Two pedestrian safety projects in Wallingford that are under review for funding be will discussed tomorrow night (Thursday, July 19) during a meeting held by the Lake Union District Council at History House over in Fremont (790 N. 34th St., under the 99 bridge overpass). The meeting is from 5:00-6:00PM.
One proposal calls for a crosswalk connecting the Burke Gilman Trail across Pacific Avenue at Latona, which, you may remember back in March, we told you about one neighbor’s letter-writing campaign in support of a crosswalk. The other intersection is at 40th and Sunnyside where proponents of the project are hoping for a signal or some other type of traffic calming feature. You can view both of these intersections here.
“It would be great to be able to cross the street to get the bus, mail a letter, go to the store, walk your dog to the park, or go to school without putting your life at risk by cars speeding along Pacific or 40th,” says Cathy Tuttle, one of the safety projects’ advocates and the driving force behind Wallingford’s new greenway.”We’re so conditioned that this is ‘normal’ that we never step back and think, ‘it doesn’t have to be this way’.”
While these safety projects seem like shoo-ins to be funded, they’re also competing for dollars with repaving and fixing potholes in alleys around the REI Flagship Store in South Lake Union. Cathy worries that the Lake Union Council may offer a compromise and only choose one of the two Wallingford projects to be able to fund the South Lake Union alley projects.
The meeting tomorrow night is open to the public if you’d like to lend your voice on these two proposals.
What time? The calendar on the website is from “May 2008”, which isn’t that helpful…
Sorry, my bad for leaving that out: it’s from 5-6pm. I’ve added it in the post. Thanks for the heads-up.
Have both of the crosswalk projects gone through the planning process that the Lake Union District Council requires? I’ve read and heard a lot about the Latona crosswalk proposal – which has been in the works for months – but this is the first I’ve heard of the 40th and Sunnyside crosswalk. And I live on Sunnyside not far from 40th.
@Barb. Yes both projects have gone through SDOT review. In fact, this is the second year that the Sunnyside and 40th crossing has been discussed at the LUDC.
Where we need a crosswalk is at Green Lake Way and Kenwood. I tried crossing twice recently, once with my dog and once with small children and almost got run over. People in cars don’t stop for people crossing the street.
You can’t walk two blocks to Green Lake Way and 63rd? (crosswalk there) or the three blocks (depending on your approach) to Green Lake Way and 57th/GLW West (crosswalk there). Does every street that feeds to Green Lake need a crosswalk?
@a2d: Every street that feeds Green Lake is a crosswalk. In Seattle, a “crosswalk” is any intersection area (whether marked or unmarked) and cars are required to stop for pedestrians at these crossings. Relevant info here.
Sorry I’m out of town for tonight’s meeting. I’ve been complaining to the city for
years for a crosswalk/light at the intersection of Meridian & Pacific (just west of the
dangerous curve) and Meridian and Northlake (Burke Gilman curve AND
major crossing for people, kids, dogs crossing to Gasworks. The intersections are
further compromised by the sunset. I’ve been crossing these intersections for
over 30 years and always kiss the ground when I, and mine, make it to the other
side. Keep up NLU efforts! Thanks, Mary
Decision by the Lake Union District Council was to rank the crossing at Pacific & Latona 1, alley paving in South Lake Union 2, crossing at Sunnyside & 40th 3, 2nd alley paving project in South Lake Union 4. Likely just the first two projects will be funded. No surprises.
Clearly we need more signals and crosswalks so we can walk across our streets in Wallingford without “kissing the ground”(commenter 8) when we travel. 40th does break Wallingford in two.
Thanks to the five people who showed up at tonight’s meeting to speak in favor of the crosswalk at 40th and Sunnyside!
Doug, then Janet already has what she’s seeking.
At least, she can rest assured that if run over, she’ll be in the right. It would be interesting to know if crosswalks make a real practical difference. I suspect it primarily gives the pedestrian some moral support. Which is good, if it’s a good place to cross. Maybe not so good, if it’s a bad place, like behind a curve on a fast street.
@Donn: All intersections should be safe enough for pedestrians to cross confidently. If they are not, the intersection should be redesigned to make it safe, or if it can’t be, a stop sign or traffic light is probably called for.
Walking in Seattle isn’t inherently dangerous, it’s cars that are endangering walkers.
@a2d: Maybe what’s really needed is proper police enforcement of crosswalks, marked and not; otherwise, it’s just paint on the ground.
To take N 34th and Meridian N as an example – 34th is an arterial (Pacific) with fairly heavy westbound traffic coming out of a curve combined with a steep uphill grade. Not a good place to cross – and there isn’t really anything to be done about it. The city isn’t going to condemn property to straighten the corner out, and it’s terrible place for a stop light. I’m sure many people cross there once in a while, I’ve done it myself, but it’s `cross at your own risk’ situation where a painted crosswalk would be dangerously inappropriate. I appreciate the `take back the streets’ sentiment – I’m for ripping them out myself – but let’s not ask pedestrians to pay the ultimate price for our ideals.
I’m not recommending that we put “suckers” crosswalks in unsafe places. That said, if it’s really that damn dangerous, why isn’t there a “no crossing” sign? How is someone unfamiliar to the area to know that crossing there is actually a death wish?
This intersection has wheelchair-ramps on each direction! What monsters are we that we’re sending slower-moving, less visible neighbors to their bloody deaths, at the hands of drivers who are driving blissfully unaware of the “at your own risk” would-be crossers?
I’m being facetious here, of course, but we can’t have it both ways: we claim to have a pleasant, walkable, neighborhood, but also have arterials that cars can expect to go at full speed at all times.
If we want cars to be able to cruise around without interruption, and without the inconvenience of dents & bloody fenders (not our fault, of course, they were crossing “at their own risk”), we should be launching a campaign to install guardrails to keep stray humanity off these inherently dangerous thoroughfares.
If we want a human-based neighborhood (and this crossing has 2 apartment buildings on either side), perhaps we should be putting in a 4-way stop, a button-activated blinker, some speed-humps, etc.
I believe we usually go by body counts. I couldn’t easily find good data online, but maybe it’s there. My guess is that there won’t be a count for 34th & Meridian, because most pedestrians will be able to detect the difference between that arterial and a pleasant, walkable neighborhood.