Wallyhood requested safety data for Green Lake Way N and N 50th because the Move Levy targets those streets for a cycle track. We also requested safety data for 45th street because SDOT is not investing in connecting Wallingford to the U-District. Here’s the safety data from Brian Dougherty at SDOT (thanks Brian!):
As you can see, Green Lake Way and N 50th pose very little danger to people on bikes or pedestrians. I know this first hand as I bike those roads daily. It’s hard to justify the expense of cycle tracks here plus the complications that will come from throttling the intersection at 50th and Green Lake Way in order to fit in cycle tracks.
Meanwhile, the stretch between 4th and Brooklyn is very dangerous for both people on bikes and for pedestrians, and that’s before light rail opens! And it’s not just dangerous in terms of our neighborhood, a few years back the spot in front of Dick’s was rated the most dangerous intersection for cyclists in all of Seattle. Clearly 45th is not a happy place to be on a bike, but that’s Wallingford’s designated path for biking to the U-District and Light Rail.
There’s a straight forward fix. We need a line item in the Move Levy budget for “Connecting Wallingford to Light Rail in the U-District”. Here are current investments in the Move Levy budget for light rail access:
- $10 Million: Provide City funding contribution for a new Link light rail station at Graham Street in southeast Seattle $10M
- $15 Million (+$10 Million Match): Provide additional City funding for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over I-5 connecting to light rail in Northgate
The good news is there is hope we can be the next item on that list- there’s a walking tour with SDOT being scheduled for Sunday, May 17th, from 11 AM to 1 PM. More on that as plans take shape. It will be the one time SDOT comes to Wallingford to collect feedback on the Move Levy. We hope they see for themselves and make the necessary corrections!
Note: Backing data for 45th is posted here, Green Lake Way N is posted here, and N 50th is posted here. It’s all PDFs and pretty hard to digest, I have spreadsheets I built and can share on request.
Addendum: Norm Mah, SDOT spokesperson, reached out privately to Jordan and asked to post an editorial on Wallyhood in favor of the Move Levy. Much thanks to Jordan for stopping the end run and sending Norm to me. I replied to Norm saying that I would love to do a written interview that we would publish in full, without editing, so that we could ask pointed questions and SDOT could reply in full. Norm declined and has since stopped replying to emails. I think he was trying to get back on message, and is now trying to starve Wallyhood of information since our coverage of the Move Levy has been less than glowing. I’m not sure I should have to say it, but much thanks to Brian Dougherty and Hannah McIntosh for not blocking the data release that led to this article. Covering this Levy would be much harder if I had to go through freedom of information requests to figure out basic information like accident rates. Finally, if anyone at SDOT decides to talk to Wallyhood and do a full interview we would be super appreciative- just let us know!
If the public is allowed on that walking tour, I would love to take part and would encourage everyone else that can make it to do so, as well. Maybe we can get questions answered then, too. I know everyone refers to “The Seattle Way”, but, sheesh, why does it take so long to get things done and done right in Seattle (rhetorical rant, forgive me, lol…)? And Eric, thanks for keeping us all up on this important issue. And thanks to you and Jordan for not letting Mr. Mah use Wallyhood to spread SDOT propaganda!
Thanks Lisa! The public is absolutely invited on the walking tour (otherwise I wouldn’t be invited). I’ll be publishing details later this week. I have a lot of thoughts on how the Levy process has been a case study in bad government planning practices, but for now I want to keep all focus on whether the Levy can be fixed for our neighborhood.
Rather than ask for a specific line-item for a Wallingford–>Light Rail connection, I think a comprehensive station-area plan and general pool of safe-routes to transit fund ing is needed and I would like to see our neighborhood join together with the U-district and others to advocate for it.
The U-district plan ( http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2205694.pdf ) essentially ignored 45th street – which makes me think that it was deferred to be studied at some other time ? I bet there is a backstory here that I would love to understand.
See:
http://seattlegreenways.org/our-campaigns/safe-routes-to-transit/
http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/about/board/resolutions/2013/Resolution%20R2013-03%20-%20Attachment%20A%20-%20Final.pdf
Thanks Elizabeth! Those are good links. It looks like the study just completely ignored Wallingford connections. The irony is that our side of I-5 is less than 2000 feet from the train station, the length of the Northgate bike and pedestrian bridge!
In rail planning, the typical walkshed used is 0.5 miles – where most, but not all, passengers come within that walking radius. Wallingford is on the far edge of that.
That said, when the Brooklyn Station opens, it’s a walk I would make. I used to when I took the bus to Bellevue because it was faster than waiting for/riding the 44.
I have personally been hit by a car right turning on red at I-5 without looking for peds. Tapped, but still, not fun.
Given the multitude of users on 45th Street and the pressures of the interchange, it will be very difficult to make this safer. Banning right turns on red to/from I-5 might be a start, though – despite the roadway capacity impacts that would have.
The U-District plan does not totally ignore connection to Wallingford. Quite to the contrary, on page 8, the plan states, “NE 47th Street is a recommended neighborhood greenway, connecting the U District to the citywide greenway network.” In short, although it is not the focus of the report, the plan does appear to endorse the idea of a 47th Street bicycle (and presumably pedestrian) overpass.
Thanks Nick! I had missed that. It’s not in any of the pretty pictures or the station budget or the Move Levy budget though, so I expect that sentence buried in the report is as far as the analysis goes.