The city’s plans for a safe and comfortable bikeway on Westlake are at a pivotal point, and they will be gathering feedback during an open house Wednesday, 5:30 – 8 p.m. at Fremont Studios (N 35th and Phinney). The project presentation will start at 6:15 p.m.
As we reported in April, planners are gathering feedback to inform and develop the plan for the bikeway, which will be built in the super-sized publicly-owned parking area to the east of the roadway. Planners presented two basic ideas in April, both of which would be vast improvements over the dangerous and confusing status quo:
Concept A would travel along the west side of the area between the parking and the road. It would have more potential conflicts with cars turning in and out of the parking area, and it would also cause a larger reduction in the number of parking spaces.
Concept B (pictured above) would travel along the east side of the area between the parking and the storefronts. It would be closer to the waterfront and have fewer conflicts with cars. It would also have a lower impact on the number of parking stalls, a concern of some neighboring businesses and residents. However, designers would have to make sure interactions with people on foot are safe, since people walking from the parking lot would cross the bikeway to get to homes, workplaces and businesses. The existing raised crosswalks in the parking lot are a great start, but other design elements can make sure people biking can see and yield to anyone crossing on foot.
Both bikeway concepts will make Westlake a less stressful place for people driving and people on foot, since everyone will know where to expect each other to be traveling. The end result will likely incorporate elements of each concept, plus some other variations to make sure the bikeway works well and fits well within the existing business and residential uses.
Today, huge numbers of people bike their own paths through the puzzle of parked cars and driveways, since no clear good path exists. This increases stress for all users and creates dangerous situations for people on bikes, as this tweet from Sunday illustrates:
My friend was just hit by a car backing out on Westlake. Appears to be minor injuries. #SEAbikes
— Dan Diiulio (@checkereddan) May 18, 2014
Meanwhile, the number of people biking through the area is increasing dramatically. A bike counter on the Fremont Bridge, located just north of the project area, has been showing a 20 percent increase in the number of bike trips compared to last year. Last week, every weekday saw more bike trips on the bridge than the previous year’s record.
An exhaustive traffic study of the area shows that during peak hours, significantly more people bike through the Westlake parking area than drive. Yet other than a couple sidewalks, nearly the entire 150-feet of city-owned right-of-way width (that’s wide enough to land a 737) is dedicated to driving and parking cars. There are 1,712 spaces to park a car, but zero bike lanes.
Very extensive parking use studies (see second part of this post) suggest that planners can minimize the number of parking stalls removed by the bikeway project by redesigning the parking area to make it more efficient. But even more importantly, the city can adjust the parking rules to make sure the parking spaces are used for business and residential access. Car and truck access is important to many of the businesses along Westlake, and the city should make sure that the parking spaces it provides are designed to support the economic development and success of the area.
However this is often not the case today. Most of the parking areas that do fill up are free and have no time limit. This allows people to use the lot as a free park-and-ride to avoid paying for a parking spot at their downtown or South Lake Union workplace (AKA “hide-and-ride”). Providing a free park-and-ride close to the city center is not good public policy, and this kind of use does not help Westlake businesses or residents. It can be avoided by implementing concepts, such as 2-hour limits or expanding the number of metered spaces.
With smart design, the city can make a more efficient parking area that meets (and perhaps even improves on) the needs of Westlake businesses and residents. The city can also improve safety for the great many people who bike through the area today. But even these benefits miss the biggest point:
A Westlake bikeway that is safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities will open new possibilities for people to travel between north Seattle and the center city neighborhoods on their bikes. The bikeway is for people who are not yet biking as much as it is for all the people who already do. The bikeway will open up amazing new access to Westlake businesses to people who would never consider biking there today. It will also connect Lake Union Park and Gas Works Park, providing an almost-entirely-separated bike route between the two major public spaces.
The so-called Westlake Stakeholders Group, which has opposed the bikeway plans, is selling t-shirts that say “Save Westlake’s Working Waterfront” to support their continued work to preserve the status quo of a dangerous, inefficient and confusing parking area. Project planners need to hear support for a safe and important bikeway that will make Westlake better for everyone, including Westlake businesses. So swing by Wednesday and make your voice heard.
Cascade Bicycle Club is trying to get an idea of how many people are planning to attend the meeting. If you’re interested, you can RSVP with them.
You’ll also have another chance to get involved Thursday, when Cascade leads a policy ride along Westlate on the way to the Ballard Street Bike Party. Details:
Show your support for the future Westlake Protected Bike Lane by riding with hundreds of fellow bicyclists as we head to the party to end Bike Month — the Ballard Street Bike Party. In addition to riding through Westlake, we’ll also explore routes for future protected bike lanes on 7th and 9th Avenues in downtown and South Lake Union, the Burke-Gilman Trail, and the temporary improvements on NW 45th Street to the Missing Link.
After the ride, hangout at the Ballard Street Bike Party to cap off Bike Month. The official happy hour will be at the BalMar where you can enjoy beer specials from the Peddler Brewing Company.
Led by the Cascade Bicycle Club and Connect Seattle.
Thursday, May 29, 4:30 p.m.
Start: McGraw Square (Westlake Ave N & Stewart St, Seattle WA 98101)
Finish: Ballard Street Bike Party (22nd Ave NW & Ballard Ave NW)
Comments
51 responses to “Support plans for a safe Westlake bikeway at Wednesday open house”
Yes!
Come out and tell the City that you want them to be bold in implementing better bicycle infrastructure, and that designing a facility with an unsafe design speed will be a tragic failure in what should be a great opportunity for making this corridor safer for all users.
The narrow width of the proposed path, and the earlier reports that SDOT would be aiming for a 10 mph design speed, really should be a great concern for long-term bicycle safety.
A 10-foot path is wide enough for one bicycle each direction. It doesn’t provide safe passing clearance for faster riders to pass slower riders, it provides minimal operating width for many recumbents and trikes, and it doesn’t provide much room for sharing the path with the pedestrians who will certainly also use it.
A facility with a 10 mph design speed for standard bicycles is too slow to be safe for the average non-enthusiast adult riding a cruiser bike, let alone regular cyclists. Then consider Seattle’s eclectic mix of recumbents (lower, reduced sight distances), cargo bikes (longer wheelbase, needs more turning radius), tandems (longer, faster), and kid trailers (wider, more turning radius, lower and harder to see).
If SDOT moves forward with the design as shown so far, it needs to be made clear to them that they will also need to plan to accommodate bicycle traffic on Westlake, because the path will not be a safe facility for an all-ages-and-abilities mix of riders.
This is helpful feedback for the open house.
The worst part is that the selection of a 10mph design speed was because of an error their consultant made (citing the London recommended design speed for shared-use paths instead of bicycle-only facilities). None of the national or international standards support a design speed below 15mph for a facility that is intended to serve cyclists of all ages and abilities, and most indicate that the design speed should be selected based on either the fastest or 85th-percentile user.
If SDOT’s intention is to limit speeds to reduce pedestrian conflict, the appropriate way to do it is with speed-calming measures, not by designing an unsafe facility. King County has pushed back against lowering design speed on the Burke Gilman Trail (20mph, for reference), stating that “The only real effect of a lower design speed is to reduce sight distance cones, potentially making the trail less safe for all.”
Personally, I have a scheduling conflict and won’t be at the open house, but I hope there will be good turnout from people who understand the importance of providing actual safety, not just the comfort of a low-stress off-road path.
Does anyone expect this path, if done well, will have less bicycle traffic than the I-90 bridge? (At least I-90 is ruler-straight and has zero pedestrian crossings, but it’s still narrow enough that people fear it.)
Come to think of it, given the location, shouldn’t the design assume the path will see Kayak trailers?
Designed for use by someone with a kayak trailer: Brilliant!
It would be fascinating to understand why the businesses are so opposed to bringing in more traffic and potential customers.
Just set up a few tables outside along the trail and some of those companies could probably double their income during the summer months.
“that’s wide enough to land a 737”
Cascade is advocating a reasonable compromise that minimizes the amount of parking removed. (Though I’m torn since I’m not really sure which option is the safest – I see potential conflicts for both. Final design is key)
If we can’t convince the city to remove a portion of the “free” parking spots to provide a safe travel option for cyclists on Westlake, what hope does the rest of Seattle’s Bike Master Plan have? “Free” parking for bus park & ride or overnight boaters should not be prioritized over a route that would be used by a larger number of citizens. In other words, car ownership should not trump walking/running shoe or bike ownership.
Mostly knee-jerk response… fear that their free and easy parking situation will vanish or diminish once the city starts paying attention to it. And probably their preference would be, no cyclists on Westlake at all. My friend with an office down there thinks everyone should just be using Dexter instead. I also don’t think they really understand how the parking is being mis-used by being unregulated.
As a resident of Westlake, most of our experience is of cyclist speeding through the parking lot not obeying rules of the road and weaving around while we are just trying to park.
Another objection is that businesses will lose parking and the cycle track will not be used, since people will be riding to slow, so people will move back to the parking lot and spaces will be lost.
It seems like a lot of wasted funding for people who are transiting the area and not patronizing the businesses.
In some areas in the South and Central there is room. In the North End there is very little room without impacting businesses
Hi, Ac,
Experience with other such projects and studies of the area don’t back up the concerns you voice. The area is already well-used by people on bikes, as you note, and that’s without a safe and comfortable route. The bikeway will absolutely be used.
And people on bikes do patronize businesses on Westlake, and will very likely do so more often once the bikeway goes in. This has been found to happen on streets all over the country. This New York City report does a good job of explaining how it works: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf
You mention that people on bikes using the parking lot weave around, which makes is uncomfortable to park. Trust me, it makes people on bikes uncomfortable, too. The way things are today does not work for anyone. The bikeway will specifically address this issue and make things more comfortable for people parking, as well.
As for businesses losing parking, studies suggest that there is enough space for all needed parking spaces to fit along with a bikeway. The city can redesign the lot to make more efficient use of the space and change the parking rules to prevent spots from being used as a free park-and-ride lot, taking up a space all day to avoid paying for a lot closer to their workplace.
By redesigning the parking lot and giving the rules a remake, I bet the parking area could work even better for businesses and residents.
There is absolutely enough room for both parking and a safe bikeway on Westlake.
Tom, I think Ac’s point is that the track won’t be well used with the current design, and faster cyclists will still just ride through the parking lot. This was a concern that two Westlake residents expressed at the most recent SBAB meeting.
It’s another reason why SDOT should strongly reconsider underdesigning the cycletrack – it needs to serve all ages and abilities or the people it doesn’t serve will just use the parking lot or GP lanes.
You’re correct that there is room for all these modes to share the space safely, but only if national and international design standards are followed.
Thanks for the background. Yes, I agree that it will only be used if people find it safe and comfortable. Luckily we do have standards to follow to help us do that, and I agree that the city needs to follow them and make a good and inviting bikeway.
But that’s not a reason to push against the project entirely. It is, however, a good comment to make at the open house to help guide design. The city have not gotten down to that level of design (though several readers here have made a good point of concern about the planned “10 mph design speed”)
Tom,
It seems that the study doesn’t take into account that the area isn’t your typical neighborhood shopping area that has shops and restaurants but also contains industries such as fabrication and heavy maintenance that can sometimes have heavy commercial traffic, so the chances of bicycle commuters bringing in new business is reduced.
A concern that seems to be shared by both is that the cycle track is underdesigned for a use speed of 10 mph. I can’t recall the last time I saw a cyclist riding through the parking lot at anything less than 15 mph. The fear again is that many will feel that the track is too slow and will go back to the parking lot, where business and tennants are back to where we started, but with less parking.
The cycle track also seems to greatly impact the narrowest points of the parking lot, where, quite honestly there is not a lot of room and parking is at a premium with new businesses and Marina’s entering their busy season.
After reading comments, Option C would be best…and acutually safest…since it is very under used sidewalk that could be built into..and access points could be designed to get to the east side.
Perhaps a Blending of C on the North End with a crossing at Newton to Option B would impact least…with a cycle signal ath that point of crossing
That’s an interesting idea I haven’t seen mentioned yet. I have a feeling planners will say the same thing they said about an all-Concept C route (they don’t have the budget), but it’s worth throwing out there.
I totally agree that any bikeway so poorly designed that people choose to bike through the parking lot instead of using it would be a failure. Designing it to standards is the logical move, and I’ll certainly be pushing the city to rethink the 10 mph concept, at least as far as it relates to things like sightlines and curves.
That said, aspiring to a path where it feels natural for users to be looking out for and yielding to people on foot is important. This can be achieved. I love the raised crosswalks in the area and think they work really well. Maybe more stuff like that could be part of the project?
The marina loading areas and commercial vehicle access can be included safely. Nobody is saying that we should not allow such access.
Concept B would have the biggest impact in the area around that wonderful little park with the preserved section of railroad tracks. The park certainly eats up a lot of potential parking space, but I like it. And that’s not a great reason to not create a safe space for biking in the area.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ac!
I wonder how much bicycle and pedestrian volumes will increase in this corridor (and others) due to Metro cutbacks on bus service.
There are a lot of factors that depressed bicycle counts for this study, too: the counts were done in September/October during some of the worst of the Mercer/9th construction. So I imagine once that gets sorts out there will be even more demand in addition to the increase because of cutbacks to bus service.
Ride to the open house in Fremont on Wednesday evening! Supporters are needed to show our enthusiasm for this project!
There are a handful of especially staunch opponents, and they tend to turn out without fail for these forums and open houses. It would be great to have some new faces in the room just to show that we are excited about the project and eager to put the bikeway to use as soon as it’s built!
This is a huge opportunity and test for SDOT. This corridor should become one of the most travelled bicycle commuting routes in the city. SDOT needs to be bold with a top quality design that will successfully accommodate this commuting traffic. Preserving free parking in public spaces and cowing to unreasonable local interests are not the best answer for this city. I wish I could make the meeting. I’m looking forward to the upcoming SDOT coffee chats…
I’ll be turning out to support “Concept C”: routing the cycletrack on the west side of Westlake, even if it is more expensive. This is going to be a major piece of cycling infrastructure for the north side of the city. Let’s design it for safety, not for penny pinching!
I agree that we should never cheap out on safety. But I am skeptical that Concept C would be a better experience. There are fewer destinations on that side of the street, and people on bikes would have to cross traffic to get to and from it. I doubt it would be safer than Concept B (though perhaps it would be safer than A).
I think a west-side-of-Westlake cycletrack would be a better experience for the vast majority of cyclists who will be using this corridor as a through route. I agree that it will be less optimal for the smaller percentage of cyclists who will be using it to access the businesses and residences on the waterfront. Clearly, yes, the design would have to incorporate safe crossings from the cycletrack to the parking lot area.
I do think it would be safer, though, on the principle that it would minimize the number of mixing zones or intersections between bikes and either cars or pedestrians (or both).
At the very least, we should be presenting this option as another “Concept” at this stage. We’ve ruled it out only because of cost, not because it’s not as good of an “experience” as the other concepts. Why take it off the table before people have had a chance to comment?
To be fair, it was up for public comment in October. It received very little support at the time compared to the other alternatives.
Andy, are the summaries/results/metrics/etc of the public feedback from October available to the public? I can’t seem to find them.
Matthew, I seem to recall seeing something in addition to this, but this is on SDOT’s Westlake project library page: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/Westlake_Cycle_Track_October28_Summary_FINAL.PDF
I disagree with the assessment that the west side of Westlake is better for thru-riders. Consider a user heading south from Fremont. To get to a path west of Westlake, you have to wait for the light at Westlake/Dexter/Nickerson after crossing the bridge. A path on the east side of Westlake, however, now you can turn directly onto the trail from the Fremont bridge and bypass that awful signal completely. Similar for anyone approaching the area from the ship canal trail.
Nobody wants to cross Westlake to get to a cycle track and then cross nickerson to get back off it again. You might as well take dexter if that’s your best option.
I guess I don’t see this as a particular hardship. If you’re heading to this proposed new facility southbound from Fremont, you’re crossing the Fremont bridge. As you approach the bridge from almost any direction, you’re going to be on the western sidewalk. So you’ll still have to deal with the mega-intersection at the south side of the bridge to get to Concept A or Concept B. For Concept C, you’ll already be on the correct side of the street going southbound.
I wish they would build both A and B, with A being a commuter route and B next to the sidewalk as more of a recreational route. The A route could be made perfectly safe by keeping the number of intersections to a minimum and controlling all turns with signals. Not crappy sidewalk flashing signals, real red, yellow, green signals on the commuter path.
The B path could be the slow recreational path next to the sidewalk.
Yes, free parking will be lost to the Westlake area. Cry me a river. Downtown businesses don’t get free public parking, why should Westlake? Just because they have had it in the past? Too bad, the land can be put to better use for the citizens of the city to use…
I ride across the Fremont bridge a dozen times a week and can count on one hand the number of times I’ve used the western sidewalk.
OK, I get that you prefer the east sidewalk. But it’s important to keep in mind that all of the existing bicycle infrastructure around the bridge encourages southbound cyclists to take the western sidewalk. Yes, it’s legal to take the eastern sidewalk, but thus far we’ve engineered it (correctly, in my mind) to try to minimize the number of counter-flow cyclists, because the sidewalks aren’t wide enough to safely accommodate traffic in both directions.
If you’re crossing from Fremont towards Nickerson the substantial majority of cyclists use the West sidewalk. However, accessing an “Option C” (west side of Westlake) cycletrack from the west sidewalk of the Fremont bridge would be difficult, because cyclists would need to cross the GP lane that goes up Dexter. It’s frequently not possible to move in to the middle lane because there are too many cars backed up at the light at Nickerson.
It’d probably be fine for current commuters (heck, it’s what I do most days), but I doubt it would be comfortable enough to attract the broad cross-section of abilities that SDOT hopes to serve.
Fair enough, Andy. I almost always take Dexter when heading south and so I had the the turning lane alignments mixed up in my head.
I think what this discussion is highlighting is the importance of including a rethinking of the Fremont bridge infrastructure — at both ends of the bridge — in whatever Concept is eventually developed for construction. If there’s a direct cycletrack connection from the east sidewalk on the bridge, then that design would a) at least partially conflict with the existing bridge signage and infrastructure, and b) lead to increased counterflow cyclist volumes on the east sidewalk, which would be unsafe without additional sidewalk width.
My sense is that, if bridge cyclist traffic volumes increase dramatically as a result of this new Westlake cycletrack, we’re going to need either wider sidewalks on the bridge or strict separation of northbound and southbound bike traffic onto opposite sidewalks. I don’t know if the latter option is allowed under existing code, and I doubt this project has the budget for the former.
I doubt widening the sidewalks is ever going to be in the cards – a new separate pedestrian/bicycle crossing is more likely than that.
What could be done is take one lane of Fremont Bridge for the cycletrack, and make the remaining middle GP lane a reversible direction lane so that the commute-direction gets two GP lanes, and the non-commute direction gets one.
This would give the sidewalk back to pedestrians, who (quite reasonably!) are upset about being squeezed out by the way the sidewalks are used currently.
Be bold, SDOT!
The Fremont Bridge isn’t that long. Would it really be a hardship on motorists to spend an extra 45 seconds driving it at 20 mph?
Temporarily, of course, until a new bridge that meets modern standards can be built.
Make it safe for faster riders to take the street across the bridge, leave the sidewalks for pedestrians and less confident riders.
Heading south, the west sidewalk of the Fremont bridge is better for getting to Dexter, but not better for Westlake. Right now, the infrastructure on Dexter is superior, so that favors the west sidewalk. With a better facility along Westlake featuring a direct connection to the east sidewalk, that will change.
That said, as long as the cycletrack in on the east side of Westlake, it the connection to and from the west sidewalk of the Fremont bridge doesn’t have to be that bad. We just need a loop ramp through the funeral home’s landscaping to connect the west sidewalk down the ship canal trail. Then, turn right, go under the bridge, and you’re right there.
For a commuter going to downtown, a west-side cycletrack would be ideal. However, this facility is designed to serve more than just commuters, and a significant part of the funding for the project is through the Cheshiahud Loop Trail grant – disconnecting from the north and south ends of that is less than ideal.
I do think that the City needs to be figuring out how commuters going to downtown on an east-side cycletrack get across Westlake comfortably at the south end, and they should probably prioritize putting some investment in to connecting to a comfortable route the rest of the way in, or the numbers on this for commuters will continue to look bad.
Maybe a cyclist-actuated stoplight at 9th and Westlake?
FYI, the proposed 10 mph design speed is documented in http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/2014-04-03_WCT_ExistingConditionsDesignCriteria_Memo.pdf
This also notes that casual/less confident riders exceed 10 mph, that AASHTO calls for an 18 mph design speed, CROW calls for 18.5 mph, and London calls for 15 mph.
So, in essence, they’ve documented their intent not to accommodate casual cyclists or comply with the standards they cite.
Seems like some people are still trying to portrait is a battle, not a collaborative process.
http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/2014/05/lake-union-bike-track-would-drive-out-boaters-businesses-group-says/
I came down the Dexter hill this afternoon and was stopped at the light. There was a person at the light handing out postcard to folks who were stopped, letting them know about the meeting and letting people know how they could provide input.
How was the meeting?
Doesn’t happen until tonight.
…unfortunately overlapping with the Ride of Silence tonight. It’s really too bad that this meeting about improving the safety of bike infrastructure was scheduled to conflict with a nation-wide, coordinated ride commemorating cyclists killed and injured on the road.
I wonder if a more effective route for the Ride of Silence wouldn’t be to just do laps around Fremont Studios while the crowd files in.
[…] the ride overlaps a bit with the Westlake bikeway open house, but you could arrive to that meeting (in Fremont) closer to its 5:30 start so you can give input […]
Watching a number of the threads, it seems there’s a bit of information that is not being sufficiently appreciated. A large number of the cyclists using Westlake-myself included-are using the eastside of Fremont bridge, Westlake parking lot then Fairview to Eastlake.
We’re not going to downtown. We’re going to South Lake Union, Fred Hutch, Seattle Cancer Care or one of the half-dozen biotech companies on the eastside of lake Union. Because Eastlake is a disaster to get on and to ride, Westlake is flat and relatively direct, it’s the obvious choice. But no one would think of going so far out of their way to use Dexter or would be especially pleased about having to cross a confusing and messy Westlake from a bike route on the west side, or one that takes you much further south than you need to go.
Not trying to be difficult but there’s an assumption that everyone is going downtown.
That is the assumption…a good alternative to have more commuter cyclist use Dexter would be to provide a cycle right of way left turn from Dexter down to Roy and Valley.
I’m surprised that wasn’t thought of before
Don’t both of the proposed configurations (A and B) serve this route (to Eastlake) well?
Or are you explaining why Westlake is preferable to Dexter? I think anyone who has ridden over that hill can explain why Westlake is (or could be) a superior route, whether you’re going Downtown or to SLU/Eastlake. The fact that Dexter gets so much use despite the hill is an indication of how important a comfortable facility is to route selection.
Andy..
Just trying to explain why Dexter may be underutilized by some riders who still choose Westlake. That Dexter, with as many changes as it has gone through, can be made even better for the commuter cyclist. Thereby reducing strain on Westlake
When I’m on my bike any route that gets me away from cars is always my favorite route
Ac,
I hear ya, and agree about getting away from cars. In this city it’s always tough to try to choose the route that is most comfortable (in terms of both traffic and grade) and safest.
I’m always surprised that so many people use the parking lot right now – I always avoid it because it’s just too stressful for me.
You’re totally right that once on Dexter it’s hard to cross down to Valley – I wonder how the Roy intersection could be reconfigured to make it possible. The street has space for some reengineering, I think.
The Stranger is reporting that both options A and B were thrown out, suggesting the meeting ran into a buzz saw of opposition and plans are now in a bit of disarray.
Can any of you who attended help clarify what happened?
Copenhagenize takes on the fad for two-way sidepaths, saying “If someone advocates infrastructure like this and actually believes it is good, they probably shouldn’t be advocating bicycle infrastructure.”
Any chance SDOT will re-think their insistence on a bidirectional cycletrack.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html