WEST SEATTLE PARKS: Three accessible-parking spaces removed in Lincoln Park’s south lot

(WSB photo)

The south lot at Lincoln Park has three fewer accessible-parking spaces. Randy noticed the removal recently and brought it to our attention, noting that they visit the park three times a week to walk but couldn’t find a space after what was a row of five accessible spaces was reduced to two, the others converted to non-restricted parking. Here’s how it looked pre-removal, via a Google Street View image dated November 2022:

Now, as shown above, three spaces are gone, with markings painted over:

(Photo sent by Randy)

We asked Seattle Parks about the removal, and a spokesperson explained that the now-removed spots were “temporary” – though as shown above they’ve been there for at least two years:

We removed the temporary spots after receiving complaints the spaces were missing the adjacent aisle striping and because they did not fully meet ADA standards. These were installed during the pandemic and provided the only spots open for accessible parking at the time.

We have four additional Accessible Stalls provided at the lower beach area.The minimum per the ADA standards is 3 for parking facilities of 61 – 75 parking spaces and we have two with the upper and four at the lower, so six total which is double the required number.

Parks provided this aerial view of the two parking areas it’s referring to:

If you’re not familiar with Lincoln Park parking, that’s a relatively steep, though short, driveway between the south lot and the spaces by the south end of the beach.

K February 11, 2025 (5:11 pm)

Noooo! Why? Those spots are the only reason we’re able to even find a space close to the playground for our disabled daughter, or for events like the Easter egg hunt.

Admiral-2009 February 11, 2025 (5:20 pm)

Please correct the headline to read “Accessible Parking Stalls” the correct terminology. The term “Disabled Parking Stalls” is not used anymore.

WSB February 11, 2025 (6:12 pm)

I’ll check AP Style; thanks.
- WSB February 11, 2025 (6:15 pm)
  
  And AP Style concurs with A2009. Updating above.
blairo February 12, 2025 (7:47 am)

Why? Accessible makes it sound like you can park there. Disabled makes more sense.
Mike H. February 12, 2025 (9:37 am)

The problem is that the spaces weren’t accessible! Thus the removal.AP style is fine, but words also have meaning in their own.

Jeff February 11, 2025 (6:07 pm)

If there is physically not space for a fully compliant spot, removal was probably the only legal option.

H2OK9 February 11, 2025 (6:22 pm)

I complained about the trash can not be collected at my bus stop trash can and the city simply removed it.Seems to be their standard operation procedure.

Sarge February 12, 2025 (9:19 am)

That would be Metro’s purview FYI
My two cents February 12, 2025 (10:32 am)

Bus stop = King County Metro.
Mike H. February 12, 2025 (2:47 pm)

Trash can collection and ADA standards are apples and bricks.

Admiral-2009 February 11, 2025 (6:54 pm)

Thank you

LAM February 11, 2025 (7:21 pm)

To whom do we need to speak about this?Accessibility is important, and all but one had the appropriate striping previously. That is not a good enough reason to remove them. They need to be made correctly and there need to be more of them. Traffic and usage has increased greatly at Lincoln Park in the last 2-3 years, especially with this new playground in place, and this is making it really difficult for disabled people, elderly people & elderly people who have disabilities. Many of them can’t do the lower drive very easily, plus in summertime, it is never enough parking for the number of disabled people who would like to also enjoy this park, and who count on it. So if you know who we can contact, I would encourage everyone to contact that person once we have that information.

Sue H February 11, 2025 (7:22 pm)

Even with five of them I can’t tell you how many times I had gone there and there were no accessible parking spots. Now I just won’t even try. It’s a hell of a chore to try and turn around down there and leave if you don’t have a spot to go into, so it’s just not worth it.

Flaunt-Leroy February 11, 2025 (7:22 pm)

Accessibility should always take a priority in places like parks and public spaces. I wonder what it would take to resolve this in a way that restores this functionality. The reasoning for the change is understandable , but I would hope we could devise a better solution or have at least made a projected plan of remediation when reverting this.

Mike H. February 12, 2025 (10:15 am)

You could donate $50,000 for Parks to make the spaces wheelchair accommodating.
- CapitalWon February 12, 2025 (11:57 am)
  
  Everyone should have access to the park without the need for private donations. Full stop.
  - Mike H. February 12, 2025 (2:45 pm)
    
    Access and parking are not the same.Parks are meeting federal guidelines.
    - Kaitlin February 14, 2025 (1:32 am)
      
      When referring to accessible parking specifically by taking them away, you are taking away access as many expressed that accessible parking was already challenging enough.
Plenty February 13, 2025 (5:38 am)

I’ve lived near LP for 20 years and frequent the park multiple times weekly. There are always open spots marked for disabled parking. The beach lot ONLY has these spots with more than enough room to turn around (not sure above commenter should be driving if they can’t turn their vehicle around down there). As a person with multiple families members with DA placards, and a nephew in a wheelchair, I am always an advocate for accessibility. But for this location, there have always seemed like more than the usual amount of disabled parking spots and most are empty when I am there.

C February 11, 2025 (8:57 pm)

Sadly each time I’ve walked by I’ve seen people with no disability placard/plate parked in those spots, “waiting” to pick someone up or on their way phone or whatever. And the amount of times I’ve seen people park in the hash marks where van ramps are meant to deploy blows my mind. This city’s drivers are AWFUL. Accessible spots are for folks who need them, not for everyone else’s convenience.

Bbron February 12, 2025 (3:24 am)

I’m all for converting multiple non-accessible parking stalls into accessible ones with proper side strips. count mA win-win of less car capacity and more accessibility for those that need it.

Tired of able-ism February 12, 2025 (4:48 am)

If they didn’t fully comply then why not remove just one and restripe the area so that at least there would be 4, not 3.

Agreed February 12, 2025 (7:50 am)

Right? That feels like an obvious solution. Though really, if all of them were being used regularly, they could have removed one regular stall to make room for all five accessible ones. This is ridiculous (but not really funny.)
- CarDriver February 12, 2025 (9:22 am)
  
  Per WSB’s response the current number meets ADA requirements. If more are required, then the proper thing would be to lobby for a law change that requires more ADA spaces per number of non.
  - My two cents February 12, 2025 (10:38 am)
    
    Agreed, the standard is the benchmark. While it may be not be enough for some, we should credit City of Seattle for going beyond the minimum. We have four additional Accessible Stalls provided at the lower beach area.The minimum per the ADA standards is 3 for parking facilities of 61 – 75 parking spaces and we have two with the upper and four at the lower, so six total which is double the required number.

Mike H. February 12, 2025 (8:23 am)

People don’t appreciate that ADA spaces, since we have ONE hangtag for everything from being pregnant to being a paraplegic, have to accommodate wheelchair users.At a really high cost.Go to Oregon and they have a state hangtag for wheelchair users and spaces just for them. The problem is that there are so many hangtags, and so many ways to qualify, but not enough money to make everything wheelchair-ready. ……when that isn’t an issue for 90% of people with these hangtags.

WS Res February 14, 2025 (5:43 am)

90% of tag owners don’t use chairs? You’ve counted? How did you get access to that data?

WS Res February 12, 2025 (1:02 pm)

It seems wrong that they’re able to count the spaces down below, which are an entirely separate lot (you can’t visually check to see if spaces there are open, it’s difficult to navigate down the path for larger vehicles) in their math about meeting the total number of required accessible spaces.

My two cents February 12, 2025 (2:53 pm)

How about they take out the 4 down at the bottom and add 1 in the main lot – that way they all are in one place (note that is at the top/higher elevation of the park ), and we still meet the requirements? The language of the standard reads “.. parking facilities …” I would assume that if you treated each lot as a unique spot, you would end up with a total of 1 spot per lot (total of 3) since the number of spaces would be fewer the smaller the lot. I don’t see nefarious actions at work – I see the City of Seattle maximizing/considering parking needs that go above the standard (Federal ADA) while attempting to serve all potential scenarios. In the real world, ADA is not a one size/solution fits all. Most will find it easier to park up top than at the bottom of the hill …. Unless you are day 1 out on your hip replacement.
- K February 13, 2025 (3:09 pm)
  
  I think the two lots serve two different purposes. I’ve used the lower lot for access to the pool, the beach, and birthday parties when they rent those shelters below (it’s our child who is disabled, not the grown-ups). And I’ve used the upper lot for access to the playground and community events, which are always at the top of the hill. The sidewalks between the two lots are not super wide, and the curve plus the grade makes it challenging to navigate with a mobility device. Mobility devices take up space, so a heck of a lot of vehicles needing those spaces are on the larger side of things (ours is), so that lower lot is that much trickier if we get down there and there’s no parking. Saying the upper and lower accessible spots are basically interchangeable to access “the park” just doesn’t reflect the reality of how either the park or accessible spots are used. They should be counted separately.
  - ACG February 15, 2025 (7:57 am)
    
    K- you bring up great points. Thank you for sharing. I agree that those two lots serve different functions/areas of the park. It seems that having to park in the lower lot to try to utilize the upper playground would be difficult for you and your child. That’s a steep hill to navigate with a wheelchair. My dad is in a wheelchair and I don’t think I could push him up it if we were in that situation.

Kaitlin February 13, 2025 (11:28 am)

What was the reason for removing the loading zones? As a disabled person who loves to go on nature walks and grew up going to Lincoln park, this feels like we are going backwards. This feels disrespectful.

Steph February 16, 2025 (12:15 pm)

Sounds like the regulations specifying how many spots are required need changing. Where do we do that? There have never been enough ada spots at any of the parks, especially Lincoln. You can’t take the ones at the beach. Ada people usually can’t navigate the hill. Lowman has almost no ada parking and puts ada people at risk to use dangerous street parking. The parks department is discriminating and restricting access to ada people in this way.

Sorry, comment time is over.