So it looks like the city is finally doing something about the curb cut—for bikes—on southbound side of the Ballard Bridge. Eli Sanders described riding over the Ballard Bridge and using the old curb cut in a feature published back in April of 2005:
This curb cut that Hiller and I are now staring at is meant to integrate riders back into traffic after they have ridden the gangplank south across the bridge. It forces bikers to merge almost perpendicularly into traffic that is going 40 miles per hour. Much of this traffic wants to turn right a few feet beyond the curb cut, directly across the biker’s path. If a biker makes it past this merge and turn alive, he or she is on 15th Avenue West, a howling road with no bike lane that connects to Elliott Avenue West, another howling road with no bike lane that leads into downtown.
The new curb cut will deliver cyclists more directly and efficiently into the paths of speeding cars turning right on to W. Emerson St. at the south end of the Ballard Bridge—which most do without signaling—and that’s some improvement, I suppose. Here’s a picture of the already-in-progress curb cut:
Hooray.
But you know what? The curb cut is least the Ballard Bridge’s shortcomings. If the city were serious about making the Ballard Bridge safe for cyclists it would do something about the insanely narrow, insanely dangerous sidewalks/bikepaths/gangplanks that line either side of the bridge. Two cyclists can’t pass each other going in opposite directions; a pedestrian walking across the bridge has to squeeze against the railing to let cyclists pass. Those sidewalks are a huge disincentive for the experienced cyclists and they probably keep hundreds of people who live in Ballard and work in downtown Seattle from even considering commuting by bike.
And a city that was serious about encouraging bike commuting would do something—something like dedicated bike paths—about 15th Avenue West too.
It’s straight shot from Ballard to downtown Seattle; there are no hills, it’s nice and flat the whole way. If someone was thinking about moving to Seattle from, say, Tacoma because their offices were relocating to downtown Seattle, and that person wanted to bike to work but wasn’t a hard-core cyclist—he didn’t want to climb Capitol Hill or Queen Anne every day on the way home from work—Ballard would be the obvious choice… if Ballard Bridge was safe to bike and if there was a dedicated bike lane along 15th Avenue West all the way to downtown Seattle.
Build it, Seattle, and more folks will ride.
i wouldn’t be holding my breath.
Two cyclists can’t pass each other going in opposite directions;
Ummm, aren’t they supposed to ride with traffic? The east side being northbound and the west side of the bridge being southbound?
I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the city of Seattle is not serious about any sort of sustainable transportation. I’m pretty sure I’m going to be too old to ride a bike by the time we catch up with other cities.
@2: Yes, they are. But sometimes people ride north on the southbound side. And pedestrians are allowed to walk in either direction on either side. And it’s too narrow, basically, for more than one person to use at one time. Which is nuts.
Or we could extend light rail to Ballard.
So we should tear down and rebuild the Ballard Bridge because bicycling is so much more economical and better for the planet?
What’s the carbon impact of rebuilding a perfectly good bridge, anyway? Oh, and how much would that cost?
I get the fact that the bridge sucks for bicyclists but what exactly is the solution being offered? Oh, I know. Close a lane and give it to the bicyclists? Good luck with that one.
People who ride north on the southbound side should be ticketed, simple as that.
But yeah, the Ballard Bridge is probably the most dangerous death trap for cyclists I’ve ever seen (literally; I knew the man who died there). I think they should get bikes off the path entirely, and into the lane (where you have exactly the same legal right to ride as any car). It’s a bad solution, but it’s better than the alternative, which is if anything even worse than you describe.
this bridge is totally scary to bike or walk on, even if everyone is following rules.
Also…this just came in on today’s Clue Train:
If you have to be a hard core cyclist to navigate the hills and waterways that are found everywhere in Seattle, restricting you to only one bridge even if it is unsafe, maybe muscle-powered transport is a less than optimal solution for this city.
Just saying.
I hate crossing that bridge even when there are no cyclists. I like at least a little buffer between traffic and myself, and there’s virtually none.
@4 totally too narrow for a bike and pedestrian. i used to have to catch my bus right below the nickerson overpass heading downtown. jumping out of the way to avoid someone speeding towards with nowhere to go but the bushes should be something a cyclist can empathize with!
Good post. Now get Jonah to get McGinn to issue his plan for fixing this, stat!
“wasn’t a hard-core cyclist—he didn’t want to climb Capitol Hill or Queen Anne every day on the way home from work”
It’s no big deal. (As a now 60-year old who’s been doing it for many years). Get some gears and follow the example of the sailboats and tack: uphill for a block, round the hill for a block (and a rest), repeat till done. And you get (for free) all the exercise that others give their $$ to health clubs for.
Bonus: cycling past all the crawling/stationary traffic on I-5! Extra bonus: making faces at Jim Forman as he broadcasts traffic news from the I-5 overpass.
Ballard – Burke-Gilman Trail – Fremont Bridge – Westlake or Dexter – Downtown.
Ballard – Locks – Government Way – 15th – Downtown.
I just got you between Ballard and downtown on your bike two different ways without using the Ballard Bridge. Quit whining.
There are 2 good, safe routes from/to Ballard, but they do require extra distance and a little hill climbing: Dexter Ave (the easier one, hill-wise), and through Magnolia on Gilman Ave (after walking your bike through the locks) and on through Myrtle Edwards park.
A bike path on 15th would be ideal, I agree. People who ride that way now (there are some) will not live long.
@6 – Portland added much wider sidewalks to its existing Hawthorne Bridge, without tearing anything down, about ten years ago; it’s now a very busy bike route.
We shouldn’t have to *replace* the Ballard Bridge to make it safer for all users.
The locks are not an acceptable alternative to the Ballard Bridge; walking your bike across the locks is a huge stinking pain in the ass, especially when it’s mobbed with tourists, it’s closed between 9 PM and 7 AM.
I agree with @11.
And, @15, there isn’t much of a hill to contend with going through the Locks and Magnolia. That is a great way to get downtown, with bike lanes the entire way (and much less car traffic than the Ballard Bridge).
@16
You do know we’re talking about a drawbridge, right?
But maybe you know something about the engineering work of adding a wider sidewalk to the Ballard Bridge. If so, please share. I’d be happy support it if it were affordable.
Actually, they’re not doing the curb cut: http://www.myballard.com/2009/09/10/deci…
Portland’s Hawthorne Bridge is also a drawbridge. They figured it out.
Look, other than the lift mechanism of draw bridges, a wider sidewalk will add very very little to the total draw weight of any bridge. The amount of substructure to support it is incredibly minimal. Back when I built these things we didn’t even factor them into load calculations, it was that small (and way below standard tolerance levels).
So long as you’re not making it wide enough for a Mini, that is.
@19 Hawthorne bridge in Portland has a vertical lift to allow boats to pass. That’s at least as complicated as a draw bridge, I’d guess. I’m not an engineer, though.
Here we go.
The Hawthorne Bridge rehabilitation cost $22 million in 1998-98. Which would be about $28 million in 2009 dollars. Assuming you are willing to say the two bridges are comparable but I haven’t seen anything saying they are.
The Hawthorne Bridge was also closed for a year while they worked on it. I’m sure the Ballard Bridge could be closed for a year without anybody objecting.
I guess the work could be sped up. At much higher cost of course, but a million here a million there, who’s counting?
Tell me again, David Hiller, why you endorsed Greg Nickels for mayor…
Another thing.
If you gave $30 million to the bicyclists of Seattle, they’d never agree to spend it all on one bridge on one route. They’d want at least $300 million spend all over the whole city, and no more than a tenth of that could then go to the 15th street route.
And then, after you’d spend hundreds of millions on bicycle infrastructure, you’d get what Portland got: 5% of commuters go by bike. Five percent for all that money.
I am a dedicated bicyclist. I ride everywhere. I also spend a lot of time trying to convince friends and relatives to ride their bicycles. These experiences have led me to believe that the main result of eliminating “excuses” is the creation of new ones.
Most people don’t ride bikes because it’s hard and they don’t have to. Two extra feet on the Ballard bridge is not going to change that.
this is one of the reasons i LOVE the University/Eastlake/11th ave/Roosevelt bridge…which i use on a daily basis…Ballard should have the equivalent!
Burke-Gillman trial (from under the Ballard Bridge) to Fremont Bridge to (the freshly paved) South Lake Union route parallel to Westlake is a much better way to get into downtown anyway.
Dan, I don’t think you realize the existence of the Interbay bike trail which then connects with the trail that runs all the way through Myrtle Edwards Park. The Interbay trail is a little bit narrow and weird, as it runs between chain-link fences through the train yard, but this combination of trails does connect downtown to pretty deep in Interbay (not all the way to the Ballard bridge, unfortunately) without requiring the biker to spend one second on city streets. And it’s totally flat.
The bridge, on the other hand, is a huge problem. And short of a massive capital project, there are not any great solutions. Even those cool elevated options south of the bridge cost millions of dollars AND do nothing to address the hazards that a biker faces actually making their way across the bridge on that poor excuse for a sidewalk. But car dependence is so ingrained in the Seattle psyche that voters probably won’t support bike projects on the scale that would be needed to make the ballard bridge bike friendly.
I’m coming to realize that the problem with bike infrastructure in Seattle stems not from the politicians and SDOT folks so much as it stems from the popular sentiment. We saw during the election what happens to politicians who are seen as impinging on Seattleites’ ability to drive everywhere whenever they want (read: handling of the snowpocalypse). And channeling money from roads to a big bike project will be portrayed as an equally unforgivable sin. So the best thing a bike-loving citizen can do for this town is to get their friends, family and neighbors out of their cars once in a while and on a bike. We gotta start from the bottom up.
Or, you could have a bike tax and build your own fucking bridge.
What the hell is your problem, elenchos? Did a bicyclist kill your mom?
How much does the city spend on car infrastructure/pedestrian infrastructure/mass transit? Do bikes get 5% of that?
Biking in Portland as of August 2009.
Bicycles make up 20 percent of daily traffic on the Hawthorne Bridge and more than 8 percent of daily commuters are going primarily by bike (another 10 percent occasionally).
@34, what about in December, eh? Of course everybody’s bicycling in August.
What is your problem, dwight moody? Did your mom always run out and buy you whatever you wanted no matter how much money it cost?
I would be happy to vote for retrofitting the Ballard Bridge, if it pencils out. Is it too much to ask to see what is the plan and how much it’s going to cost? Is there even a plan?
Jesus, excuse me, kim. 8 percent. EIGHT percent! Sometimes ten. Wow.
But if you’re going to tout the days when it is sometimes 10%, then can I ask how many days it’s only 3? It still doesn’t sound like much gain in return for all the money they spent. Nothing like getting serious about building trains.
I am going to “champion” a new bike tax, stop begging for tax dollars bike riders, own your own path, to hell with having to share the road, buy your own road!
I just need to greenwash the words so you think you are getting something for nothing.
Urban urbanists, unite! Deticated taxes can not be used for less important things.
Ok, 10% cyclists, 602,000 people, hmmm, you are going to need an pvet of about $120 a year for a few decades for this bicycle only bridge. No problem, let’s get that on the ballot asap.
Ah, sounds like you guys are having some of the same problems we’ve been having with Burrard Bridge up in Van. We’re making small steps there at least.
Wow, Elenchos.
I wasn’t even talking to you, when scanning I saw that the Hawthorne Bridge was mentioned. That was the reason for my comment, because bikers make up 20% of the traffic on it.
Anyhow, have a good evening.
MrBaker yer a dumbass. Roads are, in large part, paid for out of the general fund to which everyone who owns property contributes (as well as the gas tax) Including cyclists! Why shouldn’t I, as a cyclist, get a share of my taxes paid to cycling infrastructure considering I almost never drive. Why should my taxes to go you for FREE just so you can drive a car.
Your argument is bullshit.
Amen to a bicyclable Ballard Bridge AND 15th St./Elliot Way thoroughfare.
@9 – There is more than one viable bridge for bicyclists. The Montlake, University and Fremont bridges are all perfectly bicyclable. And if you don’t mind the vertigo, Aurora Bridge can be fun too. I’d just try to stay off the I-5 Express Lanes at rush hour if I were you.
@28 – You’re right. Two extra feet on either side of the B’lard Bridge isn’t going to convince anyone to ride if they already don’t. But it sure will make those of us who do ride MUCH happier with a new, safe route.
While we’re dreaming, why not do just a little bit of shoulder paving work on Shilshole Ave NW (btwn the Fred Meyer and Ballard Ave) so that bikers don’t risk their necks in that corridor. Such a simple easy fix, it would seem.
How about a symbolic bike tab tax.
Btw, the gas tax is not general fund in the same way base sales tax is. Gas tax is collected for a particular reason and MUST be spent on roads and transportation, dumbass.
If the state coulda, they woulda, punted most transportation projects down the road, but that there gas tax money CAN NOT be scooped up into paying teachers and healthcare workers.
As a side note, any attempt to, again, take the hotel tax used for the Convention Center because the state woulda ended up in court and woulda LOST, because that there Wash Constitution says some mishmash of words that amount to specific taxes collected for a specific purpose must be spent on that thing.
Directly participating in that specific fund, even symbolicly, should provide more leverage.
City general fund money is subject to 10 mayors.
Uh Mr. Baker, #38:
60,000 people x $400 = $24 Million, which is about what the Hawthorne bridge retrofit cost. So it wouldn’t take decades of dedicated taxing at $120 a year under any scenario.
And I think that your idea of a bike tab with a statutory dedication towards cycling infrastructure is a reasonable idea. It would obviously have to be voluntary since it would be unenforceable. But on the other hand, does cycling get anywhere close to 5% of the $122 million SDOT budget, which is funded primarily through property and sales taxes that all seattilites pay?
@31 – Everything you say is true, but forget the Ballard Bridge. That trail hooks up with Thorndyke/Gilman Ave, which has a nice bike lane all the way to the Ballard Locks. Cross there instead of the bridge. You do have to walk your bike across the actual locks, but it’s a very nice walk and takes about 5 minutes.
Re: Ballard Bridge widening
An interesting feature of the Ballard Bridge is that the movable span has wider sidewalks than the rest of the bridge (definitely wide enough for a bike and a pedestrian to be side by side). So, any widening project could skip the moving part, which presumably would be the biggest pain in the ass to do.
Or, if you have your heart set on biking downtown to work every day and don’t want to use one of the alternate routes, maybe don’t consider Ballard as your first choice when shopping for a neighborhood. Last time I checked, no one was forced to live in Ballard and bike to downtown.
MrBaker: Seattle’s roads are paid for via sales taxes and property taxes. When you analyze roadway wear-and-tear vs dollars paid, driver’s are the true freeloaders. Pay up!
@42, bicyclists have access to the bus-only lanes on 15th AVENUE (streets run east-west) during peak hours. And south of the Magnolia Bridge, a bike path runs down the waterfront. What more would you like?
The Ballard Bridge sucks for all users: bikes, pedestrians, and cars. Something about the people going 40+mph coupled with extremely short merge lanes (SE corner) and the right turn onto Emerson (SW corner) don’t make me want to drive there, either.
It’s odd that they can’t find a solution at the SW corner for bikes, though. They should finish the southside ship canal trail, so there’s an easy link to the Terminal 91/Myrtle Edwards Trail. Then pour some asphalt to connect the west sidewalk to said trail. Heck, even pulling out some shrubs would probably be enough to get people to just bomb down the hillside to the road that passes under the bridge connecting Nickerson to 15th.