Last week, we gave you an update on the bike boulevard (now a “Neighborhood Greenway”) coming soon to Wallingford. Another meeting is taking place this Wednesday evening, July 13, from 7-9pm at Mosaic Coffeehouse (4401 2nd Ave NE). The meeting is open to anyone interested in providing input on the Greenway, and the goal for this particular session is to come up with a list of questions/suggestions to pose to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), in terms of the route’s traffic calming elements and more.
It would be nice if there were half the consideration given to pedestrians as there seems to be to cyclists. I am assuming that a bike lane is being referred to as a “neighborhood greenway” due to the ill will so many cyclists generate by their rude and dangerous behavior on the road.
eM: I’m pretty certain that this project will benefit both pedestrians and cyclists.
that is going to be so cool!
eM, please don’t put all bicyclist in one pot and call practically all of them rude and dangerous. A community organized greenway can be so much for so many. To pin such a blanket negative view of a large portion of it’s civic-minded backers is distructive to the entire project.
In a time of drastic budget cuts and increasing taxes and fees, this is an egregious waste of money. The only significant impact it will have is to make driving through Wallingford even more difficult.
Wish I could make it to the meeting, maybe you could post a summary afterwards? Meanwhile, I hope folks collecting input are monitoring this blog because I have a few comments:
This whole idea looked like a good one to me until I saw the diagram with stop signs at all intersections along 44th, at which time it started to look like another of our mayor’s offensive schemes.
1) What is the purpose of this ‘greenway’? Is it designed to suggest it’s OK for pedestrians to cross the streets without looking both ways? Will anything require silent, speedy bicyclists slow down at the intersections so drivers have a prayer of seeing them before they proceed? If the purpose of a ‘greenway’ is to allow peds and bicyclists to proceed through intersections with less caution, I think it’s a bad idea. It can only lead to accidents, deaths and even more lawsuits against the City. (See SDOT decisions about marked crosswalks.)
2) How many prescious parking spaces will be sacrificed on 44th to give drivers the necessary visibility from their Stop?
3) Can somebody please explain how we justify installing stop signs on Latona and Thackeray? These are arterials regularly used by buses. Also, I’m a regular user and observer of these two one-way streets. Should it be decided to install stop signs in the direction of travel, I would suggest the need for additional signs for the vehicles frequently going the wrong way.
4) If the ‘greenway is for bike commuters, don’t they already have plenty of options? I’m not understanding why they can’t use streets (NOT the sidewalks) with other wheeled vehicles. And if that doesn’t work for them, maybe they could try the B-G trail with their brethren who already make it too dangerous for peds to use most of the time.
5) If it’s for pedestrians, what the heck are the sidewalks for?
Well said, iyqtoo. It’s good to hear a voice of reason.
I’m under the impression that pedestrians would still used the sidewalks on the greenways as they are still streets that cars can drive down. That being said, the sidewalks down 43rd between Stone & Wallingford are in desperate need of curb cuts for those of us pushing strollers.
Are they going to place a marked crosswalk at 43rd & Stone now, as well? I really don’t understand how to read the map you have posted.
It’s my understanding that the goal of this project is essentially traffic-calming, and if cars didn’t speed through the neighborhood (especially on 44th) it would not be necessary.
@ Doug. If that’s the goal, I fail to see how forcing all cross traffic to stop is going to calm traffic. If anything, drivers can go faster on 44th if they think they no longer have to check for cross traffic at every intersection. No, I’m pretty sure there’s another agenda in there somewhere.
I own my house on 44th between Latona and Thackeray, so my opinion is laden with NIMBYIsm. I personally don’t have any issues with cars on my street (i walk up 44th westwards to catch the bus – when i ride my bike i downhill to Burke-Gilman). However, i do see extra daily pain by being surrounded by a 3rd 1-way street:
If I park in front of my house on 44th (where my driveway is), I will be now facing away from the highway, and will need to cross Thackeray, turn North, etc. Likewise, same dance getting off I-5. Yes, my routine is changed, and gets added ‘grind’ but:
1. I live in a residential neighbourhood, not an urban city block. Living between 3 1way streets was not something I bought into when I bought my house.
2. If I have visitors, this really gets complicated for them.
3. Coming westwards off I-5 or from UDistrict on 45th, this pushes more traffic turning left onto 5th and 4th, which already severely congested during rush hours. I hope this is accounted for. Again, being NIMBY, but perhaps this would make sense being 1way starting at Thackeray, which is the first traffic light where people can go south, away from the highway.
My other feedback is, i found out about this via this blog last night. I won’t be able to attend tonight. Residences in the affected area should be MAILED so that they are aware. I’m pretty sure my neighbours haven’t heard about this…
I’m fortunate to
Pat: 44th is not becoming a one way street. The “one way” graphic on the map merely indicates that the two blocks just west of I-5 are currently one way.
I think that map is kinda crummy, and raises more questions than it answers.
/r
I bet the correlation between the opponents of the greenway and the people who were offended by the sculpture of the fantasy gun is pretty high. Seriously, there are more things to get upset about than the installation of 28 stop signs and some paint on the road. Besides, greenways are awesome. It’s objectively true.
There’s nothing awesome about the combination of frivolously spending city funds(around $100,000 last I heard) and increasing traffic congestion–except that it is an awesomely bad idea.