      1. Well, I think a better solution is to have the stops relocated to be directly under the platforms, for the thru running routes at least.

        I assume you meant the routes that do not through run. It would be quite the detour for a bus like the 7.

      2. Not as much as you’d might think, but you could either tie in the South end at Rainer/MLK, or divert the 7 to Walden.

      3. I’m not sure I follow you but I think the best approach is to just keep going on Rainier. I could see some infrastructure improvements but it just isn’t worth it to delay a bus when most of the riders would rather stay on the bus (no matter what it did in the area). It is worth noting that the 7 will also connect to the other train at Judkins Park (and no, I don’t think it should go on 23rd even though the transfer would be a little bit better). You should design your train stations so that bus-train transfers are as easy as possible. Ideally the Mount Baker Station would be where the transit center is. But when they are flawed, most of the time you should just live with the results. I wish that the Pinehurst Station straddled the street. That way a rider could access Link going either direction without crossing the street. They won’t do that. But even so, I don’t think the bus should detour to the station.

        Layovers are different. That’s because there are no through-riders. It doesn’t really matter if the last stop on a route is very different than the predominant travel direction. The only cost is service — and you are only doing it once. If the 7 deviated away from Rainier to get closer to the station it would have to deviate back (each way). If a bus like the 48 ended there it wouldn’t.

    2. Route 7 P could be a standard ETB connecting the Prentice loop and the station once South Henderson Street has overhead. It could lay at the station.

  8. A useful idea for trolleys:
    (1) Self-driving trackless trams with a dedicated lane and signal priority, and can operate on a freeway lane if needed
    (2) Electric wire that charges the tram’s battery
    (3) Tram can detach from wire and continue as a battery-electric bus serving areas off-route, sparing people from a transfer

    Example:
    Trams arrive every 5-10 minutes on dedicated high density line or freeway corridor, but continues off-route to different destinations. Each destination has a 15, 30, 60 minute frequency depending on ridership.

      1. Steps one through three roughly provide the benefits of a streetcar line, not “light rail” — at least, not “light rail” as ST implements it. Since there are overhead wires a seasond rider will expect a bus to come following the overhead within some fairly short time, except in the middle of the night. That’s essentially what tracks in the street promise.

        Any bus running in mixed traffic, even if it has “its own lane” and some rudimentary signal priority, will be stopped at every other stoplight by some yahoo turning right. It will frequently be delayed by a different yahoo boldly stopping in the lane to pick up or drop off some entitled passenger.

        But the bottom line is this: you cannot have un-tracked automated vehicles which are going to be pulling up in front of waiting passengers as little as four inches from the side of the bus. Either the bus would be panic stopping at every crowded stop / station, or people would regularly be run over.

      2. Yeah I suppose if it’s on a freeway portion with freeway stations, it does act as a light rail

        Still buses can run late from the open portion, but similar to Metro’s solution for bus bunching, and considering this is an automated solution, a spacing strategy can be used along the fixed line.

        For any of these operating off line (open), they still can travel along the line… though the times would be a bit arbitrary sometimes but the main line will still get a very high frequency and the intention would be it can be used without worrying when the next one will show up (for longer distance travel across the freeway length).

        As for any streetcar style versions as I mentioned for the main line, I would hope we can implement it such that the tram has priority over all vehicles except emergency ones. Obviously idiots will still exist if this is street running and delays can happen, but that’s no different than the 1 Line MLK situation. I would go a step beyond signal priority here.

        I’d say strong candidates for this implementation is Stride, I-5 buses, 520 buses, and I-90 buses.

        Stride serves the peak location but has weak transfers especially in Renton and Bellevue. An open Stride 1 can occasionally serve one of the following: Renton downtown, Renton Highlands, Benson/Fairwood, the airport, South Bellevue, Factoria, Eastgate, Kent/Auburn etc… while half of the routes remain closed for express/bypass travel into Bellevue TC from Burien using the already planned route.

        I-90 buses could be a slight alteration as well. Buses like 554 should avoid going through the same locations every time. Some go to Issaquah transit center, others focus on North Issaquah, Sammamish, Issaquah Highlands, etc. A rare bunch can even continue directly to North Bend or Snoqualmie. Some of these can have enhanced peak frequency. It serves more people, uses fewer stops, enforces a schedule, and avoids transfers.

    2. In BRT terminology it’s “open” vs “closed”. Closed BRT routes operate only within the enhanced corridor. Open BRT routes can extend beyond it or branch off from it.

      Stride S2 had both a closed and an open alternative. The closed alternative is what we have. The open alternative would have lines branching off; e.g., Bellevue to downtown Kirkland, Woodinville to downtown Bellevue, or Woodinville to downtown Kirkland (transfer to Bellevue). Open BRT would have been more useful for passengers, but ST chose closed BRT to keep costs lower.

      RossB has outlined a West Seattle open BRT concept that could replace West Seattle Link. Lines would fan out from the bridge to 16th, Delridge, 35th, southern California and northern California :), and Admiral/Alki. In other words it would upgrade the C, H, 21, 55, 56, and 125 to faster/more frequent service full-time. This would get a much higher percent of West Seattle riders to where they really want to go compared to ST’s preferred Link alternative.

      The 2 Line will serve the U-District, downtown Bellevue, downtown Redmond, and Microsoft — stations an overwhelming number of people go to — as well as major secondary areas like Capitol Hill and Roosevelt. West Seattle Link has only the Junction, which is like Roosevelt. Delridge and Avalon stations are more transfer points than destinations; there’s little within walking distance. So Link isn’t really “serving” the Delridge and 35th neighborhoods; it just has something like a freeway transfer at one far end of the neighborhoods, like the Montlake, Eastgate, and NE 85th flyer stations.

      1. Yeah, I’m a much bigger fan of “Open BRT” than “Closed BRT”. Jarrett Walker has a nice rundown of the trade-offs (https://humantransit.org/2021/04/basics-should-bus-rapid-transit-be-open-or-closed.html).

        I like the open BRT idea because it offers more flexibility. So much so that in some cases it isn’t clear whether it is BRT or not. People often argue whether a line is “true BRT” or not and many argue whether the concept is counter-productive (https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/down-with-the-brt-long-live-the-bus). But the idea behind Open BRT is a solid one (in my opinion). Add grade-separation where it is needed most. What you call it after that doesn’t matter*. The buses that used to run in the bus tunnel or the buses that run down the SoDo Busway could be considered “Open BRT” but most people don’t think of them that way. They are just ordinary buses that happen to take advantage of bus-oriented infrastructure. The same is true for West Seattle. I want to emphasize this because while Mike is right that I do want to create what would essentially be a busway from West Seattle to downtown Seattle the buses running on it would be normal buses. None of the numbered buses would change to RapidRide (although I could see the 21 becoming RapidRide given its ridership potential).

        *So far as I know, the best open BRT system in the world is in Brisbane. Jarrett Walker talks about it (https://humantransit.org/2009/11/brisbane-bus-rapid-transit-soars.html). You can see it on a map. The buses travel the suburban countryside and then get on the busway and quickly get downtown. From there they make several high-quality stops downtown (much like a subway line). I would definitely call this open BRT but I don’t think every system has to be this good to be worthy.

      2. Yeah so I guess my idea was a fully electric open BRT that can act as a streetcar, express bus, and local bus all at the same time. Obviously it won’t be automated during local bus portions but it definitely can for the streetcar and express bus portion assuming it’s on overhead wire with a dedicated lane, and modern traffic control algorithm (with signal guarantee and computer vision emergency handling).

      3. We could have an operator on board the entire trip to handle emergencies, and take over for the local route trips.

        Or to save service hours and if things are working well, they could hop on and take over at the relevant station itself. If they somehow don’t show up, the algorithm will take over and move the tram out of the way and send it up the corridor again.

      5. RossB, an open example could be routes 5 and 28 using the E line pathway south of North 38th Street.

      6. @Jack — Yes, especially if they had center-running buses down Aurora. That part of Aurora could be considered the “BRT” part of Open BRT. Even with the intersections there are other parts that could be considered that as well. As Jarrett Walker explained, it is quite common for cities to mimic light rail with their BRT instead of a subway. This is the case for the SoDo Busway, which not only mimics the light rail but it runs right next to it.

      7. In SODO, the busway was there first. Link opened in 2009. It was the UPRR ROW. On Aurora Avenue North, center running would serve no stops unless there was a traffic signal that allowed pedestrians to reach the center. Today, there are no signals between Harrison Street and Winona Avenue North.

      8. “ROW. On Aurora Avenue North, center running would serve no stops unless there was a traffic signal that allowed pedestrians to reach the center.”

        A median stop would probably require widening Aurora Avenue on Queen Anne for a half-block in either direction. That roadway is quite tight!.

        A center platform with left buses is probably the way to keep a widening as narrow as possible. Still a double-sided median stop would feel lots more scary than the ones on a slower Madison Street are today. I could see traffic noise getting really loud for anyone waiting for a bus.

        Since there is not a fully-prepared study about changing Aurora Avenue, I would expect that there would be years of analysis and public hearings on what’s best to create. I could even see one segment as side-running and another as center-running. Whatever or whenever changes are made, I would expect there to see some design corrections made as part of the project to enhance safety.

      9. It’s pretty pointless to have stops of any type on Aurora without some method of crossing. Otherwise, how do people get to the stop on the other side for the return trip to where they came from.

      10. On Aurora Avenue North, center running would serve no stops unless there was a traffic signal that allowed pedestrians to reach the center.

        Yes, that is the way it would work. That is the SDOT proposal (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/aurora-ave-project/aurora-community-ideas-hub). We covered it here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/03/08/sdot-ideas-for-aurora/. Notice the SDOT diagrams have pedestrian/bike crossings for segment 1 and 2 (the section between Green Lake and South Lake Union).

        A median stop would probably require widening Aurora Avenue on Queen Anne for a half-block in either direction.

        Not it wouldn’t. Look at the diagrams again. The sidewalk is the same width.

        Since there is not a fully-prepared study about changing Aurora Avenue

        Yes there is, I just referenced it. I think there is some confusion here. Anyone can come up with a proposal. For example, many of us have suggested we have a transit-only ramp connecting the Alaska Way Viaduct and the SoDo Busway. But that have not been vetted by the engineers. In contrast, this proposal was put together by the Seattle Department of Transportation. I think they know how wide the street it. There is no price tag attached and no one has made a decision in terms of what to actually build, but center-running buses on Aurora is quite plausible — otherwise they wouldn’t have proposed it. Note that it is detailed enough to suggest center platforms with (regular) curbside boarding. This is in contrast with the center platforms that require driver-side boarding (like on RapidRide G).

      11. I would expect that there would be years of analysis and public hearings on what’s best to create. I could even see one segment as side-running and another as center-running.

        It will be largely a political fight. Cyclists want a bike lane. I can definitely see the appeal. You could bike from upper Fremont to downtown or the north end quite quickly. People want the bike lanes on Aurora north of Green Lake as well (even though the Interurban runs parallel to it and is not far away). I doubt the wide sidewalk idea will have much appeal, especially south of Green Lake. I think people are used to that not being walkable so making the sidewalk wider wouldn’t matter. On the other hand, I could see how local leaders would view a wider sidewalk in the north end as a beautification project — something to “clean up” the area. When I talked to someone at one of the Greenways group meetings he suggested that folks were leaning towards center-running south of Green Lake (segment 1 and 2) but not to the north of there. I could see that. I could be wrong but I think you gain the most from a transit perspective by adding bus lanes to the south. You give the connection between South Lake Union and Aurora (since the ramps connect to the middle lanes both directions). It provides all of the benefit that would exist for the 5 and 28. Either way you have to deal with buses switching from center to curb-side (unless you get Shoreline to do the same sort of work) and Green Lake is a pretty good transition point. It also sets you up for the future. That can be step one.

        My only concern would be if they added bike lanes or widened the street to the north. Then it would be a lot more difficult to add bus lanes. It is clear that this city is willing to take general purpose lanes. We’ve taken them on major streets. We’ve taken them under a conservative mayor that may be replaced by a woman who is the leader of a transit advocacy group she helped create. But what we haven’t done is take bike lanes and replace them bus lanes. Nor, to my knowledge, have we ever made the sidewalk narrower to add a bus lane. I’m not saying it can’t be done. We could build very good bike lanes to the side and then replace the bike lanes with bus lanes. I’m just saying it hasn’t been done (so far as I know). It could be difficult.

      12. The diagrams appear to assume using only right-side buses. The notes suggest that the cross-section concepts are very generic too, rather than be detailed drawings on what to do at every block.
        Certainly taking two lanes could prevent widening. However running along the curb lane lets bus stops to be on the sidewalk rather than on a fully independent platform in the median that takes up more width.

        And it appears that SDOT doesn’t consider noise to be a major concern. Depending on traffic speed I think it may become an evaluation factor and a design consideration. I’ve waited at many a brutally loud bus stop in my life.

      13. The diagrams appear to assume using only right-side buses.

        Yeah. That way we don’t need to use different buses. Otherwise you would have to change the 5, 28 and RapidRide E. That doesn’t mean that buses that have doors on both sides can’t use the stop — it just allows Metro a lot more flexibility with their fleet.

        However running along the curb lane lets bus stops to be on the sidewalk rather than on a fully independent platform in the median that takes up more width.

        Yes, that is the trade-off. Curbside and center running buses take the same amount of space — it is the island platforms that require more space. This is why it is common to add freeway HOV lanes in the center — it takes as much space as the exit/on-ramp lane but without all of the extra traffic. The extra space for the island platform is also an issue when they take that approach with bikes (like on Dexter — https://maps.app.goo.gl/cpRrWhcSkowJrUw6A). That is why some of the more recent bike lane bus stop combinations don’t have island platforms. They have normal bus stops but riders have to cross the bike path to get on the bus. They have a little shared platform for that purpose (https://maps.app.goo.gl/aLf1ZAjc9JQXKwXk6).

        And it appears that SDOT doesn’t consider noise to be a major concern.

        I would imagine noise mitigation is a secondary project and would probably be part of bus stop design. In any event, it won’t be like Mountlake Terrace was. It should be similar to a lot of existing bus stops. I get that at some stops you can wander away from the curb but the shelters tend to be pretty close. In some ways it will be like taking Link from Rainier Valley. The street is notorious for people driving fast (and the speed limit used to be higher). Yet folks wait in the middle of the street, experiencing noise from both directions.

        The whole idea is to imagine Aurora as being a lot more like a typical, major avenue. For example 15th NW. It isn’t the most pleasant street to be on but it isn’t terrible. The quality of the stops will vary. Some of the RapidRide E stops are unpleasant because they are on a stretch where there are no intersections. The same would be true here. A bus stop on Halladay would be noisier than stops up north, even when they add a traffic light there. Someone who crosses the bridge could just assume they will make the light and go way too fast. I would imagine Rainier Beach Station is noisier than Othello.

      14. “In some ways it will be like taking Link from Rainier Valley. The street is notorious for people driving fast (and the speed limit used to be higher). Yet folks wait in the middle of the street, experiencing noise from both directions.”

        ST did put in greenery next to the Columbia City and Othello Station platforms. That tends to greatly buffer the noise. Rainier Beach is more exposed and certainly louder. I’m actually a bit surprised that there are noise panels between the tracks and traffic lanes at Rainier Beach. Link’s SeaTac platforms have them.

        Lots depends on the roadway speed. If Aurora had lower speeds, noise would be less of a problem.

      15. I’m actually a bit surprised that there are NOT noise panels between the tracks and traffic lanes at Rainier Beach.

      16. RossB provided a link to the SDOT concepts. For center running, south of the bridge, the concepts showed seven lanes and used more than the available ROW. ROW is a key constraint.

    3. The second and third items are basically the wave of the future (especially if you have an existing trolley-bus system like we do). You run the buses for stretches off wire and then reattach. They are battery-electric but the batteries are a bit smaller and you don’t have to spend as much dead time charging. You also don’t have to go someplace special to charge them — they get charged as they run. It would make sense to have wire on both ends (at a minimum) just because that way you are charging while the bus is sitting there. The distance they can go off-wire is increasing as the technology improves.

      Automation is an entirely different beast and separate from how the bus is powered. It is harder to predict how it will progress. But it does seem reasonable that a closed BRT system would be easier to automate. There are no other cars to worry about and no pedestrians crossing the road. I could also see a “semi-automated” system. An open-BRT system (like the one in Brisbane) could eventually be automated. The driver covers the suburban area and then gets out of the bus. The bus is then automated as it makes it way to and through downtown. Going the other direction there is a small delay as the driver takes over. But even this will be sped up with new technology. A driver taps his driver card and the seats and mirrors automatically adjust (just like in some new cars). The whole process just takes a few seconds and not much longer than a typical bus stop. Depending on how time consuming the “closed” part of an open BRT is, that might save quite a bit of money. I could also see this for intercity buses. Automated cars seem to do quite well on the freeway. This would work really well with a freeway station. For example imagine a bus headed towards Bellingham. A driver leaves downtown Seattle and gets on the freeway. They get off the freeway at the Mountlake Terrace freeway station. They get off the bus and it drives itself to Bellingham where the process is reversed. Meanwhile, the driver walks to the other side and drives a different bus the other direction.

  9. This is a curious topic. Here in north belltown I have noticed rhe 1/14 operating wit the poles lowered very often in rhe area of Cedar street. Of course it’s very flat but in not sure why they are running that way so often

    1. I believe lately it was because the projects along the bus-only section of 3rd Ave. First it was 3rd at Main Street. Then they re-built the concrete pavement between Pine and Virginia later this summer. I am not sure if there are other works going on.

      Even though during the week there was no construction activity, it is possible that they just didn’t turn on the power over weekend work zone for safety reason.

  10. “Some routes even do this on regular basis for example to avoid interference with the overhead wires of the Capitol Hill streetcar.”

    Was this something KCM staff specifically told you. Did they mention at which location it was the problem?
    At both Broadway at Jefferson, I see Insulated trough installed at streetcar-trolley wire crossing, which warrants streetcar pantograph bridge under the trolleybus wire. There is no interruption for either streetcar pantograph or trolleybus pole to pick up power. Clearly Seattle is not the first place where such intersection exists, this has been figured out when First Hill Streetcar was designed. Broadway at Madison insulated trough still remains after trolleybus wire removal during G Line construction.

    I still thing KCM is not comfortable with running off-wire because they are not convinced drivers can use remote control to reconnect to power rather than battery range issue. I’d be interested to hear what’s their excuse about dieselizing 49. The section interrupted by SR 520 Roanoke Lid construction is flat and short. Nowadays trolleybus running much longer distance off-wire on 3rd Ave on the daily basis.

    1. I reviewed KCM staff response again and you’re right: many lines use off-wire operation during construction (such as 43 during 520 montlake lid construction). While the tram goes offwire on Broadway, the trolleys typically do not. KCM does consider running the 48 off-wire until wire is hung on 23rd. With new bigger batteries that’s possible, only very steep routes won’t be able to run on battery.

Comments are closed.