Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Admiral Way Bike Lanes Draw Support and Scorn

The Seattle Department of Transportation held an open house at the West Seattle library last night to present their proposal for reconfiguring SW Admiral Way (where a bicyclist was recently hit by a car) to add bike lanes and a marked pedestrian cross walk and reduce motorized-traffic speeds. Though attendance was relatively sparse—25 or so people in and out during the one-and-a-half hours I was there—they all had opinions. There was even a loud, but (mostly) civil argument between two attendees at one point with gems like “why should my taxes subsidize your hobby?” and “maybe if you got in better shape you could ride up Admiral!”

As we reported last week, SDOT proposes to remove one eastbound travel lane on SW Admiral Way between SW Olga St and SW City View St. The removal of the lane would allow installation of a six-foot bike lane with a three-foot painted buffer on the downhill side (eastbound) and a parking protected bike lane with a six-foot lane and three-foot painted buffer between parked cars and the curb (similar to the proposed Dexter Ave lanes) on the uphill.

In addition, SDOT proposes to install a marked pedestrian crosswalk with a raised cement island at Admiral Way and City View St. The city removed a marked crosswalk from that intersection in 2007 to comply with updated federal guidelines (they state that you can’t have an un-signalized crosswalk on a four-lane road).

According to SDOT’s Brian Dougherty, one of the open house presenters, speeding is a big issue on Admiral. The posted speed limit is 30 mph, but the 85th percentile of cars (essentially the average speed) drive 45 mph.

The project’s supporters (who seemed to be in the minority at the open house) expressed relief at the prospect of better bike and ped infrastructure. Opponents’ were concerned that having one downhill lane would cause serious back ups (particularly with Metro buses making in-lane stops), and that the city is sacrificing car mobility to accommodate a tiny population of roadway users.

West Seattle resident Greg Poulin was amongst the project’s detractors.

“When you take a lane from this very, very vital roadway it’s going to bring traffic [backups] all the way up to 42nd and California Aves,” he said. “I think we should have a bike network, but we can’t do it at the expense of road capacity. We absolutely need to find a better way to get around than single occupancy vehicles, but we’re not there yet.”

North Admiral Way resident Jim Beaulaurier drives and bikes on Admiral way regularly. He thinks infrastructure for bikes is very necessary. “Currently, there’s no room for bicycles on the roadway on the uphill portion essentially forcing riders to compete with pedestrians on the sidewalk.”

Beaulaurier also thinks concerns about congestion are overblown and points to similar road diets on Fauntleroy and Stone Way which he sees as successes. “Congestion does not occur at the bottom of the Admiral hill, it’s simply an extension of what happens on the bridge. So the notion that somehow gaining 30 seconds on the hill somehow seems fallacious. What’s the big hurry to get into the cue for the bridge?”

Concerns about the project didn’t just come from opponents. Seattle Likes Bikes’ raised concerns that the design creates dangerous pinch points for cyclists where the bike lanes end at the top and bottom of the hill and bicycles have to merge back in with traffic. SLB suggests SDOT extend the lanes to mitigate this problem.

SDOT plans to hold another open house in August (date and location TBA) after reviewing public comment and reexamining the project designs. Public comment can still be submitted at the project website.




  • tpn

    I use Admiral on a fairly regular basis, and I would agree that the top speed for cars going down hill at the _very bottom_ of the hill where it connect to the West Seatte Bridge _might_ be 45, but is not by 85% of drivers. But to say that it is 45mph through and through does not bear out with empiracal data. Everyone knows that stretch of road is heavily policed, enough where speed demons would have to drive pretty eratically to maintain 45 mph to get around everyobe else doing 35 or below. While I agree that there needs to be more accomodation for bikes– and that good cash should be spent on dedicated lanes all over the city that are next to, but not on existing busy roadways, I don't think hyperbole like this will win the day with the skeptics.

  • Mr. X

    If this “open house” was anything like the one that was held regarding the parking removals along Roosevelt Way, opponents didn't just “seem” to be in the majority – they were overwhelmingly so.

    (Not that we should care what local residents actually think about these schemes when they involve PC proposals that pretty much solely benefit the 2.5-3% of people who ride bikes to work, though).

  • T_Chen

    “I think we should have a bike network, but we can’t do it at the expense of road capacity. We absolutely need to find a better way to get around than single occupancy vehicles, but we’re not there yet.”

    But we'll never get there if we keep building and maintaining all the infrastructure with SOVs (for Mr. X) as the top priority!

  • Mr. X

    Right, because we MUST DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to benefit the 2.5-3% who ride bikes (in the hope that we'll increase it to perhaps 5 or 6% citywide if we're lucky, likely far less on a hill as steep as Admiral Way) at the expense of the 18% who use transit, 11% who carpool, or the 56% who drive alone.

    And you are aware that buses mostly use the same infrastructure as cars, right?

  • kurisu

    Wait, I thought the PC thing to do was to not just tell people like Mr. X to go suck it.

  • seandr

    It seems likely Brian Dougherty, a representative from SDOT, is reporting numbers from a traffic study conducted at that location, in which case, these are, in fact, empirical data.

  • Ziggity

    Not whatever it takes, just simple, straightforward proposals like this one. Transportation isn't a free market commodity. The U.S. has sunk trillions of dollars into road infrastructure to the point that SOV is a natural choice for many. What's wrong with trying to correct that?

  • T_Chen

    Exactly. Only in the fantasy world of Mr. X is a modest road diet program that mostly consists of re-striping doing “whatever it takes.” It's not like we're building grade-separated bike expressways all over the city or something!

  • Lish

    Cars on this stretch of Admiral go too fast because the street is too wide for the number of cars that travel there. It makes sense to narrow it and slow down traffic to a reasonable and safe speed. These types of proposals don't just benefit bicyclists, they also benefit pedestrians, transit riders and drivers by making the roadway reflect the posted speed (which is based on safety measures.)

  • Sigh

    “Beaulaurier also thinks concerns about congestion are overblown and points to similar road diets on Fauntleroy and Stone Way which he sees as successes.”

    Once again with the Stone Way comparisons. Once again, it's not in any similar regardless of how much people point it out. Admiral and Nickerson are not Stone Way. People, please stop using this analogy.

  • tpn

    Ask a ferry commuter how that Fauntleroy thing is working out.

  • TMN

    With no personal stake in any of these meetings, it's worth noting that the set of people who will show up to this type of meeting is usually self selected from those who are pissed off by the thing being proposed…

  • mX.

    Yes, buses do use the same infrastructure, and the mass congestion created by over-use of cars hampers the creation of an efficient bus system.

  • kurisu

    It is working out.

  • ivan

    You'll defend any piece of shit that screws over auto traffic, won't you? Most of us have just migrated to 35th, where at least there is a passing lane to get around the buses. The poor sods who use Admiral won't be so lucky.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/106207652321616246395 joey

    I don't bike on Admiral so I don't know the answer to this. What makes it so different? Looks like they are both moderate arterials through mixed commercial zoning. Stone way has more side options than Admiral but what makes the analogy unrealistic?

  • Mr. X

    Almost all of those opposed to the Roosevelt Way proposal at the meeting I attended lived or owned businesses on Roosevelt (as opposed to the one pro bike lane guy who didn't).

  • TMN

    Right, but I'm saying that the people who go to the trouble of showing up at such a meeting are almost certainly more pissed off about the proposal than those who live on or near Roosevelt but didn't take the time to show up. This type of feedback system is never a representative sample, and you can't take it as representative of the mood of the population as a whole. Angrier viewpoints are completely over-represented.

  • Mr. X

    The fact that Stone Way has more side options than Admiral

  • Mr. X

    Not necessarily – Cascade Bike Club types have had money and organization on their side in the development of lots of these proposals, and have also had the organization necessary to turn their people out for them. Most of the people who attended the meeting I went to had only heard about the proposal a few days before, while SDOT has been trying to build support for these proposals on friendly blogs such as Publicola for a lot longer than that.

    I suspect the population at large is a lot less supportive of reducing arterial capacity than you think they are.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Mel Roberts, Chairman of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board just sent me a link to this page on Bicycle Boulevards:

    http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php

    “In essence, bicycle boulevards are low-volume and low-speed streets that have been optimized for bicycle travel through treatments such as traffic calming and traffic reduction, signage and pavement markings, and intersection crossing treatments. These treatments allow through movements for cyclists while discouraging similar through trips by nonlocal motorized traffic. Motor vehicle access to properties along the route is maintained.”

  • Ziggity

    Or maybe all people think that the majority supports their ideas.

  • kurisu

    I suspect the population at large didn't care enough to show up.

  • misha

    We must do whatever it takes to benefit the 100% of people who breathe our air, the 100% of people who are affected by oil scarcity, the 100% of people who are at risk from our #1 public safety threat (single occupancy vehicles), and the 100% of taxpayers that subsidize highways, car companies, and oil.

    Regardless, this proposal is not even close to “doing whatever it takes.” It is “doing something that will most likely not negatively affect anybody for a trivial cost.”

  • ivan

    Congratulations, Misha! You have made kurisu appear reasonable by comparison.