As covered previously, SDOT was planning to throttle Green Lake Way N and waste a lot of money by putting in a bike crossing at N 52nd and Green Lake Way N, eliminating parking on the East side of the street. Pretty much everyone said “no please” so SDOT thankfully backed off.
New plans are for the 2-way cycle track around the lake to transition to two 1-way protected bike lanes at a new light going in at the Pitch and Putt (where 3 roads all named Green Lake Way intersect). The West side curb of Green Lake Way N where it borders the Lower Woodland Park parking lot will be torn up to make room for the protected bike lanes without taking away parking.
As the protected bike lanes also go in on Stone Way N between N 45th and N 50th, parking will be taken away on one side of the road. SDOT is leaning toward eliminating parking on the East side, where new condos without parking are permitted to replace the Zaw parking lot.
Painfully, SDOT is planning no improvements to the intersection of N 50th and Green Lake Way N. Their own metrics rate the intersection as an “F” and it was a top concern in feedback. SDOT has a system called ITS which dynamically changes signal timing based on traffic loads, and it is perfect for a long signal like N 50th and Green Lake Way N. The signal does not need to be coordinated with other signals, and one approach to the light is often clear while another is backed up for several blocks.
SDOT is not planning to install ITS because they say Move Seattle requires that all their funds go to either bike infrastructure or maintenance. Did you know our city government has no money for simple fixes that would improve vehicle throughput? Are you surprised?
But putting mode wars aside, ITS would also be a huge win for cyclists. With ITS the protected bike lanes on Stone Way, Green Lake Way, and N 50th could all be extended up to the signal light. This eliminates dangerous crossover zones and shared lanes that cause conflicts between cyclists and drivers. Without ITS, SDOT fears a reconfiguration could impact vehicle throughput negatively.
So we’re at a crossroads literally and figuratively. Will we settle for “meh” or will we ask for something better? To provide feedback, contact Christa at the Green Lake Way Paving Project. Here’s the current design with turning movements, which SDOT is proposing will remain exactly as is after repaving:
When looking to improve things, we need to back off radical ideas or mode favoring ideas since those ideas are out of scope for this project. That means no traffic circles, no turning a 5 part signal into 6 parts, no cutting off legs of the intersection, no one-way streets. Put aside the perfect, but why not at least make things a little better like this?
What can they do to make the pedestrian crossing better? The “smart” signals on Mercer have made pedestrian crossing much worse. (Lights will slip walk phases, or rapidly go to don’t walk even as light is green for much longer – not to mention taking forever.) Perhaps they can find something smart enough to sense the volume of pedestrian and adjust accordingly.
For bold solutions, what about a bridge or a street trucation?
I agree, “intelligent” signals have proven to be a failure, and will for as long as we treat street capacity as a “free” resource.
As for a bridge, those are expensive, especially since it would have to be quite long or have a lift to be wheelchair-accessible.
Pedestrian bridge!
Gondola!
Eric, I think you have their newest proposal incorrect. I think the two way bike lane is now planned to extend all the way down to 50th, along the West Side Parking strip along the playfields. I I’ve asked them to clarify this with a new layout, but have received no reply to my latest email to [email protected], and of course no new layout is currently posted online.
I do disagree with your no new “Bold” ideas though. We need a total rethink of how cars get East/West and North/South through this area.
Yes, we could use a little boldness. The main reason the 50th intersection is so terrible is because five arterial streets come together. One of them (the diagonal section of Green Lake Way) seems rather unnecessary to me. It’s a small shortcut for cars, but that’s about the only good thing that can be said about it.
Walking across it anywhere other than the marked crosswalks on either end is very hazardous, and I’d have to guess that the complicated sequence of lights needed to make this five-way intersection work causes the average driver to wait there longer than if it were a more typical four-way intersection. I know when I’m driving eastbound on 50th I often have to wait two or three light cycles before getting through.
I’d be happy to see that four-block shortcut eliminated, reconnecting the regular street grid in that area and using the remaining land for affordable housing.
That diagonal section of Green Lake Way is how people get to 99 and Ballard. Eliminating that will just clog up surrounding streets much more, as people make a longer trip. It was put in for a reason.
I know full well what the road is used for, but I don’t think eliminating it would cause the chaos you fear.
If the diagonal was eliminated the folks who would have used it could just take Stone to 45th, which seems to me like it should work well enough. Ballard-bound traffic could alternatively take 50th to Phinney to 46th.
Note that the Green Lake Way diagonal ends a block east of Aurora, merging with the traffic from 45th. If that can work for one block, why not a few more?
I think what’s needed is the opposite. There are more East-West traffic needs than North-South ones. The one that’s not necessary is the Green Lake Way going north. What major areas is that stretch connecting? Make that stretch parking lot instead of streets to serve people going to Green Lake and Lower Woodland Park.
Also if you want to eliminate an East-West lane, the one to remove is the 50th going west. 50th to Phinney to 46th or Stone to 45th requires more turns and more intersections and will still paralyze this intersection due to the back flow. You can already picture how that stretch of Stone Way will be like if we go with your idea.
I think both you and TJ are crazy! 🙂 Going south on Green Lake Way towards this intersection is sometimes backed up PAST THE GOLF COURSE. If that road is turned into a parking lot, that amount of traffic will redirect…where…down Latona?? Can’t get rid of Green Lake Way going north!
As for eliminating Green Lake Way going diagonal SW from the intersection, that is a two lane road that backs up plenty waiting for the light before Aurora. You want to reroute everyone on the one lane on Stone, over to 45th, then through the stop sign, etc…? That will back up through the 5 way intersection!
Heck no to removing roads, I say! Let’s just get the fancy light timer and make some common sense improvements.
Yes, you can get rid of Green Lake Way going north, because if you look at the traffic pattern you’d know what that traffic is. Limited number of the south-bound traffic from there actually continue south from that intersection. Most of them either go east toward i5 or west toward 99 or Ballard. So what would happen there would be people going east or west earlier. The heavier traffic would be on 99 or i5 as it should be. Why would people actually use Latona instead? To get to where?
The Green Lake Way going SW on the other hand is effectively one of the main path to Ballard. The fact that we have the build up in Ballard instead of Wallingford means we create more burden on the East-West travel when there are already limited options.
It was added in the 1930s (https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/16/2016-worst-intersection-in-seattle-green-lake-50th-stone/). Our traffic engineering knowledge has advanced somewhat in the past 85-odd years.
For one, the traffic lights on either end at 45th and 50th are almost certainly slowing everyone down more than the additional distance to drive on Stone and 45th/46th would. Without the diagonal, the light on the south end would only be two-stage, and it would only need to stop east-west traffic when somebody wanted to turn left off of Aurora, or for pedestrians to cross. We could have a normal 4-way intersection at 50th. For people driving southbound, we’d just be swapping a soft right turn at 50th for a hard right turn at 45th. People driving northbound would be swapping a soft left at 50th for a hard left at 45th.
I think we should ask ourselves: if land acquisition were no object, would we put the diagonal in again, knowing what we know in 2018? I think it’s fairly clear that a grid is the most efficient street layout, and trying to have shortcuts only slows things down.
Actually we’ll keep the diagonal. Do not think just from the point of view of one intersection, but about how we move people around. The diagonal links to both 99 and Ballard, while the 50th going west doesn’t link 99 and isn’t a good route going to Ballard.
For that intersection, the two most important traffic flows is 50th going east to link to i5 and University District, and the diagonal. All others can be re-designed.
The only way to rid of the diagonal is to re-design the 50th and 99 intersection, including having a path from there to Ballard. That’s much harder.
SDOT said there would be no changes to the intersection at the last WCC meeting and also released this statement on Monday: “We’re currently looking at ways to make improvements at this intersection by clearly marking crossings and improving visibility and sightlines.” In other words, no changes to flow.
Regarding bold ideas, there’s no time or budget to fit them into this paving project, which is to happen next year.
SDOT said there would be no changes to the intersection at the last WCC meeting and also released this statement on Monday: “We’re currently looking at ways to make improvements at this intersection by clearly marking crossings and improving visibility and sightlines.” In other words, no changes to flow.
Regarding bold ideas, there’s no time or budget to fit them into this paving project, which is to happen next year.
If I understand your proposal correctly, one potential problem is that it would require a separate bike signal and actually-enforced no-turn-on-red, since cyclists would be going straight while some drivers would be turning right through the bike lane. Some drivers, like some cyclists, have difficulty following the rules of the road, but the consequences are much worse when they don’t.
I emailed SDOT a couple times about setting up an all-way-walk at 50th, which would also require drivers to read and follow road signage (my observations at N 40th and 15th in the U-District would indicate a majority, but certainly not most, drivers do), but never got much more than a canned response from them. If the protected 2-way bikeway does force one direction to switch sides of the street to continue, though, an all-way-walk would be a way to accommodate that without a crazy mid-block crossing, and would also let pedestrians get across in one cycle rather than 2-3 cycles.
Thanks Skylar, that’s true, cars would need to be stopped from turning right from GLW southbound to N 50th, but I don’t think that would be hard to enforce. The protected bike lane pocket would be on their right, and cars typically want to continue onto Green Lake Way N, which is not just a simple right turn and could be clearly blocked with a red light. At the very least, it’s better than having cars legally cross paths with cyclists, which is the situation today.
I think the solution is to make the Green Way North between 50th and 80ths not roads. Make them bike lane and parking only. That way you greatly increase the parking for Green Lake and the Lower Woodland fields, and greatly increase the East-West traffic throughput. The only thing we sacrifice is to push the North-South traffic back to i5 and 99.
Don’t try to sell ITS as somehow an important idea. It’s just optimization for car throughput and not much more, and I don’t think we can even agree on how important car throughput is. It’s not like all directions are of the same importance, and intentionally slow down of throughput in some cases may be desired. The true important arterial function of that cross may only be the 50th coming from east, and the Green Lake coming from south. For other directions we can argue it would be more about just connecting local traffic.
If we want to make it safe for pedestrians, an easy solution is to introduce yet another phase: all way pedestrian crossing. That actually makes a lot of sense for that location, but it would further slow down car throughput.
According to the update from SDOT two days ago, the Stone Way N bike lanes will now end at 46th St, preserving all existing parking between 46th and 45th. See page 7 of http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/MaintenanceProgram/GreenLake/2018_1119_GreenLakeWallingford_PublicFeedbackAndUpdates_Final.pdf?page=7
Good find! So is it accurate to say parking is removed on one side between 50th and 46th (not 50th and 45th)?
It appears so.
50th/Stoneway is a disaster. As a pedestrian I have to wait a complete cycle to cross one leg of the intersection, let alone two. They need to make this intersection a pedestrian scramble — the high pedestrian volumes and conflicting movements makes this a perfect place for one. Providing allocated green time for all peds to go simultaneously will free up green time for traffic/bike flow. ITS could work but I feel there traffic volumes are high in every direction, plus SR 99 ramps so close, an actuated signals would ultimately resort to the current situation. Perhaps exploring a two lane roundabout???
Also, so glad they are not putting bicycle lanes on 40th, we need to protect our e-w traffic lanes for both cars and buses. Would love to see the city restrict parking 30′ from the curbs though so that it is easier for people to turn onto 40th..
more hand wringing and wasted money for the (maybe) 3% of the population that might used this regularly…
You know what population’s percentage is even smaller? I’ve said it multiple times, and you must know it by now?
lol, this may disappoint you, but i don’t commit all of your wise words to memory…
If you use this type of logic, you’ll always end up eliminating parking spaces and single-family houses here and there. Any specific single-family house and any specific parking space will not have many users.
And really with that logic, there are a lot of public facilities we shouldn’t bother building, since many of them really help a small percentage of people. It’s just poor reasoning.
The typical analysis should be about costs and benefits, not the percentage of people impacted.
People should have a safe way to walk from Wallingford to Green Lake without having to wait forever regardless of whether they are 3% or 93% of people you count.