8/26 edit: Listen to the podcast here.
KUOW Weekday’s Steve Scher is hosting a show this morning at 9 a.m. on road diets in Seattle.
Panelists are:
Eric Widstrand, the city traffic engineer for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT).
Peter Philips, the publisher of Fishermen’s News and a member of the Fishermen’s Terminal Advisory Committee. Fisherman’s Terminal is located on Nickerson Street, which was just approved for a road diet.
Michael Ennis, the director of the Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center, a nonprofit free market public policy think tank.
Peter Lukevich, the president of the Lake City Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber opposes the changes on 125th street
You might recall Peter Philips’ recent opinion piece claiming GM Nameplate is leaving Seattle because of the bike lanes on Nickerson. This is, quite possibly, the one and only time I will recommend you read the online comments section. You’ll find some real gems.
While there may be a tiny sliver of truth to Philips assertion, it appears that GM Nameplate has been planning to move for some time. Back in July 2003, the PSBJ published an article on their intent to move:
Don Root, chairman and CEO of GM Nameplate, said he’s put his company’s two main buildings up for sale and will move once he finds buyers. The company’s headquarters is an 118,000-square-foot structure on the south side of 15th Avenue West, along the west edge of Queen Anne Hill. The second building, across the street, is 30,000 square feet.
Read more: No room in Seattle, say manufacturers – Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)
What have your experiences been before and after road safety improvements on streets like Nickerson, Stone Way or Fauntleroy? Has it been safer and easier for you as a pedestrian to cross the road? Have you felt more comfortable riding your bike?
Please give your comments on the show this morning. KUOW call in line: 206-543-5869, weekday@kuow.org.
Whatever the merits of the Nickerson road diet, I think the controversy it has engendered is very damaging to the cause of bicycle advocates in Seattle. You can sneer at the positions and opinions by Peter Phillips and other members of the marine industrial and related community, but the fact remains that this publicity is not helpful at the same time as we are trying to get the City Council (in current budget process) to spend some real money to implement the bike and pedestrian plans.
I’ll go further and say that the comments by some of the freight users of Nickerson make sense to me. I.e., their complaints about the difficulty moving goods sound legitimate. I have seen such comments from a number of them (let me know if you want copies). Moreover, while pedestrian safety is a real concern on that corridor, there is no reason it should be designated as a bicycle route. I live in Fremont and go downtown regularly, using both the Westlake/Dexter side and the Interbay side, and use the B-G between Fremont and Ballard regularly. What is really needed is completion of the south canal trail under the Ballard Bridge, not some painted lines on Nickerson. I’ll never ride on Nickerson–too much traffic going too fast–unless I have to (like recently when I found the east sidewalk on the Ballard Bridge closed and had to go over to the beginning of the new trail extension). I’m an experienced bicyclist and it’s scary. And to read (in one of the maritime industry comments); “When I drove to work this morning on Nickerson the people on bikes were riding in the one lane left for cars because cars were parked all along the bike lane.” Well, that is not helpful or safe.
I suggest that it would be more strategic to work with the industrial and maritime communities as much as possible. They represent a vital part of Seattle, and especially in Fremont/Ballard. Many of us who live in these neighborhoods are both strong bicycle advocates and also strong advocates for maintaining our living wage job base in the area. Not the smallest reason, they have significant political power. This conflict over Nickerson is not helpful. Don’t get me going on the B-G missing link…
By the way, I strongly supported the road diet on Stone Way, and there has not been the same kind of backlash because 1) it does not carry nearly the amount of freight as Nickerson, and 2) it is a regularly used bicycle route (although I still prefer Woodland Park or Midvale).
I think the Nickerson Street road diet has actually made it more dangerous for cyclists. I’ve ridden Nickerson regularly for almost 30 years, and I prefer the old lane configuration to the new, especially on the downhill heading east. The new configuration has two safety problems:
1. It forces cars to try to squeeze past you in the one lane, and they take a long time to pass when you’re going 30+ mph downhill. They end up pinning you in a pretty tight space for a while, giving you no room to avoid road hazards.
2. It forces you to ride over a big fault in the pavement at the bottom of the hill. Because you’re now riding a little closer to the right-hand side of the road, you ride into a piece of pavement that’s shifted up and created a two- or three-inch drop-off on the far side. This gives you quite a jolt, and will eventually knock someone off their bike when they hit it in the dark or in the rain. They’ll fall going fast and with cars right next to them. I can only imagine the press we’ll see when “the Nickerson Street road diet kills a cyclist.”
Is there any way to undo the configuration on the downhill sides, so that cyclists can go back to having one of the two downhill lanes when we’re going as fast as the cars are?
Rod