Route 38 completes our list of slightly ridiculous single-purpose Metro runs in the wake of Link Light Rail. Currently a route that runs from Sodo to the Mt. Baker neighborhood, allowing a bypass of downtown congestion, it’s been whittled down to a shuttle between Beacon Hill and Mt. Baker stations, allowing those in need to avoid the climbing the extremely steep hill that is S. McClellan St. Luckily, the line is so short that it can be served by a single bus.
Two good tidbits from the TCC Blog:
- The Columbian has a noncommittal editorial about extending MAX light rail into Clark County. For media in this state, that’s tremendous progress.
- The Cascade Bicycle Club launched a site called Bikewise, to report crashes, hazards, and thefts across the country. I found the interface a bit cumbersome, but then I’m not a bicyclist. (Hint: click on “Crashes”, “Hazards”, or “Thefts” to get to a link where you can change the city from St. Louis). Q13 Fox had a report on it yesterday:
Perhaps Adam will expound on this site further.
Has La Hood found his transit money?
Check out the DoT’s blog for today, which appears to draw a connection between savings (through lower than expected bids) on stimulus projects, to the need for HSR and a rail industry in the Midwest:
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/06/recent-transport-news-items-that-have-stayed-on-my-mind.html
Hehe yeah I found the site a bit hard to navigate as well. I think the biggest issue is at the map is just too small.
Hopefully that video brings more attention to the falling-apart state of 15th going past UW.
As someone who rides my bike through the U district 3-4 times a week during my commute, I can not only confirm the growing list of problems with pot holes, but also the complex and dangerous interactions between cyclists and auto drivers.
The University bridge at both the north and south ends has dangerous merges. The climb up Harvard to Capitol Hill is positively scary! Bikewise in just one tool that will help bike commuting become safer. It will also take more money, more commitment from elected leaders, more innovation (that is often in short supply in Seattle) and more cooperation (between cyclists and drivers). I hope the growing commitment we have seen toward Link in the last year, can translate to expanding bike safety and numbers of bike commuters. Biking is a transportation mode of equal import and deserves lots of attention on this blog alongside buses and trains.
I completely agree. I bike to the U from Eastlake and there are so many good things that could be done if there was enough money.
What about the dangerous interaction between cyclists and pedestrians? Or cyclists running red lights as though they were stop signs? Or riding bikes far too fast through slow zones?
It’s a two-way street.
Aren’t red lights and stop signs the same? :)
And you’re right, it is a two-way street. When peds walk around aimlessly, they should also pay attention before entering an area that is known to have cyclists and other recreational activities happening. I’m not suggesting that they buy turn signals, but when a ped just turns randomly without even looking over their shoulder causes just as unsafe situation as a cyclist blowing through an intersection.
I think the opposite should be the norm: cyclists should be aware of and yield to pedestrians. The burden is on them to avoid a collision with a pedestrian.
Nearly all traffic laws, such as stopping for pedestrians in marked as well as unmarked crosswalks, apply to cyclists. So this conversation really applies only to enforcement of laws with regard to individuals breaking them.
I, for one, would like it if everyone driving a motor vehicle would drive at or below the speed limit.
As a cyclist, I appreciate pedestrians who watch what they’re doing, but I don’t expect it of them. When cyclists are on a mixed-use facility shared with pedestrians, we should expect pedestrians to behave as randomly as any other crowd of people.
In general, bikes are safer in the street, operating like vehicles; when it’s necessary to ride sidewalks or mixed-use paths, go slow and yield to pedestrians.
No, red lights indicate a total and complete stop unless flashing. Moreover, the Seattle Traffic Code says that bicyclists must yield to pedestrians. If an audible signal is insufficient to give notification to a pedestrian (as in the case of those wearing headphones), then the cyclist is meant to wait until it is safe to pass with a wide-enough margin that is safe both to themselves and the pedestrian(s). Failure to respect such a law is a violation of the city’s traffic code.
Here’s the SMC:
SMC 11.44.120 Riding on sidewalk or public path.
Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path
shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate
of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions
existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and
character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public
path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic-control
devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public
path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall
give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
@AJ:
“Running red lights as though they were stop signs” and “red lights indicate a total and complete stop unless flashing” seem to indicate that you think stop signs and/or flashing red lights don’t require “a total and complete stop”. They do. Solid red lights, flashing red lights, and stop signs all require a full stop.
A solid red light means you have to stay stopped until you get a green light (right turns generally being the exception, but again you have to come to a full stop first. ditto for lefts on to a one-way). And to quote the WA Driver Guide, “A flashing red traffic light means the same as a stop sign. You must come to a full stop and then may proceed when it is safe to do so.”
Well then you’ve read my comment wrong, but that’s okay.
I would be happy to see traffic enforcement towards the small minority of cyclists who blatantly disregard the rules of the road — as a cyclist, I’ve been hit broadside by a fellow cyclist who ran a stop sign at full speed; he was watching for cars, not bikes, and just didn’t see me.
But the police have limited time and money for enforcement, and their priorities have to reflect somewhat the relative threat to public safety. It’s not cyclists who kill more Americans than 9/11 every single month.
+1
It’s true that alot of cyclists don’t respect the law, but way more people are killed by cars. Let’s take care of the big issue first.
Be sure to report potholes to the City’s Pothole ranger’s website. I’ve found that they actually fill the one’s I complain about. And as a bicyclist I see them easier than cars do.
http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/potholereport.htm
I like to keep things simple for myself. I keep the Seattle bike & pedestrian safety address in my cell phone, WalkAndBike@Seattle.gov
Not everything in the city is their department, but they know where to forward everything else, and they’re very good about following up and getting back to me. I can snap a cell phone picture of a hazard, send it to them on my way to work, and often find it fixed on my way home the same day. They’ve gotten broken grates fixed, had a non-responsive signal sensor retuned, etc.
And if they’d saved the expense of the tunnel and underground station by continuing north to the I-90 East Link ROW wouldn’t Beacon Hill have better service if the savings were put into transit connections to Mt. Baker, SODO, Ranier, etc.
If find the site is actually useful – the map can be made bigger. Once you log in and get access, it functions just like a google map…hey, it is a Google map. There’s no one place where a single group tracks bicycle hazards/thefts/crashes. Since most bicyclists who crash, either with a motor vehicle involved or not, the police are not called and therefore it doesn’t get tracked.
This is very helpful if I’m riding outside of my regular route so I can be aware of bike-specific issues I may encounter.
Re: The Columbian editorial – Martin, I know you’re a bit ig’nant but The Columbian strongly backed light rail during the last vote (admittedly that was 15 years ago). So you could actually argue that it’s regress (more realistically, the CRC debate has clouded the water for both road and rail supporters).