The Eastlake Community Council last week voted 5-4 to kick those four members off the Board after they voiced support for a fully designed and funded bike lane and transit project ready to begin construction on Eastlake Avenue.
The act has sparked outrage and called into question the legitimacy of the organization, which has existed since 1971. Those removed include the only three renters on the Board as well as the three youngest members. Removing these volunteers for voicing a dissenting opinion is an extreme act that abandons the Council’s standing and legacy as a democratic voice of the neighborhood.
ECC President Detra Segar told the Urbanist that the members were ousted because they “had decided to undermine our efforts by sending a letter to some city leaders voicing their opposition.” The ECC Board recently voted, again by a narrow margin, to send a poorly-written letter to city and regional leaders voicing opposition to the RapidRide J project, which is preparing to search for a contractor to begin construction. The four ousted members decided to send their own letter of dissent to city leaders in which they identified themselves as “members of the Eastlake Community Council Board of Directors who disagree with the letter that was sent to you.” They note that the official ECC letter was approved by a 6-4 vote and was “in no way unanimous.” The dissenting letter is entirely factual and does not misrepresent the writers as acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledging clearly in the opening paragraph that the other letter received the majority vote. The official letter, in contrast, does not note the vote count or acknowledge that there was any dissent among the board members. You can read both letters in full at the bottom of this story.
— Advertisement —
Segar, meanwhile, has a history of making unhinged negative statements about people who ride bikes. As Ryan Packer reported for the Urbanist, Segar penned a 2022 letter then-new SDOT Director Greg Spotts in which she wrote, “The Move Seattle vision seems to only see able-bodied peak hour commuters pedaling along arterials pretending to be the equals of buses and cars.” It seems she feels that people biking don’t belong on her streets, and people who support bike lanes don’t belong on her Council. Unfortunately for Segar, the streets belong to everyone. Likewise, the Eastlake Community Council is supposed to belong to the whole neighborhood, which includes a lot of people who ride bikes.
Despite the confusing assertion in Segar’s letter that the opening of U District Station has made the project “outdated” and “redundant,” the RapidRide J project was created specifically to improve access to these new light rail stations. After all, a train traveling underground deep inside Capitol Hill does not serve the Eastlake neighborhood. The improved bus and bike lanes are designed to help people in Eastlake get to and from the quality transit service downtown and in the U District.
Segar’s letter also tries to argue that the city shouldn’t build the transit and bike improvements for equity’s sake, urging leaders “to explore alternative uses of the Rapid Ride J funds that could address pressing equity concerns in less advantaged areas of Seattle, and/or fill the gap on projects that would help to revitalize downtown.” But then she immediately tells on herself by saying, “What we do need is a resurfaced Eastlake Ave and the 50 year old water line replaced.” These are two of the biggest costs of the whole project. So she does want the bulk of the money to be invested in Eastlake, but they can send the buses and bike lanes that she doesn’t want to the “less advantaged areas.”
Regardless, that’s not how Federal grants work. The project’s significant Federal funding cannot simply be transferred to other projects. This one was chosen through a competitive grant selection process based on its promising ridership projections and the role it will play in better connecting people to other major transit improvements.
I read through the Council’s bylaws, and the dissenting members did not break any of the rules outlined within it. Likewise, the bylaws allow removal of members by a majority vote “without cause.” The remaining Board members seem to have the choice to either continue as a six-person Board or to select replacements without a vote of the members. The remaining members also have the power to choose when the next Board election will be. There is a provision that says “members having ten percent of the votes entitled to be cast as such a meeting” have the power to call a special meeting even if the ECC Board does not want one. I’m no lawyer, but that seems to be the only release valve built into the Council’s bylaws for dealing with a rogue Board like this one. In order to vote, someone would need to be a paying member in good standing for at least 30 days before the vote.
We’ll see how the neighborhood responds after this. Will they try to elect more responsible Council stewards or will they turn their backs on it and let wallow in obscurity? Participating on a community council is a lot of volunteer work, which has always posed a major challenge to creating a truly representative and democratic body like this. Other community councils might want to worry that the ECC’s non-democratic actions could do harm to the reputation of the concept of community councils in our city.
In the meantime and until changes are made to restore community trust, it is unfortunately prudent for media, city departments and city leaders to treat the Eastlake Community Council as a non-representative and non-democratic council.
Official ECC letter
Re: Rapid Ride J Line – For Equity, relocate redundant J line dollars to South Seattle
Dear Mayor Harrell:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Eastlake Community Council to ask that you redirect the federal funding for the RR-J line to another more appropriate project in Seattle that would address fairness and equity.
We appreciate the effort that the RR-J team has made over the last few years. They have provided current information as it became available and worked collaboratively with us to address pedestrian and cyclist safety, negative impact on neighborhood businesses and the elimination of parking on Eastlake Ave. There have been revisions, compromises and adjustments. CM Pedersen, Transportation Chair, has been part of several of our meetings. Ultimately, the use of funds to build a project that is outdated and inappropriate for Eastlake Ave. is simply not a wise use of public funds. We understand that SDOT has limited power to reverse a decision by a previous administration. We need your support to reverse this now redundant project.
Specifically, the project is misaligned with both City and community goals in a number of significant ways:
1. The data which drove the Rapid Ride J line project is out of date. The opening of light rail at Roosevelt and the University District to downtown significantly affected commuting options. The Covid pandemic altered commuting patterns to downtown that we continue to assess. Those wanting fast service to downtown will choose light rail. There is uncertainty with the longevity of any transportation system so providing one with flexibility is important. The hardscape construction of the RR-J is expensive and leaves little room for adaptation.
The proposed design radically contradicts the recommended principles of neighborhood street design as documented in the City of Seattle ROW manual, and the goals for the
Eastlake Urban Village as outlined in its neighborhood plan and the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan, introducing changes that would negatively impact our neighborhood business district.
2. The safety of cyclists on a narrow street shared with Rapid Ride that also has turn lanes to support on and off access to I5 and several buildings with turn-in parking mid-block is a major concern. During peak traffic times, safety concerns will multiply and there will be nothing rapid about a Rapid Ride bus on Eastlake Ave.
3. From an equity standpoint, Federal resources which have been allocated to this project would be better used in neighborhoods which are not as well-served by existing transit resources. This would be consistent with King County’s equitable decision to focus on other rapid lines in the region.
To elaborate:
The Rapid Ride J line project requires a comprehensive reassessment of its premises and objectives. The cost-benefit analysis which justified this project was completed prior to the opening of the Roosevelt and University District light rail stations in 2021 and the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first altered commuting options permanently and the second presented another reason for flexibility.
Furthermore, the proposed design violates several key principles that drive the street design goals illustrated in the City of Seattle Right of Way (ROW) manual. It is deeply concerning that the Rapid Ride J line project seeks a deviation that would shrink the width of the sidewalks adjacent to some proposed stations to less than 7.5 feet, which is below minimum standards for any city street, let alone a neighborhood main street. This falls significantly below the city code requirement of 12 feet. Note that this deviation also entails removing many existing mature street trees at a time when council has passed a new ordinance to protect our tree canopy.
By compromising our pedestrian space, we risk limiting the accessibility and safety of pedestrians, particularly those with mobility challenges or individuals who rely on strollers, wheelchairs, or other mobility aids. In addition, our local businesses rely heavily on pedestrian infrastructure for their success and such a deviation would be a fatal blow to many of our longest-tenured and most-loved businesses in Eastlake.
The following diagram shows SDOT’s proposed RR-J design at Eastlake Avenue and Lynn Street, which is effectively the “Main & Main” of the Eastlake Urban Village. The shadowed outlines show where existing curb lines and trees would be removed. Please compare this to the next diagram which shows the City’s own recommended design for Urban Village Main Streets. This design accommodates both bike lanes and bus service, while maintaining street trees, adequate sidewalks, seating areas for small business as well as loading and parking in some locations.
Rapid Ride J Street Design Diagram – Eastlake & Lynn
Cross-Section View, Urban Village Main Street – Principal Arterial
Eastlake Avenue is designated an Urban Village Main Street with minimum widths of 6’ for the pedestrian clear zone and 6’ for the landscape/furniture zone (6’ + 6’ = 12’ minimum) as depicted above. The Rapid Ride J project requires a reduction to 8.5’ combined for these two zones. (Source: Seattle Right-Of-Way Improvements Manual
Additionally, we believe that the project’s current design is misaligned with the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan which recognizes Eastlake’s status as a historically established neighborhood and an urban village and calls for Eastlake to “increase the development of neighborhood-serving businesses at street-level”. The Eastlake Community Council is currently working with OPCD to further clarify and elaborate on this goal to create the best possible environment for pedestrian-oriented small business. To be clear, Eastlake would welcome protected bicycle lanes and more frequent headways on the #70 bus line, to the extent achievable with our current infrastructure, but not if it comes at an existential cost to our small businesses and our pedestrian environment.
To summarize this point, a cycle thoroughfare and a bus rapid transit line don’t belong in the same urban village main street because they simply don’t fit and the deviant design is the result of this basic fact. What we do need is a resurfaced Eastlake Ave and the 50 year old water line replaced. We need safe bike lanes and an efficient bus service. The bus service need is currently being met by the #70 bus.
Lastly, we question the allocation of budgetary resources to the Rapid Ride J line project, particularly in relation to consideration of need, fairness and equity.Our neighborhood is being asked to accept a questionable design and now unnecessary Rapid Ride project while many neighborhoods are in need of more adequate transit service and federal funding to close their budget gaps. We use SDOT, in collaboration wiht the Federal Transit Authority, to explore alternative uses of the Rapid Ride J funds that could address pressing equity concerns in less advantaged areas of Seattle, and/or fill the gap on projects that would help to revitalize downtown.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns further. We have more than fulfilled our obligations pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan by adding substantial housing density to the Eastlake neighborhood. With the Rapid Ride J line project, the City is reneging on its obligations to us for all the above-mentioned reasons. The Eastlake Community Council stands ready to collaborate with the City and SDOT to ensure that any transportation project in our community upholds the highest standards of safety, accessibility, and equity.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Detra Segar
President, Eastlake Community Council
Dissenting letter
We are members of the Eastlake Community Council Board of Directors who disagree with the letter that was sent to you on or about August 10 by our board president. The vote to approve the letter was a six to four vote, in no way unanimous.
The city’s plan for Eastlake Ave. is a good one in the midst of competing priorities and difficult choices. Rapid Ride J-Line and protected bike lanes are needed as density in our urban village continues to grow.
The main issue for Eastlake business owners and residents is the loss of parking along Eastlake Ave. that these changes would bring. However, studies* have shown that removing parking for bike lanes has a neutral to positive effect on nearby businesses. Eastlake businesses will continue to flourish with the RapidRideJ project that will make the neighborhood safer and more pedestrian friendly. *Studies featured in 01/23/2023 WIRED article: “The Battle Over Bike Lanes Needs a Mindset Shift.“
Protected bike lanes along both sides of Eastlake Ave., fulfill a long-desired bikeway in the city’s bike master plan that will promote and encourage sustainable travel such as bicycling, scootering, and skating in Eastlake and Seattle as whole. Eastlake Ave. is currently unsafe for bicyclists, and it is the most direct route for motorists and bicyclists alike. It is time we allow bicyclists the same direct route that motorists have long enjoyed.
The new rapid transit line and bicycle lanes will shift Eastlake Ave. from a car-centric corridor to a more walkable and pedestrian friendly corridor with priority given to traffic calming bicycle lanes and public transit.
While there may be room for further improvements and refinements, the plan is a positive shift that helps to address climate change while making Eastlake more livable.
24 responses to “Eastlake Community Council ousts 40% of their board members for supporting a bike lanes and transit project”
Barney
I hate this city.
Fnarf
These Community Councils always get hijacked by a handful of rich white homeowning dinosaurs. They do not fairly represent the needs and desires of their residents.
David M Sucher
Yeah,
those WHITE people.
Sheesh.
You sure do know how to persuade.
Bulldog
Racist AF comment about the city where I have lived for fifty years.
Orion
Bikes don’t need lanes. Go hop some curbs and have fun.
Tom Ardavany
The RRJ will devastate Eastlake if allowed to happen. There is no evidence this plan used in other parts of the city has helped any businesses or people living in the community. Bike lane studies are outdated. RR stops are havens for crime ( see Aurora N; Rainier, Burien); businesses close.
Do not let this RRJ happen!
Gary Yngve
Methinks you have correlation confused with causation. Aurora was a problem long before RR.
bill
Tom A: Did West Seattle burn to the ground in a puff of fentanyl smoke and I missed it? We have four RR stops within a mile of my house.
Gary Kirk Richardson
Other sites have armed guards and good Surveillance and do fine.
eddiew
The actual letter of the community council makes some valid points. The SDOT Roosevelt BRT planning, now the J Line, was deeply flawed and did ignore Link rather than integrate with Link. Reading its documents was painful; they did not make transit sense. In the U District, the J Line should use the current Route 70 pathway rather than shift to the Roosevelt couplet. The SDOT pathway adds walks to northbound riders: one block to Link, two blocks to the Ave and its bus routes, three blocks to 15th Avenue NE and its bus routes. They are imposing wide seams. I suppose they want to show the FTA they are still aiming at Roosevelt, but that never made transit sense. In Eastlake, a concern is the friction between cyclists and bus riders at the stations; the SDOT design reduces the sidewalk width at the stations. Cyclists should yield; but they will be faster and more numerous than the ones at the NE 65th Street bus-bike humps.
We should ask whether eight-to-eighty bike facilities should be placed on frequent bus lines and if so, how. Vancouver seems to do it much better than Seattle. There is much variation among cyclists. Eastlake was part my bike commute until I moved to Ballard in 1991.
I suppose the CC is upset that the dissenters identified themselves as members.
Ballard Biker
Whole directly serving light rail is desirable, a one block walk to Link is better than a 5 minute diversion.
eddiew
of course the difference between the SDOT pathway via the couplet and the current Route 70 pathway is less than five minutes. The on-line schedule has eight minutes between Harvard Avenue East and Link. The block on NE 43rd Street is uphill; that is an issue for some. The northbound riders are not just oriented to Link; that may be a minority of the load; more are oriented to the District, the UW, and other transit connections; all those walks would be longer. All that walking takes minutes for the riders. The SDOT pathway will have more traffic congestion, especially on Roosevelt Way NE, needs an additional signal at NE 43rd Street, new pavement on NE 43rd Street, and new trolleybus overhead.
RossB
In the short run, the route to Link is awkward. In the long run, it saves money. Yes, they are still aiming at Roosevelt, as well they should. I think it makes a lot of transit sense.
By going to Roosevelt, you keep the bus going straight, while connecting very well with Link. If you are coming from the north on Link (right now Northgate, but eventually 130th, 145th, etc.) then transferring at Roosevelt is just as good as transferring at the U-District Station. The bus should travel that distance quite quickly (again, since it won’t make any turns). Other buses from the north (going on Roosevelt, Lake City Way, Green Lake, etc.) should then go on the Ave. This creates a “spine” (https://humantransit.org/2018/09/dublin-what-is-a-spine.html) on the Ave. It means that those riders get a one-seat ride to the main destination in the area (the UW). Thus Roosevelt is still covered (with frequent service) while everyone else goes on the Ave. Meanwhile, same direction transfers become same-stop transfers. This is in big contrast to much of our system (e. g. Aurora Village, 347/348 to 67) where the same direction transfers are terrible (and will get worse).
Meanwhile, you’ve dramatically improved the connection to the 44. Someone going from Ballard or Wallingford to Eastlake would have a much better connection. The connection from Sand Point (via the 62) is also much better by going up past 65th. You’ve done all this without breaking the bank in terms of service. Basically this takes over coverage on Roosevelt between 65th and 45th while other buses are either shifted to the Ave (to build the aforementioned spine) or ended at Roosevelt (to save money).
The only drawback is that people to the east (e. g. on the 48) have to walk a couple blocks for the transfer. That is a small price to pay for a system involving fewer turns and better connections.
Michael Francisco
Eastlake CC should not have gone there at all – not when the council was so divided on the issue. There have been ample opportunities for public input on the J line and on the Eastlake bike lanes, and the issue has long been a divisive one. By running roughshod over the four members who support the project, the council has undermined its legitimacy with me as a long term Eastlake resident and as a “rich white homeowner” who regularly rides a bike for multiple purposes. What was the point anyway when this is clearly a done deal?
North side man
as an outsider, posts like this undermine the legitimacy of this blog. it’s one thing to support nearly by default most transit and bicycle projects (the mission of the blog) but it’s another to uncritically support the ousted board members.
there’s no way to square the second letter as anything but the establishment of a “shadow council”, which is shitty. it’s sorta shitty that they were then voted out but if board members don’t want to abide the votes, they should not be part of the council, plain and simple. SeattleBikeBlog would not tolerate such actions from their own editors either.
imo, is the dissenting board members decided that supporting the project was more important than the vote of the council, they should have resigned. to expect no consequences for this reeks of entitlement and was a blatant disregard for “democracy”.
Mike Francisco
I am not taking a side on the J Line and there may well be a majority of people in the neighborhood that would agree with the ECC’s majority – and having watched this process for several years it really is mostly about parking which is in short supply in Eastlake. It is more than “sorta shitty” to squelch a minority opinion by ejecting dissenters from the council – it is the very opposite of democratic behavior and inclusiveness. What democratic governing body does that? This behavior reeks of one party rule, and it does them no credit. The blatant disregard for democracy and entitlement comes from not allowing dissent, rather than from expressing it.
I live in Eastlake and I only heard about this issue because it was posted on this blog.
RossB
“SeattleBikeBlog would not tolerate such actions from their own editors either.”
Why not? I am not part of this blog, but I’m part of Seattle Transit Blog, and folks disagree there all the time. You don’t just kick them off because they do.
Besides, this is a community council. The implication is that they are democratically elected. Except they aren’t, really. There is no community-wide vote. It is basically a self-selected group of people, and they are bound to disagree on various issues. The dissenters in this case wanted to make it clear to everyone that those in charge don’t speak for the entire group, let alone the entire community.
The majority on the board failed, and failed miserably. They should have sought out a consensus in terms of the letter, even if they failed to reach a consensus on the issue. The two letters should have gone out together. But the majority on the board wanted to imply that there was more support than there was. When the minority on the board made it clear that the board was split, the majority then fired them. The majority acted very poorly, in my opinion.
Bulldog
The dissenters are just activists. Don’t give them oxygen.
Mike Francisco
I have no idea what you mean by “just activists,” let alone why you would exempt the anti-project council members from that category. Are the rest of the council, “inactivists,” or perhaps “anti-activists?” For a group that purports to represent the community (whose middle name is community) and whose members supposedly want to be more inclusive to eject dissenting members means that they really aren’t interested in being more inclusive, or reaching consensus. That is at least the way this looks to me – a volunteer organization that pretends to represent the whole community but crushes dissent. Yes, Eastlake is a diverse neighborhood and that means there well be diversity of views. If they really want to represent the community, this is not the way to do it. This is a tyranny of the majority – and a bare majority at that.
Bruce N
One important point, that seems to be missed in the piece and the comments, is that these neighborhood groups and councils are not and have never been democratic or representative. They are narrowly-focused special interest groups for owners to maintain the status quo and maximize their property values, and their public statements should be weighed accordingly.
We have a democratic body where every citizen in the city gets to participate on the same footing, it’s called the Seattle City Council. They should do their jobs and set policy for SDOT, and SDOT should do its job and execute it.
AW
Is either letter or any other feedback going to make a difference anyway? Won’t SDOT and Metro do whatever they want to do anyway?
Still, pretty crummy what they did to the dissenters.
Gary Kirk Richardson
There are opposing viewpoints, some say, “Stay on the Sidewalks!” and others say, “Stay on the Road!”
Usually, I hear one or the other after they nearly ran over me on my bike while I noticed them turning without looking.
I go wherever it is safest and where I have the most surveillance of my surroundings. I take care to not ride quickly past foot traffic in dense situations or where close proximity is unavoidable.
I used to commute by bike to that area and some areas do make me nervous. These people on the council likely don’t bike and probably never will.
Vahlee
As an observer from Spokane, I can te you right now, the bike lanes are needed everywhere you can have them.
You guys are worried about your cars so much, you don’t even SEE a bike. Bikes aren’t allowed on sidewalks in Spokane and our bike lanes are always full of sharp debris. Where ARE we supposed to ride?
Cities shouldnt just belong the cars. The Netherlands is a perfect example, with bike tracks all over the place and no freeways inside the city centers. This absolutely DOES help businesses by inviting more pedestrian traffic, creating a beautiful, bustling place for people rather than endless asphalt and concrete. The more bikes and busses you have, the less cars you’ll have to fight in the long run.
Enjoy sitting in the same spot for an hour straight.
Eastlake Bike Rider
The Eastlake Community Council’s name is misleading. It does not represent or support the interests of Eastlake residents or the community at large. It represents the interests of its dues-paying members. The group’s bylaws say that members “will support the
purposes of the Council.” This is not a democratic institution. It’s a club that you must pay to join, and you must act accordingly or the Board will terminate your membership. The Council’s dues-paying members are a small sliver of the total Eastlake population. The ECC is more like a Chamber of Commerce that represents business interests rather than a community organization. It’s all specified in the ECC bylaws, which say the Board can terminate any member who engages in actions the Board deems as “detrimental to the best interests of the Council, or has failed to actively support Council purposes.” The council’s founding bylaws are bogus and flawed. You can read them here: https://www.eastlakeseattle.org/about
Eastlake residents who are disgusted by the Council’s actions should form their own community group that advances the interests of all Eastlake residents. Bike lanes and transit options are the foundation of a thriving and livable community, and the Board’s inability to see this shows it is out of touch with the community and the best interests of Eastlake residents.
Comments
24 responses to “Eastlake Community Council ousts 40% of their board members for supporting a bike lanes and transit project”
I hate this city.
These Community Councils always get hijacked by a handful of rich white homeowning dinosaurs. They do not fairly represent the needs and desires of their residents.
Yeah,
those WHITE people.
Sheesh.
You sure do know how to persuade.
Racist AF comment about the city where I have lived for fifty years.
Bikes don’t need lanes. Go hop some curbs and have fun.
The RRJ will devastate Eastlake if allowed to happen. There is no evidence this plan used in other parts of the city has helped any businesses or people living in the community. Bike lane studies are outdated. RR stops are havens for crime ( see Aurora N; Rainier, Burien); businesses close.
Do not let this RRJ happen!
Methinks you have correlation confused with causation. Aurora was a problem long before RR.
Tom A: Did West Seattle burn to the ground in a puff of fentanyl smoke and I missed it? We have four RR stops within a mile of my house.
Other sites have armed guards and good Surveillance and do fine.
The actual letter of the community council makes some valid points. The SDOT Roosevelt BRT planning, now the J Line, was deeply flawed and did ignore Link rather than integrate with Link. Reading its documents was painful; they did not make transit sense. In the U District, the J Line should use the current Route 70 pathway rather than shift to the Roosevelt couplet. The SDOT pathway adds walks to northbound riders: one block to Link, two blocks to the Ave and its bus routes, three blocks to 15th Avenue NE and its bus routes. They are imposing wide seams. I suppose they want to show the FTA they are still aiming at Roosevelt, but that never made transit sense. In Eastlake, a concern is the friction between cyclists and bus riders at the stations; the SDOT design reduces the sidewalk width at the stations. Cyclists should yield; but they will be faster and more numerous than the ones at the NE 65th Street bus-bike humps.
We should ask whether eight-to-eighty bike facilities should be placed on frequent bus lines and if so, how. Vancouver seems to do it much better than Seattle. There is much variation among cyclists. Eastlake was part my bike commute until I moved to Ballard in 1991.
I suppose the CC is upset that the dissenters identified themselves as members.
Whole directly serving light rail is desirable, a one block walk to Link is better than a 5 minute diversion.
of course the difference between the SDOT pathway via the couplet and the current Route 70 pathway is less than five minutes. The on-line schedule has eight minutes between Harvard Avenue East and Link. The block on NE 43rd Street is uphill; that is an issue for some. The northbound riders are not just oriented to Link; that may be a minority of the load; more are oriented to the District, the UW, and other transit connections; all those walks would be longer. All that walking takes minutes for the riders. The SDOT pathway will have more traffic congestion, especially on Roosevelt Way NE, needs an additional signal at NE 43rd Street, new pavement on NE 43rd Street, and new trolleybus overhead.
In the short run, the route to Link is awkward. In the long run, it saves money. Yes, they are still aiming at Roosevelt, as well they should. I think it makes a lot of transit sense.
By going to Roosevelt, you keep the bus going straight, while connecting very well with Link. If you are coming from the north on Link (right now Northgate, but eventually 130th, 145th, etc.) then transferring at Roosevelt is just as good as transferring at the U-District Station. The bus should travel that distance quite quickly (again, since it won’t make any turns). Other buses from the north (going on Roosevelt, Lake City Way, Green Lake, etc.) should then go on the Ave. This creates a “spine” (https://humantransit.org/2018/09/dublin-what-is-a-spine.html) on the Ave. It means that those riders get a one-seat ride to the main destination in the area (the UW). Thus Roosevelt is still covered (with frequent service) while everyone else goes on the Ave. Meanwhile, same direction transfers become same-stop transfers. This is in big contrast to much of our system (e. g. Aurora Village, 347/348 to 67) where the same direction transfers are terrible (and will get worse).
Meanwhile, you’ve dramatically improved the connection to the 44. Someone going from Ballard or Wallingford to Eastlake would have a much better connection. The connection from Sand Point (via the 62) is also much better by going up past 65th. You’ve done all this without breaking the bank in terms of service. Basically this takes over coverage on Roosevelt between 65th and 45th while other buses are either shifted to the Ave (to build the aforementioned spine) or ended at Roosevelt (to save money).
The only drawback is that people to the east (e. g. on the 48) have to walk a couple blocks for the transfer. That is a small price to pay for a system involving fewer turns and better connections.
Eastlake CC should not have gone there at all – not when the council was so divided on the issue. There have been ample opportunities for public input on the J line and on the Eastlake bike lanes, and the issue has long been a divisive one. By running roughshod over the four members who support the project, the council has undermined its legitimacy with me as a long term Eastlake resident and as a “rich white homeowner” who regularly rides a bike for multiple purposes. What was the point anyway when this is clearly a done deal?
as an outsider, posts like this undermine the legitimacy of this blog. it’s one thing to support nearly by default most transit and bicycle projects (the mission of the blog) but it’s another to uncritically support the ousted board members.
there’s no way to square the second letter as anything but the establishment of a “shadow council”, which is shitty. it’s sorta shitty that they were then voted out but if board members don’t want to abide the votes, they should not be part of the council, plain and simple. SeattleBikeBlog would not tolerate such actions from their own editors either.
imo, is the dissenting board members decided that supporting the project was more important than the vote of the council, they should have resigned. to expect no consequences for this reeks of entitlement and was a blatant disregard for “democracy”.
I am not taking a side on the J Line and there may well be a majority of people in the neighborhood that would agree with the ECC’s majority – and having watched this process for several years it really is mostly about parking which is in short supply in Eastlake. It is more than “sorta shitty” to squelch a minority opinion by ejecting dissenters from the council – it is the very opposite of democratic behavior and inclusiveness. What democratic governing body does that? This behavior reeks of one party rule, and it does them no credit. The blatant disregard for democracy and entitlement comes from not allowing dissent, rather than from expressing it.
I live in Eastlake and I only heard about this issue because it was posted on this blog.
“SeattleBikeBlog would not tolerate such actions from their own editors either.”
Why not? I am not part of this blog, but I’m part of Seattle Transit Blog, and folks disagree there all the time. You don’t just kick them off because they do.
Besides, this is a community council. The implication is that they are democratically elected. Except they aren’t, really. There is no community-wide vote. It is basically a self-selected group of people, and they are bound to disagree on various issues. The dissenters in this case wanted to make it clear to everyone that those in charge don’t speak for the entire group, let alone the entire community.
The majority on the board failed, and failed miserably. They should have sought out a consensus in terms of the letter, even if they failed to reach a consensus on the issue. The two letters should have gone out together. But the majority on the board wanted to imply that there was more support than there was. When the minority on the board made it clear that the board was split, the majority then fired them. The majority acted very poorly, in my opinion.
The dissenters are just activists. Don’t give them oxygen.
I have no idea what you mean by “just activists,” let alone why you would exempt the anti-project council members from that category. Are the rest of the council, “inactivists,” or perhaps “anti-activists?” For a group that purports to represent the community (whose middle name is community) and whose members supposedly want to be more inclusive to eject dissenting members means that they really aren’t interested in being more inclusive, or reaching consensus. That is at least the way this looks to me – a volunteer organization that pretends to represent the whole community but crushes dissent. Yes, Eastlake is a diverse neighborhood and that means there well be diversity of views. If they really want to represent the community, this is not the way to do it. This is a tyranny of the majority – and a bare majority at that.
One important point, that seems to be missed in the piece and the comments, is that these neighborhood groups and councils are not and have never been democratic or representative. They are narrowly-focused special interest groups for owners to maintain the status quo and maximize their property values, and their public statements should be weighed accordingly.
We have a democratic body where every citizen in the city gets to participate on the same footing, it’s called the Seattle City Council. They should do their jobs and set policy for SDOT, and SDOT should do its job and execute it.
Is either letter or any other feedback going to make a difference anyway? Won’t SDOT and Metro do whatever they want to do anyway?
Still, pretty crummy what they did to the dissenters.
There are opposing viewpoints, some say, “Stay on the Sidewalks!” and others say, “Stay on the Road!”
Usually, I hear one or the other after they nearly ran over me on my bike while I noticed them turning without looking.
I go wherever it is safest and where I have the most surveillance of my surroundings. I take care to not ride quickly past foot traffic in dense situations or where close proximity is unavoidable.
I used to commute by bike to that area and some areas do make me nervous. These people on the council likely don’t bike and probably never will.
As an observer from Spokane, I can te you right now, the bike lanes are needed everywhere you can have them.
You guys are worried about your cars so much, you don’t even SEE a bike. Bikes aren’t allowed on sidewalks in Spokane and our bike lanes are always full of sharp debris. Where ARE we supposed to ride?
Cities shouldnt just belong the cars. The Netherlands is a perfect example, with bike tracks all over the place and no freeways inside the city centers. This absolutely DOES help businesses by inviting more pedestrian traffic, creating a beautiful, bustling place for people rather than endless asphalt and concrete. The more bikes and busses you have, the less cars you’ll have to fight in the long run.
Enjoy sitting in the same spot for an hour straight.
The Eastlake Community Council’s name is misleading. It does not represent or support the interests of Eastlake residents or the community at large. It represents the interests of its dues-paying members. The group’s bylaws say that members “will support the
purposes of the Council.” This is not a democratic institution. It’s a club that you must pay to join, and you must act accordingly or the Board will terminate your membership. The Council’s dues-paying members are a small sliver of the total Eastlake population. The ECC is more like a Chamber of Commerce that represents business interests rather than a community organization. It’s all specified in the ECC bylaws, which say the Board can terminate any member who engages in actions the Board deems as “detrimental to the best interests of the Council, or has failed to actively support Council purposes.” The council’s founding bylaws are bogus and flawed. You can read them here: https://www.eastlakeseattle.org/about
Eastlake residents who are disgusted by the Council’s actions should form their own community group that advances the interests of all Eastlake residents. Bike lanes and transit options are the foundation of a thriving and livable community, and the Board’s inability to see this shows it is out of touch with the community and the best interests of Eastlake residents.