[Correction! Alert reader Richard noticed that the plan which I referenced for this article, dated May of last year, was updated this past March 20 (a few days after I downloaded the PDF of what was then the current plan). Although bike lanes will still run along 40th, the layout of those lanes has changed significantly. I have updated this article to reflect this new plan. I apologize for not checking to make sure the plan was still current before this article was published.]
Neighbors living near 40th St. recently received a notice from SDOT advising them of details of the paving project to begin in 2019. I made mention of this project in an article I wrote back in May that was focused on more near-term changes to the intersection near Irwin’s. What I may not have noticed at that time, or what may not have been in the works back then, is a number of other changes that go far beyond a simple repaving. Perhaps of greatest interest to residents, and maybe of greatest impact, will be the addition of bike lanes to 40th.
The various elements of the project are grouped together under the name Green Lake Area Paving and Safety Projects. (The details of the plan are available here in this PDF from SDOT.) Given this rubric, it’s not surprising that the work to take place on 40th has escaped the notice of many of us. In fact, to find any mention of what is afoot on 40th, you have to scan all the way to the last two pages page of the PDF. I’ve pulled these figures out, and they appear elsewhere on this page.
Between Stone Way and Wallingford Ave., bike lanes will run along both the north and south sides of the roadway. These bike lanes will each be five feet wide with the space being made available through the elimination of parking on the south side of 40th and some narrowing of the travelling lanes. Between Wallingford and Latona, there will one separated bike lane westbound with sharrows pained on the eastbound lane. However, on this stretch of 40th, there is no north-side parking currently, so the space for the bike lanes will be created through the elimination of the south-side parking as well as lane narrowing. This will no doubt force some of the folks who currently park on the south side of 40th to park on the side streets instead.
In addition to the paving and bike lanes, improvements will be made to the intersection near Irwin’s coffee shop, scene of a vehicle versus pedestrian accident a year or so ago. This may include repair of sidewalks, some minor relocation of bus stops, and better pedestrian lighting. All of this work is paid for by the Move Seattle levy which we, the voters, approved back in 2015.
Now, I’m a pretty avid bicyclist, but I never bike on 40th. There are too many cars there travelling too fast. If I have to travel east from Stone Way on my bike, and I’m near 40th, I’ll choose to travel on 39th or 41st. I like the Neighborhood Greenway that we have near 45th (which swaps between being on 44th and 43rd). I would never travel on 45th; I don’t need to get whacked by someone exiting Dick’s. So while I am very supportive of the city’s efforts to expand bicycle lanes, I again have to question why they are sometimes located where they are located. I wonder if bikes on 40th make sense.
I bike on 40th whenever I bike to work. Currently I have the choice of taking the lane and pissing off a bunch of drivers and bus riders, or hugging the shoulder and letting vehicles buzz by my left side far closer than the legally-required 3′. We should use our roads for the purpose of moving people safely and efficiently, not storing their belongings, and these bike lanes will certainly help.
It’s worth emphasizing that this project will finally add well-defined travel lanes to 40th. Currently it’s pretty amorphous with width between two and four lanes depending on how, where, and when you measure it. This causes people to treat it like a highway, rather than a residential street, swerving around perceived obstacles (turning cars, cyclists, pedestrians), rather than slowing down, paying attention, and treating people outside their vehicle with respect. Narrower lanes will slow traffic and make it more predictable, for a safer experience for everyone.
Well said.
A residential street? It’s an arterial, for crap sake. One of the few relatively unimpeded, remaining east-west corridors that carries traffic between Fremont/Ballard and the University area. Why screw up yet another arterial when obvious greenway options exist? This is another typical SDOT brain fart, likely debris left behind by the Pronto-discredited Scott Kubly.
It might be classified as an arterial, but it has houses and apartments (“residences”) on both sides, so shouldn’t the safety needs of the people living adjacent to it at least have some value?
Given that there’s at least one cyclist impeding traffic (me) because of the lack of bike lanes, this should at least make some drivers happier too. I don’t see anything in this project that will actually slow down motorists who are obeying the law – the only people who will have anything to complain about are the ones who are already speeding, making unsafe lane changes, and ignoring/harassing pedestrians and cyclists.
Maybe you won’t be happy till every road has a bike lane. You might as well own how you really feel.
I’ll be happy when every street in the neighbourhood is safe for all people,
regardless of how they travel.
Well, then, no cars, no bikes and everyone is led by the hand, walking very slowly, along the road.
I always slow down and appreciate people who bicycle. I like this mode of transportation. A person would have to be crazy and mean-spirited to not maintain the safety of bicyclists. Unfortunately, I can not bike to go to businesses or work. I also can not take family members on a bike nor can they bike because of their older age. I do not want to have to walk far to get to my car. Those of us who live near 40th already have to deal with UW commuters and the John Stanford parents/teachers who park in the area and the new parking permits do not apply for people who live near 40th. It is a real nightmare of mismanagement and lack of communication in our dysfunctional city.
You are totally correct. The problem is that this city has always been poorly planned. It has a great climate and it is beautiful, but that is all it has. The city had an opportunity to create rapid transit in 1966 and never did. It was voted down by narrow-minded people. It is like the person who never saves money and then has a disaster and is ill-prepared. I was at a conference last week and it took 1.5 hours to get from that city to Seattle. It took another hour to get from SeaTac to Wallingford. A young person told me I would have been better off taking the so-called rapid transit. Oh, yes, I could have schlepped my luggage to the Airport’s so-called rapid transit station and then I could gotten off at the UW Stadium only to have to walk to Wallingford.
There has never been proper planning here, never, and when they do “plan” it is a nightmare.
Yeah, the much proper planning would have put high density in Wallingford instead of Ballard, so you don’t have so much traffic traveling through. People can get off I-5, 99, and the upcoming U district light rail station and be at the dense area.
Amen! I lived there from 1966-2017. The city is totally dysfunctional when it comes to transportation infrastructure, led by a group of out-of-touch morons who believe that in a rainy, hilly, crowded, often dark city, *most* people are going to give up their cars for a bike. It won’t happen–most people are not 30 y.o., extremely fit & can go to work looking any old way! Yes, there should be dedicated places for bikes. No, they should not be closing major arterials for this, nor 40th which is already completely past capacity for cars–and no, those people aren’t going to exclusively bike for the most part. I gave up on the place after 51+ years due to this & many many other issues & left the state. I just worry about my many friends & family there.
Nobody is closing 40th Street. If it was at capacity cars wouldn’t be speeding on it at rush hour.
In 2016 59% of commuters drove or carpooled. 16% walked or biked. We need to make modest improvements to street safety to protect the 16% of very vulnerable road users.
This is city wide, it is probable that in Wallingford more people bike and less people drive. This doesn’t include trips to school, shops, the park, etc.
[ 2017 Seattle Traffic Report http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/2017_Traffic_Report.pdf]
Traffic jams on don’t happen on 40th. Replacing parked spaces with a bike lane will not cause traffic jams.
Comparing a change is street design to a Trump rally trivializes the terrible things Trump says. Its also just a stupid comparison.
“Traffic jams on don’t happen on 40th.”
Nonsense. This is why bike ideologues should just be ignored. They make crap up just to shove their agenda down everyone else’s throats.
Traffic jams most certainly DO happen on 40th. Not so much in the middle of the stretch, but on the ends where it hits Stone Way and the University Bridge. I’ve been on it when traffic is backed up for easily 4 or 5 blocks on either end. You either have to wait for countless light cycles, or cut through side streets. Either way, that’s not good for the environment or safety.
Trafic jams on 40th are not a thing.
What you describe happens once every few months when I5 or 99 is blocked.
Replacing parking with a bike lane won’t increase the probability of traffic jams.
I drive 40th almost every day. They are definitely “a thing.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you believe that 40th has a traffic problem.
Here is today’s example (at 4:25 PM) of traffic on 40th not being “a thing.” But I’ll give you the benefit of doubt that you’ve got an agenda to push, and you don’t want let a little thing like facts get in the way of it. The traffic that was “not a thing” was at a standstill, and backed up all the way to 4th Ave, about 5 blocks east of University Bridge.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ecf91d2c4efaa46e5077e17745d5214c1e767421590f101c28e9417e99cdd703.jpg
I see 6 cars waiting at the all-way stop. There are probably a few more to the left of the frame. Hardly a traffic jam.
This is also besides the point. Replacing parking with a bike like won’t cause any more traffic jams.
You accuse others of pushing an agenda while you your self selfishly object to anything which you think you don’t directly benefit from. I won’t making the mistake of engaging with you any longer. Go ahead and disagree with me, you can have the last word.
OK, I’ll take the last word. It looks like you edited your post. You originally said something along the lines of, “What has this got to do with it?” I guess I need to remind you that you said, “Trafic jams on 40th are not a thing.”
Now, you don’t think I’d let an opportunity to correct you go to waste, do you? I mean with a comment as inane as that, how can I resist? But apparently you don’t know when to stop digging, so you doubled down by saying you see “5 cars waiting.” Yeah, you’re probably right. They’re just waiting there bumper to bumper for no particular reason between 4th and 5th Ave NE, with nothing but open road in front of them. I must have chosen just the right angle for that photograph to make traffic seem like something it wasn’t. Or maybe I photo shopped that picture, I don’t know. Bike activists know better than the rest of us, so I must have done something sneaky like that.
Anyway, thanks for playing.
Nothing in the plans to change 40th prevents you from driving to the grocery store.
You can continue to park in your driveway or garage. If you want publicly subsidized parking it will still be available every side-street off 40th.
“We shouldn’t change single family zoning because it’s the special-ist aweome-est form of community”
“Cool, so when there’s les street parking, neighbors who have off-street parking could let those who don’t use it if they have groceries or whatever.”
“No. Impossible.”
Nobody will lose access to street parking. The only street parking being removed is on 40th. All the side streets will still have street parking.
I don’t see any plans to make any lanes narrower. If anything it will appear more open without the parked cars on the south side of the street and speeds will most likely increase. It may be safer for cyclists but most likely no one else.
“Speeds will increase” Uh, no!
Glad you removed the smiley faces.
The average risk of death of a struck pedestrian:
24.1mph : 10%
32.5mph : 25%
40.6mph : 50%
[ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022 ]
I am against the bike lanes and I am extremely careful when I drive next to bikers. I agree that there are people who do not properly share the road with pedestrians and bikers, but these same people are also a hazard to other drivers. You already have the BGT and you can continue to ride your bike on 40th, but that should not eliminate parking for persons who live on 40th, especially if they are older adults who need to be close to their housing.
You’re absolutely right, Bob! Get rid of that publicly-subsidized car storage on the side of 40th, and put it to use moving people.
Funny how the photos of traffic are taken at the one short section of street with two stop signs and not along the long sections of 40th where cars speed all the time.
I live north of 40th, and commute to work by bike. I have no problems riding downhill to the BGT when wanting to ride east (or west, for that matter). The bike lane addition of this proposal does seem like overkill.
I’m thankful the BGT exists, and would rather they spend the money maintaining it as opposed to yet another bike lane on a parallel road just a few blocks away.
While the BGT comes close to 40th at Latona, it’s pretty far away by the time you get to Wallingford (~0.6mi, ~100′ of elevation change). The bike lanes are also not just for cyclists – they will serve to narrow the roadway and keep motorists below the speed limit, which makes everyone safer.
I live further west, and usually take Stone Way to and from the BGT, I don’t know the measurements, but its not that far.
I’m all for safer roads, but it would be nice to hear other options.
do not blame all motorists. However, you are correct that people do speed on 40th and use it as a freeway. Speed bumps is the answer, not bike lanes.
Thanks. I appreciate that you want to be fair and equitable.
Perhaps this would make more sense if we did not already build a cross-Wallingford Greenway on 43rd, connecting Woodland Park Blvd to the proposed ped/bike overpass at I-5, planned somewhere between 43rd and 50th, or the Burke Gilman several blocks to the south.
Sorry, Skylar, but it seems silly to ride up 40th with all these resources already present, or even when you could do as I do and ride up 41st or 42nd and take the scenic route, rather than killing yourself with exhaust fumes and irate drivers.
It seems this would be funds better spent on connecting the existing Greenway with the Burke-Gilman, or funding the ped/bike overpass.
Bike commuting represents but 3 percent of commuters and has not budged, even with the millions already spent by the City tearing out parking in front of small businesses and removing bus/traffic lanes throughout the city. (SDOT buries this number by combining the data with all “non-motorized” commuters). Yet we can duplicate resources three blocks apart.
This should have been brought to the attention of the WCC long ago, but is likely a leftover of the mismanagement by Kubly and his “war on cars” and CM Johnson’s “war on Wallingford”.
The City is proposing to eliminate parking from any new multi-family projects that will be allowed if the MHA upzones go through, in fact with ANY new residential project. MHA would allow an 18-unit MF project to replace one SF home on a 4000 sq ft lot, all with no parking.
Further, the City is proposing to eliminate the on-site parking requirement everywhere within a quarter mile of “frequent transit”, which is just now in the process of being redefined by Council to three times an hour (not every 20 minutes) when every 15 minutes proved unattainable. The oft experienced 45 minute headway for the 62, followed by a bunch of buses in a flurry every 5 minutes, for example, would now qualify as “frequent”.
Johnson is also promoting to expand the parking waiver to ALL projects within 1/2 mile of transit, so the 44, which does not even go downtown, would essentially qualify nearly ALL of Wallingford to provide zero on-site parking, no matter the size of the project (62 percent of residents in “carless” buildings still own cars). The just completed SDOT survey of parking in the RPZ areas demonstrated that no street parking is available during the day in much a Wallingford (other than the Guild zone, which was an evening zone anyway).
It is unfortunate that CM Johnson, like Trump, favors his personal dogma over trying to represent his constituents. (It took him nearly two years to make an appearance at a WCC meeting, and then had to leave early to catch an infrequent “frequent” 62 bus.) Perhaps we missed the Tweet.
As we’ve learned the hard way in Ravenna, there is no such thing as “frequent transit.” On my block alone, a new 36-unit apodment (no parking) replaced a single family home. Two more homes are slated to go down for a total of 22 units minimum, and across the street there are in excess of 100 units planned. No parking for any of them, All of these are being built using the “frequent transit” waiver.
Problem? You bet. Metro cancelled FOUR of our bus routes when the UW light rail station opened two years ago. The same routes, incidentally, on which Metro had to add extra buses the night of the Magnuson public hearing over the “new and improved” configuration. Whatever lines are left are neither frequent nor convenient, and unless downtown or Sea-Tac are on your agenda, the light rail is effectively useless. But feel free to walk the 20 minutes each way to use it. That is, if you’re able-bodied enough, you don’t mind walking in the dark half the year and have the time to spare.
Burke-Gilman Trail has morphed into an unregulated freeway for bicyclists, exacerbated by the amateurs on rental bikes. Woe unto the pedestrian who ventures out on the trail during commuter hours, or on weekends.
Meanwhile, as reported recently by the Times, car ownership is not diminishing in Seattle. It is increasing at the same rate as the population influx. But SDOT stubbornly refuses to stop issuing RPZ permits to residents living in these new no-parking buildings, even though the construction of the buildings was predicated on them “walking, biking, taking ‘frequent’ transit.”
You can build all the bike lanes you want, but, just as now, they will remain under-used. Ninety-seven percent of the transportation public is being shunted aside for the three percent who prefer to ride. The big lie regarding our collective carbon footprint becomes obvious when arterials like 40th, Roosevelt, 23rd Ave, et al are dumbed down to impede traffic, creating back-ups of idling cars that pollute the environment even more.
Your SDOT tax dollars at work.
Which bus routes were canceled in the last couple years? I can only think of the 16, but those hours were combined with the 26 and 28 to make the (frequent) 62, which is far more frequent and reliable than the 16 ever was. The 62 might go downtown, but I find it far more useful getting to Fremont and Magnuson than slogging on it all the way downtown. If you live further north than I do, the (frequent) 44 will take you to Ballard and the U-District (also not downtown), and connect with light rail (goes to far more places than just the airport).
I remember when the 16 came at best every 20 minutes (really more like 3 times an hour, at fairly random times), and the 44 came off-peak every half-hour. Now we have 15-minute all-day service on both the 44 and 62, and Metro has just added trips to the 31, which extends the 15-minute Monday-to-Saturday service along 40th and Wallingford well into the night. I wish Metro would run the 31 on Sundays as well, but it certainly is an improvement.
Bus service is waaaaay the heck better than it was 2 years ago, at least in NW Wallingford.
Depends on where you wish to go… I often wait up to 45 minutes for a 62, which is puzzling for a bus that supposedly runs every 15 minutes on paper.
The 44 does not go downtown, but qualifies as frequent service. I still feel that not only does a bus need to operate frequently (and preferably ontime), it needs to go where folks are willing to leave their car at home. Current policy treats all routes as equal, regardless of effectiveness and treats “paper” schedules over reality. People will ride the bus if it is timely IN REALITY.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel service is “better”, but is far from robust. The old routes tended to provide better service to where I needed to go, and got there faster. For example, I feel it was stupid to eliminate bus service to North Seattle College, especially when Running Start students go there for classes.
Well stated.
Yeah, well, City Council is now falling back on bus service as accepting “three times an hour” as the new definition of “frequent service”. Note that this is not the same as every 20 minutes, or “every 18 minutes on paper”, or “every 15 minutes” – which is the current standard.
Frustrating change. People will ride the bus if it runs frequently IN REALITY, not on paper, and not if one has to wait 40 minutes and have three buses show up bunched together in the next 15 minutes, which is what the new relaxed definition will allow.
you are totally correct. When older adults walk on the Trail they have to succumb to massive numbers of bikers who speed like crazy down the trail. It is very dangerous for pedestrians. How could a 5’10, 185, older adult survive being hit by
someone on a bicycle who weighs 220 lbs? It is impossible to walk with a partner because the only way to stay safe is to be walk in a column on the far side of the trail. It is totally unfair. Bicyclists have the advantage. Divisions need to be placed on the trail for pedestrian safety.
Amen, bugzapper! Seattle is clinically insane when it comes to the reality around commutes. I gave up after many years & bailed–but I worry a lot about my friends & family there!
One of the things that chaps my hide is that so-called “frequent transit” is often full by the time it hits the W’Ford/Fremont neighborhoods, so they go right by, leaving people stranded until the next bus, which is also full. This isn’t working out.
Same on 25th NE. The 372, which is supposed to carry the load burden to the light rail station as well as UW lower campus, starts in Bothell. By the time it gets 25th & Blakeley it’s beyond crammed and often by-passes 15 to 20 people waiting at the stop.
Wallingford residents have sent emails of complaints and posted complaints on FB about the plans for bike lanes on 40th. This arterial is the most ridiculous place to cut 10′ off of the streets. The DOT is killing our streets with bike lanes. Our complaints have been to no avail!
This plan removes no travel lanes for cars, just some parking. Removing the stationary cars will make the streets safer to cross and less of a big barrier across the neighbourhood.
Well, I didn’t say it removes travel lanes, but it does reduce the width of the street by 10′ and removes the parking for the elderly and families that live on that street. The number of residents that use this street for access to their homes far outweigh the number of cyclists that use this street. It’s a narrow arterial to begin with and now it will be even more narrow. Especially between Wallingford and Latona. The proposed bike lanes are totally unnecessary!
The street doesn’t get any narrower. I would have preferred if the sidewalk was widened on the north side east of Meridian. There is plenty of pavement on and around 40th for everyone to share including elderly and children regardless of whether they can and do use cars, walk, bus, or bike.
Changes to make the street safer and less hostile for pedestrians are totally necessary! Making it easier for cyclists to get up the hill is a bonus.
This is nonsense. Older adults need to be able to get to their cars. This neighborhood is already over run by UW and John Stanford employees and now you want to remove what little parking there is for older adults.
interesting thoughts from everyone. Regarding older adults, when I moved here, I hiked all the mountains, camped out for a week, set up my tent, etc., walked 3-4 miles a day. But I was not an older adult then. I have been here for 26 years. NOW I am an older adult. Still try avoid using my car, but use it for groceries, and some other rare reasons. The combination of taking away parking for condos and apartments, with developers providing NO parking for cars, have been, and certainly will, add to the street parking problems in Wallingford. In addition, I live near Lincoln School, and people regularly park in this area, take the 44 to UW. Young people who take their kids to Wallingford Playfield have strollers, frequently more than one child, and parking is a nightmare for them.
Meant to mention that you younger ones will be an older adult sometime. It happens.
Thanks Patty. If you think this city cares about older adults, you are gravely mistaken. Look what they did to the home for older adults on Roosevelt. The eliminating the ability to pick up people from the home and octogenarians had to walk across several bike lanes and traffic to get a ride. Despicable.
Older people ride bikes too.
what percent vs. persons under 65? So how do you go to the supermarket? Do you walk to the stores? Oh, perhaps you think people who are older adults are people who are over 40?? Hah hah.
Over 65 is not old.
Gerontologists consider 65 to 75 to be “young-old” and 76+ to be “old-old”. As people live longer and longer, they will probably change the upper group so that it has more levels.
What’s with the “Hah hah”?
I’m sorry to hear that about the elderly on Roosevelt.
Yes, and the bike lane on Roosevelt also makes it hard for delivery trucks.
It does just remove “some parking”. It removes parking for many older adults who will not be able to get to their homes.
This is a horrible idea.
People who need to park near their homes should be given handicap parking spaces. Making the street safer to cross is a huge improvement for people with limited mobility. There is enough space for everyone to share the street.
There will not be any parking on 40th, this includes handicap parking.
With a little ingenuity a bike lane and handicap parking could be provided.
Sadly, Seattle city planners are completely devoid of ingenuity. Unless, of course, it involves how to build more unneeded bike lanes.
GW is the definition of glib, GOEU. Not even worth engaging.
Because parking is totally unnecessary. Ba- ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
There is an appropriate amount of parking and ha-ha.
The City of Seattle doesn’t want anyone over about 50, STEM or Finance who is not fit & is not working at one of the “job-producing engines”, to live in Seattle–they only want 25-50 Y.O. fit bike riders.For the record, I’m a 4x/wk runner, retired, had a good career (MBA)–but once I retired, saw that I didn’t belong–& acted accordingly. Have fun, gang–monoculture ain’t good
Well, I think they are a little late for not wanting anyone over 50 to live in Seattle. Most of our neighborhood consists of long time residents, all older than 50. As for putting in handicap parking, people have to have an order from their doctor to get one of those. I don’t know if anyone has done a study about the number of pedestrians who cross 40th on a daily basis. From my observation they are children going to and from school and bus riders. Less than 100 per day. Bike lanes on 40th are being installed as a political decision and not one of necessity. It’s a shame for our neighborhood.
If someone needs a parking space because of difficulty walking it completely appropriate for a doctor to make that determination.
“Less than 100 per day.”
Guess higher.
Great for everyone if car drivers on 40th slow down and be careful.
40th is currently so hard to cross on foot and so unpleasant that it splits the neighborhood.
Going from 35 mph to 25 and paying attention will make very little difference to car travel times.
Providing another safe way to gradually bike from up the hill from the trail into the neighborhood is great.
Yeah I can’t believe legal limit on 40th is 35. My wife has yelled at me for driving too fast for 17 years and there’s no way I’d drive 35 on 40th.
I think the speed limit on 40th is 30, should be 25. Most of the traffic is going 35. I get quite a line of cars behind me when I go 30.
Designing the road to slow drivers down and make them more attentive is much more effective than changing the number on a white sign.
Yes, there are many ways to slow traffic on 40th, without putting in bike lanes.
A reader just noticed that the plan upon which I based this article
changed on March 20 — a few days after I downloaded the PDF so that I
could write this article on an airplane. The layout of the bike lanes
has changed quite a bit from the old plan, so I have updated this
article. Sorry for the error.
Jack, it should be pointed out that SDOT also has plans for Stone Way and N Green Lake Way from 45th to to 52nd. Not too many people are aware of this yet, but they plan to remove all of the parking on the east side of that entire stretch. For what else? Another protected bike lane.
Furthermore, all the incoming development on that stretch won’t be required to have on-site parking and that will have a multiplier effect on the streets immediately adjacent to it. They are jamming 40 tiny units into a building on the Bill the Butcher site with zero parking. Somewhere between half to two-thirds of those residents will own cars, as many studies have demonstrated. Where do they think they’re going to park them? And don’t forget the businesses on the ground floor of the building, and elsewhere on that stretch. Of course that’s not the developers problem, is it. They get to externalize that onto the neighborhood.
If people are getting fed up with having our transportation needs determined by a tiny but vocal and well organized minority of bike activists, I urge you to get involved and attend these SDOT meetings and fight for the interests of the 97% of us who still don’t commute by bike. The next meeting will be Wednesday April 4th at Hamilton. Get there at 6:30 to sign up to testify. It’s regarding the new proposed RPZ zones, so that’s your chance to try to get your street included for consideration if you’re worried about increased parking impacts on your street. I’m not sure if they’ll be discussing the bike lanes; those are probably already a done deal.
Bike infrastructure benefits everyone.
It does not benefit many older adults who can not bike for many reasons. Stop being Ageist!!!
Giving people options to get out if their cars makes more space on the road for people who need to drive or ride the bus. Improvements which make our streets safer for bikes also make them safer for people who walk. Older people and pedestrians often can’t drive.
“Giving people options to get out if their cars…”
We’ve been giving people those options by building more more bike lanes and yet they’re not using them. There has been no increase in the percentage of bike users.
Meanwhile, we’re blowing insane amounts of money for a tiny and well-connected constituency.
For example, the new 520 bridge cost $4.6 billion. I couldn’t find a cost breakdown for the bike pedestrian lane, but there are 6 total lanes (three in each direction) plus the bike/pedestrian lane, which is wider than the car lanes. So that should give people a ballpark idea of how much it cost us, and of course, the bicyclists aren’t required to pay the tolls that the rest of us are.
A friend of mine decided to try biking from Wallingford to his job at Microsoft last Friday. Granted, it was crappy weather but hey, it’s Seattle. Furthermore, SDOT projected that they “expect about 1,000 people each day on the SR 520 Trail, ranging from commuters to recreation seekers.” On his return trip at the end of the day, the counter on the bike pedestrian lanel read “220.” That’s the total number of users on that lane. Is this really the wisest use of our transportation dollars?
So maybe we should stop giving people options. We should start forcing people to use cars less. It’s good for the environment and all that. Options are expensive.
that is a simplistic aND narrow-minded view and it does not give older people options.
Dear Leader TJ would also like to force us out of our single family homes, raze them, and build apartment buildings for us to live in instead. But he says if we’d still like to live near our neighbors he’d make sure that we can live on the same floor with each other. Next I expect he’ll be saying we need to force people to become vegan.
But, I do give TJ credit for being up front with his positions. Most of his fellow urbanists continue to deny they’re trying to force us out of our cars. As much as his positions irritate me, at least TJ’s honest about it.
Options by default come with negatives. To maintain more than one system at the same time means higher cost. For example, we do not want to have “options” on what kind of electrical outlet we have in the house. We want all appliances to fit one standard. We should never talk about options as if they are some good things we should always get more. We should talk about specific needs we want to satisfy and see if we can satisfy them with minimum number of options.
I don’t see how comparing a shared-use bike/pedestrian path on the longest, newest floating bridge in the country gives an idea of the cost of a bike lane on an already-constructed cement roadway whose only engineering challenge is probably being on a moderate incline. Given that the six lanes of the 1.4 mile SR-520 bridge cost $4.5 billion, does this mean that we can extrapolate the mile-long segment of N four(ish)-lane 40th between Stone Way at $2 billion? Even for SDOT, that seems pretty extreme.
To say that that the shared-use path is “wider than the car lanes” is even more disingenuous when you consider that it’s bi-directional bi-use – it has to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists going both east and west, with passing. Try doing that with two cars and lanes only 7′ wide!
It also ignores the fact that the cost of the SR-520 bridge is driven by the weight requirements of the general-purpose lanes. The reason that the bike path is hung off the side of the bridge isn’t to give great views (but it does), it’s that bicycles and pedestrians give have much less impact on the bridge structure. WSDOT couldn’t even run a general purpose lane if it wanted to without major reinforcement to the bridge, same with the I-90 bridge.
Of course this is pretty far afield from discussing safety improvements in our own neighborhood, so why don’t we stick to the facts and stay close to home?
Skylar, apparently you missed the point of that post. I wasn’t “comparing” the cost of the bike lane on 52O to the one they’re building on N 40th St. If I wanted to do a comparison, I would have compared it to the bike lane they’re building downtown on 7th which is running about a $million per block. Yes, for a bike lane on existing pavement.
The point was to illustrate just how far out of whack our transportation spending priorities are. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars for a bike lane on 520 which gets used far below what SDOT projected, as is the case with basically all of their feel-good big-spending projects. It makes absolutely no sense to spend that kind of money for a couple of hundred bicyclists each day. We might as well have taken all that money and thrown it over the bridge into Lake Washington for all the good it’s doing us with moving people from point A to point B.
hayduke, I think we must have mutually missed the points of each other’s posts… One of the points I was making with SR-520 is that the bike lane was basically free – nothing else could have gone there. The cost of SR-520 is dominated by the cost of the pontoons, and the highway – just think of the shared-use path as an extra-wide shoulder unusable by vehicles if it helps.
Of course, with N 40th, the bike lane is free too – it’s displacing parking, which is doing absolutely no good moving people from point A to point B. Even one cyclist using the bike lanes would score higher by that metric than parking!
you need to read the threads about the crunch and squeeze perpetrated by the bike lane/removal of parking AND the lack of permitted parking between 40th and 42nd. Both being done simultaneously and royally screwing older adults who will not be able to park near their homes.
We can have parking for people who need it, and a bike lane and wider sidewalks and slower cars in narrower lanes.
Do you know if such parking has been proposed? Tell me who has proposed that we can have it all. e.g., parking, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks? I have not had my weed this morning so I am not able to fantasize about such things.
I’m pretty sure a 14 foot wide bike lane on the world’s longest floating bridge is not “basically free,” even considering your point on pontoons. And btw, they have extra large concrete dividers for that bike lane, that certainly adds weight.
So you think it’s fine to spend whatever on the N 40th bike lane, not just at SDOT’s estimate of 30 cyclists per day, but for ONE? That’s not a very good ROI.
I get the safety concerns. It seems to me installing speed bumps or raised crosswalks and pedestrian-activated crosswalk flashers would be cheaper and more effective, without removing parking from people who’ve lived there and counted on it for years.
So many of these bike lanes are unnecessary. How is it that I can safely bike with my daughter to GLES without using a bike lane, like I did last week when we had nice weather? Simple. We take side streets the whole way, mostly Woodlawn. It’s quiet and safe. I have her ride ahead of me so she can learn instead of just following my lead. I’d like her to get to the point where i can let her ride there on her own, but she’s not quite there yet. But when she is, I’d rather have her on our route than out on the bike lane on E Green lake Way.
Are you seriously complaining about a bike and pedestrian path on a side of a $4,600,000,000 highway bridge?
Yes. For the money we spent on it, absolutely. See my response to Skylar above.
How much was spent on it?
As I said to Skylar, I couldn’t find a cost breakdown for the bike lane by itself. But the project cost $4.6 billion, for 6 lanes plus the bike lane. Skylar is right about the weight requirements, but when you factor in the width of it and the design, materials and labor costs, I think it’s a safe bet the cost was in the $hundreds of millions. If you can find a credible estimate that counters that, I’m all ears. And when you put up the number of cyclists against the tens of thousands of drivers who use it, there’s no justification for the bike lane. Especially when bicyclists are not even paying tolls for it.
So you don’t know what the cost is but you think it is too much.
You don’t know how many people will use the path for a walk, run or ride out onto the lake but you think it’s not enough.
Tolls for people who bike and walk! Tolls pay for only $1.2 billion. The other $3.4 billion is paid for from taxes. If I paid taxes for my Brooks can I go for a walk on the bridge, please?
No one can provide the cost. Or if they can, they’re not willing to publish it. So we can only hypothesize. And I provided you an anecdote showing that on a particular day, somewhere around 220 people used it. SDOT estimates 1000 each and every day. But of course, they were wrong about that, just like they were wrong about ridership on Pronto, the streetcars, etc. So I’m sorry if I can’t provide you an exact number, but it seems that looking at these projects with a skeptic’s eye is more accurate than looking through SDOT’s rose colored lenses.
Bringing it back home to N 40th, let’s take SDOT’s own ridership figures at face value. They tell us that 30 bicyclists use N 40th a day, while 11,500 drivers use it. So bicyclists represent .26% or one quarter of one percent of the users.
Is there a point below that for you which even you would be willing to admit that, hey, maybe we shouldn’t spend limited public resources on this thing? If so, what is that point? Two bicyclists/day? One? How about if NO ONE bikes on it, should we still take away the parking people have depended on for a bike lane? Why spend money on that when some speed bumps and pedestrian activated crosswalk flashers will do a better job of making it safer?
Here is a number: 0 pedestrian deaths.
Here is “an anecdote“: The 520 trail is a beautiful place to take a walk early on a Sunday morning. We should be willing to spend a tiny fraction of a percent of the money we spend on car infrastructure to make our city more enjoyable even if it doesn’t help 1 person get form A to B.
If the city is actually concerned with making it more beautiful here, it should start with the basics and get rid of the disgusting and dangerous piles of trash we’re seeing everywhere.
Not me, buddy.
As avid bikers and a bike-commuter family in Wallingford, we’re always happy to see new bike lanes or “bike-safety” traffic measures implemented in our city. The span between Wallingford and Stoneway will be welcome spot for bike commuting, and generally, bike lanes and signs do slow and calm traffic.
However, Wallingford to Latona on 40th — is crazy. Aside from the fast speed of traffic and dark areas, this span of 40th is narrow and filled with a hill and jogs that create blind-spots for cars. This span is habitually horrible for bikers as it is for pedestrians. When I’m behind a biker on this span, I find myself “protecting” them by staying behind them. I know other drivers will try to narrowly pass them or not notice them at all in their speed.
This is an accident waiting to happen. And probably not a minor one. Where can I go to lodge a complaint about this? I am all for finding a great East West route for bikers South of 40th (similar to the 44th / 43rd greenway for bikers). When going heading home (we’re just S. of 40th), we maze through “the 30’s” from Latona. But 40th — we would never think about.
“This span is habitually horrible for bikers as it is for pedestrians.”
This is why 40th needs major changes.
Thanks for covering this, it’s an important safety project.
The most important thing is that people are *already* riding on 40th and 45th, and these changes will make 40th safer for everyone using the street, whether walking, riding a bike, or driving. I do disagree on a few points: the alternatives noted, 39th and 41st, disappear entirely east of Eastern, and the hills make going a “few blocks off” a direct route undesirable. Thanks for updating, I’m looking forward to these improvements.
this is NOT safer for older adults who need to get to their houses on 40th.
It may be safer than the current 40th St.
by whose reckoning? It is not safer for older adults to have to walk several blocks to get to their cars.
What about folks who have chosen to stop driving, and need to walk to the grocery store? Are you suggesting that they detour hundreds of feet up-hill to the nearest “safe” crossing, just to avoid inconveniencing those that still drive?
It is much safer for older adults who need to get their houses on 40th, since it’s proven that having bike lanes and other features that makes the visual of roadways more complicated would lead to slowing down of automobile traffic. Stores with colorful signs would also slow down traffic. Right now on 40th with mostly low profile and low key residential houses make it more dangerous for people who walk, especially older adults that are slower to react to traffic.
Is this your experience? I don’t know of anyone who has a disability spot on 40th.
I never said anything about handicapped parking. I do not want a special parking space on 40th, I just want to be able to park there if I want. Someone else on here mentioned handicapped parking.
Why not petition the city for a RPZ to help regulate the demand for parking?
If parking is such a big deal, we should shrink the thruway to one way so we can have bike lanes+ a dedicated parking lane. Put in speed bumps and flashing lights to boot and hopefully we’ll have 20MPH through traffic with better conditions for walkers and cyclists to boot.
40th: one-way westbound; 45th: one-way eastbound.
Why didn’t you just say you want convenient parking for yourself just in case you need it? Why pretend it’s for old people in general?
Oh, so you are a mind-reader as well as everything else?
I said, in numerous places on this thread, that I need to drive family members who are older adults. Also, there are four houses occupied by older adults on these three blocks that will be affected. You make these gross assumptions without any data.
“I never said anything about handicapped parking. I do not want a special parking space on 40th, I just want to be able to park there if I want.” – GOEU, a day ago
GW, takes comments out of context. No older adults asked for handicapped parking.
GEO’s quote was a response to another thread. I guess you are too lazy to read. Perhaps too many words or sentences for you.
GOEU has repeatedly said that he needs a parking space near his house because he drives older people with limited mobility. I pointed out that handicap parking spaces are how the city makes accommodations for such needs. He then said he didn’t need such an accommodation, he just wanted to park where he felt like.
older people want to park near there houses on public streets competing with other people and not with bicycle lanes on major arterials. We all want to have general parking as we have now and what currently works. We do not want more bike lanes that we can not use for shopping. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.
your AARP bike lane article is, yet again, out of context. That says nothing about removing parking close to where older adults parking. Nothing. In theory, bikes are fine even though only 5% of the population uses them. This is
totalitarian. Forcing the will of 5% onto the everyone else. I really do not care if you use your bike, and I certainly respect people who ride bikes, but the combination of the rezone of the area (with no permits or 40th street) AND the bike lane removal of parking on 40th, is too much to bear. You are not in this position, so you do not care.
Well, it’s not 5% of the population vs old people in general. It’s people who bikes around that area vs four households based on what you said. And then it’s also those people vs. people driving through. I am sure there are also drivers who’d love to see no parking on 40th at all to add one more car lane.
The choice between a bike lake and parking on 40th is a false choice. As I have said before, there are ways both could be provided. Don’t oppose bike lakes, advocate for parking, if you must.
So you really mean four households that may or may not need to change their behavior, as opposed to some generic issue with older folks.
there are many people who have cars in Wallingford who do not want to give them up. The vast majority of people do not use bikes, despite what you would wish. You have the BGT and should use that. It is a generic issue with older adults if, in combination with the bike lane, the other arm of this city, is allowing everyone from all over the city to park here (John Stanford teachers, UW folks) and not allow residents to buy parking stickers. Do you have a car? Do the other people who are supporting this have cars? Of course, if you do not, and get around easily, you would not care.
There are many people who have lives in Seattle who do not want to give them up, and now they live in Kent or further away. You can easily convince me that we should develop up my block into a lot of Apodments so we can let those people back in Seattle with affordable housing, but you can’t convince me your complain isn’t just typical sense of entitlement issue. And yes, I have a car ( used to be two) and I own a single-family house in Wallingford. I actually spent a lot of money to modify my drive way so I can park two cars on it instead of taking up public space.
I guess I don’t understand what the purpose of the corridor on 44th is?
Agreed, you don’t understand.
Someone from King County Dept of Aging Services is giving a talk at Harborview on how “friendly” Seattle is to older adults. What hypocrisy. In addition to eliminating parking for people who live on 40th, this despicable city is also not allowing folks to buy parking stickers to park below 42nd street. Older adults are being forced to park in steep driveways or to walk long distances to get to their houses. Biking is a great way to get exercise, but the BGTrail is right down the street AND, although older adults might want to bike on flat areas, it is difficult for most of them to bike on hills. Seattle is NOT Amsterdam, which is one of the flattest places on earth. How dare you force your values on others without thinking of the consequences. Self-righteous and unfair. I intend to sue the City of Seattle for discrimination against older adults.
Instead of suggesting bike infrastructure is in competition with older adults needs think about how both need could be improved at the same time.
you can call it competition, but it is survival for older adults. Younger folks have the option. Furthermore, to the point that older adults do not drive (noted by one of your ageist friends), that is completely a bias and untrue. You and your buds just made my point.
Nobody will have to walk for blocks. Anyone who needs a parking space near thier house should be granteed one using handacap spaces. Children, older people, cyclists and pedestrans all suffer when hit by a car.
Some older people can walk a long way, some can’t. Some can drive, some can’t. Saying this is not agest. I only speak for myself. Nobody else speaks for me. Let’s talk about making the neighbourhood better and avoid personal attacks.
I’m 61 and I bike. Am I not an “older adult”? Since no one is ever guaranteed a parking space on the street, someone who has actual difficulty walking a distance on the 40th Street hill from car to home, or navigating their own driveway, really should consider moving.
65 is cutoff, look it up. I can walk and run, so can GEO. How dare you tell someone to move who has to drive family members! selfish and rightious.
Look it up? Sorry, there is no legal definition of “older adult”.
It seems the only people using ad hominem arguments here are those who are arguing for their precious parking spaces in lieu of safety for cyclists and pedestrians. No one, repeat no one, is entitled to space on a public street to store their vehicles. If your lifestyle requires you to have on-street parking, that’s not a public policy issue, it’s a personal one. Vision Zero is public policy.
you are not entitled to clogging up a roadway from I5 to Stoneway with a bike lane that only 5% use. “Repeat no one……..”.. you sound like a attorney. 95% of the population does not use bicycles and you want to force your will on everyone else. Because you do not have a car, you want to change the laws for everyone else. Then you cry about the housing prices and want sympathy from those who own them. You are the one who is wants special treatment. You are the one who wants to change the rules and delegate for everyone else. You should move to Amsterdam.
If we don’t want to clog up the road way, maybe we shouldn’t have parking on 40th at all. Maybe we should even remove one row of housing to expand the street.
It’s not a simple issue about special treatment for somebody. Any solution will have to sacrifice somebody. We have to think from the greater good point of view, and honestly everything we are talking about here are really just trading off among different privileged people. People who really need help already moved out of Seattle or live in streets. They don’t have any of the problems we are discussing here.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about me. I’ll clear up just one; I hated Amsterdam, the way young people there rode bikes in parks in the city center made me feel unsafe as a pedestrian.
The bike lane is incidental to slowing traffic and making the roadway safe for pedestrians to cross. You attack it because you have no answer to slow traffic without taking away your precious parking place in the public right of way. And even 5% of the populace has the right to get home alive.
Who said I don’t own a car . I park it in my driveway . You’re probably one of those assailed who blocks my driveway because you’re just going to be a minute.
wow, you know some Latin phrases. C’est dom mage you do not know how to read complete correspondence. IF you had taken the time, you would see I have a driveway that I will now need to alter for your precious bike lane. Here is my prediction. ThIs lane will last 1-2 years and be torn out after the city sees what it does to east-west traffic; our taxes will pay for the boondagle. This is my final word on this as I have things to do and do not have hours to spend on here as you do.
It’s everybody’s precious bike lane.
Why would you store your car on your own property when you are entitled to store it on public land rent free?
“Biking rates among people between the ages of 60 and 79 are soaring, an analysis of federal data shows. New trips by seniors account for 22 percent of the nation’s growth in adult biking.”
– Michael Andersen, PlacesForBikes, Jun 20, 2014
National Bike Rates by Age:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac51473178ede97320fcbb37f649a2c2e2a2f8514783b1279e4ecf201d661f22.png
(Seattle rates are higher.)
[ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/20/surprise-people-aged-60-79-are-leading-the-biking-boom/ ]
My dad is 64 and bikes more than I do – he still does at least one 100-mile ride a year. Of course, he’s in the Midwest and doesn’t have to contend with our hills…
Bike lane helps older adults that walks though, since it slows down car traffic and makes pedestrian crossing and walking on sidewalks safer. I am not sure older people should drive. So it’s a lot of pros and cons either way, not an one-sided policy that just discriminates.
oh, so you “are not sure older people should drive,” and you do not believe it is a “one-sided policy that just discriminates…”???? Really, so you do not see a contradiction in your words? I would like to know what age you think constitutes being “an older adult”?
My point is pretty simple. Bike lanes will make walking and biking safer, but with reduced number of parking spaces. And those factors have both positive and negative impacts, so nobody should pretend it’s one-sided for older people. Even the same person can both benefit and suffer from the change at the same time.
Ageist BS!
“10 Ways Bicycle-Friendly Streets Are Good for People Who Don’t Ride Bikes”
AARP website: https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-who-dont-ride-bikes.html
go to the BGT and see how young people tailgate older people on bikes. Happens all the time.
Rather than providing bike lanes on 40th I’d rather see the money spent on repairing the sidewalks that are being destroyed by the inappropriate oak trees that were planted back in the late 60’s.
I believe if it’s damaged by tree, the owner of the tree would have to pay for the fixes. It can be Seattle City Light or the city or private. And if it’s just from wear-and-tear, the land owner of the sidewalks, which is often the home owner, need to pay for it. So the money might not be from the same source as the bike lanes.
Unless it’s public right-of-way, this is certainly true. Sidewalks are the owners’ responsibility, though the city also is pretty lax about enforcing this requirement.
Hard for homeowners to maintain these sidewalks. The big roots destroy the sidewalks but the trees are probably protected.
As someone who has lived on N. 40th Street (in two different houses) since 1984, may I offer some historical perspective?
First, between Wallingford and Latona, there was zero on-street parking on the street when it was built. This is because there was a single track streetcar running down the street (double track west of Wallingford). This is the reason for the street width being so narrow and why every home has a driveway (which some presumably don’t like to use because the traffic moves so fast and it’s therefore dangerous to back in or out).
Second, the street wasn’t designed as a free-flowing means of reaching I-5 because it was designed decades before I-5. Whether the city calls it an arterial or not, it is a residential street on which there are homes except for about four business lots. There are schools on either side of it. Much as the kids were saying last weekend, it is wrong to prioritize someone’s fast commute over the safety of schoolchildren.
Third, the street really does work as a barrier. Our old home was on the north side. Our son came back from first grade at Madrona school to announce he had found a new best friend. Both boys had grown up in Wallingford but had never met even though they lived about 500 feet apart because neither was allowed to cross 40th Street without an adult.
Fourth, in 34 years of living on the street, and three more in the neighborhood before then, I’ve only biked on 40th Street once, because it is too dangerous. I bike down to the Burke or up Wallingford Ave. to the greenway, but never on 40th.
These zero-sum arguments are depressing.
What do you have against the American way?
What’s the plan for east of Latona on 40th? “Sorry, dedicated bike lanes end and you’re on your own.” Seems like the lanes should extend on the upper part of NE 40th and somehow connect into the BGT at the horrendous intersection of NE 40th (upper and lower), and 7th Ave NE. Seattle is notorious for disconnected bike lanes.
Many years ago, I emailed SDOT about bike lanes on that segment of 40th. They said they were actually planning on putting bike lanes onto both the upper and lower forks of 40th, and making unspecified improvements to the intersection at 7th. The only thing that came out of that was (two years later) a bollard to prevent drivers from illegally entering the bike facility on 40th between 7th and 12th. Of course, in the last month alone, I’ve almost been hit twice by drivers illegally making U-turns into the bike facility and driving eastbound, so there’s certainly much room for improvement.
Drove along 40th a few minutes ago (7:00pm Tues). Very few cars parked between Wallingford Ave & Pacific St. I saw no handicap decals. One cyclist making good progress coming up the hill. Very light car traffic.
This is a pavement project and need to look at low cost solutions that can be done along w road paving. Bicycle lanes don’t make sense w the Burke Gilman Trail and neighborhood greenways so close by. Restriping the road to make clear delineation of the east and west lanes does. As does marking a few designated ped crossings, maybe at densmore and Corliss. Lastly, they need to put up better signage preventing cars from parking 30′ from the curb’. It is so dangerous turning onto 40th from side streets.
Bike lanes help two of the items you mentioned already though. It would make pedestrian crossing easier by slowing car traffic. Cars typically yield to pedestrians when either the speed is low or the roads are narrow, and speed by otherwise. Also it would improve visibility over parked cars for cars turning onto 40th.
Designated pedestrian crossings suggest to people who drive, cycle or walk that other intersections are not for crossing at. 40th cuts through the heart to a residential neighborhood. People who walk should be safe to cross at every intersection on 40th.
“People who walk should be safe to cross at every intersection on 40th.”
Why is that so important? If someone needs to travel east or west and cross 40th at some point, what does it matter if they have to walk a block more before crossing? And why stop with 40th? Should people be able to cross every intersection of 50th? Or 80th? How about Aurora? No one can get to work or home in time for dinner anymore, but yay, at least we’re all safe.
What’s wrong with installing a stop light or stop sign or two instead? Or speed humps or raised crosswalks, along with pedestrian activated crosswalk flashers? That would allow for safe crossings, and you wouldn’t get resistance from the people who are worried about parking.
If parking is so essential, let’s have a code mandating every house must have enough parking spot for the number of cars registered to the address, and mandating people must park at their house instead of neighboring streets.
The horse left the barn a long time ago on that. The city council no longer requires on-site parking in urban villages, no matter the impact to the neighborhood. RPZ zones will help address the problem, and they make car owners pay for the “privilege.” I would think that since you want to force us all out of our cars, you and other urbanists would support denying RPZ stickers to newcomers who move into new buildings with no parking. Alternately, they could provide say, 3 or 4 RPZ stickers per lot, and let homeowners and renters who’ve been living here for years get first crack at them over newcomers who haven’t even moved here yet and paid any taxes. But you won’t, because you want to punish single family homeowners.
“People who walk should be safe to cross at every intersection on 40th.”
Why is that so important?
40th is a street which bisects a residential neighborhood. A kid walking to her friend’s house shouldn’t have to walk blocks out of her way to go play.
To your general question about all streets, we need site specific compromises which is safe and efficient for all street users. The default answer should not to inconvenient everyone who is not in a car. This won’t prevent anyone having their dinner.
“Should people be able to cross every intersection of 50th?”
Yes
How about Aurora? That too?
Thankfully, SDOT still has a modicum of common sense and has no plans to make everyone’s crosstown commute a living hell by installing a bike lane on 50th. But if that were to happen, guess what’s going to get even worse with the neighboring parallel streets like 48th, 49th, and 51st? All those drivers who are now backed up to Phinney Ridge are going to divert onto those relatively quiet streets, make things less safe, rather than more safe.
“How about Aurora? That too?”
No. Aurora doesn’t split up a neighbourhood.
I know that with the focus on development and increasing density many think the only purpose of streets is to get people to and from work as fast as possible. I still want safe steets in neaghbourhoods that don’t lock people into little islands between highways.
Yep
Yes, ideally every single intersection should be striped and have curb bulbs. That would also contirbute to slowing drivers down.
Sure but let’s be real there is a lot going on on 40th. Kids walking to school need a few logical place to make those crossings. Activated flasher crossing at a few locations will remind cars to slow down and help make it easier for kids. We sort of have this right now with the flags to cross, a permanent investment would be good.
If a bike lane is not need on 40th because of the neighborhood greenway and Burke Gilman Trail shouldn’t we also conclude that 40th shouldn’t be an arterial because thru traffic can can use 45th and 34th/Pacific?
Come on, we have limited e-w connections through this town in general. Sure if you want to make this argument, let’s get radical and turn 40th in a transit only corridor. I can assure you the people through out on transit is far great than cars or bicycles 🙂 I know this isn’t going to happen but we have to prioritize what is important when we have limited ROW to play with. We have some many alt and far safer bicycle options in the vicinity.
“let’s get radical and turn 40th in a transit only corridor.”
Making 45th a transit corridor would be better because it would support the local businesses.
Remember when civilization as we know it was going to end because bike lanes were proposed for Stone Way?
People, please send your comments to SDOT so they are aware of your thoughts, either for or against…Christa dumpsey 206-256-5458 [email protected]
Traveling east-west in Seattle is ridiculously inefficient. 40th is a main thoroughfare from Aurora via Bridge Way to I5 via 7th or Latona. The greenway just a few blocks north is on 44th, not 45th. Why would a greenway not be placed on 39th or 41st instead of 40th? Those streets are safer, slower and could easily accommodate bikes. I’m all for improving crosswalks at certain intersections along 40th, but narrowing the street makes no sense for the busses that already have to navigate the turn onto 40th from 2nd and for the vehicles that need to go east-west in this city. If the city can create an alternative for getting between Ballard and the U-district quickly and efficiently, then moving forward on plans like these. Until then, it will cause more congestion. Before people suggest again that more people need to bike, I’d like to put a word in for families. I have several, active kids who go to different schools. I work to keep their activities and educational endeavors as close as possible and I carpool when I can, but the reality is, I have to do some driving and so do most of the people I know with children. Until there is an east-west light rail or some other means of moving people through Wallingford, there should not be changes made that create congestion when there is an easy 1-block alternative north or south of 40th.
All of this so that 6 people can ride their bikes down 40th each day.
The politicians are scared to death of the bike people (they’re organized – or at least appear to be; that’s enough) and will do anything to make them happy.
Does it solve any real problems? No.
The city initially said they were closing parking down to NE 40th and Latona. Now they are closing parking down to NE 40th and 7th NE.
I feel like I’m being herded into a “one size fits all” solution.
One size fits all solutions are often the best solutions though. Creating options cost resources, and even making choices cost resources. One size fits all saves all that.
For the same token, it’s better for parity. Due to the cost associated with choices, the poor and the weak almost always lose if there are choices, since they are the worst equipped to make good decisions or to take advantage of options.
https://www.andysinger.com/bikesample9.html
NORTH 40TH STREET PARKING REMOVAL
The City called it a paving project. – but now it has grown to include a bike lane and the removal all parking on North 40th. Unfortunately, that means that —
You could lose ACCESS.
How will deliveries, moving trucks, and contractors get to your house?
You could lose PARKING.
How will parking on the tight side streets get better by this project?
You could lose VALUE.
Will your business be impacted? What about the value of your house?
Will we need Street Use PERMITS?
How will we handle those times we must have access to our homes?
COME TALK & JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS
IRWIN’S BAKERY & CAFÉ
TUESDAY – 7/10 @ 7PM
2123 NORTH 40th STREET
Is your intent that this event is for people who are opposed to these changes?
I’d like to come and talk about these improvements however I fear I wouldn’t be welcome because your announcement only lists negatives.
Everyone is welcome. Although, the group appears to be negatively oriented — what we really want is a solution that works for everyone. Please come and help us move forward.
You are trying to put forward an argument that we face a choice between cars and bicycles. That is what is being proposed. What is being proposed is a safer way everyone can use 40th regardless of whether they are walking, cycling, driving or taking the bus.
Everyone will benefit.