49 Replies to "West Seattle bicycling: Admiral Way restriping; new bus racks"

• Dick Dailey October 27, 2010 (12:24 pm)

  Another disappointing waste of limited tax dollars. As I recall, there appeared to be adequate road markings on this road.

• M October 27, 2010 (12:25 pm)

  It may be that the video started halfway through but Metro tells you, if both slots are empty, to use the slot furthest from the bus first.

  http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bike/bikeride.html

  • WSB October 27, 2010 (12:51 pm)

    Thanks for the enhancement with the link! I’ll add to the story – TR

• nmb October 27, 2010 (12:29 pm)

  I was going to mention that too. Putting the bike in the slot furthest out from the driver helps the driver gauge distances better from the bike rack to cars in front of the bus (i.e. so the driver doesn’t accidentally pull up too close behind a stopped car and hit it with the rack).

• K October 27, 2010 (12:46 pm)

  It looks like the project plans show two lanes going up Admiral after City View: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/sw_admiral_projectPlanMap.pdf

• JRF October 27, 2010 (1:24 pm)

  The bike loading video also shows incorrect placement of the hold-down arm on the top of the wheel. It should be placed further back, against the frame and/or fork to minimize the rear of the bike bouncing. As shown, nothing but gravity keeps the frame and rear end down.

  If you have a fender, the hold-down should be on top of the fender, right next to the frame. The loading diagrams on the bus show the correct placement.

  And, as already said, load front to back, not back to front.

• JAT October 27, 2010 (2:16 pm)

  Mr Dailey,
  this is a considerably scaled back plan than originally proposed by SDOT, and doesn’t eliminate travel lanes to a “road diet”. The plan as proposed was opposed by some vocal cyclists (including me) who recognize that dedicated bike lanes on fast down hill stretches actually lead to less safe conditions for all road users.

  You say you recall adequate road markings. I assure you this will be an improvement, particularly for pedestrians trying to get to and from the bus stops on the downhill side.; after restriping is completed you won’t be inconvenienced in the least. As for the spending issue, this money was already allocated (even before cycling Mayor took office) and as I mentioned we’re actually saving compared to the original plan.

• dingleberry October 27, 2010 (2:46 pm)

  wow. great idea to eliminate a lane! Traffic sure is going to move efficiently uphill during afternoon and early evening commutes! Get ready West Seattle… commuting uphill in a car on Admiral is going to SUCK! As a cyclist with experience riding up admiral, i say there already is plenty of room! As a cyclist, move to the right. As a car scoot a little to the left in your lane. There is room for a foot or two. Dont be a moron. How about creating a zone parking going up the hill to eliminate the majority of cars which park there with intention to be sold, thus expanding the climbing zone for cyclists!

  “Hopefully we can convert that into a HOV, Bus and bicycle lane (far right lane going downhill) to keep the aggressive drivers from using the right lane to pass all the cooperative drivers and cut in at the bottom of the hill.”

  Really Stu? But this doesnt surprise me to hear this from you. With your Alki Bike and Board and Sustainable West Seattle position, you should be concerned about creating a bike lane in support of promoting cycling and sustainable living, not preventing “aggressive” drivers from driving to the bottom and “cutting” in. Sustainability wise, obviously more commuters should consider cycling. However, this is clearly inconvenient for some. Bike stations would help to alleviate this greatly, not eliminating lanes! Many commuters will not ditch their car no matter how cool, functional and sustainable cycling may be. WEST SEATTLE sustainability, GET ON IT! Seattle does indeed need bike stations!

  Back to Stu’s suggetsion for turning the far right lane into HOV.

  There is already enough room for two lanes of traffic and a bicycle lane. West Seattle doesnt need another bus only lane. This has failed and is failing on the West Seattle Bridge. Eliminating a lane is going to create additional traffic congestion. There are reasons why two lanes are needed for admiral downhill.
  Drivers looking to connect to Avalon at the bottom will be forced to wait in a line backed up to the top of admiral. Take a look at the HOV lane over the west Seattle bridge. Was the intention to get more people to ride the bus, thus alleviating traffic? If so, this has not worked! Traffic going west bound over the west Seattle bridge would move more efficiently if ALL four lanes were open to all vehicles.

• T-Rex October 27, 2010 (3:06 pm)

  All this money spent and I practically need my four wheel drive from the Morgan to the junction.

  Really?????

• nmb October 27, 2010 (3:17 pm)

  Uh, dingleberry… you might want to check JAT and K’s comments above before going on such a rant. The one uphill lane plan was scrapped (much to my chagrin). Your precious 4-lane highway will still exist. Feel free to keep speeding up the hill at 45mph like everyone else currently does.

  • WSB October 27, 2010 (3:20 pm)

    I’ve removed the flagged line regarding the lane configuration – TR

• Eliza October 27, 2010 (4:08 pm)

  Bicycle bicycle bicycle!
  I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle

  I want to ride my bicycle
  I want to ride my bike
  I want to ride my bicycle
  I want to ride it where I like

  Well said Queen!

• GRG October 27, 2010 (4:33 pm)

  I see the bicycle Nazis win another one here at the expense of folks trying to get somewhere in a car. Once bikes start paying car-tab fees and gas tax to justify their expenses they can claim a right to the road, but until then they are feeloaders hindering traffic…(and don’t give me that crap about ‘bike owners also own cars and pay’ by that logic since I own two trucks and four motorcycles I should only pay for one…

• cathyw October 27, 2010 (4:39 pm)

  Not everyone zooms down the right hand lane of the Admiral Way Hill in order to get ahead of the other cars. Personally, I stay in the right hand lane (at 30 mph) to make sure I don’t get slammed head on by some uphill driver drifting in my lane.

• W.S. mavrick October 27, 2010 (4:54 pm)

  theres more wasted money for them damn bikes. I thought the city of seattle was broke, way to go mayor mcschwin

• nmb October 27, 2010 (5:13 pm)

  @GRG: By your logic, we should have no sidewalks in the city until we start requiring pedestrians to become licensed and pay pedestrian tab fees — only then will they have a right to the sidewalk. And how exactly do you expect a cyclist to pay a gas tax — make them stop at a gas station every so often while biking home from work and leave some money on the counter? Get over your tired arguments, Car-Nazis (Godwin’s Law works both ways).

• dingleberry October 27, 2010 (6:00 pm)

  @nmb and All

  “Uh, dingleberry… you might want to check JAT and K’s comments above before going on such a rant. The one uphill lane plan was scrapped (much to my chagrin).”

  great! Thanks for the update. I believe i speak for all people in a vehicle frequenting admiral way in saying, by maintaining all current lanes and adding a bike lane, the more logical solution has been reached. There is hope for Seattle! Why would you want one uphill lane? Besides the obivious, you realize, that by having two lanes, cars (especially larger vehicles like buses) will have even more space to get out of the way of cyclists, and cyclists will have more space to get out of the way of slower climbing cyclists!

  “Your precious 4-lane highway will still exist. Feel free to keep speeding up the hill at 45mph like everyone else currently does.”

  First, im sure you have seen the ridiculous speed check sign at the top of Admiral. If your a Admiral way regular, then you would know 45 mph is steep! Most people who “speed” up admiral travel between 35 and 42. Secondly, now my turn to accuse you of something. I bet you are the type of driver which drives the speed limit, which is fine, but in the left lane, negatively impacting the flow of traffic! OooooOOoo. MOVE RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS. lol. I wish Admiral way was a highway, then while cycling downhill i would not be breaking the speed limit ;)

• GRG October 27, 2010 (6:13 pm)

  @mmb
  Property owners pay property tax to maintain the sidewalk in front of their property. Gas tax is used for roads, supposedly exclusively for roads — if you are going to use the road, pay for it. Show me one tax a bike rider pays to justify and even help cover their demands for exclusive lanes a and striping — just one. How about them paying all the same appropriate fees motorists do — like a license, a tire disposal fee, a tax on oil (for lubricating chains etc), a hazardous waste fee on brake pads… For crying out loud pay SOMETHING. Right now bikes pay NOTHING and this stupid city cowtows to their every whim. When they pay something then and only then can they DEMAND and maybe be justified in the expense they cause.

• mo October 27, 2010 (7:57 pm)

  Next there will be one lane on the West Seattle Bridge for cars and one for exclusively for bikes. Cars may be considered the ‘big bad polluters’ but most are carrying way more people than bikes. And you can’t put a kids car seat or a huge dog on a bike and roll it down Admiral. And who would want to in the dark, cold and rain of morning or evening. I would rather see a lane taken away for more appropriate Seattle mass transit (i.e., light rail) than give an entire lane to bikes.

• redblack October 27, 2010 (8:25 pm)

  @GRG:
  .
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
  .
  you lose. :)

• granny g October 27, 2010 (8:36 pm)

  A few facts about what our taxes pay for:
  .
  Gas taxes only make up 4% of SDOT’s annual budget (and only 0.44% of SDOT’s paving expenditures are paid by gas taxes). The remainder of their budget comes from property taxes, sales taxes (last time I checked, they do charge sales taxes on bikes, bike parts and cycling clothes and accessories), federal grants, etc. Car tab fees pay for a number of programs, including mass-transit projects, emissions testing, DMV staff wages, and, you guessed it, the manufacture of license plates. The point here being that there is absolutely no direct correlation between what users are taxed for and what services these taxes pay for. All cyclists pay sales taxes, many also own cars and many own property. Therefore they *do* pay something for our roads. They have just as much right to use the roads (yes, riding bikes on roads is legal and in most cases required by law) as people who only drive cars — who, by the way, are perfectly welcome to ride bikes on city streets as well.
  .
  Additional, some perspective: SDOT’s assets, valued at $8 billion, include 1,531 lane-miles of aterial roads, 2,412 lane-miles of non-arterial streets, 39 miles of bike lanes (installed on *existing* roads, mind you) and 110 miles of recreational trails (used by cyclists, pedestrians and others). A typical traffic lane is 10-12 feet wide, and a standard bike lane is 5 feet wide. For street parking, add 50% to the arterial number (2 parking lanes on a 4 lane arterial) and 100% for non-arterials (2 parking lanes on a 2 lane street. In terms of area of pavement, bike lane infrastructure represents less than a third of 1% of the total paved area in the City.
  .
  Also consider that bicycle traffic creates zero wear-and-tear on paved roads and zero net pollution or greenhouse gases. Contrast that with vehicular traffic which exerts a tremendous toll on our streets (i.e. potholes that continually need to be repaired), degrades the quality of everyone’s air, and affects the health of the planet. When will car drivers pay a polluters tax to help clean up the air?

• GRG October 27, 2010 (9:37 pm)

  @granny g
  The “saving the planet” argument is as tiresome when it comes to this debate as is the “save the children” argument on just about anything else… fact is bike riders DO NOT pay anything close to what it costs to maintain or build facilities for them, where as vehicle drivers do. Cars are a fact of life, and the holier than though bike crowd has to get that through their thick heads. Their sense of “entitlement” is astounding, not to mention the arrogance — wanting to be treated like vehicles but not wanting to act like vehicles in traffic. I think it’s time for a citizens initiative to make bike owners pay their fair share.

• nmb October 27, 2010 (9:56 pm)

  “How about them paying all the same appropriate fees motorists do — like a license, a tire disposal fee, a tax on oil (for lubricating chains etc), a hazardous waste fee on brake pads… For crying out loud pay SOMETHING.”

  I am a cyclist, but I also drive a car. I pay for car tabs, gas taxes and a fee for a driver’s license just like you.

  I recycle my bike tires at Aaron’s bike shop. They sell/give (?) them to companies that make other products out of the rubber. What happens to all of your massive tires from your 2 trucks and 4 motorcycles?

  I do pay a tax on the oil I use for lube my chains. It’s called a sales tax, which helps pay for roads. I go through a 5-ounce bottle of the stuff about once ever 4 years. I collect the oily gunk from cleaning my chains and take it with my other household hazardous waste to the hazardous waste station at the transfer station, where it is paid for by a surcharge on my city waste collection fees. How many gallons of oil do your 2 trucks and 4 motorcycles go through every year and where does it end up? What is the relative cost to the environment?

  The brake pads for my bike are 1/4″ x 1/4″ x 2″. They are made of rubber and metal and do not contain any hazardous materials. They go in the trash, which I pay for through garbage collection fees. How many brake pads do your 2 trucks and 4 motorcycles go through every year and what do they contain (probably asbestos)? What is the relative cost to the environment?

  How much space does your truck take up on the road and how much space does it need to park on public streets? How much damage does it do to the street because of it’s weight? My bike not create or make potholes worse, and I park my bike indoors. And you want me to pay more to use the street so you can feel like you’re getting a fair shake?

• OP October 27, 2010 (10:03 pm)

  Wasteful.

• rob October 27, 2010 (10:47 pm)

  “fact is bike riders DO NOT pay anything close to what it costs to maintain or build facilities for them, where as vehicle drivers do.”

  what facilities for bike riders are you referring to and what do they cost?

  well over 90% of SDOT’s budget is paid for by taxes that are not gas tax.

  car tab fees contribute $0 to SDOT’s budget.

  what this means is that all citizens in the city paying sales, property, and business taxes are paying for almost all of SDOT’s budget, and a small piece of it is picked up by gas tax.

  that small piece is more than offset in wear and tear caused by the vehicles contributing it.

  if for some reason you feel it is necessary to directly attribute the costs of a resource to the consumers of the resource, why are you ok with motor vehicles directly contributing less than 10% of the funds for a resource you feel should be exclusive to them?

• rob October 27, 2010 (11:03 pm)

  “Next there will be one lane on the West Seattle Bridge for cars and one for exclusively for bikes.”

  There is already one that supports both. Works for people walking or running too.

  “Cars may be considered the ‘big bad polluters’ but most are carrying way more people than bikes.”

  Not quite. A big part of our traffic problems is cars making trips with only one person in them. Ever been in thick traffic on the freeway and notice the HOV lane is nearly empty?

  “And you can’t put a kids car seat or a huge dog on a bike and roll it down Admiral.”

  Sure can, I have really cool kid’s seat called a peapod. My small dogs ride in a milk crate on the side and the big one runs alongside. Works great, and only anyone who has never tried it would think otherwise.

  “And who would want to in the dark, cold and rain of morning or evening.”

  The dark part does suck. I have lights and such but its still pretty freaky. I tend to use the sidewalk when its dark. Yeah I’ve got lights and all but while I’ve never had a collision with a car while riding, I’ve been hit in the dark (while I was driving my pickup) by someone who “didn’t see me”.

  The cold and rain part, that isn’t anywhere near as bad as people think. Put on a jacket and get a helmet with a visor (like the bill on a ballcap) and you’re good.

  I work in SODO and I happily trade getting a bit wet on the way to work for having to pay $1200/yr to be able to park my car.

  “I would rather see a lane taken away for more appropriate Seattle mass transit (i.e., light rail) than give an entire lane to bikes.”

  They aren’t taking a lane away. The original proposal included changing the number of lanes, and that was changed. This is just changing the striping on the street, there will still be 4 lanes.

• msw October 28, 2010 (12:35 am)

  I sure wouldn’t ride up or down Admiral. Not worth the risk. If you crash, the likely hood of gettting run over would be high. I remember seeing a rider who crashed and went under a SUV near Manning this Summer. You won’t see me on Admiral on a bike. I have a family to support.

• Huh? October 28, 2010 (5:28 am)

  Are you people for real? Aren’t there more important and impacting issues to rant on and on about? Ah, yes I own and drive a car. I own and ride a bike. I live off Admiral. Sometimes there are roadsways that are NOT meant for cyclists.

• Yardvark October 28, 2010 (8:15 am)

  Wow. Yeah, I agree with Huh? on the ranting. I both bike and drive and can’t see such a huge issue with any of this.

  The only big issue is the amount of animosity that exists here. There’s just no need.

  Obviously, some folks will need to bike, some folks will need to drive. And there needs to be reasonable routes for each to follow, together or seperately.

  The City just needs to make sure those exist.

• Al October 28, 2010 (8:49 am)

  I love the ranting! Overall though, this turned out as good as could be hoped for. We all know light rail will never happen (so the argument that there are better uses for the space doesn’t work), we’re not getting some ridiculous hippy road diet, and the bikers still get what they want. Sweet compromise.

• Dick Dailey October 28, 2010 (10:19 am)

  “Mr Dailey,
  this is a considerably scaled back plan than originally proposed by SDOT, and doesn’t eliminate travel lanes to a “road diet”. The plan as proposed was opposed by some vocal cyclists (including me) who recognize that dedicated bike lanes on fast down hill stretches actually lead to less safe conditions for all road users.

  You say you recall adequate road markings. I assure you this will be an improvement, particularly for pedestrians trying to get to and from the bus stops on the downhill side.; after restriping is completed you won’t be inconvenienced in the least. As for the spending issue, this money was already allocated (even before cycling Mayor took office) and as I mentioned we’re actually saving compared to the original plan.”

  Comment by JAT — October 27, 10 2:16 pm

  JAT

  I’m a little late in responding…..

  There shouldn’t even be a bus stop heading downhill. Let’s see a count from Metro on ridership from that location.

  And it is a waste of money to remove the existing striping and stripe in the new configuration regardless of when or how the money was allocated. Again, the excuse for the re-alignment is for bicyclists. And unless something radical has happened recently that I’m unaware of, bicycles are still allowed on all surface streets.

  Stupid priorities by SDOT.

  DD

• samson October 28, 2010 (11:48 am)

  Attention:

  Bicycles – you all should NOT pass the red traffic lights while we sit and wait for the green to go… dont you respect the roads!!! its UNFAIR… STOP then go….

  why spend so much money on cycle lanes even though cyclists abuse the laws!!!! Vehicles do suffer and get so pissy and blame on other drivers! i have noticed that!!!

  so CYCLISTS be patience until its GREEN!

• KeiperS October 28, 2010 (12:06 pm)

  @GRG

  To start I think this project was not needed. Bike/auto conflict is much more likely above Olga, but this project doesn’t address that.

  It’s clear you have a bias against cyclists using the roads. Fine. You justify this by saying they don’t pay for them. Granny G corrected you with accurate facts. Again, taxes directed at auto usage (gas, tabs…) pay for for very little of the cost of the road infrastructure and tend to go to non-roadway programs. The majority of roadway costs are shared by all citizens in the form of sales and property taxes.

  I’m sorry the facts don’t support your beliefs.

• SGK October 28, 2010 (12:11 pm)

  @Samson

  I do stop at this light in my car or on my bike….but this is your complaint of “law breaking” when 50m down the road is a speed warning that is constantly blinking due to drivers speeding (yes, 30mph is a stupid limit)???

• SGK October 28, 2010 (12:25 pm)

  @GRG

  Yes, this project is a bit wasteful and really doesn’t address potential bicycle/auto conflict above Olga st.

  You have a obvious bias against cyclists using the roads. You justify this by claiming they don’t pay for them. Granny G corrected your assertion with accurate fact on how the roads in Seattle are supported. Again, taxes on auto use (gas tax, tabs…) pay for very little of our transportation infrastructure and are often used for programs that don’t pave the roads. Most of the roadway costs are shared by all citizens in the form of sales and property taxes.

  I know it may shatter your world view and is a bitter pill for some, but the entitlement comes from the fact that cyclist, like all others have paid for the use.

• foy boy October 28, 2010 (2:42 pm)

  This is great. We now have a center turn lane down admerial. Only problem is theres nowhere to turn. Does anybody know if the mayor had an open meeting with the local people to see if this is the best way to spend thier tax dollars.

  • WSB October 28, 2010 (2:49 pm)

    Foy boy, we covered the public process leading up to this decision, which included an open house. No mayor on hand but I haven’t ever seen a mayor at a meeting about a highly localized transportation project, at least either this one or his predecessor.

• nmb October 28, 2010 (5:56 pm)

  Personally, I love all the holier-than-thou blather about how cyclists never obey traffic laws (generalize much?)., unlike motorists who obey all traffic laws all the time and drives 30mph on Admiral. Makes me wonder how the City is able to make so much money from the red light camera at 35th & Avalon. Yes, it probably should be raised to a 35mph limit, but it’s the freaking law. Are people incapable of lifting up their foots off of the accelerator pedal (warning: comment does not apply to Prius drivers)?

• nmb October 28, 2010 (6:03 pm)

  @Foy Boy: There is no center turn lane in the new configuration. 2 uphill lanes, 2 downhill lanes, a parking lane, a bike lane and a 2′ buffer zone.

• dsa October 28, 2010 (6:07 pm)

  The uphill alignment does not look safe for bicyclists to me. Take a look;
  http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/sw_admiral_projectPlanMap.pdf
  The auto traffic has a one in ten dog leg in it that aims cars directly into the bike lane. What are they thinking about?

• W.S. mavrick October 28, 2010 (6:49 pm)

  TAX THE BIKERS

• The Truth October 28, 2010 (10:03 pm)

  Bicyclist. Who cares, drive in their new lane, they ride in ours. I’ll be sure to! You’d better believe it! I wish property values were so low, I’d sell my properties in WS and never have to come over anymore.

• nmb October 28, 2010 (10:19 pm)

  Car driving in bike lane: illegal.
  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.140

  Bike riding in car lane: legal.
  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.770

  Once again, who are the law breakers here?

• rob October 28, 2010 (11:12 pm)

  “Who cares, drive in their new lane, they ride in ours.”

  Do you drive in the bus lane?

• VBD October 29, 2010 (8:48 am)

  What so many of the anti-bike lane people don’t seem to understand, is that in many cases the addition of the bike lane adds a benefit for the car traffic. Perhaps more so than the bikes.

  The reason is that if there is a bike lane, the cars can pass at full speed without having to swerve around the bikes. With the additional space for bikes, the traffic will flow smoother. I do agree, however, that some bike accommodations create unnecessary negative impacts to traffic flow, and not all bicycle accommodating “improvements” have helped.

  But if you recall, a couple of years ago, the change to Fauntleroy Way, where there was a similar outcry, and predictions of gridlock from the ferry to Alaska St. Turns out that getting the bikes and left turners out of the way actually improved flow in most cases. But there are some occasional issues (soccer game day at Fairmount Park….) and a balance is always best to seek.

  In the Admiral project, nothing has really changed at all for the car traffic, so the bike lane should be welcomed by drivers to get the bikes out of the way. Seems like a pretty easy one to accept. Unless you just hate bikers for the sake of hatred….

• Kathy October 29, 2010 (5:24 pm)

  Do we need 2 tons of energy-wasting automobile to get us and our stuff to our destination? Sometimes we might, but most of the time it is WAY more efficient to use a bike or bike+bus. Save some energy for tomorrow, we may need it. Why so many comments against this? Guilt for wasting energy? Who could be against making Admiral Way safer for bikers, pedestrians and drivers?

• dsa October 30, 2010 (1:07 pm)

  Kathy, all I ask is did you look at the plan sheet where the alignment shifts ten feet in about one hundred toward the bike lane? yikes!

• archie October 31, 2010 (12:34 pm)

  @GRG, even if you count the new $20 tab fees and commercial parking taxes, SDOT’s budget is paid almost entirely from property taxes, so even people without cars are funding SDOT. Your argument about gas taxes would only apply to state and federal projects. Although even at the federal level, about half of highway funding comes from the general fund. So your argument doesnt really hold water. In fact, us drivers are getting a pretty sweet deal! Nice attempt at trying to be the antagonist victim though!

• nmb November 4, 2010 (8:47 pm)

  I just rode my bike up the new Admiral bike lane tonight. It’s SWEET! THANKS for the freebie, car-driving taxpayers!

Sorry, comment time is over.