Home › Forums › Open Discussion › "Keep Alki Safe" … from what?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 22, 2015 at 8:02 pm #818260
xavierMemberLike many residents of the Alki area, I saw the “Keep Alki Safe†signs when they went up earlier this summer, and the campaign doesn’t make sense to me. I have a three questions I’m hoping members and/or supporters of the campaign can answer. This isn’t meant to be an argumentative attack, I genuinely want to understand what your goals are. The following questions are direct excerpts from the KeepAlkiSafe website, followed by a prompt from me.
Question 1:
“Most of the accidents on this section of Admiral Way are caused by impaired drivers, late at night.â€
Can you provide data about recent accident history? Say, the past two years? How many pedestrians have been struck by cars on Admiral Way in the stretch of road proposed for change by SDOT?
Question 2:
“SDOT would force some residents to park on the dangerous side of the street, the side where impaired drivers crash into cars and structures on a routine basis.â€
This again relates to statistics: How often is “a routine basis?†How many pedestrians have been struck in the past two years? Second, do residents not have driveways? Why are they parking on the street to begin with?
Question 3:
“Admiral Way suffers from extreme parking congestion during the summer and during school pick-up and drop-off time.â€
I live off Admiral Way, and I work from home. I personally have never seen traffic congestion that limits parking on Admiral Way during summer, but if you can provide statistics or studies to back up your claim, I’ll happily change my stance.
These questions mostly relate to supporting a claim with facts. In the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that I support the SDOT plan because it favors public transit and bicycles over cars (translated: sustainable transportation over oil). If there is a legitimate safety risk here, I’m a reasonable man and I’m able to be swayed. But I’ll need to see proof that a risk exists. Thanks for your time!
August 22, 2015 at 9:57 pm #827071
WSBKeymasterWe’ve covered this extensively over the past four months, so I’m replying to one of your points. SDOT has included collision data in all of its presentations – you can see it on the project website (scroll down to Safety Data):
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/SWAdmiralWaySafetyProject.htm
Quoting:
*1 pedestrian collision along project extent (2012)
*2 bike collisions along project extent (both in 2011)
*45 vehicle collisions within the project limits (22 were run-off collisions of a vehicle with a parked car or other fixed object)
***end of quoted text***
I don’t know about quantification of how many “run-off collisions” involved impaired drivers. We don’t have anything in the archives because typically these are not the kind of crashes we hear about – they tend to be hit-run, rather than hit-and-stay-and-medic-unit-called.
If you read the comments on our stories, some of your other questions have been addressed. Just pointing you there because the forum is not high-traffic on the weekends (especially summer!) and you might not get answers here immediately.
TR
past stories, linking directly to the comment threads:
https://westseattleblog.com/2015/07/followup-admiral-way-safety-project-expects-next-parking-study-soon-updated-plan-in-late-august (no comments on that one)
August 22, 2015 at 10:18 pm #827072
xavierMemberThanks so much for the consolidated info. This topic has been discussed before here, definitely, but I’m hoping to start a definitive thread as opposed to interested parties having to comb through hundreds of comments across the nine different articles already written (which I had to do and wouldn’t wish on any of my neighbors!).
As for the topic itself: I have to say … ONE pedestrian collision reported? And it was three years ago? So far, the evidence isn’t compelling as to why the proposal by SDOT to add a bike lane on Admiral Way causes a “dangerous” and “shocking” safety concern. I’m ready to have my mind changed, by all means help me understand!
August 23, 2015 at 1:12 am #827073
yes2wsParticipantI’ve bicycled that stretch of Admiral and feel safer there than on some of the other streets. Can’t say I see the need to modify things. Personally, I think West Seattle has some of the screwiest, unsafe traffic situations due to its attempt to accommodate buses and bicycles.
August 23, 2015 at 2:23 am #827074
KBearParticipantThe city doesn’t owe the residents of Alki any street parking, so that argument is moot. Admiral Way is wider than it needs to be, and speeding is a problem. I’m glad they’re doing something about it. And well there are usually cars parked on Admiral Way I have rarely seen it “congested”.
August 23, 2015 at 3:14 pm #827075
maplesyrupParticipantThe city is saying that there were over 10000 collisions city-wide in 2013 alone and that we need to reduce that number. That’s great and I support the initiative, but why are they focusing on an area that had a very small percentage of those collisions?
August 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm #827076
wakefloodParticipantSDOT has a city-wide plan to put major thoroughfares on road diets. Done on Fauntleroy, happening soon on 35th, Admiral is the next in line.
It adds time to commutes with the offset being traffic calming and bike safety.
Those points can be debated on their respective upsides and downsides but what is not up for debate is that this is their plan and it’s going to happen unless significant public involvement either modifies or delays it.
Personally, I’m not sure how bike-friendly Admiral’s hills are – wouldn’t most use Alki Way? But since the density (and transit use) is toward the water along Alki Way, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to turn that Admiral parking lane into dedicated bus lanes either.
Since I haven’t lived in that neighborhood in a number of years, I’d be interested in knowing if there’s any real consensus on how to address the city’s plan? It seems to be pretty variable?
August 25, 2015 at 10:40 pm #827077
skeeterParticipantI agree with KBear. The purpose of city-owned streets is to move people and cargo safely, not to provide free parking to whoever happens to get there first.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.