- If you’re looking for a light rail excuse and need something to do in the Rainier Valley, Southend Seattle may be a decent place to start.
- Dow Constantine tries to piece together funding for the South Park Bridge. In the meantime, activists try to make the crossing palatable for bikes, peds, and transit; there are obstacles.
- Walk-Bike-Ride now has a ballot. Community meetings began last night.
- A peek at Capitol Hill Station construction.
- More on Greenwood’s historic lack of sidewalks.
- Slip on the bus steps, collect $1.3m. I sure hope this gets reduced on appeal. Also, six cyclists sue Seattle over “dangerous” SLUT tracks.
- PSRC envisions tolls everywhere in 2030; deep thoughts about tolling on 520.
- Tom Rasmussen opposes the Nickerson road diet. Groups are forming for and against the changes.
- Deep-bore tunnel completion may be delayed a year to 2016. Design and financing shenanigans will apparently never end.
- Historic home near the path of light rail.
- Getting banks to lend to TOD projects.
- The hierarchy of transit needs.
- Passed Out On Public Transportation.
- New York City tweaks its subway map.
This is an open thread.
Cyclists in this town are a bunch of whiners. I wish I got a heap of money every time I did something stupid or didn’t use better judgement. As usual, Portland cyclists seem to deal with their streetcar tracks just fine…
I’ve had to sit next to a fat, smelly person on the bus. I suffered physical and nostril discomfort, I want my money! I’ve been thrown from my center-facing seat on the Link BY the Link, pay up Sound Transit. Somebody rearended me on I5, wheres my cash, WSDOT? How are we going to fix these problems? SUE SUE SUE! Screw reasonable and rational discussion, I want my money!
Is it any wonder why we can’t get anything done? :-(
No, the city council is stupid. They were told at open public hearings about the dangers to bicycle riders of putting the tracks on the side of the road, and ignored this information.
As the suit said, they could close Westlake to bicycles, or have put the tracks down the middle of the road, same as they are now planning on for the First Hill street car.
Instead, as the article said they saved money by locating the stations on the sidewalks. That’s a cost/benefit ratio, the theory being they would pay less in lawsuits than doing the right thing. Now here comes the lawsuits. Why is anybody surprised?
Thing is, we can’t fine the city council for being stupid, we can’t put them in jail for it. The city refused to pay for the accidents they caused with this design, the only thing left is a lawsuit.
Sure, or they could have built a tunnel underneath the street at 20x the cost and completely removed the hazard to bikes. OR the self-entitled bicyclists in this city could suck it up, avoid the obvious hazard in the road and there wouldn’t be an issue. As for closing Westlake to bike traffic, as far as I’m concerned Seattle gave the bicyclists more freedom. There’s no reason they have to take Westlake or ride on/near the rails, but they have the freedom to do so. I have no problem assuming people are rational enough to make that choice themselves: “Hmm, there’s a groove on this street, my bike tire would fit in the groove, this might not be safe. Perhaps I should use a different route!” It’s not that complex people. Yes, the council was aware of a potential danger, but nearly anything comes with potential dangers. I’m sure ST is aware that someone could jump in front of a train and get hit, but that doesn’t mean they have to keep people off of the platforms and surround the tracks by 20′ fences. These are acceptable risks that are completely obvious to those at risk and I do not hold the council at fault for not spending the extra money to partially mitigate the risks (besides, center lane tracks are just as dangerous for bicyclists making left turns).
ST finally started putting up chain fences in the middle of the MLK ROW b/c of jaywalking, despite ST knowing it would be a problem as it has been in MANY other cities. SDOT put up signs after cyclists were either close to or getting injured by the tracks. The environmental report for the Link also said it’d be hitting a car every other week. We’ve had less than 10 incidents in nearly a year? The environmental report isn’t always correct. Who’s to say that people could have been vigilant, saving the city $100k in signs, and realize wheels get stuck in flangeways. But apparently people aren’t that bright. SDOT gambled and lost.
There are several large employers with large numbers of bicyclists in that area.
You’ve got Amazon.com with 150 riders, Fred Hutchison Center with 42, Vulcan with 20, NBBJ with 136, REI and others registered in the Group Health Challenge.
http://www.cbcef.org/btw/tracker/rank/organizations
So there are plenty of actual bicycle users of the streets in this area.
You won’t find thousands of cyclists who ride successfully between those tracks, because it’s dang dangerous. The issue is that SDOT created a hazard, was warned and ignored it. Whether they’ll have to pay isn’t clear, but judging from the design for the First Hill tracks, it’s plain that they agree it was a mistake.
Bad logic. The city may have made the correct decision to center-lane the First Hill Streetcar for any number of other reasons, such as avoiding getting the streetcar stuck behind stopped or parked vehicles, traffic calming, community preference, or just obsessive reading of this blog.
It certainly is not ad admission of fault.
As for bad logic, it’s certainly one that a lawyer would use in a suit like this. It puts the onus on SDOT to show that some other overriding reason is used for the location of the tracks.
From an outsider’s view point it may not matter. That’s what a lawsuit will show. A jury is likely to be swayed by this argument.
We can’t really prove if SDOT decided to ignore it or not. Nobody here knows what happened in SDOT or the design firm that made up the plans. I really doubt they sat there and though “fuck them cyclists, let get em!” as people seem to imply. (I guess this is for the courts to decide.) It is good that SDOT seems to have learned by putting up signs, a new corridor on 9th, and changing it’s design standards for FH-SLUT and future expansions.
It also helps that Broadway is a different sort of arterial that is much more narrow and quieter than Westlake Ave, sees much different land use, and has a close-knit community that does not mind lobbing off a lane for cyclists. People might flip if you said “lets take a lane off Westlake Ave”.
Ok, 348 riders isn’t too shabby. But to be fair, how many people go by foot, bus, car, vanpool, and train? It’d be interesting to see the distribution, actually.
There might not be proof SDOT willfully ignored the risk, but there’s plenty of evidence that they were informed of the risk, that they were informed of alternatives to reduce the risk (different track placement, different flangeway specs, different pavement treatments and signage, etc.) and that they did not decide to implement any of those risk reductions until after the tracks started causing life-threatening injuries.
Frankly, the SLUT suit has been inevitable since before the line opened, when the city chose not to implement any of the risk reduction alternatives presented to it.
One person complains and a bus stop stays. Two people complain and a bus keeps its serpentine route. Six people complain, the city has to spend millions more and gets scared of even bothering in the future.
It’d be nice to be able to present to the court signatures from the tens of thousands of cyclists who have ridden alongside, between, and across these tracks without incident.
To be fair, there are six plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit, which is only one of multiple lawsuits in the works over injuries caused by the tracks.
So, the burning question: should pedestrians be catered to with sidewalk SLUT platforms (screwing cyclists), or should cyclists with center island SLUT platforms (screwing pedestrians)?
Have you ever stood at that center-of-the-street platform SLUT station? It’s unnerving enough for me to never ride it, and I LOVE streetcars. Even with the beefy fence, it’s scary to have cars and buses whizzing by at 35mph. I’d feel a little more sorry for cyclists, but I feel a lot more helpless against cars as a pedestrian than I have ever felt as a cyclist. I also don’t have the added benefit of becoming a car or a pedestrian when ever I feel like it. Imagine how crappy it will be to stand in the middle of Westlake Ave up to Freemont. That road is even faster than Eastlake. Nowhere in the article does it mention cost of sidewalk vs. center platforms. Center’s are cheaper btw b/c you only need 1 platform and a smaller consturction footprint.
I do not believe these cyclists deserve a cent. It’s a risk you’re willing to take as a person moving from point A to B. And if you don’t realize your tire might get stuck in the rail, then that’s your own fault. Why should SDOT and the taxpayers have to pay for stupidity? And its even more mind blowing that the bus guy got $1.5 million for FALLING on a wet floor. I should be able to sue Washington State Unviersity for all the times I’ve fallen on the ice b/c their deicers aren’t working. Or the students that actually break their arms because of WSU’s ice issues. But there still hasn’t been a lawsuit.
Side platform streetcar stations and bikes can get along. The trick is to have a bike ROW around the back of the streetcar stop between the stop and the sidewalk. The other solution is a separate cycletrack like is planned for the First Hill Streetcar.
This lawsuit by the bicyclists is amazing. They plan to sit there in open court and proclaim that they are so stupid, so ignorant that they didn’t know they shouldn’t ride parallel to streetcar tracks??? Somebody ELSE (the taxpayers of course) are the ones responsible for their stupidity??
Did the City design invisible tracks for its streetcars, ones that cyclists cannot see to avoid? Nope; I see them every day. Even at night in the streetlights.
“Bad design” didn’t CAUSE these accidents, Gary, it was the cyclists’ ignorance or carelessness. Frivolous lawsuits like this help give trial lawyers a bad name.
Right. Have you even looked at the google map link that was posted in this discussion? The tracks cross the lanes at a less than optimal angle, giving a cyclist no chance to cross at a right angle without riding from the left lane into the right.
The tax payers, the cyclists themselves in an open public hearing told the city that to locate the tracks in the right hand lane was to invite accidents where auto traffic in the left lane forces the rider to move right, resulting in a fall. There was ample data from Portland which had a similar problem. The city chose to ignore this data, instead gambling that the cost savings by locating the tracks on the right would be less than the future lawsuits from accidents. It’s negligence on the cities behalf and unfortunately the cost will come from everybody instead of the pockets of the city council members who made this decision.
I honestly trust the design firms choice made on the Streetcar alignment. Anecdotal evidence from a bunch of cyclists at a public meeting does not impress or convince me. MY anecdotal evidence from observation of other cyclists in other cities (that most cyclists I know blow off) is that they deal with the inlaid tracks just fine w/o lawsuits or injuries.
No matter where the tracks are located, there will be an issue and somebody will find something to bitch about. BUT the cities choice benefited the most people overall, as it makes the streetcar more ped friendly and car friendly. Kinda sucks for the cyclsits, but not everyone can win and we need to do what is best for the most people.
Keep in mind MOST of Portlands streetcar is in the right-hand lane of 3 to 4-lane wide, one way couplets. The MAX runs in its own left-hand ROW but nothing else is allowed in it.
How about the design consultant’s own recommendation to the City that the tracks were so hazardous, bikes should be banned from the street?
Speaking of wasteful lawsuits…
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Woman-sues-Google-over-Utah-apf-3053507013.html?x=0&.v=5
I’m not privy to the details of this suit, but the cyclists might also point out that the City simultaneously published maps indicating the tracks were a preferred safe cycling route.
@Josh: The city’s bike maps show only three blocks of the SLUT route (between Valley & Harrison) being part of a “signed bike route”, the route being the one that directs riders over to 9th Ave. And according to the P-I, of the four intersections named in the lawsuit as particularly problematic, only one of them (Westlake & Valley) is in the overlapping area.
The map also notes, “You are the best judge of the most suitable streets for your needs based on your skill and fitness level, and on your comfort in different traffic situations”.
It’s true, the city has now altered its bike maps to account for the hazards it created with the rails.
It’s a bit surprising they didn’t do it sooner, since their own design consultant had suggested closing the street to cyclists entirely.
Looking at my 2003 city bike map, Westlake is not designated as a “street commonly used by bicyclists” (arterial or non), nor is it a signed bike route, nor does it have a bike lane. That area is a dead zone on the map, with Dexter to Bell in the west or Eastlake to Howell in the east as the only recommended streets through SLU for cyclists. Was there a version between 2003 and 2009 that showed Westlake as a preferred route?
And quite frankly closing the street to cyclists wouldn’t’ve done much in the way of preventing injuries. The number of folks I see riding the wrong way down one-way streets, or on the wrong side of a two-way street, closing a street would do little to prevent cyclists from riding on it, especially if it’s the most direct route. Of course, closing the street to cyclists might have gone a good way towards allowing the city to easily deny these plaintiffs any money, as they would’ve had to’ve wantonly disregarded the law to sustain their injuries. And yet I somehow imagine there’d still be lawsuits.
Mike:
I think you’re making a bit of an over-generalization. We’re not *all* whiners. Not all the time, anyway. I did whine a little bit this morning when I got rained on…
Here’s what I said to my wife this morning when we heard about the streetcar track lawsuit, «visualize me pointing at the floor with both hands» “Look! Tracks! Don’t ride on them!” Kinda like potholes, in my mind…
Otherwise, I agree with you. Where’s _my_ money? ;-)
Streetcars are nothing but an unbelievably stupid waste of millions of tax dollars.
What is the point? There is nothing better to spend that money on? Like maybe, improving bus service, for one example?
Streetcars have a few tangible advantages over buses:
1. Streetcars can have a higher capacity per operator. Of course this only helps if the density in the area is likely to push ridership high enough.
2. Streetcars tend to attract higher ridership than bus lines. There are a lot of theories on why this is but it is something to keep in mind.
3. Streetcars last longer than buses, even trolleybuses.
Do realize the First Hill Streetcar will be built because there is a dedicated pot of money for construction and operations.
I’d like to see the George Benson streetcar return with vintage cars once the waterfront is rebuilt. While it may not make “sense” from a pure transit perspective I believe there are enough benefits to justify bringing it back. As others have mentioned perhaps some operating model with LID, Port, and private funds can be found.
4. Economic Development.
Utter nonsense.
Look at all the economic development in Seattle and Bellevue in areas with zero streetcars.
This is an argument people use to support boondoggles like pro sports stadiums and little trains.
Sorry, Norman, but saying and hoping and wishing that something you don’t like is “utter nonsense” doesn’t make it so. The evidence of the economic development benefits derived from streetcars and fixed-rail transit in general is overwhelming. If you want to live in a bubble of denial, more power to you.
“Look at all the economic development in Seattle and Bellevue in areas with zero streetcars.”
This is perhaps the most fallacious claim you’ve made on this site. How on earth does the fact that economic development can occur without streetcars (duh) prove that streetcars don’t spur economic development? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
1. No, they don’t. Streetcars have about exactly the same capacity of a BRT-style articluated bus.
2. There is nothing to support this on the S.L.U.T. Some studies show that BRT-style buses attract more riders than “regular” buses, and those “sylized” buses attract just as many riders as trains — either streetcars or light rail.
3. Streetcars last longer, but cost about 4 times as much as buses. I would rather have a new bus every 15 years, than ride on a 35-year-old streetcar.
Also: The Tacoma streetcar, for example, costs much more to operate per revenue hour than buses do.
1. This really depends on the vehicle, but the capacity of the Portland, SLUT, and Tacoma Link cars is somewhat higher than say the New Flyer coaches used by SWIFT and RapidRide. Other makes and models can have even higher capacity. Depending on the model multiple cars can be coupled together as well.
2. I wasn’t referring specifically to SLUT which will see ridership pick up as Amazon moves in. The studies are there to show rail attracts more riders than buses. While there are things one can do to make buses more attractive it isn’t proven that you can replicate the rail bias of choice riders simply with fancy paint on a bus.
Another benefit, streetcars don’t randomly (at least from the rider’s perspective)change routes midway through. I’ve had that unfortunate experience on buses several times and it really turns me off to riding routes I’m not super familiar with. It’s really annoying to get halfway through the route and hear “Oh yeah, I’m going on I-5 now, so this is the last stop on 15th” or “Everyone off, I’m turning around” despite the fact that the route would normally proceed on a completely different course. Yes, I know why Metro does that (peak load balancing, part time drivers, etc) and I know that it’s in the detailed schedule, but the fact remains that I can’t get on a 71 and conclusively determine that it will be going to my destination, whereas with rail vehicles I can a) see EXACTLY where it’s going by looking at the steel ribbons and b) know that it cannot deviate from that course, at worse being forced to stop/loop back at a crossover midway due to a track issue.
Red herring. On the little streetcar routes in Seattle, this would not be a factor.
In fact, this is not a common problem whatsoever on Metro routes. That has never happened to me on the #2 or #13, which are trolley buses. They could use trolley buses on the S.L.U.T and proposed Capital Hill trolley routes, so your “problem” would not even be possible.
You are comparing about 4 different types of service:
Express bus with alternate routing: common in King County, take a look at the 48X or 17X or many other routes. This is very confusing in my opinion. I would prefer that they give the express route a different number, like they split the 74 into 30 (local) and 74 (express) a few years ago.
Trolley bus: current system is great but needs replacing; any new routes like the SLU streetcar at least require new overhead wire, and for comparable service would also need stations with ticket machines and curb bulbs, both of which are expensive. We’re actually getting a few curb bulbs in Belltown which serve some ETBs: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/tpci_belltown.htm
BRT: Seattle has no BRT and none is proposed, though RapidRide could be considered “BRT lite”. I’m definitely looking forward to the D (Ballard) and E (Aurora) lines in a few years, but they won’t be anywhere as nice as, for example, Guangzhou’s level boarding BRT.
streetcar: Seattle and Tacoma have one short route each; a full network as approved in principle by the Seattle City Council would bring efficiencies of scale in maintenance. To be honest it’s not clear to me that streetcars are a great capital investment vs new modern low-floor trolley buses or other improvements either, but I enjoy riding the SLU streetcar and they are definitely the hot thing in planning and development right now. Check out this gushing pamphlet aimed at planners for example:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/090305streetcarbook
Metro had that chance for a quite a few decades. Investment is better spent on capital projects now.
As for the Metro stair lawsuit, was Metro’s sole argument seriously that their stairs are non-skid and their buses are well-maintained? If I were on that jury, I’d’ve called BS on that claim too.
Ride an LA, San Fran, San Diego, or NYC bus. Our buses are emmaculate compared to theirs. San Fran’s buses are just…horrid.
Oh I dunno. I ride on NYC’s Bx12 quite frequently and think it’s quite clean. It’s also one of the busiest bus lines here with 45k average daily riders.
OTOH, maybe because the rest of the Bronx is so full of garbage the buses seem clean in comparison… :-)
I think something can still be made of the Experience Streetcar Project. However, I hope the lesson is learned that tracks in general-purpose traffic mean the streetcar is slow, tracks along the sidewalk mean the streetcar grinds to a halt when anyone (including emergency vehicles) stop on the tracks, and that middle-lane tracks can have safe bike crossings at intersections.
Let me emphasize this point: In order for a streetcar to have dedicated right-of-way (as I hope all future Seattle streetcars do), it has to run down the middle of the street.
The problem is many Seattle streets simply don’t have room to provide dedicated ROW for a streetcar. Look at the plans for Broadway and the First Hill Line. The streetcar shares ROW with general-purpose traffic.
First Avenue, Eastlake, and the U District all would face similar problems with constrained ROW. The only line with any chance of getting mostly dedicated ROW would be the Fremont/Ballard line between SLU and Fremont as well as between Fremont and Ballard.
“In order for a streetcar to have dedicated right-of-way (as I hope all future Seattle streetcars do), it has to run down the middle of the street.”
Have you ever been to San Jose, CA? They seem able to run their light rail through the downtown on the sidewalk side of the street as a dedicated ROW.
Do the emergency vehicles park in the middle of the street?
Probably depends on the type of emergency. Sidewalks are fairly wide there, so can be used by police and ambulances. The tracks are a couplet (a block apart) so they can always run both directions on the one track, if there was a major emergency. That’s one of the benefits of a couplet.
As beautiful weather is allegedly just around the corner, I’m wondering if any folks here would like to share favorite hikes Seattleites can easily reach via transit. Looking for ideas beyond the basic urban hikes at places like Camp Long, Golden Gardens, Carkeek, Discovery, Seward, Kubota, Mercer Slough, Madrona, Leschi, or the Arboretum. Thanks in advance…
MT 209 to Snoqualmie Falls or (almost) Mt. Si. You could also use it to get to the Preston-Snoqualmie trail in Preston or the Snoqualmie Valley trail in Snoqualmie. Use ST 554, 555 or 556 to transfer to 209 at Issaquah TC.
The Sammamish River trail can be easily accessed from Redmond TC (ST 545). You can access the Power Line trail or the Tolt Pipeline trail from the river trail to the north of Redmond.
Hike Metro!! http://sites.google.com/site/seattlemetrobushiking/main-page
thanks to you both!
This is wonderful, thanks. Now I know what I’ll be doing this summer. I used to ride all of Metro’s routes to see where they went, but after seeing one to many suburban developments on 30 mph arterials, I rarely leave the city now. But it looks like there are quite a few transit-accessible parks I’ve never seen.
Warning: the bus routes at the site are out of date. The 194 and another one somewhere don’t exist anymore. But on a happier note, I saw that the 181 now has half-hour service to Auburn.
For more distant travels, check out the connections from the WSF via Kitsap, Jefferson and Clallam Transit to Olympic Park.
All these comments make me very sad. How can you scoff at someone who got horribly injured because of the tracks? One of the people suing broker her jaw. I think you’re allowed to whine when you break your jaw.
Cyclists and transit activists need to show some solidarity. Don’t go attacking cyclists the second they stand up for what they see as an avoidable injury caused by dangerous (no quotes) streetcar tracks.
What commenters here are ignoring:
1. To those pointing to how “obvious” the danger of the tracks are. I am sure these people who were injured are well aware of that now. But when you are first encountering these tracks, you do not really know the best way to deal with them. I am not going to fall on them because I (luckily) safely navigated them the first time. But at first I was thoroughly confused about where to ride (now I just take the left lane and let the cars behind me get angry and frustrated. It’s the only safe way). I was surprised and confused when the tracks took up the right lane. We are NOT used to riding in the left lane, and it is still not clear how to safely navigate this street on a bike. When you are riding in rush hour traffic and you have to make a split-second decision to change lanes to avoid the tracks, that may not be an option.
2. What about new bikers? Or what about former mountain bike or cruiser bike riders with new road bikes who are not completely aware that their new bike tires can fit in the tracks? They should just break their jaws and toughen up?
3. It is not unreasonably to assume that if one street needs to be navigated in a drastically different manor than every other street in the city, the city would make sure that was VERY clear.
4. In the rain or at night, it may be more difficult to figure out where the tracks are going and how best to avoid them.
They didn’t sue until the city was unresponsive to their requests that it pay their medical bills. In our society, lawsuit is often the only way to make things change. If the result of this lawsuit is that the city throws down some paint or more signs (the “tracks are dangerous” signs they have now do not give a clear alternative, and I see people riding right down the middle of them all the time, which is insanely dangerous if you do not have fat tires), then that would be a good thing. I can’t imagine why a transit person would be against the city giving clear direction so cyclists avoid a life-threatening crash.
If you are going sit here and preach the expansion of transit, then you have to be willing to preach responsibility when someone is unnecessarily hurt by the expansion of said transit. Don’t attack the victim because their experience does not mesh with the transit system you think/wish you have.
Bikes and transit are in this together. Show some solidarity and work with bikes. Don’t get angry at the lawsuit when the problem is still not fixed.
I do believe that transit and bikes go together. Also cars and pedestrians. Each one compliments the other in a different manners. I’d love to see more bike and ped infrastructure, like the proposed Ballard Ped Bridge. Cycling or even walking across the existing bridge is scary as f***. Or lobbing a lane off 5th and 6th in DT for cyclists and peds (as San Fran has done). The cycle track proposed on the FH-SLUT is bloody brilliant and it works very well in other parts of the world. The conversation nobody wants to have is where do we draw the line between rational cyclist demands, pedestrian demands, and rational local and regional transit demands? That bridge I mentioned will cost $50-100 million. Is it the best use of the money? Hell no. But it makes our lives easier and will remove a nasty chokepoint while greatly improve regional interconnectivity.
IMO it just seems like another greedy lawsuit. If I biked into a parked car, the driver wouldn’t be expected to pay me money. It’s my own fault for hitting the car. If I hit the PUD’s telephone pole or one of SDOTs parking things, I’m SOL. It sucks ass that the cyclist broke there jaw, but that’s part of living and risk taking. Statistically, I’m far more likely to get hurt in my car that ANYTHING else that I do. The line between personal responsibility and negligance seems to be very fuzzy these days. Like the McDonalds coffee lawsuit, it just seems like someone is trying to negate themselves from personal responsbility for screwing up and making a bunch of money. You know the tracks are there, you can SEE them. They’re even laid in a different color of pavement. Shouldn’t that be a reasonable enough clue? And cyclists always have to pay attention to everything because it’s so dangerous, so why weren’t they paying attention to the embedded rails? Or taking an alternate route?
Maybe that’d be a good article for STB to write on. Balancing the needs and demands of cyclist, peds, cars, and transit.
I would love to read that post, too. And I agree that, clearly, there are limited funds and they need to go to solutions that will do the most good. But I think safety is always #1. Maybe someone could go back to Streetcar 101 and explain how putting in streetcar tracks at the detriment to bicycle safely is a good thing. To anyone looking at a map, trying to figure out a bike route for the first time, Westlake is the obvious choice whether you are travelling north on the east or west side of the lake. But the decision was made to make this route dangerous for bikers and just push them onto 9th, which is a route a beginning cyclist would not figure out the first time out. Even Google’s bike directions used to route people down Westlake until I “reported” the issue and they fixed it (my point being that it is, indeed, the obvious-looking route).
Learning all the dangers of road surfaces is something bikers often have to learn the hard way. For example, the tracks on Shilshole in the Ballard missing link snare cyclists all the time, and they have been there for quite a while. It is reasonable for a cyclist to assume that they were considered when these modern streetcar tracks were designed, and that dangers had been mediated.
Example: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=westlake+and+6th+ave&sll=47.613905,-122.337511&sspn=0.000545,0.0011&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westlake+Ave+%26+6th+Ave,+Seattle,+King,+Washington+98101&ll=47.613958,-122.33749&spn=0.000545,0.0011&t=h&z=20
Image you are a biker who just turned into the left lane on 6th Ave and are headed northwest. There are no bicycle markings on this streets (though there are always bikers, as there is a bike lane once you cross Westlake). You are riding in the left lane (since you turned left onto the street and there is car traffic). As you approach Westlake, you see the bike lane on the far right side. In order to get over there, you have to cross the curved track at an angle that is very dangerous. If your tire gets stuck, your body is thrown, potentially into traffic.
Sure, with hindsight you can see that you could have waited until you were across the tracks to change lanes, or you could have made sure you were in the right lane on 6th to begin with. But this scenario illustrates an example where typical bike riding + tracks = potentially deadly situation.
I don’t think (most) bikers are saying “get rid of the trolley.” But the signage is still unclear and the tracks are still dangerous. I don’t know all the details of this particular lawsuit, but if it gets the city to just add some more signage and/or paint to make these tracks safe for bikes, then I support them. The city has had years to do this, and they have not done an adequate job. I doubt what I’m asking for is all that expensive.
I understand your analogy to the telephone poles and parking meters, but those are not in the roadway. Bikers know to expect them on the sidewalk, so that argument does not exactly apply here. If PUD put a telephone pole in the middle of the street and a biker or car hit it, damn straight they should be sued.
Coffee is always hot. Streets rarely have streetcar tracks. Again, that situation does not apply here.
Here’s a good way to link what bikes need to what transit people are used to: The city needs to make signs and visual cues that every person can immediately and easily understand. These are a start: http://media.oregonlive.com/commuting/photo/biketracksjpg-cf76a892fdcffecb_medium.jpg But they don’t suggest a way to ride that avoids this conclusion. It really just kind of scares the hell out of you.
But, on first glance, what is this sign even saying? http://www.flickr.com/photos/tfooq/4664216714/
At first, the X looks like it is saying you can’t ride on the trolley tracks (which you need to do to cross them…). Then, if read English, you see that it is really just saying to be careful. But it does nothing to tell you how to avoid danger, and it does not even clarify what sorts of action are particularly dangerous (crossing at angles < 60 degrees or so).
Transit people are used to making signs that are incredibly easy to understand. That is the kind of thinking the signage and design around the tracks needs. Instead of scoffing at the biker, let's try to figure out a solution so we don't have any more broken jaws and shattered elbows.
At first, the X looks like it is saying you can’t ride on the trolley tracks (which you need to do to cross them…).
That is such an absurdly ridiculous statement I can’t believe you could possibly be serious. If you’re on the road, you should know what roadsigns mean, and the crossbuck with RR is the universal sign for an at-grade railroad crossing. That sign is indeed ridiculous—there should simply be an at-grade crossing sign with a “Bikes use extreme caution” sign below it. But to suggest that the crossbuck is somehow confusing is like saying a red octagonal sign or a yellow triangle are confusing.
I know what the damn crossbuck sign means. But it doesn’t usually have a bike on it.
If you are riding with traffic and you see that sign out of the corner of your eye, you see bike + big X. That is confusing, and you may not have time to sit there and decipher that, “oh, it is saying that there is an at-grade railroad crossing, and the bike is there because… i guess they felt the need to REALLY point that out to me versus anyone else on the road.”
These signs are really important. They need to be instantly and unmistakably clear.
Also, there are bikers in Seattle who don’t read English. Their safety is important, too.
FWIW, I generally agree with your point that signs should be simple, and signs within signs are apparently confusing to a lot of folks. For example, I constantly see people stop at those new “Stop here for pedestrians” signs even when there are no pedestrians in sight. It makes me marvel that “Stop Ahead” signs don’t cause more accidents.
I know what you mean about those. At least they urge people to stop more often, rather than less often, I guess.
I have often wondered if people see the little icons of the people on the crosswalk sign and unconsciously stop because of them…
When those signs are by trees, people may be stopping because they can’t tell if there is a person behind the tree or not. I am thinking of the one in Wallingmont at 45th and Midvale. It’s nice that people err on the side of safety, though.
A friend of mine figures people stop because they’ve been trained to stop when they see a stop sign, and they don’t bother to distinguish between a stop sign per se and a representation of one within another sign. Which makes some sense, but in the SLUT signs I think the effect is opposite. If there were just a standard crossbuck and a “bikes use caution” sign, the meaning would be easily understood. But since it’s a miniature crossbuck sign being used as some sort of rebus in a larger sign, it takes much longer to parse. Which, I agree, is not a good thing.
As a cyclist, one needs to be aware of the inherent dangers and risks that you take on when you get on a two wheeled “vehicle”. I don’t care if you’re a novice or an experienced CAT 1 racer, you need to ride with the utmost caution.
When you come across tracks (or any hazard for that matter) that are unexpected, in what handbook does it say that you need to continue moving forward on your bike? Dismount (where appropriate) and walk around the hazard, or find a new way to your destination if you feel uncomfortable. A bike != a car with four wheels and you cannot treat it as such.
While I do not find this a valid argument, there are many other cities in the US that have similar issues (I’m thinking Philly and Portland off the top of my head) and it clearly works there with no problems. Why people here cannot grasp this concept is beyond me.
Last year, I face planted (photo proof if anyone wants it :)) and it was completely my fault for not handling the situation I was in properly. My front tire went off the sidewalk on a trail and I did not cut hard enough to get back on, and that 1 inch lip is more than enough to kick the tire out from underneath you. Did I sue the city? Shit no, that was *MY* fault for being reckless.
This is common sense, but clearly its not all that common these days. What a frivolous lawsuit and I hope that it gets thrown out.
They are an issue in Portland: http://bikeportland.org/2010/06/01/in-seattle-bike-crashes-on-streetcar-tracks-lead-to-lawsuit/
“One thing’s for sure. Bike crashes on rail tracks are issue of concern to many people in Portland.
In April 2008, 1,520 people completed the “Bike and Transit” survey conducted by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance.
Over 67% of respondents said they’ve had a bike crash on streetcar or light trail tracks and 36% said they agreed with a statement that the expansion of street “will degrade existing bicycle routes.” Of those survey respondents who labeled themselves as a “learning or timid” bike rider, 63% said they were worried about falling on tracks (compared to 50% overall).”
My point is that, whether you want these cyclists to win their lawsuit or not, we should all agree that they are dangerous as they are now and that the city (and transit enthusiasts should help!) should make signage and visual cues as clear as possible.
More bikers means less cars meant transit is more likely to be on time and be dependable. We’re all on the same team here.
“…like the proposed Ballard Ped Bridge. Cycling or even walking across the existing bridge is scary as f***.”
Ever since Lucy the Safeway Lady got killed while walking over the Ballard Bridge, I have avoided walking over it. I take the bus, much as I’d like to continue my walk.
She was killed when a ladder fell off a truck. You could be killed that way just as easily on any sidewalk, or in a car, or on a bike.
I don’t quite remember the Ballard Bridge sidewalk but I think it’s pretty narrow, plus you have to cross the busy exit lane at Emerson.
Even more scary is the Aurora Bridge. The sidewalk is too narrow to ride on without worrying about car mirrors hitting you, or one wrong move making you fall off the sidewalk. And the car lanes are too fast to feel safe biking in.
Mike, have you been on the Aurora sidewalk since they added the railing between the sidewalk and the traffic a few years back? Before the railing, it seemed like whenever a big truck went by you were going to get sucked into the traffic by its wake. I haven’t ridden on it in probably 15 years, but it certainly felt much safer when walking. (And with the suicide fence going in, you soon won’t have to worry about falling over the other side either.)
The last time was when I lived in Ballard in 2003. I got rid of my bike after that.
If you bike or drive into the back of an illegally parked car that presented an unusual hazard, you certainly can pursue a claim against the car’s owner.
If you drive into a PUD power pole that’s in the clear space along side the road without proper hazard warning markers, yes you can pursue damages against the PUD for creating an unusual hazard.
People are not free to put whatever hazards they want onto the roadway.
I mostly agree, and would like to add that the only reason this became a problem in the first place is that the SLU line was built very quickly with pretty minimal planning or coordination.
Neither Fairview nor Westlake were reconfigured the way that Broadway will be for the First Hill Streetcar, which will be much better. Additionally the Lake Union Park and now Mercer construction makes things even more complicated. I have some hope that Westlake Ave will be corrected someday, but for now I recommend heading up the hill on Eastlake by the Hutch, or for a flatter ride cutting over to the now-posted route to downtown at 9th Ave N/Bell St/7th Ave.
On the way north, the streetcar actually operates in the left lane on Terry Ave N so you can actually ride comfortably in the right lane from John St to the lake, but there’s not really any good way to connect to that route from downtown (no signalled crossing at Denny).
The line was built “fast” because Vulcan which owned enough of the property to guarantee a local taxing district vote would pass, pushed to get it done. They wanted it for their building tenants.
However there were public hearings beforehand, the issue with the tracks was identified in those meetings by Cascade Bike Club among others, and the information was discarded.
Pleading speed of execution fails.
What about man holes, drains, curbs, trees, pedestrians, parked cars, speed bumps, street lights, monorail beams, bushes, wet grass, dog poop, broken glass, etc etc.
Should bicyclists sue over every obstacle they encounter or should they accept the fact that riding their bike at high speeds includes a little risk? Sorry, but I think this lawsuit is ridiculous.
If the placement of permanent city structures are negligent and cause unnecessary and avoidable harm to a biker, then yes, bikers should do whatever they can to urge the city to make them safe. If that means lawsuits, then so be it (I would hope the city would just fix the problems without it coming to that). Drain covers with slots that run parallel to the road and are wide enough to catch a bike tire almost killed my friend. He didn’t sue, but the fact that they remain is dangerous and negligent (I see more and more replaced as time goes on, which is great. Sometimes, people have made their own fixes to them by bolting on their own horizontal metal plates on them).
The rest of what you named does not apply in any way to this situation.
Bikers of course have to accept the risks associated with their riding, but they don’t need to accept unnecessary and unexpected risk that could be easily solved by the city.
Unnecessary is much different than unexpected. You should always expect the unexpected (a pot hole that wasn’t there one day that all of the sudden showed up the next, for example). The city cannot address everything immediately.
Signs or no signs, these tracks are a known for anyone who lives in the city (if your a tourist and brought your bike, good on you and I’m sorry you encountered this). Even if you weren’t aware there were tracks on a particular street, you LIVE IN A CITY with various obstacles and hazards.
I know we’re all on the same page, but why are some people trying to make excuses for these people? We’re enabling them to not be responsible. Should I go about suing car owners for when their car gets broken into and now there’s glass on the road that pop my tires? Should I sue a construction company every time I drive over a nail on the road in my car? Unless these roads are a closed circuit where there are no external variables, the unexpected should be expected.
No some of us want those who make poor decisions, that endanger others, held accountable. Otherwise, the same poor decisions will continue to be made and more streets will become bicycle unfriendly.
As has been discussed in other places on this blog, a bicycle is a great first and last mile connection to transit tool. It’s inexpensive to own, operate, and can be healthy for the user.
South Lake Union is designated to be an office park area with some residential units. Westlake is the main throughfare from Freemont to downtown Seattle, and thus it made no sense to make it more dangerous than necessary with the placement of these tracks.
Agreed on the “expected the unexpected” front. Definitely. There are a lot of variables in cities.
I would suggest that these tracks did not just fall off a construction truck. If that construction worker drew up plans, went into the street and placed that nail there on purpose, then yes, that worker/company should be held liable when it bursts your car or bike tire.
These tracks were planned, bicycle rider concerns were voiced publicly, and were ignored. Signage is still not adequate. People have gotten/are getting hurt. Changes need to be made. Regardless of whether you want these selfish cyclists with shattered elbows to get their money, I just hope we can agree that there is a problem and support a solution. If it takes a lawsuit to get it to the city’s attention, then yes, I am for it.
I wasn’t here when the SLUS was in its planning stages, but did anyone speak up then? (Cascade Bicycle Club, for instance) If not, then it [the SLUS] is what it is. We have urban planners who aren’t necessarily well-versed when it comes to biking in the city and they could benefit to have someone raise these concerns when they’re in the planning stage.
So move forward and make sure the same mistakes aren’t made, however, don’t go suing people or the city or DOT over the current state of affairs. It’s such a waste of money and resources and no wonder the city has to make cuts wherever possible. AND find another route to get to where you’re going, as joshuadf pointed out. There is more than one street in this city!
TomF, thanks for the feedback in regards to the planning. Since I don’t know the entire history, I can only go on from what I’ve quickly read here.
So there was a huge gap in communication when this was being planned, but I still stand by my point in my previous response. Move forward and make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.
Yes, there was public testimony about the risks of the tracks, and some of the alternatives that could reduce the risks. Alternatives included different layouts, different flangeway gap configurations, use of compressible flangeway gap filler in the most hazardous crossings, pavement markings, signage, clear alternative bike routes, and more.
The city didn’t implement any of those until after the predicted injuries began to materialize in significant numbers.
If the city installs a manhole in a way that creates an unusual hazard, then yes, cyclists have and will sue over it.
The precedent has been there for a century or more that bicycles are intended users of city streets and municipal officials must consider bicycles when creating a hazard on the streets.
If you report a drain grate with tire-grabbing slots to the City of Seattle, they’re sufficiently aware of their liability that they usually have it fixed in days. (If they can’t replace the grate, they can weld cross-straps on to keep tires out.)
Property owners are legally liable for overgrown trees and bushes, dog owners are legally liable for disposal of waste, car owners are legally responsible for safely parking their cars, etc.
The City’s effort to shirk responsibility when creating hazards for the general public is nothing new, selfish people try to avoid responsibility for the hazards they create all the time. And the courts are full of cases making the people who created the hazards responsible for the damages they caused.
The City had already lost at least one lawsuit over cyclist injuries at oblique rail crossings without flangeway gap filler or warning signs, before the SLUT design process even began. So it’s not like the City somehow thought it wasn’t liable for creating that sort of hazard.
The City’s own consultants identified the hazards in pre-design reviews, and considered them so grave that the street should be entirely closed to cycling when the tracks went in. So it’s not like the City somehow thought the tracks weren’t going to be dangerous.
The City had public testimony about alternatives that would reduce the dangers, both design changes and warning signs. So it’s not like the City somehow had no alternative to the design that was built.
The City chose to recreate a hazard for which it had already been found liable elsewhere, knew that it was creating this hazard, and opted not to mitigate the hazard.
How significant is the deterioration of the South Park Bridge? Could it possibly, with a bit of remediation, at least stay open for Bikes and Peds?
I’m not going to bother to find links, but my recollection is that federal law requires all drawbridges to be operable. The issue with the South Park Bridge is not the weight of the stuff on top; it’s that shifting soil can make it so that the bridge could get stuck in either the up or down position. Given the federal laws, the only legal option the county has is to either fix it or tear it down. And they don’t have the money or time to fix it, so down it must come.
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks, but that’s a bummer.
It looks like the marina just to the south on the bridge and the Duwamish Yacht club are the only reason needs to ever open.
Maybe a threat of a hefty tax on the yacht club would mitigate some of the expense.
I believe there is a turn around for freighters using the Duamish that is south of the bridge. Doesn’t matter if it’s just pleasure craft or not. It’s a navigable water way and federal law requires that access be preserved. If there’s anyone to “tax” it would be in the form of a toll on the bridge users.
Wait a minute – “a hefty tax on the yacht club” because they’re using the waterway consistent with the law, and King County owns an obstacle that can’t be trusted to operate consistent with the law.
Seems to me there is NO reason to place any responsibility or blame, or added expense on the yacht club. If King County thinks they’d save money by purchasing all the up river owner’s navigation rights – they can certainly try that approach.
But your notion that there is any onus to be placed on the entities that are legally operating, compared to the entity that can’t, is just…plain…wrong.
Purchasing the navigation rights is an interesting idea, but it still won’t stop the bridge from collapsing under its own weight, since the pedestals have already deteriorated very significantly.
Laws are written, and funding decisions made, by and large, by members of yacht clubs, not poor immigrants in South Park.
Convenient, that.
They can leave it open, which is what they’ll do at closure.
I remember seeing a large computer screen in the side of a building by a bus stop in downtown Seattle somewhere a few months back that did a really good job of showing when the next bus will be arriving – but I haven’t been able to find it since then. Does anyone know what this is, where it is, and if it is gone, where it went?
It is on Third and Cherry in the Dexter Horton Building. I’m not sure if it is still there.
I think it’s still there. I’ll try to remember to check it when I head home tonight.
It’s still there, but it wasn’t on when I went by (doesn’t necessarily mean it deactivated though).
Could somebody with some experience in Europe contribute some perspective and experience here? It seemed to me that in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, people commonly ride bicycles in lanes with grooved streetcar rail without safety problems.
What are either street rail designers or bicyclists over their doing that we could imitate?
Mark Dublin
Well for one thing, frivolous lawsuits seem to be much less common. So that helps.
I think not having to worry about medical care seems to make most law suits unnecessary.
It seems like there are a number of differences. For one, Europeans seem more comfortable with giving up car space for dedicated bike facilities. This blog post shows a “complete street” in Zurich: the bike lane is separated from the three(!) tram lines by a station and a car lane. Then again, in Edinburgh they seem to do things the Seattle way, with comparable results.
This page from an English cycling group shows all the outreach that was done prior to the opening of Nottingham’s tram lines to make cyclists aware of the dangers, and to let them know of alternatives. The “To avoid tram tracks follow this route to city centre” signs seem like an idea that Seattle could imitate without much trouble.
It also seems like cruisers, with their fatter tires, are more popular in Europe than road bikes.
I also wonder if older tram systems might be more likely to run down the center of the street (a la Toronto), thus avoiding conflicts with cyclists without the need for dedicated cycling facilities.
You can see bicycles, light rail, pedestrains and buses all working well at this very busy intersection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
Note that the bicycles are in their own lane, they cross the tracks at a 90degree angle, and they have crossing lights to help with a busy intersection.
And all the bicycles are not using fat tires either.
That video highlights another difference. I can think of few roads in Seattle that could fit all that stuff on them. For all the narrow and winding alleys of Europe, most major cities also have large avenues and boulevards that allow for dedicated bike, car, tram, bus and pedestrian ROWs. Oh, how bikeable Seattle could be if we underwent a Haussmann renovation!
It mainly depends on what you value, moving people or cars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbQNz-3A4w
shows more rides around this city. They have a number of dedicated paths which make cycling a reasonable way to get around town.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgo1lP1sQPw
notice, they ride in the rain and snow. It’s what a city like ours could look like.
Oh my! In Eurpoe the bicyclist actually stop at red lights and yield at the yield symbols on the pavement.
In Seattle they would be running into each other and those buses wouldn’t have been slamming on their brakes to aviod those bikes running that red light.
I know there are bicyclist that follow the rules, but there are some many that don’t. They forget that riding in the street means they are required follow the same rules as cars. SPD must have forgot that too….because I never see a bicyclist get hassled for cutting running a red light or almost mowing down a ped in the crosswalk.
A driver has to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and wait until they have cleared their half of the road before proceeding.
Are bicyclists required to stop at the crosswalk? And do they have a smaller ‘field’ that they can wait to clear before they proceed?
I tried to ask a bicyclist that the other day.
@Jim Cusick: The RCW explicitly includes bicycles in its definition of a vehicle, and the code on stopping for bikes and peds in crosswalks simply says “vehicles” must stop, with no exception for bicycles.
But when’s the last time you saw a driver who has stopped get ticketed for starting to move again before a ped was completely out of “within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling … [including] the entire width of a one-way roadway.” Cars generally get away with resuming transit once the ped is a couple feet past them, and I’d assume most cops would give bikes the same leeway, which is to say that they do have a de facto (tho not de jure) smaller field that needs to clear before they can proceed.
Andreas,
I’m just asking the question. Seems like a bicycle could ‘cut it closer’ so to speak, since the space occupied and the speeds involved give more leeway, without the pedestrian feeling endangered.
In my case, I was asking the bicyclist who was going by in the 5 foot space between the sidewalk my family and I were headed towards, while in the crosswalk.
She must have been in a hurry, since she said nothing.
City planners there actually care a little bit about cyclists there so they don’t place tracks in such a way as to purposely catch cyclists (SDOT knew about the issue and blew it off anyway). People still fall on the tracks, of course, (in Amsterdam track falls are a major source of bike repair biz for at least one mechanic I know of) but the positives of riding in a place with major bike love outweighs such negatives.
In the US you have the worst of both worlds – lousy infrastructure (Dexter bike lanes in door zones, etc), terrible transportation culture (crappy drivers going solo in 5000lb vehicles *designed* to kill peds, cyclists and small car drivers, a legal framework that considers cyclists as sub-human), and now bike-eating streetcar tracks too. Whee!
As far as I’m concerned since the streetcar went in SLU is a no-bike area. When I go down there I go as Seattle intended me to – in my car.
Work hard enough with your cyclist-hating “frivolous lawsuit” comments and maybe you convince me to give in and trade in the car for an Expedition next, sigh. Y’all enjoy paying for *my* externalities, hear?
Wow. Could your last paragraph be more childish?
Thanks! You think most folks ask a planner when they decide which mode to use? “Childish” is exactly what I was trying to channel there. It’s the kind of thinking that real people use when they’re making life and death decisions like whether to bike or drive. Which is why Seattle has about a 3% bike mode share compared about 10 times that in Copenhagen or Amsterdam.
For one thing, many European streetcar systems use rails with a much narrower flange gap, so there’s less chance of trapping bicycle or wheelchair tires to begin with.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s now June and we have yet to see April Link ridership estimates. Are we finally to the point where we’re only going to see numbers with the regular quarterly reports?
Let us hope so. Enough of the gnashing of teeth about a system that hasn’t even live 1% of its life yet.
You missed a few relevant stories at the Beacon Hill Blog this week. Opinion: Pedestrian crossing at Beacon and Lander demands attention is one — one of our neighbors went out and took video of the craptastic pedestrian conditions around Beacon Hill Link Station, and compared it to other Link stations.
I’m not gonna link to the other because I don’t want to trigger the spam filter, but if you scroll down the main Beacon Hill Blog page you’ll see “Further information on parking lot proposal near Link stations” which is about the proposal to allow temporary lots next to stations such as Beacon Hill. I would imagine that folks here would have some opinion on this! There is a North Beacon Hill Council meeting tomorrow where a DPD rep will come to talk about this proposal. Those interested should consider being there.
Since this is an open thread, I thought I’d throw a train system here in the Seattle area that works really well and has done so for over 40 years here with hardly a whimper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Transit_System
I completely forgot about the SeaTac Airport trains until I took a flight to LA last week and had the pleasure of taking the train. I didn’t realize that the length of the system is about the same as the SLU Streetcar, but has 21 trains! Of course, these trains come every 2 minutes. This is one of the nicer ones in the US and compares to many of those in the world, especially for speed.
The previous ones were quite interesting in that they came from the original developer of this people-mover, Westinghouse (mergers and acquisitions have brought this technology to Bombardier) and those cars really did resemble the Pittsburgh Sky Bus prototypes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpS5ess9VNc
http://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Facts/Skybus.html
OK, I’m officially p.o.ed. The lawyers…err cyclists suing about street car tracks should all be stripped of their bikes and forced to drive a car for the rest of their lives. I commuted by bike for years and only once, due to my own fault, got tangled up in a rail road track. Streetcars (and buses) should serve the curb lane as often as possible, if you are riding a bike and can’t occupy the 4 foot 8 1/2″ space between the flangeways THEN RIDE ON ANOTHER STREET. And if you can’t take the tracks at an angle, then ride something with four wheels. Don’t give me crap about design, and “we weren’t consulted” because you were, this is Seattle and things like this are discussed until the weight of the meeting notes exceeds that of what we are building.
The city should counter sue the cyclists for delaying the street car while picking them selves up from their own stupidity.
BTW, I live along the “missing link” in Ballard and often ride my bike to Fremont. Again, no problem with a rail road track that’s been here longer than any of us. I’m against the current design of the extension of the Burke Gillman for the simple reason highlighted by the current lawsuit…bicyclists and no one else can get along…not even with a train with a big locomotive and 3 car train(actually a small switch engine operating at less than 10 miles an hour on FRA excepted track [look it up!]) so don’t build the extension anywhere near the existing rail line…PERIOD
And yes, these (and many other bike riders) are whiners of the first degree. Problem is, bikes should be part of the solution but until they can bring their brains to the table, bikers are part of the problem (just like car drivers).
To quote Josh Cohen over at Publicola, quoting David Hiller.
Cascade Bicycle Club’s David Hiller says with the 9th Ave. bike lanes and planned “woonerf” on Terry Ave., “Westlake is done, it’s water under the bridge at this point. We just want to expedite the construction of Terry. With Terry and 9th there are a sufficient number of routes, but we wish everything had been better thought out to begin with.”
http://www.publicola.net/2010/06/02/streetcar-lawsuit-highlights-need-for-better-planning/#more-40993
I agree. Westlake is pretty much done for now. Would we really prefer the city spend it’s money defending against frivolous lawsuits instead of say… making sure the FHSC gets done right? Or the improvements to Terry or Nickerson?
Any links for the plans to Terry?
Isn’t the SLUT on Terry too?
Don’t have time to go through it right now, but maybe here:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/TerryAveFinal4-5-05.pdf
Since the City ignored its own design consultants as well as public testimony in creating the hazards that caused these injuries, no, I don’t think the city should waste money on frivolous defenses.
It would cost taxpayers a lot less money to simply admit errors were made, pay reasonable medical expenses for the injured, and remediate the risk the best they can.
Rewarding stupidity only results in more people coming to the trough to ‘get theirs.’ If people choose to ignore the signs and common sense then that is their own fault, not the cities.
Go ahead, ride Westlake, jam your bicycle tire into the tracks, fracture your jaw and elbow, go to Harborview, hassle with your insurance company if you have one, and the hospital if you don’t. Then sue, wait 3 years for your moment in court, settle on the court house steps for 50% of your actual costs and none of your lawyer’s fees.
Can’t wait to sign up!…I’m going for a ride on the SLUT! NOT!
I had a motorcycle accident about ten years ago because of an oil-covered manhole cover in the middle of an intersection. Maybe I should sue the city for not installing signs indicating the location of every manhole cover in the city and warning motorcyclists about them. They place the things right in the middle of the street! Who would have expected?
If the manhole was properly installed, your complaint is with the person who spilled the oil, which is specifically illegal under the SMC.
On the other hand, if the installation of the manhole was defective, and the city had been notified of the defect, you definitely would have a potential claim against the city. (King County recently lost such a case over a defectively installed monument cover, which they had been notified of but failed to correct.)
If the City had been given timely notice of an oil spill but failed to clean it up, post warnings, or take other reasonable precautions, you might have a case as well.
In the case of the SLUT tracks, the City certainly had timely notice of the hazard — in 2005, before they ever broke ground, their own consultant said the tracks were so dangerous in places that bicycles should be banned from those streets. The City did not take that advice, at its own peril.
Gary, here’s an idea. If you can’t ride on a road with rails, DON’T RIDE ON A ROAD WITH RAILS. Some people can obviously handle it, but if you or anyone else can’t I ask again, how is it the city’s fault if you ignore the signs and common sense?
In case you missed it the last few times, there were no signs when these cyclists were injured.
The City disregarded its consultants advice and did not install warning signs until after people were getting hurt as the City’s own consultants had predicted.
If that is the case then someone needs to contact the PI b/c that is not how they are reporting it.
http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/420904_lawsuit1.html
You mean where the PI writes,
“All six were hurt when their tires got stuck in the flange way gap between the rail and street. They claim city officials were negligent in designing the tracks and knew of the risks but failed to post warning signs until after several people had been hurt, according to the lawsuit, filed last week in King County Superior Court.”
That says that ‘people’ were injured. I’m not talking about people, I’m talking about the litigants.
“All six were injured between May 2007 and June 2009, according to the lawsuit.”
Signs were put up in Dec. 07 according to you. So if everyone was injured before that, that sentence should read:
“All six were injured between May 2007 and December 2007, according to the lawsuit.”
Today, in 2010, the city still has not installed the signage its own consultants recommended five years ago, before the project ever broke ground. I don’t see that any of the plaintiffs claim to have been injured in the future.
Why do we need signs?! What are these cyclists doing when they are crossing the tracks? Rubber-necking? Watching a plane in the sky? Your eyes should be on the road and you need to recognize the hazard, marked or not.
My god, people. We are creating excuses and, quite possibly worse is, we’re trying to accommodate 100% of the population in a VERY DIVERSE CITY. It’s impossible! Pro-transit people, especially me and everyone on this board, should know you can’t please every one.
Yes, while cyclists are using the roads, the vast majority of people are using motorized vehicles. There are OTHER ROUTES available for cyclists to use.
Noted in my earlier comments – move forward. Let our voices be heard to the city government for when new lines are being proposed and planned and hopefully they will make it safe for cyclists or advertise a safer route for people to take.
Have you ever biked these extremely dangerous stretches on the SLU streetcar path? If not, try it yourself before accusing the cyclists of being stupid. I ended up on this route (once) without getting hurt except for being scared nearly out of my wits. It was nearly impossible to avoid the turning tracks when surrounded by traffic. Even if you were able to turn at a right angle, you would be headed right into the path of oncoming car traffic. If you stop your bike you could be hit from behind. Now that I know from experience what it’s like, I will never take that route again. I was luckier than the others to avoid an accident.
There were no signs until after the injury claims started coming in.
The City installed a few signs, though not as many as its own design consultants had recommended, but refused to settle the accident claims.
We should not reward stupidity by letting the City disregard its own design consultants and public testimony. There should be consequences for those who chose to ignore competent professional advice the City had paid for, and there should be compensation for those injured as a result of the City’s willful disregard.
Where are you getting your information for when the signs went up and when these litigants are claiming to have been injured?
I’ve been following the issue since the City consultant’s report disclosing the hazards was published in 2005.
6.6.2 Bicycles
In general, streetcar impacts to bicycle travel can occur in two ways: one is when the
cyclists need to cross the streetcar tracks, and the other is when the tracks are parallel to a
lane where bicycles travel. Crossings can be accommodated, and the ideal crossing angle
is ninety degrees. Parallel travel can be accommodated if the tracks are in the inside
lanes and cyclists can use the outer lanes.
Bicycle travel on Fairview Avenue between Valley Street and Ward Street would
continue to occur on the outside (curbside) lanes, where the streetcar tracks are in the
inside lanes. On Valley Street, cyclists will need to cross the mainline streetcar tracks
near Fairview Ave N. and at Westlake Ave N., as well as the maintenance base access
tracks (near Boren Ave. N.). Along Westlake Avenue between Olive and Thomas streets,
where the streetcar tracks are in the outer travel lanes that would typically be used by
cyclists, cyclists will be required to use alternate routes.
Press coverage of injuries began in November, 2007.
The Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board took up the issue in the second week of November, 2007.
SDOT indicated it was beginning to consider possible warning signs in December, 2007, more than two years after its consultants identified the hazards.
Mike Lindblom at the Times began covering cyclist injuries on the tracks in December, 2007 as well.
A token number of signs were installed in mid-December, 2007, after at least two local attorneys had already begun working up personal-injury cases for injured cyclists.
The City never did take its consultants advice to exclude cyclists from the most dangerous sections of the route.
The one who claims to have been injured in May of 07 could possibly have a case then, but if I were on the jury I wouldn’t side with them. I’m a fan of personal responsibility and common sense, but I realize others prefer a nanny state to hold their hand and warn them of any possible danger. All the others injured after the signs went up can most definitely piss off though.
I am a great fan of personal responsibility, but unfortunately, in this situation, it’s unlikely the officials who made the error can be held personally liable for their decisions. They’re named in the suit, of course, but nobody expects them to individually pay for the damage they’ve caused.
The best outcome available is probably fair compensation for medical costs, completion of the safety mitigation suggested five years ago by the city’s own consultants, and a chastened SDOT that pays attention to its professional consultants when they highlight unnecessary hazards on the next street car line.
That is not personal responsibility, that is nanny statism. Personal responsibility would be those person or persons who CHOSE to ride on Westlake, knowing the risks, accepting responsibility for their decision.
Nanny Statism is when people believe it is the responsibility of the government to bubble wrap reality so that people don’t have to use their brain nor be responsible for anything that happens to them.
Yes, the word responsibility occurs in each definition, but hopefully you can grasp the difference.
Don’t know if people are still reading this thread, but…
I have an acquaintance who not too long ago had an incident involving a Metro bus. Can the person (or anyone, actually) easily get a copy of the incident report that the bus driver had to file?
I know ultimately Metro Customer Service is the one to contact about this, but I fear ending up in a non-stop loop once I do contact them. So I was trying to gather some information before falling into the Metro system.
Nevermind, I guess I found out that one has to go through the KCDOT Public Disclosure department.