The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) pushed ahead with the much debated Nickerson Street road diet back in August, decreasing the thoroughfare to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and bike lanes on either side.
The decision to revamp Nickerson was met with split support and opposition. A survey we took back in June indicated that, of the 711 who participated, 48.4 percent were in support of the road diet, while 51.6 percent were against the plan. The topic generated more discussion on this site than any other topic we have ever posted.
New data from the city indicates that the road diet is working as planned, according to a report from Publicola published Wednesday.
The city says that data collected three months after the implementation of the Nickerson rechannelization shows that the same number of cars have been able to use the street, and that speeds along the street have slowed somewhat since the restriping. From Publicola:
SDOT traffic manager Eric Widstrand says the data are still preliminary; the city will continue to do traffic counts through the rest of 2011 and release a full report after the end of the year. However, so far, the study shows that car and freight traffic haven?t been harmed by the lane reduction, and that traffic has slowed to be somewhat closer to the 30-mph speed limit on the road.
?Capacity has not decreased,? Widstrand says. ?We?re still able to accommodate? between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicles a day.
Proponents of the project note that decreased speeding along Nickerson as a result of the rechannelization is a good thing. Since the road diet, the average speed along Nickerson has gone down from 40 to 44 miles per hour, to between 34 and 37 mph, according to Publicola. From the report:
?We aren?t slowing anyone down excessively,? Widstrand says. The new speeds remain higher than the 30 mph speed limit, but are still safer for cyclists and pedestrians. A pedestrian hit at 40 mph is about 85 percent likely to die; a pedestrian hit at 30 mph is about 40 percent likely to be killed.
Cascade Bicycle Club representative David Hiller says that neither the group nor the city has yet studied whether the number of cyclists using Nickerson has increased since the rechannelization (which was the case after the Stone Way road diet).
Of course you’re going to get the same number of cars, because it’s the only way there is to get where we’re going. I work in the U-district, and from Magnolia, it is mostly one lane my entire route, without any way of getting around a slow, or annoyed driver. I, personally, can’t stand the one lane. Who the heck are bikers to deserve more room, anyway! If they paid a penny even, I might not be so strongly against the bike lanes that have appeared all over this city.
Hey, that?s the first time..today.. someone trotted out that ridiculous ?bikes don?t pay taxes? argument, and/or the rules of the road complaint.
So here again is how it works. Local roads are paid for primarily by property taxes. If I live locally, and own a home or rent, I pay property taxes. Just as much as the car drivers, but I cause less road damage, pollute less, and help keep your fuel costs down by using less.
License fees pay for licenses, and gas taxes and tabs pay in SMALL PART for state highways. The rest of the highway system is subsidized by all residents, regardless of how often we use the road.
And as the research indicates, car drivers continue to speed on Nickerson, and most every other road, turn without signaling, run red lights, etc. Just like some cyclists. The big difference: cyclists kill far fewer people when violating the law.
It’s not about the bikes. It’s about the pedestrians who couldn’t cross the road safely in a 4-lane configuration, and it’s about getting back the crosswalks that were lost because the old configuration wasn’t safe. And it’s about getting speeds closer to actual posted speed limits.
The whole “bike vs. car” meme is completely not the issue, and blaming cyclists for the reconfiguration is not accurate. Just because the media contacts Cascade asking for input about pedestrian issues (and Mr. Hiller is very smart) doesn’t mean this is an issue about bikes.
Working? I’m sure everyone backed up when the Fremont bridge is open thinks this is a swell idea. You know everything is A-OK when the idea of “working as planned” means creating more congestion. Hey, wouldn’t it be a hoot if they added tolls or perhaps transformed Nickerson into a an ultra-modern, multilane bikeway path?
+1. The changes work for me, simply because I AVOID NICKERSON! I am happy to see more road diets, if they are supported by new taxes and licenses paid by bicycle riders.
Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear says it best:
Clarkson’s highway code on cyclists: ‘trespassers in the motorcars domain, they do not pay road tax and therefore have no right to be on the road, some of them even believe they are going fast enough to not be an obstruction. Run them down to prove them wrong’
“I was reading The Mirror the other day and came across a letter from a reader who wrote, ‘I was riding my bike to work when this red Ferrari pulled up next to me. Out of the window, Jeremy Clarkson shouted ‘Get a car’, and drove off.’What I actually said was, ‘Get a car you hatchet faced, leaf-eating Nazi”
Jeremy Clarkson sounds like an idiot, and you are a tool for echoing his call for violence.
Wait, I swore this was going to be a unmitigated traffic nightmare 24/7?
I take this route regularly and never experience backups from the bridge to the one-laned section so that argument is bunk. Those backups have always been there and are constrained by the bridge, not the road diet.
Oh yes, and let us not forget the most annoying thing of all about bikers who seem to be running this town now…they don’t stop at stop signs or red lights or follow any of the rules of the road. They wanna be there like a car? Then let them act like one.
Act like a car driver by speeding? Or running red lights, or driving drunk, or failing to yield, or failing to signal…
My father lives on Nickerson, and while he was suspicious at the start he really likes the changes. No more cars crashing into his side-view mirror because of the bike-lane buffer, and the street is no longer as much of a race track.
Nickerson just feels like a race track naturally; even I speed on it, although I know how dangerous it is to folks there. The one lane thing sort of cools people off.
My father lives on Nickerson, and while he was suspicious at the start he really likes the changes. No more cars crashing into his side-view mirror because of the bike-lane buffer, and the street is no longer as much of a race track.
Nickerson just feels like a race track naturally; even I speed on it, although I know how dangerous it is to folks there. The one lane thing sort of cools people off.
Same number of bikers as before. Just more squeezed cars and a slower commute.
Working? If this is “working” then I have a deep bore underground tunnel to sell you…..oh wait.
So, by WSDOT statistics, you’re more than 45% less likely to kill a cyclist in an accident. Cyclist’s fault, driver’s fault, whatever that’s beisdes the point, that person is 45% more likely to die under the two-lane scenario.
The cost for this change is 31 seconds of your time (the difference between the two extremes of 34 MPH vs 44 MPH for the 1.3 mile trip, to say nothing of the average speed through the corridor is narrower still).
Complaints that this is slowing people down and avoided at all costs are completely absurd, especially when you consider how much safer it is for cyclists and drivers alike.
So, by WSDOT statistics, you’re more than 45% less likely to kill a cyclist in an accident. Cyclist’s fault, driver’s fault, whatever that’s beisdes the point, that person is 45% more likely to die under the two-lane scenario.
The cost for this change is 31 seconds of your time (the difference between the two extremes of 34 MPH vs 44 MPH for the 1.3 mile trip, to say nothing of the average speed through the corridor is narrower still).
Complaints that this is slowing people down and avoided at all costs are completely absurd, especially when you consider how much safer it is for cyclists and drivers alike.
Wow, McGinn’s DOT confirms McGinn’s earlier assessment. Ground shaking.
Actually, this road diet was in the works for a long time before McGinn.
Next specious argument please.
Actually, this road diet was in the works for a long time before McGinn.
Next specious argument please.
I’ve read all these comments, and am bewildered by all the people who swear it’s working. Clearly few of them have ever tried to make a left turn from the north side of the street to eastbound Nickerson during the evening commute. Backups from the Fremont Bridge in the evening often extend back to 6th Avenue — more than half the length of the corridor. On Queen Anne Ave, I’ve sometimes had to wait three traffic light signals to turn left, because people block that wide intersection. (When the backups didn’t usually go back that far, it was less an issue.) Turning left from 6th is also difficult when there is a constant stream of cars, instead of side-by-side cars and more frequent gaps. (The light at 3rd has always been slow because of all the students crossing, so that doesn’t count.)
I feel it’s not too bad (or no different at all) if you’re going straight through most times of day, and then I’m fine with it. I also will concede there are no worse backups traveling eastbound than before. But when there *are* westbound backups by the Fremont Bridge, they are MUCH worse, and the impact cascades to the surrounding streets and non-direct routes. I find that to get to Upper Queen Anne or SPU, I’m much more likely to go up-and-over on Dravus just to avoid Nickerson.
I think if they’d just add back a second lane for merely an extra 100 feet on the westbound side before the Fremont Bridge, it would probably have a noticeable improvement, with no additional speeding. But I acknowledge this idea won’t gain many supporters.
And while I admire the bicyclists and all, I still haven’t heard a real explanation as to why we needed a bicycle lane when there’s a wide bicycle path along the ship canal. If it was only about speeding, a pair of roundabouts would have worked, too, no?
Bike lane complaint? Please read EVERYTHING written about this change. It was about reducing speed, making the road safer for pedestrians and drivers. Marking a bike lane was a bonus.
The trail near the ship canal does not go anywhere. It ends. Everyone except BNSF agrees completing this trail is a great idea.
OK, Lawtonmom, what should we do to reduce the speed on the Ballard Bridge? You seem to think you know everything. Btw, I won’t be back to read your answer.
BNSF just wants to get paid, and to do the work when they get around to it. Ask why the City was foolish enough to not set a deadline in their deal with the railroad.
BNSF just wants to get paid, and to do the work when they get around to it. Ask why the City was foolish enough to not set a deadline in their deal with the railroad.
EVERYONE agrees. My goodness let’s end all debate because lawtonmom apparently knows that EVERYONE agrees this trail is a great idea. Wow what arrogance and sanctimony. Must be wonderful in your blissful world of one.
And regarding your earlier comment about taxes and and bicycles: Car owners on average pay $500 a year at the pump in King County per the local gas tax and $350 a year in federal gas taxes. That money goes straight to the roads and nothing is being paid by bicycles so forgive us for pointing out that bicycles do NOT pay their fair share on the roads. I’m all for sharing the roads but insisting on special privileges while refusing to pay your way has gotten tiresome.
Really? Please link to your info where gas taxes pay for local roads, and what % of road maintenace is paid for by these gas taxes. Also include what % of road maintenance is subsidized by taxes not related to motor vehicle use. Please detail how the taxes I pay for bicycle and shoe purchases do not go to road maintenance. Also, if you can list people and specific reasons you and others are opposed to the completion of the south ship canal trail I will never, ever again us the generalization “everyone.”
Which special privilege are you refering to? Lane striping? Do you want pedestrians to pay a shoe tax to mark crosswalks?
Who uses it? I use Nickerson at different times of the day and see virtually no bike traffic. I think it is a waste of $200,000 plus just to satisfy “Hiz honor” McSchwinn. Why dosen’t Cascade pitch in some bucks for all the free bike boxes and street narrowing?
The road was improved for pedestrian and car driver safety. Do you see cars on the road? Do you see pedestrians trying to cross?
What are free bike boxes? And if they are free, why would anyone need to pay for them?
The road was improved for pedestrian and car driver safety. Do you see cars on the road? Do you see pedestrians trying to cross?
What are free bike boxes? And if they are free, why would anyone need to pay for them?
Where did you get that $200,000 figure? It was much less than that.
Moreover, if bikers should have to hold a bake sale for every piece of bike infrastructure (which this pedestrian safety project isn’t), should drivers have to hold bake sales to fill all the potholes? Should the downtown merchants have to hold a large charity auction to fund the DBT?
I complained when I first heard of the change, but it is working so well. I fell less stressed when I drive down that street now.
Check out our EODD diet review to learn if this hot-selling weight loss system from Jon Benson actually works! http://www.fithuman.net/
This cruiser is what? hsppens when you mix a classicall-styled bicycle whith a vibrant color palletHermosa Beach.
beach cruiser bike