SDOT Proposes Maple Leaf Bike Lanes, Parking Removal

Word to the wise, if I am walking in the new crosswalk going to Judy Fu's to get some dumplings in spicy peanut sause, you are going to have to stop.

If there were a road where this made sense, this is it.
It should extend all the way up to 125th, left up 125th all the way and cross over I-5 as 130th, right on 1st ave, up a few blocks to pick up Roosevelt again (this road is two lanes with rain water ditches on both sides but it is the right-of-way so sidewalks and shoulders would have to happen or you trap walkers and cyclists, estend all the way up to 145th and Aurora Ave N.
That would put you 2 blocks off the Interurban Trail

Mr. Baker, for once, I completely agree with you!

Now we are talking.

Finally the useful instead of the easy. This is a long time coming, and though it's still in “old Seattle” the are moving at least a little deeper into the long-neglected hinterlands.

Yep, this is definitely necessary for the Maple Leaf neighborhood. Roosevelt is the main thoroughfare, but with parking on both sides, it's a tight fit for both bicyclists and drivers in that section between NE 75th and NE 85th. Removing the parking on the west side is a sensible move, and although I'd expect some resistance from some of the people with houses there, it shouldn't stop this from going forward.

Feature some Southend love dudes. Check out the SDOT 15th Avenue project on Beacon Hill. Beacon BIKES is also pushing for a Family Bike and Pedestrian Circulation Plan to get out kids to schools, and everyone to parks, library and lightrail station on top of the hill. Non-arterial bike boulevards with diverters, bike boxes, lane separation where necessary. We can't all move to Portland, but we can pretend with a few improvements! If I can get my 7-year old riding safely unescorted to school on a bike, I can get my morning fanny out of my car too!

Why not run the bike trail along 8th Avenue NE? It's a residential side street while Roosevelt is busy. Rationale? I'm puzzled.

Eventually Seattle will become completely unliveable.

If there were a choice to be made, east or west side, removing the west side reduces some risk crossing the street to go to the park.

There are sidewalks along the entire route, which helps.

The road width is tighter from 78th up to the top (93rd?) then the rest of the way.
Parking can be kind of crappy.

Heading south on Roosevelt from Northgate is wider (I think) than 8th, or just doesn't feel that way because of the number of cars that don't park on that portion of Roosevelt.
If you were going to have a bike crawl up that hill I think that is the better choice.
I used to stroll my son up that hill and then down to the park, that was before the library and playground were put in at Northgate.
Walking up 15th is unsafe, the amount of traffic and the road/sidewalk conditions at some points are not fit for human consumption.

Eventually we will all be dead.

I live in the neighborhood — in fact between Roosevelt and 8th NE.

I don't understand the idea of using Roosevelt as a main corridor for bikes. It's a major arterial and that means lots of CAR and some TRUCK traffic. Some of the vehicle traffic goes downhill and people inevitably drive faster than good drivers should, but alas, they do. It also rains in Seattle. It also gets dark. There are lovely street trees on R'velt, making the street a bit more shaded, which is great except that it does decrease visibility. There is an enormous potential for vehicle/bike accidents.

8th NE is a slow-speed traffic-calmed residential street from N'gate to NE 78th. It seems to me that it makes far more sense to use it for bikes. I know that no matter what the City does, I will continue to use 8th NE as my bike path.

I agree with you on that stretch, I would worry about the traffic that keeps going south to 75th, it doesn't go through.

I would put that on SDOT to answer.

How far away is 8th?

When I take cycle trips in north seattle I always just use all the side streets — it's faster going thru the turtles than stopping at the stop lights, stopping for peds, watching out to get doored and getting passed by huge Metro buses, so even when I have to go a block east or west, that's okay.

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to designate side streets that take you a good way as a suggested bike route — not that bikes wouldn't be allowed on roosevelt, they are allowed anywhere but the freeway, but in terms of getting folks to ride a few miles thru north seattle it's much safer to be one block off of roosevelt.

Uneaten bread will go stale.

Eventually Seattle will compete with Panorama City for aging boomers entering retirement age. The entire city will be SHAG type community living (tastefully done by GGLO) where we all walk to local restaurants before the early bird specials end, listening to sales jingles with our iPod implants, the jingle that is David Bowie's Golden Years reworded from “run from the shadows in you golden years”, will be changed to, “Ride in the sharrows in your golden years”.

“Don't let me hear that life is taking you nowhere”.

Nothings going to touch you in these golden years ™.

A law will be passed to for the few supermarkets that are left to change their grocery carts into all electric Little Rascal scooters with the basket on the front.

Okay, looking on Google maps, 8th is one block west of Roosevelt.

And it goes about three miles parallel to roosevelt.

Dear bike advocates — isn't this a clear example of a better bike route for thru commuters than using the arterial?

which is busy, has cars going 30 mph, stop lights, turning cars, crossing peds, opening car doors, metro buses crowding you, etc.

A little bike signage could channel bikers to 8th and this would concentrate them making 8th a de facto “bike arterial” thus making it even more safe due to an enhanced volume of bike use.

This safety is EXACTLY what bike advocates say they recognize is needed to get the nonspandex crowd (grandmas and grandpas) onto bikes.

I really can't see a daddy with two little kids on bikes going from 95th and Roosevelt down to the Safeway at 75th using Roosevelt what with the lights, busses, traffic etc. I can imagine them on 8th.

Why do bike advocates like using the dangerous Roosevelt route when it's admitted that the spandex crowd already is biking, it's the ma's and pa's and gradma's and grandpa's and little kiddies we need to get onto bikes, expecially for the neighborhood type trips? Or here, you can piece 8th together with a small segment on Roosevelt or crossing over into Greenlake then down Latona almost all the way to the University Bridge.

If the notion is long distance bike commuters will be going on Roosevelt all the way from 130th down to the bridge, um, really, most families would tell the parent NO WAY they're going to be riding in that speedway traffic, we don't want mommy or daddy to die.

(oh wait — is it because the goal is actually to remove the parking to discourage cars, not just encourage bikes? That would explain the decision to put bikes on the dangerous arterials like Roosevelt. IOW we are using the bike issue as a trojan hourse, to foster car discouragement.

Very clever, btw.)

ArcGis says 300 meters from R'velt to 8th NE but I live there and I don't believe it is 1000 feet — more like 600.

In any case, it is short and I'd say two short blocks — the distance between R'velt and 8th NE is not too far away for a cyclist — even one 6 years old.

Btw lest there be any confusion, I think the basic bike program is terrific. I love bikes; I am one of the good guys.

The only question is which corridor –Roosevelt or 8th NE — makes the most sense.

The traffic circle at 91st is a deal breaker.

I agree, there are likely good streets that could use a good sidewalk and defined bike lanes.

8th is two blocks west of Roosevelt. More than once I wondered how the hell did I get trapped on the few blocks of 9th thinking I could avoid an accident on Roosevelt, (hey, the Campfire org doesn't rent that building anymore.)

1. ??? um, looking at google maps, 8th is one block west of roosevelt.
I mean, it's one street west of roosevelt, okay?

jeesh, we're quibbling over whether a block means a street block or a certain number of feet?

2. okay, so there's one traffic circle to cross, but on roosevelt basically along all three miles it's dangerous, so your point is?

3. no, the side streets do not need any defined bike lanes. They just need a little signage encouring biking there, and signifying generally “this is a route that is marked that will take you a few miles”

“The traffic circle at 91st is a deal breaker.”

Why so?

Btw, there are many traffic circle along 8th Avenue NE.

It should have extended up to 125th because there will soon be bike lanes on 130th/125th from Bitterlake to Meadowbrook with the exception of between Aurora and Roosevelt Way NE. 115th to 125th on Roosevelt Way NE is a small stretch, but it is usually filled with parked vehicles.

8th Ave NE north of say 92nd is treacherous for pedestrians let alone for bikes. And, it has traffic circles north of Northgate Way.

The encouraging aspect of the SDOT proposal north of NE 75th Street is that they are finally willing to discuss taking away car storage (parallel parking); the proposed bike lane would provide a buffer between the sidewalks and the traffic.

The general point that David Sucher makes is very souund. SDOT is placing too much bike infrastructure on major arterials with bus routes. SDOT should seek streets that do not have transit to use a bike priority streets. bikes and buses have inherent friction, as buses must serve stops at the curb. (the excellent exception will the be bike lanes on Dexter Avenue North when the parking is shifted away from the curbs; that configuration should work better for both bikes and transit).

Please consider the following suggestions: Brooklyn Avenue NE between NE Pacific and 65th streets, connecting with the Burke Gilman Trail, Link station in 2020, Ravenna Boulevard bike lanes, Cowen and Ravenna parks, and the NE 65th Street Link station in 2020; 28th Avenue NW between NW Market and 85th streets, a wide calm former streetcar ROW; 20th Avenue NW north of Leary Way NW; Woodlawn Park Avenue North, a former streetcar ROW; and, 14th Avenue NW, south of NW 65th Street; 19th Avenue in the Central Area and 12th Avenue East between South Jackson Street and East Aloha Street; and, how about some east-west streets, such as NW 65th Street, NW and Norh 80th Street, and NE 56th Street; take some parallel parking away and cyclists could have sufficient ROW for comfort. It is done in Shoreline on NE 155th and 185th streets.

Back to Sucher's 8th Avenue NE. It may have a few issues. It would work well for uphill cyclists, except for the lack of a traffic signal at NE 80th Street. Downhill cyclists may be frustrated by the lack of priority at uncontrolled intersections. As with much cycling, one's comfort level varies with speed and exprience. traffic circles are often good for cyclists; they calm traffic.

the complete street notion can be taken too far. to some extent, we need to have arterials specialize. freight and transit require wide turning radii. cycling can have priority on some minor streets as I listed above.

Consider the transit service design as well. Seattle is about to reconsider its Seattle Transit Plan. In both Wallingford and Mapleleaf, Metro has routes every five blocks, while in Ballard the routes are farther apart. Should Mapleleaf and Walingford have fewer routes with more service frequency? if transit service was concentrated on Roosevelt Way NE, both 5th and 15th avenues NE could have a greater bike emphasis. of course, that would change the new SDOT bike paint.

I'm kidding about the traffic circle, and about 9th, but not about crossing the street to get to Judy Fu's.

The only potential problem I see is how 8th ends heading south at 75th.
If you can live with making that, and pick up Roosevelt heading south off 75th I think that is ok.
For the stretch they are proposing 8th is better.

Or, it should turn west at 115th and Roosevelt Way, where you can head west, north on 3rd Ave NE, west on 116th NE, where you can access 1st Ave/117th bridge over I-5 (those of you with the Google will see a bicycle turn lane for the folks heading south), cross I-5, right on 1st NE, and ride up to … 130th.

Maybe not.
There are a few options, most of those end at 130th

Extremely interesting; you are really thinking-through the issues.

I hope you take part in the SDOT meeting this Monday from 5-7PM.

Mr Baker – In a few weeks there will be another meeting to discuss the 125th Street bike lanes from Roosevelt Way NE to 35th Ave NE. This will be an important connection to Lake City. Stopping the Roosevelt Way lanes 10 blocks shy of another major new investment seems like it should be rethought.

Agreed.

BTW the concept of “using no arterials for the signed, suggested thru bike routes” doesn't mean ocassionaly the signed bike route doesn't use part of an arterial. So, yes at 75th an 8th based bike route has to shunt ver to roosevelt for a few blocks. Buy just south of safeway you can shunt back to the west of roosevelt a block then hit that street next to I 5 going south then continue south of 65th on a street in between roosevelt and the freeway then go down to 50th etc and cross and end up by the Metro and continue in this fashion to the ship canal where, of course, you have to shunt over somehow back to Roosevelt/University Bridge/Eastle to get over the water.

But then instesad of going on bus heavy, speeding-traffic eastlake thru Eastlake, why not have a suggestive signed bike route a block or two to the west?

Indeed, that street right along the water would be ideal. I think if you dip down to it at Louisa or Pete's market then you can continue to the Siam restaurant and pick up fairview or eastlake again.

The point is, if you want the non bike warrior class of cyclists to actually cycle, telling them they should get from 130th to downtown by going on roosevelt and eastlake the whole way is not going to work. It's just not safe.

Oh btw about that traffic circle joke — hilarious. And about Judy Fu's — this is the point, yes, the arterials are full of dangers, obstructions, traffic, and inconveniences. Why not have a complete streets approach in the sense of using all these unused nonarterials for suggestive bike thruways?

The poicy of the City is not only to accomodate bikes, but reduce parking and driver convenience. Starting with Nickels and now exponentially pushed by McGinn, the policy amounts to the idea that if we make it miserable for people to own cars they'll take transit.

While I don't disagree with a bike lane through Maple Leaf, and see merit in the Roosevelt solution as a straight shot, all this “road diet” stuff misses the point. Seattleites would adopt transit if it were convenient. More bus service, more frequently, with more hours is the answer.

And to the people who say they just get stuck in traffic, so does at-grade light rail and streetcars — to a greater degree, in fact, because it is impossible for them to detour when something goes wrong.

Better bus service with dedicated bus lanes on backbone routes is the cheaper, better alternative. The McGinn crew spends so much time thinking they need to “teach” Seattleites to be environmentally sound they completely miss the fact Seattleites were there ahead of them.

There's room to work together here. More transit, more grade-separated transit. More bike lanes. Better pedestrian areas. More density. Each of these results in less traffic. Add smart road diets that don't reduce traffic flow (needed for more bike lanes, better pedestrian areas), and everybody wins.

Nobody is trying to kill cars off just to kill cars off. Once a city reaches a certain size, car-only movement just doesn't work anymore (see traffic patterns in any large city in the world, especially those with little grade-separated mass transit. So we try and find ways to encourage people to find other ways around. Not doing so will kill movement of people and goods far more quickly.

“More density…less traffic.”

How does that work?

If you have the time, then non-arterial streets are usually more comfortable, but just like for motorized traffic, the arterial streets are generally more direct and faster (less required stops). Not to mention that as this is the heart of Maple Leaf, many cyclists will likely be going to destinations on this street itself so it would be useful to be able to ride on it safely.

There already is a signed (Chesiahud Loop), non-arterial route that runs along the water a few blocks West of Eastlake Ave. Yet, undoubtedly you see plenty of riders on Eastlake Ave, even though many would consider it unsafe and uncomfortable.

Eastlake is a great example of how cyclists, just like motorized traffic will use the most direct, fastest route. This is simply a fact and thus instead of trying to force bikers onto alternative routes it is much more effective to create safer routes where cyclists already ride.

(Note: I don't know whether this is the case for the proposed route above but based on the other SDOT proposed routes (Dexter and 7th) I can only assume that it has substantial ridership)

The closer people live to their place of work, school, and shopping, the less they drive. Sure the traffic intensity is higher in dense areas, but the average time any person spends in traffic (or in a car, for that matter) is dramatically reduced. Looking at extremes: in Phoenix everyone spends a large amount of their lives in a car, whereas in NYC the average person doesn't even own a car.

reduce parking and driver convenience
wow. asinine comment des jahres.

there are over 100.000 parking spaces in the city. does taking out 10 blocks really increase driver inconvenience? hardly.

Start taxing and licensing bikes so that we can report the red-light-runners. These bike lanes cause Metro buses to “go over the line,” also. And BTW; who's policing the buses going over the line on the Aurora bridge?

If there was any budget at all to expand everything you cited, we'd be doing it. Baby steps with the baby dollars that are available until the financial devastation wrought by the last Federal administration can be fixed.

Not even “doesn't even own a car”, it would be stupid unless you lived on the very northern or eastern edges of the city TO own a car. And ditto many other major cities–London, Paris, Boston, Tokyo, etc.

It's a start. I'd love to see the city alter licensing rules so that the licenses and permits that are used to operate current street-level parking lots–not garages, but the lots–expire out, and the city start to ration those out like they do taxi shields.

welcome to publicola, STB commenters. thank you for elevating the discourse.

Well, that's not how it works in Berlin, Rome, or Paris, but perhaps they can pull it off in neverneverland…..

I suspect that he's probably talking about the dozens of households who live (and mostly own) houses on those blocks.

…but that said, I agree with Miller – the city really can't do much to change the local conditions that make biking unrealistic for most commuters (hills, 150 rains days a year, and the fact that the region ain't Amsterdam or Copenhagen), but they actually have accepted the notion that the only way to get people onto transit is to make driving unpleasant and expensive.

That's exactly how it works in Berlin, Rome, or Paris. Ask a Paresian how long they spend each day in traffic. I'll bet you a croissant it'll be far less than someone in Bothell. Traffic in dense cities has a higher intensity, but people on average spend far less time in it.

Given Roosevelt is along the stretch where a hypothetical 10th Ave NE would be, it can't be more than a couple blocks away… albeit being North Seattle those two blocks may not be as easy to traverse as two blocks elsewhere, but it's still fairly close.

The thing with Seattle is that it's inherently a miserable city for cars because of its terrain and how its ancestors designed the city. The mix of hills and water bodies made it very difficult to create a series of trans-neighborhood road arterials, and the way city planners kind of crammed neighborhoods into the given space (in large part out of necessity) prevents any expansion of the existing grid.

I agree that Seattle is a miserable city for car commuters but it's not because of policies promoting cycling. The way the city is laid out just isn't all that accomodating for motor travel in general.

So who owns all those cars on the streets of Paris, Rome, Berlin? How about all those New Yorkers moving their cars from one side of the street to the other? Even my friends in London owned a car when they lived on Baker St, although they blessed their lucky stars they were just outside the surcharge zone. I'm all in favor of decreasing car usage, and I rarely use mine in the city (<1 trip / week), but let's not just make stuff up to suit our argument.
And another thing: riding a bike on the streets of Seattle is not particularly dangerous, once you learn to 1) ride your bike in a straight line and 2) mind your surroundings…

[Dex] Sure, some people own cars in dense cities. But the average person spends far less time in one.

You want referenced numbers? 1. “Around 48% of New Yorkers own cars, yet fewer than 30% use them to commute to work, most finding public transportation cheaper and more convenient for that purpose”. 2. (pdf) Car ownership in the City of Paris: 60%. Even the inner suburbs has less than 100%.

Basically, Manhattan has been on a gigantic “road diet” for decades. Parking is scarce and it is a giant pain the in the derriere to own a car unless one is disgustingly rich and can afford to garage parking. Streets are gradually being made more bikable, and here and there car-free areas have been designated. The reason this all works is that unlike Seattle, NYC has a very fast, frequent SUBWAY SYSTEM!!! In comparison, Seattle's bus system coupled with our embryonic light rail/streetcar system is fragmented, slow, infrequent and dysfunctional. Much as we'd all like to wish it away, something very bad will happen if we simply take down the viaduct, pave a few extra lanes of Alaska Way and let traffic sort itself out throughout downtown. At the rate we're going, it will take a century or more to build something like the NYC subway or BART. Meanwhile, making car traffic as slow and inconvenient as possible isn't going to solve very many problems, or even make the city a better place for cyclists and pedestrians since gridlock isn't much fun to ride in or walk alongside. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the fullness of time.