1 srcsmgrl-The guy on the bike that has the lawsuit against the city of Seattle has a good case, if you had done any research on it you would see for YEARS poeple have been complaing about that particular narrow and dangerous bike lane. It has cause many lives, and injuries. It has been public knowledge.
Drivers are not able to really see the people on bikes all that well, Critical Mass, while a little radical (bust so was bra burning in it's day) has a good point. If we are going to make them safe, and save energy, but your money where your mouth is and make all bike lanes as safe as possible...what exactly is wrong with us?...Europe has been doing this for a long time without many incidents.

Joel - Not stupid, just an honest mistake. No worries.

Evan - I'm sure the Pete Lagerway and Monica Dewald in the SDOT Bike and Pedestrian group would be interested in any possibilities. Cascade Bicycle Club and Sustainable Ballard would be great in helping, though I don't think either could shoulder the entire thing.

Some folks in the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board have been meeting with SDOT Director Grace Crunican and pedestrian representatives and freight representatives about how to improve the Ballard Bridge and Nickerson, possibly other areas too. Any good options would also be worth presenting to the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board too.

Michael, I have walked the bridge many many times in my life, but your response did prompt me to realize that I had been thinking of the bridge just in terms of the draw section (definitely stupid on my part). It certainly is the case that it should be better thought of as the entire section that crosses over the canal, to past Emerson St. That actually ends up being a little more than a half mile!

Still, faster to go through Fremont than to walk that? I don't know that I would agree with that. But I have never timed either. Not trying to be confrontational at all! I just think such a project would easily be tens of millions of dollars, and that that kind of money would probably never been prioritized for such work. Good luck with it, though!

I'll keep you guys posted on any proposal possibilities. I'm a designer, but would also want to bring in a structural engineer volunteer for any initial idea generating.

What I'm not sure about, is how to shop it around. I could just shop a proposal directly to city of seattle and the mayor/city council offices. Or I could go through a local group like sustainable ballard or cascade bike club.

any thoughts?

Sarah, Joel, the bridge pedestrian path is an eigth of a mile long and isn't any safer or more dangerous to walk on than it is to bicycle on.

Go walk it sometime. It would be faster to bicycle to Fremont and take Dexter and then cross Queen Ann than it would be to walk the Ballard Bridge.

It is in a route that could easily see several hundred daily bicycle commuters if it were widened to be like the University bridge. It really needs to be fixed and I'd be happy to donate some money towards making it pedestrian friendly.

I'd like to see the sidewalk of the Ballard bridge widened to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians at the same time. I think it would go a long way to improving things, and provides a good target for the city to show it's more pedestrian/bicycle friendly.

It doesn't have to be tomorrow, but eventually that bridge will need other repairs, and I would like to see the sidewalk widening worked in as a future project.

Maybe a few local organizations can start raising money with the hopes of providing some financing towards the upgrade of the bridge, though I feel it would take a long time with that kind of effort.

Sarah, I understand your point about our litigious society. However, I pay taxes too and I don't think that making the Ballard Bridge - a major N-S at grade thouroughfare - safe for multiple modes of transportation is too much to ask the local government.

Maybe a weekend biker would be happy to take 30 extra minutes per day (adding 1/3 more time to the total commute fr Ballard) to go via the Locks, but most commuters, like car commuters, want to take the fastest way possible. Esp. if it's raining!

Amen, ChrisH. I totally agree. When I ride south, I avoid the BBridge...for all the reasons noted previously. Like Joel N. said, why not walk the bike?!? Aside from tourists, most people are aware of the dangers. They should evaluate the risks and make a personal choice. Remember, we ARE responsible for our own safety- the government’s responsibility is not to produce a risk-free world for us to live in. Stay off the bridge until a solution is found. When I was an ex-pat living in Cyprus, I tripped and fell on un-even/cracked pavement on my way to work (rendering my laptop and my knee completely useless). My co-workers joked about the US girl who was going to sue the govt. We have a reputation for doing that. This is not to say that what happened to Terry was horrible. However, accidents happen and biking is DANGERous, especially in the city.

"If you’re not comfortable spending an extra 15 minutes of your day going the safe route, put your bike on a rack and bus it to the center."

Wow, what would these people do traveling in 3rd world countries without lawyers to protect them from all the dangers that might lurk?

If you're not comfortable spending an extra 15 minutes of your day going the safe route, put your bike on a rack and bus it to the center.

Of course (on a totally unrelated note) I've thought about taking my dinghy/8hp outboard from shilshole down to the waterfront for an alternate commute. I wonder how long that would take.

I wonder if the "Shilshole Ferry" will ever happen ( http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/articles/2007... )...

Ballard Boy, I totally agree. While riding on the bridge is bad enough, that south end "offramp" for bikes is an absolute deathtrap, for pedestrians or cycles. The little opening in the barrier there provides no safe way for cyclists to get onto 15th. I had to wait up to 5 minutes for a big enough gap in the cars (which come pretty much nonstop unless the bridge raises) and the only reason there was a gap, was because a nice lady slowed a little, probably risking herself to the cars behind her. Most of the time at this spot there is a nonstop stream of cars speeding ahead, inches from the curb - or taking the sharp right to Emerson without slowing for bikes/pedestrians (who should have the right of way here). Not even a painted crosswalk or sign to alert motorists.

True, life is dangerous, but this intersection is a deathtrap. It should either be fixed or closed completely to pedestrians/cyclists.

Of course the whole Emerson interchange is ridiculous, I'm sure glad I don't live in Magnolia. As for cycling on 15th it's really so miserable I don't mind taking the extra 15 minutes to ride down to the locks, then crossing over to Magnolia and through the beautiful industrial wasteland bicycle trail to the waterfront. But that's not a real help to anyone commuting to Seattle Center.

Here's an idea: Put your bike in a dinghy down by Fred Meyer, row over to SPU, then hump it over Queen Anne hill on the bike. Sounds like it would be a fun "extreme" race.

Life is dangerous! Take responsibility for your actions! Learn to recognize situations that are dangerous and either accept the risk or mitigate the risk yourself. In a perfect world, bicycles would outnumber cars and control the roads.
Thank you for listening...

FYI, SODT is very aware of the issue of safety on the bridge for peds and cyclists, and the crazy way that the cut in the concrete barrier at the south end for exiting cyclists forces them to almost 'turn' into traffic. I believe the cut was put there, rather than closer to the corner, at the logical crossing area, because it was believed cyclists would just fly through that in their forward motion, not needing to slow, and they'd be MORE at risk for the vehicles turning R immediately off the south end of the bridge.

Also, FYI, there used to be a sign alerting drivers to the potential for pedestrians and cyclists to be there, where the vehicles turn right, but when the last do-over of the bridge approaches happened, the sign was never replaced. I assume the attorneys for the injured man are aware of this.

Any PEs or designers out there who want to figure out a design for that section of the bridge, a Nobel Peace Prize, Ballard style, awaits you.

>> I could also imagine quite a bit of opposition to the visual impact /changes of a barrier big enough to avoid the backdraft problem.<<

You raise a good point- this is Seattle.

Joel - you're right that a sidewalk widening does sound expensive, I'm not really sure what that would cost at this point. certainly less that a parallel bridge.. but more than a bigger barrier.

Increasing the height of the barrier would help. However, the width of the sidewalk would still be an issue with bikes passing peds, and other bikes. I could also imagine quite a bit of opposition to the visual impact /changes of a barrier big enough to avoid the backdraft problem.

I think a larger part of the reason the Aurora bridge barrier is getting so much thought is that too many people who want to die don't land in the water. Instead they land in parking lots where people get icked out by seeing them splat.

I find it ironic that a barrier on the Ballard bridge to protect people who want to live is considered too much trouble but building a barrier on the Aurora bridge to keep people who want to die from killing themselves gets a lot of thought.

Evan, it seems like a cantilever solution would be hugely more expensive than the problem really requires. Doesn't a "quick" addition to the barrier that is there now seem more practical?

Also, to the bikers out there (and I do not mean this is confrontational way, so don't go all digital CM on me- it's just a question): if riding over the bridge is so dangerous/scary, why not just hop off and walk the bike across?

Not only that - since the sidewalk is so narrow and barrier low - when a big truck or bus passes at full speed, the resulting turbulence can even knock a bicyclist off balance.

The master plan includes the link, but the project is not funded at this point.

I'm a proponent of a retrofit that would widen the sidewalk with a cantilever bike lane addition. Just haven't had time to put pen to paper.

@ sarahjc
Recently I was forced to ride across the bridge at night because the locks were closed and the Fremont Bridge was under repair and also closed. I am an experienced cyclist and am fine in downtown traffic, but I HATE the Ballard Bridge. The danger is very clear to me. One slight weave and you're over the low cement barrier and into the zooming traffic. Very simple to comprehend if you've ever biked over the bridge---especially at night. I do believe it is the city's fault. It is VERY dangerous and shouldn't even be used for a cycling route.

what if i want to bike from ballard to seattle center? neither route is really particularly great. the ballard bridge route has the obvious flaw of going over the ballard bridge, and the fremont/dexter route has the issue of getting under/around aurora.

That bridge is terribly unsafe … you should ride on the Burke-Gillman to Fremont and up Dexter.

I've never biked across it, but have run across it … and there are only inches between you and a car that's drifted too far into the right lane.

Yeah, it was totally "retarded" of me to suggest using the path to downtown that has lanes just for the specific purpose of bicyclists...I mean, silly me, why would you want to do that when you could save time by going the more unsafe route?

Oh, found it:

"The proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge on the west side of the Ballard Bridge
should be installed at a location that takes advantage of existing topography. This
bridge connection requires more detailed study in the future."

It does need to be fixed. I wonder if it one of the slated improvements for bicyclists in the Mayor's plan. Anyone know?

Seattle's Bicycle Master Plan for those who are interested. Lots of info there though, so it may take me a while to get to the answer to my question.

@2: "Ha, why would you use this bridge when you can go a few miles out of your way and use the locks or the Fremont Bridge instead? DUH."

That is a retarded "solution" and does not address the fact that the Ballard Bridge has concessions for pedestrians but it is completely unsuitable for bicycles. This needs to be fixed.

I didn't say that he was. The accident was a while ago. I was only commenting on the article itself, which turns into a recap of the Critical Mass incident last Friday.

It doesn't say in the PI Article that the guy was part of a Critical Mass ride, why do you assume that?

Also, how did he get "thrown" into traffic? It sounds like he was riding across the bridge, wrecked his bike and fell over the wall, how is that the cities fault?

People looking to cross the bridge should use either the locks or the Fremont Bridge to cross anyway, those routes are much more bike friendlier in my opinion.

It seems like this article has sensationalized the Critical Mass incident. I haven't seen it reported anywhere else that he was "dragged from his car" and the fact that no one has come forward from the group isn't surprising since "Critical Mass is designed to be unorganized so finding someone to comment on behalf of the mass after the fact is obviously going to be difficult. " (from a comment on my blog--he said it so well).

This story doesn't need to be made worse just to further some other biker's lawsuit. The lawyer's statement "The concern that we have is that there were people telling the city about this problem well before this incident." isn't followed up by any evidence of what those complaints were. I am not impressed with the PI's reporting on this story.

Also, we can only move forward. There is no going back in time and fixing things for bikers. Comparing us to a European city is comparing apples to oranges. What is our record like compared to other US cities?

Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for the guy. It sounds like he has gone through hell. And I don't ride across the Ballard bridge because it makes me nervous.