This article was originally posted yesterday afternoon.
Mayor Mike McGinn rolled out a proposal this afternoon to expand walking, biking, and transit use in the city today but did not propose any specific plans to fund it. Instead, he said he would hold community meetings to gauge what people’s priorities are, update the city’s Transit Master Plan, use existing city resources to fund biking, walking, and transit improvements, and prioritize alternatives to driving in the 2011 and 2012 city budgets. He also said he would do further analysis of light rail to Ballard or West Seattle.
Standing outside the Beacon Hill light rail station, McGinn told reporters to “wait until you see our budget before you say we’re not going to fund it. We’ll announce [a funding plan] when we announce our budget.”The city faces a budget shortfall of about $120 million over the next two years, and McGinn has asked departments, including the Department of Transportation (SDOT) to identify cuts between 1.5 and 3 percent. A new group called Streets for All Seattle, many of whom flanked McGinn during his announcement (which also included an odd appearance by King County Council member Larry Phillips) wants the city to dedicate an additional $30 million a year to walking, biking, and transit infrastructure.
The biggest news out of today’s announcement was that the city now plans to move forward with a “road diet” (essentially, removing one eastbound and one westbound lane, adding bike lanes or sharrows, and adding a center turn lane, as shown below) on West Nickerson St.
As I reported for The Stranger last year, those plans were put on hold after nearby businesses complained—predictably—that removing car lanes for bikes would create intolerable traffic, SDOT postponed the project indefinitely, saying it needed to analyze how the road diet would work with traffic to and from the north portal of the Alaskan Way deep-bore tunnel.
When I asked McGinn what had changed between now and then, he paused, then responded, “Well, number one, we have a new mayor.” Then he said SDOT has completed it analysis of the traffic impact of the tunnel and found that “the road functions very well with through movements of vehicles as well as from a safety perspective” in SDOT’s models.
After the press conference, I spoke briefly with SDOT director Peter Hahn, who pointed out that every time the city proposes road diets, residents and businesses predict that “the world is going to end,” and it doesn’t. Two weeks ago, Hahn and McGinn met with business leaders from Ballard and Fremont, and “to a person, they said road conditions were going to deteriorate. They said the same thing with Fauntleroy, they said the same thing with Stone Way, and it never happens.”
And if the sky does fall? “It’s completely reversible. It’s just paint. It’s not something where you’re stuck forever,” Hahn said.
Tweet
The Nickerson Road Diet is great idea whose time has come.
How about traffic calming and other road diet features on 35th Ave SW in West Seattle? People treat these arterials as highways, often going 50+mph.
I hate to bike, walk, or even drive on Nickerson. It's just terribly unsafe and needs a major road diet. I actually don't recall ever seeing “traffic” there, except when cars are lined up for one of the bridges (and they can line up in 1 line instead of 2).
There are few businesses there, and the ones that exist would benefit from slower traffic.
I really like Hahn's practicality in that last statement. People make such a big deal over this stuff because they're afraid of the unknown. I mean, even if it *doesn't* work, that's still valuable, because it teaches us something and we can learn how to do it better the next time.
Is this because the Ballard bridge is going to be closed to bikes for a while? Otherwise I'm not sure I get it except as an anti-car thing.
There's a lot of car traffic on that street. Since it's immediately parallel to the Burke Gilman, I'm not sure I see the point. Are there are lots of Magnolia bicyclists and folks who like to go to Discovery Park who prefer to not use the Burke Gilman?
Why is McGinn in a suit?
Oh good! More town halls and analysis. Its about time we had a mayor with the courage to hold meetings and do studies!
I'm not sure if the joke is on McGinn or us.
When I first read this, I thought they finally had smartened up and were forcing a flat route from Fremont to downtown.
Alas, that would be Westlake, not Nickerson. They are pushing a route that already has not one but two dedicated bike lanes paralleling it. This is the dumbest waste of bike capital I have ever read about.
What we need is to GO THE OTHER WAY! Make Westlake single lane, and do this configuration so as to allow a flood of bikers who are desperate for safe, flat route downtown, to live their dream.
Put bike lanes where they are needed, not where they are easy.
Road diets are primarily a safety improvement, not a bike thing. Although they often leave room for bike lanes, with Nickerson especially it's about safe crossings for pedestrians.
Trevor:
One route doesn't suit persons who travel by bicycle any more than it does those who travel by any other means. There are an array of origins and destinations within any community that necessitate a suite of access options.
More to the point, the Nickerson project is primarily a pedestrian crossing project. The city has a policy, which is based on significant study, of not providing marked, but unsignalized, crossings in “multiple threat” environments.
Four lane cross-section roadways are especially hazardous to pedestrians. Although the curblane driver yields the right of way, that vehicle obstructs the view of the adjacent same-direction travel lane, creating a hazard for pedestrians who wish to continue crossing.
Reducing the cross section to three lanes allows eliminates the multiple threat environment while, in an urban environment with regular turning movements, carrying roughly an equivalent quantity of motor vehicles.
how many of the proponents walked, biked, or rode to the event?
If it wasn't part of a pedestrian crossing project, I'd totally agree with you.
Anyway, I agree that we need to extend the road diet down Westlake. Without a doubt, the 4 lane Westlake rebuild was the dumbest thing Mayor Nickels did with a street.
As other commenters have pointed out, this is primarily a pedestrian safety issue. I would like to add that while the Burke Gilman trail is great for certain trips, in order to go too places like shops and residences cyclists still have to go onto city streets. Walk Bike Ride is about making walking, biking and riding mass transit the easiest means of travel for everyday people taking everyday trips. This means bringing pedestrian and cyclist improvements to the streets people live and work on.
The bike racks were full and the rest seemed to have taken light rail. At least one person said he took the 16 bus.
Would you rather have him announce a plan and say “discussion is closed”? Holding townhalls and conducting studies isn't indecisive, it's how decisions should be made in a democracy. Perhaps you missed the the fact that McGinn just announced that the city was going forward with the Nickerson road diet after having conducted town halls and studies. This is how the democratic process is supposed to work.
The road diet is primarily for pedestrian safety.
I biked and rode there and biked home. There were lots of bikes around, including one really cool Trek district.
Most of Nickerson could be made more bikable and walkable just by eliminating free parking adjacent to residential properties. I DO NOT favor eliminating parking in front of businesses that depend on it, for example the hardware store just east of 15th Avenue West.
Would it be too much to ask SDOT to actually maintain the sidewalk on the south side of Nickerson and the west side of Westlake? At present, long stretches of these sidewalks are piled high with sediment and vegetation that makes it completely unwalkable, not to mention unbikable.
While the SDOT is at it, how about clarifying whether or not the parking lots that occupy the former Interurban rail line right-of-way are part of some kind of formally designated bike trail. Are these public, or private? If they are owned by SDOT, how about some striping and signage to let people know that this stretch of pavement is part of the Lake Union bike trail?
The Devil is in the details, and it will be interesting to see if the City of Seattle steps up and applies these kinds of simple fixes, or whether it continues to pose as a green city.
Yes, there are a lot of people on bikes who travel north from the Central Waterfront, Myrtle Edwards and Pier 91 trails and don't feel secure traveling north on the Ballard Bridge and/or can't get through the Locks because it is closed after 9 p.m. Their best shot for getting to Fremont, Wallingford and the U. District is to travel east along Nickerson and cross the Ship Canal at the Fremont Bridge. In addition, the westernmost stretch of the BG is chopped up by tracks and gravel shoulders along the notorious “missing link,” making Nickerson an attractive alternative for biking through that part of Ballard.
While we're on this topic, what's up with SDOT's crazy inability to line up curb cuts with sidewalks? Even downtown, pedestrians and people in wheelchairs are channelized into entering the street at weird angles that exposes them to extra danger from people making right-hand turns. Over the years, SDOT has placed hundreds of curb cuts willy nilly, and to boot has allowed the installation of all kinds of infrastructure including telephone poles and guylines, luminaire poles and fire hydrants to be placed seemingly at random with respect to street corner geometry. This is not only a f.u. to people using walkers and wheelchairs, it is also completely sideways with the concept of walkability.
Can someone please explain this to me? Is it a Grace Crunican legacy thing?
SDOT just added two unsignalized crosswalks at the crest of a hill on Harvard and Shelby – one right on the crest the other 20 feet south. The second one is an accident waiting to happen, as people driving up the hill can't see people in that crosswalk.
Seawall communication planning was just as effective.
McSandbag says he wants the city (that's him) to deticate $30 million more dollars a year. So, that, too, will be reflected in his budget he submits to the council.
I wonder how he will pay for the extra 30, is that all SDOT money shifting?
He should have waited another decade. It's not like the thing is going to collapse or anything.
Mt. Baker:
“McSandbag says he wants the city (that's him)”
No, that's us.
McGinn announced that he will be looking to 1. update the transit master plan 2. work within existing funds to prioritize walking biking, and transit. 3. He also indicated support for “Streets For All which is a campaign by labor, environmental, and community groups to find 30 million in additional revenue to be dedicated to walking, biking, and transit. You can find out more information about streets for all here: http://www.streetsforallseattle.org
Thank you for bringing this up. I linked to the article to say the same thing. 35th Ave in its current condition is stressful at best and fatal at worst.
The analysis to put Nickerson on a diet occurred under the previous administration and previous Director of SDOT, Grace Crunican. It emerged from the “tri-party” recurring meetings she held to bring freight, pedestrian and bicycle interests together to jointly hash out specific transportation issues on specific corridors. Credit Hahn and McGinn with carrying it out but the genesis occurred earlier.
Turning Rainier Ave S between Rainier Beach and the city limits from 4 into 2 lanes + turn lane + bike lanes turned out wonderfully for everyone.
Even in it's new configuration the hard part is going fast enough not to piss off the people behind you, and slow enough not to get ticketed.
Bikers can ride joined at the hip, and it's all okay.
Except that we have a bicycle master plan and a pedestrian master plan and know what where we need more bus service. All have had plenty of meetings and discussion. What we need is money.
This is just stalling.
The outreach and planning is targeted at 1. updating the transit master plan. (it still has the monorail in it!) and 2. building support to fully fund the pedestrian master plan. McGinn supports Streets For All, which seeks 30 million in additional funds to fully fund the pedestrian and bicycle master plan. It's true that McGinn hasn't released his budget yet, which will quantify how much existing money is redirected to walking, biking, and transit. This is frustrating but only 4 months in this is to be expected.
I biked there and back.
I ride along West Nickerson most days and just today a tractor trailer intimidated me out of the bike space next to the parked cars. Left turns on a bike on Nickerson are also fraught with excitement. I would be thrilled if the city altered the lanes and created a center turn lane.
Do we really need to keep building support? Sorry but I have been hearing the same things for years. So many press conferences, and plans, and townhalls, and nothing really gets done.
So far McGinn is nothing but hot air. Not that I expected more, but I would have been happy to be wrong.
Give me something I can vote on. I'll say yes and I wouldn't even touch a bike. I know this City and I know that we are pretty willing to vote for funding these kind of things. We just need to be asked.
With two kids and a demanding job?
STB has the press packet from the event posted — it's pretty heady stuff, especially since the mayor has found a way to solve the problem that “In King County, African-Americans are 60 percetn (sic) more likely to be obese”. Looks like the mayor's office borrowed Publicola's proof reader…
Yawn!
Seattle's transit is woefully inadequate and this anouncement seems to say that McGinn isn't planning on making signficant changes. I took the bus to the Greendrinks gathering at the Mountaineers on Sand Point this evening and the first thing I did was look around for someone to drive me home, since the bus home would have taken me 2 hours to get to West Seattle (a 20 minute drive at 8:30 p.m.). It shouldn't take 6 times longer to travel by transit than it does by car if we expect people to actually depend on transit.
http://www.sustainablewestseattle.org/2010/05/t...
I agree that it's a good thing but I will point out one problem to temper things a bit. I commute to Renton down Rainier Ave on my scooter (50 cc) and only go about 35 mph (which is the speed limit here). In the wintertime I would get passed in the double turn lane at least once a week. The pedestrian islands every block or so meant that these idiots would have to cut me off as they passed.
So yes, road diets are good, but the backlash (aggressive drivers who resort to dangerous behavior to maintain prior speeds) can have some unintended disadvantages. Obviously it is an enforcement issue, not a road design issue but some food for thought.
Is it just me or did the mayor just regurgitate Bridging the Gap? Isn't this policy plagiarism?
Why does Seattle continue to put bike lanes on arterials? Why not put them parallel to arterials on less-busy streets, as Portland does?
I didn't think Phillips speech was odd. Why make such a statement without any supporting information? His participation was cool. Glad to have him there.
Doubt he took the 16 all the way. 36 or 60, maybe…both of those have “6″ in their numbers…
That's just not true. The outreach is about Walk, Bike, Ride, not about the Transit Master Plan. The plan will have its own outreach process, but the WBR town halls (or whatever they're called) are about all facets of the initiative.
I have lived on West Nickerson for 28 years and public safety alone should make for this change, – especially because the plan will substantially ease the sharp curve at the 800 block. Crossing the street or biking near this too sharp curve is a serious health risk. For that matter, crossing the street in most of the project area is hazardous as hell. Drivers get crazy on this stretch of four lane arterial, 40-50 mph is the norm in a 30 mph zone. Car accidents and screeching tire near misses are a regular occurence on the 800 block curve. Two friends have had parked cars totaled there, four others merely sideswiped. Two lanes, a bike lane, a sharrow and a turn lane? Can't wait. By the way Mudbaby, the hardware store just east of 15th, which I go to often, has off street parking and would not be negatively impacted. But I am with you on maintaining the south side sidewalk, which is always overgrown and should be part of any serious walk plan. Bring it on – good for public safety, good for the environment and friends won't be scared shitless to park across the street and visit. Finally a diet I can fully support.
I stand corrected.
What would you have him do? Schedule a vote tomorrow? Declare a coup? We have a legislative process and a ballot initiative process, both of which take time. He's been in office for 4 months. Perhaps more people should read this:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-first-10...
Maybe Erica thought it was odd that any other elected official showed up at a McGinn event.
There was much to like in this announcement yesterday. Let's hope the Mayor didn't drag “walk, bike, ride” into his Viaduct and 520 mudpits too.
What we really need is a KAYAK plan! Here we are, a city full of water with a dearth of public-access facilities for human-powered water transportation. I'd kayak my son from Fremont to his preschool on Nickerson if only there was a dock on the other side. This is only partially tongue-in-cheek…
Yes, SDOT should consider a three-lane profile on Westlake Avenue North with bike lanes; near the Fremont Bridge, the two-way left turn lane could be a second storage lane going toward the Fremont Bridge; bike lanes on Westlake would have a topographical advantage over those on Dexter Avenue North; the pedestrian issues and high speed on Westlake are worse than those on Nickerson; Dexter should be a transit priority corridor; the traffic volumnes on Westlake and Nickerson are quite similar.
It's an ADA thing…curb ramps (which are primarily designed for use by wheelchairs) should meet the street at a perpindicular angle so as not to tip a wheelchair when it makes the transition from sidewalk to street – keeping the ramp in line with the sidewalk often can make that transition very difficult.
If this is really primarily for the pedestrians, then I suppose that's a bit better spin. Things must have changed fairly significantly on this stretch since I moved from Fremont 5 years ago, however. I don't recall much pedestrian traffic at all, except near the Fremont Bridge.
I also never really have complaints biking the stretch, except on the hill with the turns and the off-ramps.
Isn't the multi-use ship canal trail multi-use ship canal trail due to be completed very soon? If so, I guess peds might be crossing Nickerson with more frequency to access it. I guess.
Hopefully, it will be an “if you build it, they will come” situation, but there sure seems like at least a hundred better places to use the money.
The north-end is absolutely desperate for sidewalks just for basic access to retail and transit where now people are reduced to walking in the actual street dodging cars, and we are spending money on this?
My priorities would be vastly different, both from the ped angle as well as from the bike angle.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, Council Member Phillips: We could use some help from the legislature and the governor. The governor's contribution to non-automobile transportation consists of vetoing funding sources for such.
The city council, for its part, is trying to put the city on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars for a project that will only benefit automobiles. Thank you, Mayor McGinn, for trying to stop that insanity.
Meanwhile, please let us have sidewalks, especially in my neighborhood of South Park where pedestrians will essentially be prisoners once the bridge is removed.
Has anyone else looked closely at the document describing the Mayors plan yesterday?
The business about minority health seemed really out there too me, and was a real non sequitur. I mean, there are health benefits for all to this kind of thing, but the emphasis was misplaced. Granted I only gave the document a quick scan.
I doubt that anyone can show that in cities with better mass transit than Seattle, like Chicago, New York, and DC, the incidence of diabetes, blood pressure, and weight issues are any lower in what the report calls “low-income communities and communities of color”, or that they are any higher in places like Atlanta where I assume mass transit stinks, but I'm not really familiar with the (ATL).
From the report,
“Some low-income communities and communities of color lack access to a transportation system with safe, complete sidewalks, bike paths, adequate bus service or destinations in their neighborhood like parks, grocery stores and libraries.”
While I can not argue with the above, poverty in this country is violence, and its hard for me to appreciate that a transit plan will really do much to change this. I mean the roots of this kind of thing run deep, and though its admirable to address them, why not address equity and quality of life for all outright? While I appreciate that a robust transit system increases the quality of life for all, a document that calls for transportation equity, feels really strange in the context of this proposal.
The cynic in me thinks this is an attempt to promote a program made up of issues traditionally associated with affluent educated white communities, and broaden its base, but I am willing to entertain other ideas. Is there anyone out there who can speak to this intelligently?
You're correct that we cannot solve the poverty-health connection via transportation alone (food access is especially important), but I think it makes sense to start with basic improvements like sidewalks.
Right! Because no one in Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Groniningen or Bern or Berlin or Freiberg or …. has kids and job.
If you have kids bike friendly cities are great – cause it means your kids might actually grow up healthly and live long and you might save enough money biking to send them to college
You need both. Bike boulevards are great – but you need main streets to get to your destination, too.
Actually there's a strong correlation with less driving and greater health. So sure there's lots of other needs in poor neighborhoods, but better mobility and health would be a big help there.
“strong correlation with less driving and greater health” That's not the point, the question is are the specific health issues suffered by the populations as described in the plan significantly alleviated by better transit options? Its not clear to me there are. Many off the issues they describe are borne out of poverty as much as anything else. If a person can only afford scrapple, is transportation the issue?
Yes, so why doesn't the City work with (pressure?) BN to finish the missing link connecting south Canal Trail to Interbay? That's what us bikers really need, not another lane on an arterial to get “doored” on.
I remember when that was being designed. Basically the City told bike commuters to drop dead. Thanks Peter Lagerway.
I can barely afford scrapple, and it's getting so hard to find.
Larry's used to be my source, but…
Anyway, race shouldn't be a factor. Good and varied transportation options are good for all, but are mostly used by those that already have a mind to use it.
I envy them. Sometimes I even want to join them.
Scrapple is delicious. Hard to find in Seattle too.
Roads with fewer travel lanes are easier to cross. Bike lanes are good.
What's the next question? Scrapple totally threw me.
I got to see the announcement on the Seattle Channel this morning. There were some pretty good remarks coming from the county on this point. Its still a bit of a stretch for me, but its not as specious as I previously thought.