What are Barcelona superblocks (superilles) really like? What do they look like, how many people use them, and what do they do in them? Here’s an overview:

By CityFixer. Seattle is briefly mentioned at 9:30-9:41.

Some shorts on the superblocks: (1) Streetfilms overview, (2) a zen garden like effect with flat rock seats, (3) the Sant Antoni superblock.

Are there other general topics you’d like to see movies on? What has the Sunday Movie column not covered yet?

This is an open thread.

63 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Barcelona Superblocks”

  1. Superblocks are not a new concept. It was a key factor in the layout of college campuses to world’s fair exhibitions to the garden city to new town and new neighborhood concepts.

    Even here, we have deliberate super blocks from different eras with UW and Seattle Center and Seattle University.

    The important thing here is that Barcelona repurposed existing streets in denser urban neighborhoods. But it appears that there has always been a range of different ways to get around the dense city and lots of streets to work with. Barcelona also has an extensive urban rail system with most areas less than 1/2 mile of a station if not less. That goes hand in hand with its high residential density.

    Because Seattle has so many narrow residential streets along with several decades of doing things like residential roundabouts and hundreds of new speed cushions and planted bulb outs, many of the concepts have long been implemented here. Sadly, once installed, SDOT doesn’t often go back after 20 or 40 years and refresh what was created decades ago.

    I think it’s important to recognize how each arterial street functions. The more speed cushions we recently put in arterials and the more we apply travel barriers to them, SDOT seems to be forcing more and more traffic off of arterial streets and onto local ones. I think that it could even be considered an “anti-superblock” traffic approach. There are only so many extra delays that drivers within neighborhoods will tolerate before getting off arterial streets and onto local ones again. I don’t think that this issue gets discussed enough. But as arterial travel speeds drop, I’m visually witnessing an uptick in local street traffic volumes. And that’s concerning to me because rather than having to worry about walking across an occasional arterial safely, a pedestrian has to increasingly worry about local street safety too. Lately, SDOT has recently also been adding more and more speed cushions on Metro bus route streets and it makes local buses slower and rides on those buses bumpier.

    Add to that what Barcelona is doing requires a certain housing density and rail station density that exists in very few Seattle neighborhoods. Sure there are additional tweaks that sone Seattle neighborhood streets could get. But I see it as a case by case cause rather than some broad brush citywide reform.

    To summarize my thoughts, the video is not pitching a radically new idea that has not yet been applied to Seattle. Seattle has long been incorporating these concepts and techniques for decades already but it generally hasn’t been labeled as a “superblock”. And it’s going to require a substantial uptick in density and a much broader rail coverage beyond West Seattle and Ballard subways to fundamentally change what Seattle has already been doing for decades now. If anything, SDOT needs to pay more attention to how all the recent arterial traffic changes are affecting Seattle’s version of superblocks created in the 1970’s and 1980’s when local street calming was a primary objective so drivers would use the arterials instead.

    1. Most drivers these days just blindly follow the route that Google or Apple tells them to take and don’t question it. The cutting through on neighborhood streets is largely the fault of the big tech companies telling drivers to cut through because some algorithm predicts it to be 10 seconds faster. Adding additional traffic calming on residential streets, and/barriers to prevent cars from cutting through would help, as would requiring the tech companies to route drivers on arterials, except for local destinations. But, abandoning safety on arterials and simply letting people drive 50 mph so they don’t get tempted to cut through, is not a solution.

    2. Superblock has multiple definitions which are sometimes opposite. The Eastside’s 8-block arterial spacing is called superblocks, and it often has no interior streets or it has cul de sacs, so it’s car-dependent, the opposite of what’s intended here. It’s unfortunate the Barcelona concept is called the same, and I tried to avoid that term for years, but there is no other term and it has been associated with Barcelona for years now.

    3. An easy superblock in Rainier Valley could be the area bounded by Othello (south), Graham (north), MLK (west), Rainier (east). There’s plenty of transit (even if the Graham St. station doesn’t get built), schools, existing parks. It would need better density designed to support families and more commercial spaces, but it’s already functioning as a quasi-superblock.

      On Capitol Hill, I would nominate the area bounded by Roy (north), Melrose (west), John (south), Broadway (east). There’s pretty good density already, but many of the apartments have wasteful garage spaces at street level. If those spaces could be converted to commercial use or accessible housing, that area would be perfect for a superblock. Keep the 3 running to connect the area to downtown, too.

      1. There are effectively three superblocks near Othello Station now. There is no way to drive from New Holly area and MLK between Holly and Othello. On the other side of MLK there is no way to drive between Willow and Othello until 44th Ave. On the other side of Othello there is no way to drive between Beacon Ave and MLK between Othello and Kenyon. The Othello Station area has already been converted to superblocks more than many other parts of Seattle.

      2. I once lived in that part of capitol hill. My concern is: as a renter, how do I get a uhaul to my apartment building to move in/out? Carrying every box 2 blocks in addition to 3 flights of stairs would make me not want to move there.

        1. Superblock neighborhoods allow vehicle access for activities like deliveries and drop offs, but on-street parking is reduced and speed limits are in the 10-15 mph range. Superblocks have to maintain access for emergency vehicles, too.

      3. How do people in Barcelona move? There is some limited vehicle use available.

        Southwest Capitol Hill is on the side of a steep hill next to a cliff. That would hinder superblock usage. The established arterials are Bellevue Ave and Broadway. Melrose Ave was designated a greenway a few years ago and will get more greenway-like features. So the remaining streets that could be superblock’d in that vision are Summit, Belmont. Boyleston, and Harvard Ave. The north-south corridors are flat. The east-west corridors are steep. You can’t play hopscotch on a hill, it’s already hard to drive a car up or down them, and moving trucks would be advised not to use them, lest they find themselves overhanging the freeway as that charter bus did in the 2008 snowstorm.

        2. I believe that the city had to coordinate all the traffic circles with fire engine access back when they were installed. The city can’t just close streets without a fire truck access strategy. There are 6-8 story apartments around there too that need ladder trucks.

  2. Seattle to launch direct summer bus service to Golden Gardens
    King5 covers the news of Golden Gardens shuttle hours ago. Given little detail more than we’ve already discussed in previous open thread, I think it is very likely their reporter piece it together from here. Let’s just wait until tomorrow to find out more.

    I hope they will have a map to mark all the stops because I don’t think it makes sense for NW 54th St & 30th Ave NW to be the first stop. Only UW-bound 44 stops there all-day. King County Metro GTFS hasn’t updated since June 8th indicating the decision to start this service this summer quite last minute.

    1. I expect the ridership on the shuttle to be pretty terrible. Most people won’t even know it exists, and trips that involve a transfer to a half hourly bus usually suck. People with cars will continue to drive, but even people without will likely continue to take the 45 and walk, when push comes to shove, rather than ride this shuttle. Many will also choose to bike – the Burke Gilman goes right there.

      Another factor here is that getting people to use transit for a trip to a park is usually quite difficult. People typically travel in groups, which means only one person needs to have a car for everyone in the group to drive. Group travel also makes the bus fare rather expensive, when parking is free.

      If Ballard Link ever gets built, a shuttle to Golden Gardens from the Link station might fare better. But, that’s a long, long way away, if it ever happens.

      1. There are people who’ve wanted to go to Golden Gardens for years but haven’t been able because there’s no transit. Frequent service is important, but it’s more urgent to fill in the 15-minute frequency on regular routes like the 50 (Alki, Seward Park) than on a new pilot. At least the route is there. Hopefully it will go to at least 22nd to transfer to the 40 as well as the 44. There’s a good chance it will because earlier reverse-peak service to Seaview Avenue did. When you’re at the beach, having to wait an extra 20 minutes to go home isn’t as bad as other times, because you’re there to recreate and you can enjoy the beach a few minutes more or explore more.

      2. The 45 is pretty out of the way for a lot of people and it involves a pretty steep walk down. If you’re a beachgoer, that’s pretty annoying.

        Serving parks by transit shouldn’t be considered optional. Golden Gardens is busy enough to merit transit service, and while I’d prefer a seasonal extension to the 44, I think a park-specific shuttle is worth a try. People who rely on transit deserve access to all the parks everyone else has.

        1. It is actually perfect that there is a park at the end of a line like 44. It provides a destination for people to ride the bus all the way to the end, but the reality is 44 is trolleybus, so I don’t see KCM comfortably making that route go off-wire for that far even if that’s possible.

          The ideal solution I can only imagine is to make 17X running every 30 minutes all day and extend it to the park. It connects both 44 and 45 while providing a real all-day express service between Downtown Seattle and the part of Ballard many people actually go to.

        2. I’m not sure how the 17 could serve Golden Gardens. The hill from 32nd Ave. NW and 85th St. to Golden Gardens is steep, narrow and winding with a hairpin turn and a low-clearance railroad bridge. The simplest solution is a shuttle from the 44 terminal to the parking lot at the entrance to Golden Gardens.

        3. “The ideal solution I can only imagine is to make 17X running every 30”

          That’s unlikely, but there was an all-day 17 local before the 2014 cuts and the RapidRide D restructure. It won’t get you to Golden Gardens because there’s a steep hill in between; it’s no better than taking the 45 to the end, which is a block away from the stairway. And whichever way it took from downtown it would be slower than the 40 or D, as the 17 was. SDOT is in the middle of upgrading the 40’s path to speed it up.

        4. Sorry guys I totally missed the unconventional bridge clearance NW 85th. Yeah 9 ft is not enough for any model of 40-ft bus.

          “And whichever way it took from downtown it would be slower than the 40 or D, as the 17 was. SDOT is in the middle of upgrading the 40’s path to speed it up.”

          I am not convinced 40 will be faster than 17X even after all the projects.
          Currently, the 17’s trip departing at 4th & Jackson at 4:25 pm has time point of 4:58 pm at NW Market St & Ballard Ave NW. 40’s trip departing at the same stop at 4:30 pm has time point of 5:14 pm. That’s 10 minutes slower. Do you think all the 40’s improvements can really close that gap? I am not so sure.

          The 40 project didn’t really unclog delay at south side of Fremont bridge.
          To really speed up 40 for Ballard, they should send some version of 40X non-stop between SLU and Fremont via Dexter. The advantage of Westlake FAB lane are all canceled out by the delay at intersection south of Fremont Bridge. Meanwhile, it occurs to me that somehow it is always easier to get through that intersection from Dexter. The queue at Dexter northbound is always shorter than queue at Westlake Ave N

        5. “I am not convinced 40 will be faster than 17X even after all the projects”

          An express would need to go where the most people and non-residential destinations are. That means 24th or 15th, not 32nd. It’s unfair to give lower-density, almost residential-only areas expresses when higher-performing corridors are left with slow buses. The 28 is an unusual route.

          The 15 might come back when Metro fully restores driver-shortage hours next year. So that would be an express to Ballard.

        6. Mike, Route 17 local was deleted in fall 2012; Route 61 was a Sunset Hill shuttle; it was deleted in fall 2014. Metro had not filled the network hole. They had opportunity to do so with projects in fall 2021 and fall 2024.

      3. “People with cars will continue to drive, but even people without will likely continue to take the 45 and walk”

        Not sure if you’ve been there from time to time. It is actually pretty tough to find a parking spot at beach.
        Around sunset, I think it is even worth driving to Ballard Lock parking lot, killing some time at Botanical Garden until the shuttle arrive because your day can be easily ruined while attempting to find parking at Golden Gardens.
        Botanical Garden and Ballard Lock are things definitely can keep you busy for good 20 minutes.

      4. If Metro wants to provide transit service to Golden Gardens in a way that’s usable, an extension of an existing route is much better than a mere shuttle. From a map perspective, an extension of the 44 would be most logical. It would put Golden Gardens a two-seat ride away everywhere in the city with a bus route that intersects route 44; this area would include essentially the entire northern half of the city, plus every Link station along both the 1-line and 2-line. A shuttle from the Ballard Locks, by contrast, adds the overhead of an additional connection from almost everywhere, with a 3-seat required to reach Golden Gardens from most of the city. From my home in Kirkland, it would be a 4-seat ride. 3 transfers, each way, is just too much.

        As to trolley issues…the new trolley buses are supposed to have an off-wire range of 21 miles. The round-trip distance we’re talking about is 3.4 miles (1.7 miles each way). There is no universe where the bus would not be able to make it, especially since, after each off-wire segment, the bus would have over an hour on-wire to recharge its batteries, on top of this being a seasonal summer route, when electric vehicles of all types are most efficient (e.g. don’t have to worry about the energy consumption of cabin heating, for example). On top of this, for reasons I don’t fully understand, Metro usually likes to run diesel buses on all of the trolley routes anyway on weekends, so assuming this extension is weekend-only, it probably wouldn’t even be run with a trolley bus anyway, it would run with a diesel bus.

        I think the bigger issue with extending the 44 is service cost. The extra running time might mean that the bus has to run every 15 minutes instead of every 12 minutes, or every 20 minutes instead of every 15 minutes. To be clear, I do believe this tradeoff to be worth it on summer weekends, but it would be easier to get through if paired with a general service increase, to avoid having to cut frequency on other people’s routes to pay for it.

        As to the comparison with driving, it kind of works like this. Driving, you might have to park half a mile away and spend 5 minutes searching for a parking space. Let’s assume an overhead of 15 minutes (park+walk). With a shuttle that only runs every 30 minutes, just waiting for the shuttle one way is already 15 minutes, that in addition to waiting for the shuttle for the return trip, plus additional connections. Of course, parking at the Ballard Locks is possible to avoid such additional connections, but that parking lot, itself, fills up, plus it’s paid.

        A lot of my skepticism about the shuttle also comes from the fact that Metro already tried this with route 61 (Golden Gardens to Fremont via Ballard), and the route was discontinued due to very low ridership. Granted, the Seattle population has grown quite a bit since then, as has the car-free population, not to mention the traffic and parking situation getting worse, so maybe it’s worth another try. But, if they are going to do it, a route extension is the way to do it right.

        1. “the new trolley buses are supposed to have an off-wire range of 21 miles.”

          Metro has been “studying using its off-wire capability in regular service” for a decade now, and we’re expecting an answer any decade.

          The capability may be like only two miles rather than twenty.

          This is not a Metro-funded service even if Metro is operating it.

          I thought the 61 was on 32nd Ave NW, not Seaview, to replaced the 17 local when it was deleted. My recollection is it went from 32nd & 85th to 15th & Leary to transfer to the D, not all the way to Fremont.

        2. I think you’re right about the 61. By “Fremont”, I meant “Fred Meyer”, not the actual center of the universe. But, it is still an illustration of why short shuttle routes usually perform poorly.

          For starters, special-purpose shuttles serve only one trips purpose, unlike a real bus route, which gets the combined ridership of many overlapping trips to many different destinations. Special-purpose shuttle buses also often have to spend a large portion of their service time sitting in layover. For instance, for the Golden Gardens shuttle, the actual trip may take only 5-10 minutes. But, with one bus, the best you can do maintain reliable service is to punctuate each trip with a layover period as long as the trip itself, which translates to service every 30 minutes. Real transit routes do far better than that. For instance, a workhorse route like the 7 might spend 15-20 minutes in layover after each hour in service.

          To see how poor the ridership typically is on special-purpose shuttles, you can look no further than the private sector, for instance, hotel to airport shuttles, or Microsoft building-to-building shuttles. Their ridership per platform hour is almost always very poor compared to real transit; the only time these services do well is when there are huge crowds for a special event.

          “The capability may be like only two miles rather than twenty.”

          Searching Google about the trolleybus battery capabilities, the battery capacity is 72 kWh. Given the efficiency of a fully loaded Tesla semi truck, the claimed range of 21 miles is likely conservative, probably allowing for cabin heating in the winter. Furthermore, Ballard Locks to Golden Gardens is flat. In the summer, it’s warm. The speeds are slow. These are perfect conditions for a battery powered vehicle to run at optimal efficiency. Other cities (e.g. San Francisco) run trolleybuses similar distances off-wire all the time, and they work just fine. Why King County Metro has such grand plans for electrification, yet is so lukewarm about using the trolleybus capabilities they already have (including running the trolley routes with diesel buses on weekends), I do not understand.

        3. Yes, I think that Metro is sort of unlikely to do this because of the trolley wire question. But I think an extension to the wire (if off-wire operation isn’t feasible) would be worth it. Maybe it would just be a seasonal thing, but I would hope it could be paid for with support from Seattle Parks (which would prevent cuts in service relating to extending the route).

          And while obviously park access is a big thing here, I think there’s a fair number of people who live at the Marina as well who may use the service too.

        4. Jack Whisner, former Metro planner, has shared practical issues with serving Golden Gardens in the past. I recall the main issue is lack of reliable turnaround space. I also expect there are significant reliability issues as cars often block the driving lanes waiting for other cars to pull in/out of parking spaces. One solution could be to eliminate significant amounts of parking in the southern lot.

          I don’t recall the last time a Golden Gardens shuttle like this was run, but regardless it will be interesting to see how it goes this summer.

        5. Off-wire range is just one part. Metro doesn’t seem comfortable letting trolleybus go off-wire and then reconnect in regular revenue service with exception to 43.
          They have handful of locations with infrastructure to allow pole to automatically reconnect, but plenty of drivers prefer doing it manually. I can see this being an obstacle for running regular service off-wire.

        6. “ I recall the main issue is lack of reliable turnaround space.”

          Based on Metro’s map, it is going to use the lot for boat launch to turn around. That one is currently pay parking. On one evening, I drove there when the north parking was completely jammed, this parking was almost empty. Not sure if it was just the case for that time of day.

        7. This transit to Golden Gardens topic would make a good post. I would write as a pro and con piece, with one person arguing why that area needs regular, year-round bus service, and another person arguing why it doesn’t.

          I personally think extending the route 44 to Golden Gardens is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever read here.

        8. To be clear, the suggestion is not to extend every trip of the 44 year-round. Only during the summer, only on weekends, and only during the daytime (maybe, 9 AM-6 PM). It’s not that big of a cost. The issue of turnaround space could be solved by taking away parking. It would not at all be difficult for the daily ridership of the extension on the bus to exceed the number of parking spaces removed for the turnaround.

          As to, why an extension vs. a separate shuttle:
          – it is more operationally efficient, not wasting half the service time of a bus, sitting in layover.
          – It saves passengers time by avoiding an additional connection, meaning more ridership.
          – It means that the bus to Golden Gardens runs every 15 minutes, rather than every 30 minutes (again, more frequency = more ridership).
          – Allows large groups to ride the bus together, without needing to worry about capacity on the bus.

          As to trolley issues, whatever infrastructure is needed to allow automatic connects/disconnects, it should be much cheaper than actually extending the wire. Extending the wire costs several million dollars per mile. A piece of metal to guide the poles coming up out of the bus, even with installation, should not cost anywhere near $10 million. In any case, so long as Metro decides to run all trolley routes with diesel buses on weekends anyway, the issue is academic (assuming such a route extension operates only on weekends).

        9. First, I bet there are more people going there after 6pm than before.
          Second, you see waiting time as a problem, I see that as a break for someone to walk around. There are a lot of things to walk to. You are going to beach rather than going to work or appointment. It is mot tedious waiting when there are stores right behind to keep you entertained. On the beach side, you do need to time your departure, but I don’t see it a big deal. After all, you are waiting from beach not from 3rd Ave & Columbia St.

        10. asdf, you once said that if an area “doesn’t get enough ridership to justify service, then the entire route should probably disappear, and its service hours reassigned to bolster frequency on other routes.” Do you no longer believe that?

        11. I believe that, on summer weekends, Golden Gardens does have enough demand to justify regular service. If people are going there in the evening to watch the sunset, then, by all means, extend the service into the evening. When I said “6 PM”, I was typing fast without thinking too hard.

          As to the comment about wait time…a 30 minute wait isn’t terrible if you’re spending the day at the beach, but it is terrible if you’re standing at a street corner, trying to connect from one bus to another bus. And, given that the 44 is not super-reliable, trying to time such a connection to avoid a potential 30-minute wait isn’t really feasible. For instance, if a bus leaves the Ballard Locks at :00 and :30, and the #44 arrives at :55, :10, :25, and :40, and 5 minutes is not enough buffer to account for random traffic delays, then you must take a trip that arrives at :10 or :40 and plan on a 20-minute connection wait if everything is on-time.

          I suppose if you really wanted to penny-pinch, you could say, maybe only extend every other 44 trip. But, I could see it being operationally difficult to maintain evenly-spaced trips between Ballard and U-district that way. It’s simpler, if you’re going to do it, to just extend every trip, especially if this is a weekend-only extension anyway, meaning it doesn’t run during the weekday rush-hour period when the #44 is every 8-10 minutes. These are the kinds of hassles that motivate people to put with driving around a parking lot for 10 minutes, looking for a parking space, instead.

          By contrast, an extension of the 44 avoids this mess. Sure, there is still a connection needed to reach Golden Gardens from most of the city. But, that’s ok, as it’s only one connection, and it’s most likely between two frequent routes. And, having a one-seat ride to everywhere is not reasonable. But, there is a huge difference in the hassle factor between one connection and two, especially when you deal with connections to 30-minute routes, rather than 15-minute routes.

        12. Doesn’t the 45 already provide a fairly good connection to Golden Gardens? Why does the 44 need to be extended, if anything wouldn’t it be better to spend any “special service” toward running the 45 more often? The 45 has a sizeable hill but it’s a proven existing route with fairly good service.

        13. “And, given that the 44 is not super-reliable, trying to time such a connection to avoid a potential 30-minute wait isn’t really feasible.”

          I can also say this is exactly why Golden Gardens shuttle shouldn’t be an extension of selected or all 44 trips because 44 is unreliable.
          By avoiding people taking 44 to wait including those who are comfortable to precisely time their trip to get to the park.
          And it is not like people taking 44 don’t need to wait, they just wait elsewhere in Wallingford or U-District. So I really don’t see a reason why extending 44 is better.

        14. “I really don’t see a reason why extending 44 is better.”

          Extending the 44 would use fewer service hours, drivers, and buses. The 44 is not a particularly long route and the shuttle is very short. So layover time will add a significant amount to the shuttle’s schedule, whereas if the routes were combined, the layovers and parking spaces would be combined.

        15. ” Why does the 44 need to be extended, if anything wouldn’t it be better to spend any “special service” toward running the 45 more often? The 45 has a sizeable hill but it’s a proven existing route with fairly good service.”

          Because average people won’t walk up and down the old narrow stairs in the woods. Especially families with small children or grandparents. The 45 already exists yet few people are taking it to Golden Gardens. I’ve been that way once or twice. In any case, the target transit market isn’t using it: they’re filling the parking lot or not going to Golden Gardens. The goal is to get some of them to take transit to the park.

        16. When I do a search of why the route 46 was deleted, the response is …

          “King County Metro Route 46 was deleted in September 2012 due to severe budget shortfalls and consistently low ridership. The route, which connected Golden Gardens to Fremont and downtown Ballard, was considered one of Metro’s least productive lines.”

        17. “Why does the 44 need to be extended …?” jd, the answer is it doesn’t, and shouldn’t be extended. That segment used to have bus service, and it was deleted because it had consistently low ridership. Besides, there are already two routes that get within a few hundred feet of the park, plus, it now has a summer shuttle.

      1. The fare payment info states that Tap To Pay won’t be available on the Golden Gardens Direct route. Are they not using a Metro bus and driver on the service?

        1. But how can they accept Orca Card without tap to pay? Isn’t that just a software update? What kind of fleet currently have Orca Card reader but doesn’t support open payment?

      1. Not a bad idea except Ballard terminal track merges to the main line at least half mile.

        2. Half a mile of in-street track wouldn’t be that big a deal to add, if it proved popular enough to make a permanent atttaction.

    4. Back when I lived in Green Lake, I used to take the 48 (now it would be the 45) to the last stop and walk the rest of the way. It’s only a half mile walk. The path is quite steep, but if you just take it slowly, it’s not too bad.

      It’s the best beach in Seattle, in my opinion.

  3. Anyone ever taken the 118 on Vashon to the Strawberry Festival? I’m seeing they close the road and am wondering what the bus detour (and traffic) is like. Deciding if biking makes more sense

    1. asdf2 led a group of transit hikers to the festival once or twice. There was the regular 118 and an event shuttle at the ferry terminal, so we took whichever one came first. It’s a fun outing if you’d like to see a small town center and the parade. We spent a couple hours at the parade and looked around and then came back. I didn’t see strawberries for sale though, which I was surprised at.

      My family had a house on Vashon in the 1970s and we went there weekends to fix it up, going Friday afternoon after school and coming back Sunday afternoon, with a dog. The island’s isolation gives it a community feel with most people you meet. The downtown has essential stores and a few restaurants, and an open lot that’s used for the festival. I never lived on the island or went to school there but I knew people who did. We went to the festival every year but I’d never heard it called the strawberry festival; it turns out it wasn’t called that until 1984.

      Asdf2 also led another hike to a woods a few blocks southwest of downtown, so that’s something else you could do while you’re there.

      Vashon Strawberry Festival, July 18.
      Island Center Forest
      Forest brochure

      1. Depending on the year, there may not have been many strawberries. Climate change has also shifted a bunch of the growing seasons.

      2. Great, thanks for the info! And cool stories about Vashon. I was out there today and saw flyers for the strawberry festival, hoping to check it out. It’s a cool place, I like it a lot more than Bainbridge. Only wish the first ferry from downtown was before 9:55 AM

        1. The ferry runs from 5am to midnight. The first 118 leaves the Vashon ferry terminal at 8:55am. The festival and parade probably won’t stop until after that anyway, or if there is an event shuttle, it may have earlier trips.

        3. I took the water taxi to Vashon recently. I guess they recently started running on the weekend, so much more convenient for recreation. I was very impressed with the speed. Taking the G down to the waterfront, walking to and waiting at the terminal, and a pleasant ride over to Vashon took only about 45 minutes, so much quicker than having to get over to Fauntleroy to leave from there. I didn’t try the 118 bus, but it looked like it was timed to coincide with the vessel’s arrival, so definitely a viable option for the future.

      4. I love Vashon. My aunt and uncle rented a small house there for years before buying in Tacoma – so I spent many times taking the ferry over, riding the 118 into town and walking down to KVI Beach from their house.

        I’m overdue for a trip over there.

        1. “KVI Beach”

          I was going to mention that but I couldn’t think of a transit-related or signifcance reason. I was always amused at a beach named after a radio station. My parents drove us to it in the early years. In the later years we went more to Burton beach.

          The first six years of my life were in San Jose/Saratoga, so we went to the sandy beaches of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. So when we moved to Washington and I found most of the beaches are rocky (and the water was cold), I was disappointed.

          Our Vashon house had a rocky beach, and the custom was you could walk throughout along the entire beach past neighbors’ houses, so that’s what I did on Saturday mornings with the dog and sometimes a friend. It took an hour to walk from our house on the northeast shore to the Fauntleroy ferry terminal. To get to a sandy beach we’d have to go to a public beach, where I was told the sand had been installed since it wasn’t indigenous like in California. So we went to the public beaches occasionally. KVI and Burton are the only ones I remember going to.

        2. I can’t find the road our house was on in Google Maps. From the Fauntleroy ferry terminal you went south on the Vashon highway, and before a Y or Vashon Center you turned left onto a private gravel road that went down ten minutes past an Indian cultural center to our house, which was next to two houses in front of the beach. The road didn’t have a name I heard. Later in Google Maps it seemed to be where “Miller-Andreas Road” was listed. But now there’s no Miller-Andreas Road or anything looking like it that I can see, or any tribal cultural center in that area. So what happened to it? Did the wooded area get filled in with tract houses and the road got a number? There was some construction starting in the 80s along the wooded area, so it could have vastly expanded after that I guess. I don’t supposed anybody can recognize which road that was, but in case anybody can, I’d be interested in how it evolved and what it is now.

    2. The 118 is a great way to get to the strawberry festival, but beware, during the strawberry festival, it is often packed.

    3. Recently watched a youtube video (Chinese dubbed so I don’t think it is helpful to share) where someone took water taxi to Vashon and rode 118/bike all the way to Tahlequah to catch WSF to Pt Definance.
      From the video, it looks like Water Taxi was timed to arrive Vashon the same time WSF arrived, so both boats should be able to connect to 118 seamlessly.

  4. Here’s this week’s Madison/Union trolley wire progress report. The bowtie section at 11th Ave. appears to be complete. It will allow trolleys from Madrona to turn back to Madrona at 11th Ave, if needed. The bowtie section on 13th still needs some installation work on the switches and guides for the turn sections. And there still is a lot of work needed to connect the Madison wire to the Broadway wire, but returning trolleys to the 2 in the fall should be achievable.

Comments are closed.