Comments on: A look at the proposed change for 15th/Holman

By: SPG

SPG — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:02:37 +0000

I don't think you'll see any change at 3rd/80th as neither of those roads are considered major arterials and introducing a turn lane in any direction would mean taking out somebody's entire front yard.
If you ask SDOT, making the light in one cycle is a privilege, not a right.

By: SPG

SPG — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:59:08 +0000

You should mention that to SDOT so that they plan accordingly and make that left turn lane long enough. That's the kind of feedback they could use.

By: SPG

SPG — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:55:23 +0000

“fewer accidents” would imply that there have been more than one. I never said the accident rate was abnormally high, but a previous poster claimed that they were in a left turn accident there. I've seen the aftermath of two others, so there are definitely some happening there.

By: willienillie

willienillie — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:47:17 +0000

Come voice your concerns tonight! Journey Church, 9204 11th Ave NW. 7-8:30.

By: squeakywheel

squeakywheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:17:40 +0000

People already walk and bike Crown Hill. They don't need this waste of money to do it.

By: squeakywheel

squeakywheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:16:04 +0000

I like and respect the bike riders and I drive a car. Biker riders directly result in fewer cars on the streets. Give them some space and courtesy, for heaven's sake, what's the problem? Yes they should follow traffic laws, but I will cut them more slack than a BMW or a Subaru.

By: squeakywheel

squeakywheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:45:32 +0000

What problem?! The one you just invented??? Show us the stats that this is a high accident area. You can't because it isn't.

By: squeakywheel

squeakywheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:42:39 +0000

And there is less room for bicycle lanes because it made all of it narrower. It used to have light rail here, too bad it wasn't put back before a median was added.

By: squeakywheel

squeakywheel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:40:32 +0000

Y'know, if there *were* safety issues around Holman Rd, like accidents between vehicles and pedestrians, this might be meaningful. But there *isn't*! This is a complete waste of money that is better spend improving intersections elswhere, like turn lanes at 3rd Ave NW and NW 80th St.

The only safety issue here has been pedestrians and vehicles at NW 87th and 15th NW, but nothing has changed there, infact, trees will obscure jaywalkers and the number of accidents may increase.

Where are the accidents statitics that say this area is a problem?!

By: JulianDavies

JulianDavies — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:19:28 +0000

Hey – I drive too, and find that when I drive my own personal a**hole quotient rises by 70% – impatient, aggravated, entitled, angry at anyone in my way, stressed, and unhappy. So I understand the feelings involved here, but also that it's not a permanent condition. For most.

By: Barney Stinson

Barney Stinson — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:25:26 +0000

Yes. They are a complete nuisance yet carry themselves with a holier than thou attitude.

By: cloudblues

cloudblues — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:06:44 +0000

By the way, I wasn't complaining – I was seriously asking. The drawing seems to close off *any* left turns from 85th northwards. Am I reading it wrong? Are there any openings? Or is it really going to force us (heading northwards) up to Greenwood in order to turn around and get to the businesses on the other side? That doesn't seem … right, somehow. And it's not me saying “wah wah wah I don't wanna drive 5 more feet than I have to”. I take the bus to shop as much as I can in Ballard, but when I'm buying 10 pounds of cat food and 20 of cat litter, I'm not going to lug that on the bus! :)

By: Name

Name — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:13:36 +0000

There is no way that is going to work for left turns from from southbound 15th onto 85th. The traffic in the two straight lanes backs up too much and the left turn light is too short. I have to enter the left turn lane. I usually have to enter the turn lane much earlier just to have a chance to make it.

By: Tehama

Tehama — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:29:43 +0000

Get a grip. This part of Holman/15th bisects the Crown Hill Urban Village where walking is important. Crown Hill is a neighborhood not just a thoroughfare to get from Ballard to Northgate. Many of us walk (that is a good thing) from the north to the south side and the overpass is inconvenient and not accessible. Pedestrian crossing at street intersections is legal (not jaywalking) whether or not there is a painted crosswalk.

A median will make left turns for cars and bikes safer (no more playing chicken with a car from the other direction) and not remove a traffic lane. It will also provide a place for pedestrians to safely and legally wait. As for getting in and out of Dick's no problem, just drive around the small block to 13th. It is through an industrial area.

Trees (a good thing) will provide a much needed visual improvement for the Crown Hill neighborhood (and maybe slow some traffic) and will go along with the new park (remember ProParks Levy II- Seattle is building parks not closing them.)

So get out of your cars and walk or bike the Crown Hill neighborhood.

By: sdrake1958

sdrake1958 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:22:33 +0000

What's happening here is making things worse. So let's pack in a few million more people and wonder just why things are so crazy too? There's is no competition with government. It's goal is to make things worse for drivers and go to them for your transportation needs. Sound kooky? WTF else is this then besides social engineering? Same goes for what was just completed up on Greenwood and Holman. Calm shmalm, trees shmees. Were all being spoon fed garbage. Time to bring back the horse and buggy. This isn't any solution. It's unfortunately more of the same tired BS. I feel better now.

By: SPG

SPG — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:19:15 +0000

no.

By: getoutoftheway

getoutoftheway — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:50:29 +0000

Anyone else sick of Bike Riders?

By: watergirl

watergirl — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:49:36 +0000

Seattle isn't big on allowing U-turns at major intersections as a way of making a lefthand turn. IF they implemented that system, it might work, but I think it would still be less convenient than it is now. Really, I just don't see the point in taking out a traffic lane in order to plant trees in the same space — unless of course, it's part of Nickels' grand plan to eventually ban cars in Seattle.

By: JulianDavies

JulianDavies — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:15:47 +0000

As an everyday cyclist, I don't love improvements like this because they take away turn lane space for cars to safely pass me. Then again, I wouldn't ride on 15th there because it's a suburban sprawltastic-style arterial right here in Ballard. As for all the comments about dangerous scofflaw pedestrians, I think there's some "windshield perspective" going on here.

Yes, jaywalking is currently illegal (and some pedestrians are high, drunk and stupid, as are many drivers). But so is the speeding commenters here seem so worried about preserving. Anecdotal comment above not-withstanding, which do you think is the greater public danger - speeding or jaywalking? Hint: http://www.slate.com/id/2234011/

By: walker

walker — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:54:28 +0000

To quote SPG: “keep the traffic moving to the lights where you'd turn around” Yikes! At the risk of sounding like a negative nellie, that image gives me total nightmares. I live very close to the major intersection of 85th and 15th, and frequently walk to the nearby stores, restaurants etc. I use the crosswalks and already feel like it's a crapshoot if I'll make it to the other side without getting plowed into by drivers making right turns. People just don't look for pedestrians now – add u-turning cars to the mix- plus reduced visibility – looks like I'll need to invest in a suit of armor just to run to Safeway and back. Or drive – which kinda defeats the “get people out of their cars” theory. For the record, I am not resistent to change – just to dying at the hands of a inattentive driver.

By: Tortie

Tortie — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:53:27 +0000

Please look at a current map and compare it to the concept drawing. This does not remove a driving lane. Currently, going north on 15th, you merge from 3 lanes to 2 lanes at 85th. This only affects the middle turn lane, not any driving lanes.

By: Tortie

Tortie — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:40:26 +0000

Yeah, lots of negative nellies here. Everything from a new condo going up to a new restaurant opening, and loads of people have nothing but criticism. This looks like an improvement to me.

By: BTown

BTown — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:13:56 +0000

The city is tinkering with Road diets. They reduce the capacity of main roads to discourage people from driving. The actual result is much like that of water… everyone else just finds alternative paths… like racing down side streets.

By: BTown

BTown — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:10:54 +0000

Looks like a nice design. Many Seattle streets look pretty dumpy. Back in the day when Maryland did programs like this (and Seattle has the same problem) you get a lot of plant theft. Whole trees just go missing.

I think that it would really beautify the area. It's good for carbon footprint which is most likey the goal of the kids.

The changes on the road to Lowes look great… I forget the name of that road…

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:09:58 +0000

Reducing the arterial from 3 lanes to 2 in each direction will turn this stretch of road into a parking lot. It's bad as it is, and Ballard/Crown Hill is nowhere near close to complete saturation. I'm all for greenery and a cleaner (and healthier) environment, but at the same time I view this idea is taking a lane off each direction on I-5 and somehow not expect some sort of problems.

By: Ballardcrab

Ballardcrab — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:05:18 +0000

Fast traffic, schools close by, access to business, no city funds for installation let alone maintenance and now lets put trees to limit the view for traffic and pedestrians? Great thinking! It may look great on paper but in reality…….. Safety should be the over-riding factor!!!!

By: Dyubee

Dyubee — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:02:25 +0000

I think it's a great idea, although I do understand being upset about not being able to easily turn left. But that means that I'll probably only get a Dick's Special on the way out of Ballard, so my butt will benefit. Otherwise, I rarely go to any of the establishments up there.

What I'd like to see are bushes that present a real barrier that prevent people from crossing beneath that pedestrian overpass. My car was totalled after a kid darted in front of the car in the next lane. He was unhurt, but he caused quite an expensive accident between the cars who (successfully) avoided him.

By: SPG

SPG — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:53:15 +0000

There always seems to be quite a bit of resistance to any kind of change around here. A problem is identified and everyone complains about it. A solution is proposed and people complain twice as much. The solution is implemented and everyone gets used to it until a new problem arises…rinse, repeat.

At a certain point when traffic patterns and volumes change the original design will become inadequate. With some planning the road can be adapted to meet the change in a positive way by meeting the old needs, like access to business, as well as the new needs, thoroughfare to Greenwood for the increased population there.
It looks to my untrained eye that they are trying to use the islands to reduce the number of left turns across traffic and keep the traffic moving to the lights where you'd turn around. If this is the case then you'd be able to safely increase the speed limit, or since it's Seattle with no traffic enforcement, allow the already increased speed of most drivers to happen with fewer accidents.

By: watergirl

watergirl — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:24:26 +0000

Good point, a thick groundcover could help. But it wasn't that long ago, just a few years, where they were trying to figure out ways to get peds to stop jaywalking in that area and use the crosswalks. This just seems to be a step backward, if you'll pardon the pun.

Regarding 8th north of 65th, that's a smaller street in a residential neighborhood, carrying less foot and vehicular traffic than 15th/Holman, which is a main arterial through a business district. I'm not sure it's a strong comparison.

By: Ytoo

Ytoo — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:22:54 +0000

8th is much slower since the medians were created. Nicer looking also.