Map of candidate projects (Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development)

Vertical construction has reached the northernmost of Seattle’s Link stations, bringing with it plans to improve surrounding streets for all modes. While both stations at NE 130th Street and NE 145th Street will be at freeway exits that bookend the Jackson Golf Course, there is room for better access, especially from the east and west.

The Office of Planning & Community Development has been drafting a multimodal access plan for the two stations over the past year and has reached the next step in their planning process. A new online survey, open until August 19, presents a slate of 18 potential projects for public feedback before they are whittled down to recommended options. Each project on the website has a separate survey, allowing for the public to pick and choose those that matter most to them without having to rank them like a traditional survey.

Some of these projects are also being planned in tandem with improvements to the north side of North 145th Street that are under the purview of Shoreline. Their corridor plan includes left turn lanes, a shared-use path, and a separate crossing of I-5 for pedestrians and bicyclists at North 148th Street. These projects also tie into a proposed “Trail Along the Rail” that would follow I-5 from 145th to the existing 195th Street pedestrian bridge. The cities and WSDOT are also designing a potential double-roundabout (or dumbbell) interchange to replace the existing ramps at NE 145th Street, which would improve traffic flow but at the cost of additional crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.

Each of the candidate projects are described below the jump. Click through the survey links on the project page to see maps and a fuller description.

West Sector Projects

  • 1. NE 130th Street Overpass & Shared-Use Sidewalk (Cost: $1M or more): The north side sidewalk on NE 130th Street would be expanded to add a shared-use path and provide room for bus stops and other necessities. A connection to the 3rd Avenue NE Neighborhood Greenway and protected bike lanes on NE 130th Street would also be included.
  • Alt 1A would explore a separate non-motorized crossing of Interstate 5 north of the station, potentially connecting with Roosevelt Way.
  • 2. N 145th Street Crossings (West of I-5) (Cost: under $500,000): Improves existing or builds new signalized crosswalks at 1st Avenue, Corliss Avenue, Ashworth Avenue, and Aurora Avenue (SR 99).
  • 3. N 130th Corridor Improvements (SR 99 to I-5) (Cost: $1M or more): Adds shared-use path on north side of N 130th Street and improves crossings. Potential options include 3-lane configuration with center turn lane or transit priority lanes.
  • Alt 3A would create a neighborhood greenway on N 128th Street to avoid conflicts with transit on N 130th.
  • 4. 1st Avenue NE Improvements (South of 130th) (Cost: under $1M): Adds shared-use path along east side of 1st Avenue NE and improves crossings.
  • 5. Corliss Avenue N Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $500,000): Creates north-south neighborhood greenway on Corliss Avenue N between 130th and 145th streets.
  • Alt 5A would move these improvements to 1st Avenue NE with potential for a longer greenway corridor down to N 117th Street.
  • 6. Roosevelt Way N Neighborhood Greenway & Shared-use Path (Cost: $1M or more): Creates a neighborhood greenway on the diagonal section of Roosevelt Way between 145th/Aurora and NE 130th Station.
  • 7. N 137th Street Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $500,000): Creates a neighborhood greenway between the Interurban Trail and 1st Avenue NE.
  • 8. Ashworth Avenue N Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $100,000): Creates a short north-south greenway between 137th and 145th streets. Extends the already-planned Ashworth greenway, which continues south to Northwest Hospital.

Out of the West Sector projects, the most important will be the creation of an east-west multi-use corridor, either a shared-use path on North 130th Street and/or a neighborhood greenway on a parallel street. The Roosevelt Way greenway proposal is also significant, as it would provide a diagonal crossing with a better connection to the Interurban Trail from NE 130th Station, avoiding the more treacherous conditions on NE 145th Street.

Northeast Sector Projects

  • 9. Jackson Park Trail Improvements (Cost: $1M or more): Adds new pathway along the south side of Jackson Park between 130th Station and 15th Avenue NE, including greenway-like elements on N 130th Street and 10th Avenue NE.
  • 10. NE 145th St Crossings & Sidewalk Improvement (East of I-5) (Cost: $1M or more): Improved crossings at 5th Avenue NE, 15th Avenue NE, 20th Avenue NE, 25th Avenue NE, and 30th Avenue NE, along with planning for the Stride BRT line.
  • 11. 15th Avenue NE Street Redesign (Cost: under $1M): Reduces street to 3 lanes and adds protected bike lanes from 125th to 145th.
  • 12. NE 135th Street Greenway (East of I-5) (Cost: under $100,000): A short east-west greenway that connects the Jackson Park Trail to an already-planned greenway at 20th Avenue NE.
  • 13. NE 143rd Street Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $100,000): Creates a new neighborhood greenway from Jackson Park (west of 15th) to 27th Avenue NE, where it meets an existing greenway.
  • 14. 20th Avenue NE Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $100,000): Creates a short north-south neighborhood greenway between 135th and 145th streets.

The star of the sector is undoubtedly the total revamp of 15th Avenue NE, which today is four lanes with the occasional turn lane. The south end of the corridor would tie into existing partially-protected bike lanes that could be quickly and easily improved (barring the usual process intervention) to provide a continuous bike facility for much of Northeast Seattle. Most of the other projects in this sector are low-cost greenways that are no-brainers to implement, especially to support conncetions to the bike facility on 15th Avenue NE.

Southeast Sector Projects

  • 15. NE 125th Street & Roosevelt Way NE Street Design (Cost: under $1M): Road diet to 3 lanes to add protected bike lanes, and improved crossings.
  • 16. 8th Avenue NE Neighborhood Greenway (Cost: under $1M): Extension of the already-planned Northgate greenway to NE 130th Station, with improved crossings at NE 125th Street and Roosevelt Way.
  • 17. NE 125th Street Transit & Crossing Improvements (Cost: under $500,000): Adds queue jumps for buses, improves crosswalks, and improves bus stop amenities with an eye towards frequent east-west service to Lake City.
  • 18. 5th Avenue NE Sidewalk Improvements (Cost: under $1M): Improves sidewalk and adds landscaped buffer from Northgate Way to NE 125th Street.

Providing a continuous network of lower-stress streets for pedestrians and cyclists from Northgate to the northeastern edge of the city seems to be the general goal of these projects. NE 125th Street will be balancing the needs of faster transit and safer facilities for cyclists, which can be done with great care.

Altogether, the entire package of 18 projects would cost at least $16 million, going by the estimates given in the survey. Even with the over-million projects likely needing much more funding, the need to be completely miserly with basic station access is not evident, even amid the coming budget crunch.

The surveys close on August 19, after which the Office of Planning & Community Development will start another round of design refinement, community engagement, and analysis while trying to identify funding sources.

37 Replies to “Seattle presents potential improvements around light rail stations at 130th and 145th”

  1. I filled out the survey a while ago. Most of these projects are great — they are relatively low cost ways to substantially improve mobility in the area. Hopefully there will be enough funding to make them happen.

    The only ones that I have trouble with are those that conflict with major transit corridors. The stations at 130th and 145th are being built entirely for bus access. The vast majority of users will get to the station by bus. It is essential that the buses move well in the area. There are only two main transit corridors: 130th/Roosevelt/125th and 15th. It is likely that an infrequent bus will run on 5th, but that is lower priority, and there isn’t that much traffic on 5th. For the other corridors, bus priority is essential. While I’m all for improving bike paths, buses are more important for those corridors, as buses will carry way more people there.

    That means that 3A is a very good idea, as it allows more space for buses. 17 is an excellent project that will combine faster bus service with safer crossing. I have a lot of concerns about 15 — I think it could create a bottleneck for buses. Likewise, I think 11 would make bus travel on 15th very slow.

    That is pretty much it. Otherwise I think all the ideas are solid.

    1. Considering the lack of an I-5 entrance ramp, is traffic really that bad to require a bus lane? I don’t like the idea of having the bike lane just end a few blocks before the station.

      1. I’m not sure what street you are talking about. 130th has an I-5 entrance and exit. Traffic isn’t horrible, but it can get congested in the morning westbound, between 15th and the freeway. A bus lane (or even just a queue jump) would help things. There is a queue jump of sorts eastbound from Roosevelt to 15th. But that misses my point. While I would like improvements on that street, the main thing is to avoid making things worse for buses.

        15th obviously doesn’t have any ramps to the freeway. There is no congestion between 125th and 145th, but there is fairly common congestion in the afternoons, between about Pinehurst Way and 125th. Again, if you narrow the road to two lanes each way north of there (like it is south of there) it is likely that buses would crawl all the way to 145th (instead of crawling to 125th).

        As far as “the bike lane just ending a few blocks before the station”, I doubt very many people will ride their bike to this station along 130th. The hill is extremely steep (from Lake City) and the idea of playing leap frog with the buses is bad for everyone. This isn’t like Dexter ( They aren’t going to build special bus stops like that, which allow bikes to avoid the bus. There simply isn’t enough room. Bikes will either have to merge with traffic, or go around. I could see several ways of going around — some of which are included in the proposals.

        The main point is that there are corridors where buses should be a priority, and there are corridors where bikes should be a priority. Roosevelt Avenue (from roughly 65th to downtown) is the latter. 130th is the former. Neither are even close. 15th is a bit closer, but buses should still have priority. If you can figure out a way to add a bike lane while keeping the buses moving quickly, then go for it. But otherwise it is a bad idea.

      2. As an example, here is how I would funnel bike traffic in the area:

        1) Create a bike path under the light rail line. I believe this is part of the plan.
        2) Create a greenway for 117th. I think this is the plan as well. There are about to add sidewalks along 117th, between 15th and Roosevelt. This is an obvious place for slower traffic, because of the school there. You would simply extend the greenway west, all the way to the bike path.
        3) Add a traffic light at 117th and 5th. People drive to fast on 5th, and the more traffic lights the better. There would be a beg button for pedestrians (allowing them to cross 5th) and nothing for cars (similar to various streets in the area).
        4) Redo the intersection at 117th/15th/Pinehurst. The city is already working on that. There will be signals, and cars won’t be able to go straight across. But bikes will.

        Thus you could easily go across on 117th to access the bike path under the train like so: As noted in that link, 117th is quite flat. This becomes the main east-west bike route for the area.

        There are already bike lanes on 15th/Pinehurst/Roosevelt. So at worse someone does a big ‘U’: (I can’t draw the end of that route — you just have to imagine a bike path going north to the station). Realistically, very few people would do that. Most of the time, there is no reason to. If you are close to the station, but a bit to the southeast, you just go there more directly: That is much better than going north and going on Roosevelt, even if they added a bike lane. If you are between Roosevelt and 15th, looping around seems like extra work, but 123rd is very steep between there, and 120th doesn’t even go through. I would still prefer looping around like so:, versus going on 125th/Roosevelt: If you are in my neighborhood, there is no way you would drop down to 125th and go back up: You are going to go south anyway, might as well keep going, cross where it is easy to cross, then pick up the bike path under the train”

        If you are in Lake City, then it is a challenge, mainly because of the hill. There is a bike lane on 125th, but it is very unpleasant to have cars go by you while you are struggling up a very steep long hill. I would rather go around ( Either way, the “detour” would not be the end of the world.

        The main thing is that there should be a safe alternative that is relatively flat, fairly fast and safe. Using 117th is by far the best bet.

  2. This process is a bit confusing:

    OPCD initiated an upzone study process yet the input here is for things like greenways, which honestly are only tangentially related to the stations. Shouldn’t the upzone be part of the process? Is this admission of an upzone “defeat“ (unlike Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood)? Shouldn’t these small enhancements be presented more at the end (except for new trails connections and any separated crossings)?

    There is a 522 BRT Open House at the same time, that actually includes shifting the 145th St stops. ( There is also the Shoreline work in the same area that shows a different approach to pedestrian connectivity on the south side of 145th adjacent to Jackson Park. Shouldn’t these things be cross-referenced or perhaps scheduled sequentially — or at least be consistent?

    1. According to an email from OPCD there are a series of sequential feedback sessions (sorry, can’t find it on the website). This is the “mobility” conversation. Zoning is next. Fun!

      June 2020:
      Online Community Conversation: Vision

      July 2020:
      Online Community Conversation: Mobility

      August 2020:
      Zoning and Transit Oriented Development

      September 2020:
      Affordable Housing and Livability

      1. See, this is a shining example of how some project manager puts out a schedule in a project that he or she makes up — and doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on with the agencies around it. It’s typical single-agency, uncoordinated planning. Nothing in this schedule seems to tie into what Metro, ST, WSDOT or Shoreline are doing.

        As I said below, greenway designs should fit the adjacent land uses. When the greenway projects are decided first, it makes it very hard to revisit the land use. A greenway on a lightly used street with single-family homes needs a different design than a street with storefront retail and a 65-foot or 85-foot apartment building. The land use décidions should be made first.

      2. The land use decisions should be made first.

        Nonsense. That implies that land use decisions are made in stone. Land use decisions evolve. Right now a lot of those areas are zoned single family. But it could be zoned LR3 in couple years, and then Midrise a few years later. Based on your logic, we’ve already made the land use decision (and its single family).

        See, this is a shining example of how some project manager puts out a schedule in a project that he or she makes up — and doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on with the agencies around it. It’s typical single-agency, uncoordinated planning. Nothing in this schedule seems to tie into what Metro, ST, WSDOT or Shoreline are doing.

        Based on what? Holy cow, you have no evidence to support that idea, and yet Frank provided a great bit of counter evidence. This is all very early planning, and each meeting occurs within a month of the other one. Yet you say there is no coordination? Seriously? You think the meetings are just random, even though they are all within a month of each other?

        Have you attended the various meetings? I have, and I know Seattle city officials have been coordinating with ST and Shoreline. I know they’ve been working with WSDOT. I never asked about Metro, but I assume they’ve been working with them (although it may be a bit early for Metro). Zoning always comes up in these meetings (of course).

        I have no idea if the coordination is at the the level it should be. But I have no reason to assume the opposite.

      3. “Greenway” means a non-arterial street. That’s what makes it green; all that low traffic and quiet houses and lawns. A route on an arterial would be called a cycletrack or trail or something. Those are planned longer ahead of time; one example is on 5th Ave NE, which is supposed to have a multi-use trail from 185th to 145th, and if Seattle commits as much to it, to Northgate.

      4. There are plenty of non-arterial streets that aren’t greenways, though. A greenway is a special designation, as clearly stated in that SDOT document. I think the only reason people are confused with greenways is because it may entail different things. (Sometimes they add speed bumps, etc.). It mainly means that of the non-arterial streets, it will receive special focus when it comes to projects designed to slow down and reduce automobiles, have easier street crossings, etc.

        But there is no zoning assumption with greenways. Many go through low density single family zones. Others run through high density mixed use areas. Greenway:

      5. English can be ambiguous sometimes. I meant that greenways are away from arterial streets, not that all non-arterial streets are greenways.

      6. Fair enough Mike.

        My main point was about the “quiet houses and lawns”, which implies that Greenways are only in quiet residential neighborhoods with single family homes. That is clearly not the case in Ballard, where it runs through one of the most urban areas of our city.

      7. Ross, your examples are both residential street views. Do you have examples of greenways with lots of ground-level retail and restaurants?

        The Seattle greenways program seems mostly intended for residential areas only and most of those blocks are single-family homes. That’s very different than E Pike or adjacent side streets on Lower Capitol Hill, for example.

        That’s the point I’m making about deciding that a street should be a greenway before deciding its land use. It’s predefining the land use on those streets. That’s ok if everyone supports the concept — but let’s not naively call creating a greenway any sort of TOD. It’s more about preserving and enhancing the bucolic quality and safety of a street than it is creating a vibrant dense mixed-use urban neighborhood.

      8. If you mean the one on NW 58th Street, I would still call it quiet. I would find it a relaxing experience to ride on.

        Hmm, I used to live on 65th a block away from the 17th greenway and worked in central Ballard. If the greenways had existed in 2002 I could have commuted on both of them.

      9. The Seattle greenways program seems mostly intended for residential areas only and most of those blocks are single-family homes. That’s very different than E Pike or adjacent side streets on Lower Capitol Hill, for example.

        You have it backwards. As Mike and I have pointed out, they don’t put greenways on arterials. Meanwhile, Seattle zoning (generally) only allows retail on arterials. The problem isn’t the former, it is the latter.

        As for East Pike, it is an arterial. The point of a greenway is to reduce car traffic on that street. That obviously won’t work for an arterial like East Pike. In contrast, East Pike could easily have a bike lane (

        The only greenway in Capitol Hill is on 22nd/21st. It runs by a couple grocery stores, a bunch of restaurants and other shops. It doesn’t run through the heart of the commercial district, for the same reason mentioned earlier (Seattle generally limits such activity to arterials).

        Other greenways work the same way. The greenway in the U-District is on 12th. It has some restaurants, but not a lot. But they didn’t choose it because it lacked retail, they chose it because it wasn’t an arterial. The only choices in the neighborhood were 12th or Brooklyn, and they are very similar (very residential).

        But there is no reason why they can’t add retail in the future. Most of the upzoning in the city has to been to allow more residential density — but there is no reason why they won’t allow more retail, especially on non-arterial streets. What is highly unlikely is that they will change a street from a non-arterial to an arterial. That is why you are worried over nothing.

        I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but your nightmare scenario goes something like this:

        Seattle picks a street (say 8th Ave. NE) to build a greenway. Then the city decides to upgrade the zoning. They upzone aggressively. They allow apartments on the arterials within a mile of the station. They allow apartments within a half mile of the station, even on non-arterial streets. That means 8th can now have six story buildings (just like 58th in Ballard). Then they allow a lot more retail. They expand the retail on the existing retail corridors — 15th, Roosevelt, Pinehurst and 5th. They allow retail for 130th/Roosevelt/125th (which has none close to the station). Even after this large scale increase in new retail zoning, they want to go much further, and allow retail on the surrounding non-arterial streets. This would include 8th — farther away from the arterial. Oh Wait! It is a greenway! We can’t have that. We can’t have retail on a greenway!

        Sorry dude, you are missing the big picture here. If you want to argue for more retail on non-arterial streets, be my guest. I’m all for it. But if you think greenways are slowing down those efforts, you are mistaken. We don’t need to figure out the zoning before we add things like greenways.

      10. If you mean the one on NW 58th Street, I would still call it quiet. I would find it a relaxing experience to ride on.

        Exactly. That is the point. Even though it runs through one of the busiest parts of the city, biking is easy and relaxing.

        I just don’t buy Al’s idea that designating the street as a greenway somehow “predefines the land use on those streets”. 58th has had a boatload of development. Brand new, large apartment buildings abound. There isn’t a lot of retail on the street itself, but you can say that about every street to the north. Really. Look at 20th and Market (more or less the heart of Ballard). If you go south, there is a ton of retail. But if you go north on 20th, it ends about a block from Market. There is practically nothing north of there — even as you cross major arterials (65th, 80th, 85th).

        From a retail standpoint, 58th is not special. It was not chosen for a greenway because it lacked retail. It was chosen because of its distance from Market. It is close, but not too close. They added a traffic signal (with a beg button) so that folks can cross 15th. Much closer and it is too close to the main traffic light. Any farther away and you are too far away from the main part of Ballard.

      11. Ross, I would agree with you in the abstract that the greenway program doesn’t preclude higher density or retail. However, we see the world differently than the average single-family homeowner on many of these streets. I strongly suspect that one reason so many residents want their residential street to be a greenway is to discourage higher density or retail development on their street.

        Comparing existing streets is not very relevant as this very recent program converts streets after both zoning was set and development occurred — and not the other way around.

        Pike St is in my mind the goal of station areas. That’s why I mention it. Of course Pike St isn’t a greenway! However it is a conceptual street life idea for a great light rail station area street. Not only is there storefront retail, but there are bulb-outs at corners and outdoor seating areas for restaurants. That’s my point — greenways are not intended as great TOD streets! I’d be much more supportive if these projects aimed to create urban street environments conducive to denser mixed-use development.

    2. Yeah, there is no specific order in which things should occur. As far as “things like greenways, being tangentially related to the stations”, I disagree. It doesn’t matter if you rezone when you can’t get to the stations. Likewise, some of the these projects are focused on bus safety and speed. That is where the overwhelming majority of the rides will come from, regardless of how many apartments are built nearby. This is true of both of these stations.

      1. Take a look at the projects, Ross. Most are existing streets and many already have sidewalks. The proposal is to merely designate them as greenways. That makes things safer but it doesn’t improve access. There are a few connections in the mix, but they are buried in the plethora of greenway designations.

        As to the order of things, it’s really bad. First off, this is for “mobility” and yet there is no discussion of transit except for the occasional queue jump; it mainly is to appease bicycle interests. Second, a denser land use should result in thinking about street design — and designing for a certain greenway type kind of freezes what happens with the adjacent land uses. For example, a low-speed greenway in a block of single-family homes is going to get different treatments than a block with ground level retail and 65-foot apartments.

      2. I’m confused on what “greenway” actually means. What is it beyond a speed limit, a sign, and some speed bumps?

      3. Here you go AJ:

        Basically when a street is designated a greenway it means that it gets higher priority for pedestrian and bike improvements than other streets.

        Take a look at the projects, Ross.

        I’ve looked at all the projects. As I wrote earlier, I did that a while ago, when this first came out. I live in the neighborhood, and follow such things.

        Most are existing streets and many already have sidewalks. The proposal is to merely designate them as greenways.

        Very few of them have sidewalks, and greenways aren’t limited to adding sidewalks.

        There are a few connections in the mix, but they are buried in the plethora of greenway designations.

        Any plan of this nature is going to have a bunch of greenways.

        As to the order of things, it’s really bad. First off, this is for “mobility” and yet there is no discussion of transit except for the occasional queue jump.

        That is not true. There is mention of crossing on 125th to make it easier to get to the bus stop.

        … mainly is to appease bicycle interests.

        Of course a study like this will focus on bike interests.

        Second, a denser land use should result in thinking about street design — and designing for a certain greenway type kind of freezes what happens with the adjacent land uses. For example, a low-speed greenway in a block of single-family homes is going to get different treatments than a block with ground level retail and 65-foot apartments.

        Nonsense. A greenway is a greenway. Zoning changes — and even the buildings that come from such zoning changes — won’t change a thing.

        You seem to have missed the point of greenways, as well as this plan. A greenway is just a designation. What actually happens on that greenway depends on funding, and will of course evolve. Maybe they add sidewalks. Maybe they add speed bumps. Maybe there are sidewalks, speedbumps and bike lanes. Maybe there are just signs and some paint.

        This is just a plan for bike and pedestrian projects that are in the “early planning phase”. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. It is right there in the introduction. This is not a bus network plan, or a zoning plan. This is just a plan for *unfunded* pedestrian and bike projects, which won’t be built for years. At this point, they are just trying to determine the popularity and priority of these ideas, as well as new ideas that might have slipped through the cracks.

        Long before any of these ideas actually get built, there will be plenty of discussion of zoning. Not that it matters. All of this evolves. There is no deadline for zoning changes. By 2028 we may be like Minneapolis, and end all single family zoning, in which case, any fights over the stupid “Urban Village” plans will seem silly, and we can evolve in a more organic way. Likewise, there is nothing stopping the city from moving a greenway, or adding a new one. But the whole point of this plan — at this point — is to gather input for several pedestrian and bike projects.

      4. Whenever you try to build a trail there are always competing interests, some of which don’t want it in their backyard because it hinders their parking spaces or brings undesirables to the neighborhood. So the city decided to start by first deciding where the routes would be, and later allocating projects to them. That way the projects won’t get lost in the Seattle process of deciding where they should be; the routes have already been decided and agreed on by the neighbors. At first the city just paints sharrows and puts up a few low-cost signs. Later it may (or may not) direct capital projects to them. Part of this agreement is that cars will be deprioritized on that street, which makes it easier to convert some space to non-car uses or close the street to through traffic. The Stay Healthy streets, which prohibit through traffic, are mostly existing greenways. The greenway designation made it politically easier to close the street. They’re closed so that people can have a wide path to walk and bike while social distancing, and to compensate for the lack of sidewalks in some neighborhoods.

      5. @Mike — Yeah, exactly. It isn’t just NIMBY opposition — it is also funding. In most of these areas, folks really want sidewalks, and slower streets. That is the main thing people talk about in the meetings. In other words, people are fighting to put a greenway on their street, not the opposite. The problem is, Seattle just doesn’t have the money for the type of improvements that everyone wants (like sidewalks). In contrast, paint is cheap, as are speed bumps, which is why they often start with that.

      6. A greenway is supposed to be a connecting corridor between neighborhoods (i.e., the reason you’d ride a bike). So there’s one north-south corridor in Rainier Valley. It’s not clear that more than one is necessary. I haven’t seen the meetings or how much people are clamoring for it on their street, but they’re not all going to get one. And if they are clamoring for it, that’s a good turnaround. It’s better than the bike lane fiasco on 35th Ave NE, where Move Seattle designated bike/transit improvements but the neighborhood got it gutted to preserve their parking.

    3. You both have valid points. The establishment of greenways was a low-cost, pragmatic solution to get bicycle routes in residential areas. Separately, the city is installing cycletracks on some arterials. The city allows retail only in commercially-zoned areas, which are arterials. The greenways were located based on existing land use without much thought of possible future changes. That may theoretically hinder future upzoning, but a categorical change in policy would be a much bigger issue than the few greenway streets. And the greenway streets are ordinary and small: there’s no reason they should have retail first. NE 58th Street is unusual in being so close to the urban village, with likely future upzones on both sides of it. The Lake City greenway is decidedly west of the urban village, with larger houses that are less likely to change. The east/southeast Seattle greenways are deep in single-family areas where growth is unlikely to be an issue soon. I want more retail throughout the city, but I’d start with 23rd and 19th before moving to the greenway streets.

      The Healthy Streets campaign has exposed a gap between the greenway network and the arterial cycletrack network. Pike/Pine doesn’t have wide enough sidewalks for people to walk social-distancing. The nearest greenway is a mile further east and over a hill and goes north-south, so it’s useless for those walking between Pike Place, Westlake, Summit, Trader Joe’s, and everything else there. There are new bike lanes on Pike/Pine but that doesn’t help pedestrians So Seattle is creating walking space where few pedestrians are and neglecting places where a lot of them are.

      The Safe Streets closures in residential areas are needed because in many cases they’re compensating for the lack of sidewalks in the neighborhood. In Lake City and southeast Seattle the streets on or around the greenways have no shoulders: the edges of the car lanes are really ambiguous and narrow. Adults can walk along the edge and expect cars to go around them, but children won’t keep to an unmarked edge and cars may not see them. So the closed streets create one safe walking path in the neighborhood.

      1. “NE 58th Street is unusual in being so close to the urban village”

        Ballard is really an urban center, so it’s much more likely to spread than Lake City, Cherry Hill/Garfield HS, Mt Baker, Columbia City, or Rainier Beach are. Lake City is also an unacknowledge urban center but any growth is likely to be east of the greenway. The greenway is on 25th/27th. Growth is more likely on 30th, LCW, and 35th. Lake City also has larger blocks than Ballard: it’s not as easy to create a walk-anywhere environment as it is north and south of Market Street.

  3. amen to RossB comments. I also commented. Two important projects in the area were not mentioned: adding sidewalks to Aurora Avenue North between North 115th and 145th streets; and, frequent transit service between Bitterlake and Lake City. Seattle has limited budget and rights of way. Their TBD buys service.

  4. eddiew and RossB, while the future of transit and much else has seldom been harder to “read”, I do seem some positive possibility for the bus transportation that in addition to its own importance, is also crucial to the success of any rail endeavor.

    Not meaning to “needle” Dow Constantine, who I’m sure meant well in a recent statement, but I think it’s both true and important to stress transit’s potential as one of our inevitably-changed economy’s key employers.

    In both operations and manufacturing. There’s at least a chance that San Francisco’s and Boston’s “Vertols” taught Boeing enough lessons that catenary along East Marginal can deliver PCC’s descendants to worldwide duty both on their own wheels under their own wire.

    With at least enough adjustments that no matter what the driver does, front coupler will never suddenly point straight down. Are possibilities like this what the twitterworld calls a “Meme?”

    Mark Dublin

    1. yes, I read that proposal in the early 90s. It would have been sweet. There would have been a slip ramp between South Dearborn Street and the D-2 roadway near South Charles Street. there was a more modest project to add overhead to get routes 43 and 70 into CPS and the DSTT; it was taken from the budget when the 1996 RTA measure passed. As it turned out, ETB could have used the DSTT for a decade.

      1. Just so happens, eddiew, that I was present when the reason we didn’t use it was explained by at a special meeting in the auditorium of the IBEW hall next door to 587 in Belltown. Several Metro Councilmembers made a guest appearance to talk to our local.

        Question Period, question one: “For this project….who among you gentlemen is the leader?” One councilman’s answer? : “Well…since the whole Metro Council is jointly responsible for this project, there really isn’t any need to assign the title to any one person.”

        Which possibly give us our first real “break.” Despitethe criminally-negligent contract-enforcement of equipment procurement, design, and manufacture, and the studied disinterest in operations that cost us at least one ST- worth of lost operating time….

        Through our drivers’, supervisors’, and mechanics’ own efforts, we were able to prove to the world without doubt that it’s indeed possible to both initiate and operate a regional light-rail transit system with electric buses, wired if need be.

        Provided that the one single element reported missing at that meeting in the Electrical Workers’ hall in 1983, is finally identified, located, acquired, and engaged.

        My guess is that now that the the SAT’s have departed to wherever all good racist eugenicism finally goes, somebody age 18 who got their first Link ride in 2010 has already got their PhD thesis in. Lake Washington, or Highline, only time and COVID-19 will tell.

        And has just dropped their vote for themselves for State Representative into the box twenty eight minutes ago. Leaving them and us to discover and face the main fact about Leadership:

        “Fire in the Belly” is what Alka-Seltzer’s for. Leadership is always forced at point of mob violence on capable duty-driven people who don’t want the job.

        Mark Dublin

  5. There’s a Northgate Link restructure proposal buried in there. It may be unchanged from the one STB reviewed a few months ago; e.g., the 45 is still moved to 80th Street. The timeline says the final proposal comes this summer (i.e., now). and the county council will vote in it this fall.

    ST’s open house page says both the 522 and 312 would terminate at Roosevelt Station this round.

    Things that stand out to me:
    – The 75 switches to the 41’s routing 125th and 5th.
    – The 75’s routing on Northgate Way is replaced with a new route 61 from Lake City to 85th & 32nd NW.
    – The middle of the 62 is straightened out to Latona-65th.
    – The dropped part of the 62 is replaced by a new C-shaped route from Pacific Street to U-District Station, Latona, Woodlawn, Greenlake, Roosevelt Station, interlining with a route 79 to 75th Street (between 15th and 50th-55th) and Magnuson Park.
    – The 31/32/75 move off campus to 45th Street. The 67 and 372 continue to go on south Stevens Way.
    – Bye bye 71 and 78.

    The map distinguishes between frequent and non-frequent routes. I don’t know how much to believe that given the coming TBD and recession reductions. Metro continues to be ambiguous about frequency between 6 and 10pm and on weekends. That’s an important issue in my mind, and it affects what I might say about these routes.

    Although with so many shops that used to close at 9 or 10pm now closing at 8pm, and shops in Pike Place that used to close at 6pm now closing at 4pm, and most evening activities closed, I’m beginning to wonder if we should shrink the evening span to get more daytime frequency and relieve overcrowding. I no longer go out after around 6pm, and in winter when it gets dark I’ll be even less inclined to. Still, essential workers need to get to swing shift jobs, and my roommate comes home at midnight, so there would need to be some evening service. But maybe not on all routes?

    1. “I’m beginning to wonder if we should shrink the evening span to get more daytime frequency and relieve overcrowding”

      That may make sense for the short term (e.g. while COVID is spreading), but I’m weary of setting up service restructures for fall of 2021 that do that. Once evening service goes away, it may take years or decades to bring it back.

      1. Once evening service goes away, it may take years or decades to bring it back.

        Very much this. I’m a little shocked at how quickly people are trying to give up what took us a decade to finally get into some kind of reasonable order–evening and late night service–in response to this pandemic. No, we absolutely should not shrink the evening and night spans; that undermines one of the fundamental tenets of a transit system: that people can use it to go wherever they need whenever they need.

        I feel like Metro has been very careful to couch some of their changes as “temporary mitigations” and we should let them do that. We can’t walk away from having made a 20-hour (24-hour hour, if you live near one of the routes that got Owl service after we fought for years to deal with the spaghetti that was the 80-series Owls) transit network. Our region will still be here, still be trying to improve the environment, still be trying to move people more efficiently, and still have zero space for more people to drive cars by themselves, once this virus is under control. Don’t throw out what we gained, not in response to a short-term crisis.

  6. Except that people who use the service in the late ours now might not have any other choice.

    Mark Dublin

    1. It’s only because people are being turned away in the daytime. And you never know when it will happen, because you can’t predict exactly how many people will be on a run or how aggressive the driver will be about not letting more on. Either way somebody can’t ride a bus. Are nighttime passengers more important than daytime passengers? I’d rather know that if a route is scheduled I’ll be able to get on, not that maybe I’ll be able to get on and maybe not. And as I said, many evening destinations that people would go to are closed, or close early. Yes, it would be a temporary measure for coronavirus, But we don’t know how temporary this situation will be. It may last the rest of this year and next year.

Comments are closed.