After spending a few days in Montreal, with an extensive cycle track network and bike share system I’m more convinced than ever that the dense and densifying areas of Seattle needs a major investment in separated bicycle facilities. One interesting caveat about Montreal is that they use cycle tracks everywhere, even on low-volume residential streets as opposed to neighborhood greenways. If anyone knows why please chime in and let me know.
Contact UsRecent PostsSearchFollow STBBest ArgumentsBest Reference PostsArchivesThe Atlantic Cities BlogrollNationwide BlogsSystem MapsTransit OrganizationsTrip Planning |
Does anybody know why the city has been so slow in implementing any safe bike infrastructure downtown? I remember SBAB folks talking about this issue years ago.
Because if you so much as suggest that cyclists are human beings the Blethen family rag brands you as a five-star general in the War on Cars?
Because there was a huge recession that gutted the city’s tax revenue by at least a third? Canada did not get hit very hard by the recession at all, though their time is coming quickly. That meant cities like Montreal had the money to build out a big cycletrack network. Cities like Seattle, reeling from the recession and with Tim Eyman having already undermined local government’s ability to raise revenue, haven’t had the ability to do that. Transit and bike advocates need to be aware of these financial issues and figure out solutions to them if we’re ever going to be effective.
Also, I thought I saw on the blog a week or two ago that McGinn is planning a downtown cycletrack.
Bike infrastructure saves money in the long run. Cyclists have essentially zero impact on road surfaces. The surfaces do wear out eventually due to exposure to the elements, but you will never see rutted lanes, cracked concrete, and all of the other issues that 4000lb+ vehicles bring. The Springwater Trail in Portland was paved on top of an abandoned rail bed, using cheap asphalt. It lasted 20 years before needing resurfacing.
It’s also not always obvious what to build and where, and Seattle makes decisions slower than any place known to man. When your downtown has as many intersections and driveways as ours does it can be hard to site a cycle track safely.
The still frame for the video shows a car nosing out into the track. Most collisions take place in intersections. Bike lanes and cycle tracks just don’t do much for you in intersections. Experienced cyclists, who know this, often oppose bike infrastructure with questionable intersection design and poor visibility for this reason.
That said, if you build infrastructure that looks safe and lots of people ride on it at slow speeds that tends to make the whole region safer to bike in — people learn to drive around cyclists and are more likely to know cyclists and have empathy for them and cyclists learn to ride in mixed-speed traffic. Though it’s better to have good intersections than bad ones, it might be better to have cycletracks with bad intersections than none at all. My opinion has swung dramatically this way in the last couple years.
I think more than anything it’s because the BMP didn’t include cycle tracks as a facility type with design standards. The last BMP was in my opinion one of the most vehicular cycling plans in the country. It essentially paved the way for the national adoption of sharrows. Now we and everyone else are at a different place and separated cycling facilities have clearly won.
Really, if you stay out of downtown, and ride on the side streets instead of arterials, all you need for a cycle track are some signposts.
Unfortunately John, Seattle has a lot of hills with nicely graded arterials that often times happen to be the easiest way up.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…How do you propose I get from Ballard to the train station?! Take the long way around the lake?
Using side streets is generally a nice strategy, and it can be a great tool for improving bike connectivity on the cheap. But it isn’t the only tool we need.
1. Side street routes typically require significant capital improvements at intersections with arterial roads to become really effective bike routes. This has been the case in Portland, and it’s the case here as well.
2. For crossing bodies of water, climbing steep hills, and getting across various other obstacles (rail yards, freeways, many large roads) arterial roads are typically the only routes or the only reasonable routes.
3. This is America. Businesses are located on arterial roads. Business access requires arterial road access, and that’s as true for a kid with a summer job as an experienced adult commuter like me.
4. This post is about downtown Seattle, so, “if you stay out of downtown,” missed the mark so badly it landed on Mercer Island. I know you think we should throw away downtown Seattle and replace it with a bunch of malls and a theme park, but that’s not the point. The ability to bike downtown is important. I think greater downtown (the CBD, Belltown, LQA, SLU, the ID, Pioneer Square, and parts of First Hill and SODO) could stand to have some of their streets calmed into proper side streets where access for non-motorized users is prioritized, but that’s probably more expensive and more disruptive than a couple cycle tracks.
@Anthony
“Seattle has a lot of hills with nicely graded arterials that often times happen to be the easiest way up.
The arterials are graded, but the street on block away isn’t?
And they say I’m the one not making sense…
What side street one block away?
Let’s say you’re going from Downtown to Capitol Hill. Denny, Olive, Pine, and Pike are all mightily car infested. You could swing a little bit out of your way and try Lakeview and back up Belmont Ave (it’s steep, though). Or way way way out of your way up to 10th and Roanoke… oh hey, yet another arterial-only bottleneck. To the South I’m less familiar with, but I do not recall any of those Downtown to Capitol or First Hill roads being either not steep or not car infested.
So, again, between the massive public works project that divides the city and the all-the-least-steep-bits-somehow-already-occupied-by-arterials geography, what side street a block away?
I’m from Portland and use my bike as my primary mode of transportation. The Neighborhood Greenways are fantastic. They have been a great way for the city to build out a safe, extensive bike network without spending very much. However, the issue of business access is a huge problem. You have to carefully plan your trips to get as close to the business as possible, before taking the side street to access it. It is a big enough problem in some areas that more fearless cyclists will take the lane on busy streets, creating conflicts and frustration. I think the city is starting to realize that they need to make arterial improvements to increase modal share.
Adam:
I can understand your confusion. In Seattle, where cycling is an afterthought (at best) in transportation planning, the idea of creating dedicated cycling routes in low traffic areas seems strange. Montreal is different; they consider cycling a legitimate primary form of transportation, as deserving of safe and thorough transit routes as driving. Seen from this perspective, cycling infrastructure is a basic requirement and an input to city planning, not something to begrudgingly retrofit only in high-traffic zones where a politically-inconvenient number of cyclists are killed or injured.
Check out the Montreal Master Plan for an example of their inclusive posture toward cycling:
Cheers,
Jeremy
180 degrees different from our casual and autocentric attitude. It is unlikely that in Montreal one would see a bike lane die on a major thoroughfare as happens on 4th Ave at Spring Street. We need consistent logical plans for both cycles and transit on all arterials. If anyone here thinks petrol won’t get to US$5 or 10 here in the second Obama Administration, their head is stuck in asphalt.
I think I wasn’t clear. My only confusion was why they use cycle tracks rather than neighborhood greenways on low-volume residential streets. I’ve updated the text to reflect that.
Understood. But aren’t “greenways” just low-traffic streets that are, by their nature, safer for cyclists? Or am I misunderstanding that label? If you’re planning transportation with equal regard for cars and bikes, cycle tracks make perfect sense on any street. When cycling infrastructure is a low-priority, underfunded afterthought to transportation planning – like it is in Seattle – traffic volume is a major factor in project prioritization. That doesn’t appear to have been the case in Montreal – though I claim no firsthand knowledge.
Cheers,
Jeremy
I wouldn’t say cycle tracks make perfect sense on every street. A lot of Seattle’s residential side streets have travel lanes that are narrower than two car widths. These streets simply don’t have room for a cycle track.
However, they also don’t really need dedicated cycle tracks because the width of the street keeps automotive through traffic to a minimum. It also ensures that the cars that do drive there are traveling at a low speed and with extra awareness to the other traffic on the road. I have no problem with mixed bicycle/car traffic on these streets.
This is what the whole greenway movement seems to be about: identifying networks of streets that already see low automobile traffic due to their design and adding things (like speed bumps, safer crossings of arterial streets, and more) to explicitly discourage unnecessary vehicle traffic and encourage more bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Cycle tracks separate cyclist from auto traffic while greenways use share travel lanes. Below is the NACTO design guidelines for both. My question is not about priority but specifically about the design treatment used. My guess is that greenways would have required speed humps which don’t work in places which have frequent snow removal. I was hoping someone could shed light on this.
Cycle tracks: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/
Greenway: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bicycle-boulevards/
Montreal is relatively flat. Seattle would remain a challenge for all but advanced cyclists even with better infrastructure, just because so many direct routes involve moderate to steep hills.
We should still put cycle tracks on the high-volume bike corridors we do have. But you’re not going to get normal people to bike over First Hill with a cycle track.
Even hills don’t have to be a problem, if we’re serious.
Seems like this would be perfect for the Counterbalance. We’ve already got the infrastructure in place!
Unfortunately I was told by someone who recently travelled to Norway that the Trampe has been removed. But the idea has tons of merit in Seattle. And it would be cheap and easy to install, just like…a gondola.
Hills are frequently mentioned as a barrier to cycling in Seattle, and they are, but they aren’t as bad as they seem. You don’t ride straight up the Counterbalance on your bike – you go the long way around. The Ship Canal trail extension is a good example of this. If you are in Fremont and want to go to the ferry terminal, you can avoid going up and over Dexter by taking the ship canal trail and cutting through Interbay. It’s almost entirely flat and mostly completely separated to boot. If you truly do need to go up a hill, you take a route that allows for switchbacks, you ride at a walking pace, and it’s fine.
It would be helpful if the city could revise its bike map to highlight streets that help make hill climbing less strenuous.
Not that that helps people on top of the hill.
[Brian] I think they did a fairly good job at that (large map here).
[Morgan] I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but riding the long way certainly helps me up QA hill. And the Trampe obviously would.
Seattle is hilly but if you choose the right routes you can avoid steep hills. For example, to get from downtown to capitol hill you could ride down 2nd to King street then up King (I like king over Jackson since it has far less traffic), to 12th, then down 12th to capitol hill. It is a longer route, but has only a gradual grade that most should be able to easily do on a bike.
I would love this route with a dedicated cycle track, Should be very easy to do on king street since it is not a major street, and the 2nd ave cycle track has already been talked about. Would take a little bit of thinking on how to get them to connect. 12th is already fairly bike friendly with the exception of the southern few blocks.
Upper Queen Anne is different story, cant really avoid that one.
Those routes are still indirect and longer, which can add up if you’re already covering significant distance.
Some years ago I commuted by bike from my house near Green Lake to Central/Atlantic/Ryerson Bases. Going south, the biggest issues with that commute were traffic congestion and the lack of a good way through downtown (I eventually settled on 5th Avenue, but it was sometimes a bit scary). Going north, I faced three hills that were either steepish or longish: from the stadiums through downtown on 4th; from the base of Eastlake up to Lynn Street; and from the University Bridge up 11th to 50th. None of those were impossible, but any or all would likely have discouraged a casual cyclist. Trying to avoid them would have resulted in the commute getting extremely long and convoluted.
“if you choose the right routes you can avoid steep hills.”
Or conversely, you can choose a steep but short hill. For instance, to get from Eastlake to Capitol Hill, instead of going on Harvard, you can go up two steep blocks at Roanoke, and then either go south on Boylston (no hills to Pike/Pine), or east to 10th Ave E (moderate hill to Broadway). Seattle’s hills are often like that: you can skirt the hill, find the most moderate slope, or find a short steep slope between two flat parts.
‘Eh. When people first move to Seattle they see the hills and think only athletes can walk up them. Then, by walking up and down the hills every day, they become accustomed to it and a year later it’s not such a big deal. The same is true for biking.
This weekend I tagged along with a very leisurely-paced Cascade ride through some of Seattle’s first parks and bike paths. We took 12th all the way from the Rizal Bridge to Volunteer Park. That’s not the absolute top of First Hill, but it’s not far from it (you’re a couple steep blocks from the absolute top, and you can walk those if you have to). This was not a group of athletes. I’m nearly certain that most people of average athletic ability could develop the strength to climb that hill simply by riding a bike every day and taking care to pace themselves. At that point you can get up most of the hills in Seattle, and most rides only require one tough climb if you plan your routes right.
Besides, that’s what the granny gear is for.
I think the real issue with hills is clothing. I can ride to work in business attire, but need to change into bike or exercise clothes for the way home, thanks to hills. This is a time and effort commitment that’s larger than needs to be made for other travel options.
Solutions to this:
1. Trampe
2. Buses (though if you have to wait for a bus, much of the benefit of biking goes away)
3. Gondolas (yay)
4. Bike highways. I could see leveling hills downtown by having an elevated bike path on 2nd that has on/off ramps on to 3rd. You could really level some hills if carefully designed.
Electric assist bikes are getting cheaper every year. San Francisco has a decent modal share, even with it’s topography. This is the perfect time for Seattle to start building a bike network. Fuel prices are continuing to rise, and e-bikes keep getting cheaper.
Yeah, well. You still have to pull on the rain gear. You can’t carry very much. During the winter months it’s dark and damp meaning people in cars can’t see you. I ride. It’s not an easy problem. I don’t have any big hills on my current commute and an electric assist would just add to the complications. Hard enough keeping my cars running. I have a better than average pool of parts and tools to deal with bike failures but it’s still a challenge.
I spend a lot less time and money maintaining my 6 bikes than I did with the car I sold when I started bike commuting year round. If you are the type the takes your cars to the mechanic, you will spend more time maintaining a bike, but you will save even more money. Bike maintenance is simple. Keep the chain lubricated, and clean it off every month or so.
The e-assist systems don’t add much complication. The hubs are built into the wheel, and the entire system is sealed. If you are really concerned with maintenance, you can get a bike with a belt drive and internal gearing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt-driven_bicycle
Seems to be a prejudice against electric assist bikes in these parts and it is unclear if they are allowed on certain trails and bike routes.
Seems to me, there would be greater adoption of bicycling if EA bikes were “welcomed” everywhere and that purists at least looked the other way. Indeed, it could be the enticement that gets non-athletic persons to even consider a bike.
Why not just get a motorcycle?
My vision of downtown bike infrastructure:
Two direction cycle track on 2nd Ave from King street station to the Seattle center. 2nd has a generally smooth grade and since we are planing streetcars for 1st, 4th, and 5th, and 3rd clogged with buses, 2nd is the only option. The two direction bikes on a one direction street could be a little dangerous though.
Pine/Pike couplet cycle track from 2nd ave to Broadway.
King street cycle track from king street station to 10th.
Yesler terrace hill climb from 10th and Jackson to Broadway. Work into the new Yesler Terrace plan a bike hill climb from Jackson to Broadway.
7th ave cycle track from Denny (connecting to Dexter bike lanes), to Pine/Pike.
This would really make getting around downtown on a bike easier and safer.
I think that is a good starting list. I think the biggest issue with King is the connection from 5th to the water. That is really where you need an improved connection because beside that King is fairly comfortable to ride on by downtown standards.
We need bike lanes on Stewart St. for people approaching downtown from the U-district who don’t want to get injured by streetcar tracks.
Look at all that green paint!
Has anyone seen the bike lane at Alaskan Way S and S Hanford St recently? That thing is practically black from tire tracks again.
Problem already solved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE4KOZzQOg
Reminds me of the situation at Stone and Bridge wy. I think that’s a green asphalt and it needs to be redone.
I see all this talk about Montréal, but the video was about Vancouver. What’s with that?
Yeah couldn’t find a good video of Montreal but they used basically the same exact designs.
The city’s mayor and a majority of the current City Council, members of the Vision Vancouver civic party, swept into office promising to build more bike infrastructure. And then they implemented it. It was a mandate from their constituents. Vision did run a little roughshod over some small business objections. But the interesting thing is, Vision had a lot of overall business support (translation: developers), so there was little objection to the cycletracks downtown. Lots of hyped negative press from the Vancouver Sun (hmmm, sound familiar?)
So obviously there isn’t a clear winner on how to cycle the hills easily in Seattle. I think the city should focus heavily on connecting the flatter parts of the city. I say put a cycle track on 3rd through downtown then run it down the Denny/Elliot corridor to connect Ballard, Fremont, etc. Pretty much I think the city should worry about doing a great job of connecting the easiest parts of the city, then worry about the harder parts later. Kind of like how Link isn’t going everywhere right away. Cyclists will then flock to these areas that are easily connected, just like development happens (or will happen) at Link stations. Then when people see how great it is to have these parts of the city connected there can be a bigger movement to connect the “hillier” parts. Sorry QA and Cap Hill….