Comments on: Draft Pedestrian Master Plan

By: John

John — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:50:13 +0000

…so you would spend money we don’t have (PMP has no designated funding source) on building sidewalks in residential neighborhoods north of 85th) and providing drainage resources at the same time?

100% agreed I’d like to see more enforcement on the blockage codes, but the focus can’t be just on “flow”. You want more walkable streets, you have to provide destinations as well, and small businesses need to advertise. The real issue here in the busier areas, IMO, is too much street ROW reserved for automobiles and not enough for other uses.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:57:55 +0000

That is an annoying intersection to cross. Particularly since many drivers don’t seem to have a clue of how to proceed through an all-way stop intersection.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 09 May 2009 19:06:57 +0000

I think the most logical first step should be to re-close Pine Between 5th and 4th and make Westlake whole again.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:46:01 +0000

I think “every” is a big stretch but Pike Place / Post Alley is a very well done area. I think they could do well downtown to provide more along this model and in the new SLU area as it becomes “densified” (can I use that word in Scrable? :-) It essential allows limited local access but eliminates “traffic”.

By: EeePC

EeePC — Sat, 09 May 2009 08:59:34 +0000

Pike Place / Post Alley should be the model for every pedestrian plan in Seattle.

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:27:46 +0000

One can only hope.

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:26:27 +0000

In your world bright orange is de-emphasis?

By: J

Fri, 08 May 2009 22:44:53 +0000

Not directly transit related, but since you brought up records requests from plaintiff’s lawyers….

Have you seen records requests yet on the location of sharrows under the bicycle master plan?

The language of the MUTCD says sharrows can be used to guide cyclists to a lane position where they won’t hit the doors of parked cars, but Seattle DoT is installing most of them directly *in* the door zone of parked cars, then telling cyclists they should align themselves with the center of the sharrow. They’re basically telling cyclists to ride where they’re most likely to be injured.

When asked about it, SDoT officials have said cyclists have to stay to the right, so the sharrows belong on the right — that essentially ignores the actual language of the law, that cyclists should stay as far to the right as is *safe*.

Given the disconnect between the language of the MUTCD guidance and the actual installation of the sharrows, I have to expect the city will eventually find itself in court defending its official advice to ride in the door zone.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:34:05 +0000

There are alternatives — Put the cars on a diet and make the shoulder suitable for both bikes and pedestrians. Paved shoulders aren’t as good for walking as sidewalks, but they’re better than dirt, and they’re better for cycling than a curb at the edge of a narrow lane.

Stripe the vehicle lane as narrow as standards allow, it visually narrows the road despite the paved shoulder. Then pave the shoulder and keep it swept.

By: justin

justin — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:17:32 +0000

and on narrow streets sidewalks make biking much worse. I hate how things that are good for peds are worse for bikes and vice versa, we have to fight over the car crumbs

By: cjh

cjh — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:58:47 +0000

You mean the same Broadway that is almost entirely surrounded by the “high” priority shading?

By: Wes Kirkman

Wes Kirkman — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:28:02 +0000

Seeing as how the center city is where you’ll find the most people walking, I would assume making it a high priority is a logical choice.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:02:05 +0000

I’m seeing the opposite. Most of the resources here are aimed at providing pedestrian access where none exists today. Look at Broadway, for instance – very de-emphasized here, despite having a lot of pedestrian traffic and a very wide street.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:59:10 +0000

It seems like this is just about providing sidewalks where none exist. Broadway needs a lot of work to bring it together, but they don’t seem to be doing that…

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:58:27 +0000

I agree – separating pedestrians from traffic, in many cases, just encourages the cars to go faster.

By: publicadministrator

publicadministrator — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:20:34 +0000

The weighting of the three priorities seems odd.. “vibrancy” gets 40% compared to social equity and corridor function? In my cursory review that seems to emphasize areas where pedestrian traffic is already heavy due to promximity of venues accessed mostly by foot.

I would have preferred a master plan that directed a higher proportional priority (read dollars) where the need is greatest. Let’s fix the weakest link in the chain first. Besides there are non-capital funded methods to improve pedestrian flow in “vibrant” corridors (enforcement of SMC on placement of sandwich signs and newspaper boxes).

BTW, one of my roles at the city is responding to public records requests… as in from attorneys seeking background for trip & fall claims, etc.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:52:16 +0000

I’ve always hated Aurora. It cuts the city in half, kills pedestrian and bike routes, and drags car-based businesses from the suburbs right down into the city. That would be a road I’d love to see on a diet.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:50:50 +0000

How about making Aurora Avenue into a normal urban street that has normal signals and crosswalks every block or two? It seems to drive a wedge through the neighborhoods it runs through. It could also be a great street for a bus or a trolley, but not if you can’t cross it.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Fri, 08 May 2009 09:50:24 +0000

Unfortunately, sidewalks are very expensive, especially on narrow streets.

By: joshuadf

joshuadf — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:00:33 +0000

Yeah, I don’t understand the coloring on High-Low Priority. I suppose it’s probably described in the PDF. If you look at most of the streets around Ravenna Park, for example, it’s “Low Priority” but also some of the most pedestrian friendly areas in the city already. (For example, there are few driveways and because of the park no through streets.)

Almost the entire Center City is “High Priority” though?