Extra Fizz: 36th Dems Oppose Nickerson Bike Improvements

36th District Democrats? You must mean the 36th Dist. Republicans. Cause I can't imagine Democrats being so callous about dead pedestrians and bicyclists.

Change can't happen if you won't allow it to happen.

Dems are exposed…if you think they are voting for this to benefit The People then you're sadly mistaken. You'll end up with a boondoggle and have all your lattes and salmon taxed to pay for someone else's fun.

Cause I can't imagine Democrats being so callous about dead pedestrians and bicyclists.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/doc…

In five years there were 3 pedestrian collisions on Nickerson, one of the safest arterials in town.

Seattle is ranked the most congested city in the country by the non-political TomTom study. More congested means more pollution.

Wait did you just suggest a tax on hot air, or frothy milk? If its the proceeding, I think politics could be a lote more interesting.

You're suggesting a Polemic Tax…where words without real value are assessed? Second!

I think a big part of the problem is calling these kind of things “road diets”. Its condescending and negative. I am sure its an appealing term to the few cars are evil types who get all excited at the prospect of punishing drivers, but for most people, including myself, the term makes me want to resist it.

These kind of improvements benefit all forms of transportation. Bikes get their own lanes, pedestrians get better crossings, and cars get a less chaotic environment to drive in. We need a term that reflects that and highlights that this is a safety and usability improvement.

I've heard WaSaBi used to describe walking, safety, and biking improvements, but its a little awkward.

Well then it's a good thing that, according to the state's analysis as well as similar examples throughout the state, there will be negligible traffic increases.

In addition creating a much safer corridor for pedestrians and cyclists will undoubtedly increase those methods of transportation, also helping to cut down on pollution, not to mention the health and wellness benefits (and potentially saved lives).

Your link says “file not found”. Try this one: http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/doc…

I'm seeing 2 bike collisions in '07 alone, and one in '06. They don't list data other than those two years – where'd you get the other three years? I don't see many peds or bikes using that road, likely because it just feels unsafe.

“More congested means more pollution.” Nah. More congested means more finding other ways to work. We're rated #1 for the non-driving commute.

I thought thats what you were suggesting?

Your Link Says File Not Found Too!

try this and go to the map section and then Pedestrian Collisions 2002 through 2006.

opps

http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/ped…

It looks like Publicola replaces %20 (space) with %2520. Ah, I think %25 must be a % sign. Strange.

Thanks but without knowing why those incidents happened, I don't think anyone can extrapolate and say x,y, and z will prevent these from happening. I recall seeing that SDOT wont do foias for accidents? Is that correct? I mean, could a person assemble data with particulars from 24th prior to and after the traffic diet to show differences? Its not a perfect proxy, but that kind of thing makes me curious.

Well then it's a good thing that, according to the state's analysis as well as similar examples throughout the state, there will be negligible traffic increases..

Surely you must be joking. First of all the state doesn't have experience with city streets, they do highways and freeways. Secondly could you provide evidence of similar examples throughout the state.

With the Great Recession pushing down the demand for driving our traffic counts have gone down yet we are the most congested city in the country. Congestion as measured by slower speeds means more pollution and I don't think that is a good thing.

We're rated #1 for the non-driving commute..

I don't think so. We have a better modal split than NYC?

The proposed changes are for bicycles not pedestrians. Pedestrian collisions do not include bicycles.

That's not what McGinn said. He spoke of the students at SPU being pedestrians.

Actually, faster cars pollute more. More cars = more pollution as well. Per capita vehicle miles travelled have been falling in Seattle over the last decade, and are now about where they were in real terms in 2006 or 2007. If you want similar examples, go to any other rod diet in the city.

The “road diet” on NE 50th between I-5 and Stone Way screwed up traffic in that already congested corridor pretty thoroughly.

morning fizzy -

Please cite statistics and sources for “congestion” in Seattle. And, explain why you don't think that encouraging walking, biking and transit instead of driving won't help “congestion.”

NYc is a good example. Look at all the pedestrians there. Obvoisly the key to getting people to walk is putting roads on diets, that's why in NYC where everyone walks, they only have little two lane arterials. Like on Broadway or on 7th Avenue thru Greenwich Village. Because we all know if there's four lanes, then oh.my.god this drives the pedestrians away. Same thing with Paris, you get pedestrians all over the left bank by not having any major roads more than two lanes. That's why so many people are walking along the Champs Elysees, there's no multilane avenues there. Same thing in Rome, there's no cars on the streets, very little traffic, it's very calm.
In fact, this is why we see so many pedestrians in upper montana and outer wyoming…. the absence of cars really induces demand for walking, that's why there's so many nifty businesses and walkable districts out there in them there parts.
You get the idea.

Good question. I know with all the uproar on Stone Way that now crashes have decreased significantly, and there's been no increase in congestion. 24th, it feels safer to walk across the street.

“With the Great Recession pushing down the demand for driving our traffic counts have gone down yet we are the most congested city in the country.”

Um, wouldn't the Great Recession push demand for driving down in all cities? Considering Seattle has the best economy in the country, I'd imagine our congestion would be pushed down less than others. Huh, most congestion yet best economy. That's got to be hard for the pro-roads group to explain away.

“We're rated #1 for the non-driving commute.”

Sorry, that was an inaccurate statement. We're fifth. In the nation. Behind only NYC, SF, Honolulu, and DC.

Are you sure we have more congestion than NYC? Must be their cost of parking.

Congestion link:

http://jalopnik.com/5421244/tomtoms-20-most-tra…

That's why so many people are walking along the Champs Elysees, there's no multilane avenues there. Same thing in Rome, there's no cars on the streets, very little traffic, it's very calm..

Yes you're right Nickerson will be the next Champs Elysees -;)

Actually, faster cars pollute more.

Surely you must be joking.

One study.

Why do you think congestion is bad and not fixable by people walking, biking and using transit?

50th's higher volumes, more traffic signals and the long cycle time of the stoplight at Stone Way are the culprit there. One through lane each way halves the storage capacity at the lights. None of those conditions occur on Nickerson.

But the changes on 50th do make it easier and safer for vehicles making a left onto 50th from intersecting residential streets as well as pedestrians crossing the street.

good point.

I can't find a whole lot from the state but here are a few:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/03/the-benef…

This here has a number of examples including 4th Plain Blvd. in Vancouver, WA. It shows that the road diet reduced crashes by 52%, reduced speeds by 18%, and caused no significant traffic diversion.

You can also check out this study:

http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/roaddi…

It talks a lot about Kirkland's Lake Washington Blvd. from personal experience I can say that this is now a fantastic biking route, allowing people to comfortably bike around the lake, just like this would comfortably and speedily connect cyclists to the Burke Gilman and Downtown without having to use the terrifying Ballard bridge (which I won't even attempt) and the Ballard Locks (which is very awkward for cyclists since they have to carry their bikes and maneuver around park visitors, not to mention it closes at night).

It is also probably good to note that Mercer Island recently had this discussion about Island Crest Way, and it had nothing to do with cyclists. It was all about reducing traffic accidents, and making things safer for people. They actually have a good map of where it has already been done throguhout Seattle and many of the places didn't even add bike lanes:
http://www.mercerislandabc.org/RegionalExamples…

Looks like a real credible site (rolls eyes). Try this one.

Thank you, Matt_the_Engineer.

That's totally wrong. The whole reason SDOT wants to make the change is for pedestrian safety. Bikes really have very little to do with it.

I was not aware there was more changes besides the bike lane. This article doesn't mention them. My bad for assuming and not researching first. Though I don't know how you arrive to the conclusion that “Bikes really have very little to do with it.” From the wording of this article I would assume the 36th Dems only oppose the added bike lane changes and not the improved pedestrian crossings.

I was actually at the meeting a couple of weeks ago where the mayor and SDOT were discussing this with the community.

You're right about the article being misleading. Seems like everyone in this town either loves or hates bikes, so that's what everyone focuses on – including the article's author, and most people posting here.

As someone with a home in NW Montana I can tell you no one walks. They all have big pickup trucks and SUV's because of the winter time weather conditions.

I get the idea, as in “walk to work.” (heavy sarcasm)

That's an unfortunate and elitist position. Building bike infrastructure such as that proposed on Nickerson helps make it easier for people to commute via bicycle, which is a more affordable and sustainable means of travel. That's in addition to the safety and congestion issues described above.

Republicans are the party that refuses to accept the 20th century is over, refuses to embrace transportation alternatives. So it's really sad to see some Dems embracing a Republican perspective on this issue.

Yes, we should call it pedestrian fattening.

The TomTom study includes more streets than the TTI study does. Go look at the methodigy of TTI – they count cars on freeways. The discussion here is about a secondary arterial.

Like this source better? probably not

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/…

Aaah, the debate-ending you-are-GOP comment.

You can be pro transit and walkable and density without being pro road diet or without being pro road diet on this particular stretch of road.

Or perhaps you think that all this fiddling around with a road diet here and a tiny length of streetcar there, is just window dressing.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen and NYC and the big big walking cities in the world have far, far more density than we have in Seattle. That's the elephant in the room. The Times today reports that up in Snohomish County they have picked 5 spots most along 99 to allow developments with 18 stories; meanwhile down here in seattle we throw a conniption just getting 6 stories near a light rail subway stop in Roosevelt.

The great walking and biking cities of the world have many layers and lines of trains, intercity, in city, above ground, below ground, in tunnels, on bridges, just going everywhere; this works with the density to provide a base level of people not driving that supports the vibrant street life and business life of the city. Thus providing a feedback loop that makes putting up with the hassles of density wonderful ( hard to keep a car, you dn't get a yard) no problem — because there's so many benefits to having access to so many things in the city that you can transit to or just walk to. Like 10 bars without ten blocks of your place or 4 or 6 grocery, meat bread and cheese shops.
Meanwhile in the great walking cities of the world, yes, there are cars everywhere, they litter the sidewalks of Paris, they are buzzing all over Rome, they are blasting down 7th Avenue in NYC right outside the Village Vanguard and this entire notion that cars deter pedestrians is demonstrably false. They do not deter pedestrians. You just use traffic lights. You do not take 7th AVenue and reduce it to two lanes, you don't take the Boulevard Hausman and reduce it to two lanes and you don't take try to eliminate cars. In general, there are great walking cities that have cars and pedestrians and bikes mixing in together. so bike lanes, YES, eliminating car lanes just to eliminate car lanes, well, that's not been the proven way to foster a vibrant rich urban fabric.

This particular stretch of Nickerson isn't going to be a boulevard of flanneurs strolling about. It's not a particularly unsafe place for pedestrians. The reason people don't walk that has way more to do with lack fo density and lack of train transit than with the fact it's four lanes. So looking at all this, one can be rabidly pro density pro transit pro walking pro biking and pro cityness and look at this road diet and say

“meh.”

So thinking about taking

If the Democrats or Gene Hoglund are looking forward to large trucks being diverted on to Nickerson they should get on a bike and see what it is like to share the road with 4 lanes of traffic. Larger vehicles in the right hand lane make it impossible to navigate safely because they expand their space to the right. This change moves the city in the direction of fewer trips by car without eliminating the option for large trucks to travel safely on Nickerson.

“Road diet” has been a term used for these kinds of projects for years, and the engineers picked it up – I don't think it's going away.

Glad you understand they benefit all forms of transportation, though. Many people (including the 36th Dems, apparently) don't.

…and both Paris and NYC are busily taking street space away from cars and orienting it back toward people and bicycles (and transit, particularly in Paris' case).

4-lane bi-directional arterials are demonstrably less safe for pedestrians to cross.

An additional clause was added to the resolution calling for the City to complete the link connecting South Canal to Interbay trails. (Actually, it's BNSF RR that needs to act first (moving some tracks a few feet so the connection can be built), but they don't appear to be in a rush. Some diplomatic pressure is in order.)

Mary Lou Dickerson spoke to the pedestrian safety concern and (as I recall) abstained.

I agree with your policy position. However, the Nickerson proposal is not “bike infrastructure.” I'll never ride on Nickerson, even “dieted.” The bike trail link under Ballard Bridge is what needs to happen for us bikers.

I agree, but once the Ballard Bridge is bikeable, we'll need Nickerson to be bikeable also.

Nickerson seems worthwhile to improve for bikes & pedestrians because of SPU- there's a large population that mostly doesn't use cars. That's just off the top of my head though- I've no idea how that relates to other arterials.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not referring to making the Ballard Bridge bikeable (ugh). When is that ever going to happen?

I'm talking about the missing link under the south end of the bridge, connecting Ship Canal Trail (south side) to Interbay and Elliott Bay Trail. While a bit longer, it would open up an almost 100% grade separated/very low traffic and no hills bike route from Fremont to downtown. And I still wouldn't bike on Nickerson; west end has a hill, and even with a wider lane, you would still get to contend with fast traffic, and getting “doored.”

And if Ballard Bridge becomes bikeable, the connection to Interbay still needs to be fixed (the right turn–on sidewalk–at Emerson sucks and the connection to Gilman is not very bike friendly).

I know, they're almost as bad as the republicans!

No matter how many lanes you give to one place, traffic can not get better in a city the size of Seattle if everyone continues to drive. If you make things easier in one place, they'll all just get stuck in another bottleneck.

When you give bikes their own lane, they don't go on the sidewalk, improving pedestrian conditions.

I ride my bike eastbound on Nickerson daily going home from work. I like the new bike lane on the ship canal and it seems like poor stewardship of public funds to build that, and then build the Nickerson bike lanes. Nickerson is a terrible road for cyclists–too much speeding and intimidating of cyclists, but since the bike lane has already been built, the bike lanes are redundant.

However, there is one problem with access to the bike lane eastbound off Nickerson at 11th Ave West. Once it gets dark and rainy, a bike waiting to make that left turn to get to the bike path is going to get clobbered someday! Access to the west end of the bike path needs to be improved.

You may not have noticed, but there are a lot of anti-transit Democrats in Olympia, including the governor, who did a partial veto of a bill in order to prevent more transit funding.

Plus, most of Seattle's legislators voted to make Seattle pay the cost overruns on the automobile tunnel we do not want. Two of those bad incumbents, Rep. Reuven Carlyle and Sen. Ken Jacobsen, have serious challengers.