Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Re: Seattle as a Walkable City | The Morning News »

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Taming the S.L.U.T.

posted by on December 5 at 1:23 AM

Seattle Likes Bikes, which campaigns for better riding conditions for cyclists in Seattle, will hold a ride on Wednesday, December 12, to protest the danger that streetcar tracks for the South Lake Union Trolley pose for cyclists. According to their e-mail, the tracks—which are more than wide enough to catch a road bike tire—were installed “in a way that is hostile to cyclists with the tracks on the right hand side of this convenient and popular cycling corridor. Installation of these tracks has led to a large increase in track-related accidents involving cyclists, whose wheels are easily caught in the tracks, as well as conflict with motorists, who do not expect or are angered by cyclists present in the left hand lane.”

I haven’t seen any stats on the number of cycling accidents in this corridor, but I can say from experience that laying tracks where cyclists ride is undeniably dangerous. It’s a major reason cycling groups fought to fill in the “missing link” of the Burke-Gilman Trail through an industrial part of Ballard, where cyclists are currently forced to cross tracks repeatedly, a situation that has led to many accidents.

The group is asking the city to add an alternate route in 2008; to install caution signs for cyclists and drivers; to put sharrow markings on the left side of the road to indicate that the left side is safer for riding; to adopt guidelines that consider cyclists when the city installs streetcar tracks in the future; and to do a feasibility study of rubber track filler that could compress under streetcars but not trap cyclists’ wheels.

Details about the ride are available here.

RSS icon Comments

1

Good god,

Get a life...

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 2:10 AM
2

you know, i'd rather just protest the stone way (lack of) bike lane again.

who rides on tracks?

Posted by Cale | December 5, 2007 6:29 AM
3

also, couldn't this be better solved by bike lanes on a parallel street rather than falsely making the bicyclists think they are safe with fancy rubber technology?

Posted by Cale | December 5, 2007 6:32 AM
4

Umm....You could just ride down a different street.

Posted by Rotten666 | December 5, 2007 7:06 AM
5

@4, I agree with you, but I am not sure that there is another route bikers can take. Is there without going totally out of their way?

Posted by Just Me | December 5, 2007 7:11 AM
6

Asking bicyclists to take a longer route is like asking them to lose all their momentum by stopping for crosswalks. Bike traffic simply can't be rerouted the way motor traffic can.

Posted by elenchos | December 5, 2007 7:23 AM
7

For fuck's sake. I guess cyclists will be better off if all the people riding the SLUT get back into their cars and increase congestion along that route.

Posted by oljb | December 5, 2007 7:51 AM
8

Thanks for the post, Erica. Disregard the comments from people who don't know the street.
* There IS no alternate route (That is the problem.)*
This area of the city was already one of the most dangerous to bike in, and the SLUT has made it worse.

Posted by chaingrease | December 5, 2007 7:52 AM
9

@6 i would think that rerouting bike traffic would be MUCH easier than rerouting motor traffic.

where's the logic here?

also, can you explain what you mean by saything you SHOULDN'T have to stop for a crosswalk.

Posted by grznt | December 5, 2007 7:53 AM
10

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/images/SLU%20Streetcar%20Route%204_11_06.jpg

seems to me there are a lot of streets for possible alternative routes...

Posted by grznt | December 5, 2007 7:56 AM
11

9,thanks for the map. As you can see there are no alternate routes at Fairview. Believe me, the streets do not go through. I have tried. It is a mess.

Posted by chaingrease | December 5, 2007 8:04 AM
12

The problem with "alternate routes" is uncontrolled intersections, which are much tougher for cyclists to cross, if there's any traffic at all, without getting creamed. I can sympathize with the rail problem too; not only is the slot the perfect size to grab and swallow a tire, but the rail itself is slippery and can shunt you directly into that slot at any angle except perfectly perpendicular -- which can be difficult even if crossing it. Get fatter tires, I suppose.

Posted by Fnarf | December 5, 2007 8:06 AM
13

SDOT claims that they will designate an alternate route by the "end of 2008/beginning of 2009". I am not holding my breath. And, of course, an alternate route should've been designated concurrently with the installation of the SLUT (which, FYI, will do very little to ease auto congestion).

Those of you who say: "Ride another street" are clearly not familiar with the neighborhood. It is full of one-ways, construction closures, dead ends and impossible crossings of Mercer and other major arterials.

Until SDOT installs a designated alternate route, signage instructing autos to beware of bikes (and cyclists to beware of tracks) needs to be installed.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 8:07 AM
14

Truly, if there is one thing this fine city needs, it is more obstacles to mass transit development.

Posted by tsm | December 5, 2007 8:10 AM
15

the sidewalk that runs along fairview is giant...i ALWAYS use the side walk when i am biking around south lake to get to fremont (i live at the south end of eastlake...i understand getting up on a sidewalk kind of sucks for some...but there really is ALOT of room...that may change once crowds of slut riders appear...i just don't get the protest...waste of energy...write a letter or something...

Posted by uhmmm | December 5, 2007 8:14 AM
16

I was sitting in traffic one day on Westlake waiting to turn on to Denny and almost saw a horrible wreck caused by a woman on a bike. There were two cars in front of her waiting for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Then her on the bike and then me waiting behind her. Without even looking she darts into the left lane almost being runover by a car and then nearly caused a chain reaction of fender benders.

I guess my point is that if motorists have to be patient and wait for cyclists why can the cyclists just do whatever they want and then bitch that they are the ones in danger?

Posted by JD | December 5, 2007 8:16 AM
17

i fully support bicyclists and the efforts to make the coridor bicycle friendly.

i guess i always meet bicyclist complaints with a grain of salt. i have met so many self-righteous northwest bikers (some good friends of mine too) that wine about the smallest thing that I automatically think that most complaints commuter bicyclists raise are likely them just being bitchy.

wait until after '08/'09 when SDOT says they'll fix it. i know it sucks, but that's life. we all have crap to complain about.

Posted by grznt | December 5, 2007 8:19 AM
18

@16 that was my point with @6. what does she mean that she shouldn't have to wait at the crosswalk?

it gives all bicyclists a seriously bad name in this city.

Posted by grznt | December 5, 2007 8:22 AM
19

Street car rails were installed the only way they can be, flush with the driving surface. There is no other way to put them in and still be usable for their intended purpose.

Cyclists need to ride with care, a fact that seems lost on some of them.

Posted by Perfect Voter | December 5, 2007 8:31 AM
20

I'm sure that this is a valid point, but doesn't it seem a little late in the game to be protesting the streetcar?

Posted by josh | December 5, 2007 8:44 AM
21

Ride mountain bikes or cruisers instead. Is that so hard?

Posted by common sense is rare | December 5, 2007 8:46 AM
22

This is not a "protest of the streetcar". It is a call for the city to install the proper infrastructure to make the neighborhood safe for ALL users.

Pedestrians should be behind this too. The crosswalk markings at Denny and Westlake are HORRIBLE!

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 8:48 AM
23

Fairview is hardly a bicycle highway. Where would you take it too/from? Though it's probably a good bet that even so more people will bike along Fairview than will ride the SLUT.

Posted by kinaidos | December 5, 2007 8:51 AM
24

I've biked in Seattle for most of the last 15 years and I know this neighborhood well -- in fact, I used to live on Mercer and Pontius -- and I'll just come out and say that this is bullshit. There are a half-dozen other ways into and out of downtown through that neighborhood, most of them perfectly safe and comfortable. At least one of the streets that the streetcar is using, Terry, already had rails running down it before any of this happened.

Dexter is the best North-South corridor through South Lake Union anyway.

Posted by Judah | December 5, 2007 8:51 AM
25

I am one of the "stats" who has had an accident while riding my bike over the SLUT tracks. I was heading south on Fairview and turned left onto, well, Fairview, at that intersection where only buses and bikes are allowed to turn. I had to cross the light rail tracks in order to get into the center turn lane. As I changed lanes, my front tire got wedged in the tracks, and I fell over. If there had been any vehicle behind me, I would have been crushed. As it was, I was scraped and bruised (I still have a mark on my left elbow, though the accident was more than three months ago) and pretty shaken up by the whole thing.

I like the suggestions Seattle Likes Bikes has put forth. But most importantly, bicyclists need to be trained how to cross the tracks. It is a skill. A skill more and more Seattleites need to master as jobs and housing move to South Lake Union. The Stranger could do a great public service by doing a story or sidebar on how to properly steer a bike over tracks which run parallel, or at an angle to, the roadway.

Posted by Will in 98103 | December 5, 2007 8:52 AM
26

@21:

yes, it is so hard.

"cruisers" have shit for gearing. i have 3 major hills to climb on my route.

knobby mountain bike tires are S L O W.

i ride a 24 gear mtn. bike with the skinniest slicks i could find.

fairview & eastlake should have been the location of a pilot euro-style bike lane program.

Posted by max solomon | December 5, 2007 8:52 AM
27

@12

Fnarf,

You're comment above makes A LOT more sense now that I've seen you on the unternet doing Chubby Bunny. I swear I was gagging with "pre-throw-up" stomach gas while watching your last attempt. Very gross, yet something I guess we all should go thru. So please excuse me for the day; I have 9 espresso shots waiting to be abused.

Posted by June Bee | December 5, 2007 8:57 AM
28

what a joke seattle bikers are.

when i lived in germany, we'd regularly ride between the rails of the local trams, and there were 6 times as many lines.

it was only a problem if you were an idiot that wasn't paying attention or drunk, and then you'd get stuck in the rails and bite it.

we'd regularly see locals texting while riding their bikes, sometimes while smoking a cigarette AND holding an umbrella.

fucking grow a pair, whiners.

Posted by holz | December 5, 2007 9:02 AM
29

@28:

I've been bike commuting for over 15 years, and I'm not whining. When I "bit it," I was sober and paying attention. It was also a dry, sunny day.

It's all physics. If you cross at the wrong angle and at the wrong speed, you're doomed.

Posted by Will in 98103 | December 5, 2007 9:07 AM
30


slow down?

the viet cong use to ride their bikes on the ho chi minh trail. they were str8 up non whiners.

Posted by SeMe | December 5, 2007 9:13 AM
31

#28 - thank you. This Yank lived in Berlin for 6 months, riding a skinny-tired bike over the tracks in Prenzlauerberg all the time, with no problems. Considering I usually had 2 liters of Schultheiss for breakfast, that's no small accomplishment. The problem with the tracks is that nobody here knows how to ride over them. You wreck, you learn, you get back up and ride again. Simple.

Posted by wbrproductions | December 5, 2007 9:17 AM
32

Don't want to get stuck in the tracks? Gee try riding down Dexter instead. It has a bike lane, runs north and south and is only a couple of blocks out of your way.

Quit being a bunch of fucking nerds with too much time on your hands. Ride your bikes and shut the fuck up already.

Posted by Hey Nerds I ride a Bike Too! | December 5, 2007 9:22 AM
33

Dexter is an extra ten minutes out of the way. Ten minutes can make all the difference between choosing to bike and choosing to drive.

Posted by Will in 98103 | December 5, 2007 9:24 AM
34

This subject is one of my pet peeves. Bicyclists and their rights. I presently live in Berkeley after living in San Francisco for 20 odd years. Cyclists are constantly complaining about motorists. (Let me tell you, that I have not owned a car since 1981. I do have a small Yamaha Vino, top speed 40 mph and I get close to 100 miles per tank of gas.)

Auto drivers have little respect for me on my scooter also.

BUT . . . every time I'm out and about I see cyclists: run redlights; run stop signs; going the wrong way on a one way street; riding on the sidewalk, (operative word here is sideWALK) weaving in and out of heavy traffic; thinking that traffic has to stop for them if, when crossing an intersection with stop signs, all they need to do is ride across said intersection IN the crosswalk! (operative word here is crossWALK.)

This pertains to 98% of cyclists. In CA cyclists are bound by the same rules and laws as automobile drivers.

I'm always amazed by cyclists who actually stop for stop signs. (I'm not amazed very often!)

Most of them seem to think they are entited to not obey the laws.

Discuss!

Posted by Chuck | December 5, 2007 9:29 AM
35

I was embarrassed to see .83 lend their logo to this worthless cause. Was a time you stood for something. Sure it was horsecock, but it meant something.

Posted by Bicycle Jihad | December 5, 2007 9:29 AM
36

I think the point is making as many people as possible feel comfortable taking alternate transportation. I am not an expert cyclist by any means- I am just beginning to decrease my dependence on a curb when starting, and am constantly passed by faster cyclists on the road. However, I bicycle to work every day to south lake union. I follow all the traffic laws, go at a reasonable speed (even downhill) and have thick wheels and lights on my bicycle.
I hit the tracks at the wrong angle, fell down, and almost got run over. The construction worker that helped me out of the street said this was the fourth time he had seen someone fall.
This shouldn't be about making it easy for bike geeks- many more average janes would be on their bicycle if they felt safer.

Posted by arowley | December 5, 2007 9:43 AM
37
I'm always amazed by cyclists who actually stop for stop signs. (I'm not amazed very often!)

Most of them seem to think they are entited to not obey the laws.

Discuss!

I'm glad you asked.

Traffic laws were created specifically to deal with cars. City roads predate cars by thousands of years -- this concept of having a specific lane for cars is relatively new. Likewise the concept of severely limiting pedestrians' rights to the roadway; forcing them to cross at crosswalks and so on. So basically the stoplights, stopsigns, and other accouterments of traffic laws are all about cars. In other words, the rights of all other users have been severely curtailed in order to enable the "rights" of car drivers.

Bicycles don't work like cars and it's basically unreasonable to ask them to follow the same laws. The acceleration and stopping characteristics of a bicycle are completely different from a car. Likewise the maneuverability -- bicycles become more stable when they're moving faster, so a cyclist can be at greater risk going slowly through a dicey intersection than he or she would be blowing through it at a strong clip.

None of this is to say that the world isn't full of dickhead cyclists, but the complaint that cyclists should follow the same rules of the road as cars is ridiculous on its face. That happens to be the law in most places, but it's a stupid law designed to place the responsibility for creating a safe road environment entirely on cyclists.

Posted by Judah | December 5, 2007 9:43 AM
38

sharrows are a fraud, a cop out for the city who doesn't want to adequately educated drivers about the rights of cyclists to ride in regular lanes

Posted by vooodooo84 | December 5, 2007 9:49 AM
39

you know one of the reasons the monorail failed is that they spent all their time arguing about signage and other ultimately insignificant shit. what color. how big. where it needs to go. what the seats would look like.

we'll never have a real mass transit system here because it'll be the brown chicken that gets pecked to death by all the special interests that want the world to be their own personal padded room.

you can't please all the people all the time, and all those people blog!

Posted by monofail | December 5, 2007 9:53 AM
40

I bike to work on the Burk Gilman and have seen a half a dozen crashes at the Ballard rail crossings -- two of which required ambulances.

Last week, I biked from UW to a meeting downtown, and had to cross the SLUT tracks a couple of times while also dealing with heavy traffic. My first thought: "people are going to die here."

Funding a feasibility study on ways to prevent these currently inevitable accidents is just common sense.

Posted by scotto | December 5, 2007 9:56 AM
41

BICYCLING IS HAAAAAAAARD!

Posted by Oh nohs! | December 5, 2007 10:00 AM
42

adequately educated drivers about the rights of cyclists

For real. Someone must have a model for this that we could borrow.

Posted by monofail | December 5, 2007 10:18 AM
43

If you get hurt on the slut tracks can you sue vulcan? The slut doesn't really have a purpose without them. its basically a multi million dollar shuttle bus so people who work in south lake union can have lunch at westlake mall without waddling there fat asses 6 blocks.

If the slut was more than an idiotic toy for a billionaire I might see its worth defending, like say if it took over the streetcar route and looped around the whole city like the Portland loop, but its just another useless no planning giveaway like the stadiums.

you can bitch all you want about dem crazy bike people, but your still fucked because there is no license to ride a bike, like walking. cars are on the way out your either going to get fucked by gas prices, or congestion. Bikes can either be a cheap solution to work with, or you can just be a shitty entitled whiner and complain about it.

Posted by meanie | December 5, 2007 10:24 AM
44

From an upcoming section in Portland's Bicycle Master Plan existing conditions Report:

Bicycles & Streeetcars
(2) Without Bicycle Lanes on Two-Way Streets [this is the sitation on Westlake]
(a) Right-running streetcar [e.g. Westlake]
(i) This is currently the situation on:
1. NW Northrup between 10th & 23rd,
2. NW 23rd between Northrup & Lovejoy, and
3. NW Lovejoy between 23rd & 14th
4. [Westlake in Stattle]
(ii) These street segments are perilous for cyclists.
1. PDOT has anecdotal and written information about many injury crashes occurring because of cyclists getting a wheel caught in the flangeway.


The studies have been done. Seattle just needs to listen.

Posted by Anon | December 5, 2007 10:31 AM
45

When trolleys were first being discussed this was pointed out to the transportaton people at the Stranger. I don't believe that they said anything about this and I'm sure if they had we would see the link.

If I get the drift every form of transportation should be designed around the needs and desires of the bicyclists. No little flashing lights on crosswalks like in Kirkland cause a bike might hit one and the rider could get a boo-boo.

And what about inline skaters or skate boarders or scooters riders.

What was wrong with increased bus service on the SLUT route?

Posted by whatever | December 5, 2007 10:31 AM
46

sidewalks: in seattle it is legal to ride on the sidewalks even though the word sidewalk contains the word walk. just like you can drive on a parkway and park on a driveway.

whether or not cyclists follow the laws has nothing to do with creating a safe environment for cyclists. @16 so what? even if true, one bad incident (where you only know your side of the story) has nothing to do with making roads safer and better for a bicycle commute.

dexter is way less convenient than fairview. not in a car. but on a bike, yes. not only that, but cyclists should be able to ride on the legal route they choose.

ride a cruiser? what? might as well tell an SUV driver to ride a bus. why should a bicycles mode of transportation be dictated by the roads? if this were true, we'd just tell everyone to ride a bike or ride the bus.

and we'll see how effective the slut is a commuting option...

Posted by infrequent | December 5, 2007 10:34 AM
47

@6: "Asking bicyclists to take a longer route is like asking them to lose all their momentum by stopping for crosswalks."

Which I suppose is why cars will stop for me when I step into crosswalks on the UW Campus, but bicyclists try to run me down on the marked crosswalks on the Burke-Gilman trail. My experiences there give me a little more sympathy for businesses that are worried about the trail crossing their driveways. Bicyclists here don't stop for *anything*...they expect everyone else to give them the right of way at all times.

Posted by Orv | December 5, 2007 10:49 AM
48

Oh, come on, there's no danger in riding down a hill in the rain and crossing a rain-slicked set of rails embedded in pavement ...

(CRASH!)

(image of tire rolling forward on wobbly rims)

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 5, 2007 11:00 AM
49

I first thought they were alright, but in the rain, those tracks are slippery as all hell. I found out trying to stop for a light. Started to fish-tail and and just ran the light instead. There will be problems.

Posted by left coast | December 5, 2007 11:00 AM
50
Traffic laws were created specifically to deal with cars. City roads predate cars by thousands of years -- this concept of having a specific lane for cars is relatively new. Likewise the concept of severely limiting pedestrians' rights to the roadway; forcing them to cross at crosswalks and so on. So basically the stoplights, stopsigns, and other accouterments of traffic laws are all about cars. In other words, the rights of all other users have been severely curtailed in order to enable the "rights" of car drivers.

Bicycles don't work like cars and it's basically unreasonable to ask them to follow the same laws

yes, and these damn new laws have inhibited the use of my horse and buggy!

this is why people can't stand bike commuters. the entire system is currently set up for cars. wake up to reality and live with it.

you may not like it, it may not always be that way, but the west coast is built on the car and the vast majority of people use them a lot more than the small percentage of bike commuters.

Posted by grznt | December 5, 2007 11:41 AM
51

Will in Seattle:

You don't know shit. Dexter isn't "10 minutes away".

Dexter is 3 blocks west of Westlake. If it takes you 10 minutes to bike 3 blocks, then you shouldn't be on a bike at all.

You can also ride south on 9th ave. one way south where there is a light at Denny. BTW 9th is the ONLY one way in the neighborhood. And the ALL have lights at mercer at denny accept for terry.

All you complaining bike nerds don't know the neighborhood. I live in SLU and near as I can tell from the comments only Judah knows the area at all.

morons...

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 12:10 PM
52

@51: Ride 9th south to where? 9th crosses Denny then dumps onto Westlake... and the curb-lane SLUT tracks.

Terry Avenue is currently closed between Thomas and Denny. Boren Avenue doesn't go through. Fairview is a shoulderless freeway on/off-ramp.

Dexter's fine to ride from Fremont to downtown, but does not connect easily/safely with the lake.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 12:55 PM
53

OK, so how does this change the basic fact that the rails are along a street that is the "bottom of the hill" for an area from about four blocks N of Westlake until you get to the I-5 on-ramps?

Well?

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 5, 2007 12:59 PM
54

boren turns into fairview and 9th turns into bell.

Know how to make a left?

Oh, and is dexter "10 minutes" from westlake ave?

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 1:01 PM
55

Boren dead ends at Denny. And 9th onto Bell is a right turn. You apparently don't know the neighborhood as well as you think.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 1:11 PM
56

Boren does not DEAD END at denny. The street makes a 20 degree turn and becomes fairview. I take it everyday dork.

And 9th is the same way. Its a 20-30 degree curve onto bell, strait through the light at Denny.

Its called the Denny TRIANGLE for a reason dumbass.

Are you suggesting that Westlake doesn't "dead end" at Denny as well? It gets a hell of a lot more confusing at virginia by Whole Foods then either of the other routes.

I also notice you neglect Dexter. Which is a huge bike path.

So, lemme get this strait. We need to demolish the entire Deny triangle to make sure that the streets make no turns to compensate for the layout of the city, so that some dumbass cyclist who can't read a map some self rightous satisfaction?

Go back to working on outlawing tobacco ya moron..

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 2:15 PM
57

#53

learn how to cross the tracks.

Until then, I would avoid the area as you are a traffic hazard to yourself and others.

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 2:19 PM
58

@56. Do you even live in Seattle?

Boren heading south runs directly into Cornish at Denny. There is no left turn (or a light) at this intersection. I walked by there 10 minutes ago.

9th Avenue crosses Denny and runs directly into Westlake and the curb-lane SLUT tracks.

You need to get off Google Maps and step outside into the real world.

And I addressed the Dexter issue above. It's fine as a thoroughfare from Fremont to downtown, but there is no safe access to the lake or places actually in the SLU neighborhood like Whole Foods.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 2:26 PM
59

Doug

I live in cascade, a block from the Seattle Times. I am not gonna say this again:

There are 2 lights near where boren turns into Fairview AT DENNY you moron. one is where Virginia meets Boren by the spruce street school on the left and the money mart on the right (heading north) The other light is at Denny. It is a strait through street with a slight 20 degree curve where it changes in name only. Either you are completely retarded or don't pay attention.

Ninth fucking SPLITS!!! you go to the left of the Y at Denny, and you cut over to in front of whole foods and the SLUT (but this has been closed for construction for at least 2 weeks). The right side of the Y puts you on Bell with access to all of downtown.

I suggest YOU get off of google maps and actually get a clue.

Arguing about this with you is hilarious, because obviously you have little experience down here, or walk and hence have no clue of street signs, lights, etc...

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 2:45 PM
60

There is no light at Boren and Denny. I'm looking at it right now.

Taking 9th up Bell is not a real efficient way to get downtown is it?

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 2:57 PM
61

jesus,

The light is a 3 way where boren meets (turns into fairview)and virginia meets them from the west.

Look again and get the shit out of your eyes. There is a parking lot on the southwest corner.

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 3:03 PM
62

And Bell is an efficient way of getting downtown if you know where the FUCK YOU ARE GOING!!!!

Otherwise take a bus, and STFU!!!

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 3:05 PM
63

This ecce homo doesn't sound like the original one. I liked the original one better. Nothing personal, ecce.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | December 5, 2007 3:05 PM
64

The light at Denny is 100 feet further north AFTER Boren BECOMES Fairview.

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 3:06 PM
65

Boren DOES NOT dead end at Fairview and DOES NOT become Fairview. Boren continues on the west side of the Seattle Times main building all the way down to Mercer.

And "Dexter is an extra ten minutes out of the way"? Really? It's just a few blocks over.

Posted by bigyaz | December 5, 2007 3:10 PM
66

If you're going from downtown to the University District, Dexter doesn't take you where you want to go. 9th goes the wrong way. Terry and Westlake have the tracks. Boren has no light at Mercer or Denny (sorry ecce homo; you're confusing the Boren/Fairview/Virginia intersection with the Boren/Denny intersection). Fairview is your best bet, but you have to climb a hill and negotiate the weave at Mercer. I'd rather just take Eastlake and avoid the weave and a lot of cross streets.

9th is a reasonable southbound route, and what I believe the city is proposing for that future bike route. But the Complete Streets ordinance says they should have had it in place now, not sometime in the nebulous future. The least they can do now is put up some warning signs and sharrows to set off some warning bells in people's heads.

As a rider of a mountain bike, though, I just think of it as Paul Allen and Greg Nickels new mountain biking obstacle course. Thanks, guys!

Posted by Greg Barnes | December 5, 2007 3:12 PM
67

It's funny, we were talking about the best way through South Lake Union and now you're mentioning intersections that aren't even in the neighborhood. How does riding by Spruce Street School get me from the lake to Whole Foods?

Maybe I should just ride up Capitol Hill first.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 3:13 PM
68

65

that is true, but you can't fly over the times parking lot, and Denny without a light right there is hairy and often backed up.

I do stand corrected. I forgot about Boren between Terry and Fairview. It's kinda a forgotton street there to me. You are correct that Boren doesn't BECOME Fairiew (A poor choice of words on my part), but practically, its the only way you can go if you want to go north.

But these guys will still wine because they still have to cross the tracks that head up to the trolly barn by Kapow on Harrison.

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 3:18 PM
69

This is the biggest bunch of whiny CRAP I've ever read. Portland shames us when it comes to biking but do you hear them WHINING about their street car or MAX tracks in their "popular" biking corridors. Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, get a freakin life. Why in the hell are the bike riders "riding on the rails" anyway? Judas Priest on a Pony, shut up already and be pro-transit for once.
Ingrates!

Posted by matthew | December 5, 2007 3:19 PM
70

#67

It doesn't..

You really don't know the neighborhood, do you?

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 3:21 PM
71

@69: The SLUT is not "transit". It will only (arguably) be "transit" when it runs up Eastlake to the U District. Or up Pine Street to Capitol HIll. What do those streets have in common? They're major bike routes. If we don't raise a stink now, we'll be 10 times as fucked in 2012.

Posted by DOUG. | December 5, 2007 3:23 PM
72

Here's an excerpt from one of the many accident accounts I and my collaborators have been party to over the past five or six months:

A couple of weeks ago, I was riding my bike after work to my friend Annie's
apartment in South Lake Union. I was on Westlake Ave, with the rail tracks,
during rush hour traffic. Sure enough, the moving traffic pushed me over
into a S.L.U.T. track and my front tire was stuck. I was at Westlake and
Thomas. I had two options: fall into moving rush hour traffic, or slam
into the back of a parked car. I opted for the parked car. Fortunately, I
was not badly injured enough to have to go to the hospital, but I was badly
bruised and bleeding. My bike survived without any damage since my body hit
the parked vehicle and the bike flew off to my left. After the crash, I
noticed that I had broken the tail light casing on the parked car. I left a
note on the car with my phone number.

Well, the woman who owned the car took her car to the dealership to get
repaired and the damage will cost, so far, $861. The owner of the car
decided to go through her car insurance to cover the cost since it was so
much, but now her insurance company has contacted me and is expecting me to
pay them back for the full damage to the vehicle. I don't have renter's or
home owners insurance, and my car insurance will not cover this cost. So,
not only was I injured because of a dangerous obstacle in the street, but
now I have to pay almost a thousand dollars in damages to a vehicle. Ugh.

/end

We support mass transit, but the streetcar is just a token, like lipservice to the real thing. All we are asking is that this street/these intersections be configured so that ALL users (bike, car, pedestrian, streetcar, bus, so forth) be able to use it in a SAFE manner that reduces congestion and promotes alternatives to single-passenger car trips. Let's make our city smarter AND safer!

Posted by SLB_pr | December 5, 2007 3:50 PM
73

Based on the flamewar above, I can only conclude the following:

Car drivers are jerkwads who should be shot.
Bike riders are jerkwads who should be shot.
Pedestrians are jerkwads who should be shot.

Thank you Dave.

Posted by Bike Guy | December 5, 2007 3:52 PM
75

i just ate a great burrito. had some cookies afterwards.

i support horsecock.

Posted by derrickito | December 5, 2007 4:08 PM
76

No the SLUT is not transit everyone knows that, but what will happen when we do actually get transit(tunnel or street level) are you guys gonna keep whining about the tracks on the street? WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Everyone whining should go to Portland for a day and ride their bike around downtown. Do ya all hear that sound? NO WHINING....Portland has it down. After spending this last weekend there riding their MAX, sorry but we suck. Seattle is the whiniest NIMBY town. Sorry guys, just sick of living here 22 years and still no decent transit system, but hey I have my bike and I ride it. If I want to go from West Seattle to Cap Hill ON MY BIKE it would be the incredible journey. Instead I have to share the 120 with the great unwashed and hella traffic because we have a MASS transit system, unlike Portland who have a RAPID transit system.
ok there's my WAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Posted by matthew | December 5, 2007 4:10 PM
77

i could really use a corndog right now. im fucking starving.

Posted by derrickito | December 5, 2007 4:14 PM
78

I will be implementing the horsecock protection plan of 2007 tonight.

We're out of Gardetto's here on the 41st floor. Please send help.

Posted by Henry | December 5, 2007 4:17 PM
79

uh - i hear portland cyclists complaining all the time. if not complaining, cautioning others to be very careful because of the tracks.

and derrickito, great pics! you deserve a corn dog.

Posted by infrequent | December 5, 2007 4:33 PM
80

henry, i thought they were never fucking ending???


other random guy: wtf are you talking about? i didnt post any pictures.

Posted by derrickito | December 5, 2007 4:44 PM
81

#74

Hardly anyone on that forum actually LIVES in SLU. I do, my family does, and we think the SLUT is cool. It makes Seattle at least look like its trying to go in the right direction.

Bicyclists are a bunch of self-rightous whiners with a superiority complex.

Truth is, you are little. Trains and cars are bigger. You are going to get hurt if you are not careful.

And to think some of you actually want to kill rapid at grade transit to the U-District so that you can selfishly ride your bikes (personal transportation vehicles) and IGNORE MAJOR TRAFFIC LAWS.

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 4:48 PM
82

hey homo 81.

the city disregarded state, city, and federal guidelines on how to make a trolley safe. they should have put it in the middle lanes with center lane exits for passengers, and filled trolley tracks with rubber filler so that it's safe for everyone.

read that paragraph until you get it.

then go fuck yourself!

Posted by derrickito | December 5, 2007 4:52 PM
83

random internet guy here: i've seen your name at the bottom of three imaginary girls concert photos. i recognized/remembered it when i saw it here. wtf? take a compliment?

Posted by infrequent | December 5, 2007 4:54 PM
84

@28, Most European tramways use a narrower flangeway gap than American streetcars, so it's not surprising that you were able to ride across their tracks safely.

If the city is going to install streetcar tracks in the right lane of popular bicycle routes, it should do something to mitigate the risk.

At the moment Seattle has no warning signs, unlike Portland's streetcar system, no pavement markings, nothing to suggest that cyclists riding along in traffic will suddenly encounter an oblique crossing of a deep flangeway.

Posted by JP | December 5, 2007 4:57 PM
85

BTW

I rarely if ever saw bicyclists riding down westlake BEFORE the SLUT went in.

They all seem to prefer Dexter.

Now all of a sudden its a big deal.

Sounds like a case of the typical seattle nimby whiners. "Wheres my free ticket? Whats in it for me?".

Go move to Isaquah if you want to ride your bikes, and leave the city to the big boys...

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 5:07 PM
86

So lemme get this straight;

Local cyclists who are pro-actively trying to stand up against a piss poor design are the "bud guys" to be shunned and ashamed of, but the corporate whore, who's got the city sucking from his tit is peachy? Go do whatever the phuck you feel like...damn the laws and opinions?

Figures...damn scrotumsackless town!

I personally think the group that is willing to take a risk and call out an obvious turd should be championed, not ostracized. Why the hell is okay with you morons to think its okay to put a fucking trolley down the right hand side of the road?!?

Any of you out there in webbyland ever seen this? Evere seen this with cars AND bikes? I doubt it, and even if it does exist, i'm sure it's a phucking bikers nightmare there too.

Sure glad this town, with its big offices and fat wallets, cant look south at a working model of decently interacting publik transportation. That would just be SILLY, they're Portland for phucks sake, what the hell could THEY teach US?!? We have Microsoft and Boeing and Paul Allen~~~WOOOHOOO!

Sheep!

Maybe you all fail to read the DETAILS>
The city failed (again) to listen to the local cycle COMMUNITY (which can include, if you choose...you fucking drunken, girlpants wearing hipsters)and failed to follow standard track placement!

So how about this, babies? If any of you disrespectful phucktards or your card wilding little friends eat schitt on the tracks, bail into unsuspecting traffic, or get nailed by that SLUT, don't come crying of looking from sympathy. I'm sure the Seattle LIKES Bikes (get the likes part there, Skippy?) folks that have put their time and effort into organizing this, a memorial ride for someone they didn't know, and 3 Stone way rides appreciates getting the "you're retarded", "go ride somewhere else", "this is dumb" form the people it rides FOR.

Fucking needle dicks!

If, by some slim chance, this town of passive/aggressive chowder heads decides to stand up against corporations making the town the way THEY want...damn what we ask for...then come on down and show show this town that you may have grown a pair.

OR, how 'bout you go-go phuck yourselves.

Posted by Diskustapated | December 5, 2007 5:27 PM
87

Pussy bicyclists...

Hope you don't get your head crushed by a dump truck.

But then again, I'll chuckle when you do.

I can't be the only one who laughs my ass off when I see one of you losers hit the pavement. Comedy Gold!!!

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 6:29 PM
88

Hey, obstructionists, where the fuck were these arguments months and years ago, before this thing was built?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Also, on Eastlake, aren't the tracks in the left and center lanes?

Posted by Gomez | December 5, 2007 6:38 PM
89

hey Homo;

Please show up and make yourself known. I have something for YOUR head.

Posted by anno | December 5, 2007 7:38 PM
90

@88 -- These concerns were all presented to Seattle DoT when the SLUT was still on the drawing board. Real-life examples of the accidents it would cause were presented from Portland, which made similar errors in its initial streetcar implementation.

SDOT's own reports before the project began said that the streets involved would be made unsafe for cyclists, and bicycles would be required to use other streets.

Then SDOT went ahead with the project, placed the tracks where they knew they would pose maximum risk, and installed zero warning signs or pavement markings. Then acted all innocent and surprised when cyclists started crashing.

So, yes, cyclists were there months and years ago, and have been there all along, and the city has been ignoring public comment, published design standards, and the city's own experience losing a lawsuit over the bicycle accidents caused by an oblique rail crossing in the Burke Gilman missing-link case.

Cyclists are mad the city has knowingly endangered them, and other taxpayers should be mad the city has knowingly exposed itself to this sort of liability again.

Posted by JP | December 5, 2007 7:55 PM
91

The fact that so many bicyclists don't carry insurance should stop. They should be required to liscence their bikes for the 100$ we car drivers pay and be required to carry as a minimum liability insurance.

Can't get something for nothing. Freeloaders...

Posted by ecce homo | December 5, 2007 8:08 PM
92

I have liability insurance for my bike. Bicycles are generally covered by personal liability under homeowners or renters insurance -- they exclude *motor* vehicles, of course, but cover bicycles and pedestrians. That should give you an idea why the law doesn't require liability insurance for bikes -- the risk is vanishingly small compared to cars.

Meanwhile, motorists are subsidized by property tax payers whether they own cars or not, and are only required to carry a pitiful $25,000 bodily injury liability and $10,000 property damage liability despite the huge damage and massive injuries that they routinely cause. No wonder my underinsured motorist coverage costs so much, freeloading motorists....

Posted by JP | December 5, 2007 8:21 PM
93

Most of the cyclists are pretty much only asking for designated signs and warnings that on that route cars and other cyclists need to be aware that they have to share that part of the road without one bullying the other


its hard to cross at an angle that is safe when you are moving with traffic either as fast or slow wether there is enough room or not

my bike is my only transportation, Ive been carless since 2003 and its been great

remember the DMV states that driving is a privelege not a right.

HA

Posted by incontinentia buttocks | December 6, 2007 9:52 AM
94

@45: "If I get the drift every form of transportation should be designed around the needs and desires of the bicyclists. " yeah, that's basically it. or rather, the city should stop patently ignoring the needs
of bicyclists when desigining infrastructure and avoid creating a more hazerdous environment for them. what if they decided to put up tire spikes on your favorite road to work? would you not bother to complai
n just cause you could take another route? also, your question about skaters and scooters is a cliche tactic that just belittles bicycles as toys, and not a real part of traffic. just because you might belive
that doesn't make it true.

@50: so just because the infrastructure is built for cars everyone should throw up their hands, put their bike in the garage and start driving? great idea.

@69 & 76: pdx doesn't complain because a) its trollys run in the middle of the road, which avoids most of the issues cyclists have with the SLUT, and b) there is adequate signage warning of danger, and bike routes are planned to *avoid* (or safely deal with) tracks, which takes care of the rest of the issues. i.e. that city government actually takes bikes into consideration when building rail lines.

Posted by chunts | December 10, 2007 5:59 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).