Now that SDOT has recommended the Broadway streetcar route, Mayor Mike McGinn has until Tuesday, April 6 to make his proposal recommendation to the City Council, which members will then have to approve.
Assuming the Broadway streetcar route is a go, the next major decision to be made concerns street design. Seattle Transit Blog has a look at the three proposed Broadway configurations (here’s a .pdf of the images):
* 4-Lane: two travel lanes in each direction, shared outside lanes with bicyclist, 1 parking lane
* 3-Lane: one travel lane in each direction, center turn lane, bike lanes in each direction, 1 parking lane
* 2-Lane: one travel lane in each direction, bi-directional cycle track, 2 parking lanes
- Broadway Avenue wtih cycle track
The most exciting option, the last one, (posted at right—click to enlarge) was proposed by the Capitol Hill Community Council and reconfigures the street in a way that promotes both streetcar and bicycle commuting, instead of just tacking them on as alternatives to driving. It also separates cyclists from traffic with a barrier of parked cars, and keeps them off sidewalks. Obviously, this option is the most safe and commuter-friendly for cyclists, and fits nicely into Seattle’s master plan of becoming the “most bike-friendly city in the nation.”
If the Broadway streetcar route is approved, construction is slated to begin in fall 2011, with operations beginning in fall 2013.
I’m all for option #3 … and I really hope that they can find the $$ to extend the line to Aloha st like the community wants …
this would also help future Broadway – Pike/Pine Street routes to be converted to trams in the future as well
I like the cycle-track option. I’ve seen that other places have used this. It seems like a good idea to me.
Next step is to run the Streetcar from Broadway, down Olive, all the way to 1st to meet up with the Central Streetcar with a connection to the SLUT.
Interesting layout. I wonder how the buses fit into this? Will only diesel buses be able to run this route, or can the electric trolleybuses also use it after the conversion?
As much as I find streetcars a silly waste of money that’d be better spent on more frequent trolley bus service, I do think that this route will see far higher ridership than the SLUT.
It’s bad enough dodging cars on Broadway, but I think it will be just as bad being trapped in a bike track, dodging oncoming cyclists and pedestrians exiting their cars to the sidewalk. I think cyclists will have to go much slower in the track, and making left turns and such off Broadway will be such a pain! The track is just going to make biking Broadway a pain in the ass. I for one would elect to just ride in the car lane. Bike lanes are a better option.
If any of you are interested in making the 3rd design a reality, feel free to contact the CHCC. They put out a general call for volunteers at the monthly meeting last week specifically relating to the Streetcar Project and I’m sure they still have lots of work needing to be done.
http://www.capitolhillcommunitycouncil.org
Option 3 sounds like a clusterfuck. It will require cyclists to cross two-way traffic when making a turn. Option 2 sounds the best. Option 1 pretty much pisses off everyone.
Option three is a mixed bag, but the other two are insufficient. Interestingly, I’ve experienced both of the main features in the third design, but they don’t exist anywhere in the same city. Not like this.
The placement of bike lanes together is welcomed by many transportation planners as a way to make it feel safer for a wider citizenry to use bicycles as a mode choice. Gil Peñalosa, brother of the Bogota mayor who introduced bus-rapid transit and a host of other multi-modal transportation solutions to his city, notes how bicycling isn’t safe for anyone if it’s not safe for your child or your elderly grand/parent.
The downside? There are two. Some cyclists, like drivers, move faster than others, which is problematic when everyone is collected into a narrow lane per direction (aka, the left side of that schematic in the posting). The other is that the solutions for signalling whether the cyclists must go or stop have to be treated differently than the traffic signals for cars. This is a problem you see in Montréal, where these offset bike lanes are used: a separate traffic light signal is used for cyclists. Each intersection is programmed differently, leading to cyclist (and driver) confusion. Montréal, unlike most places, has a “no right on red” rule city-wide, but accidents still do happen with alarming frequency. In Seattle, if both the cyclists and the parallel car traffic are both going with a green signal, problems arise when a driver wants to hang a right directly into the oncoming bikes. There will be serious injuries and property damage unless drivers are only permitted to turn when cyclists are signalled to be stopped.
The other is the problem of cars and street cars sharing the same lane. Toronto does this and has so for over 80 years. It is also the main thing Torontonians want to see changed one way or the other. For public transit users, cars trying to make an unprotected left delay the streetcars — sometimes by ten minutes or more, resulting in two and even three streetcars going to the same destination being bumper to bumper with one another. For car commuters who don’t like using public transit, they hate being delayed by people boarding and leaving the streetcars, flaring short tempers. The city has been looking at ways to change this road design flaw, especially since they’re about to replace the entire streetcar fleet.
So for the third design for Capitol Hill, the safest solution might also be the toughest. It would result in moving the on-street parking to municipal pay parking garages every couple of blocks (underground, obviously), with the car driving lanes all to their own at centre, and the streetcars off to the side opposite the bike lanes. Drivers would be able to take protected right and left turns (or none at all, depending on the design). Transit users boarding the streetcars would embark/disembark on station “islands” placed between the rights-of-way for both street cars.
And yeah, I was cursed with a planning education at one point in my life.
What a waste of public space. instead of bike lanes they should ad another lane for traffic.
Bike lanes are retarded people. Bikes should stay on the sidewalk.
3…2….1….
@9: The entire planning community knows better than you, Jeff. The era of private car use forcing all other ways to be its second fiddle when moving about a city is over and gone.
That’s right. It’s over.
Two-way cycle track? Weird. Never used this kind of layout before.
I’m a long-time bicycle commuter, and I appreciate Telsa’s analysis. Option 3 seems problematic. Too many conflicts when any of the users want to change direction…
Why no option to just remove private cars from Broadway altogether? 😉
I think this “cycle track” is going to get people killed when bikes try to turn. Plus, you’re going against a hundred years of traffic management. Complicated new rules and procedures = clusterfuck. Bikes are vehicles, make them — and let them — operate as vehicles.
Getting rid of parking lanes is incredibly stupid and counterproductive. Parked cars provide the only buffer between the peds on the sidewalk and moving cars. Sidewalks without a parking lane buffer are going to be evacuated; no business will be able to survive.
But then, I assume that whatever plan the city picks, it will be the wrong one, and it will be implemented in the most confusing way possible. Expect to see thirty new traffic signs per block, half of which will be entirely new designs never seen by any driver before, with conflicting messages (like “stop here for peds” with a stop sign, that actually means “go” unless there’s a ped in the walk, which was already the goddamn rule).
Telsa,
IF you are trusting a bunch of pencil-pushing morans to inform you, then I fear you’ve already lost the argument.
Take it to the road. If you think bikes are safer on the road than on the sidewalk then I’d like to introduce you to this guy:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Long time bike commuter:
Lanes that place the cyclist between the sidewalk and a parking lane are a nightmare. You have passengers exiting in to bike traffic with no room to dodge, which greatly increases the number of doorings. You have people wandering in and out of the bike lane, as they need to cross it to get to cars, jaywalk, whatever.
What would be ideal is to remove the parking lane on the side with the protected bike path, and replace it with a center turning lane. This would remove many of the hazards to cyclists, as well as provide a turning lane to ease passage of street cars.
Hey, I know this is off topic, but will both sides of the street on the new NE 45th Street viaduct have sidewalks/bike lanes (although that looks like a super-hard stretch to bike anyways)?
@13: “…problems arise when a driver wants to hang a right directly into the oncoming bikes. There will be serious injuries and property damage unless drivers are only permitted to turn when cyclists are signalled to be stopped.”
This is already the situation, as bikes ride to the right of traffic. I don’t see it as a problem, just part of how traffic flows. Since I’m on a bike, I make sure I’m not about to get the right hook from a driver at every intersection. At least with the parking moved to the left, I wouldn’t have to worry about people trying to zip in and out of parking spots all the time.
@13- “Getting rid of parking lanes is incredibly stupid and counterproductive. Parked cars provide the only buffer between the peds on the sidewalk and moving cars. Sidewalks without a parking lane buffer are going to be evacuated; no business will be able to survive.”
Businesses that rely on people being able to park close by may suffer, but I can think of thousands of places I’ve been that didn’t have a car buffer and people still used the sidewalk.
Some reference photos of interest:
Bike traffic light signal, Montréal (located on one of these offset bike lane arrangements.
Toronto Transit street cars, in two-lane (with side parking) traffic and stuck in traffic.
@14: I trust myself, pumpkin.
I trust my experience as a driver (for over twenty years), a bicyclist (for over thirty years), and as a pedestrian. I trust the field research I’ve helped facilitate and aggregate as a scholar and as a transportation user. I trust my primary field observations of several major cities across the U.S., North America, and the world over. I trust what works and I discount what does not.
It’s unfortunate to hear that a bicyclist was killed by a dump truck. Unfortunately, it does happen. It happens, however, with far less statistical frequency than vehicular-vehicular fatalities — often on the order of several ten thousand car fatalities to a couple of hundred bicycle fatalities per annum in the U.S. alone. Bicycle-bicycle fatalities are practically unknown.
I’m not surprised you chose to draw attention to the statistical minority and not to the norm, as doing so seems to vet your case. It doesn’t.
#19,
And yet when you ask the cyclist at #15 they disagree.
STAY OFF MY ROAD!
Option #3: cyclist vs. motorist-getting-out-of-their-car collisions in 5…4…3…2…POW!!
What do I disagree with exactly?
I wish everybody who rode a bike was comfortable riding in traffic and experienced enough to do it safely. But they’re not and they’re not. Protected bike lines encourage more people to bike, which is good. In cases where protected bike lanes are thronged you’ll often see faster or more experienced cyclists continuing to ride in the street. Obviously that won’t be an option here, as riding parallel to trolley tracks is a terrifying route to eventual pain.
@17: By amending zoning provisions to require specific street corners every two to three city blocks to include a subterranean public pay parking garage as part of a developer’s plan (i.e., mixed-use street retail/condo structure), the issue of businesses suffering is negated. This is already the reality in the centres of most major cities, and the worry about walking a couple of blocks to the shops is really a non-starter.
If someone presently parking on the street goes shopping, they first lose time looking and circulating the block until a spot frees up, and while they’re parked, they’re also disposed to make the most of the paid parking time by collecting their errands together as much as possible. Underground city parking at every other block or so would make the parking effort much easier, much quicker, and even protect the car (and driver) from the elements, particularly on crappy days. Data show that businesses can actually experience a boost from this changed parking format.
What motivation does a developer have to include this kind of parking? Two nerdy planning concepts: transfer of development rights and bonus zoning. One is a credit/trading system of sorts, while the other is a quid pro quo cities use with developers to effect the best outcome for both parties. Example: “City council will let you add two floors, but you must also provide us with two floors of underground public parking.” If the developer wants those floors, they’ll bite on the council’s offer.
@20: I sense you’re not able to contribute anything meaningful to this discussion.
You may find interest on reading about the wars between the “joy-riders” and the “jay-walkers” in 1890s-1920s America. You’ll learn that two-way streets were designed for carriages, not cars, and that aggregate pavement was invented and used in cities for the safety bicycle, not the automobile. You’ll even learn what a “jay” really is and in what city the term “jay-walker” was created and made into road signage by about 1930.
What history explains is that what seems set in stone is subject to change — and does change. You fight a losing battle here, Jeff. I don’t need to convince you. I know it’s already underway — whether you’re aboard or not.
Oh Telsa, I’ve already won. Trolling you idiots is easy.
I’m off to the car wash, gotta get the F250 shined up. Critical Mass is tonight!
If there was a cycletrack I would ignore the cycletrack in the interests of moving faster and avoiding the many minor collisions that would spring up in a limited 10 foot space which is not nearly as wide as you would guess.
You can be DAMN sure I wouldn’t use a cycletrack while moving in a contraflow direction. Is there going to be a dedicated right turn signal for bikes?
Also, I look forward to getting shit about riding in the traffic lanes when there’s a cycletrack. As Jeff so aptly demonstrates, people who know absolutely nothing about bicycles and urban bike riding are often the most annoyingly vocal about their blatant ignorance, especially from anonymous positions like web forums and automobile seats.
I still say a zipline would have been way more fun.
I’ll just console myself with the knowledge that Jeff’s F-250 is the most dangerous vehicle on the road, thus increasing the likelihood of his getting crushed in a crash or rollover. Ford trucks survive crashes much worse than even tiny cars like the Mini, and they roll over if you so much as look at them. Jeff won’t be much of a threat to bicyclists or other motorists when he’s a nonresponsive double amputee.
@26: Yeah, contraflow is a big problem. They make me nervous.
@25: That was also one of the weakest efforts at trolling I’ve ever seen.
Your F-250 will help balance your lopsidedness. Frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t spring for the F-350 Triton V-10 with Diesel “Power Stroke” Injection. Your pushrod needs all the help you can give it.
I’m pretty sure Jeff was joking about riding on the sidewalks, you humorless pinhead. Trolling on a bike thread is pretty easy.
#30,
And yet you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Game. Set. Match.
Don’t forget, CRITICAL MASS IS TONIGHT! 5:30 p.m. at West Lake Center. I will be the one with the Sarah Palin bumper stickers plastered over the tailgate.
@32: OMG, wow, you did! You got me real good there, Jeff! You sly bastard, you! OMG, lookit there, you’re even holding the Mentos roll, and I’m here shaking my head because you’re holding the Freshmaker™! Awwwwh.
I’d love to shake your hand tonight and bring you some Turtle Wax, but being several time zones away makes that sort of impossible. So take pictures of tonight’s body count and post them somewhere like Photobucket, and for me it’ll feel almost like being there next to you while you’re on down your knees, removing skin and hair from the rivets on your chrome bumper.
#33,
You got trolled from several time zones away on a Seattle website in a thread devoted to Seattle transportation plans?
I say to you: GOOD DAY, SIR.
@34: *snicker*
I’m a woman. I know, I know, it’s unfathomable that I actually use my brain for higher-level functions like learning. And though a former resident of Cap Hill, I still vote in Seattle elections. I probably cancel out your ballot for all I know.
Or wait, maybe not. Spanaway’s in Pierce County.
City / Percentage[of people that commute by bicycle]
bikecommutetips.blogspot.com
Portland / 3.5
Minneapolis / 2.4
Seattle / 2.3
Tucson / 2.2
San Francisco / 1.8
Sacramento / 1.8
Would someone care to answer why 2.3% of anything gets a say in city planning?
Just build the damn roads, despite what fixie riding hipsters want. They are going to ride wherever and however the fuck they want anyway. Best strategy is to set a weekly quota of hit bicyclist. That way one can slowly reduce congestion, by limiting the number of bikes on the road. Now that is a traffic plan.
@9: You’ve never ridden a bike on the sidewalk have you? If you had you’d know that it’s a no go trying to dodge pedestrians. I love people who make suggestions for a mode they don’t use like they know what’s best for those of us who do use bikes. You probably don’t walk further than 20 feet either do you?
How are the street sweepers going to deal with the cyclepaths?
@32 I didn’t see your pink Univega there at westlake center. Perhaps you were flying your troll-acopter. Maybe you we’re getting ready for your dance party. See you there on thursday next week though? Boom!
My University had streets laid out like this– with sidewalk, bike paths in both directions, then street. I never understood why, but the hard core bicyclists were adamant that it was dangerous.
They insisted that the safest arrangement was for cyclists to take a full lane of traffic. I seem to recall it had something to do with visibility during left turns.
(I biked all the time and it never bothered me. Though you had to watch for pedestrians blindly stepping into the bike lane, or not realizing they had to look both ways)
@36: You don’t need a planning education. You don’t even need a bachelor degree. You should just become a planner. No wait, you should become a transportation planner. No, wait, I’m really kidding.
Planning is not a democratic process, not directly so. It’s planning based on documented trends vetted by collected data over time, implementing council-adopted policies, implementing new state and federal law into the urban morphology, and holistically seeing the way all people use the city.
@38: There are sidewalk sweepers that can be adapted fairly easily to handle combined bike lanes offset by bollards or concrete berm. They would have to do this late at night, much like with many city sanitation services.
@40: I’m on the fence about them. I feel that for more ginger, hesitant cyclists wanting to seriously consider bicycling as a mode choice, it can be (and has been) a benefit. For seasoned riders, however — for purpose of this discussion, this would exclude the “fixters” — this inclusion should not preclude or replace the option of right-of-way with flow of motorized vehicle traffic. For the seasoned rider, given their experience with sharing the road with cars, and given the conditions specific to that setting (differing from the combined bike lanes, like with your university or with Montréal), it can be more hazardous for both those cyclists and for those cyclists still gaining confidence (sometimes wobbly, sometimes not).
Pedestrians, on the other hand, are only as safe as the biggest distraction in their hand or ear.
@41 “Planning is not a democratic process, not directly so. It’s planning based on documented trends vetted by collected data over time, implementing council-adopted policies, implementing new state and federal law into the urban morphology, and holistically seeing the way all people use the city.”
You realize you didnt really say anything here. You just strung together a bunch of big words, with implementing salted in.
All governance is democratic. If you follow your logic to its end, you have lawmakers predicting the future(through vetting documented trends, and implementing council adopted new state and federal blah blah blah) and then creating laws based on those predictions. I am going to guess you believe government is the answer to all your problems as well? But for arguments sake, lets use your logic. Lawmakers are planning based on predictions. So if Seattle lawmakers are giving bicycles more than 2% of the road, does that mean they have evidence to suggest that bicycle ridership is going to go up? Because historically bicycling is at a plateau.
PS. I have worked in Olympia for three or so years now, and I have never heard a lawmaker use the term Urban Morphology.
Riding the wrong way is a sure way to get killed. Worst is that cyclists vision and drivers are blocked by a row of parked cars. The only way this would be safe is for separate signaling which would be a huge waste of money. And you still have a hell of a time trying to cross all traffic lanes.
“I wish everybody who rode a bike was comfortable riding in traffic and experienced enough to do it safely. But they’re not and they’re not.” That’s why there are places like the Burke Gilman. If you’re going to operate a vehicle in DT traffic then you need to be proficent at operating said vehicle, be it a Metro Bus or a bicycle.