Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood

 
Register or log in to post

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Here comes the next Ballard clusterfark

(66 posts)
  • Started 10 months ago by ballardpilot
  • Latest reply from Magnolian96
  1. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    In keeping with what seems to be the city's never-ending mission to wreck the roads that (like it or not) we all depend on, here comes the latest move that will make your life worse: the re-making of the intersection of Market Street and 24th/Shilshole.

    This intersection is such a disaster already about 8 different ways, at first glance one might think "oh, finally, SDOT is gonna fix it". Well, they're gonna "fix it" alright - Seattle style. Which means, it's going from Disaster to Calamity.

    Here's how it's laid out currently:
    Market street has two lanes going west, and about two and a quarter lanes going east. A quarter lane eastbound? Sort of. Going east, the left lane is for left turns (up 24th) or going straight. In practice, pretty much all the traffic in these two lane goes straight. There's little reason for a left turn here from Market eastbound to 24th northbound - everyone who lives or works west and north of this already-congested intersection would take a different street going north. What's that "quarter lane" going east? It's the curb lane, used for traffic trying to turn right onto Shilshole. I say "trying" because in practice, it doesn't work very well now because of cars (and delivery trucks) parked in front of the bars and buger joints on the corner. So the "curb lane" only has room for one or two cars at best, and in order to get into that lane, you have to go through the next lane over. The first car in that lane that isn't turning right stops at the light....and traffic backs up quickly. It often backs up all the way to the Taco Time or the entrance to the locks. It's incredibly inefficient, and for those that rail about carbon footprints, you have hundreds of cars every day that just sit there, not moving, engines running.

    The north-south lanes are just as bad. Coming south on 24th, there are 3 lanes: the left-most lane is left-turn only, onto Market, which makes sense. But idiot drivers tend to just drive down the center (2nd) lane, which is either left-turn or straight. The right lane southbound suddenly appears just a few yards north of the intersection - thanks to the city's decidion to change 24th from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with center turn lane. The traffic going south of 24th often backs up badly, at least to 59th, sometimes all the way to 65th. 24th is single land now until just a few yards before market St, so it's not surprising that a lot of clueless drivers who want to turn left onto Market St eastbound just stay in the same lane they were in (not the dedicated left turn lane). So that one lane backs up badly very quickly - even though many of the cars in it will not be continuing through the intersection and making the half-left onto Shilshole. Rather than sitting in traffic that's (needlessly) backed up for blocks, some drivers try to cheat by cutting into the 3rd (right-most) lane headed south on 24th - which is now a bike lane until you're almost in the intersection. Then the two lanes of cars that want to make the half-left onto Shilshole have to merge within the intersection, as they are both making the half turn.

    Going north from Shilshole onto 24th is even worse. There are two lanes. Some - but not all - of the cars in the left lane turn left onto Market. But many of those cars head north on 24th. Meanwhile, the right lane of Shilshole is either right turns onto Market (a minority) and most go north on 24th, which results in a drag race and a very quick, dangerous merge in the space of about 20 yards as the street narrows from 4 lanes to 2. I have seen several accidents right there (and countless near0misses) as a result of this squeeze.

    Introduce a bicycle anywhere in this mix and it gets even worse, fast. The whole thing is incredibly inefficient, really dangerous, and just terrible. It's hard to imagine anything worse.

    Well, somebody came up with a way to make it worse.

    Wait until you see what SDOT is doing to this intersection now. It's going to make everyone long for the good old days when the intersection was just a disaster.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  2. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    I think it's the drunk punks coming out of that tapas place that really screws up this intersection.

    btw, did you see where I spray-painted the right-turn only arrow on the 24th going south in the far right lane? some people see it and obey.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  3. LandsOnTwoFeet

    LandsOnTwoFeet

    offline
    Member

    I've been saying (complaining) for years that if Seattle is trying to create the most inefficient, dangerous, ridiculous, idiotic, gas wasting street and traffic flow design possible, then they have succeeded beyond all expectations.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  4. lifeisamazing

    lifeisamazing

    offline
    Member

    My late husband was an engineer and once said (yelled) as we sat in traffic "I used to think Tijuana had the worst traffic flow until I got to Seattle!"

    Posted 10 months ago #
  5. Ballard Sucks Now

    Ballard Sucks Now

    offline
    Member

    All kidding aside, you guys do realize that wrecking the roads is actually a top priority for my administration, don't you?

    Look, I'll be honest. We all know that this city's mass transit system is a cruel joke. The bus system sucks for most people. If it works for you, consider yourself lucky, but it's simply not practical for most, and it's not going to get any better. But it's more important to my administration that we lower our carbon footprint than maintaining your ability to get around, to do business, or the quality of your life - none of those things are particularly important, I want Seattle to be a "green" city, and that means getting you all out of your cars, one way or another.

    The sad fact is, there's no way we're going to be able to make a mass transit system that you actually want to use. We've given up on that long ago - we only do little "show" projects that look good for the tourists. Instead, we're going to do everything we can to force you take take the bus or ride a bike by making it increasingly painful and expensive to drive. Trust me - you will get out of your cars, I assure you.

    Oh sure, we're going to be coy about it - we'll talk about "traffic calming" and "pedestrian friendly neighborhoods" and "road diets" and all the other bullshit we can come up with, but the fact is we're simply going to to make it impossible to keep living the life you have been living, little by little. Reducing lanes on arterials, changing lanes to bus-only use, painting meaningless bicycle symbols on every street and "bike boxes" everywhere, imposing a 5 MPH speed limit on most city streets, turning intersections into impossible circus tricks - it's all part of the effort to make traffic more intolerable with each passing day, in order to punish anyone who might still think they have the freedom to use a car in the city.

    We've got plenty of additional tricks up out sleeve, too, so don't think you've seen the last of what we'll do to you. Our work will not be complete until the last truck drops off my statue and then rolls out of town, never to return.

    Enjoy your utopia, Seattle - be careful not to step in the feces.

    Sincerely,

    Your Dear Leader.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  6. Corvus

    Corvus

    online
    Member

    It's not cheating to use the right lane going either North or South. In fact it makes sense to use the lane and decrease the length of the line. The problems happen when people think they have some how been cheated and try to cut people off.

    That said, the intersection is a total mess. Can't you just wait to have to huge new multi story condo's right there on the corner?

    People will be heading north on 26th to 65th or some other side street to get to 15th rather than brave 24th and Market. I can't see any way to fix it, and I don't even want to imagine how bad it is going to be with the new condo's. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out a way to make it worse before the condo's get built.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  7. GAM

    GAM

    offline
    Member

    Regarding going straight in the right lane while headed south on 24th, to merge into the traffic continuing on Shilshole involves changing lanes in the intersection, so that strikes me as illegal.

    I've always taken an "everyone can wait in the same d*mn line" approach in both directions. I find it really doesn't take much more time to wait my turn. When I moved to Ballard drivers weren't nearly so pushy and competitive. Comes from the density, I suppose.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  8. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    there's a little room south of that intersection to merge.

    the only time I will take the lane (the right lane) to go straight, is if I see a bus or some other obviously turning vehicle in the middle lane.

    I have no problem going northbound through that intersection since I'm usually turning left (West) onto Market. I could see the same merging issue North of that intersection and like corvus said, it's a matter of people feeling cheated so they gun it when someone is trying to cut in.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  9. Corvus

    Corvus

    online
    Member

    Going straight in the right lane is not illegal. In fact the road continues straight for some ways before it becomes private property.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  10. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    I was speaking tongue-in-cheek with my first post on this thread, but someone did get some white spray-paint and crudely scrawl 'right turn only' in that lane.
    there's even a scrawny charlie-brown arrow beneath it.

    I'll bet the same guy could produce an 88 cent sharrow.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  11. Apple

    Apple

    online
    Member

    I consider it a driver's duty to go straight from the right lane at that intersection. Every person who does so reduces the traffic back up in the middle lane and is performing a valuable service to other drivers by speeding things up for all. I don't merge dangerously and will stop and wait as long as necessary until I can merge once through the intersection. It beats waiting two or three light cycles on the north side in the middle lane.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  12. AndrewJN

    AndrewJN

    offline
    Member

    FYI, the new intersection configuration can be seen in this study done by a consultant for the city:
    http://www9.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/Mkt_24th_intx_v3a.pdf

    The city installing something very similar to Alternative 4, with Option A on the west side.

    The intersection should generally perform better (for cars and transit), but not for all possible turning movements.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  13. treehugger

    treehugger

    offline
    Member

    Apple +1 - that's exactly right! (Just like heading east on 85th where it crosses 15th)

    Posted 10 months ago #
  14. User has not uploaded an avatar

    SeaSpider

    offline
    Member

    Lots of complaining but does anyone actually have a viable solution? There is a finite amount of road space available and a large volume of cars that need to fit on those roads. That means there are only 3 real solutions:
    1) Build more roads. Good luck with that. Elevated roads are expensive and ugly. Tunnels are expensive and limited in where they go. Tearing down buildings/homes isn't palatable. People already whine about high taxes so don't expect any of these to happen.
    2) Reduce the number of cars on the road. People don't want to pay for/use public transit. Bike riding isn't an option for many people due to time, distance, etc. Not everyone can work from home. Not sure how else you're going to get people off the road.
    3) Expand our existing roads. Easiest way to do this is to eliminate all street parking. Good luck getting businesses and homeowners to go for that!
    4) Use more of our roads. I sometimes find that going 20MPH down a side road is faster than going 25-30MPH on a major arterial where you have to stop 3-4 times for traffic lights. While main streets such as 24th have a lot of traffic side streets usually do not.
    5) Keep traffic moving. Best way to do this is to eliminate traffic lights. Traffic circles do a better job of keeping traffic moving because they never require traffic to completely stop the way lighted intersections do. Two problems here: 1) Seattle drivers can't figure out how to handle 4 way intersections so I hold out little hope of them handling a traffic circle and 2) They require a lot more room than a 4 way lighted intersection which means potentially tearing down buildings at some intersections.

    If you've got a sixth solution I'd love to hear it. Reality is things will only get worse because people don't want to spend money and don't want to change their habits.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  15. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    SeaSpider +1

    Everyone on the interwebs thinks they are a civil engineering expert, if any of the complainers had to try to come up with a better solution they would learn how hard it is considering all the constraints mentioned in SeaSpider's post.

    Going straight in the right lane is not illegal. In fact the road continues straight for some ways before it becomes private property.

    actually this is not correct, and this is the crux of the missing link debate. The road does not "become private property" it becomes public right-of-way that is being used by private businesses.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  16. User has not uploaded an avatar

    SeaSpider

    offline
    Member

    @ Ernie

    Never a good sign when I become the voice of reason!!

    Posted 10 months ago #
  17. Corvus

    Corvus

    online
    Member

    Ernie,

    With all due respect you are not correct. The road progresses southward for at least a car length or two before you enter what is essentially the Pacific Fisherman complex.

    That said, I have not complained. I stated what others have said - it is going to get worse and I can't see any solution. I really have looked at it and tried too. I live within walking distance of that corner and I walk through there all the time. But I also drive through there on the way to the bridge or Fremont. I suppose that will change. I like to look at houses and gardens and people so I usually drive the side streets when I head East to Green Lake. Shilshole actually used to be just such a street as was 65th. Times change.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  18. JoeMan

    JoeMan

    offline
    Member

    I travel south on 65th through this intersection often and it does not bother me one bit if there's a car in the right lane that decides to go straight. There are a couple lane divider dash marks before that driver has to get over to the half-left onto Shilshole. Traffic is rarely if ever backed up on Shilshole going south across Market so there's plenty of room for me to accelerate slower or faster to accommodate someone merging. This isn't rocket science to do, especially if you have some courtesy. It isn't as if I have to slam on my brakes when they merge since I'm starting my acceleration across the intersection. I simply either press my right foot harder so he can fit in behind me if it's clear that's what they want to do or let up a little if they want to go ahead.

    Merging happens all the time while driving (and walking and running and biking); as mentioned above by Corvus and others, as long as you're not an asshole about it, you'll be fine. If you read any transportation studies, merging at the last minute is actually way more efficient and reduces the length of the traffic jam, which is generally good everyone. And if everyone decided to get into the merge lane, it would even out both lanes and then reduce the length of the jam even further. Unfortunately, the transportation studies don't calculate the mental cost of merging at the last minute to assholes who feel entitled to be on the ass of the car in front of them, losing the 15 feet of pavement to another vehicle. I prefer not to see middle fingers regularly when I drive so I don't do it but having not knowledge and seeing the bigger picture makes me not as pissed.

    I do get pissed when someone is blowing by in the emergency lane because that really is a safety hazard.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  19. GAM

    GAM

    offline
    Member

    "Going straight in the right lane is not illegal. In fact the road continues straight for some ways before it becomes private property."

    Going straight is indeed legal, as long as you keep going straight. Any attempt to merge into the traffic continuing along Shilshole is done in what can perhaps be called an adjacent intersection where the "lower stub" of 24th has a stop sign at Shilshole. It's essentially a "five corner" intersection, just like 22nd & Leary. I will readily admit the layout is murky.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  20. racerX

    racerX

    offline
    Member

    RE: the intersection @ 24th ave and market st: seeing that there are 3 lanes going north and south, why not make the far left lane left turn only; the center lane no turns; and make the right lane right turn only? Problem solved, IMHO.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  21. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    To those here who just say "well, yeah, it sucks but there's no solution, so lets just accept what SDOT is going to do next" I say the following...

    Refer to the diagram linked by AndrewJN above, see Figure 4 for what they're planning to do.

    1. What SDOT has done to this intersection in the past couple of years has actually made the situation worse. It was better before their last round of "enhancements" (I'll give details below).
    2. Their next "enhancements are going to make things very dramatically worse still (details below).
    As to exactly why the city keeps making the roads worse and worse, I'll leave to others (although I do agree that it sure seems like they are making things worse deliberately).

    here's what they did to make this intersection worse than it was 2 years ago...

    1. Narrowing 24th from 4 lanes to 2. I'm not going to argue whether or not this was a good thing generally (I don't think it was) but they way they did it was just really stupid. The transition from 4 lanes to 2 lanes northbound takes place in a tiny stretch of just a couple car-lengths, and happens immediately north of the intersection. If they're going to squeeze 4 lanes to 2, they need to give drivers more space to do that - another block or two.
    2. Adding the "curb bulbs" on Market Street, immediately east of the intersection has a lot of really bad consequences...
    A. For westbound trafic turning north onto 24th, the option to turn from the curb lane is now gone. This makes eastbound traffic back up all the way down the block, sometimes causing gridlock in the next intersection east, at 22nd.
    B. There's a matching "curb bulb" on the south side of the street, too. Together, these put a significant squeeze on the amount of usable space for vehicles. That has caused the batshit-crazy plan they now have, which is to reduce Market Street eastbound to a single lane. That in turn triggers even more problems...
    C. Feeding in to this intersection from the west, there are two- to three lanes. Having driven this for many years, I can tell you that probably 60% of the vehicles going east are trying to go straight down market. 30% are trying (and usually failing) to turn right onto Shilshole (and get the hell out of this mess). A small minority of vehicles turn left onto 24th northbound (nobody who lives west of 24th would do this - they know there are better ways to proceed north - the only vehicles that probably go that way are gang bangers making their circuit up to Golden Gardens...but I digress).
    D. The 30% of traffic that wants to turn right onto Shilshole usually cant, because of parked cars (or delivery trucks) that block that lane. There's only about one car-length of space in that south-most lane, and the first car that isn't turning right immediately causes all the vehicles behind it to get stuck until the intersection clears.

    So here is a better way to address this mess...

    1. This is the single most critical thing they could do to not fark this up further: Prohibit parking for at least 10 car-lengths in that right-turn lane on the south side of Market west of 24th. Yeah, the bars will moan about losing those parking spaces. Tough. They're about to get 10,000 new customers moving in across the street in the latest condo skyscraper monstrosity, they can dry their tears with some the loot they're going to make. Then get serious about enforcing this lane - don't let the beer trucks park there and block it. This would allow traffic to actually utilize that right turn lane, unfreezing all of the eastbound clog that's there now (and that's about to get much, much worse (don't believe that it's bad? Go take a look next time you're there and see how many vehicles are backed up how far and for how long).
    2. Keep the middle of the three eastbound lanes straight-through only. But fer cryin' out loud, don't make the northern-most eastbound lane left turn only - that's just idiotic. Leave it as it is now, left turn (with a protected turn arrow) or straight through eastbound.

    These steps would keep the traffic flowing eastbound, and would actually be an improvement over how it is now.

    But there's a little problem with doing this. It won't work because SDOT plans to squeeze the eastbound traffic into just a single lane - for westbound traffic they're adding a dedicated left-turn-only lane for all the traffic that turns south onto Shilshole. Of course, there's almost no traffic that turns left there, and what little there is can be accommodated as things are right now, with a short protected turn arrow.

    Please look at the diagram of their plan - it's completely crazy.

    As for the north-south flows, in addition to stretching the "transition zone" north a couple blocks, the following would help:
    Northbound: This is currently one of the worst traffic backups in Ballard. Approaching this intersection from the south, along Shilshole, there are two lans for northbound traffic, but the right-most lane kind of dissolves and merges with the end of the parked cars just a few yards beyond the bend in the road. There's only room for about 2 or 3 cars in that northbound right lane - cars parked head-in/head/out along the western-most stretch of the north side of Shilshole make that lane all but useless. The fix for this is to eliminate maybe 2 or 3 parking spaces at the extreme western end of the row, and then for the rest of that side, switch from head in/head out parking to parallel/curbside parking. Yes, this would reduce the number of parking spaces. But why is this the only road in Ballard that has densely-packed head-in parking, while on every other street, head-in/head-out parking is illegal? If that right lane could be made usable (by wrangling the parked cars a bit) it would unclog things going north. The extra pavement that was reclaimed from the parked cars might even provide enough space for a second lane going south - which could completely unclog the southbound backup that extends down 24th from Market St to 60th and sometimes even to 65th. But to take full advantage of that...
    Southbound: This is the one piece that's the most difficult - but that doesn't mean it's impossible. As has been pointed out in other posts above, that western-most southbound lane is tricky. SDOT plans to make it right-turn only onto Market St. westbound (which very few vehicles use). Instead, it should be clearly marked as right or straight through. But what about the admittedly sketchy merge that takes place in or immediately past the intersection? That problem is solved completely if a second southeast-bound lane could be added to Shilshole (by rotating all the parked cars 90 degrees on both sides of the street). But even if a second lane couldn't be added all the way down past the Ballard Bridge, even a short "transition zone" there would allow for a better, safer, more reasonable merge than exists now.
    Finally, I do agree with one item in SDOT's plan: the east-most southbound lane on 24th needs to remain left-turn-only onto Market St, and the middle of the 3 southbound lanes on 24th needs to change from it's current left-or-straight to straight only. There, I found something SDOT actually got right.

    I'd love to remove the "curb bulbs" that were recently built, but that's never going to happen - even though they make this intersection's problems significantly worse.

    So - there are a bunch of better options that SDOT could implement to actually improve this intersection. Instead, they're going to make it much, much worse. Not because there are no other options. Because....well, despite the fact that Transportation is part of their name, I don't think that transportation is actually part of their mission. Maybe the T now actually stands for Traffic?

    Posted 10 months ago #
  22. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    Jesus Christ on a crutch, BP! Dude, here's a bit of advice, go to 65th and go east, west, wherever the hell you want. Only tourists go anywhere near Market in a car. Sheesh.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  23. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    Ernie, the city is in the process of cramming another 40,000 residents into new condos being build within a stretch of a few blocks. 65th is already starting to get backed up badly without them - and so is every other road in this neighborhood. It's only going to get worse, a lot worse. The last thing we need is to have the city actively building projects that make it still worse yet - which is exactly the very predictable result of what they're about to do. People here complained that nobody was offering any alternatives because there were no alternatives.

    There ARE alternatives. I pointed out several.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  24. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    I still contend that the real problem (with turning right onto Shilshole while approaching this intersection from the West on Market) is pedestrians.

    most of the time, I am turning right here(in the 30% according to bp).
    the intersection may clog sometimes as a result of parked beer trucks, etc., but usually it's people walking really, really slowly. that is why sometimes only one car can turn (more often than parked truck in my experience).

    get rid of pedestrians and this intersection will run smoothly.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  25. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    get rid of pedestrians and this intersection will run smoothly.

    But, you've got faith in your c(sh)ity leaders??

    You are an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, w/ a side of extra stupid. Your elected representatives want everyone to be without a car. Everyone. We don't even want you to park a car, let alone drive one. Maybe a Chevy Volt, but only if you are filthy rich and stupid. I'd bet you are not filthy rich, but you've got stupid covered like a wet blanket. I could bet your are going to double down on stupid this November.

    Good luck w/ that.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  26. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    sorry, I didn't realize my audience was so gullible I would need to put a cute little /sarcasm/ in there for you to understand.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  27. Dweezil

    Dweezil

    offline
    Member

    I get cut-off frequently by people using the right lanes to pass heading north/south through that intersection. So the polite forum posters are the exception to that experience.

    If someone chooses to get into a lane that is about to end in order to pass others, then it is the responsibility of others to make room for people in a hurry, right?

    Posted 10 months ago #
  28. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    GI, you didn't realize you were gullible?

    You are your audience, or, you are your audience. Why else would you need a little sarcasm notation?

    Sorry, that requires a bit higher function to answer...clearly.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  29. bambooboy

    bambooboy

    offline
    Member

    I use that right lane a lot to go straight onto Shilshole from 24th. I don't make a big deal out of it but virtually every single time, at least one of the first 5 cars leaves enough room to enter the road with out anyone having to get snotty about it. If no one gives me room, I just wait till I get the room. Never had a problem once I quit being aggressive about it.
    Quit being aggressive and you will fine that most people will quit with you.

    I will tell you that what annoys me most is people turning left onto Market St. without putting on a turn signal, but I get over it....

    Posted 10 months ago #
  30. iPlod

    iPlod

    offline
    Member

    I have to Bim bambooboy's Bam here.

    Everything he said I agree with, having being there & doing that.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  31. ironymaiden

    ironymaiden

    offline
    Member

    that building is an apartment building, as are all the high rises going in right now. there haven't been new condos in Ballard for years. hell, i think they're still trying to fill Hjarta.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  32. brown_eyes

    brown_eyes

    offline
    Member

    Is this a done deal or is there still time to stop it? Does anybody have contact information to lodge objections? I'm just gobsmacked at the very idea of reducing the number of cars that can go straight east on Market at 24th for the very few who turn left. Having a somewhat larger right turn lane will not compensate at all. Traffic will be backed up past the Locks.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  33. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    brown_eyes - You need to understand that the city wants traffic to get worse - a LOT worse. That's their policy. It's the only way they can force you onto the shitty bus system, whether it works for your life or not. Until you accept that fact, none of their projects make any sense.

    I am not kidding. I'm completely serious.

    Every primary road in the city either has had its capacity reduced, is currently in the process of having lanes removed, or will. All part of the same plan.

    Yes, traffic will be backed up past the Locks. Nobody should be surprised.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  34. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    Every primary road in the city either has had its capacity reduced, is currently in the process of having lanes removed, or will. All part of the same plan.

    Additionally, tolls, for any road that isn't a bike lane, or can't be a bike lane, or is built explicitly for your damned cars.

    Don't worry, they have a plan.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  35. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    Unfortunately, that is indeed the plan.

    First, choke off every arterial by removing lanes. Then, after everything is in complete gridlock, declare it a crisis, impose "user fees" for roads. If you're high income, you can buy your way out of the planned misery. Otherwise, for those not driving a Mercedes, you can choose the bus or bike.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  36. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    "If you're high income, you can buy your way out of the planned misery. Otherwise, for those not driving a Mercedes, you can choose the bus or bike. "

    that makes absolutely zero sense. just how does one buy their way out of misery with a fancier car? are we talking about a flying car maybe?

    funny, this intersection gets easier and easier for me to navigate with my bicycle. in fact, I don't ever have to wait at all. I just pull right up to light and start pedaling the moment it turns green.
    and it's not even an expensive bike!

    Posted 10 months ago #
  37. User has not uploaded an avatar

    ballardpilot

    offline
    Member

    It's not complicated. I'll try not to use any big words.

    Once the city starts charging tolls for driving on local roads, only those able and willing to spend the money will be able to use the roads. Traffic drops significantly, and those who can afford to pay for road access enjoy the same freedom of movement that everyone used to enjoy for free. Problem solved.

    Putting tolls on local roads was actually stated as a preferred goal by at least one current Seattle City Councilman, but when pressed on the issue he (disappointedly) had to admit that the idea was "not practical right now".

    Of course, bicycle riders are so virtuous that they don't need to follow traffic laws or any other rules, or contribute in any way, so you should be fine.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  38. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    you keep changing your argument.

    are you mad that the city is encouraging mass-transit and other, more efficient modes of getting around, or are you mad about tolling that probably won't take place for 10 years and has nothing to do with these road diets?

    the shortfall of gas tax with hybrids, etc. has left a big rift in road maintenance. maintenance needed because of your car on the road. does paying your fair share not make sense to you?
    they can put a gps in my car and toll me every mile I drive. fine with me. I should drive less as should everyone regardless of the car they drive.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  39. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    funny, this intersection gets easier and easier for me to navigate with my bicycle.

    You keep reinforcing the argument.

    It's all about punishing cars, or any symbol of success. Nice c(sh)ity you've got going. The future is now. Grab it.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  40. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    "It's all about punishing cars, or any symbol of success. "

    bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    (that would be lmao for you).
    symbol of success? give me a break.

    you and ballard pilot, and ironymaiden, and browneyes, and iplod, and me...
    have all been living an unsustainable lifestyle. get it?
    people are moving into our city and neighborhood whether you like it or not. get it?
    your so-called 'quality of life' will go down. however what you call 'quality' is subjective to say the least.

    if you choose to blame your elected leaders, feel free. I guess we all need someone to blame and a mirror is not always convenient.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  41. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    I prefer a mirror as opposed to a peep-hole to paradise and some pipe dream.

    My quality of life will not diminish, sorry, despite your best effort to say otherwise.
    Anyone dependent, that's another story entirely, and it's sad, indeed.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  42. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    offline
    Member

    Regarding "...mass-transit and other, more efficient modes of getting around...", it depends on how you evaluate it. Mass transit costs the government a lot more money, so it's not cost-efficient. Mass transit costs its riders typically about twice the time they would have spent in a car, so it's not time-efficient. It is freedom-efficient, in that we have much less freedom to travel with mass transit.

    There's a reason that individual cars are so prized by humans around the world: they are a great boon to personal freedom. You've got to do a lot of forcing to get people out of them, which seems extremely counterproductive. Why not just make individual cars emit less of what you think is bad for the environment, or fit into smaller spaces if that's your beef? That is, if there really isn't a war on cars and the human freedom they represent.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  43. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    " Why not just make individual cars emit less of what you think is bad for the environment, or fit into smaller spaces if that's your beef?"

    maybe the latter of those two. even zero-emission cars will create gridlock and wear-and-tear on the roads.
    will people realistically take to smaller, lighter vehicles, instead of driving 4000 lbs down the street for a loaf of bread?
    it seems like the liberty you describe is also assumed to include luxury.
    people scoff at smart cars as they see it an affront to their personal freedom to be in a large vehicle.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  44. onederfullone

    onederfullone

    offline
    Member

    I scoff at smart cars, primarily, because idiots desire them.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  45. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    offline
    Member

    gi, not sure what you mean about the "luxury" part, as buying a car, even a small underpowered one, is often the first big purchase made by folks in developing countries.

    The new Minis have sold quite well and seem to be scoff-free, even though they are quite small. That suggests that popularity has a lot to do with design and not just checklists of features.

    Regarding weight, the laws of physics mean that heavier cars will tend to be safer in collisions with other cars, so different aspects of cars may conflict.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  46. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    "Regarding weight, the laws of physics mean that heavier cars will tend to be safer in collisions with other cars, so different aspects of cars may conflict. "

    this sounds like the same argument I hear against bicycle riding.

    when I look on any given road, 95% of the traffic is one 200 lb person in a car much heavier than it needs to be. when I say 'luxury', I mean people believe they have the freedom to ride in a spacious vehicle that might be safer for them, but put more people (in lighter vehicles) in jeopardy.

    I personally don't believe it's a 'luxury' to drive a car. if anything, I feel 'priveleged' when I've been able to commute or run errands on a bike. to think that owning/driving a car = freedom just sounds silly to me.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  47. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    offline
    Member

    Since everyone pretty much has a choice as to how heavy of a car they drive, they do now have that freedom. People who choose to drive lighter cars have that freedom as well. Seems the only way to have all cars weigh the same would be a pretty restrictive government regulation; not sure if that's what you're suggesting. I agree that individuals driving 4-person+cargo cars without those extra people and cargo most of the time IS inefficient; I'm not sure how to make things better in practice, since most people do make use of the extra seats and capacity at least some of the time. Maybe some sort of big Zipcar with valet delivery? It would help a lot if this option were a lot cheaper than just owning a bigger car, but I don't think it really is right now.

    Regarding cars and freedom: fair enough, gi, not everyone will have the same likes/dislikes. However, looking at the evidence in societies around the world during the past hundred years strongly suggests that most humans believe having at-will access to a car for their sole use is highly desirable. It's usually counterproductive to try to force public policy to go against strong preferences that most people share, which is why I initially suggested trying to deal with the pollution/congestion aspects without penalizing car ownership and use per se.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  48. Ballard Sucks Now

    Ballard Sucks Now

    offline
    Member

    you and ballard pilot, and ironymaiden, and browneyes, and iplod, and me...
    have all been living an unsustainable lifestyle. get it?
    people are moving into our city and neighborhood whether you like it or not. get it?
    your so-called 'quality of life' will go down.

    Hey, grate idea - STOP THAT. Look, you ought to know that above all, we do not openly talk about our plans to force people to do what we want. Never admit we're trying to make life more difficult for the vast majority of citizens so we can further our own private agenda. If they found out about our plan, they would stop electing visionaries - get it? So ex-nay with the alk-tay about intentionally wrecking things for all the car owners, OK? We're supposed to maintain the fiction that what we're up to will make things somehow "better" for them (don't worry, we'll never have to explain exactly how - the voters are morons - they keep electing the likes of you and me, hah!!!).

    Sheesh, I thought we all got that memo along with the code words we're supposed to use. Go back and re-read that, OK?

    Posted 10 months ago #
  49. gracie

    gracie

    offline
    Member

    I try to avoid that intersection as much as I can. That stop light seems to stay on forever. And as a pedestrian, walking south to north, it doesn't give you enough time to even get half way across before light changes. And the road there is very uneven and I pity some of those people who have difficulty walking trying to get across without falling. Hate that intersection.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  50. brown_eyes

    brown_eyes

    offline
    Member

    The lanes are now striped and traffic lights changed.

    Is it faster?

    Well, I live west of the Locks and drove to Ballard Market today for two items. By the time I got home a spider had built a 5 foot web across the path to my front door. I expect the traffic will be backed up to 34th on the weekend.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  51. lakreitz

    lakreitz

    offline
    Member

    Yes, traffic will be even slower on Mkt and 24th. I watched a two man crew do the arrows on 24th yesterday. Sheesh, the guy did it 'free hand' with some old school machinery and it was perfect. I was impressed....not impressed enough to drive down 24th again though.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  52. great idea

    great idea

    online
    Member

    that really was some 'old school machinery'. you could see the flames inside the 'hot paint box' or whatever they call it. very cool!

    Posted 9 months ago #
  53. Corvus

    Corvus

    online
    Member

    It was pretty entertaining watching people trying to figure out the new rules today.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  54. allisonw

    allisonw

    online
    Member

    All of the new traffic striping is increasing congestion. I assume that is intentional.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  55. InBetweenDays

    InBetweenDays

    offline
    Member

    I really don't underestand the change. There seems to be no need for a designated left turn lane there. The left lane was never backed up (heading east), although the right often is due to people turning and pedestrians in the crosswalk. A right turn lane would have made a lot more sense.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  56. Dweezil

    Dweezil

    offline
    Member

    My thoughts exactly. No need for designated left turn lanes when they were already stopping oncoming traffic as well as stopping the pedestrian crossings. Some traffic engineer who makes much more than me failed to figure this out.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  57. AndrewJN

    AndrewJN

    offline
    Member

    While the striping has changed, the signal timing is still unchanged from before any of the changes occured. The signal timing is planned to change to allow eastbound and westbound through & right movements at the same time; there will be (short) dedicated left turn phase (hence the dedicated left turn lanes). Additionally, a eastbound right turn lane was painted, but cars park over it; parking restrictions will be implemented soon to take advantage of the right turn lane. I'm a bit surprised all the changes weren't done at once, but it should be better (or at least not worse) when everything is done.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  58. InBetweenDays

    InBetweenDays

    offline
    Member

    Well I'll reserve my judgement then until they block off parking for the right turn lane. I do think a right turn lane will improve things there.

    They also need an overhead sign or some other advanced notice indicating the left lane turns into a left turn only lane at the light. Otherwise you're going to have people accidentally ending up in that lane and then trying to merge right to go straight.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  59. Gilman Girl

    Gilman Girl

    offline
    Member

    I was around that intersection last evening, lots of horn honking and near misses with a line of cars backed up west to 28th. weeeee!

    Posted 9 months ago #
  60. Edog

    Edog

    online
    Member

    What were you doing down there Gigi? Fighting crime again?

    Posted 9 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

OUR SPONSORS










Advertise here
There are 158 users online. 10 of them are members.
216908 posts in 14909 topics over 62 months by 3932 of 97635 members. Latest: bagxttfnao, grtzjniq, xauxzffteusz