As reported by Wallyhood back in December, the Department of Transportation has plans to add permanent planters and permanent signs supported by concrete bases to the Healthy Street closures along 44th and 43rd from Latona to Interlake. You know, those closures they did for the pandemic that never went away. The city plans on making those closures permanent. But should we?
I personally think they’re ineffective and a nuisance. But I wanted to know if I was the only one, so I did a Facebook poll on the Wallingford Fremont Community page. Of the 261 individuals that responded, 66% said they did not like the street closures, while 34% did like them. This is similar results to an SDOT study which found that of the 512 Wallingford residents that responded, 62% did not want the Healthy Street closures to remain permanent.
People still live on these streets, garbage trucks still have to weave their large trucks around these signs, delivery drivers, emergency vehicles. They can’t really close the streets so they’re not really closed at all.
I was curious how many cars, bikes, etc. were using these street closures so I decided to count. I picked two days, one was a Friday 8:25-8:55 AM, the half hour before Hamilton and Lincoln schools’ start time. I parked where I could see three intersections on 43rd Street closest to the schools and I counted what type of vehicles were using the “closed” street. In a half hour’s time I counted 119(!) cars, one bike, and one skateboard. Even I was surprised it was so many cars, but I guess I shouldn’t be considering the schools, which are only a couple of blocks away from each other, have a combined enrollment of over 2,000 students plus faculty.
The second time I chose was a sunny Sunday afternoon from 4:30-5:00 PM. Certainly a ton of bikes would ride the road then? Nope. During this time period I counted 18 cars, one motorcycle, and only four bikes. And during both sessions, while there were many pedestrians on the sidewalks, zero pedestrians were walking on the road.
Now mine is admittedly a small sample, so to look back at the SDOT study, they reported that the average daily crossings in 2022 over a seven day period at the intersection of 43rd and Wallingford was 229 vehicles (87%) and 33 bikes (13%). Still not a staggering support that this street should remain “closed.”
I’m not against all road closures. I personally think The Ave in the U District could make a great pedestrian walking area if it were closed, as well as the area in Ballard that they already block off once a week for the Farmer’s Market. Similar to the pedestrian shopping areas of Europe. But I don’t think these residential street closures make any sense.
One additional thing I really dislike about the road closure signs is the graffiti. So. Much. Graffiti. In an act of research (or rebellion) I drove the entire route from Latona to Interlake (don’t worry, I
wasn’t the only one). Of 26 road closure signs, 23 had been graffitied (it may be more by now). The permanent planters that the city wants to install would just be larger canvases. Anyone want to bet me how long it will be before those are graffitied too? Do we really want to invite this not-so-lovely street art onto the residential streets?
Can we stop pretending this is a street closure? It made more sense before the closure signs went up. These streets were designated “Greenways.” They have bike share signs painted on the roads, traffic circles, and stop signs. Can we please remove the street closure signs and call it what it is? It’s a bike share route.
For more information on Healthy Street closures:
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/healthy-streets
To make comments, I recommend you contact the Department of Transportation and District four City Councilmember Maritza Rivera.
Department of Transportation:
Phone: (206) 900-8760
Email: [email protected]
City Councilmember Maritza Rivera:
Phone: (206) 684-8804
Email: [email protected]
Excellent research and reporting! These closed streets never caught on for their intended purpose and are costing the city millions of dollars to implement. They create a benefit for very few and a pain for everyone else. The signs should be ignored, imho.
I met councilmember Rivera and she agreed these were not a good idea. Sending her an email will give her the support to stop these projects.
What happens when the new apartments on 45th are completed (with no parking spaces)? Will the residence have to park south of 43rd?
Residents of the new buildings don’t own cars. There is no need for off-street parking!
That is a bold and blanket statement. I am not sure data will support this statement.
Guess I needed to include a “winky” or
I got the joke 🙂 I’ve seen people comment as much here before (in seriousness).
That is the theory for so many new apartment buildings in Seattle but I’m not convinced.
Thank you for this. I sent email to Councilmember Rivera.
Please also resent cc’ing Jules Posadas, who is the team lead for this project [email protected]
In our experience, healthy streets are an important part of child autonomy and family mobility. One of the reasons that we are raising our kids in Wallingford is that as a neighborhood it does a reasonable job of facilitating independence for kids. Having streets that are slower, have lower traffic volumes, and are safer is an important part of that. It’s too bad that there aren’t more safe routes to schools, libraries, and other neighborhood destinations — that would give everyone more transportation options which is a good thing.
The graffiti issue that you raise is good feedback for SDOT – there are many examples of planters and other traffic calming treatments that don’t present attractive tagging opportunities. It’s also worth noting that many street signs are vandalized… when you see graffiti on a stop sign, do you feel the urge to permanently rip it out or see it fixed?
Healthy streets represent a tiny fraction of the roads in Wallingford. If the most significant inconvenience is that local traffic cars and trucks have to slow down and “weave around” some signs or planters, that seems like a pretty small cost.
I’m wondering if the author of this post spoke to anyone who lives on this healthy street? The people I know who live on this stretch of 44th love it.
A Facebook poll (or even an SDOT poll) may not be the best indicator of the popularity of this healthy street, especially by the people who are most affected by it.
I’m sure that the people on 44th love it. They now have fewer cars on their street.
Did you ask what the people on Interlake or 43rd think now that they have increased traffic?
I walk 43rd several times a week. It’s hardly overrun with traffic. In fact a portion of the street was closed for over six months and I’m not sure if many people noticed or cared.
So did you ask the people on that street like you did for 44th?
None of the side streets are overrun with traffic; that was also the case before the street closures.
I’ve been to a few of the “healthy streets”, for a time I lived just off the one on 17th in Ballard.
It’s not entirely clear to me why, but the one in Wallingford seems to be the least-utilized of all the healthy streets I’ve seen. Other healthy streets I regularly see people walking/playing/biking in the middle of the street.
My guess would be it’s too close to 45th St, and so you have significant traffic from people looking for parking coming through, and so it doesn’t feel safe enough to walk in the middle of the street. I would love to see a healthy street in Wallingford, but maybe it should be placed somewhere with lower traffic volume than 44th.
That’s exactly correct. And if 43rd/44th was fully opened up to vehicle traffic, the numbers of cars would increase dramatically. While this healthy street does not eliminate vehicle traffic, it undoubtedly calms the volume.
Then it’s doing neither thing well…
The School District chooses to not honor the streets. A note home to parents requesting obeying the signs and RPZ would be helpful, but not likely coming anytime soon. A regular patrol by Parking Enforcement and a few tickets would certainly help. The area around the schools is a mess by ignorant parents of Hamilton kids and by teens who just learned to drive racing around in the parents BMWs and Range Rovers. ‘Nuf of the angry man shaking his fist at the scofflaws 🙂
I’m not sure of the point of this post. It seems to be: “too many cars use this road, so let’s open it up to more cars,” which makes no sense.
How do these street closure reduce car usage or volume? If anything, it forces drivers to go around them which increases vehicle traffic. If people want these street types, it would make more sense to put them where there’s already little traffic and not right next to a big street like 45th or an 1800 student high school.
I’m pretty sure a “Street Closed” sign reduces the number of car drivers using the street.
My point is that those drivers are still there and just moved to other streets which increased their traffic.
Closing one random street may feel like a step in the right direction but only a neighborhood wide redesign of traffic will make a difference.
Also, those photos are pretty funny. BMW, Tesla, Mercedes. Oh how the wealthy hate to be inconvenienced!
I strongly support the concept of a set of streets that are designated primarily for non-vehicle transport, with vehicles allowed for local access only. I use these all the time on my scooter; they’re a much more pleasant experience than the bike lanes along arterials where you’re constantly checking to make sure nobody’s about to crash their two-ton vehicle into you because they negligently failed to check their mirrors before merging into the bike lane to make a right turn.
I really have a hard time understanding why we would need to abolish these. As is, we can drive our cars on 95% of the streets in our neighborhood at any time and for any reason. The narrow residential streets aren’t really set up for large traffic volumes as is; adding a few of these back into the mix for legal through traffic would have a negligible impact on my experience as a driver, at the expense of everyone else using these streets. The trade-off just doesn’t seem worth it.
Two main criticisms I have with these greenways/healthy streets/whatever you want to call them:
1) They don’t (yet) exist in a comprehensive network across the whole city. The one in Wallingford covers a stretch of a dozen or so blocks, and then just ends. If you want to continue east or west across I-5 or Aurora you need to find your own way on routes that are much less pleasant and safe. Same can be said for most of the other stay healthy streets in the city. They’re great when you’re on them, but gaps in the network really limit their utility as a way to get people using bikes who are uncomfortable sharing space with fast-moving vehicles.
2) They really need a better sign than “Street Closed” to represent this concept. The street is not closed. It is open to anyone outside of a vehicle, as well as people driving to access property along the street. My understanding is the state traffic code currently requires the “Street Closed” sign, but as we build more of these streets the need for a more accurately descriptive sign will only increase.
Living near Hamilton and Lincoln, I can report that the parents and students regularly ignore both the RPZ and the Healthy Street. In particular, the teens from Lincoln travel far too fast thru a neighborhood often busy with families and kids at the Playfield.
I shudder to think what would happen if it was “open”. The school district has typically ignored requests for assistance. Students and parents apparently do not consider that their “occasional use” is daily and constant use to residents. The District fought against the single-side RPZ and fought against even asking parents to encourage their kids to follow the law.”
Seems like the “study” only reflects the need for keeping the street closures. They were actually quite well-used during the pandemic. Seems like planters can be made less useful for tagging than barricades.
I do not understand the objections. Are folks really in such a hurry? The streets are open for Local Use by residents, so no adverse impact there. Biking and having stop signs at the cross streets makes things safer. What is the down side?
I have written, called, I have even discussed this further with Jules Posadas, who is part of the team working on these “safe street” closures (email: [email protected]). This is a new department created from COVID, but funneling a lot of money out of SDOT, which to me is unacceptable given our city’s financial crisis. Seattle already has established master bike, transit, and sidewalk plans, this is just a pet project group that adds no value (OR INCREASED SAFETY) to our city. They boast equity, equality, and inclusion, yet the evidence speaks for itself.
While some people use the safe streets in their neighborhood, Wallingford doesn’t work for several reasons. I also reached out to neighborhood groups and people spoke highly of the Ballard and Phinney safe streets, I got perhaps 1 positive response for Wallingford. In my opinion, we could be using the money to continue completing the ADA sidewalk cut outs, building sidewalks in areas with none, and following the master bike plan – rather than inventing pet projects.
When you email, please do include Jules! They boast community outreach, but ignore the community input.
I agree. The money wasted on redesigning these streets would be better spent on actual improvements such as pedestrian crossings, one-way street or protected bike lanes.
Great research and good point about the graffiti. I confess I have been driving on 44th when I’m trying to find parking for one of the businesses on 45th and have to go around the block. I felt guilty about it but now that I know I’m not the only one, I feel less so. I don’t want them to remain closed because it’s a hassle but to be fair, I don’t leave on those streets.
Please feel guilty and try to avoid using the Greenways in a car. Kinda defeats the purpose if folks are unwilling to cooperate.
The “Greenway” is just like any other street apart from the signs. 43rd by Wallingford park is wider, has speed bumps and few house. Why block that road for traffic?
Ummm… 43rd is not any wider by Wallingford Playfield. It used to be, back when parking was only on one side, but not for many years.
The other difference is that there are stop signs at all streets crossing the Greenway, where there used to be only unmarked intersections.
All in all, it is a traffic calming that does help with the speeding teens and often hurried parents circling the neighborhood around the schools.
Drop off and pickup for Hamilton is supposed to be off 41st. Teens driving to Lincoln also park in the hood and should respect the closure (but don’t). The District way back when decided to close the north lot to students on the presumption that doing so would stop kids from driving to school, but no. Yes, there is an RPZ intended to help diffuse the parking of about 400 cars in the neighborhood, but the kids do not honor that either. Too far to walk if they park a couple blocks away, I guess. The School District does not care, nor do the parents lending their cars to their teens. Traffic calming is useful, as what is a few minutes for those coming and going is a continuous daily event for residents.
I just walked (what a concept!) half of the Healthy Street route. None of the signs look anything like what has been posted on this story. “So. Much. Graffiti.”??? Give me a break. It’s just not true. I expect more from the folks who post on this blog.
To keep 44th/43rd closed, responsive community engagement would be appreciated. I understand the attempt to create play space during the pandemic when playgrounds were closed and fewer people were driving. That is no longer the case. I wouldn’t let my children play on 44th or 43rd—I believe it is unsafe. Wallingford is fortunate to have pretty good sidewalks to get around. Thanks for your efforts!
For a better idea of the degree of tagging on these signs, I took photos of 18 of them yesterday. The image used in this post is an outlier. (Also, it’s tagged “Free Palestine” which is a message I’m fine with being a block from my house.) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4c53a8e281c52caf398df210314ce3ed95e4150560438438a713cf98a29ec79.jpg
This street is the only thing keeping me sane biking in this neighborhood. If you’re going to advocate for removing this street, please also advocate for adding a protected bike lane to 45th or 50th so that a real EW corridor exists across Wallingford. Otherwise, any of us who bike are even more SOL than before.
I completely agree about the need for a safe East-West bike lane that goes from Wallingford to the U-District or Phinney Ridge. 45th and 50th are not safe. A safe bike lane on 45th would be awesome for commuting.
The exclusive “closed streets” don’t help. They aren’t any different from other neighborhood streets for safe bike commuting and they don’t get me to the U-District. I end up going north to 65th or south to the Burke-Gilman to do East-West commuting.
The Wallingford one isn’t, true. I use the Fremont Ave N greenway (northwest of Green Lake) rather frequently, much more often than the Wallingford one. That one has actual stoplights installed to facilitate safe and efficient crossing of the arterials on 85th St and 105th St.
For the Wallingford greenway, the best we get is a push button for a blinking light on the Stone Way crosswalk at the west end of the route. Other arterial crossings at Wallingford Ave, Thackeray Pl, and Latona Ave have nothing more than painted crosswalks.
I think this ties into “wally’s” observation above that this greenway seems less well-used than other ones. It doesn’t really offer much to cyclists for comfort/safety/convenience above and beyond what you get on the other nearby non-arterial streets, so people don’t make a special effort to use it.
The cross streets of the Wallingford Greenway at least have stop signs (the intersections were previously unmarked). Some drivers do blow through them, which can be dangerous for biking, but at least folks heading north or south are supposed to stop and give Greenway traffic the right-of-way. It is safer to travel east-west via the Greenway than on one of the other “40-somethings” where there are no signs.
I really appreciated this well-researched and enlightening article. I have observed over time that the closed streets are underutilized by cyclists and pedestrians. I have also seen garbage trucks hit barricades and delivery vehicles struggle to access these streets and the homes situated on them. They are STREETS afterall. We need to find a better way to encourage sharing and multi-use; closing streets is not the answer. The article does a good job of giving specific and data-driven reasons why.
Thank you for reporting on this! I have long felt that this particular Healthy Street, especially the west end of it, is not in a good location. It works well as a greenway, running parallel to 45th, but the not-quite-closed/not-quite-open status next to Wallingford Park, Hamilton Middle School, and Lincoln High School does not make sense. Hamilton and Lincoln are language pathway schools, bringing students in from all over the city. Lincoln is also, currently, the HCC pathway school. Seattle Public Schools does not provide high school busing, and although they do provide Orca cards, metro doesn’t work efficiently for all students. Additionally, Wallingford Park is consistently used for rec sports and camps. Plus its’ great playground and summer wading pool are huge draws, bringing people in to the neighborhood in vehicles. This particular Healthy Street location, with its indeterminate status, actually makes things more dangerous.
I predicted back when these were first instituted during the peak of the pandemic that this was never meant to be a “temporary” measure. And of course, I was proven correct. This is about SDOT and vocal minority of anti car activists cynically using COVID to advance their agenda. And it also means that cars that were using those streets are now shunted on to someone else’s block.
Unless I actually see kids playing on the closed street, which is what we were told this was for, I just ignore the signs and drive on through.
I think “healthy streets” make some sense in places where there are no sidewalks, which is much of Seattle. They’re a stopgap measure though- what’s really needed in those places are sidewalks.
In places that already have sidewalks and parking strips like Wallingford I agree they are really just a bad idea though. They’re a solution in search of a problem.