The Move Levy locks in all bike and pedestrian spending for the next 9 years after a 2 month public comment period that is already half over. For a place like Northgate that has been in planning for years that’s great as SDOT will throw 10’s of millions their way to implement their gold plated plans, but for a neighborhood like Wallingford without a transportation plan it means we only get a few cheap, half baked ideas. When plans were released 1 month ago they included a map that wasn’t even correct, so it has taken me a lot of time just to learn what SDOT is proposing for Wallingford. Today: Cycle tracks and Lower Woodland Park.
The levy currently includes a cycle track on 50th between Phinney and Green Lake Way, and another cycle track on Green Lake Way between 50th and up past the Green Lake Community Center. The cycle tracks are in the levy because they are in the bike master plan, and because those roads need to be paved. The current mantra at SDOT is to implement the bike master plan while doing maintenance, and hence we get these cycle tracks:
A cycle track requires moving all bike traffic to one side of the road, then erecting a barrier with traffic. It is often used for dangerous streets where there are few alternatives for cyclists, but it typically requires separate signals and turning movements for cyclists. It is also difficult to transition between cycle tracks and bike lanes, as some bikes must cross all lanes of traffic.
As anyone in the neighborhood knows, bikes on 50th and Green Lake Way are principally connecting to the bike lanes on Stone Way. This means the intersection of 50th and Green Lake Way will become much worse if these cycle tracks are implemented. Here is a simple cycle track crossing, now imagine this at the 5 way intersection of 50th, Stone Way, and Green Lake Way, with the addition of transitioning between cycle tracks and bike lanes (warning: your head may explode):
The reason those cycle tracks are in the bike master plan is that there was also a plan at the time to connect them to a cycle track on Stone Way. Right before the bike master plan was locked down the cycle track on Stone Way was removed due to neighborhood push back, in particular fear about the throughput impact it would have on the intersection of 50th, Green Lake Way, and Stone Way.
The neighborhood idea was to favor Woodland Park Ave as a greenway instead, connecting to bike paths through Woodland Park, up through the Zoo to Phinney, and down through Woodland Park to the bike lane that already goes around Green Lake. The idea was to leave Green Lake Way, Stone, and 50th as roads with bike lanes that favor faster commuters. I bike this route almost every day, so I know it very well. These greenway routes are already very workable, but some investment would greatly help them along:
Unfortunately, the bike master plan got locked before the rest of those fixes could be made to it. The result is a bike master plan that is broken for the Woodland Park area, but that was adopted by city council and is now all that SDOT looks at when coming up with plans for our neighborhood. In fact, SDOT has not had a transportation planning meeting in Wallingford since 1998, when our neighborhood plan was drawn up.
The cycle tracks on 50th and Green Lake Way are being prioritized simply because they are in the bike master plan and those roads are being paved, and SDOT wants to hit their numbers for implementing the bike master plan on the cheap. They are not being put in because existing bike lanes are unsafe, they are not being put in as a result of neighborhood wishes, and they are not being put in as part of a thought through design.
Do you think we need to further throttle and complicate the intersection at 50th and Green Lake Way? If you’re a biker, do you think Green Lake Way should be a top priority for Wallingford? Do you look forward to switching back and forth across the roadway to get on and off the cycle track? You have 1 month left to let SDOT know if you care:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/LevytoMoveSeattle.htm
Addendum: I understand you may not trust me after the April 1st post. To add to that, if you look at the map for our neighborhood in the levy, it is wrong. Below is the map (roads are unlabeled, but are in the levy text). See how the blue line on 50th stops before the intersection of 50th and Green Lake Way? See how it doesn’t go up to the top of the map?
Well, it took 2 weeks of asking around at SDOT before someone replied to why those blue lines stop where they do. Hannah McIntosh, who seems to be handling all feedback on the entire levy, finally found a minute to reply after I asked several times. Here is what Hannah says:
As you know, we’re collecting public feedback, and you identify some excellent points about the exact projects proposed in Wallingford. The changes below will be reflected when the map is updated.
- The blue line on NE 50th St should extend east to E Green Lake Way N, in coordination with the limits of the potential paving project.
- Likewise, the blue line on E Green Lake Way N should mirror the extents of the potential paving project.
When I then raised the concerns about the cycle tracks impacting the intersection with 50th (effectively this entire post), Hannah wrote this back:
You make some good points about the cycle tracks and they are exactly the type of thing to look at as we get closer to implementation.
In other words, the Move Levy funds these cycle tracks and that’s all there is to it. If the Move Levy is not changed, over the next decade the cycle tracks will be built, and nearby greenways will not be built. So, if you care, you must fill out the SDOT survey or go to a meeting to let them know.
Eric — you make really good points, especially about the muddle these plans make of the Stone/50th/GLWay intersection. It’s hard not to feel like the last kid on the bench when, despite a pretty good long term bike plan, the city insists on only implementing parts when it coincides with repaving schedules.
I must say, though that your continued jibes at the Northgate plan (and in particular the bridge across I-5 to NSCC) are in my opinion off base. Almost all of what’s going on now in the City and in particular trying to establish reasonable, fair and safe ways for folks to ride/commute by bike, are traceable to the City’s rapid growth and failure to address that growth proactively (or even reasonably retroactively, for that matter). We’ll never make any progress on that mess without aggressively making the light rail connections as useful, attractive, and accessible for as many people as possible. The proposed work in the Northgate area, and particularly the I-5 bridge, are keys to making that light rail station get as much use as we possibly can, and by doing so we all benefit. Every person who opts not to drive up north and instead takes light rail into downtown in the morning is one less car on the street you (and I) have to deal with as we ride our bikes.
Thanks for being so proactive with the City on this.
Thanks Brad! My jibes at Northgate are not that their plans aren’t good, but that every last penny of Move Levy money for the next 10 years is being concentrated up there while Wallingford is gets profoundly screwed. If the levy passes as it is now, Wallingford will be worse off in ten years than it is today, and that’s not even taking into account the increased population we’re getting. So I’m frustrated, and I’ve been taking that frustration out on Northgate for taking all the resources, but I should really be angry at SDOT for ignoring Wallingford and The U-District.
I’m a cyclist who rides through this area frequently. I pretty much agree with Eric’s main point. The current bike lanes on Stone/50th/Green Lake are sufficient for experienced cyclists, but there isn’t a good route through this corridor for cyclists not comfortable riding in traffic. So using the greenspace of Woodland Park to connect the lake with the zoo and Phinney makes a lot of sense.
When riding from Wallingford to Phinney, I avoid the 50th & Stone intersection entirely. Instead I cross Green Lake Way N at 48th, which can be pretty hairy. I wouldn’t mind seeing some traffic-calming on Green Lake Way between 46th and 50th.
I took a survey at the LevyToMoveSeattle link, hoping to get a chance to register my disapproval of the cycle track idea, but the survey doesn’t get anywhere near that. It’s all about broad generalities.
Do I want to make cycling safer? If so, how important is that to me? Well – really the problem is that I don’t trust Seattle engineering to come up with sensible solutions for making it safer, but that doesn’t sound what they want to hear about. Did I jump on the wrong survey? Is there a chance that if I take an `anything else you wanted to say’ opening and type in a little rant about cycle tracks, they’ll even know what I’m talking about, let alone pass the input on to somewhere it would make a difference? Are there some key words we should use to increase the odds? I bailed out at a page that said something like “thanks for taking our little survey”, so pardon my confusion if it actually went on to get into the details.
Donn: Thanks for trying! There is a space for comments when you fill out the survey. You could also try emailing Hannah at this address:
[email protected]
There’s also a couple short events coming up, including:
Fremont: Milstead & Co Coffee
770 N 34th St Thursday, April 23, 1 – 2 PM
Or you can sign up for the online meeting tonight from 6 – 6:45 PM from the link here:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ltms_involved.htm
The opportunities for feedback are really pathetic, but the more emails and surveys and face to face comments they get, the better.
The main problem with taking the pedestrian walkways within Woodland park (besides the unpaved approaches, and them being generally hard to find), is that the Zoo cuts you off from access to Phinney, without going all the way around to the South, or facing massive hills on the North.
A great addition to the zoo would be an elevated bike/walk trail going clear through the zoo, connecting one of the bridges to Phinney Ave on the far side. This would give riders a safe & comfortable route through, while increasing “casual engagement” with the zoo exhibits, which could lead to more people visiting the zoo “for real”, or becoming members/supporters. The zoo, currently, suffers from being a bit too cut off, which makes it easy to forget it’s there.
Jeff: I go next to the zoo every day by bike, so it is workable right now, but it could be better for sure. When going downhill the straight shot on 50th makes sense, but for uphill the zig zagging path next to the zoo is best, and even if cycle track goes in I think it will be best. Who wants to bike next to cars if there’s a nice separated trail? My understanding of the reason the bike master plan didn’t touch that route is that SDOT didn’t have time to work with the Parks Department on their land. It’s all government land, but the agencies never work together.
As for the intersection, note that the cycle track on Green Lake Way will hit the intersection on the Lower Woodland Park side, where cars are veering right to stay on Green Lake Way. Most bike traffic needs to cross most car traffic at that intersection, something that the bike lane does pretty well right now but that won’t work for a cycle track. With a bunch of bike boxes and multiple light signals with crazy crossing patterns something could be created, but it’ll worse for everyone.
As for the specifics of the 50th intersection, I don’t know that the cycle-track will make it worse, and in some respects it could improve matters.
There’s already bike lanes on that side of Greenlake Way, 50th & Stone. Putting 2-way cycletrack between Greenlake & 50th will allow riders to come from Phinney and go North on Greenlake without crossing any traffic lanes (really, just yielding to pedestrians at the crosswalks). This is much better than having to negotiate a left-turn-bike-lane between 2 lanes of moving traffic, and dealing with people turning right off of 50th who need to merge *through* your bike-lane.
Since the cycletrack does not go straight through, there is no need for special signals or anything here.
The riders who will be most inconvenienced will be people who are headed North on Stone, and want to continue onto Greenlake, who will need to do a “Copenhagen Left” turn (cross 50th, then stop just before the other side, waiting for the green-light in front of stopped traffic in the right lane, and crossing & entering the cycletrack. They should add a green “bike box” at that corner to make it clear to bikers & cars that this is an OK approach.
Depending on how far you’re headed on Greenlake, this may or may not be acceptable. If you’re only going a couple of blocks before turning onto a road, you can either take the lane on Greenlake, or turn right onto 50th, then left onto a neighborhood street. More than a couple of blocks, and most cyclists will probably feel safer & more comfortable on the dedicated, buffered cycletrack, and will wait for the additional time to cross.
I haven’t tried it myself, but I wonder how well Whitman N would serve for this Wallingford-Phinney connection? Signal-controlled crosswalk across the 46th/Greenlake Y, stop sign & crosswalk across N 50th to the painted bicycle lane. Crosswalks are sort of feeble bicycle support, but they could put some of their cycle track gimmickery out there without major compromise to traffic flow (just crossing the Y, of course with no barrier.)
For me though, the much more common route is north, crossing under Aurora at 63rd to Linden. As skeptical as I am that the separated two way cycle track will work as well as it’s supposed to, I have to admit that crossing through lanes of Green Lake Way to the turn lane to West Green Way is a little rugged. With a cycle track on the west side of the road, I’d make that crossing at 50th with the light, so maybe that would be an improvement, whether it would be worth the cost in complexity or not.
Eric: “Most bike traffic needs to cross most car traffic at that intersection”. I don’t bike over there daily, but I guess one question to answer is where people are going that are taking the Stone Way bike lanes. If there were a nice cycletrack along 50th, it could divert some of the people that currently are headed into Fremont via 34th, or to Ballard via the Burke-Gilman.
donn: It kinda depends on where you’re going… If you’re going up to 85th-ish, going under 63rd’s OK, but if you want to get up to Red Mill, or to the zoo, you’re stuck climbing some of the steepest roads in the city over there.
Jeff: 50th is a very steep climb up to Phinney, and the track ends there. People take Stone as it is the easiest climb from the Burke Gilman.
Sure – I mean my route is north as in, I’m going to the north. Usually to somewhere on Aurora, taking one of the residential streets as a parallel bike route. I go to Phinney more often, but with enough stuff that motorcycle is the lower limit. But for those who do bicycle that way, my question was about the Whitman route, which seems about as good as any alternative for grade.
I am so dense–I’m not quite picturing how it would be on Green Lake. Would the cycle track be on the east or west side of the road? Would cars still be able to make a right turn off of Green Lake onto side streets? I’ve used cycle track-type bike lanes in Europe and they were pretty wonderful! Even younger kids can use them and be pretty safe.
Loic- SDOT hasn’t said, but I expect the cycle track would be on the West side of Green Lake to avoid side street traffic and parked cars.
This may be slightly OT from the bike discussion, but regarding pedestrian safety on 45th: walking across I-5 into the U-District on the north side can be very dangerous for pedestrians crossing 7th Ave NE / NB I-5 onramps. The paint has completely eroded away to the point where the crosswalk is completely unrecognizable. I have come within an inch or two of being hit here multiple times by cars trying to make a hasty right turn to get onto the freeway and not seeing that the walk sign is on for pedestrians. The city needs to fix this.
^sorry, posted in wrong thread. Derp
FWIW, protected bike lanes don’t necessarily involve moving bi-directional traffic to one side of the street. The Ravenna Blvd updates happening this summer don’t do that, nor does the design for the Cowen park bridge. Similarly, the Roosevelt way repave isn’t getting a contra-flow bike lane.
I agree with Eric – the bike lanes on Stone and Green Lake are sufficient for most people. SDOT recently improved them and turned them from death-trap material to passable with just some paint and moving a traffic island.
Using Woodland Park as a greenway makes a lot of sense – it’s hugely wide due to the old streetcar right-of-way, encouraging dangerous speeding. Making it a greenway would bring improvements that would help not just cyclists and pedestrians, but also drivers who want to drive safely but are threatened by the rampant speeding.
The most important bike/pedestrian connection in Wallingford that needs fixing is a safe crossing of I-5 @N45th. The N47th crossing will not happen for >10 years. Yes, there are other improvements that could be done. None will have the impact of a safe route to and from the University District.
I agree with Eric that it is the signature project for our neighborhood to get written into and funded in the Move Levy.
I am a regular cyclist and I feel that a safe and comprehensible bike connection (such as the proposed SDOT cycletrack) through the 50th underpass is valuable. Though there are alternatives through the parks, these are only available to those with knowledge of them as options and that would count as only a select few rather than those seeking safe passage as new cyclists (including young families) that are less familiar with the route. I am uncertain whether a similar cycletrack on Green Lake Way is necessary unless it is part of a larger plan to develop cycletracks along Stone long-term.
An improved 45th makes a lot of sense. It also makes a lot of sense to push for a 47th overpass to facilitate a safer passage for bikes and pedestrians directly onto greenway routes parallel to 45th. If we can get the 47th overpass let’s go for it! That said, I agree that a 47th overpass should not be the only solution and 45th overpass improvements should be pursued whether or not we get a larger investment.