SDOT is in the early stages of planning on 130th North between the freeway and Aurora. They are further along with the planning east of there. While it is likely too late to add BAT lanes in that project (or even prevent the loss of a queue jump) we can add BAT lanes where they will do the most good — between Aurora and the future station.
The 130th Station Corridor
SDOT is doing this work because of the 130th station, which will be added in 2026. It is crucial that the buses serve this station — it is why the station is being built. Buses will serve the station from the west (Bitter Lake) and the east (Lake City). While SDOT has said that transit is a high priority, you wouldn’t guess that is the case as they are planning on removing a queue jump eastbound between 14th and 15th. While this is regrettable, it is understandable, as there is no good bike alternative in the area.
That is not the case with 130th. There is an alternative that would be safer for cyclists: build bike lanes to the north and south of 130th. Between First and Fifth Avenue NE there would be a wide multi-modal path (as planned). But west of there riders could head north or south a couple blocks and then ride west on protected bike paths all the way to the Interurban Trail. This takes the same approach that bike advocacy groups are taking in Portland — running bike lanes on relatively quiet streets. This avoids the very busy intersection of 130th & Aurora and replaces it with a much safer mid-block crossings at 128th and 137th (like 92nd & Aurora). Not only would this be much safer for cyclists, but it would mean that SDOT could add bus lanes on 130th. Making the buses faster also improves safety. If we implemented other fixes it could be a model for safety and mobility in the city.
Please contact Cathy Moore (who represents District 5) as well as Tanya Woo and Sara Nelson (at-large city council members) and ask them to support bus lanes on 130th.
Sure, it’s always just a few blocks. Get those bikes out of the way. They are never going anywhere anyway. First come up with a signal plan at 128th and Aurora and stop this cry in the wilderness. Your page wanted light rail on I-5, now we have the consequences.
Get those bikes out of the way.
You realize this plan is better for bikes for bikes, right? It is much safer. It isn’t even close. Put it this way, imagine they build both. Imagine they build bike lanes (and pedestrian/bike only crossing of Aurora) to the north and south AND bike lanes on 130th. Who the hell would bike 130th? No one who cares about safety I guess.
Everyone that bikes 130th now would see a significant increase in their safety. It would also be preferred for anyone who values time especially if traveling across the freeway.
Take a look at Dexter/aurora/Westlake. There is a flat bike path. Yet, the protected bike lanes on Dexter remain popular, despite traffic and hills. Even Aurora can be a good route depending on destination.
(Now if we could just get the WSDOT to fix the aurora tunnel mess so the bus lanes could go straight through…)
Take a look at Dexter/aurora/Westlake. There is a flat bike path. Yet, the protected bike lanes on Dexter remain popular, despite traffic and hills.
Sure, but adding bike lanes along Westlake was far more important for safety. There are people who bike there who never considered biking Dexter. Same is true here. We shouldn’t build bike lanes for the subset of people who prefer the more dangerous route.
Dexter/Westlake and 130th also have differences. My guess is the number of people who use Dexter the whole way (up and over the hill) are fairly small. They use Dexter because it is the only way to get to Dexter. There are major destinations along Dexter — big offices and apartments. But the bike connection between the middle of Dexter and Westlake is terrible. A lot of roads don’t go through, and it is extremely steep.
That isn’t the case here. Consider a trip from the east. Everything funnels to the 130th crossing. But everything spreads out after that. If you are heading northwest, then Roosevelt is way more direct. If you are headed southwest using 128th doesn’t cost you much. Two extra turns, and that’s it. There is very little on 130th itself. Put it this way: Imagine they built all three pathways. Very few people would go on 130th. It would be silly to use 130th if you are headed to Shoreline (you use Roosevelt). I’m not saying no one would use 130th, but very few would. I wouldn’t. Even if I was headed to some destination on 130th I would use 128th and cut over at the last second (it is a pretty small detour). This brings me to another statement:
Everyone that bikes 130th now would see a significant increase in their safety.
Of course, but the same would be true of BAT lanes. There are going to be those who prefer speed over safety. I get that. The other day I saw someone biking Bothell Way (in the bus lane). My friend had the same thought as me (why is he riding on Bothell Way and not the Burke Gilman). Turned out this bad-ass biker cut over at the next intersection. Fair enough. There are always going to be people who favor the fastest route. They ride on streets paralleling Burke Gilman, because the Burke is relatively slow. I used to be that kind of biker (in my youth). I used to bike Nickerson when it was two very fast lanes both directions. I would sprint up the hill, then fly going down. I get that.
But like a lot of people I don’t bike streets like that any more. More to the point, if there is no alternative I simply don’t bike it. I am not alone. There are a lot of people like me. I have never met anyone that had the opposite attitude. We should be trying to get more people biking, since that improves safety by itself*.
Folks often talk about “getting people out of their cars” when it comes to transit. The way to do that is fairly clear (although not always easy to implement): Make transit faster and more frequent. With biking it is different. To make biking more popular we have to make it safe enough so that people like me will bike there. The easiest way to do that (by far) is by building good bike infrastructure on the side streets.
* This is not intuitive but it is the idea behind “critical mass” or why studies have shown that requiring bike helmets with bike share makes things worse. The more people bike, the more aware people are of cyclists. This in turn causes them to slow down. There is the other (much more obvious) reason why we want more people biking: it means they aren’t driving. People often talk about “8-to-80” bike infrastructure (and this is an example of it). The alternatives are busy moms driving their kids around, or 80 year olds driving — both of which decrease safety.
In southeast Portland, Division Street is a busy, narrow 2 lane street through a dense area.
It’s very rare to see anyone biking it, despite it being an ideal bike access area as there is a lot of activity in a small area.
Instead, everyone who bikes uses the Clinton Street greenway 2 blocks south, or Harrison Street 5 blocks north. These streets are through streets for pedestrians and bikes only, so no through highway traffic goes through. There are barriers preventing such traffic at key intersections, and places such as SE Cesar Chavez have intersections where only pedestrian and bike traffic is able to go straight across.
Even if Division is a more direct route between two places on Division, Clinton winds up being the faster way of biking it.
In a few cases, Portland has also built pedestrian/ bike bridges over freeways, in order to add more connectivity. Such a bridge could add additional station access in this case, depending on where it is built.
“My guess is the number of people who use Dexter the whole way (up and over the hill) are fairly small.”
I don’t think this is true at all. Go ride it. It’s much faster and in some ways safer than the meandering parking lot on Westlake. Similar to what you will see with your 7 block northern detour, people will fake what’s fastest on most direct. Especially high-school kids.
In a few cases, Portland has also built pedestrian/ bike bridges over freeways, in order to add more connectivity. Such a bridge could add additional station access in this case, depending on where it is built.
Yes, that is one of the key benefits of the bike/pedestrian bridge at Northgate Station. There has been talk of adding a pedestrian bridge at 130th for a while now. But bridges are expensive. This would be much cheaper than the one at Northgate though, and it may be possible to just expand the pedestrian crossing section. The crossing itself is fairly short. You can kinda see it on the map. From one end of the railing to the other is about 80 meters: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ChRSfjyEp9RsUmFr5. Then it is fairly easy to widen the sidewalk (which they will do). Worse case scenario this is a short pinch point. I would have no qualms with walking my bike across the bridge if that is what it comes down to. People ride across the Fremont Bridge but if they asked us to walk our bikes (on just the bridge section) it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
I haven’t done much biking in Portland, but I consider ahead of Seattle when it comes to bike infrastructure (but would like your opinion). I linked to the work the group in Portland is doing, and think this is exactly what Seattle needs (https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/05/urban-trails-a-bold-plan-for-the-next-generation-of-portland-bikeways-380055). I feel like they get it. There are a fair number of people who own bikes but won’t use them unless it is on something like the Burke Gilman, or the “urban trails” they are building.
I don’t think this is true at all. Go ride it. It’s much faster and in some ways safer than the meandering parking lot on Westlake.
Seattle tracks certain bike sections, but not either of these. I seriously doubt there are more people on Dexter than Westlake. Of course there are people that go up and over, but that may have more to do with the connection between the train and places south.
But again, that misses the point: There are people who would never bike Dexter. If it wasn’t for the bike path on Westlake, they would never bike to South Lake Union from Fremont.
Similar to what you will see with your 7 block northern detour, people will take what’s fastest on most direct. Especially high-school kids.
What 7 block detour? Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, and Ingraham is *not* on 130th. The fastest way (on foot or on a bike) from the 130th & 3rd to Ingraham is to go north on 3rd, cut the corner to 133rd and go straight across. That is why I want to add stop signs on 133rd (although I talked to someone who lives in the area and crosses 133rd a lot and he says it isn’t that bad — there isn’t a lot of traffic and people stop for you). This is not only shorter (by a few feet) but it avoids a couple traffic lights (on First and Meridian).
I really don’t know why so many people assume that the best way to get somewhere is on the main arterial. My guess is because they have traveled it a lot. When the Burke Gilman opened it must have been mind blowing. “Wait, you want to go on this side road instead of the main arterial — that sounds a lot farther. ” Now only a handful ride the main arterial.
“I really don’t know why so many people assume that the best way to get somewhere is on the main arterial. My guess is because they have traveled it a lot.”
I used to bike this a ton. And you are right, I didn’t take 130th, because it was suicidal. I get it. They if they make it not suicidal…
If I wanted to go north, I would take 1st to Roosevelt and do a sketch crossing of Aurora at 143 or 145th.
If I wanted go South, I would take 1st to 128th and the Haller Lake to Meridian. If I wanted to get to the interurban, 125th wasn’t terrible.
The high-school students will take 133rd, absolutely. I have no idea why you are focusing on 137th. That’s the 7 blocks I’m talking about. It’s not a terrible spot for a crossing, but I doubt it would be highly used. People going north would likely just stay on Roosevelt.
But in any case, focus on direct connections to the school on 133rd. make N-S drivers have stop-signs along the entire route. That sounds like that’s your plan.
I almost never wanted to go straight. Bitter Lake park is okay, but not a destination. there really is no there there.
Westlake almost certainly gets more bikes, but Dexter is still a very popular route to and from downtown. Dexter is a faster/smoother ride than Westlake, especially when Westlake is busy. Once you top out over the hill it’s pretty much flat, and the intersections are less awkward than the ones on Westlake/9th.
I haven’t biked in Portland but I’ve generally heard that Seattle is better, especially in recent years.
I think the main problem with off-street bike paths is the cost. If we weren’t budget-limited then off-street facilities would be great, but we do have a limited budget, and it’s much cheaper to convert GP or parking into bike lanes than it is to lay down new pavement. I’m not sure if someone has the numbers, but I’d guess that even concrete-protected lanes would be an order of magnitude cheaper than paving a new multi-use path
Also, two-way paths tend to have very awkward intersections. Drivers don’t always know to look for bikes, and the transition is always awkward. 9th and John for instance is a pretty terrible intersection
The high-school students will take 133rd, absolutely. I have no idea why you are focusing on 137th.
The high school students are only one group. I’m thinking regionally.
I have no idea why you think I’m focusing on 137th. I’m proposing crossings at 128th, 137th and 143rd. SDOT is planning on building some of these anyway. North of 130th the main bike path would be on Roosevelt, which goes diagonally. If you are headed to Shoreline then you go on Roosevelt, since it is shorter. Thus adding bike lanes on 130th would create the same sort of conundrum you want to avoid. Do I go on the shortest, fastest route (Roosevelt) or do I go where they added the bike lanes (130th)?
But that doesn’t mean you have to continue on Roosevelt the whole way (just that a lot of people will). If you are going to the high school you leave Roosevelt at 133rd (which does not go through, but ends at the school). If you are going to the north end of Bitter Lake you cut across on 137th. Of course if you are going south you go on 128th.
No one would have to detour 7 blocks. If you’re destination is right on 130th you would detour down to 128th and then back north. If your destination is a little bit north you cross at 137th. The biggest detour is midway between 128th and 137th. But because Roosevelt is diagonal, you actually gain a lot of that back (so the worst detour is a bit south of the midpoint). By my measurements the absolute worse detour adds about 2/10 of a mile (essentially four blocks). That is tiny and very few people would detour at all. It is only the people east of Ingraham between 128th and 137th who have to go back and forth. In comparison, anyone who eventually picked up the Interurban (going north or south) would be better off. If you are going north, it is actually shorter (because Roosevelt is diagonal). To the south it is probably a wash in terms of speed (some stop signs instead of traffic lights). But either way it would be much safer.
Meanwhile it is clearly a lot better for the buses. The idea that we should make the buses much slower — as slow as cars — all so that we have a bike path that may or may not be as good as the alternative is the wrong approach. If the bike alternative is even close we should add the BAT lanes.
Here is another way of thinking about it. The primary goal is to get people out of their cars. The fewer people drive, the safer it is — for every mode. BAT lanes will allow the bus to go faster, which in turn will get people out of their cars. In my opinion the set of bike lanes I suggest will get more people to consider biking as an alternative. But no one has argued that bike lanes on 130th will get more people to bike. At best it is a wash. Some people win, some people lose — but you still have just as many people biking. Yet you would have way more people riding the bus, which is why it makes sense to take this approach.
I think the main problem with off-street bike paths is the cost.
Yes, but first of all we aren’t talking about a huge amount of money. If you consider this both a bike and bus improvement project, then the cost is fairly minimal. In contrast, if you add bike lanes on 130th, it makes the buses worse.
Secondly, to get to the level where the bike path is as safe as Burke Gilman is much easier and cheaper with off-street bike paths. With arterials you have to spend a lot of money reworking every intersection that has a light. In this case that means Meridian, Ashworth, Stone and Aurora. Each intersection has to be protected. That isn’t cheap. In contrast with 128th you are basically dealing with stop signs until 128th. I don’t want to suggest fixing 128th is cheap. But when you consider the huge benefit to both bikes and buses it is worth it.
Also, two-way paths tend to have very awkward intersections.
I assume you mean pathways where bikes are on both sides of the road. I agree, it should be avoided whenever possible. I am not proposing that sort of thing on any of the pathways. There is no reason to, really. In contrast, SDOT is proposing two-way paths on the north side of Roosevelt between 125th and 130th (it is a bit confusing but Roosevelt is part of the main east-west corridor through there, but west of the freeway it is a minor arterial). Anyway, here is the plan: https://www.seattle.gov/images/Departments/SDOT/ProjectsAndPrograms/NE%20130th%20%26%20NE%20125th%20Mobility%20and%20Safety%20Project/60%25/NE130th-125th_60%25Diagram_5th-8thAveNE-a_157451.jpg. So yeah, definitely less than ideal. This is not popular at all (with the biking/greenways community). I’m not sure why they did it, other than just general lack of space, and the complicated nature of the arterial. If the bike paths were on a quieter street you could avoid this.
[It should be noted that there really is no good alternative for bike lanes to the north of that particular section. That is part of the problem with everything east of the station. To the south of the corridor there are a number of good alternatives. 117th is emerging as an excellent Greenway (it has a great crossing of 15th/Pinehurst Way that is much safer than 125th). Riders could then turn right on 8th (although they still get funneled to this same section). Going across 8th to 130th and then turning left involves too much up and down. There has been talk of building a bike lane under the freeway (which would mean riders could cut across on 117th and then head north) but that is problematic because of the freeway off-ramp. Even with all of that, it is nothing like the issues to the north of the corridor (and east of the freeway). Various streets simply don’t go through. The best you could do is something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9oZRWV4GNrBGZF77. Even if you added crossing on 15th at Brockman (to avoid the up and down) that is still a mess, and not nearly as straightforward as the southeast. You have to ride on 15th (from Brockman to 130th at a minimum). You have to go back and forth, and in many cases you are gaining and losing elevation in the process. That is why I mentioned this in the intro. It is quite understandable why SDOT decided to add bike lanes there. West of I-5 is a different matter. They are just making a mistake. They ignored the fact that with 130th station this has suddenly become a very important transit corridor (and it wasn’t before). ]
“I think the main problem with off-street bike paths is the cost.”
The Portland greenways aren’t off street bike paths. They just use local streets, as suggested here. Since auto traffic is limited to only traveling a few blocks, nobody in a hurry would drive on it.
On SE Clinton you might see twice or more as many bikes as autos, making it a fairly safe route for biking.
The cost comes from installing barriers that keep autos from going all the way through, which isn’t particularly expensive as they are only installed about every 10 blocks or so.
I mean two-lane bike paths (or multi-use paths) on one side of the street. Same-direction travel is generally much safer; rear collisions are rare, and right hooks are (generally) more obvious and preventable. If you sit on the Burke near Gasworks you’ll see these two happen all the time, thankfully generally without collision since traffic flows so slowly:
– A driver encroaches in the biker’s lane while coming to a stop or taking a right turn because they are only looking to the left instead of checking both ways (pedestrians are certainly well familiar with this one)
– A driver takes a left across the bike lane without checking behind them (often the cyclist does not think to look to the right either)
Two-way bike paths can still be fine, especially on slower streets or with well-designed intersections, but I don’t think they’re safer or easier to build than right-side bike lanes
I mean two-lane bike paths (or multi-use paths) on one side of the street. Same-direction travel is generally much safer; rear collisions are rare, and right hooks are (generally) more obvious and preventable.
I agree. I think they should be avoided whenever possible. But there are exceptions. SDOT will add a multi-use path on just the north side of 130th between 1st and 5th (over the freeway) and I think it is the right decision. There are a few reasons for this. First, It would be expensive to improve the pathway on both sides of the street. Second, on the south side you have to deal with the freeway entrance. This is bound to be challenging. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but it would be a lot more work. Meanwhile, you only have one crossing — Third. Folks in the neighborhood have pushed to block this off completely (like Ashworth) but SDOT seems to ignore their pleas. To be fair, at least drivers won’t be able to make left turns there, and it is only for people going from Third to 130th, which should be slower than those that go the other way.
Likewise, east of there the multi-use path transitions to a two-lane bike path. I think this is a mistake, and plenty of people have criticized SDOT’s thinking on this. Right now the plans are to go from two lanes to one east of Fifth. One of those lanes is for buses (basically a queue jump). It seems like you could just have one lane east of Fifth along with a bike lane. The merge would not be obvious, so there is that. You also have the cars that come off the freeway, but they should put a stop sign there. I can see why SDOT basically punted and put built a two-lane bike path to the north, but it is not ideal.
I basically ignored everything east of I-5 in this post, because it is more about bike issues than transit issues. If I wrote for the bike blog I would probably write something about it. There are a lot of weaknesses for bike as well as pedestrian travel. For example nothing is being done on 5th or 8th (so far as I know). The first thing I would do is close off the connection between 8th and 127th, south of Roosevelt (https://maps.app.goo.gl/8gGZ1dHtFYCz4yBx5). Right now a lot of people use this as a way to get through the neighborhood, now that 5th is no longer two-way. This would force them to go around (via Roosevelt, which is an arterial). At a minimum, this should be “exit-only”.
Meanwhile, 5th is three lanes northbound, with two of those lanes turning left. Why? Why so many lanes turning that way, when fairly soon it squeeze into one lane each direction. Maybe they are leaving that open as a possible transit (left-turn lane) but they could do the same thing if it was two lanes (just allow buses to turn left in the right lane). It seems like this would be a good place to widen the sidewalk and make it a multi-use path. It seems like they basically punted when it came to the 130th/5th intersection even though plenty of people will end up walking through there. In general I don’t think it will be terrible, but it won’t be as good as it could be.
Yeah, I’ve been threatened with violence riding a bike at the light at 5th, going West. I dared to take the right-hand through lane, rather than dodge the right turners and try to balance on the tiny sidewalk. Dude started yelling at me that I had no business being in the road, and that he would run me over. Nice. That’s a really dangerous intersection for bikes.
They bike facility just ends and strands you in a nightmarish place.
Where did “your page” want light rail on I-5? That decision was made before I moved here, but I for one think another route would’ve been better.
Good catch. We wanted the Link alternative on Aurora north of 110th, but we couldn’t convince ST of it.
130th station came out of that alternative because it was an extra station at 130th & Aurora. After ST selected the I-5 alternative, transit fans realized that if the Aurora alternative could have a 130th station, the I-5 alternative could too, and that would mitigate the issue of access to Link from Lake City, Seattle’s fifth-largest urban village. It then became clear that an east-west bus feeder could serve both Lake City and Bitter Lake. Bitter Lake has gotten several large apartment buildings in recent years including senior housing, and has room to grow with decaying big-box lots. That all led to demand to add 130th Station. We couldn’t convince ST to include it in ST2 to open with Lynnwood Link, but we could in ST3.
Yeah, the idea that an I-5 alignment was ever preferred by this blog is silly. It certainly wasn’t what I would build. We are stuck with the I-5 alignment, and that means very few walk-up riders. Just about all the ridership will be via buses (and drivers to the park and ride). So be it. The best thing we can do is make the bus network better, and that includes more bus lanes (to make them faster).
And the reason. For this is a cautionary tale. Yes, I would support bike lanes off 130th. But only if done well, and they are actually faster and safer. The city dd a shit job on Westlake trail, so people who care about their time and safety still take Dexter.
The city needs to ,eep that in mind if you are successful in convinving them to create routes detouring bikers off 130th. If they are shit, like Westlake, people will still bike on 130th.
This is not correct. STB was a strong proponent of using 15th NE or Aurora as the pathway between 110th (Northgate Way) and Lynnwood.
People most liked the 15th NE option, because it is relatively straight and would have penetrated existing active nodes around 115th and Roosevelt and three places along 15th NE north of there.
But it was very expensive because it would have to have been tunneled the entire way to 105th, and it would have bypassed the economic centers in Shoreline completely.
So most people were dusappointed when Snohomish County leaders successfully suppressed the Aurora Elevated option in favor or the built alignment.
“to 205th” Bad proofreading.
Not sure exactly what Bradley’s point is. Sarcasm? Anyway, I agree it makes sense to prioritize 130th for transit operations. That is the best way to leverage the investment in and performance of the 130th station. Left alone, it exists in a desert of freeway infrastructure, a park, a golf course and underutilized single family homes.
I weighed on the first SDOT survey re. this that they should plan PBLs on 128th. The only major destination between the station and Aurora is Ingraham HS, and that can be safely accessible via bike on Meridian and Ashworth.
And also agree with the philosophy of putting bike ROW on quieter streets. It’s way better for attracting new and casual users. Seasoned commuters (and I am one) have the confidence and experience to navigate arterials and busy intersections, but we are a very small subset of the population.
Agreed.
130th needs a middle turn lane. This can be done easily with bike lanes, not so easily with bus lanes.
130th also needs a safe biking route to ingraham high school. 130th is the best alternative. 137th would be a big detour for most students. 135th might be nice if they could make a path straight through from stone to ash worth.
130th also should lose a travel lane, especially at aurora. It would be much better if there were right turn only lanes that only allowed turning on red arrows. These would come on the opposing left turn light cycle and thus make it safer for pedestrian crossings.
Bus lanes feel like they would just be a waste of space. They would likely be clogged by cars getting around left turners.
A 128th bike route would be nice, but requires a bridge over i5 to be really effective.
130th also needs a safe biking route to ingraham high school. 130th is the best alternative.
No it’s not. Read the other blog post I linked to (https://d5seattle.org/safer-routes-to-ingraham-high-school/). If you are coming from the east you go north on Third (completely protected) then west on 133rd (which would have stop signs straight to the school). No detour at all. If you are coming from the northwest you cross 135th (at a pedestrian/bike only crossing) then head south on 135th, then across on 131st than north on Ashworth. This is significantly shorter than going down to 130th, and the route students are likely to take (even if nothing is done to improve safety). If you are going from directly west you cross Aurora (like you do now) and dogleg up to 131st to Stone. If you are coming from the southwest you cross on the (pedestrian/bike only) crossing, and then go on 128th to Ashworth and head north.
I feel like too often we think of a walking or biking path and think “we should go that way because the cars go that way” when it is actually the opposite. It far less pleasant and a lot more dangerous to go that way. The city has to spend a lot more money (which they don’t have) to make routes like that safe. Look at 125th and 15th. The city added bike lanes on both streets a long time ago. So what does the intersection of these two major bike paths look like? Total crap! It is just a lot harder to fix major intersections like that then it is to fix a crossing like 128th and Aurora. In the case of 128th, we can simply ban cars from crossing (just like we banned cars from crossing on 92nd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UCWtdivVezKXz1ex9).
130th needs a middle turn lane. This can be done easily with bike lanes, not so easily with bus lanes.
It needs two (protected left-turn intersections). One at Stone and one at Meridian. It is quite likely that this would result in losing the BAT lanes for sections (depending on the width of the street). So that means (at worse) there would be a mix of “queue jumps” and full BAT lanes. This is much better than not having them at all (which is the current plan). Other than that, there would no left turns allowed. This improves safety and also make traffic flow better.
Bus lanes feel like they would just be a waste of space. They would likely be clogged by cars getting around left turners.
The only left turns would have left-turn pockets (like First has now).
It would be much better if there were right turn only lanes that only allowed turning on red arrows. These would come on the opposing left turn light cycle and thus make it safer for pedestrian crossings.
Agreed.
A 128th bike route would be nice, but requires a bridge over i5 to be really effective.
That would be ideal, but what I’m suggesting would still be much better than biking along 130th. Yes, you have to funnel through the crossing, but after that it would be smooth sailing. Either you go north (via 3rd and Roosevelt) to 137th, or you dogleg south to 128th. In general crossings of I-5 are messy. Even with the new bridge the crossing next to Northgate TC is a mess. This looks better in general. In the long run I could see a crosswalk (and signal) for Third. Then pave the pathway in the park and it would lead right to 128th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/k6ZJ9T57nsTXJdJQ8). That is something that everyone (who has looked at the area) imagines, but we all decided it wasn’t worth pushing for (now). First and 130th is actually fairly safe now. The left turns are protected, and there is no right on red.
Do bus lanes moving away from I-5 really matter that much?
Are the sidewalks going to be improved, including on to side streets that have had to wait a century to have them at all?
One evolving reason for 130th Station seems to be the lack of safe sidewalks connecting to the station 15 blocks to the north.
@Brent White,
I agree. Sidewalks are clearly a higher priority in these neighborhoods than bus lanes which will do basically nothing to speed up travel.
And remember, today there are exactly zero buses that travel the length of 130th. Future plans call for one bus.
How much money are we willing to spend for ineffectual bus lanes on this route that serve at most one bus?
And bus infrastructure at 130th St Station is basically nonexistent and will remain that way. No bus loop, no layover spots, nothing. All they plan to do is restripethe bridge. That’s not much.
I think this idea is a non-starter. Too much money for too little benefit when other priorities are much more important.
Oh please. You are so full of it. You keep complaining about 130th Station and the lack of development around it (No one will use it! I have a study that has now been refuted to show that!). We keep explaining that the key to the station is crossing buses, and now you claim those don’t matter either.
Your arguments are ridiculous. There are no buses that cross now. So what? You’ve been using that argument for years to suggest they wouldn’t add any buses — and you were obviously wrong! What possible difference does that make?
Now you are making a big deal about only one bus there. Again, that could change — but more to the point, what difference does that make? The 8 is the only bus on Denny. The 44 is the only bus on Market. The 7 is the only all-day bus on most of Rainier. Are we just supposed to ignore these major corridors — where huge numbers of people ride transit — because there is “only one bus”. Do you think we should let Link fall apart because it is “only one line”?
And bus infrastructure at 130th St Station is basically nonexistent. No bus loop, no layover spots, nothing.
So what? What bus infrastructure is there at Westlake? None. Does that mean no one transfers there? Do you really think that the key to bus-rail interaction is to have place for the buses to loop around? No one will ever transfer to the Judkins Park Station then, right? Get real. Come on, we have been over this before — do you not understand the basic geography here? Link goes north-south. The buses go east-west. Link is in the middle of the east-west corridor. The buses will do what they should do — keep going. Do you get that, or should I break out the puppets?
Oh, and now you claim that “bus lanes do basically nothing to speed up travel”. Seriously? Are you really claiming that bus lanes on Third Avenue don’t speed up travel? Or Aurora? Or the various other places where they will (or should) be added? Do you really think that if they added BAT lanes on Denny that the 8 would still be just as slow? Get real.
“Do you get that, or should I break out the puppet.”
You crossed a line with that comment.
“Future plans call for one bus. ”
A frequent route connecting two whole urban villages to Link. That’s not just one little bus route. Preliminary concepts include rerouting the 75, which is already 15-minute frequent daytime every day.
@Sam,
Thanks for calling that out.
But I’m a big boy and I don’t let small comments get under my skin. And I’m not about to call out violations of the comment policy. That is not my job.
At the end of the day only 3 things matter in this debate: Facts, Data, and Economics. This proposal loses on all 3 and is DOA.
Three strikes and out. Same as it ever was.
@Lazarus
that would be a more impactful statement if you could more concretely back up your statements with some facts or data points.
Like the train tunnel height, you vaguely knew it was lower but had to wait for others to provide and find documents on the precise height. I’m not sure why you are acting so confident when I’ve rarely seen you provide hard numbers or facts that are citable.
“Do you get that, or should I break out the puppet.”
You crossed a line with that comment.
Yeah, but Lazarus crossed a line with the entire comment. It so full of nonsense that has been repeatedly refuted. Look, if someone comes on here and says “Why are they adding the station at 130th — there is nothing there?” it is understandable. I calmly explain that the station is designed as an intercept for east-west buses. If that happens two or three times, I will keep doing that.
But Lazarus has repeatedly ignored this line of reasoning dozens of times! I get why someone might downplay it (you aren’t going to get many riders by bus) but he keeps ignoring the basic argument. Time and time again we have to repeat the reasoning. It isn’t a mystery to Lazarus unless he simply chooses to ignore it. Look, I know you get accused of trolling Sam, but it is quite often good-natured trolling. This is not! This is the type of trolling that (to quote the comment policy of the blog) would “get you punched in the face”. Yeah, I know my comment would as well, but at some point you have to call bullshit on a bullshit comment.
Lazarus knows damn well that the main reason to build this station was to serve areas with an east-west bus. He knows damn well that every proposal for buses in the area goes east-west. So why does he bring up the inability to turn around next to the station? Because he is trolling! Not the funny kind but the obnoxious kind that is so very irritating.
Holy cow, his argument contradicts a different argument he makes! He suggests that buses along the corridor are not that important because there will only be one bus once it opens. Sure, but the bus goes east-west, past the station! You can’t possibly be aware of the fact that a bus runs by the station without also being aware that having the ability to layover or reverse directions half way through the route is meaningless. Sorry, but this is clearly trolling.
Honestly I think they just have an irrational hatred of the station because you support it Ross. They’ve never been quite consistent on the reasoning for why they dislike the station. I mean seriously the expense of the station? The extra parking garages for the sounder stations cost just as much. The east west bus lynnwood link restructure will add one. And so on….
For “facts” I’ve never seen Lazarus make a cursory attempt at ridership estimates. I mean is the mountlake station going to acquire that many more riders? Maybe they only support link stations with parking garages?
At the end of the day only 3 things matter in this debate: Facts, Data, and Economics.
OK, fine.
Fact: A bus will run on 130th. This is the only way to cross I-5 on a bike between 117th and 145th.
Data: The bus that runs on 130th will connect two densely populated areas (look at a census map). Adding bus lanes allows the buses to move faster and more reliably (self-evident, but https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/06/24/bus-lanes-faster-boston-commutes). Running buses faster improves safety (see link above). Improving bike infrastructure also improves safety (this is fairly self-evident, but https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/bicycle-infrastructure-for-enhanced-cycling-safety).
Economics: Adding BAT lanes is a fairly cheap way to make buses faster. Adding bike lanes to the north and south (along with stop signs) is also fairly cheap. In contrast you have suggested putting all the money into sidewalks, which is fairly expensive.
Basically you have nothing to back up your argument. Your comment contained pointless facts (there are no buses there now) and dubious claims (bus lanes don’t speed up buses).
only 3 things matter in this debate: Facts, Data, and Economics.”
Facts: Which facts? What kind of facts? You’re stating some but ignoring others. The facts I’m interested in are making transit more convenient for the most people, so that transit is their first choice rather than their last choice. That’s what cities do who want circulation systems that are a good, effective, efficient, equitable, and climate-friendly. That’s what transit is for, and why we’re building it. An important principle is to have all urban villages well connected to Link and to each other. 130th Station and an east-west bus route does all this.
Economics: This station is inexpensive. The street proposals are inexpensive: They don’t involve building tunnels or widening roads.
Data: You focus on one aspect of one study: ST’s report saying the station won’t add any net riders (people who aren’t already taking a bus to Northgate station). You’re not looking at the bigger picture. Making transit more convenient for those riders is worthwhile in itself: it’s what “transit upgrade” means. “Those riders” are all transit riders in Seattle’s fifth-largest urban village going north-south on the trunk. It’s the gateway to the village. This is about improving the overall transit network, a nd providing a better gateway to Lake City is a significant part of that. And I don’t believe the statistic that it won’t add riders. That flies in the face of what happens when Link enters an area, or RapidRide enters an area.
“This proposal loses on all 3 and is DOA. ”
Ha ha ha. You jest.
@Mike Orr,
I stand by everything I wrote.
But hey, time will tell, right? And so far the plan is for just one bus to go to 130th St Station and for there to be exactly zero bus infrastructure at the station.
A transit paradise? Far from it.
> I stand by everything I wrote.
Lazarus you can say or stand by anything you wrote, but don’t pretend it is about ‘facts’ when I have rarely seen you actually use them in argument. You usually just make some claim and then wait for someone else to actually bring the data to refute it. It is barely better than blind guessing at that point.
And so far the plan is for just one bus to go to 130th St Station and for there to be exactly zero bus infrastructure at the station.
Stop lying. There will be bus infrastructure at the station. It is clearly marked in the various documents. This essay is an argument for more bus infrastructure.
Oh, and why are you are complaining about the lack of bus infrastructure at the same time you are arguing against adding more? It is completely nonsensical — it is basically complaining for the sake of complaining — in other words, trolling. Look how many comments you have created with your contradictory arguments containing falsehoods and irrelevant information. There is a perfectly reasonable argument (made by Jeremy and others) about the efficacy and cost effectiveness of different types of bike lanes. This is getting lost in this mess you created. I guess if the goal was trolling, you did a great job.
Has Sound Transit or SDOT looked into building a park and ride at the 130th station like at the stations in Lynnwood Link and at Northgate?
If there are over 27,000 daily car trips on 130th, which is probably 20X the number of bicyclists if bike lanes were installed, little TOD available at the 130th station, and only one east/west bus running in general purpose lanes that can’t be restriped due to the volume of cars on 130th it seems to me the remaining best option is a park and ride to get Link riders to the 130th station. This also cuts down on the distance a rider has to walk to reach the feeder bus and the wait for the bus which won’t be very frequent.
If as Lazarus notes the 130th station won’t induce any new Link riders a park and ride at 130th would at least relieve pressure and traffic at the stations to the north and south that have park and ride garages.
The analysis of no additional riders from 130th ignores potential bus restructures because no firm plan for those was made in analysis for the station.
Park and ride users have a pretty large structure already at Northgate. By road it’s not that far. By bus, going to Northgate can be a long diversion though. It seems like it takes an eternity for the 40 to loop around through all the traffic lights and get on the north side of the college.
If as Lazarus notes the 130th station won’t induce any new Link riders
This is the problem with spreading lies. People repeat it. It is like the idea that vaccines cause autism. Yeah, there was a study that showed a connection, but it was later retracted. Same goes for the idea that 130th Station won’t add any riders. ST itself — the ones that came up with that idea — now refute that idea. But people like Lazarus have no problem spreading lies or misleading information. Lazarus repeatedly claims that there will be “no bus infrastructure in the area”, which is clearly not true. Now Lazarus is claiming that BAT lanes don’t allow buses to move faster. This is such an absurd claim that it wasn’t easy to find a study showing that yes, BAT lanes allow buses to go faster.
Anyway, ridership at 130th will be like ridership at the other stations. Some will switch from using other stations, others will use transit instead of driving. As with all of the stations north of Northgate, a huge proportion of riders will arrive by bus (likely the majority at every station). Thus the bus network matters (a lot). Right now the network is very poor, which explains why ridership overall is fairly low. Things are (very slowly) moving in the right direction. Trying to predict ridership based on a moving target like the bus network is extremely difficult.
Ridership estimates are notoriously unreliable. It is quite common to just get it wrong — by a huge amount. To quote this article:
“The days of pretending like we know what’s going to happen in 50 years, and planning for that one thing, probably need to be over,” Voulgaris says. “The focus of our planning should be: Let’s create a system that will serve our needs under a wide variety of possible alternatives.”
That is basically the idea behind BAT lanes on 130th. We know there will be buses running there (as soon as the station opens). It is quite likely they will always run buses on corridor. We should make sure the buses run as fast as possible, and in this case that means adding BAT lanes on 130th.
As for park and ride lots, they aren’t worth the money. Seattle has basically rejected them. We are pretty much stuck with them in the places where they are now. You really can’t develop the area under the freeway (where the park and ride lot is for the Roosevelt Station). They tried to get rid of the park and ride at Northgate (the neighborhood wanted money put into better bus service) but there was some legal obligation to rebuild it. Adding a park and ride lot at 130th would also add to the congestion along the corridor. If there were BAT lanes the whole way (from Lake City to Bitter Lake) I wouldn’t care, but that clearly won’t be the case.
@Glenn,
ST’s not including new bus service in their ridership estimates is not by accident, it is actually Federally mandated.
Basically, when applying for Federal funding, the Feds don’t want the applicants to “game the system” by promising large amounts of supporting transit/infrastructure during the application process, and then not following through once the money is allocated. Aka, no cheating.
Similar restrictions apply for consideration of ridership related to special events. Think of it this way, the Feds don’t want to grant money based on ridership estimates during a Mariners playoff run, only to see the M’s return to the same old M’s and have ridership collapse.
It’s actually pretty rational.
Lazarus:
You can include bus ridership as part of light rail grant money. Eg: it was a key piece of TriMet orange line planning, as the plan was to replace 13 bus trips per hour with 4 light rail trips per hour on the downtown Portland to downtown Milwaukie segment.
However, for it to be included, it must have a plan.
Seattle has an ordinance against new P&Rs. Some people in eastern Rainier Valley and Rainier View wanted a P&R, and ST said nope, that’s illegal.
Some of the spaces in the Northgate garage are owned by the mall and contractually obligated to the mall’s tenants. So ST had to replace those when it demolished the old parking for construction. It also built a moderate-sized P&R to replace the old one. During planning it asked the community whether it wanted a larger P&R or better bus/bike/ped access. Metro surveyed who was using the P&R and found that most of the cars came from west and east. The majority of respondents said they wanted better bus/bike/ped access, and the only reason they drove to the P&R was that that was so lacking. That’s what led to the ped bridge across I-5. It was supposed to lead to more sidewalks, bus feeders, and bike lanes, but I don’t know if those have been done. Some of the feeder runs got swallowed by the post-covid staff/parts shortage. Like how LCW and 5th had to fight for which one would get service, and not having 15-minute evening frequency. I don’t know enough about the area to know what else Maple Leaf needs and whether it got it.
P&Rs can fit only a quarter of the passengers. If you want a space for everybody you’d have to make them four times bigger. Each space is typically used by only one car per day because it hogs it for the 9-5 workday, and cars don’t typically park there evenings or weekends. Each parking space in a garage costs over $100,000, and surface spaces are at least $35,000. That’s an extraordinary subsidy for one person. And most people have to schlep in by bus or foot or kiss-n-ride because they couldn’t fit in the P&R anyway. That may be changing if garages that were previously full or would have been full, no longer are now. But then that means the money for the empty spaces was wasted.
Seattle has promised a modest upzone around 130th Station; probably the lots east of it. There’s no reason to think it won’t happen. Even if the current council doesn’t rise to the occasion, as the population grows a future council is likely to. And there are existing apartments within walking distance, which some people seem to not know or they ignore them.
What percentage of Link ridership leaving Northgate arrives by bus?
I answered my own question. 39%.
https://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/Northgate_Transit_Travel_Behavior_Changes.pdf
The vast, vast majority of transfers from bus to link were from the far north – Shoreline and and Snohomish. East-West local transfers were in the piddly low single digits. Bodes ill for the expected huge wave of bus transfers at 130th.
Focus on building good bike infrastructure instead.
The vast, vast majority of transfers from bus to link were from the far north – Shoreline and and Snohomish. East-West local transfers were in the piddly low single digits. Bodes ill for the expected huge wave of bus transfers at 130th.
That is a silly conclusion. Roosevelt gets about 7500 riders from the 322 and 522. A high percentage of them are from Lake City. Going to 130th would be much faster. The 347/348 have over 5,000 transfers. Some of those riders are from Pinehurst. The 75 has 3,500 transfers — a lot of those riders will transfer at 130th instead. Transfers from the 346 are pretty low, but still over 1,000. For folks from Bitter Lake this is the only connection to Link — a very slow, indirect, infrequent connection. Not only will a lot of people switch, but a lot of people will start taking Link instead of driving or making a two-seat bus trip.
You really can’t tell which station riders will use with most of these routes unless you get specific stop data. Even with the 512 it is inconclusive. Yes, most of those riders are from Lynnwood (or places north). But some of them are from Mountlake Terrace and they will switch to … you guessed it .. Mountlake Terrace. You can look at previous data though, and see (for example) that a lot of the ridership on the 522 never left Seattle. A huge portion of it was on Lake City Way. Many of those riders will switch to 130th.
As for bike ridership to Link, it remains quite low to every station. Even stations that you would expect a lot of riders (e. g. UW Station — right off the Burke Gilman) has only a handful. The idea that bus lanes on 130th will somehow get thousands of cyclists to the station is rather silly. They probably will only have a handful of places to lock the bike (and our bikeshare system is not great).
I think we are missing the point. If as I believe Eddie pointed out 130th has over 27,000 thousand car/trips per day, and SDOT won’t consider a road diet or PBL on an arterial with that number of car trips, especially east/west which is hard enough in Seattle without reducing lanes, then why are we discussing bike vs. bus lanes on 130th.
It is a common thing. Pedestrians don’t care about bicyclists, bicyclists don’t care buses, and drivers don’t care about any of them. If you can show PBL on 130th will carry 27,000 bikes or bus riders you might have an argument, but the reality is the station at 130th will generate either zero new Link riders or very few, depending on which version of ST you believe.
It makes little sense for some on this blog to get so worked up over bike vs. bus lanes on 130th when neither is going to happen, as though winning the debate on STB will change that. 130th is too important for east/west car traffic and the 130th Link station is too unimportant for Link ridership.
> I think we are missing the point. If as I believe Eddie pointed out 130th has over 27,000 thousand car/trips per day, and SDOT won’t consider a road diet or PBL on an arterial with that number of car trips
It’s a bit complicated to follow as the sections of N 130th st improvements are split up into multiple projects on SDOT and sound transit.
SDOT is currently planning on channelizing NE 130th on that section from linden to 1st ave from 4 general lanes (2 in each direction) to 1 general lane in each direction and a protected bike lane in each direction.
“Late 2024: Reconfigure the street from four through lanes to 2 through lanes with a center turn lane and protected bike lanes”
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/projects/n-130th-st-vision-zero-safety-corridor-
For the section east of 1st avenue they’ve updated the project and are moving forward with the shared use pathway on the north side of N 130th for the freeway bridge.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/ne-130th-and-125th-mobility-and-safety-project
there’s also another page on sound transit for the section on 5th ave https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/ne-130th-st-infill-station
For the further improvements that Ross posted above those are more extensive improvements that require sidewalk rebuilding to be done later in 2025 https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/n-130th-st-%E2%80%93-bitter-lake-to-haller-lake-mobility-improvements
Maybe we could post an consolidated article about the currently planned changes if people are having hard time following it as from the comments it seems people were unaware SDOT is moving forward with modifying that stretch this year.
Thank you WL, the links are some light among the heat. I guess my question now is why are folks arguing over this if SDOT is getting ready for construction. It seems the decision is made.
Does SDOT believe that three lanes with a dedicated turn lane will actually increase traffic capacity because the inner lane won’t be backed up due to cars turning left?. I note the speed limit will go from 30 mph to 25. Whether drivers follow that is unknown. The main reason for the changes seems to be Vision Zero.
So what happens when a bus on 130th makes a stop to pick up or drop off passengers when there is only one general purpose lane in each direction, especially a disabled passenger in a wheelchair? Will that stop all traffic behind the bus? That would be a reason to spread out the bus stops along 130th as far as possible, especially as there will be sidewalks for bus riders to walk on to their stops so extra distance won’t be so bad. I think someone on this blog stated 1/2 mile between stops is about max.
Is there any data about how many bicyclists SDOT thinks will use 130th to get to the Link station? Does the 130th station have a large secured bike storage area. One of the unfortunate things about Link stations along East Link is despite all the talk and expense of building bike lanes to the stations the stations themselves have very little secured bike storage, unless you want to leave your expensive bike chained to an outside bike rack that would be stolen in a nano second at the 130th station. At least you can’t steal a bus.
So what happens when a bus on 130th makes a stop to pick up or drop off passengers when there is only one general purpose lane in each direction, especially a disabled passenger in a wheelchair? Will that stop all traffic behind the bus?
Yes, or they (illegally) pass the bus using the center turn lane. Sometimes the city adds an island there to prevent that. For example here is one northbound on 20th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/MmFbXR97voX6edMc9). When the bus stops there, drivers can’t go around.
Does SDOT believe that three lanes with a dedicated turn lane will actually increase traffic capacity because the inner lane won’t be backed up due to cars turning left?
I doubt it. Very few people turn left except at the arterials, which will all be controlled intersections (meaning you can’t turn left until you get a left turn arrow). There are just very few streets (or houses) to turn to. Ingraham basically forms a super-block. Corliss is the only street that someone can access by using an uncontrolled left-turn (if they even allow it). Oh, and that is only one direction (it doesn’t go through). Hard to see that many people taking that turn.
I think they are just accepting the fact that traffic will be a lot worse. Keep in mind, this was all part of the long term bike plan, that largely ignored the 130th Station. That’s because no one knew if it was actually going to get built. SDOT is just accepting the fact that this will make traffic much worse.
The problem is, it screws up a vital bus route. Bitter Lake and Lake City are large, densely populated neighborhoods. Not only does the corridor connect them (in the fastest possible way) to Link, but it also connects them to each other, as well as other north-south bus routes. A lot of the buses that go east-west don’t even go through! So if you are taking the E from Shoreline and headed to Lake City, this is pretty much your only choice. Likewise if you are coming from the south. From Aurora or Greenwood Avenue anywhere north of 85th this is the best option, by far. If you are south of 85th (say Phinney Ridge) then maybe you take the 61, but I think staying on the fast north-south bus (the 5 or RapidRide E) until you get to 130th is a much better option. Same idea with Bitter Lake. The 522 forces an awkward three-seat ride from Kenmore. So be it. But the best option is Stride to 148th, Link to 130th, then the bus to Bitter Lake (at least Link will be very frequent then, and both stations are fairly easy to access). Likewise Bitter Lake to the southeast (Wedgwood, Sand Point) will involve this bus one way or another.
Before someone says “but if it is so vital, how come Metro doesn’t add this route now” might I remind you that transit ridership in this city is very low! Not to be rude, but our network is crap. I personally know a teenager who is going to buy a car just so he can travel this exact corridor. He is often trying to get from Lake City to Bitter Lake even though he doesn’t live in either neighborhood. Right now the options suck. When transit sucks, people buy cars. Transit mobility is going to get a lot better for a lot of people when they add service along this corridor. It is crazy to make the street more congested at the same time.
Also the traffic count is not 27,000 or at least from the 2023 numbers I can find.
From 5th ave to 15th ave ne the actual traffic counts are 18.3k. East of 15th ave ne the actual traffic counts are 11.9k.
west of 5th avenue (aka west of i-5) there are no actual traffic counts but estimated traffic counts of 25k from 1st to 5th avenue.
Then west of 1st the estimate is 23k then again an estimated traffic drops further to 20k.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/2023_Traffic_Report.pdf
Also in general the ‘main’ page for these bike projects are on https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/ne-130th-st-light-rail-station-access-and-safety-improvements
it holds links over to the 5 other sdot projects as well as sound transits.
I am not suggesting that you don’t put buses on 130th. I’d be happy to see transit-dedicated lanes.
I am suggesting that you will be disappointed in their use, particularly for people within a mile or 3 of the station.
I am advocating for making bike connections safe, direct and fast. If that’s off 130th, that is fine. It will be much harder to do, but it’s fine. If it’s a crappy meandering bike route with lots of deference to north-south car traffic, it will won’t be worth doing at all.
I keep thinking of Kyoto Station, in a town similarly sized to Seattle. I’m sure there may have been buses people used to transfer to the stations, but the thousands and thousands of bikes parked there, including automated underground bike parking, was simply astounding. Because biking to the station for the large majority of the population was safe, direct and fast. It was simply the best mode. Do that here, and that’s the mode people will use.
@Cam Solomon,
“ Bodes ill for the expected huge wave of bus transfers at 130th.”
Thanks for making me laugh. Points awarded.
There is no expected “huge wave” of bus transfers at 130th. Anyone believing that is drinking some pretty strong Kool Aid. And trust me, I recognize Kool Aid when I see it. I was raised in the same religious denomination that Jim Jones preached in. I don’t drink Kool Aid anymore.
But thanks for bringing real facts and data to the discussion. Because NGS currently has some pretty powerful buses pumping transfers into the station, and yet total bus transfers still account for less than 40% of boardings? That is pretty darn low, even with all those buses.
So how is 130th St Station going to do? With one bus route and no real density for about a mile? Answer: It’s going to do pretty poorly.
But thanks for doing this research.
@Ross, why are you so negative all the time? You literally pounce on every comment you disagree with, and often turn it personal. Do you simply relish telling other people why they are wrong all the time?
What are the goals of this community? Do you want to grow participation? Do you want to add people? Educate people? Invite new and different ideas?
Because your behavior does the opposite: it drives people away, or keeps them from joining or returning.
And before you type a long rant telling me why I’m wrong, look in the mirror and know this: you may own your opinions and your feelings, but you don’t get to own those of others, including mine. My impressions reflect how I and many other former visitors experience this community since the former admins left.
@Ross, why are you so negative all the time?
Why do you think I’m negative all the time? I consider myself fairly balanced. Just consider this station. I’m definitely looking forward to it. I think it will be a very important addition. That doesn’t mean that I like every decision that ST makes. Or any other agency for that matter (SDOT in this case, but also Metro, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, etc.). They make good decisions and bad decisions.
You literally pounce on every comment you disagree with, and often turn it personal.
That is simply not true. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I make it personal. Cam and I have been arguing over basically the same point, and we have never made it personal. It is just an exchange of opinions. By the way, Cam and I have come to a consensus (more or less) which is that if the bike lanes can be off 130th and good (instead of being crap) then it would be fine (if not better) for bikes. This is good. This is the way it is supposed to work — an exchange of ideas. Ultimately, as with most decisions, there are trade-offs, and we may favor one approach versus another. But it wasn’t personal.
The only time it got personal was with Lazarus, and that is because he has repeatedly lied about this particular subject. Yes, I lost my cool. I shouldn’t have said the things about the puppets. But it is really irritating when Lazarus pretends to be ignorant of the responses we have given, so he keeps repeating the same arguments, some of which are based on lies. Imagine if I said “There is no bus stop there” and someone wrote “Yes there is — here is a picture of it”. Then a month later I wrote “there isn’t even a bus stop there”. Again I’m corrected. Then a month after that the same thing happened. Then again. And again. Eventually you can expect people to get a little bit pissed off.
Lazarus has done this dozens of times when it comes to the 130th station despite being corrected every time. Eventually it gets tiresome. So yeah, I shouldn’t have lost my cool (and suggested he break out the puppets) but at some point it becomes obvious that he simply doesn’t like the 130th station, and is ignoring every argument for it.
Do you simply relish telling other people why they are wrong all the time?
Of course not. By do you think I write this for fun? Seriously, do you think I sit down and compose a blog post just for the thrill of it? For my ego?
Get real. I have no interest in public notoriety. I suck as a writer (ask the editors here). It is extremely difficult for me, and I feel a lot of pressure to get it right. I would much rather just sit back and see things evolve in a nice way. But when there are things we can do to make things better — and no one else is writing about it — then I’ll write a post. Once I do I will defend the argument. Why wouldn’t I? Seriously, do I think I would go through the hassle of writing this post and then just ignore every counterargument? Who does that? If you write a letter to the Atlantic and it gets published, you can expect the author of the original article to respond. This is similar (although I’m obviously not in the same league as those writers).
@another engineer
you may own your opinions and your feelings, but you don’t get to own those of others, including mine
I’m puzzled by this statement since on this particular subject we agree. I saw your comment earlier and since it was in agreement with the post I didn’t bother to respond.
@another engineer,
Thanks for saying that out loud. I think it needed to be said.
However, I have a pretty thick skin. Over the course of my career I’ve worked with some pretty horrendous individuals. It took me awhile, but I eventually learned how to keep my cool and keep the discussion focused on the technical task at hand. I think I am a better person for it.
But it still gets sort of depressing on here occasionally. However, the conversation I had the other day with the ST Rail Supervisors was positive, constructive, technically informative, and filled with mutual complements. It reminded me of what this blog could be.
As per BAT lanes on 130th, I obviously tend to disagree on their value. BAT lanes do improve things somewhat under most circumstances, but are they worth the extra costs of building BAT lanes AND parallel bike lanes? I think probably not. And certainly not with the limited number of buses planned for that route.
But hey, Ross’s post was devoid of supporting data justifying the change and the extra cost. So it is certainly not enough to justify the change.
And the “B” in “BAT” stands for “Business”, as in “Business Access and Transit”. but there is precious little “Business” on 130th outside of Aurora. So does that make these proposed lanes “Residential Access and Transit” lanes? Aka, “RAT” lanes? And how does that impact the design and safety?
Who knows without a formal SDOT study.
And, for the record, I don’t lie.
> And, for the record, I don’t lie.
Is that quite accurate? You repeatedly say no bus service will be added on that corridor when Metro already stated they will add it there.
Also you reference how the N 130th station will have no bus infrastructure implying that means no bus route will be added when those are only needed for layover or terminus. It’d be like saying a rail station that doesn’t have a cross over track isn’t a real station, either you are ignorant of how buses work or just blatantly being untruthful.
> But hey, Ross’s post was devoid of supporting data
For the other times about ‘facts’ you just vaguely reference it but always depend on others to actually provide the statistics. Again I don’t know why you act so confidently when you are rarely able to provide the data yourself.
@WL,
Yep, I don’t lie.
And there will be no significant bus infrastructure at 130th St Station. No bus turning loop, no layover space, no timed transfers. Basically nothing.
All they are doing is restriping the bridge to move the transition from 2 lanes on the new/future Roosevelt config a little bit further west to meld with the 4 lane config of 130th. The beginning and ends of those extra lanes would be used as bus stops.
But again, those would be simple stops. Nothing more, nothing less. A simple bus stop does not rise to the level of “infrastructure”, at least not in my book.
And for the record, if you want to see real bus infrastructure, go to Lynnwood Transit Center. More bus bays than you can count, layover space everywhere, turning loops, covered waiting areas.
LTC has real bus infrastructure. 130th St Station does not, and won’t. At least not in my lifetime.
I want to make sure that anyone reading this blog understands that there will be bus infrastructure at the station. I referenced it on this post, although indirectly. Here is the slide for the area next to the station. There will be bus lanes and bus stops (AKA bus infrastructure).
The question of ridership also came up. According to Sound Transit, they expect about 3,400 riders (https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/online-open-house-ne-130th-st-infill-station-now-live). That seems about right, but it is hard to tell, since there are a ton of factors (like bus service) that could sway things either way.
As far as “But hey, Ross’s post was devoid of supporting data” that again is not true. There are a bunch of links in there, if you follow them you get the data. I figured there was no point in repeating the case for the station, so I instead simply linked to three previously written essays all making the same basic argument. Thus I did not mention that Bitter Lake and Lake City are dense neighborhoods and that this will be the shortest (if not fastest) way for them to access the station. Do you really need data to support this idea?
OK, fine. Here is a density map: https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html. As you can see both neighborhoods have relatively high density. Here are the zoning maps: https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/resources/zoning-map-books. Both neighborhoods have room to grow. Here is a map showing recent applications for development in the area (https://www.seattleinprogress.com/). That doesn’t give you everything that has happened since the last census was taken, but it shows that there has been development in both areas.
Here a map showing the future bus network in the area: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/lynnwood-link/large/p3serviceproposal_areamap_lg.jpg. This could always change, but it at least gives a rough idea of what things will look like in the near term. Notice that in the future there will be two ways to get from Bitter Lake to a station — via the 345 and the 77. Here is the schedule for the future 345: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/lynnwood-link/large/p3serviceproposal_areamap_lg.jpg. Notice that it takes over twenty minutes to get to Northgate, even in the middle of the day. It will be a mile and a half from Greenwood & 130th to the station, and it involves no turns. Unless there is a huge amount of traffic along 130th — the exact problem I’m trying to avoid — it will be considerably faster to go via 130th. The 77 is scheduled to run every fifteen minutes. The 345 will run every half hour (as it does now).
For trips from Lake City you can use Google Maps to estimate the time. It takes 4 minutes to get to 125th & Roosevelt (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ukK4CP5i4CMXaLkd8) which is very close to the station (and involves a turn, unlike the trip to 130th station). It takes 12 minutes to get from Lake City to the Roosevelt Station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/qqYB9e6hj8cwPnx86). That is currently with an ST Express bus, which makes limited stops along the corridor. Assuming those stops are added, it will take longer than that. As it turns out, the Metro bus that replaces the 522 is slated to be the exact same bus as the one that serves 130th. Thus the two pathways have the same frequency. Likewise, Link to each station will be the same. To get to Northgate takes 13 minutes: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BTQX8T9TfaUq323a6. The fastest way to get from Lake City to Link will be 130th.
If you are going south then you spend less time on Link, but not enough to make up for the difference. Buses are also generally more reliable than Link. I suppose I could gather some data on that, but do I really need to? Thus if a rider has to take a bus and transfer, they are likely to prefer a shorter bus ride and a longer train ride. Thus the preferred station for Lake City riders will be 130th (because it is faster and more reliable).
So 130th will save riders from Bitter Lake a lot of time, and be the fastest option for Lake City riders — as long as the bus can avoid terrible traffic. This is precisely why I wrote this post. I want to add BAT lanes on 130th to make sure that the bus doesn’t experience traffic so bad that the route is ruined.
That is a lot of data, but there you go.
I thought Lazarus’ point was the station at 130 St. would generate no new NET link riders. Not no riders at all which would be weird.
The most interesting thing will be how many total boardings there are on Link after Lynnwood Link opens, and then the station at 130th. ST opened U Dist. to Northgate Link and total Link ridership didn’t increase at all.
I understand those like Mike who argue the station at 130th will make it marginally more convenient for those taking Link over Northgate station even if there are no new net Link riders generated by 130th (depending how they get to the station since 130th has no parking and very little walkshed) but that was when the estimated construction cost was half of actual cost. If stations are free to build who cares how many new riders they generate or how many existing riders save five minutes in getting to a Link station.
How much bus infrastructure to install on 130th should be related to how many new net Link riders 130th “induces” because there are other competing uses for that road capacity, with cars dwarfing bikes and buses. If the 130th station won’t induce new Link riders 130th street is too important to dedicate lanes to buses or bikes (when bikes always account for a tiny percentage of trips and IMO never trump bus lanes IF the bus lane is actually needed and beneficial and not just ideological).
> And there will be no significant bus infrastructure at 130th St Station. No bus turning loop, no layover space, no timed transfers. Basically nothing.
Why would the bus need a turning loop or a layover if it’s going to continue straight on? We’ve been over this many times, just like how route 8 just needs a bus stop at Capitol Hill Station it doesn’t turn around there nor does many of the bus stops on 3rd avenue.
Lazarus you are wrong here I’m not sure why you are so insistent on practically lying at this point.
> I thought Lazarus’ point was the station at 130 St. would generate no new NET link riders. Not no riders at all which would be weird.
> The most interesting thing will be how many total boardings there are on Link after Lynnwood Link opens, and then the station at 130th. ST opened U Dist. to Northgate Link and total Link ridership didn’t increase at all.
That is fine if Lazarus wants to make such a claim, but they always insist it is backed by facts but then lazily never actually finds the data and just waits for someone else to fetch it for them.
@Lazarus if you want to say your claims are backed by data then next time actually do some work and find the data. Stop trying to make a random assertion saying it is backed by data but always wait on someone else to do your work for you.
Practically if there was a ReverseLazarus that always said the opposite if you we’d need to check both assertions, it is on you to prove your claims not for us to always refute it. This is like the 4th or 5th time you’ve done this.
I don’t think Lazarus is lying at all. He’s saying the station won’t have certain things that the station, in fact, won’t actually have. That’s not a lie.
As to motive, I think Lazarus is saying 130th won’t have bus infrastructure as another one of his attempts to paint Metro in a bad light. Notice how he contrasts Metro and 130th station with Lynnwood TC? I think most of what he’s writing about 130th station is a subtle way to bash Metro (again).
The one area where I think he is on to something is this … Everyone agrees that 130th station will only work with great bus service. The station’s success rests on great bus service. It’s a bus intercept, right? I think all Lazarus is saying is he’s not seeing any signs of future great bus service. He’s underwhelmed. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with expressing that. Even 130th station supporters would agree, if the area doesn’t have great bus service, the station is going to be a flop.
@Sam
> I don’t think Lazarus is lying at all. He’s saying the station won’t have certain things that the station, in fact, won’t actually have. That’s not a lie.
I would be more generous of interpreting Lazarus if this is not a common pattern they’ve done repeatedly. There is no need for a bus loop if the bus is going to continue on.
Again it is like arguing that a train station without a turnback track cannot service trains when the trains are not planning to turn around there. Like why is it relevant to have a bus loop. Perhaps Lazarus did not know that the 77 was going to continue straight on but does not want to admit it.
> I think all Lazarus is saying is he’s not seeing any signs of future great bus service.
Again if Lazarus wants to make an unsubstantiated claim that is fine. If they wanted to make a claim backed by facts and show some data or work that is also fine.
What I am tired of Lazarus is making a claim saying it’s “backed by facts” but actually someone else must do the hard work for them.
The station might be worth it for the rezone alone. I am curious to see how the area will grow in the next decade or two.
I agree with Lazarus that there are no bus stop improvements associated with 130th Link station. It’s a glaring omission in the 130th plans.
So let’s step back and ask this: Why?
Is this omission ST’s fault, Metro’s fault or Seattle’s fault?
This is a very important jurisdictional question. There is a very big lack of agency coordination here. Each one is doing what is best for them and their advocacy du jour.
To me, it’s why we need to have every Link station design vetted for access and user friendliness. The vetting needs to have all of the relevant parties looking at it, including those who use and drive buses.
So rather than debate what is a lie like second graders, how about we recommend and advocate ways to prevent such omissions in the future?
And the obvious solution is to rethink the bridge over I-5! Widen the sidewalks! Put barriers to buffer sound! Put bus stops and shelters in both directions! Put a mid-block crossing so that eastbound riders using Route 77 can cross the street!
It’s just bizarre to me how Seattle DOT can fund all of this landscaping on 130th yet ignore the way that people interact with the station at the bridge. I’d gladly prefer all of the money on 130th go to improve the access in and out of the station by widening the bridge. That’s going to benefit lots more people every day than more elaborate curb bicycle treatments with landscaping or a bus lane.
San Francisco figured out decades ago how to cantilever a bus waiting area with a back wall to buffer sound from an overpass on Fillmore Street at Geary Blvd.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5ha5QuaWi7botDDx5?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy
@Sam,
I know people on this blog are hyper sensitive to all things Metro, but my criticism of the 130th St Station is not directed at Metro.
Na, the problem with the 130th Station started with ST, and Rogoff in particular. ST staff said it didn’t pencil out, but Rogoff overruled them and put it back in to gain an ST3 endorsement from a holdout council member. It is a purely political station.
And it is a pretty lacking station. No parking, no bus loop, no layover space. It’s bare bones, and that is a compliment.
And Metro is left holding the bag. But blame Rogoff, not Metro.
@John D,
“ I am curious to see how the area will grow in the next decade or two.”
That is one of the key problems with the 130th St Station. The station is hemmed in by a golf course to the NE, a ravine and wetland to the E, and another park across the freeway to the SW.
Rezone or not, the amount of developable land is simply small.
@Lazarus
Sure, but it was also quite cheap (relative to the rest of the stations), and I would be surprised if we don’t see major redevelopment in the area. 145th has similar issues but we’re still seeing hundreds of units going up.
Seattle has really been dropping the ball on the zoning. There’s no reason to think that the rezone won’t happen, but it should already be done so that some development could get in the pipe.
@John D,
It’s actually not a very cheap station.
Rezone or not, the amount of developable land is simply small.
Yes, just like every other station north of Northgate. There is too much land that can’t be developed. Every station is close to the freeway, and close to green belts. None of them will get that many walk-up rides. This is why bus connectivity is essential (for every station).
He’s saying the station won’t have certain things that the station, in fact, won’t actually have. That’s not a lie.
He wrote that there won’t be bus infrastructure improvements, and yet there will be. So he is wrong. He is either lying, or ignoring the truth (even though we have repeatedly pointed this out). The problem is that if you repeat something often enough, people assume it is true. For example, Al wrote this:
I agree with Lazarus that there are no bus stop improvements associated with 130th Link station. It’s a glaring omission in the 130th plans.
You might believe him, but you would be wrong. Again, I literally showed a slide showing the improvements around the station. The area around the station is not the problem. The bus stops in general are not the problem. The only question is whether the buses will encounter a lot more congestion than they should.
This is why I get so pissed off with the Lazarus comments. It was clear from the very beginning that he simply doesn’t like the 130th station, despite the evidence in support of it. Evidence that he now chooses to ignore. His arguments are filled with misleading information (e. g. “no bus routes on the corridor”) or strawman arguments (lack of a turnaround at the station). Keep in mind, no one has ever suggested that buses turn around there. Not once. We have repeatedly pointed out that the smart thing to do is to just keep going — which is exactly what they are going to do! Yet despite this, Lazarus continues with the strawman argument.
He has successfully gotten us a pointless tangent. Here we are — on what should be a discussion of the trade-offs between BAT lanes versus bike lanes on 130th — and Lazarus has successfully focused attention as to whether the station itself was worth it. Clearly he doesn’t think so. But rather than present a case based on facts and solid arguments, it is based on BS. When we point out the BS, he simply states “that he stands by his arguments” which suggests he is quite comfortable spreading BS, or at the very least doesn’t understand they are BS.
Yes, walking (along with transferring and boarding) should be the most important thing we promote for Link.
I wish I could cash in a few miles of bicycle lanes that go unused for new walking paths, replaced wider sidewalks, and more escalators and elevators at stations, frankly.
Everyone is a pedestrian at some point in every trip. It’s the most equitable mode we have.
@Al S,
If you really want to live dangerously, try accessing Northacres Park from the south side of 130th and the west end of the overpass. A pedestrian needs to cross two non-signalized lanes feeding into the SB on-ramp. There isn’t even a painted crosswalk there, and the cars just fly.
Every time I cross those lanes I think of my friend who got run over in a crosswalk and ground up under an SUV. He lived, but it wasn’t pretty.
Pedestrian infrastructure (and safety) is a higher priority.
I wish I could cash in a few miles of bicycle lanes that go unused for new walking paths, replaced wider sidewalks, and more escalators and elevators at stations, frankly.
Bike infrastructure is important. So too is transit and pedestrian infrastructure. Quite often we have to make compromises while one gets worse and the other better. In this case we have a rare opportunity to improve all modes of travel (except driving). The bike lanes and pedestrian pathways would be safer. The bus pathway would be faster, which in turn means every mode is safer.
Do bus lanes moving away from I-5 really matter that much?
Yes! Of course they do. You don’t want the buses stuck in traffic. Ride the 8 sometime if you don’t think it mattes.
Are the sidewalks going to be improved, including on to side streets that have had to wait a century to have them at all?
Sidewalks are being improved and Moore has pushed for that. But sidewalks can only do so much. If the buses are stuck in traffic, then fewer people use transit. They also run less often, which in turn means fewer people use them. As a result, more people drive, which leads to more people getting hurt and injured.
I think the important thing is to consider the east-west connections to the 130th Street station (and pretty much all of the Link “spine” stations) as a broader corridor, not just the road that happens to pass by the station.
130th is currently four lanes of traffic with no real safe bike alternatives and minimal transit priority, and current “corridor” plans only think about the ~70ft or so of ROW of the street – it doesn’t consider how more all-ages and all-abilities bike paths could be developed along streets with slower, quieter traffic, whereas bus (and freight, if they go with FAB lanes) connections could be made much better between Aurora and I-5/Link. SDOT is already planning greenway upgrades to 1st ave NE; outright rejecting the idea that putting bike lanes north AND south of 130th would make a safer bike network for all seems premature.
The obvious pinch point is the 130th street overpass, where SDOT is already planning a combined ped/bike path and reduced traffic lanes with some bus priority. I agree with Ross that considering parallel routes north and south of 130th could provide better access for pedestrians and cyclists while boosting potential transit throughput.
RossB,
in the initial post, please double check your agency nouns; do you have SDOT and Metro correctly included in the sentences?
The subject street is North 130th Street west of 1st Avenue NE.
This post could be deleted after you doublecheck.
Good catch. I fixed it.
There may be a practical traffic engineering factor that will weigh in favor of the RossB suggestion. The traffic volume on North 130th Street may be higher than recommended for a three-lane profile. When SDOT presented on the Seattle Transportation Plan in the spring, an average weekday count of 27 or 28K was cited. During the McGinn term when West Nickerson Street was reduced to three lanes from four, SDOT officials said it would work for arterials with volumes below 17K per weekday. So, if North 130th Street were reduced to three lanes, we may have buses stuck in traffic.
Wouldn’t that mean that double bus lanes would be even less feasible? A two-lane conversion would be more aggressive than a three-lane.
The FHA points at 25k as the breakpoint: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/road-diets-roadway-reconfiguration
A compromise might be to keep the center turn lane and remove the bike lane for a bus lane. It could go eastbound toward I-5 and westbound toward Aurora, swapping somewhere around the high school.
The point being that we will see congestion with cars either way — whether we go to three-lane or two-lane. By adding bus lanes we ensure that the bus is not stuck in traffic.
My understanding is that a center turn lane greatly improves throughput, since left turns are no longer blocking traffic. There are a lot of driveways and cul-de-sacs off of 130th. With only two lanes, allowing left turns would back up traffic, and I can’t imagine that residents off of 130th would be happy with restricting left turns.
There are a lot of driveways and cul-de-sacs off of 130th.
There are only a handful of driveways (shared or otherwise) on 130th between 1st and Aurora. There are no shared driveways to the south (people access their house via 128th). To the north there are three short ones. Altogether you probably have less than 100 households that would be effected. That means you either put up with the minimal amount of delay (caused by those 100 residents turning left) or you make the street safer (for pedestrians) by preventing left turns entirely and those residents have to turn right to enter and exit their home. Of course many won’t like this, but that is life in the big city. Left turns are fundamentally bad. People need to get used to making three right turns instead (like UPS).
In this case the detour isn’t bad at all. For what it is worth I live on the other side of the freeway in a house on a shared driveway at roughly 20th and 123rd. The fastest way for me to get to 125th is down the hill. But when I drive, I never turn left there. It is too dangerous and too time consuming (there is a reason why UPS implemented that rule). Instead I go on 120th and 15th. It is not that big of a deal.
fyi those planting strips right now are just dead grass there’s no actual trees. Looking at the section from aurora to 1st avenue that looks like a rebuilt new planting section.
If you just removing the planting strips and have the bike lanes there instead there’s enough space for bike lanes, bus lanes and car lanes. Not for the entire corridor but for some sections of N 130th st
How would you propose to add bike facilities to 128th and 137th? 128th in particular looks like it would need major construction to fit in bike lanes, and I don’t think you could fit in sidewalks with the bike lanes. Would residents really be okay with major construction to put in bike lanes with no sidewalks?
@John D,
LOL, you are correct. Local residents would prefer sidewalks, not bike lanes without sidewalks.
But hey, I guess local residents, and their opinions, just don’t matter.
More BAT lanes! NOT!
I guess local residents, and their opinions, just don’t matter.
These ideas have been formulated with the support of the local Greenways groups. Dozens of local people have been involved. A large group walked with Spotts (the SDOT chief) and shared our ideas and concerns. More recently we met with Cathy Moore.
What makes you think that people don’t want bike lanes on the streets I mentioned? I don’t remember any opposite to the project on First Avenue, do you?
@John. There are various ways of doing it. One option is the approach they are taking on nearby First Avenue — a shared use path: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/safe-routes-to-school/1st-ave-ne-shared-use-path. You wouldn’t necessarily need that on the whole corridor, but you would want a way to walk that route, just like you want a way to bike that. In some sections it would be easy, in other sections it would require some work.
In general people love it when you make it easier to walk or bike through an area. There are always exceptions, but anything to make the street safer is seen as a bonus. It is noting that if we add bike lanes on 130th there will be a lot more traffic on 128th. People will use it as an alternative. The same is true if they add bus lanes, but at least there would be pedestrian/bike improvements on the 128th. If they made 128th like 92nd then you would also see fewer cars on the road. With 92nd you can go straight or turn left on Aurora. You can turn right onto Aurora. You can turn right from Aurora onto the 92nd, but there is a “local access only” sign. People may ignore that, but a lot of people (myself included) get the message. From what I can tell, navigation software (Google Maps) tends to steer people away from those areas as well.
Last night I witnessed yet another motorized rental scooter rider calmly traveling down a protected bicycle lane — only to topple into temporary barricades in a solo accident.
“Car”-ma.
I hope you aren’t reveling in injury/death due to the city not providing safe infrastructure. Is this like a schadenfreude thing? Or a humor thing? If so, I don’t get it.
Just the opposite, Cam.
I’m observing that even with safe PBL infrastructure, motorized scooters are dangerous. I think they seem much riskier than bicycles — including those with pedal assist.
At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if bicyclists begin to resent their presence in bicycle lanes.
Finally, bicycle lane maintenance will emerge as a bigger issue as the new ones age. Tree roots will upend pavement regardless of the vehicle using it. Weather will deteriorate pavement too. And bad pavement quality will much more be a factor in future bicycle and scooter accidents more than in car or bus accidents. A car has shocks; a scooter does not.
Another factor is that the more barricaded a bicycle lane is, the less width a bicyclist has to serve away from pavement hazards. Seattle seems obsessed with adding concrete curbs and barriers to new lanes in the past two years, and that’s a big design change from plastic bollards and striping for a separation.
Every transportation mode is dangerous, to some degree. I did some digging a while back, and came to the conclusion that electric bikes and scooters were about the same, and maybe twice as likely to result in injury as a traditional bike, but the authors speculated there was something of a learning curve.
Actual motorcycles are an order of magnitude more dangerous than cars, and often result in death.
Scooters rarely result in death, unless a car or truck is also involved. So perhaps a hardened barrier increases risk of injury a bit, but lowers the risk of death quite a bit.
Are you taking an advocacy position here? Ban all none human-powered 2 wheeled vehicles from our streets, lanes and multi-use paths?
You might garner the ire of the Hells Angels…
The optimal solution requires changes on several margins. The transit network for 2026 should be changed to provide more routes and trips past the NE 130th Street station; the transit network could shift to a more east-west focus. (One such network would have revised routes 5, 75, 345, and 346 pass the station). The Haller Lake local streets between North 115th and 130th streets (e.g., Meridian and Corliss avenues North and North 122nd and 128th streets) need not have any service. In the network to be implemented in fall 2024, routes 75, 345, and 365 actually ignore the 2026 station; they are not set to change in 2026. Route 77 would be added; it seems geometrically flawed in Lake City. If North 128th Street did not have transit service, it could have bicycle priority; it could intersect with the SDOT 1st Avenue NE facility. Roosevelt Way NE could also have a bike emphasis. Both Roosevelt and 128th facilities could feed the planned SDOT infrastructure between 1st and 5th avenues NE. The North 128th Street bike route could connect with the North 125th Street bike lanes, via Stone Avenue North, that connect with the Interurban (no new signal is needed on Aurora).
The ROW on North 130th Street is limited. It already needs new pavement and improved curb and sidewalk. It has left turns at 1st Avenue NE. It has signalized crossings at Aurora, Stone, and Meridian avenues North and 1st Avenue NE. Should SDOT consider adding another at Ashworth Avenue North?
If North 128th Street did not have transit service, it could have bicycle priority; it could intersect with the SDOT 1st Avenue NE facility.
It would be trivial to send the bus around the other side of Haller Lake, and on to 1st Avenue (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vy2CwUyty1yt6tMX6). Other alternatives include going west on 115th from Meridian to Aurora). That would likely speed up the buses. Right now that would create a service hole (around Bitter Lake) but when buses are added on 130th, people will walk there.
Should SDOT consider adding another at Ashworth Avenue North?
Do you mean a pedestrian crossing or a protected left turn signal? They recently added a pedestrian crossing there. There are plans to add protected left-turns (you can only turn left via a left-turn arrow) at Meridian Ave N, Ashworth Ave N, and Stone Ave N. https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/projects/n-130th-st-vision-zero-safety-corridor-
I agree with your other points by the way. The 77 is geometrically flawed. It should be split (e. g. send the 65 to Bitter Lake instead). More routes could serve the station (or the east-west route could run more often).
The fall 2024 service change routes 345 and 365 would use a few minutes of out-of-direction travel to use 1st Avenue NE and avoid North 128th Street; Route 345 goes to/from the west; Route 365 goes to/from the north via Meridian Avenue North. both are flawed.
My issue with a bus lane is that it’s just a lane. There is no bus!
Metro proposes running Route 77 just four times an hour in each direction (eight total). The transfer at 130th looks like it’s going to be partly on the I-5 viaduct yet there is no project to address it.
Simply put, I don’t see the service plan approved by Metro to make a bus lane investment worthwhile. If a better bus transfer and at least one more route was using the lanes it would be more convincing. Say if RapidRide E turned to Lake City, and Aurora in Shoreline was given a different RapidRide service (say Aurora Village to 130th to Northgate to U-District) it would make very better sense.
Ross, did you envision a different route structure? It seems to me that unless there is at least a bus every 5-8 minutes in each direction as well as a congestion problem that lasts several hours a day it’s not a compelling effort.
The one improvement I could embrace instead is a better I-5 crossing at 130th with a widened overpass for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus transfers as well as sound absorbing vegetation. The station layout as is is seriously deficient in convenience.
We’ll never have good transit if we think like that. The reason Metro has the band-aid 77 is the staff/parts shortage. That’s gradually getting better and when it’s alleviated, Metro can run the full network it intended for the Lynnwood Link restructure. That may mean splitting the 77, attaching 125th to the 75 and getting it all the way to Shoreline College, and putting another route on 5th Ave NE. When the time comes, it would be good to have the lane upgrade finished or at least close to completion. Because it takes several years to schedule, plan, and implement street changes. Metro may not increase service because it doesn’t have a transit-priority lane, and that would create a chicken-and-egg problem. Other cities get good transit by solving problems like this, not letting the excuses go around in a circle for not doing it.
Expecting 5-8 minute service on the 77 is not realistic. Metro needs 10-minute service on frequent routes all over the city yet only a few routes have it. Even the routes that got it in the late 2010s — 45, 48, 65, 67 — don’t have it now because of the driver/parts shortage and Seattle lowering its TBD contribution.
First Metro needs to get all core routes up to 15 minutes full time. It has done that to a large extent weekday/Saturday daytime,. Now it needs to fill in the 30-minute periods and get some routes up to 10 minutes daytime. That will take it years. Then it can work on getting most routes up to 10 minutes daytime. That’s when you might get 10-minue service on 130th. Then we might finally get to the level like Chicago or San Francisco, where a 30-minue route is practically unheard of except a few coverage routes and night owl. In the meantime, we can’t expect all Link feeders to run every 5-7 minutes even if it would be ideal, and we can’t expect 130th to jump in front of the line ahead of the 8, 45, 48, etc.
Metro may not increase service because it doesn’t have a transit-priority lane, and that would create a chicken-and-egg problem.
Exactly. It is kind of shocking how infrequent the 8 is, despite being second in terms of ridership per hour. But it is just so slow. It costs a lot to add service there. Speed it up (with BAT lanes) and it can run more often. It would quickly go through a virtuous service/ridership spiral, with a lot of new riders.
I also think Metro just didn’t know how to handle the 130th Station. A big part of that is the timing. There are three stages:
1) Lynnwood Link (without 130th)
2) 522 moves to 145th
3) 130th Station
They initially tied service on 130th to the 65. Everyone I talked to seemed to like it. It just made sense, given how the 65 is one of the more frequent buses in the area. But then they forgot about service on Lake City Way going away. Existing riders on 30th complained about losing their one-seat ride to the high school and middle school (while people who would gain that one-seat ride didn’t bother to promote the change). Next thing you know, the planners came up with this Frankenstein of a bus route (the 77). It runs on Lake City Way, replacing the 522 (when it moves). It serves 130th (when the station is built). The only problem is, it is ridiculous. It forms a big ‘V’. Even just making the turn is problematic.
The thing about restructures though is that they aren’t permanent. There are plenty of routes that are flawed, and quite often they get fixed. With the Northgate restructure, Metro originally had the 60 going from Lake City to Sunset Hill*. They 62 was moved a bit, and a less frequent 23 covered part of TangleTown. That all got thrown away, and the 20 goes to TangleTown instead. That meant no bus from Greenwood to Lake City. Except now they are altering the 20, renaming it the 61 and sending to Greenwood after all. Things change, and it seems very likely that the 77 will change, given its fundamental issues. It is possible it changes before it is even implemented, given the lag time between now and 130th Station. It also seems very likely that service along the corridor be more frequent, given the very high ridership-per-service potential.
* Maps of the previous proposals (dug out from the Wayback machine):
62: https://web.archive.org/web/20200415091817/https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/north-link/route-info/en/route062.pdf
23: https://web.archive.org/web/20200415083055/https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/north-link/route-info/en/route023.pdf
62: https://web.archive.org/web/20200415091817/https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/north-link/route-info/en/route062.pdf
Yes, Mike Orr gets closer. I suggested routes 5 and 75 on North/NE 125th/130th streets between Bitter Lake and Lake City, both 15/15 headways and routes 345 and 346 on 5th Avenue NE and NE 130th Street, both 30/30 headways; that would take 12 trips per hour per direction past the station. Route 77 is a function of the odd phasing; it need not be; it misses the existing Lake City hub. There are many good options; Metro did not find one.
There are hours and operators used elsewhere in the network.
RossB: thanks for sharing the old maps of routes 62 and 23. They date from P2 of the North Link Connections project, implemented in fall 2021. The Route 62 alignment in East Green Lake and Wallingford is optimal. It serves the same corridor as the Meridian streetcar line, 1940; it serves a string of villages with retail and multifamily housing. SDOT has to help; there are answers. the alignment is shown in the comp plan map, but that is the planning department; the streetcar tracks were pulled up from the middle of North 55th and NE 56th streets. The segment north of NE 74th Street could be deleted; Metro improved the turnaround loop using 62nd Avenue NE. This streamlining would save several minutes for Route 62 and its riders.
Route 23 was too much coverage. They also showed Route 25, a one-way peak-only service.
The deletion of Route 20 in fall 2024 is controversial as it deletes service to the Latona village.
It seems to me that unless there is at least a bus every 5-8 minutes in each direction as well as a congestion problem that lasts several hours a day it’s not a compelling effort.
That is ridiculous. The 7 runs every ten minutes. The 44 runs every twelve. The 8 runs every fifteen! Even the RapidRide A Line runs only every ten minutes. Hell, even Link only runs every ten minutes! You are saying it should run in mixed traffic? Come on.
As Mike pointed out, we have a driver shortage and we are spending less money on transit than just a few years ago. We also have more congestion. One of the reasons a bus like the A or E runs so often is because it runs so fast. One of the reasons the 8 and 44 don’t is because they are slow.
As far as congestion, there isn’t that much on 130th, but there will be if there is only one lane each direction! Maybe it isn’t obvious, but driving across 130th will get a lot worse, whether they add bike lanes of a bus lane. But if we add a BAT lane, the buses will be able to go much faster and more people will use the bus. It is worth noting that there is way more congestion on 125th then there used to be. I’m not saying the road diet is bad — it has made the street a lot safer. I also think favoring bikes over buses on that section is reasonable — there aren’t great alternatives for bikes in that area. But there is a cost — to the buses. The bus (now the 75) is slower than it used to be. The small queue jump (that I mentioned in the post) helps a lot. Every time I ride the bus I see it pass numerous cars there. This is going away. We are pretty much stuck with the buses being slow on 125th.
But we aren’t with 130th. There are really good bike alternatives. Adding bike lanes on 130th will make the buses much slower. Imagine if they add bike lanes on Rainier Avenue or Lake City Way — changing the street from two lanes to one. Of course it leads to a lot of congestion. Except that analogy isn’t a good one, because it would be so much better for bikes, while this won’t be. We can argue about which bike path is ideal, but the fact that it is even arguable and this is a major transit corridor (connecting two major neighborhoods with Link) makes the choice very clear. We should build BAT lanes here.
RossB is correct again. The lane reductions to add PBL have slowed buses on several corridors in recent years: Route 67 on Roosevelt Way NE; Route 9 on Broadway; Route 62 on NE 65th Street; routes 10, 11, 47, and 49 on Pine-Pike streets in downtown.
SDOT needs to figure out how to be safer and still move buses well.
Above, Lazarus and Ken discussed FTA ridership modeling for HCT projects and bus networks. I am certain bus networks were discussed and modeled for north, Lynnwood, and east Link. I expect it is so for all the Link lines. The Lynnwood Link modeled network looked more like the current one and less like the fall 2024 one. In the Northgate effort, I recall that 80 percent of the modeled ridership was expected to arrive by bus.
FTA only closely scrutinizes the project forecasting assumptions if the project requests New Starts money. If a HCT project amount is for Small Starts money, the rigor is much less.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/about-program
The processes are detailed here (if someone wants to get into the weeds):
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-04/Proposed-CIG-Policy-Guidance-4-5-24.pdf
This discussion needs to include a frank discussion of installing these “curb buffers” for bicycle lanes.
I get that a curb buffer separates bicycles from cars and buses. I am not however aware of any bicycle fatality in Seattle because there wasn’t a buffer — and instead only a striped separation along with plastic bollards (which reduce the risk by 53 percent). What’s driving this recent buffer obsession?
And let’s be clear that 130th is not proposed to be a high speed street to begin with. Do we need a curbed buffer on every 25 mph street? Keep in mind that 95 percent of auto-bicycle collisions are at intersections and not on mid-block segments.
One cross section concept even proposes trees in this buffer. This is a problem in 20 years. Tree roots disrupt pavement and concrete sidewalks all over Seattle. Low branches often hit people. A car can handle a small bump from uneven pavement. A bicyclist however may go flying and be injured with bad pavement — and no way to serve around the bad pavement thanks to these “curb buffers”.
Pavement deteriorates. Seattle seems to be unable to keep up with deteriorating pavement already. Adding more buffer adds to the cost and expense of repaving in the future.
And then there is an ADA issue. Wheelchairs cannot easily overcome curbs. That’s why Seattle is getting ramps at almost every intersection in Seattle these days. A paratransit rider may have a big problem getting up and down two more curbs.
I think installing these buffers with curbs is generally a mistake unless it’s a particularly dangerous area — and I expect that they’ll be a huge problem for bicyclists at some point about 20 years from now as pavement deteriorates. Plus, resurfacing a street will be more difficult and costly than if the city had merely installed less expensive separation.
A source:
https://cyclingsavvy.org/2024/06/how-to-ruin-a-buffered-bike-lane/
@Al S,
“ I am not however aware of any bicycle fatality in Seattle because there wasn’t a buffer — and instead only a striped separation along with plastic bollards (which reduce the risk by 53 percent)”
It’s the same old story, the part the lay public doesn’t hear very often, and rarely understands.
Economics do influence safety decisions.
The curb buffers might be marginally safer than striping and bollards, but if they cost 4 times as much to install, then what is safer at the end of the day? Four miles of bollards at a 53% safety improvement? Or 1 mile of curb buffers with 3 miles of no improvement?
The economic argument cuts both ways – curbs might be more expensive, but they’re also more durable. Flex posts provide very little protection to cyclists, but also to themselves, so don’t last long at all and need to be reinstalled every few months in places – curbs should last for much longer in addition to providing actual protection.
There are bike lane deaths every year. A recent high-profile death in Philly was in a partially post-protected bike lane.
I agree with your main point though, paint-and-post lanes are generally good enough for calmer streets, and concrete should be reserved for routes that are heavily travelled or more dangerous. It’s the same with transit infrastructure: it’s generally better to lay down more miles of paint (and post) than it is to rebuild fewer miles of street. In this case if SDOT goes with bike lanes, paint-and-post lanes seem like enough to me. Perhaps Seattle is adding landscaping in an attempt to attract or preempt redevelopment.
The ADA issue sounds a bit alarmist to me; I have not seen any indication that SDOT is ignoring accessibility issues when they build concrete-protected bike lanes. Tree roots encroaching into pavement is a mostly-solved problem. You’ll still see it on older streets but it should be very rare on streets with trees planted in the last decade or two. And stronger traffic separation through curbs and especially trees make it much more comfortable to walk on the sidewalk. Everyone loves a tree-lined street.
A side note: this source article sounds like a “vehicular cyclist”. I don’t think you’ll find many people arguing that paint-only lanes are better than post or concrete. Motorists give a bit more space when there is some vertical delineation, and they prevent people from parking (illegally) in the bike lane
> I get that a curb buffer separates bicycles from cars and buses. I am not however aware of any bicycle fatality in Seattle because there wasn’t a buffer — and instead only a striped separation along with plastic bollards (which reduce the risk by 53 percent). What’s driving this recent buffer obsession?
I think you’re conflating two heavily related but not quite the same thing. The Californian buffered bike lanes are much more wider at like 9/10/11 feet wide than typical protected bike lanes usually like 6/7 feet total. Other examples of it would be at say Admiral Way. If you’re just using paint it can be fine, but that’s more for wider bike lanes not for the normal size ones that Seattle usually implements.
For the rationale behind buffers, if you don’t have them cars are much more likely to park in them or alternatively much more likely to use it as “another lane”. Anyways for that section east of aurora it is also about swapping the places from the current parking spots as well. Currently the situation has the bike lane to the left of the parking spots so cars parking must cross the bike lane to enter the parking.
To be clear guys, my comment is about installing curbs of 4 inches or more — not just wider pavement with cross hatch striping and bollards, or a mountable curb of less than 1/2 inch like those in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
SDOT just created two of these on MLK between Walker and McClellan. There is a break at Bayview but otherwise a bicyclist is effectively stuck in the lane for several hundred feet with no way to get out of the lane without getting off their bike! That’s what the 130th drawings are showing as what they want to do.
It’s especially hazardous if there is less than 5-6 feet for the bicyclists to travel. There may be standing water. There may be a hole in the pavement. There may be uneven pavement from a tree root. There may be trash someone threw out their car. It’s harder for a faster bicyclist to pass a slower bicyclist if not impossible. Finally, bollards take up about 4-6 inches of pavement while the curbs are often a foot wide taking up space should a bicyclist need it.
I get the importance of protection on a higher speed street. Curbs can make sense for something like Aurora. But if the street is already supposed to be 25 to 30 mph with only 10 or 11 foot lanes like 130th, it seems to me that it’s worse for a bicyclist in the long run as the street pavement becomes uneven with unseen root bumps and potholes over time — and the main reason is to provide more “protection” from slower traffic when the benefit approaches zero. There are plenty of bicycling road hazards besides car drivers.
A hardened curb slows speeds by narrowing the effective and visual driving width. A simple sign saying 25 mph does not, as I can attest from my daily commute. Cars sometimes go 60mph, using the bike lane with impunity to demonstrate their lack of driving skills. There is someone parked in the bike lane almost daily halfway down a steep hill, forcing me to do a n emergency merge into fast car traffic, and crossing my fingers no one is doing 60 coming up behind me. A hardened barrier would solve all this.
3235 S Yakima Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zsjLFdhHPJspCxh78?g_st=ac
Google Street views showing very nicely both a car driving and a car parked in the bike lane of my daily near-death experience. And this is one of the nicest bike facilities I’m Tacoma. A buffered bike lame is a real luxury, amd also completely useless for safety.
The parking problem is real, especially for bike lanes in busy areas. The bike lanes outside Roosevelt station on 65th are almost continuously blocked by drivers because they’re neither protected (so buses can stop in them) nor raised (so buses can stop in-lane). At some point my guess is SDOT will come back and raise the bike lanes like on 12th, or at other places on 65th, but that’s going to cost way more money than if they had just done it when the street was torn up a few years ago.
There are trade-offs. It is cheaper in the short run to have flex posts. They also are better if a biker happens to run into them. On the other hand (as Skylar noted) they often have to be repaired. If they are not repaired, then they are basically just a painted line. That is the case for a lot of these. The posts have all been knocked out — it is basically just a white line that is often ignored. They provide little to no protection and because the posts have been wiped out, it is even more likely that drivers will ignore it. This is why the city is moving away from this approach. By the way, someone started a Twitter account showing cars parked in bike lanes which included a blog and this blog post (which covers what the city is doing): https://blog.seattle.carinbikelane.com/even-better-bike-lane-pilot-1-year-later/
@Ross
There is an option for both ‘bike lanes’ and transit lanes on the corridor. Seattle analyzed it earlier by just having the shared use path be on the north side of the street. It was actually the original preferred option, especially considering one will be on that side to cross I-5 anyways.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/NE_130th_St_Shoreline_Multimodal%20Access%20Study.pdf#page=58
N 130TH CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS (SR 99 TO NE 130TH ST OVERPASS)
A shared-use path was identified because it is a continuation of the proposed shared use facility on the N 130th St Overpass, reduces potential conflicts at intersections, ties in with the Corliss Ave N Neighborhood Greenway, achieves BMP goal of an all ages an abilities facility, and avoids potential conflict with the I-5 southbound on-ramp
Options:
* Redesign street as 3 lanes with shared use path on north side
* 2 lanes (vehicle), 2 lanes transit priority, shared-use path on north side
* Designate segments in both directions for transit lanes that allow buses to avoid traffic in the most congested direction
Later they changed the 30% design to a two way bike lane.
For the current channelization they noted
SDOT is considering an interim design to re-channelize N 130th St from 4 vehicle
lanes to 3 and add bike lanes between Linden Ave N and 5th Ave NE; I’m don’t think that blocks the change to the north shared use path design as described above though.
Interesting. Yeah, that could work, although I still think the approach I suggested here would be better.