As part of the work surrounding 130th Station in north Seattle, SDOT has started making plans in the area. While this initial work has focused on the area east of the station, this is a proposal for changes to the west. The goal is to improve pedestrian, biking and transit connections to the station.

Station Background

130th Station is designed primarily to connect riders from the east and west (Lake City and Bitter Lake). There will be some who walk and ride to the station, but I expect the vast majority to arrive by bus. The crossing bus route will also connect riders in the north end (for one- and two-seat rides not involving Link). It’s essential that the bus avoid congestion. At the same time, 130th is also one of a handful of I-5 bike and pedestrian crossings in the north end. People need a way to walk and bike through the area safely and easily. In this essay I largely ignore the issues east of the station, but propose the following set of changes to the west:

Improvements:

As with the previous maps, you can make it full page (in its own window) by selecting the little rectangle in the corner. Selecting individual lines will show a brief explanation for that segment. There are two different “layers” visible on the legend (to the left). These can be displayed or hidden by selecting the appropriate checkbox. The first layer shows improvements that exist already or are in the process of being built. The second is a set of proposals based on community input as well as proposals outlined previously by SDOT. I don’t expect every improvement to be built right away. It takes time and money to build these things. Here is how I would prioritize these projects based on assumed cost as well as value:

  1. Close Third Avenue to cars north of 130th. This would make Third similar to Ashworth (where there is an existing closure south of 130th). Unlike Ashworth, I’m not suggesting a traffic light be added there (yet). This would improve safety for those traveling along the north side of 130th as well as those using 3rd as a bike or pedestrian route (to access Roosevelt). The main reason this is the highest priority is because it is dirt cheap. It would cost next to nothing. To be fair, the latest proposal has 3rd as an “exit only” route, with drivers only being able to turn right. This does improve safety considerably. But for the same amount of money we can do what the community has asked for: block off the intersection to cars.
  2. Pedestrian/Bike crossing at 128th. Crossing Aurora at 130th on a bike will be extremely difficult no matter what SDOT does. Along the same corridor there are crossings of 15th as well as Greenwood Avenue and neither is very good (despite bike lanes). Both require a bike to merge with general traffic and hope for the best. Neither is what I would consider safe. In contrast, a crossing at 128th would provide the highest level of safety possible. It would be similar to the crossing at 92nd. Notice how cars can not go straight across (thus reducing general traffic on the street). Also notice how cars can not turn left (in any direction). Cars leaving Aurora and taking a right have to slow down (to avoid the sign) and then go past the “Street Closed” sign (which is marked “Local Access Only”). Thus right turns are less common and much slower. As with any new interchange, there would be no right-on-red either. This means that someone who crosses Aurora there (on a green light) is isolated from automobile traffic on Aurora. We could build the same level of safety at 128th.
  3. Bike lanes on Roosevelt. Roosevelt serves as the main bike route between 130th and 145th. It connects to other routes branching north or west.
  4. Bike lanes on 128th between the Interurban Trail and 1st. This improves safety on the key east-west corridor between 130th and Northgate Way.
  5. Bike Lanes on 137th between the Interurban Trail and Roosevelt. Although riders can cross 143rd or 145th, it won’t be as straightforward and safe as using 137th.
  6. Bike Lanes on Corliss. This connects riders to the 148th bikeway, giving riders another way to access Link and another way to cross I-5.
  7. Bus lanes on 130th. It may seem odd for a transit blog to make bus lanes the lowest priority, but in this case it is. Right now the 130th corridor is not particularly congested west of I-5. As long as it is two lanes each direction it will be fine (for a while). Congestion would be a bigger issue if bike lanes were added along the corridor. Building them north and south of the main transit corridor would give bike riders a safer, more convenient route. All that being said, traffic is likely to get worse over time as the city grows (especially as this area becomes a new “urban center”). Bus lanes (or just a few queue jumps) should be an option for the future.

Mixing Bike Lanes and Buses

As I’ve written before, it is better to have bike lanes on streets that don’t have buses. This accomplishes that for the most part. The main transit corridor (130th) would have bus lanes (eventually) while there would be bike lanes on either side. However, there is one small segment where the buses go on 128th. Since this is a minor bus route, at worst you would simply add the bike lanes, and the bus would continue to mix with general-purpose traffic. It’s a little more complicated to mix bus stops and bike lanes, but this has been done in various places in the city. Of course there is another simple solution: move the buses. There are a bunch of different options, but the simplest would be to have the buses go around the east side of Haller Lake instead of the west (like so). This takes just about as long, while getting riders a bit closer to the 130th station and the growth that is to be expected close to the station. With this routing the bus would share a pathway along First Avenue NE, but in an area with a wide mixed-use pathway (for bike riders and pedestrians).

44 Replies to “Multi-modal Improvements West of 130th Station”

  1. This is also a good time to improve access to Ingraham high school. Broadview/bitter lake to lake city cross town access also can be improved. Currently it takes about as long to walk as it does to take transit .

    Adding a crossing at 128th should be considered in addition to 130th improvements. 128th works great if coming from the interurban trail south. It is also nice for more leisurely trips. However, students going to Ingraham from the west are going to be funnelled to 130tv and will choose the most direct route. This is similar to 92nd. The 92nd intersection is much more comfortable than 90th. However 90th and aurora is a much more used crossing by the middle school students going to school.

    130th between greenwood and 3rd would benefit from an uphill bike lane and improved sidewalks (this may be done in conjunction with sewer work). With the path at 6th, 130th would make a good Greenway down to 12th.

    It would also be helpful to continue a bus from 130th station to the 8th ave NW broad view loop . (How did the 5 bus do this before?) This would provide school and link access .

    Adding a left turn lane and bike lanes to 130th would be a significant safety improvement – especially at school time. There is currently a lot of lane shifting around turning cars.

    For Aurora and 130th, changing the right through lane to a dedicated right turn lane would help. The lane could have a green right turn signal when the related left turn signal is on. This could help move cars quickly and decrease right turns on red. The westbound bus stop could be moved to the other side of aurora.

    At 135th and stone there appears to be a fenced off right of way. Could this be acquired to make a path from stone to Ashland? This would allow for almost a complete route from 137th and 8th NW to the freeway. There is already a pedestrian light at greenwood and Lynnwood and a light at 135th and aurora. This route could continue to Ingraham and then to 3rd ne and the light rail.

    1. Broadview/bitter lake to lake city cross town access also can be improved.

      Current plans are to run the 77. It would be nice if was more frequent or the routing was better, but it should at least be adequate.

      Adding a crossing at 128th should be considered in addition to 130th improvements.

      Yes, but my point is that 128th would simply be better than 130th for both bikes and transit.

      However, students going to Ingraham from the west are going to be funneled to 130th and will choose the most direct route.

      Not necessarily. If you are coming from the Northwest you would cross at 135th. This is far more direct to the high school than going all the way south to 130th. Basically this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/nAi6ZocGL6FoaTCTA) instead of this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1xbLW6oiat6h6tkh7). If you are crossing from the Southwest than you would use 128th. You’ve actually got a very narrow area where people would save any time by going across 130th and most of those students will just walk. Oh, and of course bikes can ride in bus lanes, so there is that option as well (if we added BAT lanes).

      130th between greenwood and 3rd would benefit from an uphill bike lane and improved sidewalks (this may be done in conjunction with sewer work). With the path at 6th, 130th would make a good Greenway down to 12th.

      I assume you mean 3rd NW. I agree about sidewalk improvements. Given this is an arterial (and connects to the library) this should be priority. I could also see bike lanes. There is no bus service here (current or planned). If you took away parking you might be able to squeeze in a couple bike lanes. Hard to tell, but it gets a bit narrow as you approach third. An alternative would be to just make 127th a Greenway (with bike lanes) all the way from 12th NW to the Interurban. This could dogleg to 128th and continue all the way to Northacres Park (1st NE). The crossings would be much safer.

      It would also be helpful to continue a bus from 130th station to the 8th ave NW broad view loop .

      I’ve considered that. It is one of the many options for the area. I’ve discussed it with a planner friend of mine, and we’ve come up with at at least a dozen different options for serving the Haller Lake area and none of them are particularly satisfying. It is is a very tricky area.

      Adding a left turn lane and bike lanes to 130th would be a significant safety improvement – especially at school time. There is currently a lot of lane shifting around turning cars.

      I don’t think it makes much difference. The problem is the left turn itself. When making a left turn you are focused on the traffic in front of you. You are looking for a gap and when you finally see one, you go. As a result, you don’t notice the person walking across the street (behind you). The only good solution is to simply ban unregulated left turns.

      For Aurora and 130th, changing the right through lane to a dedicated right turn lane would help.

      There are four potential right turns. Northbound Aurora has a BAT lane for turning right onto 130th. Southbound Aurora doesn’t. It would require either taking a lane (making Aurora one general-purpose lane each direction) or additional paving. For 130th (both directions) they could add BAT lanes. Absolutely. That is exactly the type of thing I want for this corridor.

      The lane could have a green right turn signal when the related left turn signal is on.

      Yeah, like they have for right turns from 5th NE to Northgate Way. That might be a good idea, but it also might make things worse (for the buses). It means that the traffic light cycle is longer. That is one of the proposals that the traffic engineers have to look at. In terms of safety the obvious solution is to simply ban right on red (which is a requirement now if they do any work).

      At 135th and stone there appears to be a fenced off right of way. Could this be acquired to make a path from stone to Ashland?

      I’ve wondered that as well. I agree, it would be huge. I’m not sure what would be involved in creating a path through there.

  2. There are going to be a ton of students going between the train station and Ingraham. As someone with a high school student, I can pretty much guarantee that regardless of the infrastructure, the vast majority of them are going to take the shortest route. Probably on foot, but some on bike, scooter or board. That probably means the dangerous sidewalks on 130th, but might mean 133rd, given that goes to the main building. You haven’t provided any infrastructure for what will likely be the vast majority of daily non-motorized users.

    And no, high-school students aren’t going to be waiting around for a bus to ride it 4 blocks.

    1. There are going to be a ton of students going between the train station and Ingraham.

      Wait, why? Here is the attendance map: https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SPSD-map-B-AAHS.pdf. So there will be students who walk across the bridge to catch the train at Northgate and then ride it one stop get to 130th. Hey, I know those guys! Seriously though, I only see a handful of people doing that. Ingraham is not an all-city draw. It isn’t like Hazel-Wolf or the Center Central. The students who go there live almost entirely west of I-5 and north of Green Lake. The number of students catching the bus will continue to greatly exceed the number taking the train to the school.

      But that doesn’t mean students won’t take the train. There is the Running Start program, where students can take classes at community college while in high school. So if you are taking classes at both (on the same day) you might take the train to Seattle Central. Of course North Seattle College is closer and taking the bus is closer as well, but you still might take the train. Likewise, for basketball games and whatnot, there will be students traveling between the high schools that are on the train line (Roosevelt, Franklin) instead of the schools that are connected purely by bus (Nathan Hale). So yeah, some students will take the train. Not a huge number, but some.

      I agree that sidewalks on 133rd would be an excellent improvement. It was never part of SDOT’s plans, and maybe it should be. I largely ignore sidewalks in this proposal. If you have a proposal for where you think they should be prioritized, have at it. I think everyone in D5 (especially the new rep) wants more sidewalks (it is a mostly just a matter of money and priorities). As for 130th itself, I’m not sure how you make it safer than what I proposed. As I wrote in the comments up above, I’m all for banning left turns. Maybe I should have put that in the proposal. Most of the proposals I’ve seen for bike lanes have center turn lanes, which by their very nature encourage left turns. Bus lanes would make 130th safer (since they would likely ban left turns, or at the very least discourage them).

      Which gets me to something you wrote. The idea that what I’m proposing doesn’t increase safety for students is ridiculous. I’ve called for completely closing off a street. I’m calling for a better transit pathway and bike lanes. This would provide a much safer pathway for everyone. Better transit leads to less driving which leads to fewer accidents. Bike lanes like the ones I suggested are safer.

    2. Just a real-world that high school students use Link between Mt Baker and both Columbia City and Othello stations, even though bus lines are slightly closer. While it may be just a few trains, it still is significant for the times that it happens.

      Also, high school students get after-school jobs or have other places to go. Many don’t head straight home when school lets out. Ingraham attendance district may only be on the boundary border, but that not the only destination a student goes after school.

    3. Ingraham has an IB program that is an all-city draw. I’ve known, Ballard kids, Wallingford kids, Even south Seattle kids who have gone, though Sealth is the more obvious choice for the south.

      1. Ingraham has an IB program that is an all-city draw.

        Yes, but it is not an all-city school like Hazel Wolf or Nova. The point being that the vast majority of students will be within the area shown on the map. Way more Ingraham students will arrive by bus than by train.

        Also, high school students get after-school jobs or have other places to go. Many don’t head straight home when school lets out. Ingraham attendance district may only be on the boundary border, but that not the only destination a student goes after school.

        Absolutely. I mentioned that. But that is all the more reason to make sure that the transit options are top notch. The better the transit the more likely a student is to take it, as opposed to borrowing (or buying) a car.

      2. “Yes, but it is not an all-city school like Hazel Wolf or Nova.”

        I am not so sure that is true. My kid went to Hazel Wolf, and it was mostly kids from the neighborhood. A third of Ingraham is enrolled in IB. I suspect they are similarly all-city. I’m sure the district has the data to confirm or refute.

      3. Basically the enrollment process works like this: You are assigned a school based on where you live. That is shown on the map. That is the default, and I would guess that the vast majority of students just go to the school they are assigned to.

        But you can apply to a different school. This includes the regular schools as well as “Option” schools — what they used to call “alternative schools”. These are schools like Nova and Hazel Wolf. I call them “all-city draw” but the term may be misleading. On the one hand, you are not assigned to them based on where you live. You could live across the street from Hazel Wolf, but your default school would be Olympic View. But if you do apply to Hazel Wolf you have a better chance of getting there, as one of the tie-breakers for “Option” schools is “Geographic Zone”. The first tiebreaker is sibling. For a regular high school it is the only tiebreaker (the last tiebreaker is lottery).

        They list three reasons for submitting a school choice form: The first is returning to your neighborhood school from a “choice” school. These students are pretty much guaranteed a spot. The second is dual language immersion pathway. This does not include Ingraham. The third is the “Highly Capable” program, which also does not include Ingraham. Oddly enough they don’t list the IB program, even though it seems like it would fall under this category. There is very little information about transferring to another school to attend the IB program. My guess is falls under this category (with the same tiebreakers). Priority goes to students who live within the area. If there is extra room then other students are allowed in. Priority is given to students who have a sibling who goes there.

        But there are also special education services. This is known as “Linked Schools” and is based on districts again. Ingraham is a school for medically fragile students. Thus if you are in the Ballard and require these services, you would attend Ingraham. Ingraham gets kids from Ballard, Garfield, Lincoln, Hale and Roosevelt. These students might end up taking Link, although it wouldn’t surprise me if they have transportation provided for them. It also seems unlikely that they would walk (or roll their wheelchair) from the station to the school (it isn’t that close).

        Again, I’m not saying there won’t be students taking the train and then going to Ingraham. I just don’t think it will be “a ton”. There will be way more people around the area than there is now. You not only have Ingraham, but Lakeside as well. I expect to see a lot more apartments built after the city upzones the area. I also expect to see plenty of people walking the other direction (towards the apartments on Roosevelt). It is worth noting that Ingraham isn’t that close to the station (unlike Roosevelt or even Franklin). It is about a 20 minute walk (according to Google). If the bus is fast and frequent enough, many will just get on that to go to and from the station. In any event, everyone who walks that direction has to pass by Third, which is why closing that street to cars would improve safety.

      4. It’s 1/2 a mile. I’m old and gimpy and it doesn’t take me 10 minutes to walk half a mile.

        As I said, I had a kid at Hazel Wolf, so I understand the process.

        I have also had friends with kids at Ingraham, and I’m almost certain it is considered similarly to the highly capable program. I’ve also had a friend’s kid decide to stop going because it took an hour to get there by bus. Link will be a game-changer and even if only 200 kids are coming from outside the area today, I suspect it will be substantially more 5 years after 130th infill is finished.

        Again, at least in the past, all the data on where the kids were coming from at every school was available somewhere deep in the bowels of SPS. I no longer have a dog in this fight, so I’m not going to dig around for it, but I suspect more kids than you think will be taking the train. And given that it is really the only big destination anywhere near the station, you should be focusing on those kids as your number one priority when thinking about non-motorized routes. Not only are you deprioritizing them, your plan here doesn’t appear to be considering them at all.

      7. Not only are you deprioritizing them, your plan here doesn’t appear to be considering them at all.

        Bullshit! Literally my number one priority would address people walking that direction. Just look at it. If you want to walk from the station to the high school, you either walk on or by Third Avenue. There is no other alternative. By closing that street to cars you immediately improve safety.

        Some of your ideas for improving safety are laudable, but I focused on bike and transit improvements, since they tend to be more permanent. I don’t list any pedestrian routes or “safe routes to school” on the map. It is focused on bike paths and transit in part because of the limited road space. If you add bike lanes on 130th then you can kiss BAT lanes (and transit that is faster than driving) goodbye. There is a very strong relationship between overall traffic safety and transit, even in North America. To quote this article:

        “One of the most powerful traffic safety tools a city can employ to eliminate deaths and injuries due to road traffic crashes is its public transportation system,” Paul Skoutelas, president and CEO of APTA, said on a recent briefing call. “It takes just a modest increase in public transit use to result in a dramatic decrease in traffic fatalities.”

        Look, I’m not dismissing anyone. You are absolutely right — 133rd should be made safer. This is basically an omission made by various groups (and me). Look at those SDOT plans again. They have nothing for that. The Greenways Group (that I’ve been involved with) didn’t consider it, or if they did, it never got any of their maps either. Yet it is the obvious way that someone would get from the high school to the station. It is the shortest distance (just barely) to the actual school (although using 130th is faster to the ball fields). Given the generally unpleasant nature of 130th (even if it was three lanes) it is the obvious route for anyone (students, faculty, visitors) to walk from the school to the station. There may not be a ton of people doing that, but there will be some.

        So yes — I want that too. Adding stop signs as part of a “safe route to school” via 133rd would definitely make sense and be quite affordable. New sidewalks could be part of that, but again, that has to compete with other sidewalks. I’ll bring this up with the Greenways Group. A lot of things that people want are expensive (such as sidewalks) but stop signs are not. I can update the map if you want.

      8. It’s all good, Ross. This is more of a yes, and. I should probably have started by saying I agree with much of this. It’s great, and I appreciate your thoughts and time.

        I used to walk and ride this route a fair amount, so I know have dangerous it is and it feels. Those kids are our next transit riders and transit advocates, and we we need to lower the barriers to them using that station. Given the slow to non-existence pace of rezoning and increasing density in the area, beyond the bus-transfer hub, the ridership at that station is likely to be considered a success or failure based in large part on whether those kids use it. It will be a terrific resource for them. Being able to get from school to places kids like to be, like the U-district, capital hill and downtown in just minutes, will be a magnificent boon for them, and hopefully make a whole bunch of life-long transit advocates.

    4. 130th is dangerous because it is fast, the sidewalks are in poor condition, and there is little to no buffer between the sidewalk and 40 mph traffic.

      The reason it is fast is because there is 2 lanes in each direction. If you convince them to take a lane for a BAT, that will definitely help.

      But the other problem is the lack of a turn lane, and the BAT won’t fix that. If you drive, which I understand not everyone does, you understand the pressure to make dangerous turns across multiple lanes of traffic when no turn lane exists.

      When they converted the western portion of 130th/125th, removing 1 lane in each direction, adding a buffer (in the form of a bike lane, which was admittedly dangerous to use on a bike, but made the overall road safer) and added a middle turn lane. crashes dropped very substantially. The same would be true if you did it on the eastern portion. Speed kills.

      I don’t see anything here slowing cars down, until your last priority is realized. So 130th, the most likely route for all those kids, is still dangerous.

      I don’t know if they have speed cameras on 130th. If they don’t, I would advocate for them, and pour every dollar into infrastructure making it safer to travel on the road on walking and rolling. Because those kids do that, and they won’t stop just because you build a bunch of infrastructure where they aren’t.

      2. But the other problem is the lack of a turn lane, and the BAT won’t fix that. If you drive, which I understand not everyone does, you understand the pressure to make dangerous turns across multiple lanes of traffic when no turn lane exists.

        You are missing the point. It is the left turn that is dangerous, not the fact that you are crossing two lanes. Either poses the same threat to a pedestrian (or someone on a bike).

        The reason it is fast is because there is 2 lanes in each direction.

        That is part of the reason. The other reason is because it is arterial. 15th NE is one lane each way and people drive really fast. So fast that they have added speed bumps and signs to slow people down. 125th — part of the same corridor — is fast even though it is one lane each way. I live close to it and every day I see people speeding down the hill. Sometimes I see people speeding up the hill. In fact I’ve been passed going up the hill while going the speed limit. They use the middle turn lane (which of course is illegal) but so is speeding. A turn lane won’t fix the problem. Speed cameras will.

      3. I’m not a driver, but I have noticed that the more opposing lanes a driver has to process during a left turn, the less likely they are to be paying attention to the crosswalk. In general, I would prefer safety through street design rather than enforcement (even cameras), since I’ll be just as dead while the $124 ticket is in the mail to the driver…

      4. That’s the nice thing about speed cameras in front of schools. They are required to spend every (non-administrative) dollar on modifying the infrastructure. So both.

        Ross – you are ignoring the very real data that showed that redesigning from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane with a center lane made the street substantially safer. When someone stops dead in a general through lane to take a left turn, bad things happen. People weave to the right at high speeds. People shoot the gap to make unsafe lefts across 2 lanes of traffic. Looking at anything else, like pedestrians and bikes, other than trying to time the gap to complete the turn or get around that turner, is nearly impossible. It’s a demonstrably dangerous design for all involved.

      6. Ross – you are ignoring the very real data that showed that redesigning from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane with a center lane made the street substantially safer. When someone stops dead in a general through lane to take a left turn, bad things happen. People weave to the right at high speeds. People shoot the gap to make unsafe lefts across 2 lanes of traffic. Looking at anything else, like pedestrians and bikes, other than trying to time the gap to complete the turn or get around that turner, is nearly impossible. It’s a demonstrably dangerous design for all involved.

        I’m not ignoring the data. I remember writing the comment you referenced (on the bike blog). It made it much safer, but it has become increasingly dangerous. Almost all of the streets have. Again, I have been passed on 125th! Think about that for a second. It is three lanes. I was going the speed limit. Some impatient driver used the middle turn lane to pass me. Middle turn lanes are not a panacea. They are still fundamentally dangerous, as are all unregulated left turns. There is a simple solution: ban unregulated left turns.

        The idea that three lanes somehow is a “fix” is the same basic thinking that got us crappy bike lanes. We make a laudable step in the right direction and think that is adequate. It isn’t. The person who passed me was an outlier, but people speeding on 125th are not. I routinely drive that direction to head towards Kenmore (where a friend lives) or Highway 2 (for hiking). I will turn right onto 125th at 20th and start heading down the hill, going the speed limit. More often than not someone will catch up to me, obviously speeding and often impatient over the fact that I’m going the speed limit. Same thing happens all the time going the other direction. Same thing happens on other two lane roads. There is no question that three lane roads are safer than four lane roads (that allow unregulated left turns) but my point is that they aren’t that safe. There was a big increase in speeding during the pandemic, it hasn’t waned.

        Consider three alternatives:

        1) BAT lanes with one general purpose lane each direction. No unregulated left turns.
        2) BAT lanes with one general purpose lane each direction. Allow unregulated left turns.
        3) Bike lanes with one general purpose lane each direction. Allow unregulated left turns via a middle turn lane.

        I would bet that the safest option (by far) is that first one whereas the other two are basically a wash.

      7. If you can convince the city to take a general purpose lane AND ban all left turns, that would certainly be safer. And about as likely as closing the road entirely to personal automobiles. But I’m rooting for you.

      8. If you can convince the city to take a general purpose lane AND ban all left turns, that would certainly be safer. And about as likely as closing the road entirely to personal automobiles.

        No, not even close. Look, not too long ago a road diet was considered radical. Now it is basically the default. I am still amazed that we took a lane on Westlake. Westlake! That is a major thoroughfare, and has been a major thoroughfare for a very long time. Yet the city just took a lane. Not a parking lane mind you, but a general purpose lane that is full of cars and trucks all day long. Of course this will back up general purpose traffic. The city doesn’t seem to care. They are doing the same thing on Rainier. Or just look at the plans for Aurora! Holy cow, every proposal would be a major change.

        Adding BAT lanes is not radical. It is clearly becoming more common. Banning left turns is not as common, but it should be. If we are serious about safety, we should do more of it. There are streets that ban left turns (plenty of them) but I’m not aware of new projects that include that. But compared to some of the other changes we are seeing in this city they aren’t that radical. Keep in mind, I’m not asking drivers to make three right turns to access the neighborhood. Drivers just turn at a different street. This won’t work in a lot of the city, but it would work there. If they add left turn lights for Meridian and Stone that doesn’t leave much, really. You have Ashworth and 3rd. With third they will ban left turns (even if they don’t completely close the street). For Ashworth, forcing drivers to use Stone Way instead (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5wo2x4vymTpAVepL9) seems like a very minor inconvenience. At that point all that is left is driveways. Of course it is inconvenient to have to make a right out of your driveway (no matter where you are headed) but they could deal with it. Chances are, a lot of places will switch hands pretty soon (and become apartments) which means you are really only inconveniencing a handful of people (who just gained access to light rail).

    5. I think where Cam went wrong is when he said a ton of Ingraham students will use it. Some will use it, but probably so few it’s not even worth mentioning.

      My main interest about 130th station is how do you get north Seattle Link riders, who are used to driving their car to the Northgate garage, or soon 148th, parking, then getting on Link, to switch to leaving their car at home, and taking a bus to 130th, instead? Right now Northgate is their closest station. But eventually, for some, 130th will become their closest station, but they’ll have to switch to riding the bus to get to that station. How do you get that car-to-Link person to become a bus-to-Link person? Increased bus service and frequency helps, but is that enough to move the needle?

      1. How do you get that car-to-Link person to become a bus-to-Link person? Increased bus service and frequency helps, but is that enough to move the needle?

        For a lot of people, yes. To be clear, lots of people will still drive to Northgate (or 145th). But the 41 evolved to be much more of a regular bus, rather than a “Park and Ride bus” over the years. They actually closed one of the big park and ride lots and turned it into a park. More and more people would just walk to the bus. Increased growth (along the corridor) likely played a big part. But so did increasing the frequency of the bus as well as general congestion around the park and ride. I would expect the same sort of thing to happen along 130th even though the corridor is starting at a much higher level (and there will be no parking at 130th). There are plenty of apartments in Lake City and Bitter Lake — more than existed along the 41 corridor until relatively recently. I expect growth along (or close to) the corridor.

        Then you have convenience. For a lot of people, Northgate is not easy to get to, even if you are driving. There is a lot of traffic and getting to the parking lot is not direct. 148th is more direct, but there is still plenty of traffic. The biggest change is for folks in Bitter Lake. Right now they have to deal with an infrequent and indirect bus to Northgate or an indirect drive to the park and ride. Both options suck. 130th Station will make a huge difference, especially if the bus is frequent and not stuck in traffic. It is nice to just leave your car (if you have one) in the garage and just take transit to where you want to go. The same is true for Pinehurst (there are just fewer people there). With Lake City it will likely involve a lot of people changing their Link location (just as they’ve changed it before). 130th will be the fastest option (by several minutes) but it won’t be as big an improvement as for folks in Bitter Lake or Pinehurst.

        I don’t know the numbers for Northgate (or any station). I’m not sure there are that many car-to-Link riders compared to bus-to-Link riders. Just as Link got some people out of their car, so will an improved bus connection to Link.

      2. Sam, RossB is largely correct. Auto-access riders are a small minority of Link riders and former Route 41 riders. The ST2 garages will only have 500-stall garages at the north and south Shoreline stations; we can expect them to fill quickly most weekdays. The first Northgate P&R was on 5th Avenue NE at NE 112th Street; it is now a park. Metro took the sales proceeds and leased spaces from the Lorig and Penny’s garages. ST built a very costly garage under the guideway. King County is quite slow in converting the 500-stall lot to housing; it was funded in 2002. There has been a frequent bus network around Northgate for 20 years. The base Route 41 was extended to Lake City to connect with new Route 522 and revised Route 372 in 2002.

      3. I suspect that with a shorter first-ride to the station, more people will be convinced they don’t need to park at Northgate or Shoreline for non-commute trips like travel downtown or game days where there’s a risk of station parking being full/difficult/expensive.

        So many local stops between LCW and Northgate meant driving to the station is almost always faster, combined with timing being better by starting/ending there instead of going into Lake City. This was true for the 41 and is still true for the 75.

        I for one am very excited for the 130th station as I will for sure be taking the bus to the station instead of driving to park. I wish 125th weren’t so steep so walking was more viable on the east side, but I think that extra seat will be so short it won’t be noticeable. (frequent busses notwithstanding)

      4. @Jess — I agree with all of your points. Interesting that you brought up the steep hill that is 125th. The topography on that side of the freeway is the main reason why I’ve generally avoided talking about walking and biking over there. There are no good alternatives to 125th. To the south you could do OK if you could somehow fix the area around the freeway. There was talk at one point about adding a bike path under Link. If they managed to do that, then you could bike from the station to 117th. From 117th you could head then east by the school on the Greenway. I would add bike lanes in there. Fairly soon pedestrians and bikes will be able to cross 15th/Pinehurst Way while cars won’t. This will make that particular crossing much safer (and safer than 125th or Northgate Way). From there the Greenway is supposed to go down the hill to 25th, where a different Greenway will go north across 125th. Again I would try and add bike lanes or maybe a multi-modal pathway through there (as there are no sidewalks). There is already a traffic light crossing at 125th. So it would take some work to provide an alternative to the south of 125th, but it seems like it would be fairly good. The hill is a problem, but that is the case with 125th as well (the easiest way up the hill is Northgate Way, but they haven’t considered bike lanes there).

        To the north of 125th is a bigger challenge. There is no straightforward path paralleling 125th. Basically the hill falls down steeply and the roadways adjust to the hill and Thornton Creek. It works fine up by 135th, but any further south and you either run into 15th or 125th. Same is true as you get closer to the station. The area just south of the golf course/greenbelt has a lot of streets that don’t go through.

  3. > In this essay I largely ignore the issues east of the station, but propose the following set of changes to the west:

    I’m a bit confused and have hard time following what specifically you are proposing versus removing. For the “existing and planned improvements” you’ve included https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/ne-130th-and-125th-mobility-and-safety-project the section east of 1st avenue

    But just to clarify you are proposing to not implement the second project right? https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/projects/n-130th-st-vision-zero-safety-corridor-
    Aka the bike lanes on n 130th west of 1st ave and new traffic signal on ashworth.

    1. The new traffic signal on Ashworth has already been built. Other than that there hasn’t been much planning to the west of 1st. The proposal here lists several ideas: https://wwwqa.seattle.gov/Images/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/NE130th145thMultimodalPlan/20200821_multimodal_mastermap.jpg. I borrowed many of them. Specifically 3A, 5, 6, 7. I also added the idea of closing off 3rd to cars (something the Greenways group has actively pursued). It is on the map I made.

      1. Basically I want to see SDOT avoid the same mistake they’ve made in various parts of the city. They add a bike lane on either side of a busy arterial and then proclaim it safe. The buses gets stuck in traffic and then they wonder why so many people drive.

        There is an alternative, and this particular area is very well suited for it. Put the bike lanes on both sides of the main arterial and it is much safer. Add bus lanes on the main arterial and the buses go faster than the cars. As a result fewer people drive, which again makes it safer.

      2. There are other ways to keep buses moving besides keeping the design dangerous. The bike lanes aren’t really the point. They are simply an excuse to slow the road down. Buses shouldn’t be going fast. But they shouldn’t be going stuck either. I don’t recall buses getting stuck on the eastern portion, but maybe traffic has gotten worse since I moved from there.

        Maybe queue jumps near I-5 and Aurora would make more sense than keeping a road fast and dangerous in front of a school.

      3. There are other ways to keep buses moving besides keeping the design dangerous.

        Yes, and that was the point of this post. This would result in a system that would be significantly safer and yet keep the buses moving.

        The bike lanes aren’t really the point. They are simply an excuse to slow the road down.

        Except that leaves bike riders with crap. So basically we would have buses stuck in traffic, bike riders with crap, and a road that is just a little bit safer (but still has people routinely going way too fast). Whoopee.

        Buses shouldn’t be going fast. But they shouldn’t be going stuck either.

        Exactly. Buses don’t routinely go way above the speed limit. Buses aren’t the problem. It is regular motorists.

        I don’t recall buses getting stuck on the eastern portion

        No, but that is in part because it is two lanes each direction. If they take away a lane it will likely be more congested. As growth increases in the city it will likely become more congested. The more people the more cars, even if the number of cars per person goes down. If you don’t have a way for the bus to go through a corridor faster than a car, you are basically doomed. You have the situation on Denny. The 8 is a fairly frequent bus, but it is stuck in traffic. So much so that it often shows up really late. As a result, people often give up. They drive, or call a cab, and thus become part of the problem. The only way to fix it is to build a tunnel or add some BAT lanes (and we aren’t building a tunnel).

        Maybe queue jumps near I-5 and Aurora would make more sense than keeping a road fast and dangerous in front of a school.

        No one is suggesting we keep the road fast and dangerous. What I’m saying is that adding some bike lanes and saying it is now safe is just bullshit. It is not safe for bikes and it not great for pedestrians either. The plans for said bike lines specifically have middle turn lanes! That allows people to make extremely dangerous (unregulated) left turns. In contrast, BAT lanes largely eliminate left turns. Thus is it quite likely that BAT lanes would be safer than bike lanes for those walking. Meanwhile, the bike lanes to the north and south of the corridor would be much safer than bike lanes on 130th.

        As far as queue jumps versus BAT lanes the entire way, I didn’t get into the details here. It is quite likely that SDOT would want to add some regulated left turns on Stone and/or Meridian. This means lanes for turning left, along with traffic lights with arrows (with a left turn only allowed when you have the arrow). This would make the case for otherwise eliminating left turns even stronger. Managing that as well as BAT lanes would likely require a mix of queue jumps and BAT lanes.

      4. The new traffic signal on Ashworth has already been built. Other than that there hasn’t been much planning to the west of 1st.

        How do you figure? This project (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/projects/n-130th-st-vision-zero-safety-corridor-) covers the stretch of 130th between Stone Ave and 1st Ave. The site states several outcomes they’re planning (including a pretty standard road diet converting four vehicle lanes to three vehicle lanes and a bike lane). This change is planned to be fully implemented in “late 2024.”

        It’s still in “early design” phase, but the main project objectives are clearly stated and I assume they’re just working through the details at this point. Or am I reading it wrong?

      5. That actually came out after I wrote this piece (although not before it was published). I would have used it as an intro (instead of what I wrote). In any event, it is still not nearly as far along as the east side. The east side has had open houses and several surveys, while this particular document is the first of its kind for the west (and there is no place for feedback yet).

    1. I noticed that. I’m not sure exactly what that would mean. There is no signal there. Unlike 137th, the map doesn’t show a new traffic signal there. Without a traffic signal it is useless to pedestrians.

    2. Wouldn’t the median island prevent left turns at 128th? It wouldn’t help pedestrians but would reduce cut-through traffic on 128th.

      1. I think that is what it is, yes. Aurora has a middle turn lane there and they want to basically eliminate it at 128th.

      2. I should add that doing this is likely dirt cheap. But if done right it would set us up for a traffic light in the future (which costs more money) and would make a big difference.

  5. In general, I like the RossB suggestions.

    One change: shift the bike crossing of Aurora Avenue North to North 125th Street from North 128th Street. SDOT already has paint stripe bike lanes on North 125th Street and a traffic signal; both North 125th and 128th street intersect with the Interurban Trail. Adding an additional signal at North 128th Street would slow the E Line.

    The four-lane configuration of North 130th Street west of 1st Avenue NE seems appropriate. A three-lane configuration would lead to buses stuck in traffic and long queues at the signals. Pavement management is needed. The sidewalks and curbs are not great.

    The SDOT and Metro changes should complement one another. The recently adopted Lynnwood Link ordinance is very weak at the NE 130th Street Link station. It is a dud. It only has Route 77 and it is paired with the substitute for Route 522 on SR-522 (and 322 and former routes 306 and 312). Route 77 misses the Lake City bus stops on Lake City Way NE and NE 125th Street; they are farside in all four directions. So, transfers to and from Route 77 will be difficult. The NE 130th Street Link station should have more service. The LLC routes 75, 345, and 365 are all awkward. The westbound Route 75 approaches the station and then turns south. The northbound Route 345 approaches the station on Meridian Avenue North and then turns west away from the station. The northbound Route 365 continues north. The gravitational pull of Link stations is strong enough that planners should send routes to the stations and not send them away. (Recall, fall 2021 and Route 20; between NSC and Ravenna, it was carrying riders of deleted Route 316 and instead of taking them to the Roosevelt Link station, it turned away and meandered through east Green Lake and then duplicated Route 44 on NE 45th Street. Route 20 was troubled; it was too close to more frequent routes 44 and 62). So, the transit network should shift again before 2026. No local route need serve the Haller Lake local streets between North 115th and 130th streets. Instead, service hours should be used on east-west routes on North/NE 130th/125th streets serving the station. The route serving Ingraham on Meridian Avenue North (now Route 346; 365 under LLC) could turn east and serve the NE 130th Street station; it could also serve 5th Avenue NE; Route 75 need not serve 5th Avenue NE; it should be drawn to the Link station and go on to Bitter Lake, is not Shoreline CC. If no transit routes were on North 128th Street, it could be provided bike and pedestrian emphasis. It has no sidewalks, so auto traffic would have to be calmed. But a key is that transit is removed to make room.

    SDOT should not place both transit and bike infrastructure on the same arterial unless there is no other feasible choice. Do eight-to-eighty bike riders want to be next to buses? Should buses sit in congestion after lanes are taken?

  6. I like the ideas, but I’d suggest keeping 130th as a three lane road for general purpose traffic and using the 4th lane for transit as it approaches a signalized intersection (south lane BAT approaching an intersection from the west side, north lane BAT from the east side).

    I think it’d be be very difficult to get buy-in on reducing a road from 4 GP lanes to 2. You’d essentially be significantly reducing the throughput and safety of the road (left turns would cause congestion and collisions) or vehicular access (banning left turns would keep people from accessing their driveways)

    I also liked SDOTs plan to build a multiuse trail on the north side of 130th, though I’m not sure if that’s still on the table or how financially feasible that would be

Comments are closed.