Bike lanes being added to 20th Ave NW

Geeky Swedes Ballard

The stretch of 20th Ave NW from Market Street to NW 65th Street will soon get bike lanes to make it a “complete street.”

The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) will remove the center turn lane to install the bike lanes so cyclists can easily get to and from the Ballard Business District. According to SDOT, “Due to the low number of cars driving daily on this section of 20th Ave NW this change will not affect traffic flow or inhibit access to residential side streets.” No buses use this street, it’s not a designated truck route and the changes won’t affect parking in the area. The changes are expected to go into effect this summer.

If you’d like to hear more about this project, SDOT representatives will be at next Wednesday’s Ballard District Council meeting – May 11th, 7 p.m. at the Ballard Library 5614 22nd Ave NW.

Geeky Swedes

The founders of My Ballard

126 thoughts to “Bike lanes being added to 20th Ave NW”

  1. Dang it. It’s already difficult to make left turns onto 20th, with all the street parking blocking the view of oncoming traffic. At least one had a left turn lane to get into, to make the second half of a left turn do-able. Now that’s being taken away, and a non-visible bike lane being put in? I’ll never do a left turn onto 20th again except at the 4 way stops that’s for sure. Which means … I won’t be visiting shops in that area. So this means less business from me for the locals! Yay, Seattle! Way to go!

  3. making access easier (and safer) for cyclists is better for everyone. including the environment. i’m glad to see the city is becoming more and more cycle friendly. it may take a bit of adjusting, but overall, i think it’s a great idea.

  5. the new proposed way frightens me. much more interaction with cars and cycles. I really like our current streets. This money has much more direr needs than this

  6. Seriously at least half of the bike riders I see dont use the lanes or follow the laws anyways. They are in the bike lane, then they are on the sidewalk then back on the street, then cut across to the crosswalk to get the green light. Make up your freakin’ minds, are you a vehical, a bike or a pedestrian? why is it up to motorists to constantly watch for your inconsiderate , dangerous moves?

  7. Awesome. I know this street and unlike some others below, recognize it as a currently under-utilized street that will make it easier for riders in the neighborhood to easily ride to the business district in central Ballard without impacting neighborhood drivers too greatly.

    Thanks for sharing the roads!

  8. Serious questions here: why did we bother with bike lanes on 24th, if *20th* is the way to go? How much bicycle traffic will there really be?

  9. Serious questions here: why did we bother with bike lanes on 24th, if *20th* is the way to go? How much bicycle traffic will there really be?

  10. More car accidents, but we won’t know it until a cyclist gets hit. Bike lanes on 24th=waste of $. They should put in more rain “gardens” like the ones on 65th & 28th. This is how our local government is being fiscally responsible? Bike lanes on 20th, Really? Why? Well i guess it’s necessary to spend the money since 24th is saturated with cyclists. We are all so dumb for allowing this sort of thing to happen in our neighborhood. This isn’t about bikes it’s about wasting money.

  11. foo,

    I have great news! With a more bike-friendly environment Ican visit downtown Ballard more often, negating the HUGE economic impact caused by your departure. I would suggest Bellevue as your next destination. You can turn left all day long and never have to leave! This turned out beautifully! You are so welcome!!!

  12. I admit, hearing all the hate heaped on bicyclists by all the saps paying $4.00+ gallon to sit and stew in traffic makes me giggle just a little. I invite you to broaden your perspective as you consider where the real problems are. Go as you please . . .

  13. Why not use this stretch to try out the “floating” parking (having the bike lane next to the side walk, then parked cars, then the drive lane, in that order)? This street seems an ideal one for that, based on the amount of traffic.

  14. Sweet indeed Stinger I’m with you there. Its a nice change from the usual 55 million dollar lanes for cars that never make anyone happy (to wit, how you diggin’ all those lanes added to 405 in the last ten years that cost you bucket loads?). I’m happy too!!!

  18. I hate to be a pessimist, but this is a recipe for a bad accident. I would encourage cyclists to use 24th, where there is more bike traffic and much better visibility. I hear too many near misses (and have been involved in a couple) due parking along 2oth blocking visibility. This is even worse when someone ignores the signs and parks too close to the intersection.

  20. No tizzy – and no panties!

    Like I said, it was a serious question. I have no idea what the bike volume is on this street. I haven’t noticed many, but I could be blind to it. So I was seriously asking.

  21. Seriously, at least three quarters of the drivers I see don’t follow the laws. They are on their cell phones, driving over the speed limit, not signaling. It’s about time we took lanes away from those scofflaws.

  22. I like those 405 lanes, and am glad they’ll be adding more.
    I also like this bike lane plan — from a motorist’s point of view, it seems pretty dangerous to me to have the bikes out in the traffic lanes, given the fairly high speeds of the cars in the stop-free stretch between NW 57th and NW 65th.

  23. And those drivers if caught or reported get tickets. I have not seen a bicyclists ever being pulled over for being inconsiderate ‘scofflaw’.

  24. BS. Years ago I got a ticket for running a red light on my bike. It does happen. You just haven’t seen it.

    Bu cars are much more dangerous to other people than bikes. So police should focus on motorists breaking the law, as they usually do.

  27. how does giving bikes their own lanes create “more interaction with cars and cycles?” Isn’t there more interaction, and therefore more danger, if cars and cycles are not segregated into separate lanes?

  28. Okay, thats 1 ticket Ive heard of. I agree cars are dangerous & there are many a-hole drivers, but it does seem since the city started putting bike lanes all over, the riders seem to think they dont need to look out for cars, riding two abreast, not yielding etc..

  29. bg, all those actions you mention are legal and not inherently unsafe or inconsiderate. That said, many bicyclists DO make such moves in an inconsiderate/dangerous manner, and it would be great to get some enforcement action to discourage bonehead moves. Maybe we need to set up webcams and post “loser bicyclist/motorist of the day” photos?

  30. 24th is pretty far away from 20th. Since 15th doesn’t have bike lanes, I see 20th as a reasonable alternate (although fairly short in length).

  32. What a stupid idea. 20th is dangerous enough NOW, but adding bike lanes will make it a nightmare. I think it will be more dangerous than 24th, since the cars park right up to the corners, and it will be impossible to see a speeding biker until it’s too late.

    Maybe if they added more four-way stops, it would be safer, but I’m sure most bikers wouldn’t stop for them. If McSchwinn is responsible for this, I hate him more than I did before I read this.

    And I hated him a LOT.

  33. You present a false choice, Mondoman. Generally, a bike lane offers less interaction, but here is the rub: this road is on a hill. Southbound, a bike lane is not necessary, because a bike can coast down the hill nearly as fast as a car. There is little interaction because there is little passing involved. Northbound, a bike will crawl up the hill, offering increased chance of interaction, and with this design, cars can pass either to the left or the right of the bike. Normally, a slow moving bike moves as far right as is safe. That is what we are taught to expect. It will be unexpected for drivers to pass a slow-moving bike making its way up the hill between two lanes of traffic. Unexpected circumstances lead to accidents. This design violates the rules of safe cycling both drivers and cyclists are trained to follow.

  36. The problem with your logic is that you are stereotyping all bike riders as law breaking idiots. Meanwhile you assume that a-hole drivers are the exception rather than the rule. There are plenty of law-abiding cyclists, you’re just not looking for them.

  37. Think of 24th as the arterial. It’s great for direct riding to get to the Burke Gilman (when The Missing Link is done) and to points South. 20th is perfect for people in the neighborhood who don’t want to be on the busier 24th to get to the shops and amenities on Market.

  38. I think you are misunderstanding the diagram. The bike lane is to the right of all traffic. To the right of the bike lane are parked cars.

  39. Riding on the sidewalk, in a bike lane, or in the rightmost traffic lane are all legal, so I’m not sure how switching between them would be illegal. Certainly, if you ride out into the traffic lane right in front of a car, that’s unsafe and likely illegal, just as if you did so in a car.
    I do agree that predictability of actions helps drivers avoid cyclists, and so I try to make changes slow and obvious instead of sudden when I’m cycling.

  40. I did not say all bike riders were law breaking idiots. And you should never ‘assume’ anything as I did not say or imply a-hole drivers are few and far between. There are many good bicyclists, I also ride a bike & always yield to cars as I do not care for the 200 lbs I have to the 4,000 lbs car.

  41. P-s: seems to me that cars are often traveling 30-35mph on that stretch; the fastest I can go on my mountain bike is about 22mph, and that’s already a bit scary. I’ve been held up behind bikes going southbound on 20th, so I think a bike lane is necessary in both directions. Hopefully, esr’s post covers your main objection.

  42. Here are my thoughts:
    Right now 20th is not a bicycle thoroughfare, and there is the barrier of the center lane. Because of the parking on 2oth, cars turning onto 20th have to edge into the flow of traffic on 20th to see if it is safe to turn. Traffic has to venture into that center lane to avoid the cars trying to turn.

    This road is already dangerous for all involved – including pedestrians trying to cross. Add a steady stream of cyclists like on 24th – zipping along next to the parked cars (which we already can’t see around) and somebody is going to miss something and have nowhere to go but into a another car, cycle, pedestrian. Plus, the cyclists are going to have to veer into the “car” lane to get around the cars trying to turn onto 20th, and cars coming down 20th will have no center lane to veer into to avoid the cyclists.

    Maybe removing the center land and having the cars closer to the middle of the road would help, but the road doesn’t seem as wide as 24th, and that wouldn’t help visibility of cyclists.

    I like the European bike path idea, btw. Solves part of the cyclist visibility problem.

  43. GADM, cars and cyclists are already zipping down the road. How will adding bike lanes make it worse? If anything, the bike lanes should give a bit more buffer space between cars inching out into the road (to cross or turn) and the cars heading up and down 20th.
    (no argument with your opinion of the mayor :)

  46. You are defining the problem wrong – it sounds like you really want to say that parking laws should be enforced on that street to make it safer.

  47. I live at 20th and 58th. This will cause SO many wrecks! It is impossible to turn left from our street onto 20th without using the center lane. It was bad enough you couldn’t see on-coming cars because of the cars parked along 20th but now you will have to blindly drive through two lanes of on-coming traffic to make a turn instead of having the saftey of the center lane. This is a stupid proposal – the people who think this stuff up clearly do no live and drive on this stretch of road every day. I never see people riding bikes on 20th.

  52. I am personally excited to add the possibility of mowing down cyclists with regularity as I cross 20th from east/west as I’m often known to do.

  55. That should be “themself,” not “themselves.” I am a singular obnoxious jerk, not plural (duh!). Here, this might help for future reference Einstein:

    From Oxford’s New American Dictionary, 2nd edition

    “themself

    pronoun [ third person singular ]

    used instead of “himself” or “herself” to refer to a person of unspecified sex : the casual observer might easily think themself back in 1945.

    USAGE The standard reflexive form corresponding to they and them is themselves, as in : they can do it themselves . The singular form themself, first recorded in the 14th century, has reemerged in recent years corresponding to the singular gender-neutral use of they, as in : this is the first step in helping someone to help themself . The form is not widely accepted in standard English, however. For more details, see usage at they .”

  56. Actually I’m pro change. i love how ballard has grown into what it is today. What I’m not for is poor planning in my neighborhood. True, I hate the people that ride their bikes in and out of traffic, through red lights, over cross walks and so on and so forth. In short i hate cyclists, not bike lanes. Hell I love riding, responsibly and with respects for the vehicles who have to follow the rules of the road, which the vast majority of cyclists do not. Don’t tell me that last sentence is BS because then you lose any credibility you have on this forum. No I do not hate change, but i think the problem you have papi is that you don’t really know your neighborhood.

  59. RCW 46.61.770:
    (2) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

  62. Victory at last!! I believe it is my keen intellegence, but you have been a most capable foe! Can I buy you a drink? I’ll pick you up in my car! Enjoy the day.

  63. Sweet Jesus! Who the hell are you to correct another’s grammar?! You’re missing apostrophes, hyphens, and commas galore above AND you placed a period OUTSIDE the parentheses.

    I won’t even address your lack of consistency with numerical treatment because you’re obviously too stupid.

  64. I honestly don’t think bike lanes make a difference. I ride my bike around 15hrs a week on Seattle roads and don’t notice the difference when I’m on a bike lane road v.s. non-bike lane road. Regardless of whether there is a little painted bike on the road, cyclists ride in the same section anyways and cars react similarly I’ve found as well.

    If Seattle really wants to improve the safety of cyclists AND motorists it needs to invest in more bike paths that separate the two from each other.

  65. Again, keep your ignorance of language to yourself:

    -No need for the parentethical, and if you’re so inclined, where’s the punctuation?
    – Your ellipsis is misused too.

  67. We need a lane for grammarians. That way the bikers and drivers could hate on someone together, there would be peace and harmony, and, for once, a less predictable level of vitriol and BS that passes for dialogue on MB.

  68. The law also says that you if you are going slower than the speed of traffic you have to move to the right and not block the flow of traffic, so you and your buddies had better be doing 30mph two-abreast.

  70. Alas, my ellipsis has been misused, and frankly, misunderstood, for years. But thanks to a good grammarian therapist, I’m better. Whats your excuse (I am so happy that so many have taken the bait today!)?

  73. Ahhh, so YOU are the one who determines credibility on this forum. I’ve been wondering. How did you swing that gig? Pretty heavy responsibility. Clearly you are doing a spectacular job. Lots of credible people here. Do you get a badge?

  75. I didn’t say 2 abreast in the traffic lane with a line-up of cars behind you is legal, or courteous, for that matter. But the original poster (whiner?) didn’t say anything about impeding traffic. And in many situations, it’s safe, legal, and reasonably courteous to ride two abreast on quiet streets, wide lanes, or bike lanes, as long as you’re not being an a**hat about blocking cars behind you.

    My point is that a lot of what motorists *think* is illegal isn’t. There’s a lot of room for improvement in both motorists and cyclists’ knowledge/observing of the law. But human nature is to see fault in “the other,” and not in “people like me.” Hence the perception of “all cyclists are scofflaws” (they’re not) and “us drivers follow the law” (you don’t, and the consequences are orders-of-magnitude more severe).

    Not to mention that the vast majority surveyed think: “I am an excellent driver” (chances, are, they’re not).

    And all this in response to a minor paint change on a short stretch of 20th that honestly doesn’t get much more than a “Meh” from me, and I’m a big fan of the bike infrastructure. I’d love to see SDOT take a break from lanes and sharrows and work on some neighborhood greenways, which are more win-win.

  76. Separated bike paths are better, it’s true. But I’ll tell you one thing that a painted bike lane does: it brings more bicyclists. I’ve long avoided 20th when cycling. Now I might just start commuting up and down it.

    And when you bring all the cyclists together on a single street, that street becomes safer for cyclists. Think about Dexter, south of the Fremont Bridge. That place is a bicycle highway. Everyone driving there knows to expect cyclists. Hopefully the same will happen with 20th.

  77. I see some people riding bikes on 20th. I do it sometimes, myself. But sometimes I avoid it, particularly uphill, because I share a line with high-speed car traffic.

    This bike lane will change that. It will draw the bicyclists to 20th and thereby make 20th safer for bicyclists. You’ll start seeing them more often, and because you know they’re going to be there, you’ll start /seeing/ them.

  79. As a bicyclist, I am not thrilled with the new design because of the loss of the center turn lane. A cyclist travelling southbound who wishes to turn left must move into the southbound traffic lane and slow/stop traffic until it is clear to turn left across the northbound lane of traffic. Not good.

  80. If you use that route regularly, why haven’t you hit and injured any cyclists yet. Do you now intend to be careless. All the east/west crossings there have stop signs meaning that both cars and cyclists on 20th already have the right of way. Does your post indicate criminal intent, or are you just stupid.

  81. I half way agree. I turn left on to 20th often and the center lane is a big help. I am skeptical of the proposed bike lanes. However any wrecks that may occur after the change will be due to carelessness, or negligence. The new layout may mean that you will have to wait a little longer and be more careful. If you are stupid and impatient, then you can get creamed.

  82. If they go ahead with this, they should take away one or two parking spaces on 20th by every intersection. I am against the proposed change, but don’t like the childish rehtoric of some posters who oppose this.

  83. Some good observations and comments here and some juvenile blather as well. A number of posters said that 2oth is already dangerous. I live half a block from 20th and drive it often, as well as often crossing it as a pedestrian. I have seen pedestrians and bicyclists pull some stupid stunts, but when drivers pull stupid stunts they are ten times more dangerous for obvious reasons. Most of the danger on the streets, if not all of it, is due to bad drivers. They drive too fast, take turns too fast, tailgate, don’t use their turn signals, and don’t watch what they are doing. Since I see so many bad drivers, I wonder if they, and those who post the purile, whining, bellyaching, menacing, threatening, boasting, and/or hyperbolic comments aren’t the same ones.

  84. No more bike lanes, there has to be a better way. It is so unsafe and the bikers are so irresponsible. Make just a bike street in each neighborhood every 10 to 20 blocks.

  85. Clearly enough people have been dumbed down and duped into this “saving mommy earth crap and want to inflict themselves upon the rest of society in the form of bike riding. Hard c0re, I, me, my, cyclists are to me just like drinkers/drunks: it’s all about them. Me me me. We’ve got a tiny fraction of the population getting special treatment while the war on vehicles goes on. I’m still waiting for “biker-Ed” to come online. I will then take ’em serious when I see them having A) stickers telling us all they passed a class. B) license plates showing they paid a little extra and can also be readily ID’d. You do want to do the right thing cyclists, don’t you? This is the part of “progressive” that makes me wanna puke. It’s not all about you. Get over yourselves. Thank you

  86. Your argument defies logic. Who is behaving selfishly:

    • one who chooses to travel in his/her own personal vehicle, guzzling scarce natural resources and polluting the environment in the process just the get that one person from point A to point B as quickly/conveniently as possible (and, might I add, bitterly grumbling about having to share the road – the publicly funded road – with cyclists in the process); or

    • A cyclist who minimally impacts the environment in the process of getting one person from point A to point B?

  89. Here’s the difference: bicycles don’t violently kill more than 30,000 people a year. Cars do. Cars are also the leading cause of death among children. Bikes are not. When bikes start killing people in large numbers it will be worth it for the PD to crack down on them.

  90. I agree completely. Between 20th and 28th the lanes on 24th make no sense. I truly suspect they were put there more to make a political point rather than out of any actual safety concern. Lanes or no lanes I never ride down 24th. Beyond dealing with the added traffic it’s also slower than 28th due to all the extra stop lights (though that’s not an issue for the a-hole riders who run them!)

  91. Maybe we just need to be much more strict on making drivers AND bikers demonstrate their skills before allowing them to ride or drive. No license and it’s only walking for you! Less selfish and healthier to boot.
    :)

  93. If bikers are irresponsible what does that make motorists? They’re the ones killing 30,000 people a year. You call that responsible? Seriously, motorists are just as bad as cyclists. The only difference is when a cyclist does something stupid they’re usually the only ones injured. Not true with a motorist.

  94. Vast majority of cyclists out there have a drivers license so point A is already met. Do agree with you about license plates/stickers. Everyone else on the road is required to have them. However, you’re a fool if you think license fees and gas taxes are the only things paying for roads. They actually make up only a tiny percentage of road funds.

  96. I bike 20th nearly every day. It’s true it will take perhaps 1-2 minutes longer in rush hour to turn left onto 20th for both cars and cyclists, and I can understand those individuals who are concerned the parked cars blocking the view of the cyclists. It’s especially dicey around 56th and 57th. But I think it would be the case either way. We just have to look out for each other.

  97. The rain gardens were paid for with federal stimulus money, not money that could be used for anything else. No curmudgeoning needed.

  98. 24th has buses (2 routes) and isn’t particularly safe: a cyclist was killed a year or so ago at 24th and 64th, leaving a family behind.

  99. You are a wonderful example of why I drive so close to bikers. I like to think of the fear climbing up the bikers spine as my cars approach becomes louder. Then out of the corner of their eye they see my mirror, inching by until I slam on the gas to blow by kicking up road debris into their eye.

    Ugh, I can HARDLY WAIT for the nice weather for all the new targets.

  100. My, my, my –

    Get a grip, people. If one or two more people decide it’s a little safer/friendlier to use their bicycles to make a trip from their homes to the
    1)Pet Store
    2)Movie Theater
    3)Restaurant
    4)Sand and Gravel store

    and they use 20th NW to make the trip, is that a bad thing?

    If I am driving down 20th NW and someone decides to turn left on a street to get to the Post Office, and because there are two cars going northbound, and because of this I have to wait 12.5 seconds for those cars to pass before the car in front of me can turn left to go to the Post Office, will the world end? Will my day be ruined? Will western civilization fall?

    Doesn’t it make sense that we would do what we can to encourage neighborhood use of streets, like bicycling for a short trip? So many of our car trips are short, less than 2 miles, and if someone felt safer taking their bicycle to make that trip, wouldn’t we want to encourage that?

    This isn’t about now, it’s about tomorrow, and beyond. Think about it-what’s the rush?

    The next time you go over 30 mph on an arterial, or talk on your cell phone while driving, think about whether or not that behavior is more or less dangerous than what you see errant cyclists do. Those errant cyclists get no sympathy from me, but neither do the speeders, and cellphone talkers, and other speedsters plying our streets.

    Kevin in Ballard

  101. Continuing to throw the 30,000 statistic out there really means nothing. There are no metrics from which we can see what impact bicyclists have on accidents unless they are hurt in them. There are many bad drivers and I wish driving infractions would be enforced more stringently, but there are insufficient figures on bicycle impact to use those statistics. Really it doesn’t matter, nobody will pay attention to them anyway. Bad drivers will still be stupid and bicyclists will still be unsatisfied and ride wherever they please.

  102. Putting in new bike lanes always brings up some concerns and complaints, but once the lanes are in there never seems to be a problem. I think this change in configuration for 20th will be a big improvement. Adding some parking enforcement at the corners would be nice too.

    But for the downhill lane, instead of a bike lane, I’d prefer a Mike lane, for use by just myself and all the other Mikes who turned out for this thread. What’s up, other Mikes?

  103. The number of people I see inside their car holding a phone or texting while driving is overwhelming. I saw a young woman texting with her device on the steering wheel while she drove with the two smallest fingers on each hand 3 days ago on Market Street. The law has changed, but habits have not.

    Distracted driving alone makes up a majority of accidents in this State. The most accidents involving bicycles have to do with the cyclist drinking alcohol and riding with no reflective clothing, blinking lights, or other safety gear. I can bet you the former (distracted driving causing crashes) dwarfs the latter (drunk bicycles riding with no reflective gear.)

    Let me ask you, Mr. Norwegian, how many moving violations do you have on your slate? How many times have you driven intoxicated or distracted? I drive as well, and I have zero in 30 years. I take my life and the lives of others very seriously. I also keep in mind when I am driving a motor vehicle I have 2,000+ pound of steel in my command.

    I support bicyclist training, I would not be opposed to licensing. I really do not think that is the point. I think the point for you is you would rather not have to deal with us mosquitos out there on your street.

  106. Sounds like a Mayor McCheese idea. Bikes in the middle of car lanes, brilliant, and I can’t even imagine there will be any collisions. Slow moving bikes, fast moving cars, cars turning, bikes turning, bikes with attitudes, totally safe to intermingle.

    Why are bikers so vocal, and why didn’t the lady riding her bike through the crosswalk realize it isn’t a CROSSBIKE, it is for WALKERS as the name implies? Crosswalk = walk, not crosswalk = right of way for biking.

  107. To Tomas and Jimmy: welcome to the growing club of people who haven’t noticed that it says “Parking” under the outermost lanes in the picture up above.

    In your defense, the picture is lacking — the parked cars should be greyed out, or something, so as not to confuse people.

  108. Kevin – What’s your take on the loss of the center left-turn lane? I think this makes it more dangerous for cyclists to turn left. What say you?

  110. Right, except the rain garden was/is a waste of tax payer money. So rain gardens was the best use of federal stimulus (tax payer $$)? We couldn’t find anything better to do with it? Lame

  111. “I have no idea what the bike volume is on this street”

    And you likely have no idea what the car volume is either.

    And neither do most naysayers on this thread.

    But guess who probably does know the volumes and factored them both into their plan?

  112. I have know idea why you are giving me death statistics, I just said bike riders need to follow the same laws if they ride on the street, dont ride across a cross walk & then go back on the street, then back on the sidewalk. Pick one. Im tired of having to look for bike going in & out of traffic.

  113. 1. Sorry, I misunderstood the proposed design. Now I follow, and yes, I agree this would be the safest course for reducing bike v. car accidents. Thanks for pointing out my err, esr.
    2. My personal experience using this stretch of road for bicycling is that I’ve never experienced a safety issue. It does not get a lot of traffic, at least when I’m on the road. This must be the conclusion reached by SDOT too, if they are willing to give up the center turn lane. As someone pointed out, paint is cheap. However, as a motorist also, is the marginal safety benefit from the bike lane worth the cost of the change and the potential loss of safety from doing away with the turn lane that provides a buffer to car v. car accidents?
    3. I’ve always thought this stretch of road is a perfect opportunity to build a center median with some trees and landscaping. It could be promoted as major axis of central Ballard that leads directly to Salmon Bay Park.

  114. :) thats one of the reasons i bike on sidewalks) and that way if i end up hitting some one it’ll be nice n soft and i may luck out and hit a douchebage like you! )

  115. They use both quite often and 17th too but unlike 20th you have to stop for every intersection and slow down for every turnabout. But there is always 24th which isn’t restricted to only market to 67 ( and the next street which i can never remember the name of)
    With the current turn strip/center lane the cars can, and do move over into when passing cyclists and are still able to use it as a left hand turn lane.

    the bike lanes are unnecessary. especially for such a small section of road. If you are going to take out the center lanes at least make them green strips and plant more trees.

  118. And I’ve never seen a driver be pulled over for using a cellphone, yet I’ve had to dodge a few as a pedestrian and had a few misses as a bicyclist also. For the record, I bike and I don’t flip in and out of the street and break the laws. That’s like saying every driver is a reckless driver because every once in awhile you see someone driving badly.

  120. Tabitha, I did not say all bike riders are careless, they just tend to stand out more like inconsiderate drivers do, I do also ride a bike, I just dont believe painting bikes on the street does a whole lot, it seems to give alot of bikers false security .

  121. Eaither you are just throwing your woefully inadequate ego around or you are dangerously unaware of just how serious of a crime that vehicular homicide is.

    I imagine that you will learn, but your impotent belligerence is worth no loss of life.

    The polite and civilized world that the rest of us inhabit surely will not miss you, but Bubba at the state penitentiary will certainly appreciate his new bunkmate/slam-piece.

  122. punkateer – any day now the Governor will sign the Vulnerable User Bill. So you need to be very careful who and what you threaten with your weapon/car.

  123. SPU has a plan to slow down traffic in the city. Adding bike lanes helps this plan.
    I agree with it. It is called Complete Streets.
    Complete Streets’ support and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use
    while promoting safe operations for all users. It is part of the 9-year, $365 million, transportation levy that passed in November 2006.
    So learn to live with it folks.

  124. Since when is riding on the sidewalk legal? I’ve done it before (not that it was a smart idea) and had cops tell me to get off the d*mn sidewalk.

    I bike or I drive, depending on the day or where I am going. Nonetheless – Indignant, self-righteous drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are lame and cause problems for others because they’re trying to make a point or social commentary through bad behavior.

    On most occasions the solution is simple – pay attention, and chill out.

  125. From the Seattle Traffic Code:

    Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH.
    Every
    person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall
    operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no
    greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at
    the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of
    pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and
    condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every
    person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield
    the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible
    signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.

    As others have noted, the code also points out that when riding on the sidewalk, you have to yield to pedestrians and generally behave responsibly.

Leave a Reply