The Seattle Transportation Plan has added new project proposals to the draft and extended the comment period to October 31. This is a 20-year plan. There are 42 new proposals related to transit, sidewalks, freight movement, complete streets, etc. SDOT or a future Move Seattle levy can fund only some of them in the medium term, so it’s asking the public, “Which projects are the highest priority?”
116 Replies to “Seattle Transportation Priorities”
Comments are closed.
Random comments on various projects:
Project 57 (Admiral Way, Southwest) says ,”the West Seattle – Ballard Link Extension project, which will result in redirecting the RapidRide H Line to Admiral and Alki neighborhoods”. Not may, will.
That contradicts earlier Metro Connects maps that kept the H to downtown. It also contradicts the Seattle Transit Plan draft a couple months ago that had Alki as a Local (30-minute) corridor. That’s one thing I didn’t like about the latter, because Seattle’s most popular and transit-accessible beach should have 15-minute frequent service. Do we want tourists to go there or not?
Project 16 (N 85th St+NE 65th St, Northwest): “Along a future RapidRide corridor”. So SDOT is thinking of an 85th-65th line to replace the 45 and 62?
Project 23 (14th Ave NW, Northwest): To support the Ballard 14th station alternative.
Project 48 (50th/Green Lake Way/Stone Way intersection, Northwest): Could be Seattle’s first roundabout.
Project 26 (NE 47th Street ped/bike bridge, Northwest (but really northeast)): I assume this is over I-5. Interesting.
Several Lake City Way projects (Northeast).
Project 5 (23rd Avenue, Central): Maybe this could reverse the watering down of the last 23rd project. Or fill in the gap in trolley wire for the 48 between John and Jackson.
Project 6 (3rd Avenue, Downtown): Improve transit reliability; expand sidwalks. What does “improve transit reliability” mean on a street that’s already bus-only? The biggest thing has already been done, and the buses are faster than they were. This may be the Downtown Seattle Association’s proposal to reduce the number of lanes. But how would that improve bus reliability? The way to improve reliability is transit-priority lanes outside downtown.
Project 37 (5th Avenue, Downtown).
Project 55 (Boren Avenue, Downtown): There’s a bus icon, but no mention of having a bus route there. Like rerouting the 106 to SLU.
Project 8 (1 Avenue S, Southeast): Possible bus/freight lanes. If that’s combined with center lanes on 1st (for the CCC streetcar or buses), that would open the possibility of a 1st Avenue route from SODO to Seattle Center.
Some previous discussion of other projects is in Open Thread 21.
The way to improve transit reliability on Third is to replace the traffic signals with Stop signs against all of the crossing streets which do not themselves have bus lines. The buses run infrequently enough that it wouldn’t interfere with the cross-traffic badly. Most cars will come to stop abpnd then cross immediately.
@Tom could work well if it were changed to bus and official vehicles only access, and camera enforced. Especially on event days! Otherwise, you probably do not want to give cars the opportunity to go through that many downtown intersections during the off peak hours without stop signs or red lights.
I don’t think it would be a good idea, but my concern is about pedestrians rather than cars. During peak hours, there’s enough buses that, without traffic lights, 3rd Ave. would be quite difficult to cross, especially since 3rs Ave. is a wide street and there is no island to wait in the middle.
The number of pedestrians that cross 3rd Ave. downtown is quite substantial, a number which also includes most bus riders after they get off the bus and become pedestrians. We cannot ignore them.
asdf2, well, then, put flashers at the crossings without traffic signals. Have them somewhat “synchronized” — do a “countdown” after each crossing event — so that the buses aren’t willy-nilly stopped. Buses will platoon automatically if there are no stop lights.
It’s not perfect, but it would allow buses to travel between Pike and Spring and between Madison and James without being interrupted by stoplights, assuming that the 2 gets the re-route via Pine. It would really improve things in Belltown, where the stoplights are nothing but an irritation to the buses.
And of course official vehicles could use Third.
The option of having the H go to Admiral and Alki is one of the indirect advantages of building West Seattle Link. Those rapid ride bus hours can be reinvested in more neighborhood service like this.
Whether it’s worth the cost, esp. for the tunneled option, and the loss of one seat rides to downtown, that’s still a question worth asking. A lot depends on whether the neighborhoods around the rail stops will upzone some time in the next 20-30 years, which IMO there is a high likelihood of.
I’m concerned about people taking the H from mid Delridge one or two miles to the Link station, waiting 10 minutes, and then riding 10 more minutes to downtown, and being frustrated that the wait was such a large percent of the trip. The 21 will have the same problem.
I’m not super concerned about that. A 10 minute wait is the worst case. Most days, it will be better. The mathematical average wait time for a train that runs every 10 minutes is 5 minutes, not 10.
As it is today, the 21 already spends enough time sitting at stoplights and bus stops in SODO that it is quicker to get off the 21 over on Avalon Way and switch to the C line, rather than staying on the bus. If it is already faster switching to another bus, it will be faster switching to a train as well.
For the H line, the benefits of the truncation are less clear cut, but if a shorter route meant a more frequent route along Delridge (less wait time at the bus stop), I think it’s still a win. Even RapidRide spends a good 5 minutes crawling up the hill from Alaskan Way to 3rd Ave., stopping for a long red light at every single block, a delay which West Seattle Link will avoid.
And, of course, the biggest beneficiaries of West Seattle Link are not people going to downtown, but people passing through downtown to get somewhere north of it. These people would be switching to Link anyway, so a truncated bus doesn’t even amount to an additional connection.
Now, all this is not to say that West Seattle Link will enough rider benefit to justify the very high cost of building it, but to make it sound like it will provide no benefit at all and actually make people’s trips worse is simply not true.
> And, of course, the biggest beneficiaries of West Seattle Link are not people going to downtown, but people passing through downtown to get somewhere north of it. These people would be switching to Link anyway, so a truncated bus doesn’t even amount to an additional connection.
Uhh but for people going to Ballard or south towards SeaTac now there is another transfer. And for going to downtown there’s still the transfer penalty of entering and exiting the station in addition to waiting for the train.
> Now, all this is not to say that West Seattle Link will enough rider benefit to justify the very high cost of building it, but to make it sound like it will provide no benefit at all and actually make people’s trips worse is simply not true.
I mean it just sounds like very little benefit. Like the San Francisco central subway line that was built and everyone ended up just staying on the bus line since it was more convenient
“ I mean it just sounds like very little benefit. Like the San Francisco central subway line that was built and everyone ended up just staying on the bus line since it was more convenient”
I just want to elaborate on the “convenient” comment. It is because the new SF Central Subway stations are so deep. It’s a harbinger of the DSTT2 problem (and DSTT is still deep but half as deep as DSTT2).
> I just want to elaborate on the “convenient” comment. It is because the new SF Central Subway stations are so deep. It’s a harbinger of the DSTT2 problem (and DSTT is still deep but half as deep as DSTT2).
Well not only because they are deep, but because many didn’t want to transfer as well. We have a similar situation here with the H/C line
San Francisco’s Chinatown is closer to downtown or the Caltrain depot than Delridge is to downtown Seattle, and it doesn’t have a river and a cliff in between.
And, of course, the biggest beneficiaries of West Seattle Link are not people going to downtown, but people passing through downtown to get somewhere north of it. These people would be switching to Link anyway, so a truncated bus doesn’t even amount to an additional connection.
I just want to add to what WL mentioned. It really depends on where you are going. For example, if you are headed to the UW or Capitol Hill, then you are absolutely correct — you might as well transfer early. But it really depends on where you are headed. For example:
1) Ballard. Requires an extra transfer (bus-Link-Link instead of bus-Link or bus-bus). The Link-to-Link transfer could be trivial if done right (it could be a same-platform transfer). Chances are, they won’t do it right, and it will be a time consuming transfer.
2) Upper Queen Anne. Requires an extra transfer (bus-Link-bus instead of bus-bus).
3) First Hill or Central Area. Requires an extra transfer (bus-Link-bus) although in some cases transferring in Capitol Hill might be better than taking the bus from downtown. A lot depends on the bus network.
4) Seattle Center. Requires an extra transfer (bus-Link-Link) instead of bus-monorail.
5) South Lake Union. Requires two extra transfers, depending on where you are going (and which bus you normally take). The C ends very close to the Hutch, for example. Riders heading there would instead take the bus to Link, then Link to Westlake, then a bus (or the streetcar) for their final leg. Again, they could take Link to parts of South Lake Union (making it a bus-Link-Link trip, like the one to Ballard) but that again assumes really good Link to Link transfers.
6) East Side. Requires an extra transfer (bus-Link-Link instead of bus-Link).
What is clear about all of this is that it really depends on where you are going, as well as the quality of the transfers, and the bus network. Even the frequency of Link matters a lot. For example, transferring at SoDo means that you are transferring to a ten minute train (instead of a five minute train). All the details matter. West Seattle Link has to be done just right to save a lot of riders any time. In contrast, Northgate Link was bound to save a huge amount of time for folks going from Northgate to UW Hospital or Capitol Hill, even if they made mistakes with the stations.
Everyone accepts that West Seattle Link will add value. The problem is, it will only add value for a relatively small number of people (while likely making it worse for others) and is highly dependent on getting the details right. At this point, it looks like they will fail, miserably, to get the details right.
“ Well not only because they are deep, but because many didn’t want to transfer as well. ”
Yes I agree. The underground journey to transfer at Union Square is not only very deep, but is two blocks away from the Powell Muni/BART station. No wonder Chinatown riders stay on the bus.
This is exactly why the transfers at Westlake and Pioneer Square/ CID-N are so awful for riders.
I keep saying — to universally deaf ears — that a cross platform transfer station is needed in SODO, even if the location has to be shifted, if WSBLE moves forward. It’s at grade and is cheaper and seemingly technically possible to create. I know it isn’t good for Eastside riders but man I wish people would get on the bandwagon about solving this transfer situation if 4th Ave shallow doesn’t happen.
No, Al, not a “cross-platform transfer”. A same-platform, in direction transfer. Use the same tracks and overpass Lander and Holgate to avoid traffic issues. If West Seattle must be built because politics, it will never run more often than once every ten minutes, so sharing is a “no brainer”. As I’ve said, there is (just barely) room for northbound West Seattle trains to run on the bikeway between Lander and Forest, with the northbound merge switch placed in what is now Lander Street.
The bikeway can be under the overpass to end up on the south side of Lander to get to Sixth, which is its eventual destination in the Lander to Forest block.
The southbound turnout can be constructed on the slightly rising profile at the Forest Street curve.
Since this means some disruption to add the junction, I’d go another step and swap the southbound trackway and platform, resulting in a “center-platform” station, making even out-of-direction transfers “single-platform”.
The S/B platform would have to be out of service for the time required to demolish it and build a new track where it had been, but that might be a month maybe. A temporary platform in the northbound bus lane could be provided by single-laning the buses making even that disruption minimal. There are few enough these days that should produce almost no delays.
I’m glad you see the benefit, Tom Terrific. I’m cool with level transfers of any sort. I will say that cross platform transfers do allow for timed connections and these are routine across the world, like in Downtown Oakland for BART.
Nevertheless, ST has summarily ignored the idea that it’s possible to have Link-Link transfers without at least two escalator rides. As a future rider who will want to transfer, I find it appalling that ST wants to force me into difficult transfers when they don’t have to due to unimaginative and stubborn staff.
If Dow and Bruce picked up the phone tomorrow and said to create level transfers in SODO, they would do it!
Mike: As a 512 and Northgate Link rider, I was at first worried about this. Being frustrated taking the bus from MLT one stop or Lynnwood two stops to get to the train to go downtown, instead of going direct into downtown on a one seat ride. TBF though, West Seattle Link lacks the advantages of effectively serving additional major destinations like U District and Capitol Hill. The transfer penalty is indeed going to be a much worse trade off for West Seattle.
AI: I’ve been saying all along that West Seattle Link should be incorporated into the same stations that already exist in SoDo, as opposed to separate redundant stations at the exact same location. Same platform if going north, cross platform if going to airport or the east side, it’s really a no brainer. All the more so now that skipping the ID is a likely scenario. Put the $$$ that would go into the deep ped tunnels towards upgrading the station in SoDo instead. If the conflicts with Line 2 also sharing the same tracks are an issue, then adding a third track and having a center platform is a great idea.
“As a 512 and Northgate Link rider, I was at first worried about this. Being frustrated taking the bus from MLT one stop or Lynnwood two stops to get to the train to go downtown, instead of going direct into downtown on a one seat ride. ”
The 512 is going five or ten miles at freeway speed. At that distance a transfer is acceptable. (And can be mitigated with timed transfers or shorter wait times.) It’s longer than taking Link from downtown to the U-District and transferring to a bus for Northeast Seattle. What’s not acceptable is to go one or two miles and transfer to go one or to more miles. Or worse, to have two transfers within the space of two miles. That’s why San Francisco’s Central Subway is problematic. West Seattle is in between these. I’d say it’s similar to transferring in the U-District, so that’s acceptable.
The problem with West Seattle Link is a different aspect. The corridors are north-south because of the hills. But Link goes east-west, so it doesn’t serve any corridor well. At the same time, it’s close enough to downtown that mult-line BRT fanning out from the bridge is feasible. It wouldn’t be if the distance was longer, such as the distances you get in the north or south ends or the Eastside.
It takes forever to get from SODO to SLU on a bus, so in theory a Link transfer in Delridge could save time on many destinations on the north end of downtown. And if you’re transferring from a bus to the 1-Line anyway, you may as well make the transfer at Delridge.
Route 21 and 50 riders are already used to transferring to the C-line so it won’t be an inconvenience to transfer to light rail instead and will open up more destinations than where the C goes. As the network is currently designed, riders on the north end of West Seattle will take the 50 to the Junction Station. Having a Rapid Ride that takes them to the Delridge Station would be a major upgrade over the current options, other than the 56/57 which are peak only.
These are the projects I found interesting.
Downtown
* Project 22 “Denny Way” interesting they are discussing “bus and freight” lanes this time. Maybe that’s more politically feasible? Perhaps Late 8 might get their wish after all.
Ballard/Greenwood
* Project 2, it seems like they are implying dedicated bike lanes on phinney and greenwood further north?
* Project 10, improvements for route 44 to rapidride, notably it does not state anything about transit lanes.
Central Seattle
* Project 43 “Eastlake to Rainier Beach” talks about a new rapidride merging route 36 and 49 (and slightly route 60) going from U district and ending at Othello Station. Note the name is a bit of a misnomer. and more accurate would be called Broadway Ave/Beacon Ave as it is neither on Eastlake Ave nor does it go to Rainier Beach station.
* Project 65 MLK jr way seems a bit odd. It’s the only project asking for freight lanes only (not bus and freight lanes) and this is right after the mlk protected bike lanes are being installed.
Queen Anne
* Project 76 Elliot Bay Trail and project 24, they propose building a new north/south trail on the ‘east’ side of the interbay rail yard (right west of the armory). Using google maps seems it’d make going from Downtown Seattle to Ballard biking time decrease from 35 minutes (if one avoided 15th ave and used 20th ave W) down to 27 minutes.
West Seattle
* Project 57 discusses redirecting the RapidRide H Line to Admiral and Alki neighborhoods after West Seattle Link opens, specifically Admiral Way SW (Taking over the bus route 50 west of Delridge Ave).
* project 12 seems to imply upgrading to protected bike lanes on 35th ave SW
Others
There’s discussion about expanding the trails larger. Typical burke gilman missing link. Also bus freight lanes suggested for many avenues such as 15th ave and lake city way
It bothers me that the plan is not a compilation of seven smaller plans, one for each district in the City. As a result, the ideas for projects have not been fully vetted in each neighborhood — and the project outcomes end up described as vague and nuanced. It’s so vague almost any reader can read their perspective into the recommendation.
It also frustrates me when the vague project descriptions are presented as stand alone without an assessment of system or cumulative impacts. When one corridor is revised, it affects the ones parallel to it and often those perpendicular to it too. It’s like they put lots of food on the table without planning it out as a meal.
All in all, it feels very formulaic and not particularly exciting. However, I think that’s what SDOT wants.
> It bothers me that the plan is not a compilation of seven smaller plans, one for each district in the City.
I mean SDOT still has the city wide plans in the draft transportation plans. It only has so much money to do large street reconfigurations though.
I actually complained to them the opposite that the city wide plans were too vague and wanted a direct list of plans to know what SDOT would actually build. (Aka the draft plan says bike lanes everywhere and transit lanes everywhere and freight lanes on all freight corridors etc…)
I was excited until I remembered that this is the agency that can’t even collect parking ticket revenue reliably, and repeatedly has gone against its own policies at the slightest hint of property owner or driver discomfort. Maybe they could put together a new 15-page chapter with fancy business-speak and pretty icons talking about that? I would hope that would only delay implementation by a few years.
Cynicism aside, that they’re even thinking about E/W connectivity and non-downtown N/S connectivity is a good thing, but I would need to see way more details on each project to even know whether to support it.
Now that more trips involve taking Link north/south and transferring to an east/west bus, the slowness of the east/west buses is much more noticeable than it used to be. This summer, for example, I rode transit from Kirkland to Carkeek Park, and that last mile in a half, from Northgate Station to Carkeek Park amounted to half the total trip time. The 40 badly needs bus lanes on Northgate Way, better frequency, and to consistently leave Northgate on time.
@asdf2,
“ Now that more trips involve taking Link north/south and transferring to an east/west bus, the slowness of the east/west buses is much more noticeable than it used to be. ”
I don’t think it is the slowness of just the east/west buses that has become more noticeable, I think it is the slowness of buses in general that has become more noticeable.
Link is still in its early stages, but it has already reset local transit expectations to some degree. People now have their first taste of what rail transit can deliver in terms of speed, reliability, and overall quality, and they are beginning to expect the same from all transit in general.
This is a trend that will continue as Link continues to expand. Expectations will be reset, and that is probably a good thing for rail funding in the future.
I will note the wording on the projects seems a bit more specific than I thought. I first thought they were interchangeable but it seems to actually imply different outcomes when double checking the other pdf.
For example for bikes it might say
* Adding a bicycle route for people of all ages and abilities => seems to imply conventional bike lane
* Adding bicycle facilities for people of all ages and abilities => seems to imply buffered or protected bike lanes
* Phase in an all ages and abilities bikeway => Only used on the MLK way rainier to city limits one. I’m guessing it’s definitely a bit more contentious to add bike lanes here. Also implicitly said for the other light rail trails.
* “protected bicycle” => Only 3 projects specifically say protected bike lane. 14th Ave NW (I guess part of ballard link), N 130th ST (west of station) and “Adding a protected bicycle lane on Stewart St”
For the ITES it actually has two different wordings
* • Implementing Intelligent Transportation System improvements to make traveling more efficient, safe, and predictable => seems to be for rapidrides faster busses. I guess bus queue jumps?
* Implementing Intelligent Transportation System improvements to make traveling (along this busy street) more efficient, safe, and predictable => seems main purpose is for more car capacity throughput
Added a link in the article to a map of the projects’ routes.
SDOT has not yet figured out that ROW is scarce; there usually is not sufficient ROW to provide priority both both bike and transit on the same arterial. That was one of the main points of the STP replacing the four modal plans. When there is a viable option, the two modes should be on separate parallel streets. Consider North 130th Street. It could have two 15/15 headway bus routes extending between Bitterlake and Lake City and going on to other interesting markets. West of the station, bike priority could be provided to Roosevelt Way north of NE 130th Street and to North 128th Street south of the station; the latter could connect with the bike lanes on North 125th Street that connect with the Interurban Trail. Metro routes 345 and 346 could be restructured; no bus route need be on North 128th Street. See the recent NE 65th Street project; it slowed all modes, including transit. The bike facilities end at 20th Avenue NE. The bike facilities could have been on NE 68th and 70th streets from the beginning and more lane space provided transit at the Link station. During the Kubly term, PBL were added to the west ends of Pine and Pike streets with awkward endpoints; transit was left in congestion.
I agree. This is a very important point, in my opinion. In the past, SDOT has focused on particular corridors. While doing so, they have tried to improve bike and bus infrastructure at the same time. The approach is similar to what they do with our water/sewage system (as long as they are tearing up the roads, might as well fix the pipes).
From a planning standpoint, the combined bike/bus approach has some merit. The problem is, very rarely should we have the bike and bus corridors on the same street. It has to happen in some cases (e. g. Eastlake) but in general should be avoided.
One of the key elements is to add bike paths on residential streets. This is very rare, if not unheard of within our system. Yet it wouldn’t be that difficult to build. Doing so would provide a pathway for bikes that would be fundamentally safer than riding on the arterial. You would need to add traffic lights where the pathway intersects an arterial, but that is often done with greenways anyway. For example, Fremont Avenue is a Greenway through Greenwood. Bikes are allowed to cross 80th, but cars must turn: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XKCFK5p8dnRecFdM9. In other words, they’ve already done the hard part. They should follow this up with bike lanes. Allow parking on one side of the street, but not the other. Make the street one way (for cars). Prevent cars from going through at various points (like here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hTZnrX6TZLQXnkSZ8). Add stop signs at each intersection, which means that cars have to yield to bikes.
Once you accept that fact that bike paths will run on residential streets, it is much easier to add bus lanes to the major arterial. For example, make NW 83rd a bike path (from Sunset Hill to the other side of Aurora). Now you can add bus lanes on 85th. Same goes for the example eddie mentioned.
In the more high-level map the STP identified three W/E transit corridors: (1) W-Ballard – Wallingford – UW – Children’s (Metro 44) (2) Belltown – SLU – CapHill – 23rd (Metro 8) (3) WS Junction – Georgetown – Columbia City (Metro 50)
I wonder whether SDOT has looked at aerial gondola lifts as I do not think turning the 44 into RapidRide will speed it up much. Gondolas would eliminate wait time making transfers faster and practically expand the walkshed of both the Ballard and UW LR stations.
(1) A Ballard line could not only serve Ballard downtown, but also the Nordic Museum, a potential Ballard Sounder station (also identified in that map) and even cross the Ship Canal to connect the Ft Lawton housing project at Discovery Park (Project 61).
(2) A Belltown line would connect both the new SLU and CH LR lines with the Bell Pier, Belltown, Amazon, and KP Hospital. (Project 22)
(3) A WS to Columbia City line could eliminate the need for a WSLE and connect South Seattle College (Project 53) and connect Rainier Valley (Project 54).
I find the larger blocker still American officials and populace not quite understanding urban gondolas. I guess after Paris starts having their urban gondola start running https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/02/07/paris-reveals-a-new-cable-car-for-commuters-that-could-be-running-by-2025 “The Câble 1 (C1) line will link the southeastern suburbs of Créteil and Villeneuve-Saint-Georges ” some American officials/public will go visit there while on vacation and then actually understand that they can work.
That being said, I mainly find option 2 most feasible for ridership out of the 3.
1) For ballard to UW that’s kind of a long line for an urban gondola and considering urban gondolas go around 13~15 mph it seems the same speed as the existing bus.
2) I’m not quite sure how the footprint works but I’d imagine something paralleling Harrison Street might work from (maybe queen anne) to Seattle Center to SLU to Capitol Hill? I guess it’s not really needed if the ballard link subway exists, but if the subway didn’t exist this route alignment seems to be the most useful for an urban gondola. I did consider maybe a more waterfront route but unsure if seaplanes would then have problems.
3) The West Seattle to Sodo/chinatown gondola has already been discussed before and yeah I think it’s viable. The further extension. I’m not sure having it connect to Columbia City is necessary if the Gondola already reached the SODO or chinatown link station. Any frequency gains to columbia city are cancelled out by the faster speed of link after transferring to the sodo station.
Yes, Paris C1 should help, Haifa and Mexico City lines already helped, Los Angeles may also build one.
1) Yes, it’s long, but many people will only use it for a short distance, then it’s still faster due to reduced wait time.
2) I had been thinking along John St. to be closer to the Link stations https://twitter.com/mixio17/status/1675624052134903808/photo/1
3) I was thinking along SW Alaska St and serve the Duwamish Longhouse, Georgetown, the VA Hospital on Beacon and potentially extend to Lakewood so that Seward Park could be served. That would work even better if Link would get extended with the Duwamish bypass.
West Seattle is just too darn slow for a gondola, Martin. And it would connect to Link at a very unpleasant, unprotected station. Ditto Ballard-Childrens.
The Belltown-Capitol Hill line might be very good.
How about the Denny Way portion of Route 8? Seattle Center to Capitol Hill, a straight shot. Maybe go down to the waterfront?
That is probably the closest we’ve come to an urban gondola in the area. It was seriously considered on this blog, and this one: http://citytank.org/2012/02/21/a-gondola-with-a-cherry-on-top/.
It ran out of steam as there was hope that the fixes SDOT made to Denny would alleviate the delays. Unfortunately, they didn’t. I’m sure they help, but the overall problem has gotten so much worse that the fix is inadequate.
While I think a gondola along those lines would be great, I’m a bit hesitant to endorse it, since it may not be needed. The problem is man-made. Fix the traffic issue, and it isn’t clear we need a gondola. This is different than say, running a gondola from Eastlake to the top of Queen Anne. There is a natural barrier there (Lake Union, along with the steep hillside of Queen Anne). In contrast, the problem with the 8 is simply that Denny has too much traffic. The solution is obvious: just take a lane.
(To be clear, I’m not endorsing a gondola between Eastlake and the top of Queen Anne. )
For anyone wondering, as neat as an Eastlake to QA gondola sounds, the Lake Union “Airport” (for seaplanes) would have to be closed to allow for any cross-lake aerial transit, and that’s not happening anytime soon.
Belltown-CapHill is certainly a no-brainer, TT and Brendon. Brendon, did you look at my map?
TT, if the gondola would only have to go to Georgetown/SouthPark (where it would continue on Link/Duwamish bypass), then length/speed is not an issue, frequency is far more important.
Yes, speed on Ballard/UW connection may be an issue, but most people would transfer along the way. A gondola would still be faster and more reliable than a bus connection and I don’t think Link can serve that alignment due to the hills. A rail connection would need to go via Fremont to avoid the hills which adds distance, travel time, and cost.
This is should be the highest priority! They need to get this done ASAP!
“14th Ave NW | Multimodal Improvements
Project ID 23
Project Name 14th Ave NW | Multimodal Improvements
Project Description This project will connect people using the Ballard Link light rail station to the Burke Gilman Trail, nearby neighborhood greenways and protected bike lanes, and schools. The project will make streets and public spaces around NW Market St safer and more enjoyable for people walking, rolling, biking, and visiting local businesses.”
Sunday must be troll day. Why is 14th Sam’s highest priority? Because he knows it will anger me and those who believe in walkability to Real Ballard. At least this troll is better than race-baiting.
We don’t even know for sure yet where the Ballard Link station is going to be.
Mike it right, except I’m not trying to anger him. I just think this project is absurd, or at least premature. Ballard Link is something that may, or may not happen. If it happens, it might be 20 or more years from now. And they aren’t sure where the station will be. Maybe they should have left out the Ballard station part of it, and just mentioned everything else.
This gets into my general difficulty choosing priorities. If Link 14th is chosen, we’ll need this. There are a lot of other projects that would be nice to have, but I can’t say they’re in my top 3, and I wouldn’t want them to displace other projects.
14th the street itself has some advantages and opportunities. It’s wide and has a parking strip in the middle like Beacon Avenue S, which looks clearly like a former streetcar right of way. I walked along it to see its potential, but I don’t remember clearly the sidewalk conditions. The street is certainly wide enough for a pedestrian/bike corridor if the sidewalks are OK. Land use is still half industrial, although not large-lot. I think the city is both trying to encourage housing and keep the industry, which is contradictory. The zoning height is supposed to taper down from 15th to a few blocks east.
> Mike it right, except I’m not trying to anger him. I just think this project is absurd, or at least premature. Ballard Link is something that may, or may not happen. If it happens, it might be 20 or more years from now
These projects mention the future light rail stations are only implemented later on not right now. The in depth pdf describes them as “There are various segments in the bicycle and e-mobility network that will require phased implementation. Several of these corridors are dependent on other changes occurring throughout the transportation system, such as the West Seattle to Ballard Link Extension stations opening”
I guess this priority plan could have described/labelled it a bit better the difference. But I still find it better that people actually know about these planned projects rather than stuck in some 700 page pdf.
I think the key to the Ballard station is what will the stakeholders want, who are folks who live there or own property there, and what will be affordable. Will existing businesses near 20th want years of disruption like the CID objected to? Will property owners along 15th compete with property owners along 14th for a Link station to increase the value of their properties? How much will N. King Co. subarea have left over when it reaches Ballard, the last segment of WSBLE, especially if a second tunnel is built? Will there be enough money for an underground station, because that would change everything, and why 14th was the original preferred location.
If I had to guess today I would guess the station will be on 14th, which is why SDOT has an entire section on upgrades for a station on 14th. My other guess is there won’t be a station at all because future transit ridership in and out of Ballard won’t validate the costs of Link, and as so many have pointed out on this blog the money will have run out by the time Link gets to Ballard without a ST 4, or a delay of decades while ST continues current tax rates under ST 3.
“what will the stakeholders want, who are folks who live there or own property there”
And people who work there, go there, or might live in the village after the Link station and planned growth is complete.
“Will existing businesses near 20th want years of disruption like the CID objected to?”
Probably. But we need to stop letting existing businesses veto making neighborhoods function optionally. The problem was that we didn’t build a subway a century ago or in Forward Thrust. Then it would be already there and businesses wouldn’t have to worry about disruption.
“why 14th was the original preferred location.”
15th was the original preferred location. That was in the planning documents and in the ballot measure. 14th emerged after the vote, when the Port objected to using part of Port land or Fishermans’ Terminal.
“My other guess is there won’t be a station at all because future transit ridership in and out of Ballard won’t validate the costs of Link”
You could make Interbay the final station and run a gondola line via Fisherman’s Terminal to downtown Ballard along 20th Ave W.
The City needs a higher capacity crossing of the Ship Canal for rubber tired vehicles, and will use BLE to get it. There will be a new five lane bridge in the Fourteenth Avenue right-of-way, two Link tracks and three northbound vehicle lanes. The bridge will open and be a bit higher than seventy feet to minimize interruptions.
The existing bridge will be rehabbed and resurfaced, with three southbound vehicle lanes and a two-way, protected personal transportation facility on the west edge of the bridge.
The Link trackway on the west side of the new bridge will continue level to the south and cross to the Thorndyke ROW and descend to street level at a station under Dravus. It will continue south next to BNSF, pass under the Magnolia and Helix bridges and squeeze between BNSF and the buildings on the old NP track for a few blocks, rise up and diagonal across Elliott to a portal under Republican. One direction may need to be elevated above the other.
Running at-grade from the Expedia station will allow another station south of Dravus, at Armory.
Anything more elaborate is a big waste of money.
Project 23 does not assume construction of a station on 14th Avenue.
Connective multimodal N/S improvements are planned for 14th because there’s no room for it on 15th. 14th and 17th are already the main N/S bikeways between 65th and Leary, but 14th has something like 15-20′ of median (old streetcar ROW currently used for car parking) between the Ship Canal and 58th that can and should be improved as a safer N/S connection.
The 15th Avenue alternative for the Ballard station lands underneath the gas station at the 15th/Market Safeway, which is a few hundred feet from 14th. Even if ST saves cash by not buying out the Safeway (but then we don’t know where their terminal laydown yard is going to be), 14th is the obvious N/S connection route for pedestrian/cyclist traffic.
TT, you’re falling into DT’s old habits of stating speculation as fact, which is confusing for anyone who isn’t deep in the weeds on the project.
Nathan D —
I didn’t get the feeling Tom Terrific was stating as a matter of fact that he knew the configuration for Ballard Link. How could he when we are talking decades away, and there are so many possibilities and factors?
I don’t even think Tom Terrific was saying this was his preferred alignment. My impression was Tom was saying this is what he thinks could possibly happen, and why.
I thought his analysis of the need for more rubber wheel capacity across the Ship Canal was very perceptive and something I had never thought of. After all, Ballard Link in large part is based on future population growth in Ballard, and travel in and out of Ballard, so that would include rubber wheels too, even more than rail based on today’s car/bus split. So more bridge capacity will be needed if that occurs, or Ballard Link won’t if it doesn’t.
Mayor Harrell and County Executive Constantine moved the CID station to CID N in large part to revitalize downtown Seattle and their properties there so I could definitely see the same two using Ballard Link to remedy two birds with one stone: more rubber wheel capacity across the ship canal, and repair of the existing bridge when Seattle has an unfunded $3.5 billion bridge repair and replacement need, with ST funds.
I would like to see a thread on this blog asking folks on this blog these questions:
1. Where do you think the configuration for Ballard Link will go, mainly station, and why including out of the box reasons like Tom raised, or just money? It is important I think to remember Ballard link is the last WSBLE segment so if money gets short Ballard Link will get the lion’s share of the cuts. In many ways Tom’s idea helps Ballard Link because one way or the other Seattle has to repair or replace the Ship Canal Bridge, and ST money is one way. One thing we know from Link is transit is not always the prime consideration for siting lines and stations.
2. Where would people on this blog like the station and line to go, and why? Would they be able to walk to it if they live in Ballard depending on location? If not, how would you get to the station.
3. What is the poster’s connection to Ballard? Do they live there, work there, ride transit to/from there, own property or a business there? I think this is important because I think there will be competing interests among Ballard stakeholders on where the line and station go and don’t go.
I would also appreciate your analysis and answers to the questions above because although I like Ballard when I go (outer Kirkland to Ballard is a very long trip) I don’t really know enough about the stakeholders and the city these days to analyze things like Tom did.
The only thing I could offer Cam already offered, and that is Ballard is not very big at 27,000 total residents (with a lot of them working from home today), and money will be tight when WSBLE finally gets to Ballard, especially if a second tunnel is built and three underground stations in West Seattle.
But I would like to know what others on this blog who are more knowledgeable about Ballard than I am think about where the station should go, and where it will go, which are not always (usually) the same. I thought Tom’s ideas were clever, and things I had not thought of before, and based on the mayor and county exec. very plausible.
@William G
This is getting a bit more off topic but I guess it’s fine since it’s still about Seattle.
1. Where do you think the configuration for Ballard Link will go, mainly station, and why including out of the box reasons like Tom raised, or just money?
I assume we’ll run out of money spending all of it on West Seattle Link and the new downtown tunnel. We’ll end up choosing the cheapest option most likely at-grade along 15th or maybe elevated then with a drawbridge into 17/15/14th etc..
2. Where would people on this blog like the station and line to go, and why? Would they be able to walk to it if they live in Ballard depending on location? If not, how would you get to the station.
I honestly don’t think it matters that much. Ballard while moderately dense isn’t that sensitive to the point where moving the station a couple blocks over is going to really change much. Honestly choosing the cheapest option whether at-grade/elevated allows it to further extend north much easier. I just don’t want an underground approach since practically it’ll never be extended with such high costs underground
3. What is the poster’s connection to Ballard?
For ballard specifically mainly just visiting for retail/friends, I do live in Seattle.
For a bit more context, a lot of what Tom (and I) describe are from the previous plans. The original Ballard Link plans had it either at-grade in the center lanes of 15th avenue (similar to MLK) or elevated along the west side of it.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/12/06/sound-transit-refines-ballard-options/
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/ST3_Ballard_DtwnSeattle_11252015_11x17.pdf
“Where would people on this blog like the station and line to go”
The ideal station would be at 20th & Market. That’s right in the middle of the pedestrian concentration between 24th and 15th, between south-of-market and north-of-market, near the center of the village at 22nd, and near the medical center at 17th. It would have to be underground because of the built-up pedestrian village around it. This was a late-thought-of alternative created on this blog (or maybe Seattle Subway had a hand in it too).
The politicians’ plan was always on 15th since it was conceived in the 1990s through the 2016 vote. The monorail in the 2000s would also have been on 15th (pecluding Link). The politicians liked 15th because of the six-lane expressway that they assumed could have center transit lanes. Transit fans thought 15th was a bit far east but went along with it for consensus.
During the alternatives analysis in 2013 (the options A-D in WL’s link), I and most on this blog preferred D, the Queen Anne tunnel. That would have the fastest travel time, and also serve Fremont and Queen Anne, which are left out of Link. An alternative would be to go surface on Leary Way between Fremont and Ballard. But what ST chose was B (15th Avenue elevated).
After the vote, the port started complaining about using land west of 15th or a corner of Fishermans’ terminal, and ST responded by creating a 14th alternative. Also after the vote started appearing calls for a Ship Canal tunnel or putting the whole thing underground. That’s problematic because the budget was scaled for elevated. West Seattle is in the same situation, people calling for a tunnel after the vote. The choices for a bridge crossing were a 70′ drawbridge (twice as high as the Fremont bridge) or a 130′ fixed bridge (like the Aurora bridge). Also after the vote, the Coast Guard said it would require any fixed bridge to be at least 200′ so that yachts with sails could get to an emerging repair industry east of the bridge. That’s another reason for now considering a tunnel.
I worked in Ballard four years, lived there one year, have friends who have lived there so I’m thinking about people like them, and still go there occasionally for various reasons. I’d go more often if it were better connected by transit.
The Ballard Bridge like all the Ship Canal bridges are old and need major repairs or replacement. We suggested to Seattle in the mid 2010s that it plan a joint bridge replacement for both Link and cars and bikes, with ST and the city each paying half. The city declined to coordinate it, so we don’t know what will happen with the automobile bridge, just that it can’t defer overhauling it forever.
There have also been proposals to move the automobile bridge to 14th. Or maybe that was the Fremont automobile bridge moving west a bit; I forget which or whether the city considered it. The concept was that the automobile bridges would move to 14th and/or 3rd NW, and 15th and/or Fremont Ave would be for non-car modes. But none of these are in the city’s plans now.
“money will be tight when WSBLE finally gets to Ballard,”
All of Ballard, the second downtown tunnel, and West Seattle have significantly increased in costs. This is due to residents wanting tunnels, the Coast Guard not allowing a 130′ fixed bridge, longstanding public opposition to a drawbridge (which I think is overkill; a 70′ bridge wouldn’t open very much), rising land acquisition costs, the second downtown tunnel ST is insisting on, and the 4th & Jackson option which would cost more than CID/N but make Link usable for passengers. So I wonder if ST will be able to afford any of it, or if it will have to scale it back and consider options it has heretofore refused to.
If you look in the archives for March 2023, there are a few articles about ST’s committee/board meetings that led to CID/N-S and opposition to them, the ongoing debate about 15th vs 14th, and the new alternatives in SLU. There are also two articles advocating a one-tunnel alternative. That is, cancel the second downtown tunnel, put three lines in the existing tunnel (Rainier, West Seattle, and East Link), make Ballard a Ballard-Westlake line shuttle, or make Ballard-West Seattle an automated line with a smaller tunnel and stations (which would cost less but run much more frequently like Vancouver’s Skytrain). Several of us are trying to get ST to consider these, but so far it won’t. But if the second tunnel breaks the bank, they might come back to it later.
By the way, the option E in WL’s link (Westlake-Leary streetcar) was for a separate streetcar line, not Link. Mayor McGinn gave ST money to study that at the same time as Link, since the city was going to study it anyway.
Let’s not get too caught up in discussing ST3 Link in this article, since the topic is SDOT’s projects throughout the city. I just wanted to answer your questions since you’re recent here. We can get further into ST3 issues in an open thread or in ST3 articles. The archives also have a lot of articles about ST3 in North King.
Nathan, OK, let’s agree to discuss this after the “Final EIS” for BLE is released. I’m pretty confident that Seattle is going to want — and get — a new highway crossing piggybacked on the Link crossing of the Ship Canal. It makes far too much sense to do both needed projects at once..
Of course The City will pay for the “extra” costs represented by having the decking and support bascules (or lift towers) wider and heavier. But ST will shoulder the project wide costs.
Watch while the back-scratching unfolds. North King is essentially Seattle, certainly in terms of revenues. Either West Seattle and DSTT2 south of Westlake Center will have to be canceled or BLE is going to be severely value-engineered in the way I outlined.
Once the tracks step down from their SkyArch and burst up from the muck under the Ship Canal, adding a boring old opening bridge for just the train will seem silly. And it would be.
Bringing back to topic, I think it’s interesting that one of SDOT’s proposed (“candidate” may be a better term?) projects is to study a new pedestrian bridge over the Ship Canal between the Ballard and Fremont Bridges. That indicates to me that the City does not think it will have the money for a complete rebuild of Ballard Bridge in any of our lifetimes.
Nathan, I expect that the vast majority of voters in Ballard, Blue Ridge and Crown Hill would rather have a better vehicular crossing of the Ship Canal than a crossing for Link if they have to have only one or the other. A better vehicular crossing benefits buses as well as cars and trucks.
But if they can get both, they’d be even happier because Link is at least on average, more reliable.
No matter how good a “transit talk” the City leaders may talk, when it comes to walking, they agree that rubber tires are more important.
I say this with sadness, but in full recognition that American has painted itself into a rubber-tired corner. There’s no going back at this time, and it will empoverish the nation and rape the global environment trying to keep everyone moving in private cars. Even electric ones.
TT, I think you’re right that if the choice were binary and mutually exclusive, a new light rail crossing loses to a new vehicle bridge every time.
But, this project list explicitly does not include bridges, except, as I mentioned, a planning study for an interesting proposal for a new pedestrian/cyclist bridge. Further discussion of a rethink of ST3’s funding and/or future bridge megaprojects should be held in the most recent Open Thread.
“that American has painted itself into a rubber-tired corner. There’s no going back at this time”
Europe turned around in the 1970s, especially The Netherlands. We can turn around too. And Canada and Australia are at least partly turning around. Some US metros are harder to turn around than others, but Pugetopolis is one of the easier ones. It just takes politicians with a good vision and a resolve to follow through on it, and a public willing to let them do so. That happened in Vancouver BC and Toronto and Washington DC. It could happen in Pugetopolis too.
Mike, the US has another half century of sprawl infrastructure in place since The Netherlands woke up. In 2021 my wife and I circled the US except for New England. Everywhere we went, in small cities and large, the “drive-up” model is completely victorious. If folks here think that pedestrians have a hard time in Pugetopolis, they should try walking in Houston or Los Angeles. To survive longer than a few months, one has to have a car. And those are places that vote Democratic strongly.
The cake is baked and the supply of flour and leavening is used up. Maybe Seattle can stave off carmaggedon for a while, but there is simply no longer a tenable political pathway for a Europeanized US. The short-termers, represented here by Daniel and William, have won.
You start by improving transit and creating pedestrian spaces. Eventually it starts growing by itself spontaneously, and the percentage of people who live in car-depenendent areas or want to live in car-dependent areas goes down. Even if you can’t convert the entire metropolitan area you can get to an upward spiral. Vancouver BC and Washington DC did, and they’re more similar to Seattle than The Netherlands is.
[ot].
[ot]
[admin]
[deleted at author’s request]
[ot]
> SDOT has not yet figured out that ROW is scarce; there usually is not sufficient ROW to provide priority both both bike and transit on the same arterial. That was one of the main points of the STP replacing the four modal plans. When there is a viable option, the two modes should be on separate parallel streets.
I was wondering about Ed’s comment here and decided to take another peak at conflicts. It seems some of the major avenues SDOT has already separate one route for transit and another for bikes. But others it hasn’t quite decided yet.
Ballard — quite a lot of conflict choosing between bus and bike lanes.
* N 85th St. Bus lanes. Priority plan omits bike lanes (bikes on 83rd or 80th instead)
* 24th ave. Conflict. Haven’t decided whether to do bike lanes or transit lanes
* 15th ave NW and N 105th St (RapidRide D). Bus+freight lanes. Priority plan omits bike lanes
*Market St/N 45th (Route 44). There is a proposed bike lane from 24th ave to 14th ave NW, I’d assume from extending the south side shared use path. East of that only ITS traffic light improvements, no bus lane. Granted the 44 transit plus corridor construction just wrapped up 1 month ago.
* Greenwood (north of 77th), Conflict between (bus and bike lane) One of the weirder conflicts. There is an existing painted bike lane north of 77th to 105th, but the draft transportation plan erases it. North of N 105th unsure if they are building a bus or bike lane.
* Leary Ave NW: Major Conflict: Quite heavy conflict on what exactly to build here. The existing plans mark it as both transit lanes and potential FAB lanes. But also this is the alternative route for the Burke Gilman missing link. And also the transit plus 40 project is actively under design.
NE Seattle — seems to allocate all the larger “ways” to bus/freight lanes and only the streets near light rail for bike lanes.
* Lake City Way. FAB lanes (priority plan omits bike lanes)
* Sand Point Way NE. FAB lanes (priority plan omits bike lanes)
* NE Northgate Way (west of lake city way). Bus lanes.
* NE 125th street. bike lanes https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/ne-130th-and-125th-mobility-and-safety-project
* All other bike lanes are in the neighborhood side streets.
(FAB means freight and bus lanes.)
Anyways since not many other people are commenting on the plan I think it’s fine for me to double comment:
SLU
Harrison Street — This a bit odd. The priority plan wants it to be a bike route. But the other draft plan wants this to be a transit street. I guess they can’t decide?
Downtown
Stewart Street and in Chinatown protected bike lanes (Both connecting to existing 2nd avenue and 4th avenue bike lanes). Seems to make plenty of sense
Virginia street extension of the transitway
Central Seattle
23rd avenue the plan here looks useless. It’s just more repaving.
Pike/Pine interesting they want to extend the one-way couplet idea from the waterfront further east to Madison. I guess that is one way to attain bus lanes for the corridor.
The Seattle Transit Advisory Board meets October 25 6-8pm at city hall and online, and is open to the public.
This was kinda underwhelming. It was good to see which neighborhoods SDOT is focusing on but the project list was very generic and they call sounded the same (with some exceptions).
Also to note, SDOT mentions transforming the 44 into RapidRide. The more I think about the concept of RapidRide, the more I’m against it. The 44 already runs every 10 min and has gone through stop-consolidation. If Metro simply removes a few more stops and makes all-door payment a system-wide policy, then there’s no need to spend millions of dollars rebranding a few buses and adding mediocre shelters.
RapidRide should be the standard of bus service in busy corridors.
Sidenote: has anyone noticed the new signal at Broadway & John?
When it comes to the transit projects, we shouldn’t bother with public input. We have the data already. We know where the biggest bottlenecks are, just as we know which buses get high ridership despite very low speeds (e. g. the 8, 44). SDOT (working with Metro) should focus their efforts accordingly.
Most likely, the most cost effective fixes involve multiple routes. If we just focused on all the bridges we could improve things dramatically. But there are plenty of other places where bus improvements would help multiple routes (e. g. extending the Third Avenue busway to Denny).
Cost should also be a major consideration. A lot of the improvements would cost very little. For the most part, it just involves planning, and then paint. If you start getting into things like making the street wider, then we should reconsider, as that is a lot more expensive, and there are plenty of areas that can be improved without spending that kind of money (e. g. Denny, for the 8).
Normally I’d agree but that wasn’t originally sdots plan. Their plan really focussed on building the streetcar and lots of money on the “urban mobility hubs” aka ev charger stations.
I mean for the 8 they’re still deciding whether to add bus/freight lanes to Denny way. Or whether to move it to Harrison with bus lanes or bike lanes. So if you have a preference I’d probably tell them.
Also for the bike routes I think it’s pretty important to tell them whether one wants it on the main corridor or side street. SDOT doesn’t really have any good measurements for that
The Move Seattle projects were based on several corridors (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/) along with improving bus speeds in general. Move Seattle specifically did not include money for the CCC project. It has always been a controversial project (which is probably why they left it out).
My point is they are asking the public for feedback on what we should prioritize, which is the wrong approach. They should be focused on getting the most bang for the buck. That should be how they prioritize the projects. In some cases that means doing some initial work, to see what it would entail. For example, Franks’s article describes speeding up transit on Jackson, which would be huge. But because it would require moving the streetcar (and having more buses with doors on both sides) the cost is significantly higher. It probably makes a lot more sense to focus on other projects that have a similar payoff without as much cost.
Once you get into the details of a project, public input is important. A lot of projects involve a stop diet — there are inevitable trade-offs. The 8 is an even bigger example of how public input would matter. But that can happen after we decide to focus on the 8. This shouldn’t be a contest to see who can rouse more support for a particular project. The agencies should have enough data to at least set priorities.
Also for the bike routes I think it’s pretty important to tell them whether one wants it on the main corridor or side street. SDOT doesn’t really have any good measurements for that.
Yes, which is why I only mentioned bus routes. With buses, we have the data. With bikes, we don’t.
In this case, you are also talking about a general approach, as opposed to how we should set priorities. Again, that is a major difference. That is similar to saying “I don’t care about RapidRide — just add off-board payment, better stop spacing and lots of right-of-way”. This is entirely different than saying “Please prioritize bus service on Phinney Ridge — it seems like the bus is always stuck in traffic”.
WL and Ross, note the lack of a budget constraint. I already commented on the ROW constraint. Move Seattle had many more desire lines than it could afford. Note how little was spent on Aurora Avenue North that needs sidewalks, curbs, and access management north of North 115th Street. Yesler Way had a Move Seattle desire line. So, at this stage, SDOT is casting a wide net.
> WL and Ross, note the lack of a budget constraint. I already commented on the ROW constraint. Move Seattle had many more desire lines than it could afford.
I’m a bit confused here? The reason for the priority plan to have the public comment on is to know what to spend on first. The plan specifically calls out the lack of money to fund all of these and limits voting for 5 projects per subarea.
> Note how little was spent on Aurora Avenue North that needs sidewalks, curbs, and access management north of North 115th Street
That is more because there is a separate fund 50 million from Washington State directly already given.
> With the passage of the Washington Legislature’s transportation package arrives $50 million in new funding for the redesign of specific stretches of Aurora Avenue North. Those dollars are tied to the requirement that the city completes its design change plans by Sept. 30, 2023, and begins construction by March 1, 2024.
https://mynorthwest.com/3391829/state-dollars-sdot-aurora-redesign/
The reason for the priority plan to have the public comment on is to know what to spend on first.
But how much money do we have, and what do these projects cost? Without that information, it is very difficult to prioritize. For example, take project number 26, the 47th street pedestrian/bike overpass. Let’s say it costs 50 million dollars, and we plan on spending 60 million on bike projects. At that point, forget it. No way. In contrast, assume it costs 30 million, and we plan on spending 300 million on bike projects. Sure, maybe. What else could be build?
That’s the thing. Without knowing what these projects are, or what the overall budget is, we have no idea how to rank them.
Ross, the other key is to get accurate project cost estimates. No matter which agency, there is an incentive to over promise in order to sell the levy with the belief that any levy money is better than none. That happened with Move Seattle that funded about half the promised projects, and with ST 3. SDOT will never do it, but listing the 50% of projects in Move Seattle that were never completed because the other projects cost twice as much as promised as the first projects in 2024’s levy to renew Move Seattle would be educational for the voter.
The next concern is agencies tend to underestimate inflation. From around 2010 to 2021 inflation was near zero, and many projects like Link assumed those inflation rates would last forever. Voters need to be very demanding that SDOT publish the inflation rates it is assuming in its 20-year plan because just a difference of one percentage point can make a huge difference.
Next is Seattle’s upcoming operations budget deficits. What happens is SDOT will receive less general tax revenue and will want to use the levy funding for general maintenance rather than promised projects.
Finally, SDOT in Move Seattle tended to pursue the eye candy and not the meat and potatoes, which is bridge repair and replacement. I don’t see many on this blog advocating for seismic bridge repair and replacement, or in the 20-year plan, but Seattle has no other funding mechanism I know to accomplish this. The extra $20 vehicle tab is spit in the ocean.
Since this is a priority plan, I guess perhaps we can discuss what projects are “more important”. Was originally listing projects, but realized it’s way to many so instead grouped them in categories. It was a bit hard to decide but this would be my priority list:
1) Bus lanes on major corridors I’d say are the most important. I’m fine with Bus and Freight lanes if that’s what’s politically acceptable on say 15th, rainier, lake city way.
2) Bike lanes on arterials. Say on Mlk, Fauntleroy, Greenwood, Yesler. Placed this above bike trails since closer to density/where people live.
3) Bus lanes on minor corridors like 23rd, Admiral Way, Harrison St, N 85th..
4) Bike lanes on minor roads. Hard time defining this but like east-west roads? aka Graham, N 130th. Thought about it and while there are less east-west bike routes the car traffic is also less
5) Bike trails. I’d say expanding existing trail widths are less important than closing the gap with trails/multi-use paths. Aka like the proposed Sylvan Way multiuse path over Alki trail width expansion.
6) ITS (traffic light) improvements. Not really sure if it’ll actually help around the freeway entrance exits but sure for James st, Denny way etc…
7) New pedestrian/bike bridges. While I certainly like the idea of connecting across i-5/waterways they are also really really expensive. Aka NE 47th street bridge, ship canal, west seattle to columbia city ideas.
Of course this is just my list. Was wondering do people have a different priority list/preference? would be interesting to know.
What is the NE 47th street bridge?
A pedestrian/bike bridge over I-5 at 47th. For a while, SDOT was focused on 45th, but that is problematic, for a number of reasons. https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2022/11/16/45th-street-bridge-money-should-either-require-bike-lanes-or-go-to-sidewalks-and-south-end-safety-instead/. Thus the idea of a parallel bridge for bikes.
The idea is to build a new pedestrian/bike bridge across i5 at NE 47th street connecting Wallingford to U district. It’s actually not a bad idea considering how the freeway ramps work most cars say northbound enter at 45th/50th. While also the exit ramps are south of 45th and just slightly north of 47th so one would avoid all the freeway traffic.
However, if one really analyzes past plans it’s more of an expensive solution for being unable to allocate a bike lane on the existing N 45th street bridge.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/10/14/sdot-drops-ne-45th-street-bridge-bike-lane/
“What is the NE 47th street bridge?”
It’s project 26. A ped/bike bridge across I-5 to connect the U-District and Wallingford.
It seems like south of 45th would make more sense, from a pedestrian and bike point of view. That’s where the major draws are on the east side of I-5, and that’s where the Wallingford Greenway is on the west side.
http://seattlegreenways.com/wallingford-greenways#panel-6560-1-0-0
> It seems like south of 45th would make more sense, from a pedestrian and bike point of view. That’s where the major draws are on the east side of I-5, and that’s where the Wallingford Greenway is on the west side.
If you’re talking about 45th, yeah if they could reallocate a lane or expand 45th bridge that’d be the most optional.
If you’re talking about a new bike bridge south of 45th; a bike bridge/path on 44th would conflict with the i5 ramps on both sides. Also it’d have to be like a diagonal bridge to reach 43rd since there is no 44th St on the east side. Any further south and i5 is rising up so now you’d need to build a deep tunnel to get under the express lanes, or even further south one can just use the existing Lake Union loop trail.
43rd seems like the obvious spot. Almost half as narrow as 47th abd much better connections. The altitude over I-5 is a little less, but the size of the bridge at 47th would have to be immense.
South of 45th, you’re starting to get close enough to the Burke-Gilman trail that a new bridge looks a bit overkill. 47th does a better job of putting something in the middle of the gap between the Burke Gilman and Ravenna, where there is no quality bike infrastructure crossing I-5.
47th is also better for bikes than a bike lane on 45th, since it avoids the mess of long stoplights plus lots of turning cars getting on and off the highway. There is also not room to create a bike lane on the 45th St. bridge without severe impacts to both general car traffic and the #44 bus. A 47th St. bridge would also better connect Wallingford to the U-district for people walking, not just people on bikes.
I get that it would be expensive. However, let’s not forget that WSDOT created this problem by building I-5 in the first place. Ideally, since they created the problem they should pay for it. In practice, it doesn’t work like that, which is why project is languishing and, at this point, seems unlikely to ever get funded. SDOT just barely managed to scrounge the money for the John Lewis Bridge over I-5 further north, and without the draw of a light rail station directly at one end and a major community college at the other, it wouldn’t have happened.
As somebody who biked from the northern U-District for 13 years, I agree with asdf2: 47th fills the gap between 45th and Ravenna Blvd. It would let me get to Wallingford without backtracking. People from the fraternaties would also go straight west to 47th. People from 45th would have to backtrack a bit, but there aren’t that many, because everyone from south of 45th (the core of the Ave) or from most of the UW campus or from U-Village could just as easily take the Burke-Gilman instead.
“if one really analyzes past plans it’s more of an expensive solution for being unable to allocate a bike lane on the existing N 45th street bridge.”
A lane on a major freeway interchange that gets backed up for hours has disadvantages in itself. A small low-key bike/ped bridge sounds like a good contrast to the hustle and bustle of the U-District and I-5. We don’t need to overanalyze the cost now. That’s SDOT’s job to come up with a set of projects and their costs. We’re just weighing the relative needs from the users’ perspective.
Thank you everybody. I agree that it’s a good project, well placed between Ravenna and the B-G. It would make walking or biking to the U-District from north of 45th an entirely different experience. I used to walk to work at the U from Phinney Ridge at 43rd (yes, that’s a bit extreme), so I can imagine that a lot of younger people would like to make the hike from the Latona area.
For me, we should put completing the sidewalk network as number 1. We have put 20 years of time and money to provide lanes for bicyclists yet the demographic is limited by abilIty. In contrast, everyone walks or is in a wheelchair except for people who are incarcerated or have major health issues.
Signature pedestrian bridges are nice, but there are many areas in town that need a simple sidewalk that doesn’t cost lots of money. The thing is that we often don’t see little gaps unless we are walking the block ourselves. Areas that we think of as having complete sidewalks do not.
And while I’m on the subject, I think the tree root problem with sidewalks has to also be systemically addressed. It’s dangerous to walk on sidewalks where tree roots have upended them. It’s a public health hazard.
This gets to the basic problem I have with these sorts of surveys. Without cost, they are meaningless. If we prioritized sidewalks, nothing else would get done in the city. We could spend billions of dollars adding sidewalks, with no new bus or bike lanes, let alone fixing roads or bridges. It is just unrealistic.
Sidewalks are extremely expensive. Bike lanes aren’t. Neither are bus lanes. That doesn’t mean a new pedestrian bridge is worth it or not — you have to consider the big picture, like how many people will use it and what it costs. A bike/pedestrian bridge over 47th is intriguing because it clearly separates the bikes from the buses. It opens up the possibility of adding bus lanes, while still creating a safe environment for bikes.
“If we prioritized sidewalks, nothing else would get done in the city.”
And we still couldn’t finish all the sidewalks because there are so many blocks to do.
Given the current pace we could address some of the most important blocks on arterials though not even all of them. For the neighborhood streets that’s a much larger ask.
> Given available funding for sidewalk projects, which allows for approximately 25 blocks of sidewalks each year
> As of 2015, the last time a full-scale audit was done, around 14% of the city’s arterial streets were missing sidewalks, which amounts to nearly 2,000 blocks. By contrast, over 30% of non-arterial, or neighborhood, streets in the city lack sidewalks — nearly 12,000 blocks. Overall, nearly one out of every four blocks citywide lacked sidewalks.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/pedestrian-program/sidewalk-development-program
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/09/20/morales-proposes-adding-sidewalks-to-seattles-complete-streets-ordinance/
It’s a bit more feasible than I thought. If one really wanted to fix all the arterial/city’ sidewalks. Though note the calculation below probably is only talking about the arterial roads not the neighborhood roads. To fix all the sidewalks all 12 thousand blocks would be around 5 billion dollars. Just the city ones would be around 800 million as described below.
> Full replacement is expensive — as much as $85 a square foot, compared with under $50 for asphalt repairs. Fixing all of the city’s sidewalks could cost between $500 million and $1.3 billion, or more than the whole 2015 transportation measure
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/new-law-would-mandate-construction-repair-of-seattle-sidewalks/
One alternative is adding a lot more ‘walkways’ on the road itself with concrete barriers. The current sidewalk budget is around 10 million per year (and it costs around 400k per block). Same-level walkways Seattle claims can be done for 100k per block — though of course this alternative means taking away parking on many neighborhood roads so not sure if it’d be acceptable.
“ Sidewalks are extremely expensive. Bike lanes aren’t. Neither are bus lanes. ”
I disagree. The cheap bus and bike lanes are already in place for the most part. We spent lots on things like the recent bicycle projects Downtown. There are concrete separations and major street changes involved. I
In contrast, the installation of sidewalks only requires a few inches of concrete below the ground. In most cases the City already owns the right of way and drainage issues are minimal.
Of courses doing every street is cost prohibitive. Still, a bigger dent on the issue is needed and should be a high priority — especially on any street over 10-20k in daily vehicular traffic.
“ Sidewalks are extremely expensive. Bike lanes aren’t. Neither are bus lanes. ”
I disagree.
This is a common misconception. Sidewalks are expensive. It isn’t the asphalt (or cement) it is the hydrology study. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/giving-everyone-a-sidewalk-is-no-walk-in-the-park/. Much of Seattle has no sidewalk. Thus when you start trying to fill in all the missing pieces, you aren’t talking about millions, but billions. Yes, billions.
Just look at the plans for Move Seattle. 123 million for sidewalks. 94 million for bikes. That gets you 50 miles of protected bike lanes, and 60 miles of greenways. It gets you 150 new blocks of sidewalks. Not miles — blocks.
Look, I would love sidewalks by my house. So would my wife, and all of our neighbors. But they simply aren’t cheap. If they were, we would have them. The city is adding them in various neighborhoods, but they have to prioritize. For example, in Pinehurst, they’ve added them by the school. This is a huge improvement.
But even then, it isn’t clear that we should prioritize sidewalks over other improvements. Consider the 117th Greenway. It runs from Pinehurst Way to 8th Avenue NE (you can see it here: https://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a24b25c3142c49e194190d6a888d97e3). There is a new sidewalk between the school and Roosevelt. But then there is basically nothing. This begs the question — What would be the next step?
1) Add a signalized crossing at Roosevelt, to make it easier to cross the street.
2) Add a four-way stop at that intersection.
3) Extend the sidewalks to 8th.
The second option is clearly the cheapest, and it is quite possible the first option is cheaper than the third. Both are more important than additional sidewalks.
> I disagree. The cheap bus and bike lanes are already in place for the most part. We spent lots on things like the recent bicycle projects Downtown. There are concrete separations and major street changes.
We spend a bit more on sidewalks than it may seem.
While it may seem like only 10 million is spent on sidewalk budget annually that isn’t the full story. There is another 10 million annually spent for ada ramps (but we can leave that out to be fair). And a lot of the rapidride’s and even bike projects spend quite a large amount on sidewalks typically lumped in the “Access to Transit”. Where as in the past say Rapidride E it only spent 30 million and nothing was for sidewalks. I unfortunately couldn’t quite find a cost breakdown for the recent rapidride H that spend 150 million ( 60 from federal funds) but for say the future Rapidride R (1 pdf of RapidRide R cost breakdown).
Out of the 90 million it’s broken down into
* 10 million for BAT lanes (4/5 miles?)
* 18 million for bus stations
* 17 million for trolley wire
* 17 million for ITS (smart signals)
* 11 million for pavement resurfacing
* 18 milllion for sidewalk addition/repair (unclear how many blocks)
I wouldn’t be surprised of rapidride H also spent at least ~15 million on sidewalks as well.
Just adding bus lanes is still pretty cheap, and it’s probably how the transit plus 7 is still occurring they just left out all the other improvements for now. Even the transit plus 44, a lot of the money was spent rehabilitating sidewalks as well. (2 map of transit plus 44)
(1) https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/rapidride/r-line-corridor-planning-and-upgrade-report-executive-summary.pdf#page=15
(2) https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/TPMC%20Route%2044/TMPC44_Map_6122.pdf
When it comes to sidewalk costs, we should also remember one of the lessons of the pandemic with the Stay Healthy streets: the streets themselves are walkways if we want them to be. There were obviously problems with the implementation, in particular around entitled drivers moving the signs or blowing stop signs and then barreling down them, but many of those problems can be overcome with street design like attaching the signs to the road surface permanently.
Ideally SDOT would consider priorities in some kind of order like walking/biking/transit, freight/delivery (including delivery parking), recreational drivers, and finally recreational parking only if there is nothing else to do with the space.
I’m leaning toward corridors that at one time or other have been RapidRide candidates, and others in the larger villages. But I’m trying hard not to bias it toward corridors I would use. But I don’t know how to weigh the other ones. For instance, Greenwood/Phinney Avenue: does it need bike/ped improvements over other areas? Would it get high bike/ped usage? I don’t know!
I have found two streets particuarly unsafe for walking: Airport Way crossing the street at Industrial Way to the northbound bus stop, and the 145th sidewalk between 15th Ave NE and Jackson Park.
I’m pessimistic about the results, since most people will choose their own area, and that will tell less about what the overall needs are, than about who filled out the survey.
> I’m pessimistic about the results, since most people will choose their own area, and that will tell less about what the overall needs are, than about who filled out the survey.
in the survey you choose five from the sub area so that generally helps it out. Granted I do think sdot has overcomplicated this survey page
I’m pessimistic about the results, since most people will choose their own area, and that will tell less about what the overall needs are, than about who filled out the survey.
Exactly. That is my fundamental problem with the survey. Surveys make sense when it comes to particular changes. Sometimes you can come up with a solution that folks didn’t think about. For example, SDOT didn’t consider closing off 3rd to cars in their otherwise extensive look at bike and pedestrian safety in the 130th Station area. But for a lot of these projects, it seems likely that folks will favor the ones they themselves will benefit from. There doesn’t seem to be any consideration when it comes to cost, either. It isn’t clear whether we should ignore it or not. For example, I’m sure a lot of people want a better way to bike across the ship canal on the Ballard Bridge. The Bike Blog has covered various improvement projects. Unfortunately, each one is very expensive (compared to bike funding). Thus they have basically made the case that we shouldn’t do it — not until we add a lot more bike lanes. If you are filling out the survey, should you just ignore the cost, or prioritize it (as if money was no object)?
> I’m pessimistic about the results, since most people will choose their own area, and that will tell less about what the overall needs are, than about who filled out the survey.
I think it is still a bit more insightful to give feedback than you’d think. At least when I talked to them in person 2 months ago, they thought everyone wanted the streetcar and the mobility hubs (mainly ev charging stations). They also thought the people pedestrian streets were going to be more popular. Granted it’s just one anecdote from one SDOT event.
Also don’t forget not everyone focused on transit/bikes, others asked for faster avenues, better freeway exit/entrances.
Your first two priorities are at odds (which goes back to what eddie wrote about). There are some major arterials that don’t have buses, but very few. MLK, Fauntleroy, Greenwood and Yesler all have buses. This is why we can’t make general pronouncements about adding bike and bus lanes in this manner unless we are willing to add bike lanes to side streets. I could easily see that as a priority. Thus for me it could be as simple as:
1) Build a bike network that avoids conflicts with buses whenever possible.
2) Add bus lanes where they will do the most good (using available data).
3) Muddle through as best you can in areas where bike and bus conflicts are unavoidable.
To use the 130th station project as an example, you could create a very good bike network to the west of the station, starting at 3rd. This would consist of good bike lanes to the north and south of 130th. Meanwhile, 130th would have bus lanes, although they wouldn’t necessarily be a priority (because traffic moves fairly well there). But they would be in the long term plans.
Meanwhile, between 3rd and the station is a tougher problem. Ideally you add a pedestrian bridge (or widen the existing pedestrian bridge). In the meantime, maybe you live with pedestrians and bikers sharing a narrow sidewalk. Or maybe you add a bike lane (even though it could slow down the buses). The same thing is true to the west. There are alternatives to bike lanes on Roosevelt/125th, but they aren’t great, suggesting that compromises have to be made there. Like Eastlake, you hope it ends up being safer for bikes while faster for buses, but it may not be ideal for both. Some corridors are more important for one versus the other.
But whenever possible, we should build out the bike network away from the buses. While expensive, a pedestrian/bike bridge over 47th does exactly that (as does the John Lewis Memorial Bridge and Shoreline’s 147th bridge). There are a lot of much cheaper projects that could be built as well.
> Your first two priorities are at odds (which goes back to what eddie wrote about). There are some major arterials that don’t have buses, but very few. MLK, Fauntleroy, Greenwood and Yesler all have buses. This is why we can’t make general pronouncements about adding bike and bus lanes in this manner
I could have been a bit more clear, but didn’t want to write a giant comment earlier as less people tend to comment. I’ve discussed a bit in the other comments but I’ll write it here too, generally SDOT has already marked the larger corridors as the ‘bus’ one and more minor corridors as the ‘bike’ one. It’s a bit more obvious with some avenues as they aren’t listed in the draft bike plan at all.
For MLK way north of i90 it’s generally 23rd avenue being the bus corridor
MLK way south of rainier there’s already the light rail, though SDOT marks this bike lane proposals as “phased”. And also Rainier Avenue is the one getting bus lanes.
15th Ave S/Beacon Ave is also getting bike lanes/improved bike trail.
Yesler what SDOT is doing is just extending the painted bike lanes further to the east. Nothing more. They’re also more focusing on making Jackson St the bus corridor to connector downtown to rainier.
For NE Seattle generally none of the ‘Ways’ have bike lanes proposed and instead it’s on the burke gilman, sand point trails or street grid neighborhood greenways.
For West Seattle, it’s a bit more complicated. But basically they want to add bus lanes to California Ave. For Fauntleroy it’s more upgrading the bike lanes west of California Ave. And also a small section in front of the trader joes (though probably after west seattle link station for this section). 35th avenue would also be a bike corridor.
Of course there’s other corridors SDOT hasn’t decided and it’s listed in both plans. Greenwood it’s a bit up in the air as you noted whether they are building bus/bike lanes. The current route 5 improvement project suggests bus lanes, but then this priority plan says bike lanes lol.
But why should we prioritize bike projects that slow down the buses, when there are obvious alternatives for bike lanes that are not being built? This shows a basic flaw with the design. SDOT has been unwilling to add bike lanes on residential streets. Even when they have done the expensive work (like adding traffic lights) they haven’t done the real work of adding bike lanes on the residential streets.
For example, why are adding bike lanes on Greenwood Avenue, when Fremont Avenue and 1st Avenue Northwest (both nearby, parallel Greenways) don’t have bike lanes? That is backwards.
I’m not saying there aren’t projects that are worth doing — or prioritizing — even though they conflict with the buses. MLK is one of those. There isn’t a good alternative for bikes, and Rainier would be even worse for buses. But in general, that is a flawed approach. Arterials are fundamentally more dangerous, even if you have bike lanes. You are bound to have more cars, and they will be going faster. At the same time, we really shouldn’t be making our buses slower given that it is arguably the biggest transit problem we have in the city right now. We should prioritize bike lanes on roads that don’t conflict with buses. Our bike path network should consist of largely bike lanes completely separate from the buses, with only small patches (like Eastlake and MLK) where they come together.
> I’m not saying there aren’t projects that are worth doing — or prioritizing — even though they conflict with the buses. MLK is one of those. There isn’t a good alternative for bikes, and Rainier would be even worse for buses. But in general, that is a flawed approach.
I generally agree with you, I guess I thought SDOT generally already implements the approach you’re talking about? Looking at the past projects of 23rd they didn’t add bike lanes, nor on Rainier they chose bus lanes, on delridge while they added some bike lanes prioritized the bus lanes.
Sure they added bike lanes to 2nd and 4th but that’s with 3rd avenue being the transit corridor. I guess broadway would be one corridor where they added bike lane. Maybe dexter ave could have added bus lanes instead? Or are you talking about some other corridor you preferred bus lanes over bike lanes.
Future bike corridors on arterials of Eastlake and maybe Mlk way (south of rainier) both have an alternative light rail line. Even for greenwood, the most recent route 5 improvement plan is to change the bike lanes around 80/85th and turn into bus lanes. Further bus lanes north of that is more around parking concerns than whether bus or bike lanes.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/09/05/metro-looks-at-speeding-up-route-5/
“Looking at the past projects of 23rd they didn’t add bike lanes, nor on Rainier they chose bus lanes, on delridge while they added some bike lanes prioritized the bus lanes.”
Then there’s Roosevelt Way and NE 65th Street, where they did put protected bike lanes on major bus streets. Those seem to work well as complete streets, although they hinder the possibility of transit-priority lanes later. 23rd didn’t get bike lanes but it didn’t get transit-priority lanes either, so it’s a lose-lose (but a win for cars).
When we talk about “priorities”, we need to keep the broader political “climate” in mind. With the long-term cost of money shooting up while the very real need to transition the energy economy away from fossil fuels just gets clearer with each new record hurricane, depending on “The Infrastructure Bill” and Congressional inertia to pay for frivolities like Link beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way or along the west edge of Seattle is folly.
The Puget Sound region will continue to be very attractive to climate refugees from the burning southwest, but the refugees, sadly, won’t be bringing their economic activities with them. I will go on the record here and predict that the United States’ obscene per-capita dependence on fossil fuel combustion is going to wreck the economy within the next three to five years. Russia, China and Iran are right on the cusp of being able to place a choke-hold on oil production from the Middle East and embargo sales to the West as a result of the new slaughter in and around Gaza. It will not end well for either the Israelis or the Palestinians and re-open old resentments throughout the region. The crashing economy that will result will ensure that the “Red Wave” predicted last year will arrive in 2024. Especially now that Republicans have placed a polite but implacable obstructionist as Speaker of the House, there will be no Federal funds for fancy transit extensions for a decade, if ever.
King County is lucky that it got a decent transit backbone built before the catastrophes began in earnest. But Seattle has neglected its roadways for far too long. It needs to choose projects from this list which ensure that what business does take place within its boundaries can do so with the greatest efficiencies. Therefore Freight and Transit Lanes should be numbers 1, 2, and 3 priority. A small percentage of the projects should be “amenity-focused” like bike lanes and sidewalk improvements, especially in parts of the City that don’t now have them. But most should go toward strengthening the roadways on which trucks and buses travel, and giving them priority of movement.
“Russia, China and Iran are right on the cusp of being able to place a choke-hold on oil production from the Middle East and embargo sales to the West as a result of the new slaughter in and around Gaza.”
The US doesn’t get oil from the Mideast anymore; the US gets oil from the US and Canada and (ssh!) sometimes Venezuela, and the US exports oil. Europe, Southeast Asia, and probably Latin America depend in Mideast oil, but Europe is trying its darndest to get off foreign oil. China, according to Peter Zeihan, imports much of its energy and food, so it’s at the worst risk of collapsing if the US blocks oil ships in the Pacific, and in a China-Russia-Iran triad, China would be preoccupied getting its own oil from those two powers before it thinks about strangleholding others.
“The United States’ obscene per-capita dependence on fossil fuel combustion is going to wreck the economy within the next three to five years.”
The US also has the cost of maintaining its low-density suburban/exurban infrastructure. That’s not just the cost of oil for supply trucks and residents’ cars, it’s also the cost of materials and labor. And many cities won’t be able to afford the bills, or depend on population growth (=more houses) to spend on current maintanance, which just makes future maintenance a bigger task, since infrastructure grows exponentially when you build low-density houses instead of compact multifamily.
You are right that the US doesn’t get much oil from the Middle East. But Europe does, and if Russia and China convince the sheikhs to sell to China, Asia and Africa exclusively, we will have to supply Europe with oil as well as natural gas. They have several hundred million cars in Europe, too, and only a small percentage are electric.
If there were a few million barrels of excess production scattered across the globe holding prices down, it wouldn’t be a problem. But there isn’t, and when oil’s supply and demand curves reach a difference of less than a million bpd, prices start to spike. China still isn’t “back” to pre-Pandemic consumption rates, but they have sold 25 million cars domestically since it began. Those are not “replacement vehicles” in China. Nearly every one that isn’t electric is new and additional demand for hydrocarbon fuels to some degree. Yes, roughly 40% ARE electric this year, but that wasn’t true in either 2021 or 2020. Probably 15 to 17 million of those new cars are ICE.
I don’t exactly get how China will be squeezed for oil supply if it, Russia and Iran get OPEC+ to embargo the West over Gaza and general resentment against the “Imperialist West”. Are you advocating torpedoing tankers in the Malacca Straits? To channel GHW Bush, “Wouldn’t be prudent.”
Your reply to my statement about “dependence of fossil fuel combustion” is basically a list of the specifics of exactly why that dependence exists. Single-family homes require more energy to heat and cool. They require more energy to travel to and from them. They require more energy for yard and garden upkeep. I agree with all the instances you pointed out. But the way they will bankrupt the country is by sucking money out of the economy to pay for $250/bbl oil to provide all that energy, not by the sprawl directly, damaging to the planet though it is.
Thanks for reading and responding to what I wrote.
“I don’t exactly get how China will be squeezed for oil supply if it, Russia and Iran get OPEC+ to embargo the West over Gaza and general resentment against the “Imperialist West”. Are you advocating torpedoing tankers in the Malacca Straits?”
I’m not advocating it; I’m just saying Zeihan makes a good case that China is in the weakest position of any major power. The US is self-sufficient in oil and food and many other things, and is rapidly reindustrializing after China’s covid closure, and has our NAFTA partners. Russia, China, and Iran don’t have friends because they’re assholes to others; they just have co-schemers that come and go. Russia has domestic oil and gas, but no longer has experts to maintain it since they left with the sanctions, and if pipelines get turned off due to lack of exports and then freeze and crack in the Russian winter, it would take decades to restore production. Russia also has a falling population, a brain drain with the Ukraine war, and neglected education in the post-Soviet era. Russia has no oil pipelines to China if I recall, and it would have to cross Siberia to get to China. Iranian oil is half a world away, and the US patrols the oceans, especially around its allies in East/Southeast Asia. China also has a rapidly-falling population, a bad-debt load ten times bigger than the 2008 crash, a leader who has removed everyone who could give him facts he doesn’t want to hear, etc. And China has three east-west economic/affinity groups along the rivers (Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen), and the north has been dominating the other two and extracting advantages for itself. So if the central power in the north slips, the other two might go their own way. So if, say, China invades Taiwan, and the US decides to blockade oil tankers and food shipments to China, then China as an economically-successful single communist country is hosed. The countries that are in a good position to become rising powers are Turkey, France, and maybe Iran. Other countries likely to thrive are Chile and Mexico. I don’t remember what he said about Africa, maybe Nigeria?
Just wondering does anyone know how the SODO trail to beacon hill proposed project would work?
Priority project number 54 as “This project will improve transit access and reliability from West Seattle to the Rainier Valley. This could include: Adding and enhancing all ages and abilities bikeways”
Or also described in the draft plan as “S Spokane St viaduct at-grade to Beacon Hill” saying “Connect the SODO Trail to Beacon Hill”
Is this like a new bridge? Or like are they somehow adding a bike lane to the Spokane Viaduct? Or is this like going under the i5 and somehow reaching columbian way?
I just don’t really understand how they are planning to connect it.
It’s frustrating that they don’t tell where these West Seattle to Southeast Seattle connections would be.
The existing I-90 trail goes west to at least 12th, and signs say it ends in SODO somewhere. Part of the trail was closed for East Link construction; I don’t know whether it’s fully reopened yet. The SODO trail may mean the north-south one one parallel to Link for a few blocks, or the emerging east-west one at Lander Street, or another east-west one mentioned in the projects.
The priority plan map shows it going along Spokane S (or on the Viaduct???) to Columbian Way. But I have zero clue how that would work, it’s not like they can add bike lanes to a freeway ramp.
There is a sidewalk on the viaduct. There’s a stair up from Airport Way, and then it winds around to Beacon Avenue at the top of the hill.
@Mike
Ohhhh thanks for the explanation. Yeah now I see it on google maps.
Okay so I see the idea is extend the Spokane st bike lanes (not on the viaduct) and then add two pedestrian/bike ramps to the existing sidewalk and then a bike path/sidewalk along south side of Columbian way.
Seems a lot more feasible now.
I should have said the eastern end is at 14th & Spokane. Beacon Avenue is further east on the other side of Jefferson Park.
I looked at an apartment on 15th just south of Jefferson Park. The closest bus route was the 60, but it was half-hourly then and ended at 9pm and had no Sunday service. The 36 was surprisingly far away, a 20-minute walk. That made me understand why 15th needs a separate route, because they diverge even further as you go south. I also timed walking across the viaduct to the 4th Avenue South bus stops. That was a 20-minute walk if I remember, with hill climbing and the stairway. So it was too remote a location for me at the time. Now it would be better because the 60 is more frequent and runs later and Beacon Hill Station exists. The station would be, I’m guessing, a 30-minute walk away? But I could take the 60 to it.