Fauntleroy follow-up: Why the city’s proposing fewer lanes

Give SDOT credit for proactivity: After our report yesterday that the city’s proposing cutting down travel lanes on Fauntleroy Way between Alaska and California – from two each way to one each way plus a center turn lane, in conjunction with anticipated repaving – SDOT offered up a key interview before we could even ask: Eric Widstrand, the man who will recommend to SDOT leadership whether this should go forward. We talked this morning, and here’s what we found out:

View Larger Map

That’s the Google Street View from Fauntleroy/Raymond, along one stretch of the potentially narrowing zone, just in case you need a refresher. Now, our Q/A:

WSB (editor Tracy Record): What’s your role in this?

EW (SDOT’s Eric Widstrand): As manager of traffic operations and acting city traffic engineer, I would be in position to approve the change in lane configuration. (He later clarified that he would actually make the recommendation to SDOT director Grace Crunican.)

WSB: Has this been proposed before?

EW: It came up in the Bicycle Master Plan – where it’s called a “segment that needs further study.”

WSB: What sort of traffic-volume research have you done leading up to this?

EW: We have had some information collected for the past month or so. We have learned that, volume-wise, a three-lane section can accommodate the traffic.

WSB: And how much traffic IS that, on this stretch?

EW: We haven’t published the annual traffic flow map for 2007 yet, but going back through 2004, 2005, 2006 — 19,100 vehicles a day in 2004, 18,600 in 2005, 18,700 in 2006 …

WSB: What about the current and future growth along Fauntleroy — with more townhouses along the middle of that stretch, and the big projects coming in closer to the Alaska end?

EW: We will be looking out five to 10 years to make sure it will work in the long term, knowing that development is coming in, even some that might currently not be planned … we do want to take that into account. We are still evaluating, but we are not seeing longterm growth that would cause this to not work.

WSB: What problems, specifically, is this proposal supposed to solve?

EW: It’s trying to make the roadway work better for all users. A 4-lane segment works very well for auto traffic, but it’s not a great facility for cyclists. And we have had a problem with speeding. We’ve installed the radar signs to help with that … Also, a 4-lane (road) is not as easy for pedestrians to use; we have the (Fairmount) park and playground — trying to get across four lanes can be problematic.

WSB: So this is making accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, at the expense of cars?

EW: The city passed a “Complete Streets Initiative” in the past year or so [ed. note: April 2007; read this], and we need to look at all modes of travel. Since the Bicycle Master Plan recognized this segment for further study — if it is repaved, we want to take a look at it. If the paving program does not come through (this will likely not be done).

WSB: Are there any comparable roads elsewhere in the city where this kind of change was made?

EW: Stone Way has been rechannelized in the past year. The volumes are holding; we’re not seeing drivers diverting onto other roads. One other that’s currently being evaluated, Nickerson between the Ballard Bridge and just west of the Fremont Bridge.

WSB: Why don’t you envision traffic jams (if this is done)?

EW: I think we understand that with Fauntleroy, you have to be concerned with ferry-traffic surges – but also, it’s currently traveling on Fauntleroy in a two-lane stretch west of California, so I don’t think traffic jams are going to occur. We will have a two-way left-turn lane, which also could allow for potential medians for pedestrian crossings. We understand that at the intersections with California and Alaska we still need to maintain a certain amount of capacity to get through … so at Alaska we’d plan to transition to the existing cross-section – we still have to figure out how to handle Edmunds. And at California, we might take the outside through lanes, and make them transit lanes or right-turn-only lanes.

WSB: What about the proposal to turn Fauntleroy through the Triangle into a tree-lined boulevard with a median [WSB Sept. coverage] — is this meant to coordinate with that?

EW: I understand the boulevard proposal might extend to Edmunds – we do want to coordinate with that study, but this isn’t looking further (north/east) than Alaska.

WSB: From the open house (December 1st), what’s the chain of approval for this?

EW: We need to get community feedback, and we want to make sure our concept addresses those concerns — we will bring the concept we’re thinking about, but it’s not the final design. We want to get feedback. The driver here will be whether the paving project moves forward or not (in the budget process) – if it does, and we feel the three-lane configuration will work, we want to make sure we have community support, we don’t want to force a change.

WSB: When would it happen?

EW: If the paving goes forward, it would be done the first half of the year. After the meeting, we will go back and take a look at what we hear, we’ll talk internally, then ..it would be raised to the director of traffic management and the director of transportation. I’d make a recommendation on what direction we should do. We definitely want to get feedback from the community as a whole – we look at this as an opportunity to have a say on how Fauntleroy can work best for them. (later) If we can get a consensus at where marked crosswalks would help, that might be part of it.

WSB: If someone can’t make it to the December 1st open house (5:30-8:30 pm at High Point Community Center), how do they have a say in this?

EW: Write to walkandbike@seattle.gov.

51 Replies to "Fauntleroy follow-up: Why the city's proposing fewer lanes"

  • Scott November 15, 2008 (5:16 am)

    Wonder how much road taxes, gas taxes, etc… bicycles will contribute to fund this repaving project?

  • Mags November 15, 2008 (7:29 am)

    Great job reporting this. I like the fact that DOT appears to be very interested in public comment. I would think the folks on Vashon might be interested, too, as it does have impact on them if they use the ferry. It will be interesting to see how they are going to address the actual Fauntleroy and Alaska intersection with the new development there and the already nightmarish traffic flow.

  • ivan November 15, 2008 (7:58 am)

    If this proposal is put into effect, it would cut traffic capacity in half immediately. Nobody can tell me that is effective traffic management.

  • sd November 15, 2008 (9:07 am)

    I disagree about Stone Way – it IS more crowded and you are inclined to take other roads. As well. I am opposed to this plan. There has to be another way to get people to the ballfield safely. As well the ‘surges’ from Vashon are heavy and it WILL back things up. I think that only day to day people who use this road know. Roads are like rivers, you don’t dam them up and not expect an environmental impact. This WILL cause jams — heck have you see in it during commute times? Why won’t you allow for West Seattle’s growth? This is not a time to take away road space. I think DOT should put their efforts somewhere else in the city. Leave West Seattle alone!

  • KSJ November 15, 2008 (9:08 am)

    I think this is a great idea. It will reduce speeding, reduce pedestrian accidents, give people more room to bicycle and get in and out of their parked cars, and you will be able to take a left turn without fear for your life.

  • DG November 15, 2008 (9:11 am)

    It will cut speeding considerably. Many drivers feel it’s their right to travel at 50+ mph and they currently zip right by the careful drivers. This will put an end to that. We should do the same for 35th.
    And please, make Alaska / Calif. a normal corner instead of this bizarre scramble light. If we measure efficiency by the amount of traffic carried over a space each moment, the Alaska junction is one giant dead zone.

  • Matt Sellars November 15, 2008 (10:02 am)

    I love the idea of Fauntleroy being a civilized street rather than the freeway it has become. That said I just don’t believe it will help at all during commute times. As we all know, that when the Vashon Ferry unloads it puts hundreds of vehicles onto the roads. I live a block off of Fauntleroy and have seen the traffic back up all the way to the intersection of Dawson and Fauntleroy. Take two lanes out of the configuration and it just backs up further. It has concerned me for some time how the density development in West Seattle has moved full steam ahead without any real apparent concessions to traffic flow infrastructure. This seems like a step backward in that department. Additionally, radar speed signs aren’t overly effective, but handing out speeding tickets is.

  • Mike Dady November 15, 2008 (10:16 am)

    We used to live in the 4800 block of Fauntleroy Way from 1990 to 1998. Back then no one seemed to care what was going on in terms of the crazy traffic speeds that were, and still are taking place. One fall evening had me witness a man run over and killed by a mini-van full of teens. His boots were one block away from his body. It was horrible. The taming of this beast through a lane reduction is long over due, if for no other reason than to slow down the idiots that use Fauntleroy Way as a racetrack to whatever destination they are in such a hurry to reach.

    Delridge Way was reduced from four to two lanes many years ago due to dangerous speeds and pedestrian deaths. Looking at the SDOT Traffic Flow Data Maps for 2006 shows Delridge Way having a near equal or even higher volume of vehicles than the section of Fauntleroy Way that is proposed for the lane reduction. Delridge Way in its current two lane state manages fine, until the choke point that is the WS Bridge comes into play. Even if Delridge Way were returned to to four lanes that WS Bridge choke point is still going to be there. It seems that perhaps the lesson here is that more lanes does not necessarily decrease the time it takes to go from point A to point B, and in fact the Fauntleroy Way lane reduction may serve to act as kind of a pseudo on-ramp metering device to the West Seattle Bridge?

  • cruiser November 15, 2008 (10:22 am)

    It’s a great idea,although I’d be more in favor of a dedicated Bus lane as they have all over Europe. The best way to get people out of cars is to make public transport quicker and more efficient

  • JenY November 15, 2008 (10:31 am)

    I disagree about the effect on speeding–you still see it on the other side of California where the road goes to the three-lane configuration they’re proposing. The real crazies just use the center lane to pass. As for accommodating bikes: I see maybe 2-3 of them on Fauntleroy while commuting downtown in the morning, fewer in the evening. This is NOT enough usage to justify halving the capacity of the road at the same time the city is allowing all this development in the Junction. It’s a stupid idea!

    Bike commuting is great, but look at the topography–there are just not that many hardy souls who are going to go downtown on their bikes, and for pleasure riding there are better routes than Fauntleroy. Improving streets for bikes should not be at the expense of drivers. If they need space for bike lanes, I’d rather they removed on-street parking (which of course would also be controversial).

  • Al November 15, 2008 (10:37 am)

    Great interview, thank you.
    Scott, funding for roadways are collected many ways — state and federal gas taxes, sales taxes, car-tab taxes, property taxes, business taxes, real-estate taxes…I, and most other bicyclists either rent or own a house, we mostly own vehicles, we buy things, we pay federal taxes, etc., etc., etc. We just don’t drive as much. Thus, I am subsidizing in some way, YOUR use of the roads. I still have to pay all the applicable taxes even though my auto use is rock-bottom. These changes make roads safer for everyone, not just bicyclists but pedestrians, motorcyclists and single-driver vehicles.

  • Al November 15, 2008 (10:43 am)

    JenY, many bicyclists do not use Fauntleroy much precisely because it is currently very scary and dangerous. I use it in the morning when traffic levels are lower. I avoid riding it in the evening commute due to fast, even more aggressive autos and very narrow lanes. I’ve seen many more bicyclists on California since the Sharrows were installed, so it will encourage bicycling, which is overall a good thing for everyone, no? One more car off the road.

    West Seattle has the 2nd Highest amount of bike commuters heading into Seattle during the work week.

  • leo November 15, 2008 (10:56 am)

    Why should you spend all that money on bike riders? Who do they think they are to deserve this? Just because they pay the same taxes as a motorist why should we build facilities for them?

    If you build intelligently designed bike facilities, people will use them. This is a choice to make, should cities be designed for people to live and work in; or should they be just places to drive cars?

  • HighlandParkster November 15, 2008 (10:58 am)

    Oh god no! Delridge Way is an unbearable sloooow crawl with that dang center lane. I’ve had to drive miles behind someone going 20 MPH on Delridge. Lord help you if you get stuck behind a bus. The single lane of traffic backs traffic up during evening rush hour from the Bridge for miles down Delridge (some nights to Home Depot!) Lines and lines of slooow moving cars. More idle time, more green house gases. And, after a loooong day of work, I don’t want it to take 35 minutes to get from the bridge to Orchard on Delridge. Cutting 2 lanes off Fauntleroy, one of West Seattle’s other busiest thoroughfares is insanity!

  • wallflower November 15, 2008 (11:24 am)

    BAD IDEA! After years of encouraging the scourge of zero lot-line townhomes, packing as many people into this area as possible, now they want to bottleneck a major thoroughfare? I’m in favor of creating a safer venue for bicyclists, so how about using the closed elemetary school for ballfield parking and using the northbound parking lane to widen the whole street to allow for bicyclists?

  • Mark November 15, 2008 (11:38 am)

    TR: Excellent reporting. How cool for WSB that the city saw your earlier post and sent Widstrand to you. Impact journalism.

    Thank you for this.

  • Dodging Cars in Gatewood November 15, 2008 (12:00 pm)

    This is a 2 part solution to the issues on Fauntleroy:

    Part 1 – Move from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes

    Part 2 – Close the Fauntleroy Ferry terminal to ferries carrying cars. Redirect those routes straight to downtown. Thats where most of these cars are going anyhow ~!

  • Joseph November 15, 2008 (12:19 pm)

    I’m glad this issue is being addressed. I’m annoyed with the NASCAR-like driving during rush hour. However, I’m skeptical about how they plan to tackle rush-hour traffic. I’m now talking with my company to work from home so I get into the city without the hassle (I have to drive for my job).

  • M. November 15, 2008 (12:39 pm)

    Dumb idea.

  • Marge November 15, 2008 (12:52 pm)

    “Wonder how much road taxes, gas taxes, etc… bicycles will contribute to fund this repaving project?

    Comment by Scott — November 15, 08 5:16 am #

    Hey Scott, Al’s right. My federal tax dollars subsidize your driving, so maybe cyclists should get a rebate from the motorists. ;)

  • WSB November 15, 2008 (1:00 pm)

    For everyone interested in this – if you missed this two months ago:
    you may want to take a look. It’s linked in this story but not everyone follows the links so I wanted to call attention to it – it’s our coverage of the presentation before the City Council in September about some ideas for changing the “Gateway”/Triangle area, much of it along the rest of Fauntleroy between Alaska and The Bridge, including a rendering of the “tree-lined boulevard with a median” that’s under consideration for that stretch of Fauntleroy. Unlike the proposal for Alaska to California, the Alaska-to-Bridge concept is NOT an official city proposal, yet, but more discussions are under way and we will keep you updated on its status as well. Last word on the Alaska-to-California proposal – I asked Eric Widstrand about the format of the open house and at least at this point, he thought it would be “drop-in” rather than “presentation” – so even if you can’t be there at 5:30 pm on Dec. 1st, you should be able to get questions answered and express your opinion any time till it ends at 8:30. (We’ll keep checking on that in case the format changes.) – TR

  • P November 15, 2008 (2:11 pm)

    Well, anything to slow down the drivers on Fauntleroy is fine with me. We sit in our shop and watch people flying by all day long. And when I say flying, its not uncommon to watch people going at least 50. Move the ferry, great idea!

  • ivan November 15, 2008 (4:12 pm)

    The ferry dock isn’t going anywhere. Colman Dock can’t handle all that traffic, and Vashon commuters will continue to use Fauntleroy. But West Seattle residents should favor sending the Southworth cars downtown. That will alleviate the crush somewhat.

    Even so, with the projected growth in West Seattle population, reducing lanes along this stretch to one in each direction is a terminally dumb and irresponsible idea. There are any number of ways to slow traffic without forcing it to a crawl.

  • Westwood Resident November 15, 2008 (8:20 pm)

    Be prepared for the next road to be converted to one lane, each direction, with a center turn lane and bike lanes….
    35th Ave SW.
    That road is also on the Bicycle Master Plan.
    I’ll just call it what it is…
    Social engineering in order to get us to take the bus and keep the roads clear for, you know, important poeple, like the Mayor and his cohorts.
    I’ll start taking the bus to work when I see the “Rotund One” ride the bus, along with the rest of the city council.

  • Roche November 15, 2008 (8:34 pm)

    I went crazy when they did this to Stone Way. I lived in Green Lake and worked near the water in Fremont, so the road was a straight shot for me. After the initial traffic pattern was settled, there’s no discernable difference in traffic.

    Fauntleroy might be a little more stressful. The Vashon traffic and the frequent lost travelers knot things up already, so it’s only going to get worse. It would be great to make use of the lights that are currently only used to facilitate pedestrians crossing to meter the traffic a bit.

  • Joaquin Kristensen November 15, 2008 (8:48 pm)

    This is a great idea and will force the one-person-per-SUV commuters from Vashon and South West Seattle to become socially and environmentally more aware and take advantage of our great metro bus system, commute, or stay healthy through biking.

  • PSPS November 15, 2008 (8:56 pm)

    They did this with California through the junction about ten or fifteen years ago. It lasted about a month before they changed it back. I suspect this will be the same thing after a few days of cars being backed up solid from the bridge to the ferry dock. In the meantime, people will try to avoid Fauntleroy by using, say, 40th or the other north-south side streets between Fauntleroy and California.
    And I agree about the Vashon ferry and cars. Ever since moving here in the 80’s, it’s always struck me as strange that ferries full of cars heading for downtown doesn’t go downtown at all. Instead, it dumps thousands of cars a day unnecessarily onto the WS bridge and, of course, Fauntleroy.

  • grr November 15, 2008 (10:19 pm)

    This is about the most assinine concept I’ve heard. I’m so fed up, especially with the bicycling community.

    When bikes pay the same licensing fees that cars do to use the road, then they can have a say. And that goes for them OBEYING the damn laws when they ride on the paved streets.

    I commute every day, during peak times, on that stretch of road. I SELDOM see a bicycle on it, especially from November-May.

    Yes..speeding is an issue on the road. I’m constantly getting passed when I’m doing the limit…Here’s an idea…SPEED ENFORCEMENT. A solid week or two of a few motorcycle cops during the commute will get the message across.

  • waterworld November 15, 2008 (11:43 pm)

    I live on Fauntleroy and I can appreciate both sides of this debate: I wish I could get in and out of the neighborhood relatively quickly in my car, and not have to deal with long lines of ferry traffic, and I also want the street to be safe for walking and biking.

    Fauntleroy is already limited to two traffic lanes from Morgan Junction to the ferry dock. This proposal, if I understand it correctly, would extend that configuration (with the addition of the left turn lane) an additional 1.3 miles to Alaska. By my calculation, if you currently drive the speed limit on that stretch, it should take you roughly 2 and a quarter minutes to cover that distance. Supposing the new configuration slows things down significantly, and you crawl along that segment at 20 miles per hour, you still get through it in under four minutes.

    I guess I can’t get too worked up about sacrificing a couple of minutes when I hit the ferry traffic, if such a small delay of me would make the street safer to navigate on foot or two wheels.

  • westwood November 16, 2008 (1:47 am)

    I posted this on the other item tonight. I just want to remind folks this is just paint. If it doesn’t work, repaint the street.


    If you look at the map you see travel data for Fauntleroy at 18,700 cars. This makes it a prime candidate for examination of changing four lanes to three. Studies have shown that streets under 23,000 often benefit from this treatment. They are safer but still move cars–just at the speed limit. Pedestrians are safer, especially a factor at the busy soccer fields at Fairmount Park.

    Examples of these are all around Seattle–Delridge, 8th Av NW in Ballard, 45th in Wallingford, Rainier and Renton Aves in Skyway.

    Here is a great visual link:


    and another


    Fauntleroy could be a very livable street instead of the freeway it is today. I would hope people would have an open mind to simply trying some paint to see what would happen. If you drive the speed limit of 35 you will have no problem with this.

  • mar3c November 16, 2008 (8:21 am)

    careful readers will note that, according to eric widstrand, traffic volumes on fauntleroy *decreased* each of the three years that he cited. (i’d like to see the numbers for ’07, too.)
    i would love to see this project done. fauntleroy is lawless, noisy, and dangerous. (as a matter of fact, i’ll buy the first cop that i see with a speeder a doughnut. two doughnuts if he pulls someone over for blowing through a crosswalk when peds are present.)
    regarding repaving, i wonder what it would take to get the city to use recycled tires instead of stone aggregate in the road surface. this has been done on sr520 in bellevue and interstate 5 in lynnwood with great success. the roadway is quieter and more durable.
    as far as taxes go, i don’t have kids and don’t plan on it. want to tell me why i have to pay for schools? the argument about roads/bike lane taxes is just as ridiculous. we’re a community, we’re in this together, and we, the people, pay for infrastructure improvements. or would you rather pay tolls?
    running the vashon car ferry straight downtown is a great idea. i’d be willing to bet that vashon drivers don’t much like driving through west seattle.

  • Cleveland Ken November 16, 2008 (8:35 am)

    Hmmm squeeze more people in and take away the roads that feed them. It once again reminds you that IDIOTS rule the world.

  • grr November 16, 2008 (10:15 am)

    I don’t have kids, and I don’t mind paying taxes to get them educated properly.

    I DO have a problem everytime I see a bicycle in the middle of a car lane, pedaling as fast they can and STILL slowing traffic down. I also see them blow thru stop signs, turn in front of cars (obviously no signals..)..

    and NOTHING pisses me off more then them squeezing in between cars to get in FRONT of traffic, only to stay in the middle of the road and slow it down.

    ya want to share the road with cars?? Be able to maintain the same damn speed as one.

  • Hugh November 17, 2008 (7:27 am)

    To the above readers and writers that state they don’t see many cyclists on Fauntleroy – the reason that you don’t see the cyclists is because we all take back roads and side streets – riding on Fauntleroy is just waiting for the inevitable – either a moving car is going to hit you from behind or someone in a parked car is going to open their door as you are riding along. Fauntleroy way as it is now is a deathtrap. Give us a bike lane and we’ll use. And to grr – I pay taxes just like you and that means I’m able to use the roads as well – whether by bike or by car.

  • Al November 17, 2008 (9:18 am)

    To repeat for those who have not read all the posts…especially grr…
    Funding for roadways are collected many ways — state and federal gas taxes, sales taxes, car-tab taxes, property taxes, business taxes, real-estate taxes…I, and most other bicyclists either rent or own a house, we mostly own vehicles, we buy things, we pay federal taxes, etc., etc., etc. We just don’t drive as much. Thus, I am subsidizing in some way, YOUR use of the roads. I still have to pay all the applicable taxes even though my auto use is rock-bottom. These changes make roads safer for everyone, not just bicyclists but pedestrians, motorcyclists and single-driver vehicles.

    By law, bicycles can use the roadways. By law, all road users must follow the law, not just bicycles.

  • grr November 17, 2008 (10:42 am)

    sooo…changing the lanes on Fauntleroy for the few bikes that use it is better than keeping traffic flowing for the majority of vehicles (cars) that use it?-

    We all pay taxes for things we may or may not use. I don’t have kids..but I pay plenty of taxes for schools. Fine by me.-

    I’d probably be less pissed about it if I saw more bycylists obeying the road laws than breaking them. Acutally…same goes with my fellow motorcyclists…

  • Westwood Resident November 17, 2008 (10:50 am)

    But Al, there is where the problem lies…so many bike riders DON’T obey the traffic laws.
    I can count on one hand the amount of bikers I have seen obey traffic laws. When I see them I ALWAYS make the effort to recognize them in some way. Either talking to them at a red light for a sec or ensuring that I allow them the room they need.
    It’s the ones that DON’T, and they ARE the vast majority of riders out there. I see it EVERYDAY, mostly in the after noon coming home from work from East Lake Union.
    Seattle Police have been DIRECTED by the Mayor’s office to IGNORE violations by cyclists.
    All one needs to do is see ANY “Critical Mass” demonstration to know this.

  • Westwood Resident November 17, 2008 (11:00 am)

    And Al…
    People who have autos AND motorcycles HAVE to pay for licenses for both.
    Why can’t we apply the same standard to those who use both autos AND bicycles?
    I’m not talking about an exorbitant amount here. I’m talking $10-$20 a year max.
    They get a license plate with tags and they can then have a way to track violations (assuming that the Mayor allows them to be ticketed) in an effort to crack down on those types of bikers.
    Now is this a “one size fits all” solution? No, what about kids? What about the recreational bikers that ONLY ride on the weekends?
    There is no easy solution to this, but a great first step would be to get a majority of bikers to obey traffic laws.

  • Richard Johnson November 17, 2008 (1:45 pm)

    The city council is trying to pull the paving money out of Fauntleroy, so all of this is just bs’ing.

  • WSB November 17, 2008 (2:17 pm)

    I’m combing thru the latest sheaf of budget documents, looking for something to that effect. When did that happen? Today?

  • Richard Johnson November 17, 2008 (3:43 pm)

    Monday, 11/17/08
    Green Sheets or SLIs Attached/Tabs #76-100

    TAB 77
    ACTION 3

    dont know what happened maybe they will just change the paint and do some more potholes

  • WSB November 17, 2008 (4:00 pm)

    the copy of the green sheet I’m reading from the council page literally starts at tab 77 action 4, and the preceding section ends at tab 75. I may have to call a PIO on this one.

  • WSB November 17, 2008 (4:26 pm)

    ok, now sorting it out with the help of experts. the ultimate decision on what to do with what pavement money SDOT has left, will be with SDOT, but since this project was a late addition to the budget, it might be in jeopardy. However, there’s another section of the budget involving replacing some of the lost paving money with the new money from increasing parking fees …

  • Richard Johnson November 17, 2008 (4:46 pm)

    methinks its gone sicne it came so late. last to come first to go. take from the south and give to the north. dont even fix the potholes out here.

  • grr November 17, 2008 (6:46 pm)

    maybe we can get some more potholes ;)

    and when I see the Mayor peddling HIS butt to work on a bike, or taking Public Transportation, I’ll be a little less cranky about this crap.

  • Joaquin Kristensen November 18, 2008 (5:36 pm)

    What killed the Boulevard idea for Fauntleroy? I agree, by the way, that creating urban freeways just encourages more driving (I am tempted myself sometimes). I apologize if I overlooked a posting, but have there been feasibility/cost analysis studies for moving the ferry terminal?

  • mar3c November 18, 2008 (9:18 pm)

    this isn’t just about traffic. a lot of people live along fauntleroy. some of us call it a neighborhood.
    and most of us don’t care if you’re late for the ferry. we’re tired of commuters making our neighborhood dangerous. speed on 99. or the bridge, but slow down and *look* when you go through our crosswalks.
    btw, i’ll be installing home-made speed bumps on one of the side streets that parallels fauntleroy. and, no, i won’t tell you where or when, and i’ll paint them gray, so you might as well get used to slowing down through our neighborhood. or lose a wheel.
    your choice.

  • grr November 18, 2008 (10:22 pm)

    hate to say it mar3c…but I’m pretty sure they’re some laws against home made speed bumps. Good luck with that anyway.

  • fatcat1111 November 20, 2008 (11:36 pm)

    @WestwoodResident, when you say, “there is where the problem lies…so many bike riders DON’T obey the traffic laws,” keep in mind that this revision has been proposed, in part, because so many automobiles on this stretch of road aren’t obeying the traffic laws. They speed terribly (we’ve all seen them careening around the curves southbound just past the park), they endanger people in the community by treating it like the “Vashon-Seattle Freeway” and they even kill people. By your logic and these facts, only pedestrians would be allowed on the roads.
    Regarding your statement that the SPD has been ordered by the Mayor to ignore cycling law violations, um, [citation needed].

  • LincolnPark Matt November 25, 2008 (4:33 pm)

    Did you forget about the Bus Rapid Transit plan from TRANSIT NOW! 2006 (yeah its almost 2009 but NOW! means SOON! ish ) calls for two lanes of BusRapidTransit lanes on Fauntleroy for special super speedy buses-if we get down to three lanes minus two BRT lanes (math is not my strong suit so bear with me) that leaves…wait for it… one lane!
    Problem solved-there is nothing safer than riding your bike on a one lane road next to a speeding bus.

  • Keven Ruf November 26, 2008 (8:09 pm)

    This is a great idea and we should all support it. More people will feel safe to ride to downtown as a result.

    The best example is Rainier Avenue which was improved immensely a few years ago when they made the same change from a four lane street level freeway to a center turn lane with two traffic lanes and two bike lanes. It is a huge improvement.

    I and my family support this. And we vote. Religiously.

Sorry, comment time is over.