63rd/Alki: New turn of events


The city Transportation Department says it’s looking at ways to convince more people to turn off northbound Alki Ave at 63rd, where the yellow “residential street” sign shown above seems to be too subtle a clue that the arterial ends there, instead of continuing up and through the narrow stretch where it becomes Beach Drive at Alki Point. Sandra Woods of SDOT tells WSB that might even include physical changes to the intersection, “to make the turn more obvious.” This is part of the next stage of the process regarding pedestrian improvements west of that intersection, now that the city has told concerned area residents it won’t do anything that would take away their existing non-parallel parking in the sidewalk-less zone. (That’s the proposal that brought an upset group to the Alki Community Council last month, as we reported here.) Woods emphasizes the sidewalk plan isn’t dead — it was the result of a neighborhood application/planning process — but will likely turn into some kind of what she calls a “nonconventional walkway.” Right now, the city is developing “conceptual drawings” to be presented at a future public meeting, likely late March/early April.

21 Replies to "63rd/Alki: New turn of events"

  • Alki Res. February 6, 2008 (7:38 am)

    Why not make it a one-way street coming around from Beach Drive to Alki Ave. A Do Not Enter sign would be placed were the Residential Sign is… that way the scenic drivers, as well as the local residents will be inconvenienced! People like to drive around the beach!!!

  • Eddie February 6, 2008 (7:50 am)

    Can anyone tell me how Bob (“Beware of Bob”) gets away with parking that hurkin motorhome in the disabled parking spot near the corner every day, for months on end? Something has got to be fishy there. It’s a dangerous blight on the landscape and has got to be breaking some law somehow.

  • thomthumb February 6, 2008 (8:56 am)

    Good question about Bob. Not only is that “hurkin” motorhome parked there. He has power cables running over the sidewalk. He also a boat and an ATV all parked in close proximity to his motorhome. Also, don’t park even close to his house or he will go ballistic.

  • dq February 6, 2008 (10:06 am)

    well, i guess we know why it says “Beware of Bob”…

  • acemotel February 6, 2008 (10:09 am)

    boo hoo. At Alki, the public right of way is private property! The people who live on the water also get to tell the city what they can do with the street in front of their homes. Why not just put a fence around the whole point and station a guard at the entrance so only the privileged owners can get in? There must be some work-around access for the riff raff.

  • MarkV February 6, 2008 (10:22 am)

    If you knew Bob and had knowledge of his circumstances, you’d probably cut him some slack. He’s parking the motorhome is HIS disabled parking spot. Bob has several other “toys” parked around as well. Each toy is scheduled to go to a buddy once his time comes.

    We walk Alki every day and have come to know Bob (and his dog Zoobi) over the years. You won’t find a nicer, more accommodating person. If you see him outside, stop and get acquainted. He’d love to meet you.

  • Erik February 6, 2008 (11:03 am)

    Zoobi is a sweetie! My big lab is always smothered with kisses from her when we walk by.

  • m February 6, 2008 (11:03 am)

    I don’t go to Alki that often so I don’t know what motorhome is being referred to, but vehicles are not allowed to be parked on the street for more than 72 hours at a time. There are storage facilities that could accomodate the motorhome, boat and other stuff.

  • Michael February 6, 2008 (11:03 am)

    For those keeping score: people with money 1, pedestrians 0.

  • Sue February 6, 2008 (11:36 am)

    MarkV, not to discount Bob’s disability, but nobody owns a dedictated handicapped spot on the street. You can request one be put in front of your house, but anyone with a valid handicapped plate or placard can park there. It’s not his alone. From SDOT:

    “Seattle residents who possess a valid Washington State Disabled Parking Permit may request installation (at no cost) of a disabled parking space adjacent to their residence subject to certain conditions. However, a space signed for disabled parking may be used by any vehicle with a valid Disabled Parking Permit and is not dedicated to the exclusive use by the requesting resident.”


  • cami February 6, 2008 (12:15 pm)

    How about a GATE…. just kidding.

  • Not Really February 6, 2008 (12:42 pm)

    It’s true, homeowner tend to IMAGINE that the street parking in front of, or near, their houses “belongs” to them. It doesn’t. Unless it’s YOUR property, you have no special rights to it. If you don’t have parking for your car/RV/boat on YOUR property, then you have to just fight for public parking like everyone else. And I won’t put up with some bitchy resident who thinks I’m parking “too close” to his private little space. I’m sorry he’s handicapped in some way, but that never gives you an excuse to be dumb or rude.

  • JenV February 6, 2008 (1:24 pm)

    ha ha. across the street from me is a man who has apparently lived there for so long he considers the spot on the street in front of his house “his spot” and went so far as to call my landlord when I parked there!

  • I Heart Jiggers February 6, 2008 (2:26 pm)

    So, how many people have died at this point, warranting a potential traffic revision? I keep being told that nothing can be done to make Admiral Way safer (from bridge exit to California Ave.) because the death toll doesn’t warrant it.

  • marty February 6, 2008 (3:21 pm)


    Here is the website to report cars, rv’s boats etc. parked on the street for over 72 hours. I agree that boats ans rv’s belong in storage, not on the street. Try this site, It usually gets action within 48 hours.

  • acemotel February 6, 2008 (4:09 pm)

    I once saw a handwritten sign next to the street, in front of a house on a thoroughfare: Do not park in this space. It is reserved for the tenant at xxxx 35th SW. I think it’s still up there, and it does discourage people from parking. This is on a public street. It’s nice that some people are just so entitled.

  • Chase February 6, 2008 (5:43 pm)

    As we all know our parking is a big deal on this street. Yes I have lived here 40 years and have been here for it all. This sidewalk is really not right for us. 150 of us on this street do agree that it needs to say the way it is now. Let us alone we do not want to be part of the “park.” The park ends at the end of the park. Not on our street….And starts back up on beach drive…So let’s keep the park in the park not on our street…

  • Jack Loblaw February 7, 2008 (6:05 am)

    If the residents get to retain their special parking spaces I suggest that the King County tax accessor come out and add the land to their taxes so that they can pay for what they think is rightfully theirs.

  • Chase February 7, 2008 (7:50 am)

    We do pay for the street,pot holes,and handicap spaces, and we do not have special parking. The last time I got my street parking space I did not know it was special just the public street not even in front of our house.

  • Alki Res. February 7, 2008 (10:56 am)

    Chase, What?!?!
    And I can’t pass this up…
    “What About Bob”

  • acemotel February 7, 2008 (3:55 pm)

    Chase, as we all know parking is a big deal everywhere at Alki. It is such a big deal, there are even special city parking rules for Alki. (Alki parking overlay district) Just because parking is a big deal, doesn’t mean that anyone gets a special privileges to park in the public right-of-way.

    Just because 150 of my neighbors up here in the Admiral district decide we don’t want cars in our street, doesn’t mean the city will close the street down to satisfy us. If 150 of my neighbors decided we didn’t want the fire station in our neighborhood because it “isn’t really right for us” do you think the city would yank out that fire station? I don’t think so.

    I don’t understand why the folks living on the waterfront between Alki Beach park and Constellation Park think they should have special privileges that are not extended to any other Seattle residents?

    Every other city department is going to great lengths to reduce and eliminate encroachments on public land. Why should SDOT go to great lengths to protect private encroachments on public land?

    This is a no-brainer. And it’s a matter of equity. The rights of the public trump private takings.

Sorry, comment time is over.