Comments

1
AKA Walking While Black.
2
I got one about a year ago.

Clearly we have plenty of law enforcement and they are well funded. Otherwise they wouldn't have time to write jay-walking tickets, non?
3
Yesterday, at the intersection of 12th and Pike, I was on my bike heading south on 12th. A young woman with two pre school children in tow, (I at least give her credit for holding their hands) dashed in front of me, and cars, including a police car, after the light had turned green for us, in front of the police station .

Do you truly think this sort of profoundly stupid and child endangering behaviour doesn't deserve a ticket?
4
Correction, intersection of 12th and Pine.
5
Don't like it? Don't jaywalk. It's not rocket science.
6
@3, yeah, it really sounds like the threat of a ticket stopped her from doing that.
7
I would be interested in seeing the data about the amount of jaywalking tickets issued, compared with traffic violations.
8
Damn right. If anything the city should pay jaywalkers $56 each for risking their lives to calm traffic.
9
@3 Nice anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal (the child! the child!), but most jaywalkers aren't rushing out in front of vehicles, especially cars.
10
Jaywalking is sexy. Watching someone wait at a light with no cars in view (especially in a less trafficked area) is truly one of the more pathetic sights in this city. Half-heartedly running across the street with cars coming is slightly more pathetic.
11
Tickets for jaywalking aren't about (or at least shouldn't be) discouraging walking. They're about (or at least should be) promoting safety.

Perhaps you don't believe tickets should be issued for riding a bicycle without a helmet, because that may discourage biking? Or cycling at night without a front light, because that may encourage people to drive at night instead of ride?

There are rules and laws in place, and ones such as these have everything to do with the safety of everyone involved.
12
@6 So, because there will always be people who break laws, we shouldn't bother enforcing any of them...?
13
@10 I am constantly irritating my girlfriend by refusing to scamper like a refugee when I am crossing the street. Even more irritating to her is when I pound on the side of cars that nearly run us over and shout, "Watch it, fuck for brains!"
14
Cross at corners, obey traffic signals. This is not difficult! Have you no sense of self-preservation? The protestation of jaywalking is nothing more than the arrogance of neo-liberalistic entitlement.
15
The problem is that people in Western Washington don't know how to jaywalk. They randomly walk in front of cars, expecting them to stop.

Visit New York, people, where jaywalking is a basic part of life. When it's clear, you go; when there's a car coming, you don't go. It's very simple.

Of course, in New York the car will run right over you, so there's motivation for not being stupid.
16
@14: What I love about the Slog is that I often can't tell if people are serious or joking.
17
The jaywalkers that deserve to be ticketed are the ones who screw up downtown traffic by crossing on the flashing Don't Walk when cars are turning. That's the only time that cars can turn, and if jaywalkers are blocking their way the whole intersection gets hosed.

On the other hand, jaywalking when there are no cars in sight for blocks should be ignored.
18
@14 Yeah, because it would be so inconvenient for cars to have to slow down to avoid killing people.

The people who scream "neo-liberalistic entitlement" whiff of pretention and logorrhea.
19
Walk at the Green! Not in between!
20
I shed no tears when jaywalkers are struck by cars. I silently thank them for removing themselves from our gene pool. I can only hope it happens before they produce offspring.

Drivers who zip through the part of the crosswalk I'm walking through deserve at least a fist or foot slamming into their panels & at most a key scraping the shit out of them.

Live at let die, motherfuckers.
21
I was crossing 2nd Ave a couple years ago--one way street--at Pike--another one way street in that area. No traffic from either direction. Stacks of peds huddled on all corners. I jaywalked, and two cops popped out of the crowd to ticket me. Huge lecture, too--apparently a pile of pedestrians get killed in this town every year and it's entirely the fault of people who jaywalk. At the time, the ticket price hadn't hit $50 yet.
As a driver, I get surprised by jaywalkers running across 4-lane Rainier Ave a lot; frequently in the dark. I really hope I don't ever hit one, and because of them I'm careful to stick to the 30 mph speed limit.
Sometimes laws get in the way of sense. Jaywalking can be dangerous and it can be safe, but either way, SPD stands to make a lot of money from a $56 ticket for it.
22
I hope that fine is circumstantial. All jaywalking is not equal. Darting out in front of cars in the middle of a block is completely different than walking against the light at an abandon intersection.
23
Historically, walking preceded driving, hence all cars should stop as soon as a walker makes a signal and starts crossing the street. Hence there is no such thing as "jaywalking".

This is the same logic for why 100 motorists must stop when one person's yacht cruises under University Bridge.
24
It's always fun to stand around 3rd and Pine, especially when the cops are loitering around, and watch to see who and who doesn't jaywalk.
25
@1 I've seen plenty of white people stopped for jaywalking.
26
I got a $56 ticket a few years ago, jaywalking downtown when no cars were coming. Now I stand awkwardly at downtown corners while crowds of people cross the empty streets. My friends have to wait at the other side while I wait for the light to change.
27
@22 It's not but that would be a good idea.
28
Seattle drivers are so easy to intimidate, though. Just stride out and stare down anyone who comes up to you too fast. And, bonus, you feel like Magneto!
29
Driving south on Renton Ave. S. last night and saw two men in black jaywalking in front of me, heading towards the Victory Market at Kenyon St. I had the green light.

They were a couple hundred feet away, so I didn't honk, as I would've if they'd been closer. Turned out they were Seattle police, one of them with a dog on a leash.

After all we've been through with SPD lately, I had to let out a "whew" when I realized who they were. If I had honked at them, who knows what grief would have befallen me.
30
@25, no you haven't. Ever.
31
"The city should not punish or discourage any kind of walking."

If you cross the street and theres no crosswalk, then yeah you should get a ticket. This is to discourage people from feeling the need to frogger it across the street during rush hour.

Same thing should apply to fines/fees for bikes. It doesnt discourage people to bike, just puts them in line with other moving vehicles that feel the need to violate road rules.
32
Covert racism and a fascistic dedication to the letter of the law... must be Tuesday in Seattle.
33
It also involves the primacy of cars / the rights of bikes and pedestrians... it's a perfect hot button topic. I'm sort of surprised we don't get more posts about jaywalking now that I think about it.
34
Correction: $56 and a punch in the face.
35
@ 30,one day I saw three (three!) of my coworkers get jaywalking tickets at the corner of 2nd and Seneca. Two were white, one was Asian.

Go ahead, tell ME that I'm making this up.
36
Interesting historical perspective on this...
http://streetsblog.net/2011/02/01/how-ca…
37
@30 I'm white. I got a jay walking ticket last year at 6:30 am on Cherry street. No cars in sight. The cop drove 2 blocks the wrong way down a one way to issue me the ticket.
38
@31: There is an implied crosswalk at every intersection, even if it's unmarked. The only exception is if there's a posted sign telling you not to cross, or a pedestrian bridge/overpass.

Jaywalking is defined as:

- Crossing when "Don't Walk" is lit or flashing;
- Crossing a signalized intersection anywhere but a marked crosswalk;
- Crossing in disobedience of a posted sign;
- Crossing in the middle of a block between two signalized intersections;
- Crossing in the middle of a block between zero/one signalized intersections without yielding to cars.

The only time when you can get a ticket for crossing an abandoned intersection is if it has a pedestrian signal. This is no different than cars having to wait at a red light, even if no one else is coming.
39
OH FFS! Stupid stupid stupid law. I don't need 'The Man' to keep me safe at intersections.

People in this town need to learn about personal responsibility and situational awareness. We are all more or less adults - we can look both ways before crossing the street and get on with our lives.

40
@31: "If you cross the street and theres no crosswalk, then yeah you should get a ticket. "

That's not what the law says. There does not have to be a marked crosswalk to legally cross at an intersection.
41
@1, 30 -- I walk everywhere and the only folks I know for a fact (met personally) who have been given a jaywalking ticket were middle-aged white guys in the U-Dist. Yeah, I should get out more...
Beating the Jaywalk ticket is easy:
1) Apologize to the officer -- I know, I know, but they eat that shit up. And so will the judge.
2) Ask the officer if you were being a hazard to anyone.
If the answer is yes shut up and pay the fine.
If the answer is no and you get the ticket, send it in with the above points stressed (but skip the "they eat that shit up" part). You won't pay $56.
42
McGinn's WAR ON PEDESTRIANS!
43
We need parity - this War On Pedestrians must stop! Why aren't we arresting twice as many cars - like Tim Eyman - driving thru stop signs and red lights and endangering pedestrians and cyclists - than we are arresting pedestrians?

MORE TRAFFIC TICKETS FOR CARS!
44
It's too bad that jaywalking isn't solely enforced against the assholes who wander into traffic no matter what street they're crossing or how many cars are barreling towards them, because that's when enforcement is actually useful, but it seems like the majority of people who wander into traffic don't have the means to pay tickets anyway.

@2,

Jaywalking tickets are a source of revenue. Which would you prefer: to pay more taxes or to get funding from people too dumb to check for cops before they jaywalk?
45
@38: Where's my pedestrian "right on red after stop?"
46
This is totally backwards on the North End. The cops are out every day ticketing anyone driving over 40mph on Aurora from Queen Anne through Green Lake, but ignoring the parade of crackheads, tweakers, and hookers running across six lanes of that same traffic all while in close proximity of pedestrian bridges and tunnels.
Then once you're off 99 the chances of you getting pulled over for anything are close to zero. Ballard especially sees nothing but drivers skipping stop signs, going the wrong way around circles, speeding through the school zones, ignoring the crosswalks, and tearing through the neighborhood as though they were on a speedboat in open seas and not a car.
47
Each of these anecdotes, taken individually, only prove that no one besides black people are ever ticketed for jaywalking. QED.
48
@46,

What truly blows my mind is when the tweakers run across 99 and climb over the barrier. What. The. Fuck.

And a protip: There's a rush hour speed trap at Crockett heading southbound on Aurora. I see that motorcycle cop every single weekday.
49
I don't understand jaywalking tickets at marked intersections. It doesn't make any sense to me. Let's say you're on a street, and at one block, there is no light. You go one block down the street (say, south), and there's a light. In the first instance, you are legally allowed to cross whenever you want, regardless of whether a crosswalk is marked on the street, and it is not jaywalking. Go one block south, and you have to wait for a little man to shine so that you may enter a marked crosswalk.

If jaywalking is all about "safety," and the first instance is not ticketable while the second is, then the city is implying that crossing at an unmarked intersection with the possibility of flowing traffic is safer than crossing at a marked intersection with the possibility of flowing traffic. Huh? If the first instance is safe enough, then why not the second? Personally, as a driver, a marked crosswalk says to me "Hey, look out of people right around here, boss." Yeah, I call myself boss.
50
Anybody stupid enough to jaywalk within sight of a cop deserves to pay the fine.
51
@38 Where is the term "jaywalking" defined in the RCW?

RCW 46.61.240
Crossing at other than crosswalks: "Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk."

Also note that the fee schedule imposes a higher cost for drivers failing to grant right of way than pedestrians failing to use traffic controlled crosswalks.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf…
* Pedestrians To Be Granted Right of Way (WAC 352-37-090) $42
* Any infraction regarding pedestrians (not defined by city or county ordinance) $27

Per the same doc:
(c) Infractions Not Covered. This schedule does not apply to penalties for parking,
standing, stopping, or pedestrian infractions established by municipal or county statute. Penalties
for those infractions are established by statute or local court rule, but shall be consistent with the
philosophy of these rules

I would submit that charging pedestrians a higher penalty than drivers is inconsistent. Seattle does appear to have a regressive approach here.
52
@48 - yeah, but you can kind of understand them doing that, it's more than 5 blocks between places where you can cross Aurora from N 71st down to N 45th.

Still stupid, mind you.

Time to ensure parity in car tickets for violations in this city - instead of the 2:1 pedestrian:car ticket ratio we have now.
53
@45: On foot, if you're walking on a sidewalk in the same direction as traffic, you can always make a right-hand turn. Of course, the opposite is true if you're walking in the opposite direction. :) It's easy to forget because you're not crossing traffic, but it's the same basic principle as right on red (or left on red for one-way streets).

@51: It's not, as far as I'm aware. But those are the laws regarding when pedestrians are allowed to (and prohibited from) entering intersections. Here's a summary of the laws, with excerpts and citations.

54
@ 47 the white people I know were given a ticket, don't be so paranoid.
55
@49: Believe it or not, what you describe in your second paragraph is exactly correct. SDOT adds signals to intersections when it feels that the intersections are busy enough that signals are necessary for safety and throughput. Almost by definition, intersections without signals have less traffic than intersections with, which makes them safer.

The technique you describe works for drivers, too. If you're in a car and stopped at a red light, you can make a right turn, go to the next intersection without a traffic light, and turn left. It's the same basic principle.

I should point out that I'm just describing how the SDOT and most transportation authorities in the US operate. There are studies suggesting that removing traffic signals entirely, while reducing speed/throughput, can significantly increase safety, by forcing road users to pay more attention to their surroundings (rather than just blindly watching the light). So for my part, I'm not entirely convinced that the crosswalk rules really do improve safety. But they are what they are.
56
Time to ensure parity in car tickets for violations in this city - instead of the 2:1 pedestrian:car ticket ratio we have now.


Look everyone, Will is making shit up again.
57
@55: Do not even get me started on removing traffic signals. In this age of attention deficit, unmarked intersections are tantamount to aiding and abetting vehicular manslaughter. These studies would need to be redone/take into account cellphones, texting, fast food, and other distractions that can result in pedestrians getting run down in the name of "safety."

Unless the ultimate goal is to discourage driving entirely by making it unsafe/inefficient. Then it sounds like a pretty good idea.
58
@55: Reading some of the literature now. Scientific American seems to support the idea of removing signals but does point out there seem to be some issues with other studies showing that selfishness (something we have a lot of) degrades some of the virtues of vehicular anarchy.

And it does seem like part of the success is that removing signage/signals does seem to discourage driving/encourage mass transit, bicycling, and walking. Would that work here with our current infrastructure? Not sure.
59
What's the fine for running over a jaywalker?
60
It's a simple fact of statistics, physics, and geometry that crossing in the middle of a block is safer than at an intersection. Crosswalk or not. An intersection has four different vectors of moving vehicles of which to keep track. Crossing in the middle of a block only has two vectors (no turning vehicles).

If I go to an intersection that has traffic I have to trust that the vehicles are as non-complacent and aware as I am. I have to trust they see the stop sign or light and are aware of all the vehicles turning left or right. I have to anticipate that their turn signals are accurate and functioning.

However. If I cross in the middle of a block when there is no traffic I KNOW I'm safe.
61
I'm not sure I buy the cries of racism, I'm a white dude and I've gotten two jaywalking tickets. My advice, don't pay it. For some reason they don't seem to go in the system like either parking tickets or criminal tickets. After not paying mine for like 6 years I was in the court building for Jury Duty and figured I should stop by the window where you pay for tickets and take care of it. They said they had no record of past jaywalking tickets or me owing them anything. Score!
62
@60 is on the right track.

While studies could be skewed by the bulk of people not jaywalking, they show that using a signal is less safe than using your wits (more peds are killed legally crossing than "informally" as the studies refer to jaywalking). Also, being ignorant of traffic laws seems to be better for your chance of survival in the city: knowing that cars are supposed to stop for you makes you less cautious. The law is counterproductive.

63
1) I literally cannot count the number of my friends who scoffed at the jaywalking laws, gleefully jaywalked whenever/wherever they could, and later cried like little bitches when they eventually got ticketed. Literally, I don't know how many times I've seen that very scenario play out amongst my friends and acquaintances.

2) Fistique, all my friends I speak of above are white. And they were ALL given jaywalking tickets. Try harder next time, hon.

3) Personally, I love jaywalkers. Lets you know right off the bat "Oh, you're not from around here."

4) Who the hell was Jay and why was he in such an all-fired hurry that he just had to barge across the street like that (in front of the wagons, maybe?)?

5) Corollarily to 4, who the hell was Luke and why was he only kinda-hot?

So many points, so many questions....
64
Merry, answer to #4 actually is an addendum to #3: City dwellers making fun of outsiders. "Jay" was a pejorative term (ignorant rural bumpkin).

65
Okay, let's review:

1. Some of the most expensive yet all-around-shittiest public transit in the country.

2. Traffic signals that favor cars over pedestrians by as much as 7:1.

3. People who bitch about having to pay an extra dollar to leave their 2-ton slabs of metal in the middle of downtown. (The horror!)

4. Mindless subservience to "the law," even after the law in question has been shown to have a malignant history (@36), and in spite of mounting evidence that the practice it bans actually benefits the safety, awareness, and efficient movement of all parties (including cars).

But, y'know, "Seattle's so progressive" because.... why, exactly?
(Repeating this manta incessantly doesn't actually make it true, you know.)
66
I'm willing to trade enforcement of jaywalking laws on more crowded streets for pedestrian and bicyclist respect from drivers.

Frankly, compared to basically any other city in the US, most pedestrians actually do follow the rules, and many drivers do stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and crossing at the corner.

However, I do think that $56 is steep, particularly compared to a parking ticket. Particularly because writing a jaywalking ticket is very much up to officer discretion, and those are the situations most subject to profiling, where jaywalking is just an excuse to make contact with someone "unsavory-looking" aka of color.

I think $20 is fair for a jaywalking ticket.

67
@65:

1) Evidence?

2) Evidence? (and what does this claim even mean anyway?)

3) People will complain about everything, including the flippant use of the term "bitch" in such a pejorative fashion.

4) Wtf?
68
@67:

1a) $2.50 per ride (no smart-card discounts or all-day passes available) is actually the most expensive in-city transit fare in the country. Yes, higher than New York. The $90 monthly pass is the 2nd most expensive in the county (after New York).

1b) Seriously? Have you ever used Metro?

2) Walk from 1st Ave to 5th Ave downtown, don't jaywalk, don't run, and pay attention to the timing of the lights. It might take you 7 or 8 minutes (but at least the cars can zoom down 2nd unimpeded!).

3) Resistance to change for the sake of resistance to change is the opposite of progressivism.

4) Every single person -- including you -- who repeats any version of the claim that "jaywalking is against the law; the law must have a good reason; even if it doesn't, you must submit to it; now shut up and wait."

Care to offer the slightest shred of evidence for Seattle's delusional "progressive" self-image? (Why don't you start with our tax structure, zoning regulations, treatment of our underclass, race politics straight out of the '70s, sexual identity politics straight out of the '80s...)

Nothing cuts Seattle's sense of self deeper than challenging its "progressive" credentials.

69
Dear DP,

Our ideologies are diametrically opposed and I think you're wrong about everything, but it's nice to see somebody bitch-slap Seattle. Good job!

Love,
Me
70
@68: I love you. I don't think natives can possibly get your point #4. It just goes too far against the grain.

@69: d.p. has said good things about Seattle in the past. We get so defensive here whenever says anything negative or compares Seattle to another locale. It gets a little old after awhile. We can learn from other places and other places can learn from us.
71
@ 64 - Thank You!!

So it's like saying "bumpkin walking"! HA! Well, we do need to know when we have bumpkins around us, tryin' to pass..... hahahahha!!

:-D
72
@68: 1a) $2.50 per ride (no smart-card discounts or all-day passes available) is actually the most expensive in-city transit fare in the country. Yes, higher than New York. The $90 monthly pass is the 2nd most expensive in the county (after New York).

I cede you this point, $2.50 per trip begins to be exorbitant, and there really is not any kind of reasonable monthly discount unless you ride the bus all the time. I couldn't find much info on national statistics for bus fares, I would say that $2.50 is on the very upper end of what I would call reasonable. I think $2.00 feels about right, with discounts from there for people who use the bus frequently, IMO, and would gladly pay higher taxes for that.


1b) Seriously? Have you ever used Metro?


Most days. I commute on Metro. As far as bus systems go I think it's quite good. It's generally on time, and buses come pretty frequently. Some trips are more difficult than others, and we lack a faster system of mass transit (like BART) that the buses supplant (light rail is sort of a half-assed attempt at this), but as far as a bus system by itself I think Metro does a pretty good job. It gets me from maple leaf to downtown in 10-15 minutes reliably every morning for work, and 30 minutes when the peak buses aren't running and the express lanes are pointed the wrong direction.

2) Walk from 1st Ave to 5th Ave downtown, don't jaywalk, don't run, and pay attention to the timing of the lights. It might take you 7 or 8 minutes (but at least the cars can zoom down 2nd unimpeded!).

I don't understand what you mean by this. The lights change for the cars and the pedestrians together. I walk around downtown all the time, the lights change pretty fast, and I don't have much of a problem at all getting where I need to go. Now, if it were Bellevue for instance, I'd be with you.


3) Resistance to change for the sake of resistance to change is the opposite of progressivism.


Progressivism =/= change simply for change's sake. I don't see what you are advocating for significant change here, or what substantive reasons there are for it. I walk around a lot, I ride the bus, and as far as pedestrian-friendly, Seattle is one of the most pedestrian-friendly places I've been (outside of small towns in old Europe). I'd like to maintain that, and improve it if possible.


4) Every single person -- including you -- who repeats any version of the claim that "jaywalking is against the law; the law must have a good reason; even if it doesn't, you must submit to it; now shut up and wait."


It does have a good reason. Cars and pedestrians follow the rules, it prevents traffic from getting totally clogged up, pedestrians are properly respected (generally) by traffic, and everyone gets along pretty well on the roads and sidewalks. People get to where they need to go safely and quickly, whether they're driving or walking. I think more needs to be done for bicyclists, but I think the city has generally done some okay things in trying to be more bike-friendly, and that's good. More could be done.

I've been to many places in the world where pedestrians have no rights at all, and you just have to play frogger to cross the street. People get run over and killed all the time. And I've been to places like LA where trying to walk around is just horrifyingly miserable. I have no inherent problem with a jaywalking law at all, it makes for orderly streets, and that's the idea. I don't see some kind of civil-liberties issue here where there is some moral right I hold to cross the street wherever the fuck I feel like it and everyone just has to stop for ME.


Care to offer the slightest shred of evidence for Seattle's delusional "progressive" self-image? (Why don't you start with our tax structure, zoning regulations, treatment of our underclass, race politics straight out of the '70s, sexual identity politics straight out of the '80s...)

Nothing cuts Seattle's sense of self deeper than challenging its "progressive" credentials.


Fair points of critique, but it does not follow logically that Seattle is thus a conservative city. That's not a tenable argument. Seattle is pretty liberal, but that liberalism has a lot of blind spots (most significantly around race, IMO). But as far as voting and issues, I don't think it's really debatable that Seattle is a liberal city as far as USAmerican cities go.
73
@72: Darn, you seem to be in earnest disagreement with me, rather than just being snarky! The internet is so much easier when it's just about refuting snarkiness! ;-)

Well, I think it's fair to give you a point-by-point explanation. I'll try to make it brief, and hopefully you'll happen back to this page and see it.

1a) Among major cities, $2.50 is literally the highest price. New York has the same base fare, but you get steep discounts just for buying value on a MetroCard (ORCA equivalent). Giving smart-card discounts on every fare (in addition to offering monthly passes that are a better value) is a given in most cities, as it incentivizes the most efficient form of payment and makes the whole system faster. Metro, on the other hand, still gives out paper transfer to cash-payers that often last hours longer than an ORCA transfer would. This is just one of many back-assward things about Metro's basic operating policies. Using one door for most entrances and exits is another.

1b) Even for a bus system, Metro doesn't do "a pretty good job," especially if you want to use it for anything besides 9-5 commuting to downtown. You note that most trips from your Maple Leaf home to downtown are around 30 minutes. That's not actually impressive when you realize it's only 6 miles. And that even in your relatively well-served part of town, you might have waited 30+ minutes for that bus. And that there's a whole bunch of stuff you might want to do in this city that's not downtown, and that getting there might require a grossly unpredictable transfer and another pretty slow journey.

Here's a good way to judge the efficacy of a transit system: imagine two places that you travel between frequently, but that do not geographically lend themselves to a single-seat transit journey. Now imagine that you have to arrive at the 2nd place by an inflexible do-or-die deadline. If the "just in case" extra leeway time you have to leave yourself is more than 100% of the actual journey time, your transit system sucks. People in Seattle argue the specifics of routes and service allocations incessantly, but it all comes down to that.

2) SDOT has elected to treat the north-south avenues through downtown -- especially 2nd, 4th, and 5th, and Boren -- as well as many other arterials around the city, as thoroughfares that exist for the primary purpose of moving large numbers of cars quickly and without interruption. At major intersections, whichever arterial SDOT deems paramount winds up with green lights in excess of 2 minutes. I can think some places around the city where the primary direction gets 3 or 4-minute greens. In order to mitigate the effect of this on cross-traffic, they time the lights to allow cars on Pine, Pike, and so forth a few blocks of simultaneous green. But those greens are timed horribly for pedestrians, who, whether running or strolling, will hit almost every red when they walk east-west. (It's also horrible for bus riders, who miss every light thanks to bus stop placement and archaic overhead wiring.)

I challenge you to name another so-called "pedestrian city" that does this. I dare you to find a traffic light in Boston, Philly, SF, Portland, or Vancouver that remains green in any direction for more than a short spurt. Even Manhattan's north-south avenues, whose lights are scrupulously timed for flow, have greens of no more than 40 seconds. If you're on foot and unwilling to jaywalk, Seattle will make you wait!

3) A lack of interest in fixing that which is demonstrably flawed, out of sheer inertia and complacency, is by definition "conservative." Pedestrianism is just one of many ways that Seattle fails to walk its talk. And its Nazism about jaywalking is a big part of that...

4a) Safety: Cities with entrenched jaywalking cultures have among the lowest incidence of pedestrian fatalities. (Look it up: Boston, where jaywalking is like breathing, is routinely ranked in the bottom 3 for fatalities-per-mile-walked.) This is partly because habitual jaywalkers are better at it (see below), but also because automobile drivers know to be attentive to their surroundings, rather than acting upon Pavlovian reactions to reds and greens while actually distracted by their Bluetooths.

4b) "Stopping for ME:" Good jaywalkers cause no delay at all to other traffic. They don't just blindly step out into traffic; they dance instinctively between the flow. A good jaywalker should have enough spacial awareness to never break a driver's flow, and a good driver should have enough spacial awareness not to slam on his brakes because someone is crossing the street 3/4 block ahead of him. Of course, there's no better way to destroy this equilibrium than to force the jaywalker to divert part of his attention to checking for cops.

4c) Gridlock: Strictly adhered-to jaywalking restrictions actually make it worse. This may seem counterintuitive, but bear with me...

You know that mass of pedestrians that builds up on a major street corner, only to flood the street when the light becomes green and fill every inch of the crosswalk for the entire walk cycle? You know that line of cars waiting to turn right or left, often blocking straight-heading vehicles and growing impatient until they floor it through as the light changes back to red? That all exists thanks to the anti-jaywalking culture. It's simple math -- if some of those people had jaywalked, there'd be less of a critical mass when the light actually changed. There'd be gaps in the pedestrian monolith to allow cars to make their turns -- in New York and Boston, any size gap is acceptable -- and all manner of traffic gets to flow better as a result.

Also, as a rule, pedestrians forced to wait will saunter when finally allowed to go. Those who are allowed to walk without restriction, who are making good time on their journeys, will tend to cross more quickly. You may call this unhindered flow "disorderly," but disorder is what gives real cities life, while "orderly" Bellevue remains lifeless.

5) Seattle is "liberal" only inasmuch as it tends to vote for whichever of the two given options most easily fits that label. Being "progressive" requires parsing what "progress" means, and problem-solving to those ends.

Liberalism can be thoughtless, and in Seattle it usually is -- I never thought I'd see a city so adamantly defend its homeless/junkie problem, because it makes them feel more cooler and more tolerant to put up with it than it would to properly address it. Progressivism demands more than this city seems willing to give.

74
@73:


1a) Among major cities, $2.50 is literally the highest price.


I'm willing to believe this, but I couldn't find anything that substantiated the claim. I do agree that $2.50per ride is high, and it should be lower, and as I said before I'd gladly pay higher taxes to subsidize the fare more.


New York has the same base fare, but you get steep discounts just for buying value on a MetroCard (ORCA equivalent). Giving smart-card discounts on every fare (in addition to offering monthly passes that are a better value) is a given in most cities, as it incentivizes the most efficient form of payment and makes the whole system faster.


Agreed. Though NY is pretty expensive still as far as MetroCards go. I think a weekly pass there was like $30 or something if I remember my last trip. But as far as bus service goes, it is vastly inferior to KC Metro. On the other hand, they have a REAL transit system as far as subways go, which is what Seattle needs with an extension of light rail.


Metro, on the other hand, still gives out paper transfer to cash-payers that often last hours longer than an ORCA transfer would. This is just one of many back-assward things about Metro's basic operating policies. Using one door for most entrances and exits is another.


The door thing is weird but it works okay. A small quibble. As far as the transfer time, yes I get kind of irritated sometimes because I was used to "fudging" a paper transfer for quite a few hours, which is not possible with ORCA.

I blame Sound Transit more, but Orca is really not implemented very well, IMO, and is colossally stupid as far as using the light-rail goes. I cannot fathom why they don't have fare-readers on the platform or inside the train cars, and why you can't by fares on the platform. The Light-Rail design as far as usability is really quite terrible. I wish it had been designed by Metro rather than ST.


1b) Even for a bus system, Metro doesn't do "a pretty good job," especially if you want to use it for anything besides 9-5 commuting to downtown. You note that most trips from your Maple Leaf home to downtown are around 30 minutes. That's not actually impressive when you realize it's only 6 miles. And that even in your relatively well-served part of town, you might have waited 30+ minutes for that bus. And that there's a whole bunch of stuff you might want to do in this city that's not downtown, and that getting there might require a grossly unpredictable transfer and another pretty slow journey.


I think it's completely fair actually. It's a bus, and buses make stops. Buses are not fast, and they aren't anywhere in the world. But they are pretty reliable and I've never waited 30 minutes for a bus. I don't even have a smart phone with spiffy bus tracking, I just go by old-fashioned paper schedules, and in the years I went to UW and went downtown by bus I can think of literally one instance where a bus just did not arrive and screwed me. I am realistic as far as buses go. My main criticism is not the bus system, which is pretty great really. It's that buses should be a supplement to a larger and faster transit system. We should have a monorail, or lightrail, etc that goes places faster and is not clogged in traffic. Then from those hubs you take the more local slower buses. Unfortunately, Metro is still the primary transit system, and that's slow and clumsy. But it really does work well and the major routes are great and I find it very reliable. I mean, it might be a little better in Switzerland, but as far as US bus systems go, I'm very satisfied with the overall service provided by Metro. I have small quibbles as we all do with any transit system, but good lord try to take a bus somewhere in Los Angeles, and you'll see what a bad transit system looks like!


Here's a good way to judge the efficacy of a transit system: imagine two places that you travel between frequently, but that do not geographically lend themselves to a single-seat transit journey. Now imagine that you have to arrive at the 2nd place by an inflexible do-or-die deadline. If the "just in case" extra leeway time you have to leave yourself is more than 100% of the actual journey time, your transit system sucks. People in Seattle argue the specifics of routes and service allocations incessantly, but it all comes down to that.


I don't agree with this at all. I've never been to a place in the world other than Switzerland that accomplished this. And I find that's rarely the case. If I have to go to west seattle, for instance, that's about an hour bus trip on off-peak times for me, and I give that about 1:15 or so and often arrive pretty early. But it depends on the routes. Most of my trips don't involve transfers, but even when they do I generally don't have issues. The only time I find myself waiting a long time for buses is late at night when the frequency is low.


2) SDOT has elected to treat the north-south avenues through downtown -- especially 2nd, 4th, and 5th, and Boren -- as well as many other arterials around the city, as thoroughfares that exist for the primary purpose of moving large numbers of cars quickly and without interruption. At major intersections, whichever arterial SDOT deems paramount winds up with green lights in excess of 2 minutes. I can think some places around the city where the primary direction gets 3 or 4-minute greens. In order to mitigate the effect of this on cross-traffic, they time the lights to allow cars on Pine, Pike, and so forth a few blocks of simultaneous green. But those greens are timed horribly for pedestrians, who, whether running or strolling, will hit almost every red when they walk east-west. (It's also horrible for bus riders, who miss every light thanks to bus stop placement and archaic overhead wiring.)

I challenge you to name another so-called "pedestrian city" that does this. I dare you to find a traffic light in Boston, Philly, SF, Portland, or Vancouver that remains green in any direction for more than a short spurt. Even Manhattan's north-south avenues, whose lights are scrupulously timed for flow, have greens of no more than 40 seconds. If you're on foot and unwilling to jaywalk, Seattle will make you wait!


I just don't see this as an issue. I don't have a problem with lights that are timed for major traffic flows, and downtown is NOT the best example of bad places to walk around. I never have any problems walking around downtown, the lights move very fast. I never have any problems driving around downtown either. If waiting 40 seconds is the end of the world to you, I suggest maybe you just relax a little bit.


3) A lack of interest in fixing that which is demonstrably flawed, out of sheer inertia and complacency, is by definition "conservative." Pedestrianism is just one of many ways that Seattle fails to walk its talk. And its Nazism about jaywalking is a big part of that...


Nonsense. There is nothing demonstrably flawed. I find it VERY easy to walk around Seattle. You just keep making these claims as if it's not pedestrain-friendly, when we're a city that's filled with people walking around, and we've got gobs of crosswalks everywhere, and drivers ACTUALLY STOP for and respect pedestrians. It's pretty fantastic, really, as far as American cities go. I have not been to a more pedestrian-friendly city in the US. I've not been to every city, but I've been to a lot, and Seattle is one of the most respectful of pedestrians as far as drivers go.

And I'm sorry but jaywalking tickets =/= Fascism. Seattle has a long history of being strict on jaywalking, and that's why everyone follows the rules. It is great because pedestrians are respected by drivers, and it also doesn't really screw up the traffic flow when people cross willy-nilly. The traffic-pedestrian co-existence in Seattle works quite nicely, and I do think part of the reason is that generally most drivers respect pedestrians because they follow the rules and so everybody gets along.


4a) Safety: Cities with entrenched jaywalking cultures have among the lowest incidence of pedestrian fatalities. (Look it up: Boston, where jaywalking is like breathing, is routinely ranked in the bottom 3 for fatalities-per-mile-walked.) This is partly because habitual jaywalkers are better at it (see below), but also because automobile drivers know to be attentive to their surroundings, rather than acting upon Pavlovian reactions to reds and greens while actually distracted by their Bluetooths.


You've obviously not traveled the world much. Jaywalking is needed when pedestrians have no rights as pedestrians and have to force their way across the street whenever there's an opportunity. And in many places like this, say Mexico, pedestrians get slaughtered like you would not believe. And in a lot of places and with a lot of roads, they just give up on the ability to cross the street altogether and just build pedestrian overpasses everywhere. If you're old/handicapped/can't-climb-stairs then fuck you, you don't get to cross at all.


4b) "Stopping for ME:" Good jaywalkers cause no delay at all to other traffic. They don't just blindly step out into traffic; they dance instinctively between the flow. A good jaywalker should have enough spacial awareness to never break a driver's flow, and a good driver should have enough spacial awareness not to slam on his brakes because someone is crossing the street 3/4 block ahead of him. Of course, there's no better way to destroy this equilibrium than to force the jaywalker to divert part of his attention to checking for cops.


Hilarious.


4c) Gridlock: Strictly adhered-to jaywalking restrictions actually make it worse. This may seem counterintuitive, but bear with me...


That was a cute invented explanation, but that's nonsense. If people jaywalked then cars would be stuck trying to turn the entire time because people would always be trying to cross. Cars then have to force their way through the pedestrians, and Seattle drivers are wimps and won't do that. As it works now (and this is from a driver's perspective) everyone crosses at once, the hand turns read and most people stop except some stragglers, and while the light is still green or becoming red, then I and a bunch more cars get to turn. And when turning on red, I have to pay attention only to the traffic coming from the left, not trying also to scoot into a gap and then have to worry about pedestrians deciding they want to run across the street in the same gap. It makes walking safer, and it makes driving flow better and safer. And it's the compromise we make because as a result drivers respect pedestrians that follow the law, and hence we live in a city where most people stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, which makes everything more civil and safer.
75
Wigette:

You seem well-meaning, but you also sound young and like you haven't lived elsewhere for any extended period of time.

There's no master list of transit fares, but here's a few comparisons:
- New York is $2.12 with the MetroCard discount, and that will get you anywhere in the city -- train, bus, or ferry. They have an extensive bus network to supplement the trains, including literally dozens of routes that run every 5 minutes or less. How many bus routes does KC Metro run every 5 minutes or less? Zero.
- Boston is $1.70 with the CharlieCard discount, and only $59/month unlimited. Waiting 10 minutes for absolutely anything in Boston is considered unusual.
- Chicago is $2.25, and comprehensively covers a city of hundreds and hundreds of square miles.
- SF MUNI is $2.00. A BART trip within SF city limits is actually less.

There is no other city where you have to fork over $2.50 at rush hour, even with a smart-card, and even for the slowest and most over-crowded non-peak-direction bus imaginable. Our $90 monthly pass is literally more than anywhere but New York -- and New Yorkers use theirs about 10 times per day. Statistically, most Metro passes get used twice a day for commuting, and those same people drive everywhere else because the off-peak options suck.

"A small quibble."

It's not a small quibble. If you have a policy that adds 20 seconds to every stop, and you multiply it by 60 stops, you've just made your trip 20 minutes slower. A Metro has a few ill-considered policies with similar effect. Again, you don't even have to travel far to see these things implemented better -- people would have heart attacks in Portland or Vancouver if the buses moved as slowly as ours.

"I've never waited 30 minutes for a bus."

Well then you're the luckiest person in this city, and your life is impeccably geographically situation. Rather than having some high-frequency core routes supplemented by less important routes, Metro spreads itself thin with hundred of labyrinthine routes, nearly all of which are scheduled at 30-minute intervals most of the day and all evening. So even if they're on-time (which they rarely are), you have to schedule your life around them in half-hour blocks.

It's truly bad policy, it makes Seattle an outlier among cities with any significant transit need, and I'm sorry to say that defending it makes you part of the problem.

"I've never been to a place in the world..."

Give me a break. The world is full of places where you think of somewhere you want to go, you walk to a reliable transit stop, and you go.

I have lost count of the number of Ballard-to-Capitol Hill trips (15 minutes in a car, 35 minutes if the transit system worked properly) take me 90+ minutes because of Metro fuckup after fuckup after fuckup. It's unacceptable, and you'd be hard-pressed to name another "pro-transit" city where it would be allowed to happen.

"I have not been to a more pedestrian-friendly city in the US."

Then why do 95% of Seattle streets have essentially no foot traffic? Why does downtown get handed over to the loiterers wholesale after 7? Why do 81% of city residents still drive everywhere? I'm sorry, but that statement is ludicrous. Vancouver and San Francisco and New York and Boston have more pedestrians out at 1:00 AM than Seattle does at rush hour.

"And in many places like this, say Mexico, pedestrians get slaughtered like you would not believe."

Mexico City is one of the least pedestrian-friendly cities imaginable, but it has nothing to do with jaywalking habits. The boulevards there are basically highways -- you can no more jaywalk across them than you could across Aurora.

You continue to insist that jaywalkers block cars, which means you continue to misunderstand the concept of jaywalking. When crossing against the light, you do not have the right-of-way. Period. It is therefore the responsibility of the jaywalker to execute the maneuver without interrupting traffic flow. This is extremely easy to do; there are cities of millions where everyone does it well. Anything else is not jaywalking, it's being an idiot/asshole. You keep trying to conflate the two, but you are wrong.

"That was a cute invented explanation, but that's nonsense."

Except that it's not. And nowhere with a jaywalking culture is it quite as hard to turn left or right in this city?

When I jaywalk -- which I do, in Seattle, proudly -- I'm one less person clogging the intersection at the next light.

Seattle drivers, as you admit, need to pay better attention and need to grow some balls. But don't blame that on me needing to get somewhere on foot.

"And I'm sorry but jaywalking tickets ≠ Fascism."

No, not literally Fascism. But when you have four cops dedicated to a jaywalking sting while a broad-daylight drug-related shooting happens 40 feet away, your city's priorities are way fucked up!

76
(I accidentally posted that only half-way proofed for typos, and there's a whole bunch of mid-edit sentence-structural inconsistency.)
77
You know that mass of pedestrians that builds up on a major street corner, only to flood the street when the light becomes green and fill every inch of the crosswalk for the entire walk cycle? You know that line of cars waiting to turn right or left, often blocking straight-heading vehicles and growing impatient until they floor it through as the light changes back to red? That all exists thanks to the anti-jaywalking culture. It's simple math -- if some of those people had jaywalked, there'd be less of a critical mass when the light actually changed. There'd be gaps in the pedestrian monolith to allow cars to make their turns -- in New York and Boston, any size gap is acceptable -- and all manner of traffic gets to flow better as a result.
So freaking true. And so impossible to explain or change without repopulating the city. And I HATE IT when cars are halfway down the block and stop abruptly because I step into the intersection with more than enough time to clear it. I'll take care of me, you take care of you.

I think it's really great how willing you two (Wiggette and d.p.) have been to engage in civil conversation -- it's a rare sight on Slog!
78
@75: I read more of your post and have to just solemnly disagree with one statement: " I have not been to a more pedestrian-friendly city in the US. I've not been to every city, but I've been to a lot, and Seattle is one of the most respectful of pedestrians as far as drivers go."

This might be true compared to a major city-like L.A. or midsized hell holes in the Southwest, but compared to San Francisco or any major Northeastern city, Seattle is somewhere between pedestrian neutral and pedestrian hostile. There are a fair number of lights where no pedestrian movement is allowed for a good chunk of the cycle. And then sidewalk maintenance during extreme weather is al but ignored. There are better ways to do these things. Seattle is not the most pedestrian-unfriendly town by far, but it is also far from being the best.
79
@77 & @78:

Thanks for backing me up... I had wondered if anyone else was still reading this! It was kind of nice to discover that Wiggette wasn't just being contrary, but had simply not experienced enough "functional jaywalking" in his/her lifetime to understand it. (I have no idea if I've made any dent in that blockage.)

That statement with which you disagreed was actually me quoting Wiggette @74... which I then strongly disputed, noting the absence of pedestrian activity in much of Seattle much of the time.

I think you're right to put Seattle about halfway on the pedestrian-friendly-to-pedestrian-hostile scale, at least culturally. But SDOT is downright hostile. As is often the case in Seattle, there's a painful disconnect between what we call our priorities and what the implementation reveals.
80
@79: I've been following this because the topic is very near and dear to my heart. I agree with you about SDOT, and your frustration with it as a microcosm of the larger issue with "progressivism" here. We pay a lot of lip service to the idea, but at the end of the day the Northwest tends towards some very reactionary, near-fascist attitudes about following the rules and resisting change. It's so difficult to discuss because so much of the Northwest's self image is based upon its liberalism, that people here can't understand that they're actually deeply resistant to change and incredibly submissive to authority figures, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for fighting the good fight.
81
It's just so damned dispiriting, Judgmentalist.

I sometimes imagine myself opening a dictionary and showing the definition of the word "progressive" to the entirety of Seattle -- or maybe a brief history of the Bull Moose Party or the Progressive Party of Canada -- and watching it get all collectively droopy-faced as its defining self-image crumbles to dust.

I mean, even if you bargain down from idealistic "progressivism" to pragmatic "liberalism," where's the justification for it?

Is it because they think they're down they are with the gays? Seattle has led on not a single one of the major gay-rights victories of the last few years, the marriage issue hasn't come anywhere near the table in this state, and Capitol Hill seems more like a coming-out party from the late '80s -- loud, proud, and uninteresting -- than a mature and nuanced gay culture of today.

Is it because they're nominally anti-war? This region fought hard to make sure Boeing won its contract for a patently unnecessary mid-air refueling tanker. And to give Boeing extra tax breaks while they were at it.

And then there's race. This one's a little tricky to talk about, but Seattle is 30 years behind the rest of the country, and you can see it in the public image of its black population.

Seattle so completely marginalizes its underprivileged minorities -- out of sight, out of culture, out of the economy -- that you hardly ever see a black person in the public realm who isn't playing a stereotype from Death Wish 3. When I go back to Chicago or to any northeast city, it's so refreshing to be reminded that the U.S. in 2011 is full of black people who aren't fighting outside the subway entrance or trying to sell you drugs.

Meanwhile, Seattle's white population shows its true colors any time school redistricting comes up. Its virulently segregationist drive on that topic reminds me of Boston in the '70s. Do you know what place isn't like Boston in the '70s? Boston today.

If Seattleites bothered to look and learn, they'd discover that parts of the countryare leaps and bounds ahead of them on every cherished "progressive issue." Sadly, the only thing more inflated than this city's sense of its own progressivism is its sense of its own intelligence. There's zero intellectual curiosity here, so nothing is ever learned.

82
@81: I remember the first time I visited Seattle before I moved here and I knew something felt off but I couldn't put my finger on it. The second to last day when I saw three latina schoolgirls running downtown speaking in Spanish, and it dawned on me that I hadn't seen anyone who wasn't "white" for the last five days. This was back in 2003-2004 and I think things are better now, but we're still miles behind many other "progressive" American cities.

And ummm... this is amazing:
and Capitol Hill seems more like a coming-out party from the late '80s -- loud, proud, and uninteresting -- than a mature and nuanced gay culture of today.
There are exceptions, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
83
I got one today. The police officer told me quote "We don't do that here". I don't know what he is implying or maybe I do. I am from Lima, Peru, meaning I am a foreigner.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.