West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(21 posts)

Is Admiral Way one of the designated "diet roads"?

Started 1 year ago by cathyw
Latest reply from Asterix

cathyw
Member Profile

"There are six current or proposed projects referred to as "diet roads" which convert four lane streets into two lanes with a middle turning lane and a bike lane." This is supposedly a quote by a local official about the reconfiguration of Nickerson Way in Fremont, which begins today. I think the designation of "diet road" is interesting. Not sure what they are trying to convey by that terminology.

Posted 1 year ago #
WSB
Member Profile

"Road diet" is the old term for what is more often described now as "rechannelization." Literally, slimming down the lanes, is the only genesis of the terminology that I'm aware of.

Posted 1 year ago #
Al
Member Profile

Here's the federal determination of "road diet."
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/index.cfm

"A road diet involves narrowing or eliminating travel lanes on a roadway to make more room for pedestrians and bicyclists.(1) While there can be more than four travel lanes before treatment, road diets are often conversions of four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two through lanes plus a center turn lane (see figure 1 and figure 2). The fourth lane may be converted to a bicycle lane, sidewalk, and/or on-street parking. In other words, the existing cross section is reallocated..."

Posted 1 year ago #
Al
Member Profile

It is also paid for by the Bridging the Gap Levy, approved by voters in 2006.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/paving.htm

and of course,
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeprojects/sw_admiral_way.htm

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

yes see Admiral Way Bike Lane blog

Posted 1 year ago #
tk
Member Profile

Concerning the proposed Admiral Way “road diet” (narrowing to one lane down the hill/southbound)-
I think SDOT has lost sight of the fact that Admiral Way is still the only designated “Principal Arterial” for the north end of West Seattle. Doesn't that mean vehicle traffic is supposed to be the principal use for this road?

In a technical analysis for crosswalk safety projects (completed in 2007), SDOT considered reducing the number of lanes on Admiral Way, but concluded, “However, given the importance of Admiral Way SW as a motor vehicle travel route, SDOT could not recommend a reduction in the number of travel lanes at this time.”
What has changed since this SDOT analysis in 2007?
Where is the SDOT report which has changed this determination?

Please be sure to send in your comments to SDOT before the July 27th deadline:
walkandbike@seattle.gov, or call 206-684-7583

Posted 1 year ago #
JayDee
Member Profile

Does anyone else think it's fishy that the comment e-mail address tk cites is "walkandbike@seattle.gov". Do you think that comments not in favor of a road diet might possibly be ignored? I think walking and biking were minor components of transportation in our fair city after the car and the bus...Sure, both are good for you, but like it or not, the city fabric was made for cars.

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

JayDee...I probably will regret this, but if I don't have a beef with the changes, I just don't write....maybe I should change that. And I'm not a traffic engineer :)

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

the city did not even conduct a traffic count at the olga street/admiral way intersection and evaluate the effect! it is traffic engineering 101, unbelievable that no count or analysis was performed.

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I believe you've said that already..we get it ...

Posted 1 year ago #
yeah-me
Member Profile

I live a few blocks off Faultneroy and was very concerned about the road diet. Now I love it. I find it much easier and SAFER to turn on and off the street and traffic goes at a much more reasonable speed for housing neighborhood.

Maybe changing Admiral is not such a bad thing.

Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

I love the road diet, and I emailed to show my support. The mayor also seems to have an email list for causes he supports. I wrote in support of light rail on 520 to not only the mayor but also all the unions and others that said to just build it now, without light rail. Now I get emails from the mayors office anytime there is a 520 related hearing. Say what you want, he knows how to use technology, and email lists to drum up support!

Posted 1 year ago #
JayDee
Member Profile

With all due respect, this section of Admiral is unlike the section of Fauntleroy that was dieted. There are limited areas for access, and no lights (but the cross-walk at Olga) to synchronize flow. The fact that the West Seattle Fre...Bridge empties directly onto uphill Admiral is another.
-
I was wrong concerning the City's parking review for the Junction; however, to give credit, they recognized there was no need for pay stations, unlike in every other Seattle neighborhood.
-
But given the current Mayor, I think we will be saddled with this solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The old adage "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" applies. If it is too easy and convenient to drive a car, make it as painful as possible so people do what is good for them. This is a poor quality decision. I am a optimistic pessimist--I hope I am wrong.

Posted 1 year ago #
Yardvark
Member Profile

I know Admiral isn't Fauntleroy, but I'd reiterate what yeah-me said above. The Fauntleroy road diet has made it much easier and faster to both drive and bike along Fauntleroy, as well as easier to cross the street. I was really surprised at that.
Hopefully, an Admiral diet can pull off the same miracle!

Posted 1 year ago #
tk
Member Profile

SDOT communications director Richard Sheridan wrote to WSB:
"The city is proposing to rechannelize Admiral Way, however, to lower vehicle speeds and enhance safety for all users. Adding bicycle facilities is not the primary driver for the project for improving this roadway."

If this is true, why is the project being proposed through SDOT's Bicycle & Pedestrian Program? Why do the proposed engineer drawings read, "Seattle Master Plan Implementation, SW Admiral Way (Olga to Avalon)"?

Interesting fact- the Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan's map (online) with Tier 1- High Priority Areas for Crossing the Roadway, does NOT include this section of Admiral Way as a priority for improvements. In fact, Admiral Way is in the 5th (lowest of 5 total) priority area. So why is this major change of a Primary Arterial being proposed?

Even in the Bicycle Master Plan, there is no recommendation of a "rechannelization" to only 1 lane down Admiral hill. Instead, the Bicycle Master Plan recommends removing parking in order to add "median crossing islands or a full median" along with bicycle lanes- (this actually might be a good idea just uphill of City View St, adding a center turn median for more vehicle & possible pedestrian safety on the downhill run).

The master plan aslo recommends "climbing" lanes for bicycles on steep hills, and allowing "faster-moving, downhill bicyclists to have a shared-lane marking...where there is not enough space for standard bicycle lanes on both sides."
Isn't that what several bicyclers have written on this blog- that a sharrow lane downhill is actually safer downhill when bikes are esentially travelling the same speed as vehicles? Combined with a properly signed merge zone for vehicles going to the WS bridge ("zipper system") and solid white striping (no cross zone), the right hand lane would not carry the last minute bargers, and would be more open to vehicles that need the lane for the right turn, as well as busses and bicycles.

Finally, in the SDOT online crosswalk project section for Admiral Way (from 2007), there is this conclusion, "However, given the importance of Admiral Way SW as a motor vehicle travel route, SDOT could not recommend a reduction in the number of travel lanes at this time."

So, where is the required analysis for this new rechannelization proposal?

Posted 1 year ago #
Moose
Member Profile

Are there stats to go with this reasoning? when they say "safer" what are they making more safe? Bikes, Peds, other autos? I understand that there was a car vs. bike in May. They lowered the speed and from what I can tell - It's working. When I drive that road at 30mph I don't get passed. Seems like a lot of money and forgive my ignorance... I can't find stats that back up such a project when there are so many other 'road work' projects they can do.

Posted 1 year ago #
Al
Member Profile

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeprojects/sw_admiral_way.htm

FAQs: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/AdmiralFAQs.pdf

What factors did you consider?
• Volume—24,000 vehicle trips on an average day (2009)
• Speed – most of the cars travel at 44 mph up hill and 45 mph down hill (2000)
• Collisions— reviewed collisions over the last 3 years. No collision patterns exist for this stretch of roadway.
• Transit and pedestrian access— 6 buses per hour in the morning, 5 in the evening (peak
direction).
• Freight needs—SW Admiral is not a major truck street.
• Bicycle needs—bike lanes are recommended in the Bicycle Master Plan.
• Parking— parking exists on the east side of the street, not heavily used except at the top of the hill.

Aren’t there too many cars on Admiral for this to work?
The current average daily traffic on Admiral is roughly 24,000 motor vehicles each day. National studies show that this level of traffic can be accommodated within the proposed 3‐lane configuration.

How does SDOT know that reducing the number of lanes won’t decrease the capacity of the street?
That doesn’t make sense.
We agree it seems odd, but we have rechannelized 27 streets over the past 30 years, without reducing capacity – a recent example is Fauntleroy Way SW.

Posted 1 year ago #
Al
Member Profile

I think pushing SDOT for up to date stats is good. I am for the lane configuration, but it would be nice to have updated figures in any case.

Posted 1 year ago #
Moose
Member Profile

Great link! Thanks. Under safety: "Lane reconfiguration has been shown to reduce collisions and speeds"... with no collision issues and installing meters to 'educate'... it's good as is. The money can be spent on more pressing needs. Side note: aren't speeding tickets a source of revenue? ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Moose
Member Profile

I think there is only one school on Delridge? It use to be Chief Sealth... soon to be a middle school I believe.

Also - My thoughts on boycotting: I don’t believe it will be effective in this particular case. They will only cater to supply and demand, without the offsetting customer voice to pressure them into removing the product... they won't (i.e. working with shop owners in tough times and changing ‘hoods’ vs. apathetic to his needs. And if that doesn’t work, as carson said, gloves come off). To reiterate - my concern is the close proximity to a school and young kids / youth centers.

Posted 1 year ago #
Asterix
Member Profile

See if they are members of any Assoc. like BBB and file a complaint. Also communicate with the Neighborhood Assoc. and the City Council.

Posted 1 year ago #