40th, 50th, and Green Lake Way north of 50th are all to be repaved next year, which includes a full redesign of the streets that is happening now. Current plans swap out parking lanes for bike lanes, with protected bike lanes added to 40th and a cycle track added to Green Lake Way.
In the Green Lake Way cycle track both directions of bike traffic will be on the lake side of the street. The transition between the cycle track and the bike lanes is up for debate, as is reconfiguration of the 50th and Green Lake Way intersection. I chimed in with some thoughts here.
You can see current SDOT plans here. SDOT will be presenting those plans and taking feedback at the Wallingford Community Council meeting this Wednesday, June 6th, in the Good Shepherd Center room 202 at 7 PM. We hope to see you there!
Note that 45th Street is also being redesigned for bus rapid transit, but that is a separate project on a longer timeline and will not be covered at this meeting. Here is the overview map that shows the area that this Wednesday’s meeting will cover:
Sell your houses! Run for the hills! There’s a bike lane coming!
Did you know that many residents of western Wallingford were forced to give up their modern lifestyles and become prehistoric nomadic hunters after the bike lanes were installed on Stone Way south of 45th?
I saw someone wonderful hunting and gathering down that way a couple weeks ago…
The intersection of Stone & 50th could benefit from a roundabout. I wonder if SDOT has studied that?
Are there any in Seattle? For pedestrians, I guess it’s a series of unsignaled crosswalks?
That kind of roundabout would benefit pedestrians greatly, since no signal means right of way for them and everybody being more careful by default. The most dangerous for pedestrians is walking into the intersection with green lights on and not looking. Roundabout also means no cars will go too fast even with no traffic.
I don’t think they are considering a roundabout due to risk- mostly to the budget, but also because it is a difficult intersection with multiple lanes entering it from multiple directions. The only way to fix that would be to have 45th / 50th be a pair of one way roads with protected bike lanes all the way through the U-District, but that’s way out of scope.
There are fixes that can be made to the existing intersection to substantially improve safety and somewhat improve throughput (see the link in the article). They are also considering ITS, which means cameras that monitor traffic and maximize throughput through adaptive signal timing.
If I’m not mistaken, fiveway roundabouts are fairly common in Europe. In fact roundabouts are MORE efficient when an intersection has multiple lanes coming from multiple directions.
I checked and there will be a traffic engineer at Wednesday’s presentation, so find a Google Maps picture of a similar intersection in Europe that you think is awesome, bring it in and show it to them!
I highly, highly doubt that there is enough room for a roundabout at that location. You could shoehorn one in if you take some property, but that’s just unlikely. @Donn, overall roundabouts are safer for pedestrians, assuming that the speeds are reduced appropriately.
I’m no traffic engineer, but this (https://goo.gl/maps/R8tCwGtqPrz) looks like a pretty big paved area in the intersection already. One corner of the intersection is just a small grassy area next to the Green Lake baseball fields, maybe if they need more space they could just shift the intersection a little bit that way into land that is already public? I don’t know, just throwing something out there.
I agree with Doug that a roundabout would be worth looking into. The current setup is really chaotic and seems dangerous, when driving and especially when walking.
I actually am a traffic engineer. Roundabouts take more space than a signalized intersection. Chances are you’d need to take at least two structures and some parkland to make this happen. Most likely more, which makes this a non-starter.
But I think you’d find that in the places that inspired our two-way cycle tracks (Amsterdam?), they’re relatively spacious too. SDOT will surprise you, with their ability to trade off adequate design with space constraints.
The cycle tracks are spacious, or the roundabouts? I agree, however, that SDOT has done a fine job balancing demands. SDOT has a hard and often thankless job.
Sorry, that was intended to be ironic. Some people think the SDOT cycle tracks are awkwardly narrow.
It’s all about tradeoffs. I use the trail on the west side of Lake Union and the new cycle track on 2nd Ave in downtown on a regular basis. Do I wish they were wider? Especially on heavier traffic days? Yep. But I can also recognize why the compromise was made. Balancing bikes, cars, and buses with no ability to increase right of way is never easy.
I’ve always been leery of roundabouts because they encourage drivers not to stop, which can make for more safety problems for pedestrians due to “free” right turns and speeding. I’m willing to be convinced, though.
We can have bike lanes and a roundabout! Even England is getting roundabouts which are safe for everyone:
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/news/cambridge-awarded-funding-for-uk-s-first-dutch-style-roundabout/
And once again today we have a handful of idiots blocking off a busy downtown street and making thousands of people late for work and appointments. It’s just another example of how the city council has tied the hands of our police when it comes to enforcing the law. But thank god the bike lanes OK. Just imagine the outrage if that was blocked.
Being an idiot blocking downtown traffic is not illegal. It’s called being single-occupancy vehicle driver.
Nope, I’m pretty sure it’s still illegal for sov’s to block traffic, just as it is for bikes and buses. The difference is, these protesters are doing it deliberately, because they enjoy inconveniencing others.
Single occupancy vehicles block traffic every day downtown.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2d4d2a63cdd380782176f8b48a988fe1cd4dc0f014e52cff8c5d10596a77ca4.jpg
[Image: Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation, https://www.cyclingpromotion.org/%5D
Of course they do, just like other modes of transportation. No one’s disputing that. And they risk getting ticketed for doing so, so I’m not sure what your point is. Unless you think it’s fine for half dozen protesters to snarl downtown whenever they perceive some injustice somewhere?
My point is that people blocking traffic is downtown is no reason to spout your tired “cars only” rhetoric in a post about improvements to the neighborhood.
You might actually have a point, if exclusive bike lanes were actually an improvement to the neighborhood.
What’s your definition of improvement though. If your goal is to move cars faster, how about tearing down some houses and turn them into roads? Would that be an improvement? With this kind of argument, it’s always impossible to find good common grounds on what’s good or bad.
First of all, there’s already a bike lane painted on that stretch. They’re taking away parking spaces from 45th up to 52nd just to make it an exclusive bike lane. It’s not an improvement when nearby residents and businesses like Archie McPhee and Blue Star see parking spaces their customers rely on taken away from them to benefit a tiny and vocal minority of commuters. And many of those bike commuters don’t even live in our neighborhood, which they’re negatively impacting with the new bike lane.
So no, I’m not going to go along with the city’s plan to shove these bike lanes down our throats when most of us don’t want them, especially when people like Rob Johnson lie about being aware of any opposition to the 35th Ave NE bike lane. And let’s not forget how SDOT has repeatedly lied as well. To ensure approval of their schemes, they lie to voters about the cost of these bike lanes and other projects by grossly lowballing the costs:
“The agency also undersold the costs of the projects it was promising during the push for public approval in 2015, SDOT officials said.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/930-million-move-seattle-levy-falling-behind-on-project-promises-review-finds/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/12-million-per-mile-for-a-bike-lane-that-should-trigger-a-civic-heart-attack/
All infrastructure projects overspend, it doesn’t matter if they are bike, automobile or streetcar.
It’s due to the way they are budgeted. There is too strong an incentive for them to be intentionally under-budgeted to appease the general public up front, and then force additional budget when it’s half way done. It comes with the system.
Parking space for Archie McPhee and Blue Star customers? Are you seriously considering that a priority for the general public? If that’s the argument, how about tearing down a couple of single family houses around there and build a couple of parking towers? That way you only inconvenient a few people while getting tons of parking for those two businesses.
There is lots of parking around the Blue Star and Archie’s and most of it is not being used. When more people bike or walk to the Blue Star there will be even more of you sacred parking spaces will be free for you.
“And many of those bike commuters don’t even live in our neighborhood”.
Should we ban commuters from Ballard and Fremont from driving on 40th and 45th?
Should we make people from Green Lake and Ravenna get off the 62 bus when it crosses 50th?
Bike commuters traditionally are poorer people. Nowadays they can’t afford to live in our neighborhood, and for the most part they can’t even live in neighborhoods that can bike to or through us these days.
There is a very recent rise in a different type of bike commuters though. These days there are way more bike commuters around South Lake Union area. It’s the new tech folks that have been moving into the city in doves and live close to work.
Of course not, stop being obtuse. But if you’re going to try to sell us on your point that this bike lane will be somehow be an “improvement to the neighborhood,” I’m going to point out that many of the people who will use it don’t actually *live* in the neighborhood.
Bike lanes benefit everyone; those who live in the neighborhood and those passing through; those biking and those walking or driving. They even benefit people who call other people ‘obtuse’.
I don’t understand why bike lanes have to be on auto arterials. As someone who uses 40th daily, I just can’t see the value when the Burke Gilman is only a few blocks away. Why not put bike lanes on lesser streets? Let traffic flow on our arterials? I don’t understand it. On 40th between 5th and the bridge, the street is super narrow and many bikers have “thumped” me (for getting too close to them, I presume) when you can actually SEE the Burke Gilman from there. Still don’t understand it. And the people who live on 40th and use it for parking? What will they do?
People bike on 40th instead of the Burke Gilman Trail for the same reasons you drive on 40th and not Northlake Way. Because 40th gets them to where they are going.
Very few people park on 40th. Their cars can easily be accommodated on side streets.
The Burke doesn’t parallel 40th for very long. For cyclists who travel on the Burke and live uphill of 40th, that’s how they get to those lesser streets.
We need drivers to be more attentive on 40th and to slow down. Some of the proposed changes will help make the street safer for everyone.
I also wanted to add that Seattle does generally try to use lesser streets. If you look at https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/BicycleMasterPlan/Seattle%20BMP%20Master%20Map.pdf and peek at Northwest Seattle, for example, you won’t see many bike lanes planned. That’s because there are neighborhood streets available to be greenways that will do the job just as well.
Most of us don’t want to be on busy arterials, but sometimes the alternative is too long of a detour to be worth it, or involves too much up and down. The hills and water dictate a lot of which arterials become popular for cycling and which do not.
It’s an improvement to the neighborhood, since it makes easier for people to bike to other neighborhoods, specifically to Green Lake, which is a great biking destination for Wallingford people. Better connection also means the vast amount of people who frequent Green Lake will be more likely to visit Wallingford businesses.
Also if you review what bike commuters would use this route, you’ll realize it’s people who work in Fremont and Wallingford. Due to the limitation of bridges, people who come from north and going to places south of Wallingford are mostly not going through this path. They’d take routes that line up with the bridges better. There are more and more offices in south Wallingford now, and it’s those people, who are obviously neighborhood people since they work here, that would benefit. People who live here also benefit by having less people driving to Wallingford.
Sorry, you think people who bike to a business are going to live further away than people who drive to it? What?
And where are you getting your data that “most of us don’t want them”? 60% of urban Americans either are already biking, or would be interested if roads were made safer for cyclists: https://blog.altaplanning.com/understanding-the-four-types-of-cyclists-112e1d2e9a1b
Protected cycle tracks are not for the benefit of people who are already biking—they’re for the 51% of people who are “Interested But Concerned.” People like my girlfriend, who doesn’t think that the existing bike lanes on Green Lake Way would keep her safe if she were to start biking her commute, or any number of transit riders I’ve talked to who say they would love to bike if it were safer.
Over and over again the myth that bike lanes are bad for business appears, and over and over it gets refuted: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/ . The fact is that businesses exactly like those on Stone see same or increased revenues when bike infrastructure is upgraded.
“And where are you getting your data that “most of us don’t want them”? 60% of urban Americans either are already biking,”
I bike on occasion, and I don’t want or need the bike lanes. In some places they make sense, but for the most part they’re a waste of space and money, and give a false sense of security. If you want to be safe, use your head, put a helmet on it, and use bike lights. I see so many cyclists not doing those things.
I used to commute from Wallingford to the CD, and downtown to the CD, all without bike lanes. In fact, I rode with my daughter to her school today. It’s amazing, somehow my 9 year old does just fine without using any bike lane! And that’s with me having her ride in front of me, rather than following my lead, so she actually learns how to bike safely on her own. And yet we have adults whining they can’t possibly be expected to bike a few blocks without having all manner of fancy and confusing bike lanes with their own signals, and even custom grabbars and footrests (which I’ve NEVER seen get used) at each intersection, like on the 2nd Ave bike lane.
When you say 60% already bike, that doesn’t mean they want more bike lanes. I’ve talked with quite a few bike riders who think they’re stupid and make traffic worse. Despite all the millions already spent on bike infrastructure that remains underused, the number of Seattle bike commuters has continued to stay flat at about 3%. So most of those 60%, those who MIGHT bike, are getting around by car or bus instead. And they’d like to continue to be able to do so. And you should ask the businesses on Shilshole if they think the bike lane the bike activists want there will be good for their revenues.
By the way, that link you provided to Alta Planning: That wouldn’t happen to be the same folks who gave us the Pronto! fiasco, would it?
> When you say 60% already bike, that doesn’t mean they want more bike lanes.
Not what I said, not what the link I provided said. Please go back and re-read.
Despite all the billions already spent on car infrastructure, the number of people driving to work is falling, not just in terms of mode share, but in absolute numbers. If you think that mode share of cyclists remaining flat is a sign to abandon the exercise, then surely a mode share that is dropping should have its funding cut first?
> And you should ask the businesses on Shilshole if they think the bike lane the bike activists want there will be good for their revenues.
And what evidence have these two provided to support their claim? Claims without evidence are a waste of time.
Lastly, do you really believe that since you don’t need a bike lane, no one does? What makes you representative of all cyclists in Seattle?
The number of people driving to work downtown is falling not because they’re biking, but because they’re increasingly taking transit. Last time I checked, buses can’t use bike lanes. When there is a genuine increased demand for a particular transportation mode like buses, as opposed to a false perception of demand manufactured by bike lobbyists or the people who tell us we need streetcars instead of more buses, I have no problem supporting that transportation mode. When I see bus only lines being used by bus after bus packed full of people I’m happy to see that. When I see bike lanes that can only be used by bicyclists go unused, I take issue with that.
As for the issue of businesses like those on Shilshole being harmed by bike lanes, I’ll take their word over that of bike activists any day. A while back a certain bike activist that you might know opined that if we can just impact their operations enough, don’t give up and move away. Never mind the impact on jobs and tax revenue. Bike activists won’t let that get in the way of their agenda.
Just because demand isn’t visible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You might as well have decided in 1992 that there was no demand for the internet.
Like the internet, a bicycle network‘s utility is determined by what it connects to. If there’s weak or broken connections in the network, even small ones, that cuts the utility of the whole thing. We sure didn’t pause a quarter of the way through building the Interstate system and decide whether to finish it based on how many people were using it up to that point. You can’t make conclusions about demand for a bike network based on its usage when its not even half done.
Fortunately, we went out and asked people, and it turns out that people do want bike lanes. 51% of people said they currently bike less than they would like to because of lacking infrastructure. If you’re fine biking without any dedicated infrastructure, that puts you in a category of people that is 7% of those surveyed. That is how you assess demand.
> When there is a genuine increased demand for a particular transportation mode like buses…I have no problem supporting that transportation mode
Great, let’s get together, call up Jenny, and tell her to allocate downtown street space proportionately. For every 4-lane street, give two lanes to buses, and I guess one will be a combined sidewalk-bike lane-carpool lane. There can be one general travel lane on each street, no street parking. That’s what you want, right? For resources to be allocated based on current usage?
> As for the issue of businesses like those on Shilshole being harmed by bike lanes, I’ll take their word over that of bike activists any day.
When businesses keep crying wolf, and the sky keeps refusing to fall for them, why should anyone believe them? Where are all these businesses killed by bike lanes? Businesses are necessarily experts in what they do now and have done in the past. They aren’t necessarily experts in predicting the future, or else no one would ever go out of business. Myself, I’ll take the data over groundless fear of change, every time.
It’s also not bike-lanes in this case—it’s a multi-use trail that is among the most heavily used recreation facilities in the city even in its incomplete state, and one which benefits walkers, joggers, and wheelchair users in addition to cyclists.
Hey Eric
Thank you for the thoughtful post (the most recent of many). It looks like you’ve been thinking about this for a long time, as has the city. I’m a big proponent of bicycles as efficient, carbon free, low stress transportation and making riding safer is a huge part of that. Please let me know if I can help in any way. I have 2 young kids so not sure I’ll be able to make it to the meeting today but would be glad to write letters, do research, etc.
Thanks Josh! If you can make the meeting tonight from just 7:20 to 8:00 that would be great, but I understand if not. I’ll post here when I get more news or ways to get involved.
Oh man, I wonder if this would have prevented that car from hitting me at Greenlake & 49th. T-boned in the bike lane, midday, wearing a bright red jacket.
I don’t know – did you catch the plan for that location? Not absolutely sure, but might be where they planned to run the bike lane behind the parking lane. Aside from the very legitimate passenger door concern, and debris and general randomness that can and will occur in that space, the main concern I have with that design is that
– the cars (vans, etc.) hide bicycle traffic from vehicle traffic that’s turning off Stone onto a side street,
– and the traffic entering Stone has to look for cross traffic first in the bike lane (if they think about it) and then cross the bike lane and wait there to see oncoming motor vehicle traffic.
It seems like an illusion of safety, shielding bicyclists from the rare overtaking collision while increasing exposure to cross traffic and other hazards.
I agree, seems more like an illusion. If you’re going to have to interact with the cars ever, better to stay in the radar. Still have the option to take the lane, but that pissed people off. :-/
I’m sorry to hear that, I hope you’re OK, and I too am looking forward to seeing these projects completed.
Thanks. After 3 months of PT I’m mostly physically healed. Mental is tougher. Still afraid to ride. 🙁
I for one am looking forward to the 40th St bike lanes. Hopefully the folks who are stuck behind me as I make that slow ascent are as well. All I can say is that I’m moving faster than those parked cars that are eating up our public roadways.
Need some harsh decisions about the intersection at 50th/Stone. Guess that the least traffic of the five ways is that on 50th, west of Stone. Lop it off and turn the intersection into a conventional four-way. Think outside the box – shunt the traffic from Phinney down 65th to the park, or jog down to 46th and across, or create a new connection to 50th west of Stone that is not located at the same junction – Woodland Park Blvd?
Also, like the intersections downtown which suffer from gridlock due to turning traffic waiting for pedestrians, one could consider a “walk-all-ways” timing for the signal. But this does not help to eliminate the long wait times (for everyone) for the “extra” light cycle needed for a five-way intersection.
Another choice would be a ped overpass, which has its own problems of accessibility and space constraints.
+1 for “walk-all-ways” at this intersection
I think you wouldn’t have to disconnect 50th both ways. If it went to westbound only, then the same signal would serve for both, right? Eastbound traffic would have to detour to 46th and Phinney. I don’t think you can count N 50th out for traffic, though, it’s fairly heavy and getting worse as Phinney/Greenwood build up.
“If it went to westbound only…” Good point, I like it. Eastbound could also go east on 65th from the ridge, down south of GreenLake, in addition to dropping down to 45th.
But wait, we all live and work locally, without cars, so why is traffic getting heavier? 🙂
Turning radius from Phinney onto 65th is nasty – and due to the building on the corner, there’s not much you can do it improve the turn radius. The thought, however, of sending one-way traffic close to a mile further north to “fix” a signal just won’t work. It’s a heavy volume intersection – has been for 20+ years. Even if you do fix that intersection, it will just move the chokepoint to someplace else nearby.