Since 2021, SDOT has been working under a Pedestrian and Bicycle program grant from WSDOT to “reimagine” Aurora Avenue North from the northern end of the SR-99 Tunnel to 145th street. Based on community input provided during a series of meetings last summer, SDOT has released concept art depicting four potential general corridor concept designs: “Walkable Boulevard”, “Bike Connection”, “Center-Running Bus Lane”, and “Maintain Capacity”. Since Aurora varies in width along its route, there are versions of each graphic for a 90-foot roadway and a 106-foot roadway.
The Aurora Project is split into five segments:
Note: This map shows the Aurora Project area as diverting to Linden between N 63rd and Winona, but review of details from previous community meetings shows this is not actually under consideration. Also, Aurora Bridge and the Woodland Park section are excluded from segments 1 and 2, respectively, due to “unique constraints and challenges”.
SDOT is requesting preference for each road alternative per section, implying that they are looking to see if a mix-and-match approach will work to appease community interests. The Aurora Reimagined Coalition has been advocating for a continuous center-running busway with curbside bike lanes, but SDOT did not present that as an option. They propose either bike lanes with curb-side BAT (business access and transit) lanes, or a center-running busway with no bike lanes.
Given a choice between these two, a center-running busway would speed up the E (and other routes that use Aurora like the 28 and the 5), maintain access for freight, and improve walkability by providing more protection for crossings.
SDOT’s center-running bus lane concept for Segments 1 and 2:
SDOT’s center-running bus lane concept for Segments 3, 4 and 5:
It is also notable that the proposed potential use of the curb lanes as “Flex Zones” (e.g. loading, street cafes, parking, etc.) could be used to force through-drivers to serpentine between the flex zones and turning lanes. This feature is not present on the other concept drawings.
I don’t like the exclusion of bike lanes from the center-running bus lane concepts, but it seems to me that if there must be a choice between significant improvements to transit versus the construction of protected bike lanes on what would otherwise still functionally be an expressway, then the priority should be improving transit. Even though the bike lanes would be buffered from traffic with landscaping (similar to the 7th Avenue bike lanes in South Lake Union), the concepts do not include protection for bike lane users at intersections like what’s under construction at Dexter and Thomas.
If bike lanes are truly incompatible with a center-running busway, then SDOT should consider the entire corridor, not just the 90-106′ right-of-way of Aurora Ave N. Fremont Ave N and Stone Way N should be considered for improvements to serve north-south cyclist travel upgrading as Greenways, with upgraded east-west connections to allow for access to Aurora-facing businesses. For Segments 4 and 5, the Interurban offers an extremely safe alternative for longer-distance trips along the corridor.
SDOT is seeking feedback via survey until April 5, and via three open houses this month. Interestingly, the survey doesn’t ask respondents to select their favorite concept for each segment, but instead asks whether “at least one of our draft designs reflects your ideas or priorities” for each segment, followed by a comment box and a Like-Dislike chart for specific design elements.
I think that the timing of making Aurora decisions is totally out of whack here! We are literally only about six months away from Lynnwood link opening along with a route restructure that affects demand in far north Seattle and Shoreline.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to not force choices until the new demand and transfer patterns kick in? The new service structure could easily change which transfers are heavier and most important, and how many RapudRide E riders will want to get to Link instead.
Today, it’s speculative when designing the concept. New year there will be real-time data to consider.
I don’t think it makes any difference. Remember, a very high percentage of people are simply traveling along Aurora itself! They aren’t going to any Link destination. Then you have people who are headed downtown. For many the Aurora corridor will remain the fastest way to get there, by far. It is worth noting that Lynnwood Link is an extension north of Northgate, which means that for much of the route the changes have already occurred. A relatively small part of Aurora will be effected by Lynnwood Link and most of those riders are in Shoreline (which is outside the scope of this project).
Good point about stopping at 145th. I expect more from Shoreline will consider Link.
I will however add that whatever design concept Seattle pursues should continue into Shoreline. 145th is a messy place to transition buses from the median to the side and vice versa.
@Al S.
I don’t envision Shoreline making any modifications. It was the first (amd only) jurisdiction in the region to completely redesign its portion of SR99. Shoreline restricted all left turns to ether traffic-controlled intersections or a few designated turn spots – all made possible with landscaped concrete barriers. Sidewalks are align the entire stretch and there’s even a wide ped/bike art path around 185th. And of course, BAT lanes.
As a transit and safety enthusiast, I’m pretty satisfied and don’t believe Shorline’s next capital road project should be Aurora-focused.
If that’s true what Jordan says, the Seattle better consider that before taking this too far. At some point a special signal would be required to transition buses between the median and the sides. Where would it go? Would this affect the final design choice?
At some point a special signal would be required to transition buses between the median and the sides. Where would it go? Would this affect the final design choice?
I could see a queue jump (those are fairly common) but it isn’t essential. Running in the center for miles and miles to then transition is well worth it (even if the transition is bad). No one likes it when a bus has to weave, but don’t forget: it does that now! Every southbound bus has to leave the curb lane and then move over into the middle lane to exit downtown. Every northbound bus has to do the reverse. Oh, and the BAT lanes are not consistent and even the highway itself forces the bus to change lanes. For example, a southbound bus has to run in the curbside lane to serve the station at 45th. But that becomes the middle southbound lane before it gets to the bridge. So it has to move to the curbside lane after it goes over the bridge. Then it has to move to the far left lane to get to downtown. In contrast, middle running buses would have just one transition, while avoiding a lot of the worst bottlenecks.
For example, imagine if we had center running buses between the Aurora Bridge and downtown. Buses would have to move over on the bridge (or shortly before it). This would be less than ideal, but it would benefit us in many ways:
1) Avoids one of the most congested areas (downtown).
2) Allows for more bus stops in a very urban part of the city.
3) Allows for more pedestrian/bike crossings in that same part of the city.
4) Less weaving (not more). Keep in mind, the 5 (and 28) will have to do this weave anyway. They have to get from the center to the exits. This sort of thing is common, even if it isn’t ideal. The buses on 520 have to leave the HOV lanes before working their way to the exits. Yet those HOV lanes have probably saved more people more time than anything we’ve ever built in this city (except maybe the transit tunnel).
I am not recommending that. The later you make the transition the better. My guess is the bus will transition to curb-side boarding north of 135th. (135th would be the last center stop.) There is a big gap there between bus stops (ten blocks). That is plenty of time for the bus to move over to the right. It is worth noting that the bus only has to change one lane (since there is one lane of general purpose traffic). So northbound you have BAT lanes in the middle of the street, then a gap where it is two lanes for everyone, then BAT lanes will be on the right. Southbound is similar except you also have the merge (where two general-purpose lanes become one). This would occur while there is curbside BAT lanes (before the weave). For southbound drivers this would mean merging then changing lanes (that’s life in the big city). Of course Shoreline would decide to do the southbound merge before then.
SDOT will have to figure out the details at some point, but compared to everything else it is a pretty minor thing.
@Ross:
Certainly there are ways to shift between the median and the sides. Certainly it’s possible to create queue jump signals to make the transition easier.
I’m only raising the topic because it is a concern. In particular, it affects the overall travel time and perhaps the overall reliability with every transition required. Keep in mind that Aurora is so wide that anywhere that there is a signal and pedestrians are allowed to cross that it’s going to be red for at least 40-60 seconds.
It’s a potential concern if the different segments end up moving buses back and forth to reach a stop or get in a lane several times rather than once.
*****
I guess my overall biggest concern is more about pedestrian safety. We have a situation very similar to center transit lanes on MLK today but with light rail. Granted that trains don’t stop as easily as buses, but the overall traffic flow on Aurora moves faster than MLK.
As we know, putting stops in the middle of the street literally requires every single bus rider using the stop to require crossing lanes of fast traffic. And unlike MLK with only three light rail stations on it (soon 4 hopefully), there will be lots more stops in the median. Aurora currently has 16-17 total on these studied segments! Moving to center lanes may increase pedestrian fatalities.
One could even argue that money spent on changing Aurora should instead be spent on changing MLK. It may not look as attractive from a photo op or grant perspective, but I’d much rather see the City pay more attention to pedestrian safety than endure years of reconstruction and tens of millions of dollars only to build something that could actually increase pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries.
I agree about creating bike infrastructure on neighboring streets and concentrating on buses on Aurora proper. Aurora is such a sewer it’s difficult for me to imagine wanting to cycle up it. What I would really like is for there to be better ways to cross it, and better ways to access the businesses there. I mean, have you tried to cycle to Aurora Family Market? It’s like trying to walk across Elliott Bay. If you could zoom up Stone Ave and then cut into the lot there, that would be practical.
The one thing I forgot to mention when I did the survey is BIKE RACKS. There’s never any, and if there is, god forbid it should fill up because there’s never a make-do alternative, even a crappy one.
It would be nice if there was someone, anyone, on the team who commutes and shops by bikes and knows what the inadequacies are.
Agreed. I think crossing Aurora is more important than biking it, especially if we improve the parallel pathways.
In terms of that, west of Aurora is pretty good (with the Interurban and Fremont) but there are a few “missing links” to the east. For example north of the cemetery (close to Northwest Hospital) is a bit of a mess. The potential is there for some pretty good routes but they need to do the work. Ashworth is a Greenway that will have some minor improvements (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/greenways-program/ashworth). It could use bike lanes. Likewise it would be nice to see Stone Way work as a bike path from the cemetery (115th) to 128th. Then add bike lanes east-west on 128th (from the Interurban to 1st Ave. NE) with a signalized crossing of Aurora. That way you could easily dogleg between any of the corridors using 128th (Ashworth to the Interurban, Ashworth to Stone, Stone to the Interurban).
I’m a hard-core bicyclist, but I’m not sure how much I would really use bike lanes on Aurora even if it were the width of the Champs-Élysées. It’s noisy due to the traffic volumes and speeds and vehicle mix; there are many curb cuts for commercial properties. Aurora’s deeply-ingrained nature as a primarily vehicular-oriented corridor transcends its somewhat reconfigurable physical design. The lumber shops, auto shops, big box stores, kind of need to go somewhere, and that’s where many of them are now. Maybe the mix will evolve to be more urban over time but, as a bicyclist, I’d rather just ride on a quiet, parallel street.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, lack decent sidewalks and decent street furnishings for big stretches of Aurora, and everyone who walks to a business or the bus benefits from sidewalks. Sidewalks are also usable by bicyclists, especially with the low pedestrian volumes that are common on Aurora.
While some kind of marquee center-running infrastructure sounds slick in the abstract, it sounds like a solution in search of a problem here. And who really wants to wait for a bus in the middle of Aurora on a cold rainy day (or on a hot sunny day for that matter)
Segments 1 and 2 are wider and can support interesting upgrades without taking away a vehicle lane. Segments 3, 4, and 5, however, from Winona Ave. north, present options that remove a pair of general purpose lanes. I’m all for walkable boulevards and bike lanes, but I’m not sure what happens to the parallel streets in that scenario; I’d be concerned it might lead to congestion on Aurora plus congestion elsewhere, too. There’s a lot of growth in that area, and that means deliveries, services, vehicular trips. SDOT should analyze it.
As for transit queue jumps and the like, let’s do whatever it takes to keep those buses moving.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, lack decent sidewalks and decent street furnishings for big stretches of Aurora, and everyone who walks to a business or the bus benefits from sidewalks
Yes, and I think that is a given with every proposal. Whether the sidewalk is really wide or normal width, it will be there (where it is currently missing).
While some kind of marquee center-running infrastructure sounds slick in the abstract, it sounds like a solution in search of a problem here.
Wait, what? Slow travel speeds on Aurora are a really big problem. It takes a long time for a bus to leave downtown and work its way over to Aurora (since the lanes are to the left). Likewise, to get to downtown a southbound bus has to leave the HOV lanes on the right side and then exit to the left (where the congestion is). There is also something important on the right side that isn’t on the left: bus stops. So not only does a bus have to leave the fast lane and throw itself into the same traffic mess as drivers, but by doing so it skips important potential bus stops. Ever wonder why neither the 5 or the RapidRide E stop at Roy? Because they can’t! They can’t possibly serve a bus stop there and then get over into the middle lane. As a result the buses just skip over one of the more urban areas of the city. It is about 800 meters between bus stops — which is huge. That is way beyond standard international stop spacing (let alone typical North American stop spacing).
And who really wants to wait for a bus in the middle of Aurora on a cold rainy day (or on a hot sunny day for that matter)
The same people who wait on the side of Aurora right now. If you are waiting in the middle of the street you definitely have a shelter. It is really not that different. This is one of the most popular bus stops for the E: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1o5Tk7yWdMtC56SG8. Would it make any difference if the stop was in the middle of the street? Not really. From a comfort standpoint, the key is the bus lanes. There is a big gap between riders and traffic because of that lane in between. The only significant difference is that buses would be a lot more reliable (and more frequent) which means less time waiting.
I’m all for walkable boulevards and bike lanes, but I’m not sure what happens to the parallel streets in that scenario
I think the science is pretty clear on it. A lot of automobile trips just disappear. When you provide a fast alternative (like buses running in center lanes) and general purpose capacity shrinks, people switch to other modes. It is basically the flip side of “induced demand”. https://thecityfix.com/blog/traffic-evaporation-what-really-happens-when-road-space-is-reallocated-from-cars/
There is a very easy, albeit far from “free” fix to the southbound problem, Ross. I’ve stated it at least a dozen times but nobody has listened. Since I’m replying directly to you rather than just embedding it in a reply to another poster, maybe folks will read it.
Here it is:
At Mercer where Sixth North turns south (here:https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6243325,-122.3441106,3a,75y,136.31h,99.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHKqb4g9YvwboxwhQKro8KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHKqb4g9YvwboxwhQKro8KQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D92.10709%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) it’s possible for the busway and walkway to diverge from Aurora, rise up a bit to clear Sixth North, and come down in the fenced off section of the Gates Foundation land. It would then merge with the southbound lane of Sixth North just south of the stoplight for the soutbhound on-ramp. Make all auto traffic turn onto the freeway there so that the long block south of there (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6232783,-122.3446288,3a,75y,340.74h,89.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-iiNuehRbBT3AgUkXKN5qw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) is effectively bus only . Turn left at Harrison and you’ve got a straight shot at Seventh North which is the current bus route. No waiting to merge left, and you can have a stop at Roy.
Just to be clear, if center running lanes are chosen for Segment 1, this is neither necessary nor smart. But if the right-hand running lanes are maintained in order to connect up at Winona, this southbound exit works nicely.
@Tom — Yes, we’ve discussed that idea. But it would cost a bunch of money (hundreds of millions probably) and crossing Aurora would still be limited to a handful of awkward pedestrian bridges (or the Mercer ditch). The beauty of this solution is that it is not fundamentally expensive. No new ramps or tunnels. Just some curbs, traffic lights and paint and both transit (and the neighborhood) would be transformed. None of this BS: https://maps.app.goo.gl/P68MLuy6inVMedje9
Center running transit lanes are great, but on sections 1/2 where aurora is basically a limited access expressway, a lot of work would have to be done to allow pedestrians to cross the street to get to that transit lane. Will be interesting to see if that access means new signals and crosswalks, access from the preexisting under and overpasses, or both.
Ross touched on it a bit last thread and I agree it’ll probably be implemented like the new at grade pedestrian signals on (Rapidride d) Elliott Ave W & W Mercer St
> on sections 1/2 where aurora is basically a limited access expressway, a lot of work would have to be done to allow pedestrians to cross the street to get to that transit lane.
I originally thought it’d cost a lot, but there’s actually only 5 rapidride e stops on the “expressway segment” and then if it takes linden avenue completely there’s only 3 stops to build actually at Galer st, Lynn st and finally N 46th st.
But actually I do wonder if they’ll add in all the other stops like for route 5
It would be short-sighted not to allow the 5 and other non-rapidride busses gain from these investments, especially when considering the “one Metro” future.
@tim
Agreed but it definitely makes it a lot more complex if center bus lane say for the 5 to exit to Fremont. I’m not even sure how it’s work
I would assume they would add in all the stops. As you mentioned, WL, there aren’t that many. Between downtown and Green Lake there is Prospect, Galer, Crockett, Lynn, Halladay and 46th. Prospect, Crockett and Halladay are not used by the E. Of course 46th (and the stops north of there) are only used by the E.
I would consolidate Crockett/Lynn stop. I would probably add a stop at Roy (or thereabouts) but that could occur later. I think it makes sense for all the buses (5, 28, E) to make all of the stops. I understand why the E skips some of the stops, but that is partly because you can’t cross the street there. This deflates the ridership potential.
It makes sense to focus on the value of the crossing as much as a bus stop (and they would go together). For example there is no crossing of Aurora between Galer and Mercer. This creates a wall for pedestrians (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1DZfvrWofxdcmjep7). Thus a bus stop with a pedestrian/bike crossing in that general area would be huge.
Pedestrian walkways are complicated. Simple surface street crossings are not. I realize this sounds hard to fathom, but we have done similar things on similar streets. That is what this project is all about. Re-imagining Aurora.
Buses can be center running and still have right hand side stops This shouldn’t be like Madison BRT where the E would need unique fleet. I assume all routes on Aurora, not just the E, would utilize the center running bus lane.
Buses can be center running and still have right hand side stops
Yes, that is exactly how they show it working. The only disadvantage of that approach is that you double the number of bus stops.
I could also see a hybrid approach. South of Fremont everyone boards the bus on the right. But after that, people board on the left (since it would be for only one route — the RapidRide E). That might reduce the amount of work needed to build the bus stops.
> Buses can be center running and still have right hand side stops This shouldn’t be like Madison BRT where the E would need unique fleet. I assume all routes on Aurora, not just the E, would utilize the center running bus lane.
The center median bus stations for rapidride G are because they wanted to keep some left turns on Madison. If they removed the left turns (from Madison to side streets) you wouldn’t need center median bus stations nor left side boarding buses.
If on aurora one wanted to center bus lanes, and both two general lanes and some partial left turns one option would be to have an offset center bus station and the pocket left turns after them. It would be probably the most costly though to buy both side doors and needing to add even more traffic lights
This section of the rapidride G below somewhat shows what I’m talking about:
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/2021_BorenToBroadway.pdf
Why do you need center lanes for left turns?
@mike
No I’m saying if you want center boarding platforms/center bus lanes and also left turn lanes one way to accomplish that is with an offset bus station and with left side boarding busses.
Normally with center bus lanes/bus station there isn’t enough space for both two general lanes and a left turn lane
I’m not sure if buses with doors on both sides would actually much for Aurora — not if you wanted people to access the bus from a crossing that has turns. You are still using three lanes (bus lane, bus lane, center bus stop) along with a turn lane and two general purpose lanes for going straight (or six in all). In contrast, if you eliminate left turns than you definitely have additional space (for bike lanes or a wider sidewalk). This space is gained whether you do the weave or have buses with doors on both sides.
On the other hand, if you had buses with doors on both sides and mid-block crossings I could see how left-turns could be accommodated without sacrificing space. Basically you put the center bus stops where there are no left turns. That means five lanes. Where there is a left turn you have no bus stop (again, five lanes). You could do that with a weave, but then your northbound bus stop is pretty far away from your southbound bus stop (both of which are mid-block). I guess it wouldn’t always have to be “mid-block”, but places where people are not allowed to make left turns.
@Ross
Yes that’s what I’m saying
You can also view an example here
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/2021_BorenToBroadway.pdf
For Bolyston it’s
[west general lane, west bus lane, center bus station, east bus lane east general lane] at the next block with broadway its [west general lane, west bus lane, east bus lane, east left turn lane, east general lane]
Of course it can still only provide partial left turns. In simpler cases it can consolidate the bus station to say just on one side (say north of the intersection) then you can still have a left turn on the south side
Tim, I like your idea for underpasses. At N 46th St and the Fremont Troll, you may be able to add access from each station to the underpass underneath. That would eliminate the need for a traffic light.
For segment 3,4,5 I don’t think any alignment that doesn’t keep at least 2 general lanes will be accepted at all. I’m more wondering if we drop the left turns is it possible to build both 2 general lanes in each direction and a center busway. People would have to do a weird right then u turn aka like jersey though
Getting rid of left turns would also make for shorter traffic light cycles.
That being said I don’t think it changes the dynamic much. According to the docs, it is wider to the south. They take advantage of this width to add seven lanes for much it (four general purpose, two bus lanes and a center bus stop). Obviously that shrinks to six lanes over the bridge, but that is fine since there won’t be any stops there.
But to the north it is not as wide. They have six lanes (not seven). Again you have three for the buses (two bus lanes and the center bus stop) leaving three lanes for general purpose cars. Might as well add the occasional left turn lane. I suppose you could have two northbound lanes and one southbound lanes (if you got rid of the left turn lanes). That might appease some folks.
But I think we shouldn’t second guess the planners and simply address this as if we were part of the civilized world. What would they do in Europe? Pretty much exactly what they have in the diagrams. Of course various groups will oppose it, just like they opposed the changes on Westlake (which were similar). But at the end of the day, this is not a radical proposal, and simply a sensible approach to improving the city. At worst it is out of order, but if you came back in 20 years would you be shocked if there was was only one general-purpose lane for cars both directions on Aurora? Of course not.
There’s 73~75 feet (excluding sidewalk) there’s enough for 7 lanes, but the exact amount depends on how wide the truck/bus/ and bus station needs to be.
Here’s a quite sketch up using 73 feet. https://streetmix.net/-/2468769
Of course it’s a bit more complicated since I’m not sure if a 9 feet bus station is allowed and also if there’s a left turn it gets more complicated. Also this basically means no sidewalk expansion.
See the note paragraph. That SDOT staff committed such an error does not inspire confidence.
Per Tim Willis, intending riders will need signals to reach center stations, so it cannot be applied in segments one and two.
Both transit and cyclists have difficulty shifting between segments with different treatments. Continuity is smoother.
ARC is not a small “d” democratic group that takes votes on issues. Some members may ask for inside operations. Some members have asked for Link. Some members are more aware of right of way and fiscal constraints. Some are most concerned about pedestrian issues.
All of the SDOT concepts need significant work. Some do not allow for any left turns.
> Per Tim Willis, intending riders will need signals to reach center stations, so it cannot be applied in segments one and two.
I’m confused are you talking about some extra paragraph or article somewhere that it can’t be applied?
> All of the SDOT concepts need significant work. Some do not allow for any left turns.
Segment 1 and 2 don’t need left turns I mean one cannot make a left turn right now why would the absence of one now affect anything
> Both transit and cyclists have difficulty shifting between segments with different treatments. Continuity is smoother.
Some are easier to accommodate like winowa center bus way north to aurora is relatively easy since there’s a left turn there or can use special bus signal.
Aurora to linden avenue northbound is definitely trickier if center bus way
Both transit and cyclists have difficulty shifting between segments with different treatments
Agreed, which is another reason why it should be center bus lanes the whole way. Obviously Shoreline would have to follow suit. That wouldn’t have to happen right away, but eventually. At worst you would have one transition each direction.
The only tricky area for center-running buses is the Winona detour. But there is a simple solution: Get rid of it. At first I thought this would be problematic because of the new bike lanes. It isn’t.
Some background: Google Streetview hasn’t caught up to the changes, so I can’t show it. But the road narrow to only two northbound lanes right about here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MHUcWDcc7LJUpPmz7. There are jersey barriers and bikes on the other side. This would be a problem is you wanted a center bus stop in that area, but there is no need to add one. Just add a bus stop on either side of the street just south of that on-ramp. If you flip the map around you can see the southbound bus stop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bNxbkUea9PBHbrD77). So add a bus stop on the other side (along with a street crossing there). The crossing would be very similar to this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GBoZKfVAWXA6D7JS6. That crossing, by the way, has not been here that long. I know it seems crazy to think of adding crossing on the “freeway” part of Aurora, but we’ve done it before. Anyway, the next stop is actually at 76th, which is beyond the point where the narrowing occurs. That means stops at roughly 65th and 76th — which is fairly wide stop spacing, but no different than what we have now. Like the sound end of Aurora, we kill two birds with one stone. We get rid of the wasteful Linden detour and the bus runs faster as well.
It all seems quite plausible.
The reason the E diverts to Linden was a concern about safely crossing Aurora from a northbound bus stop to the neighborhood on the west. Since then SDOT has upgraded the crosswalk; I think it has blinking yellow lights now. It could be upgraded to a full-fledged stoplight like at all the other center-running stops. Then the route could move to Aurora both ways.
Routes 359, 358, and the E Line diverted to Linden Avenue for two reasons: coverage and the lack of sidewalks on the east side of Aurora Avenue North. Route 358 was formed by the consolidation of routes 6, 359, and 360; to achieve better frequency and speed, coverage was foregone; compromises were made.
Routes 359, 358, and the E Line diverted to Linden Avenue for two reasons: coverage and the lack of sidewalks on the east side of Aurora Avenue North.
Yes, and if you improve the sidewalks (which is a given) and make better crossings than the only drawback is coverage, and the loss of coverage would be minor.
I have a vague memory of a survey Metro did when they were designing the E corridor that the purpose of preserving the Linden detour was to have a better walkshed as well. If a northbound bus stays on Aurora, unless a rider is actually going to the park, they’ll have to cross Aurora to get to their destination. Linden has more destinations and is a little shorter of a walk to Greenwood, which has a ton more.
It increases coverage a little bit, but ultimately is not worth it. The 5 isn’t too far away and it covers Phinney/Greenwood. The decrease in coverage would be minor. The stop at 65th is right next to Aurora anyway. So you would simply move it about fifty feet towards the lake. The stop at 72nd is where you would lose the most coverage, but that stop is only northbound. Thus your effective coverage is basically the same.
Bicycle lanes should not have to be on the main artery. Why not move them one street over. Likewise the main pedestrian way. In any event drop the speed limit to 30 mph. And camera enforce it.
I favor putting bike lanes elsewhere too. Buses must be on Aurora because it’s the fastest street and where the destinations and emerging villages are. Freight must be on Aurora because it’s one of the few truck routes (alongside I-5 and 15th Ave W). Cars must be on Aurora because cars. But bike lanes don’t need to be on Aurora. We just need to find a convenient quiet street between 34th and 109th (where the Interurban Trail starts), hopefully with the least hills.
So bikes don’t need to access busses or “the destinations and emerging villages?” Cars are literally the most easily diverted things–heck, you didn’t even give a reason for them to be there just “because cars.”
Sure, bikes using the route as a throughway maybe could use a side street, but if the whole point of making the emerging villages and slowing traffic to make Aurora actually liveable is to actually make people want to go and live and shop there, then there’s going to be local traffic for bikes. It’s absurd to expect it all to go blocks or miles away to go north/south so that cars, which takes far less effort to make the same journey, can have a more direct route.
And again, many bikes are used as part of a multi-modal journey that includes busses. That means there’s going to be facilities for both of the system is going to make sense and serve the maximum amount of people. No one is going to get in their car and drive to the bus stop, so again, it’s absurd to prioritize cars “because cars” over bikes at a bus-intensive facility.
(Obviously I’m not suggesting to cut off all car traffic so maybe it won’t work to include the bike lanes on both sides. But your reasoning is absurd and that needs to be pointed out because this gets repeated so often on articles like this…)
Mike’s point is that we won’t get rid of cars on Aurora. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Just about every street will have cars. But a street like Aurora is going to have a lot of buses and trucks as well. Thus you run out of room.
But it is also important to consider the big picture here:
1) Not all of the development is on Aurora. Around Bitter Lake there is way more development on Linden (the bike corridor) then there is Aurora (the bus corridor).
2) Regardless of the development pattern, the bus will follow Aurora. There are no parallel nearby streets that can be developed as busways.
3) The “last mile” problem is much smaller with a bike. If the destination is half a mile from the bike corridor, a biker will just turn and bike to it. In contrast, most people won’t walk that far to a bus stop. Note: The Interurban/Linden/Fremont is much closer to Aurora than half a mile.
We need to connect the various neighborhoods with protected bike routes, but the routes do not have to follow the bus/truck route. It is like going from Ballard to Fremont. The Burke Gilman does not go through the heart of either neighborhood. It skirts it. But if you are riding a bike between there, it doesn’t matter. You simply ride your bike and then leave the main corridor (the Burke Gilman) and bike the extra couple blocks (or at worst walk it). But the bus can’t follow the Burke Gilman and even if it did, bus riders would have to walk farther.
Same is true here. Let’s say I’m trying to get from Greenwood (e. g. 85th & Greenwood) to Office Depot at Aurora (137th & Aurora). I would just cut over to Fremont and bike it north until it becomes the Interurban and then Linden. I would then cut over again (at 135th) to reach the store.
As Fnarf mentioned above the highest priority should be to allow for safe bike travel across Aurora and to enhance the north-south alternatives (like Linden/Interurban/Fremont). I think the biggest “missing” link is to the east (although I would like to see bike lanes on Fremont from Woodland Park to the Interurban).
A bicycle can switch to Aurora at the last block quickly and easily. For pedestrians it would take several minutes and be significant effort. Cars can’t go anywhere else because Aurora is the widest street and the surrounding alternatives are rather narrow and can’t fit that many more cars.
It’s no different from bicycles on the Ave going to the Burke-Gilman Trail.
As long as Aurora has decent sidewalks, it’s not a big deal to bike on it for half a block to reach a local destination. Obviously, asking bikes to ride on sidewalks for miles and miles is no good, but to do so for half a block is not unreasonable.
The reverse situation, asking cars to switch to bike oriented streets for half a block to reach a local destination is very common, and nobody bats an eyebrow. The key here is to make sure that riding that last half block on the Aurora sidewalk is safe. That means sidewalks with decent width, no utility pole obstructions, and separated from motor vehicle traffic on the street.
Not sure how difficult it is to set up, but it would be great if the E line could add a stop at 39th, offering a shorter walk to the Fremont neighborhood than the current closest stop at 46th.
That’s right, the elevator station. Now’s the time to suggest it to the city. That would add an entire village to the BRT line, the way an 130th route adds Lake City and Bitter Lake to Link.
I wasn’t even thinking an elevator, just a regular bus stop just north of the Fremont Troll. You would still have to walk a bit to get to the center of Fremont, but it could at least get you as close as the 5 does, which would be a huge improvement over the status quo.
Yes! Whenever SDOT or Metro has had a survey, I’ve suggested that there should be a stop either at 39th (where the 5 and 28 diverge) or at 41st (where the pedestrian overpass is). Selfishly I hope for the latter since it’s closer to where we live, plus hopefully it can involve either rebuilding the overpass to be ADA-compliant or putting in a level crossing, which would help break up the long freeway stretch that has so many safety problems now.
Yeah, folks have been trying to add that stop since before it was RapidRide: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/04/04/connecting-fremont-to-rapidride-e/.
Center running buses would complicate things (you need more room). For example, it is too narrow to add a bus stop on the Aurora bridge (not that you would want to). The bridge essentially ends at Bridge Way but there is a small section which is basically a viaduct from there to 38th. You could maybe squeeze in enough space for a bus stop (and center running buses). From about half way in between Bridge Way and 38th it is level ground there to the west. You can see that from this picture (facing south): https://maps.app.goo.gl/PMCdKtu3SSmz9kpg9. Notice the tents to the right. Thus they could potentially remove the railings and expend there. If you look at it from this angle it isn’t too hard to imagine. Looking south the two far left lanes would be general purpose. The next lane would be for buses. (Those three lanes would be the same coming off the bridge.) Then you have a middle bus stop, followed by another bus lane. Then general purpose lanes to the right. If you are traveling south you do a small dogleg west before doglegging back to get on the bridge.
Then again, maybe there isn’t enough room, and they would have to widen the viaduct, which would increase the cost considerably. Another alternative would be to add a stop at 38th, where it is a bit wider (I think). This would still work, but require a bit more walking for folks headed to lower Fremont.
The simple solution is to just have the bus stop in the right-hand traffic lane and block traffic while it loads and unloads passengers. You’d likely still need to do some construction work to widen the sidewalk next to the bus stop (using the shoulder space), but that seems way cheaper than widening the entire viaduct.
I suspect the real problems with the simple approach are two-fold. 1) Drivers would object to getting stuck behind buses while they load and unload passengers. 2) A bus stop in this location doesn’t look like it can be made ADA accessible without spending huge sums of money that would make the whole project no longer worth the cost.
In the case of 2), I would argue that the stop should just be put in anyway, as disabled people would still be no worse off if the bus makes a stop they can’t use vs. if the bus just skips over the area entirely and doesn’t stop, but having the stop would at least improve travel in the area for everybody else. Unfortunately, the law probably disagrees with me and would likely open Metro up to lawsuits if they did this, so this becomes an example of well-intentioned laws (making transit accessible to people with disabilities) having unintended consequences (anywhere that it is too expensive to make a bus stop accessible to the disabled, nobody can get on or off the bus there at all, even people who are not disabled).
I am assuming that we run buses in the middle, since that has a ton of other advantages.
asdf2: yes, SDOT and Metro should be studying the addition of a stop pair at North 38th/39th streets. Metro did study it a bit in the late 90s; it was suggested by the Wallingford neighborhood planning effort; one of the citizen activists was a transit architect. The northbound stop could be farside North 38th Street and is straightforward. The southbound stop is more complex and would probably require a signal and civil work. The stop could be farside 39th Street; the outside lane over the lower North 38th Street has hatched diagonal stripes; this would become a bus lane painted red; (is is wide enough? what changes would be needed?) the Fremont Place North on ramp would have to be signalized as the Phinney Place onramp is at North 46th Street; the presence of an E Line southbound coach would trigger a red for Fremont Place North. The stop pair would be aimed at the Fremont market to/from the north on the E Line. The Fremont market to/from the south is served by routes 5, 28, and the former 26. So, there are several questions: is that market worth the capital cost, slowing of the E Line, and the delay to the buses on Fremont Place North.
Another question for the post Covid network reset: with the decline in CBD office employment, does the Route 28X pathway make sense or should it return to Fremont and use the Route 40 pathway? Since 2016, the Aurora pathway is slower with north portal friction and more signals; the Route 40 pathway may be improved. It would provide Route 28 riders with better access to SLU.
IMO, it was a mistake to make Route 26 so long and unreliable in March 2016; it was a mistake to delete it in October 2021. It attracted several hundred weekday boardings from south Wallingford.
The 28 seems like a bit of an odd duck right now. The E and 5 are both very frequent and get a lot of riders. The 28 does not. It seems hard to justify an express when it doesn’t get that many riders. I’m sure there was a time when folks from Fremont just walked up and caught the 28 because it was the fast way downtown. Now they take the 40 (and those numbers will likely increase as it becomes even faster). I’m not sure what else to do with the 28 though. You could go to the UW, but Wallingford is pretty well covered in my opinion. Is there a layover in Fremont? Maybe go over the bridge and layover at SPU.
“It seems hard to justify an express when it doesn’t get that many riders.”
It’s hard to justify an express on the lowest-density arterial between 24th and Fremont. 15th is where an express would be better so that more people can use it. We should combine the 15 and D with the 15’s alignment and stops and the D’s frequency.
Historically, Fremont has had good bus service to downtown and terrible bus service to almost anywhere else. Pre-2010, routes 31 and 32 did not exist and even the 40 did not exist. Before the 40, the only transit between Fremont and Ballard was an express route that ran Ballard-Fremont-U-district, but only during rush hour in the peak direction, so not useful for anybody not commuting to the UW during standard commute hours.
Today, things have gotten quite a bit better, but the entire Aurora corridor to the north is still unreachable from Fremont without walking all the way to 45th, and for someone that can’t do that walk, the only option is to backtrack all the way to Belltown. This feels bad. An E-line stop on 39th would not be perfect, as it would still leave a bit of a walk, but still a big improvement over the status quo today. As to service delay for existing E-line riders, we’re talking just one extra stop, with half mile gaps from other stops, which would be right in line with Metro’s standards on stop spacing. We’re talking about maybe 30 seconds.
It’s hard to justify an express on the lowest-density arterial between 24th and Fremont.
Yes, that is the issue. Then again, maybe it isn’t the biggest issue.
Assume for a second that 8th NW was as strong a corridor as 24th NW. Also imagine that it runs as often as the 40. Is it still a good idea to run express? Another way to think of it — imagine you swapped out the tails (and the 40 ran express via Aurora). On the one hand riders heading downtown get a faster ride. On the other hand you’ve lost a lot of connectivity. The bus skips the heart of Fremont. The transfer to 31/32 becomes a lot worse. Thus a trip from Ballard to SPU is a lot worse. This goes back to eddie’s original argument — the express via Aurora just isn’t worth it. Even with a major corridor (like 24th in Ballard) you lose too much by bypassing the Fremont Bridge and running on Aurora instead. So I can see the value in just sending the 28 downtown via the same corridor as the 40.
The problem with doing that though is that it would probably take longer. Some of the routing through downtown is essentially free (as the bus through-routes with the 132). But in the middle of the day it still takes the 40 about fifteen minutes to get from Fremont to Belltown (where the 132 otherwise lays over). I still think the best option would be to send it to SPU (assuming it can layover there). This saves almost ten minutes in run time. That means that even if layover space can’t be found, you could probably do a live loop. The time savings would make it easier to justify higher frequency (every 15 minutes after the driver shortage is over). It makes all the connections that the 40 makes and then some. You would run it opposite the 31/32. That way from from SPU (or the Queen Anne buses that end there) you would have a very frequent connection to the middle of Fremont. Riders heading to the west side of Fremont would take the 28, while riders heading to the east side would take the 31/32.
Ideally this would come with improvements on the Fremont Bridge so that the 31/32 would avoid the traffic that occurs getting to the bridge. The changes for the 40 will help the buses when going south, but they need to do work from the going north (especially from Nickerson).
the entire Aurora corridor to the north is still unreachable from Fremont without walking all the way to 45th … An E-line stop on 39th would not be perfect, but still a big improvement over the status quo today.
Agreed. I imagine though that it isn’t trivial, otherwise they would have done it already. It is worth pursuing nonetheless.
You still don’t completely solved the problem though (as you mention). You still have to get from lower Fremont up to 38th. This is an issue for people walking and it is an issue for people making transfers. Consider SPU to Phinney Ridge: https://maps.app.goo.gl/eJ27RuJQwvuYVF5w6. The options there are pretty goofy and slow. Walk 28 minutes and catch the 5. Catch the 31/32 then walk 9 minutes and catch the 5. Head downtown and then transfer the 5 at Aurora & Galer. All fall under the category of “Yuck”.
Part of the problem is that the 5 runs express just like the E. There is a good argument for this, but it means that it skips the heart of Fremont as well. The simplest solution would be to have the 62 stay on 45th and then turn on Fremont (instead of Stone Way). But then you need to somehow backfill service on Stone Way. This would cost more money (that we don’t have).
There is another option, although it would be considered more radical. Have the 62 go down Fremont as described. Have the 5 go down Stone Way and loop back to Fremont. This solves the problem you described as well as the one I mentioned. This too would cost more money but it wouldn’t cost that much. It would delay riders on the 5 who are headed downtown a considerable amount though.
At that point there is another consideration. Both buses would connect to the E. The E would (hopefully) be running like a real, bona fide BRT (in its own lane between downtown and the north end). It would be reasonable to run it every six minutes midday. Thus it wouldn’t necessarily have a trunk and branch pattern, but more of a central express corridor (similar to Link). Those in a hurry to get from Phinney Ridge (or Tangletown) to downtown would take the E.
There are other variations. For example the 5 that uses Stone Way could end at Greenwood. Then the northern part of the 5 (north of 85th) could dogleg over to Aurora, and run express from there. That way riders from Greenwood (and places north) would have an express to downtown that is faster than today’s 5 (since it would bypass Phinney Ridge). Meanwhile, Greenwood would still be directly connected with Phinney Ridge and both would be well connected to Fremont.
The primary problem is the 25-45 minute overhead to get into and out of Ballard from the major transfer points (Westlake and U-District). That’s what a 15-like D would address. Ditch the Uptown detour; folks can use the Denny Way stops. The 28 doesn’t have to go downtown. It could go from Fremont to the 26 corridor to restore some service there. I don’t see a point in rerouting the 40, 31, or 32. Except maybe the longstanding suggestion of having the 32 not go to Seattle Center.
I’m assuming this E 39th station would be a stop on the highway like 46th, not getting off the highway.
The 5 stops at 38th and Bridge Way. I mean, it’s a bit of a climb, and I wouldn’t want to do it in a wheelchair, but it was the bus I took the most when living in Fremont for near a decade, and it wasn’t even close. Anything to skip the Fremont Bridge. I don’t know if it actually opens more often than any other bridge in the country, but that was the lore, and that’s what it felt like.
I wasn’t alone. There was almost always a lineup of folks waiting just off the highway. It’s wasn’t idyllic, but it functioned, and probably still functions pretty well.
This was all pre-E, but it doesn’t look like the 5 has changed much, looking at the schedule.
There are also stairs next to the troll, and it looks like they even made a park and a switch-back pathway up through what used to be a wasteland next to that.
This was all pre-E, but it doesn’t look like the 5 has changed much, looking at the schedule.
The biggest change is probably the 40, and what is happening for it. A bus that goes on Aurora will be faster, but the difference will shrink considerably. So much so that depending on where you are, the 40 will be quicker (because there will be less walking).
It is worth noting that the 5 continues to go north after reaching Fremont Avenue. Consider a walk from the Lenin Statue. If you are boarding a bus to go downtown, that is as close as you get to the 5 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YneBKCL2FousQBhM6) even though the bus heads a bit west from there. In contrast, the 28 gets closer (via Evanston — https://maps.app.goo.gl/gAEReWzQgcU6PeUc9). If you are trying to get to Brouwer’s, then the 28 is fairly close (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XTRQXhzSyy5pn7uHA). Thus in terms of speed the 28 would appear to add a lot for quite a few people (since that part of Fremont has grown). Yet it has essentially been wiped out by the 40. Obviously the problem with the 28 is frequency, but I also think that walking distance matters. I’m not saying there aren’t people who walk up the hill to catch the 5, but I think an increasing number are taking the 40 instead.
In any event, none of this changes the dynamic for a stop at 38th. The main value is for those trying to get north on Aurora, and since there is no good alternative for any part of Fremont, the stop would add a lot of value. Even if you were able to add buses routes connecting lower Fremont with Aurora (at 45th) there would be value in the stop simply because of all the apartments that are closer to the stop than they are lower Fremont (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iPUg4paeAdxUrnUU7).
That’s what a 15-like D would address.
I agree but that is largely off-topic. I think it makes sense to discuss Aurora based buses (and their alternatives) but not buses that run over the Ballard Bridge.
There are also stairs next to the troll, and it looks like they even made a park and a switch-back pathway up through what used to be a wasteland next to that.
Yes, it isn’t a bad walk. I would say the main weakness is just that it is only one stop. Well that and the height difference for some and the awkward street grid for others. It works for plenty of people, but doesn’t for others.
Welcome STB author Nathan Dickey (Nathan D)! Nathan is helping collect open thread items (starting with the last open thread) and collaborating on articles.
Thanks, Mike! Glad to be able to help in any way I can.
Yes, welcome!
I’ve ridden a bike on this corridor many times. Between Costco and 110th, it’s pretty obvious that that the interurban is the way to ride.
South of 110 to Fremont is pretty much a “choose your own adventure” situation.
There have been plans to fix this for decades, but now the property values through there has creates hundreds of “million dollar” constituents, because that is now what it costs to own along that corridor. They should have made a clear bike route through the area from 110, either on the west of Aurora, or to the east, connecting to the Greenlake trail. They didn’t, and now it will take a bulldozer to drive a bike route through the money.
During the day, taking an ebike that can do 25-28 mph in the bike lane isn’t awful. But you do have to keep your head on a swivel for cars cheating.
Yeah, you’ve got a nice plateau to the north and a nice set of good bike routes to the south but between there is a bit tricky. I would leverage the Greenways and add bike panes (on Fremont). That gets you as far south as 62nd, but by then you’ve lost a lot elevation. So you need to dogleg to the west, and I think 77th and 83rd work for that. There is a crossing at 83rd (although it might need some work) and we would need one for 77th. At that point you can follow 1st and Greenwood (when it isn’t an arterial) until the zoo. Again, while some of these are Greenways, they could use real bike lanes.
At that point I could see a couple options. One is to add/improve the bike lanes along Fremont Avenue (as well as the connection). Another is to add bike lanes on Greenwood Avenue. It is steep, but so too is Fremont Avenue. It actually works out fairly well — no up and down like the streets to the west. You would need signalized crossings for 46th and 39th but as someone who has crossed both places on foot, this would be appreciated. You would need to improve the east-west travel in there. In some cases there are nice stairs, but no easy way to get a bike through there. This makes streets like 42nd and 43rd even more important. I would look into adding bike lanes on 42nd (because the ones on 43rd are crappy).
The other side of Aurora has its issues as well but should be handled in much the same fashion. Mid-block crossing of arterials (with traffic lights) along with bike lanes.
Just do Fremont all the way down. Folks on bikes hate weaving back and forth. The West Seattle Greenway is a freakin’ nightmare.
And 1st is just too far from Aurora to serve multiple destinations along there.
The question is why hasn’t it happened yet? Shoreline finished their section of the Interurban more than a decade ago, and IIRC Fremont had been targeted as the obvious route for the completion all the way to the Burke going back to last century. I can only assume NIMBYs have been blocking, and the NIMBY heat only rises as those houses make their owners millionaires.
As far as the zoo goes, I used to ride the dirt path along Aurora, so you could either pave that, or you could easily carve out 10 feet to make a dedicated path along Phinney. I’d think the east side would be preferable, because then bikes could have multiple access point to the Lake and Woodland via the vastly underutilized bridges, without building complicated crossing along Aurora. But it might take some engineering, or stealing a few feet of the zoo.
Just do Fremont all the way down.
Fremont ends at 62nd (and becomes stairs): https://maps.app.goo.gl/kE3ZPcDK9DAZt53N8. It also means going up and down (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2733F9tULZsMRQp5A).
I get what you are saying — folks don’t like to weave back and forth. But that only occurs on that particular trip, which isn’t necessarily very common. You would still have a very long, straight corridor from anywhere on the Interurban to around 62nd & Fremont. Well before then you’ve dropped to the same level as Green Lake, which opens up everything around there. It is really only the area west of Phinney that involves a few doglegs. But even that isn’t that bad. You basically have two doglegs. 1st itself doglegs at 73rd, and you have to work your way over to Greenwood. I would probably go 1st/Palatine/Greenwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/u7mMpnAgtmD6BfLX8) or bite the bullet and add bike lanes on that part of Greenwood (between 73rd and 67th). But that is about it. From 67th it would be a straight shot to Fremont (via Greenwood). North of 73rd, 1st works for going all the way to 100th (which connects east west across the freeway to Northgate Station and beyond).
If someone wanted to minimize doglegging they could go from the Interurban all the way to 63rd and then head west to connect to Greenwood. But again, that would require a lot of up and down. If it was me and I was making a trip like that (which I would consider fairly long) then I would just put up with the handful of zig-zags on the other side of Phinney (or I would cut over to Green Lake and go down on that side).
Oh, and from Green Lake to Fremont I would add a set of bike lanes like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vVpXw7MRmUKWmE9g8. This does involve a bit of up and down but is otherwise a straight shot.
In all these cases there would be nothing stopping a rider from using the main arterial (Greenwood/Phinney, Stone, etc.). The key is to offer an alternative for people like me. I will go way out of my way for a route that is safe (or at least as safe as you can get in this town).
Yeah, forgot about the stairs. It really just means you start the deviation around the zoo a couple blocks early. Pop over to Linden, then down to this path, that is improved to a full 10 foot bike/ped shared use trail:
Cars and the zoo have and destroyed/dominated this part of the city for far too long. Take a sliver back for the humans and completely transform the interaction with Woodland, finally using the bridges as they were meant to be used.
Sorry. Screwed up the nesting again. And the WordPress gods wouldn’t let me embed the beginning of the trail at 59th above the west side of Aurora.
Yeah, both Linden and Evanston work, but then you are still doglegging. You still are dropping down and then trying to climb back up through the park. If I’m biking from Shoreline to Fremont I think I would prefer following the Interurban/Fremont and then cutting over in the greater Greenwood/Phinney Ridge area to maintain elevation. Then follow out a straight corridor from there (Greenwood Avenue works surprisingly well — they just need to make it a bike corridor).
I like the idea of adding bike lanes through the park though. I’ve done it on foot. There is pathway on 59th that rises above the street* and maintains a fairly level grade which then meets up with the pathway west of Aurora (and the three bridges). I could see paving it and thus making it part of a nice route. I think the main value though would be for folks from that side trying to get to Green Lake (and the places east of there). It would also work for Upper Fremont to Tangle Town (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mert5q6vN6Br98Qv6).
* You can kind of see it here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1ebaYJjJHF3q1Uo6. It basically goes around the fence.
Yeah, that makes sense to go right and use Evanston if that limits the down-up situation. Adding a more direct bike ped route to the south entrance and providing some friendlier non-car infrastructure to the south-end of the zoo would be an added bonus.
I don’t think crossing Greenwood is worth the detour, and while the Meridian route should exist independently, it shouldn’t be a substitute for the direct route into central Fremont on Fremont Ave. The serve substantially different destinations.
Fremont is very good north of the zoo. But south of the zoo (or more specifically south of 46th) it becomes a busy arterial. People can still use it, but it makes sense to have an alternative to the west and Greenwood is a great alternative. South of 67th it is both a straight shot and a residential street. Add bike lanes on it and it becomes a first-class bike path.
The zoo is an obstacle from both a topographic and egress standpoint. Even if you fixed it up for bikes you still have to go around the zoo itself (https://maps.app.goo.gl/s7cYVgJfkMkuU7nAA). If you were coming from the north (on the Interurban) you would still have to drop way down and then go way back up again. It would be beneficial for some riders, but plenty of people would just cut over to 1st/Greenwood instead (if there was a good route down that way). The main benefit would be for local travel (like that trip) instead of more regional. In contrast, fixing up Greenwood and 1st would have big regional and local benefit.
For example if I was biking from Northgate to Fremont I would cut over on 100th to 1st (passing right by Fremont). Then I would go straight down 1st, go on the little dogleg to Greenwood and follow that all the way to Fremont. That works even if I have to head back east a few blocks in Fremont. It would only be if I worked on the other side of Fremont (e. g. Fremont Brewery) that I would go down something like Meridian.
Ross, how’s the crossing of 46th on Greenwood. Would you jog over to Phinney to make the crossing? Greenwood is right at the curve from Market to 46th, so the visibility from the west is not good. I doubt SDOT would want another light just a block from Phinney.
Ross, how’s the crossing of 46th on Greenwood. Would you jog over to Phinney to make the crossing? Greenwood is right at the curve from Market to 46th, so the visibility from the west is not good.
I’ve crossed there quite a bit and it usually takes a while. Visibility isn’t that bad for pedestrians as you can walk around the edge of the sidewalk to look at both directions from the same spot. It would be harder for bikes. I would add a traffic light there with a beg button.
I doubt SDOT would want another light just a block from Phinney.
SDOT is thinking of totally revamping Aurora — I don’t think they would have any problem with a traffic light there. There is a new sheriff in town and he isn’t worried about slowing down the cars. The only issue is money. But they have done similar things throughout the city. For example Lake City Way has a really pedestrian/bike friendly crossing of 82nd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mzJwX7a73ankSytR8). This is very close (140 meters) to the 15th & Lake City Way intersection (which has traffic lights). Having the light be fairly close is probably safer than having it in the middle of a long empty stretch. It also impacts traffic to a lesser degree. If you time it with the other light it probably has a minimal impact.
“Cars and the zoo have and destroyed/dominated this part of the city for far too long. ”
That’s the first time I’ve heard of the zoo considered destructive. Maybe for the animals; not for the neighborhood.
It’s pretty hostile to people traveling via non-motorized modes. And it absolutely doesn’t have to be.
I’m not sure if they want to maximize their meter revenue in their parking lots or what, be it’s a real pain to walk or bike to the zoo or around it.
My understanding is that the zoo is working on updating their master plan now, and is very open to walking/biking/transit improvements in the neighborhood.
excellent.