Work on segments with orange outlines will begin soon while segments with yellow outlines are scheduled for 2025. Map from SDOT.
SDOT is starting work on a series of new and upgraded healthy streets in the Aurora-Licton Springs area that will connect to the existing 1st Avenue NW healthy street and upgrade the regional Interurban North bike route on Fremont Avenue N. Planned upgrades to connect the route to the John Lewis Memorial walk/bike bridge to Northgate Station and along Ashworth Avenue N near Licton Springs Park are scheduled for 2025.
The biggest improvements will likely be new “modal filters” at key locations that are designed to allow people bike through but create physical barriers to prevent turning or cut-through car traffic. Neither upgrade changes existing rules, but they will hopefully improve compliance and better separate the biking and driving spaces. SDOT crews will also update the signage to make the new no right turns rule more clear. These filters are simple little curbs that could make a big difference because these healthy streets only work if traffic is very low. Only people accessing a home or destination on these streets should be driving there. They should never be useful for avoiding traffic on a nearby arterial. SDOT is installing these new filters at N 100th Street/Greenwood Avenue N and N 105th Street/Fremont Avenue N. Unfortunately, the project stops short of reaching 85th/Fremont, which could use a similar upgrade.
Workers move a turn cylinder inside the Spokane Street Bridge. Photo from SDOT.
The Spokane Street swing bridge (AKA the lower West Seattle Bridge) is closed to biking, walking and driving until 10 p.m. Sunday (October 27). There is no official bicycle detour.
The only bike route alternative without the Spokane Street Bridge is to ride many miles out of the way through busy industrial streets to the 1st Ave S Bridge in Georgetown. SDOT did not bring back the amazing temporary bike lanes on 1st Ave S from January 2023. The good news is that once you reach the bridge from the east, it’s smooth sailing along the west side of the Duwamish River thanks to the Duwamish Trail connections SDOT completed in 2023 on W Marginal Way.
SDOT is breaking ground on the Georgetown to Downtown bike route today (groundbreaking celebration is 3 p.m. October 30 near Airport Way S and S Vale St), but that’s not going to help anyone this weekend.
The closure is needed so SDOT can reinstall a broken turn cylinder, which as the name implies is critical to the bridge’s movement. When the bridge has broken unexpectedly in the past, it has often been due to these turn cylinders. Though this bridge is not very old in bridge terms (it opened in 1991), SDOT has had to do a ton of rehab work in recent years. They had to strengthen it to fix cracks, revamp the control system and communication wiring, make seismic upgrades, and engage in a never-ending effort to fix these turn cylinders. And they are not finished yet. There will be more closures in 2025.
You know, I’m beginning to think this whole swing bridge design was a bad idea. We’ve got bascule bridges more than 100 years old that seem much more reliable and easy to maintain. I know the span lengths are shorter, but I dunno, bridge engineers of 1991, maybe you’re thinking about this a little too hard.
Editor’s Note: I apologize for being slow to post this alert. SDOT noted the closure in a blog post last Friday, and I totally missed it. That’s on me. I apologize if any readers got surprised by the closure this morning.
Hanoch Yeung and I accidentally coordinated out outfits with our Brompton folding bikes, then rode around for a while talking about the state of bicycle infrastructure in Seattle and the need for voters to approve Prop 1, the Seattle Transportation Levy.
Our conversation is probably the most in-depth I’ve gone into the politics behind the levy as well as my feelings about SDOT’s recent work and direction.
Thanks to Hanoch for reaching out and inviting me to ride along and ramble for the Seattle area’s favorite bicycling YouTube channel, Best Side Cycling. It’s a long one, so perhaps a great use of YouTube’s 1.25x speed feature. That will also make it look like I bike much faster than I do.
Rita Hulsman lost her husband of more than 40 years in December when a person turned his Chevy Tahoe in front of Steve while Steve biked downhill on Marine View Drive SW not far from his home. Steve died shortly after the collision. He was 66.
In the months since that horrible day, Rita has become an outspoken advocate for the need for safer streets. She attended City Council Transportation Committee meetings to testify about the need for increasing safety funding in the transportation levy they were developing, and now she is urging Seattle voters to approve Proposition 1.
Rita penned an op-ed, which Cascade Bicycle Club published on their blog. She makes a powerful and heartfelt case in favor of the proposition, but perhaps because my mother was an elementary school teacher and my kid is now in first grade, this section really got to me:
As a recently retired elementary school teacher, I encourage you to think about the many students who deserve safe routes to schools. As a widow and mom, I urge you to think of your family members, friends and neighbors who deserve the right to safely walk, bike, and roll through our neighborhoods.
Whether it’s a transportation levy or any other issue, these are the thoughts that should guide everyone’s voting decisions. What would be best for the next generation and for the people you love? We must invest in solutions so that young people today are not doomed to repeat the tragedies of the current generation.
I urge all Seattle voters to support Proposition 1, the Keep Seattle Moving Transportation Levy, which will appear on your Nov. 5 general election ballot. It comes too late for Steve, a pillar of the Seattle bicycling community, but approving this sensible transportation package could save the lives of other people who walk, bike, or roll on Seattle’s frequently inhospitable and dangerous streets.
Alright, folks, let’s do this. This is the big one for a lot of reasons, but for biking in Seattle specifically this is the most important ballot of the entire decade. We need to vote NO on Initiative 2117 and vote YES on Seattle Proposition 1. If we want to make our streets safer, connect our bike network to every neighborhood, expand and maintain our regional trail network, and accellerate our dismal rate of sidewalk construction, it’s all on the line. Tell all your friends and family members how much these measures mean to you and to our communities. And if you aren’t already spending your time volunteering to get out the vote in swing states, consider joining the Keep Seattle Moving campaign.
It seems that a lot of people have heard the message that voters should say NO to all the state initiatives, and the endorsements below agree. But we need to make sure folks know to vote YES on the proposition. I may lose sleep worrying that people will group the proposition in with the initiatives and just vote no on them all.
Your ballot for the November 5 general election should have arrived in the mail, or should arrive very soon. Eligible voters have until October 28 to register or update your address online in King County. After that date, voters can still register in person up to and including election day at a voting center. If you are not in King County, check your county’s voter information pages for details.
I have gathered endorsements from several organizations working for safer streets and better transit in our area: The Urbanist (URB), Transportation for Washington (T4W), Washington Bikes (WAB), and the Transit Riders Union (TRU). Check the endorsements pages for each organization for more information on why they chose who they chose (the Urbanist did a particularly good job of explaining their reasoning this year). If an organization did not mention a race, then I left them off the list. But if they specifically noted “no endorsement,” I did include that. Note that Cascade Bicycle Club, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and Transportation Choices Coalition are 501(c)(3) non-profits that can accept tax-deductible donations, and U.S. law allows them to endorse ballot measures but not political candidates or parties. Cascade and TCC’s respective sister organizations Washington Bikes and Transportation for Washington are separate 501(c)(4) non-profits that can endorse candidates.
UPDATE 10-22: Added a few endorsements from Cascade Bicycle Club, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, Transportation Choices Coalition and Seattle Transit Blog to the list.
Levy spending breakdown. The Times Ed Board thinks there’s too much bicycle safety and not enough maintenance and bridge work. Chart from the Keep Seattle Moving campaign.
What caught my attention most in their editorial, however, was their accusation that the levy “is not an infrastructure plan as much as a political document.” Seattle is a democracy, so of course this levy is political. Every public budget and every public policy is passed by elected officials is influenced by advocates with stakes in the decision. It’s strange to hear this editorial board pretend that there was a non-political way to craft an initiative to send to voters.
Further, the politicians who crafted this levy were nearly all endorsed by the Seattle Times Editorial Board. Those politicians sought out support from important constituencies like the port, the Chamber of Commerce, major labor unions, transit boosters, and safe streets groups in an attempt to craft a levy that they would all support. That’s compromise, and it worked. All those groups representing Seattle residents and businesses are supporting the levy together, one of the few times you’ll see all these parties on the same side of a major issue. The transportation levy is an example of what the city can accomplish when everyone works together. It’s odd that the Times Editorial Board sees this unity as a bad thing.
This levy was very much not written by the big bad bicycle lobby, whose endorsed candidates did not fare well in last year’s City Council races. The Editorial Board tried to paint it that way regardless. They bemoaned that “the levy would spend $133.5 million on ‘Bicycle Safety,’” while spending “only $330 million for ‘arterial roadway maintenance’ and $67 million for pothole repairs.” The $133.5 million for bicycle safety will save lives while making up about 9% of the levy. It is a great investment that will do a lot to connect and protect bike routes across the city, but it’s not an oversized slice of the budget pie (see chart above). They also cite a survey in which 61% of respondents said Seattle was doing a good job, noting that “it’s the department’s highest score.” That’s great news. SDOT is doing something well and people have noticed it. That just confirms that our city’s bike investments are working. It makes no sense to say, “Let’s defund the things our city does well.” The Editorial Board members must not bike much if they think the city’s bike lane network is anywhere close to being complete. This same board once argued that “Seattle should be in the vanguard” of safe bike infrastructure. Well, Seattle needs the funding from this levy to get there.
Meanwhile, $397 million for paving work makes up more than a quarter of the levy and is vastly more than the city has invested in road maintenance in modern memory. It is more than the entire 2006 Bridging the Gap Levy. The paving total is more like $420 million when you add in freight projects that are also likely to be paving projects or ~$615 million when you add bridge maintenance or ~$770 million if you add together all the paving, bridge maintenance, traffic signals, freight mobility, and general road work planning.
The Editorial Board oscillates between calling the levy expensive and complaining that it does not include enough funding. They also accuse the levy of not having a plan, yet never once mention the 752-page Seattle Transportation Plan, an extensive document developed over several years incorporating tons of public feedback that is both the policy basis for the levy’s funding levels and the plan for how to invest it if voters approve it. Their editorial sounds like an essay by a student who didn’t to the reading.
