Vision Zero update shows that Seattle still isn’t addressing the biggest causes of traffic deaths and injuries

Seattle is not on a path to Vision Zero by 2030. In fact, the city is still heading in the wrong direction.

The good news is that when SDOT implements safety redesigns of dangerous streets, they work. The fatality counts for people biking and driving are relatively flat, which means the bicycle fatality rate is actually down due to increases in ridership. However, the city does not conduct nearly enough safety improvements each year, and they have not made significant safety upgrades to the streets with the highest rates of serious injuries and deaths for people walking and rolling.

The majority of serious injuries and deaths occur on the city’s high-injury network, and many of the worst streets are the same year after year such as Aurora Ave N, Northgate Way, Denny Way, Rainier Ave S, 4th Ave S, Lake City Way, S Jackson Street, S Michigan Street, MLK Way S (which had an unusually light couple years during 2020-24), Olive Way and more. 80% of pedestrian-involved collisions happen on streets with multiple lanes in the same direction, a design we know to be dangerous in ways that America’s trend toward larger cars with impeded driver visibility only make worse. Our Vision Zero efforts are swimming against the stream because U.S. vehicle standards and purchasing trends are pulling the wrong way. This means that the city needs to significantly scale up its output of safety interventions if we have any hope of meeting our 2030 goal.

Last year, the Vision Zero program conducted one safety corridor project on N 130th Street. This year they have three planned: S Henderson Street, Renton Ave S, and Spring Street. These are all good projects, but only Spring Street is red on the high-injury map (though several are orange). We need, like, 5 times this many projects per year. Maybe 10 times. Scaling up will require changes in how they are delivered, including budgets and timelines. But most importantly, it will require clear political guidance and leadership from both Mayor Katie Wilson and the City Council communicating to the public that they should expect to see a lot more new safety improvements than they have seen in the past because we are making a push to save lives.

SDOT also needs to get its full department on board with its traffic safety goals. It is notable that some of the streets in the updated high-injury network map based on 2020-24 data are streets where SDOT made major investments in recent years but chose not to make safety upgrades, such as N/NE 50th Street. Seattle Bike Blog called this out back in 2019 when the city invested to fully repave the street only to paint back the same senselessly dangerous design with multiple lanes in the same direction, a design we know will result in traffic injuries and deaths. We wrote then, “There is no legitimate justification for double-barrel travel lanes on a city street, yet Seattle has no process through which the building of these dangerous lanes are forced to prove their value, viability and alignment with our other city goals. And it’s time for that to change.”

I already knew that N/NE 50th Street is dangerous because it is the reason my eight-year-old child cannot walk to her friend’s house on her own, and it is by far the most stressful and dangerous barrier when we bike to her school together. It has also left people with no safe way to bike from the U District to Tangletown. However, it is distressing to see that since this repaving project was completed, N/NE 50th Street has become a red line on the high injury network map signifying the highest level of danger. This was a post-Vision Zero paving project. How can SDOT say that safety is their number one priority when they recently built a street that is now among its most dangerous? I’m not a traffic injury Nostradamus! My prediction in that 2019 post was not luck. SDOT knows better than I do that painting multiple lanes in the same direction will result in injuries and deaths while dramatically reducing the rate of yielding to people trying to cross the street, so this result was known before they even built it. If our city truly takes Vision Zero seriously, then the N/NE 50th Street project appearing red on the high-injury network map should be a scandal.

SDOT Chief Transportation Safety Officer Venu Nemani told the Transportation Committee last week about how SDOT always goes back after a Vision Zero project to evaluate how it affected both safety and traffic flow. Why doesn’t SDOT conduct evaluations of paving projects that did not include any safety updates? Why hasn’t the high injury rate on NE 50th Street triggered a response from SDOT to intervene and fix the dangerous problem they created? And why is SDOT currently considering repeating the same mistake on Elliott and Western, using the same arguments (PDF) for not building bike lanes past Broad Street or making other safety improvements that they gave during the same phase of their failure on N/NE 50th Street? “It’s not in the bike plan map.” So what? Western is an orange line on that high-injury network map, so the question that matters is: Would it make the street safer for all road users?

Councilmember Rob Saka during the committee meeting suggested a 72-hour response rule for fixing traffic safety issues after a death (or, I’ll add, an injury) just like SDOT has for responding to pothole reports. As Nemani replied, it often takes longer than that for investigations to be completed so that causes can be properly identified, which is fair. But the idea behind a rapid response of some kind is excellent and, frankly, common sense. Identify a problem, announce a fix, accept public feedback, incorporate feedback that is useful, then build it. Use semi-temporary materials like paint, precast curbs and plastic posts that can be installed quickly and adjusted if needed, then bake it all in with permanent curbs the next time the street is repaved or as funding becomes available. SDOT already knows how to do this, the department just is not doing it at the scale we need and typically does not do it on our busier or more complicated high-injury network streets.

As the city is preparing to audit the Vision Zero Program, I urge everyone involved to expand the scope of such an audit beyond the Vision Zero Program itself and instead look at the full department as well as the impact of Washington State’s transportation facilities and policies. The Vision Zero Program gets results when it takes action, but it’s only conducting a handful of significant projects each year. The high-injury network map is full of streets that are either state highways or connect to state highways. Our downtown and our neighborhoods have multi-lane roads and highway access ramps that are killing and injuring people relentlessly and dispassionately.

As someone who has been covering traffic safety issues in Seattle since 2010, the solution has always been obvious. Fix the streets where people keep getting injured and killed. That may at times mean increasing travel times, a trade that is well worth it to save the lives of our friends, family and neighbors. No street should be too large to touch, and all our transportation agencies need to be focused on achieving this goal together.

Below is the video of SDOT’s presentation to the Transportation Committee (presentation PDF):

https://youtu.be/oHD9CNTpQqw&t=2139

#SEAbikes #Seattle

With Seattle on path to miss 2030 goal, CM Saka calls for an audit of the Vision Zero program

In 2015, Seattle gave itself 15 years to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero. With four years left, the city is not on track to meet this goal.

With SDOT staff scheduled to present about traffic safety to the City Council’s Transportation Committee Thursday, Chair Rob Saka announced that he will request a performance audit of SDOT’s Vision Zero program.

“This audit will help us take a hard look at what’s working, what’s not, and where we need to sharpen our approach to prevent further tragedies on our roads,” said Councilmember Saka in a press release. Among other things, the audit will focus on “whether resources are being deployed in the highest-risk locations,” according to the press release.

The audit could set up future legislation, Councilmember Saka told Seattle Bike Blog in a phone interview. “Hopefully by this time next year there will be sustantive action to take,” he said. The audit is “in the auditor’s queue” already.

The audit comes three and a half years after previous SDOT Director Greg Spotts initiated a “top-to-bottom review” of the Vision Zero Program. That review (PDF) resulted in a list of 12 key recommendations including points like “Incorporate Vision Zero and Safe Systems approaches into every project and program” and “Be willing to reduce vehicle travel speeds and convenience to improve safety.”

The proposed performance audit would be an outside assessment of the program rather than an internal review.

We already know what many of the core findings of the audit will likely be. People in cars striking people walking is by far the biggest problem sending our Vision Zero trend line in a horribly wrong direction. Most traffic deaths and serious injuries are occurring on streets with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, and this is especially true for people walking and rolling. Slowing vehicle speeds and reducing the most dangerous types of conflict points results in safer streets. When the Vision Zero team conducts a major safety redesign, it works. But we aren’t doing nearly enough of them.

Hopefully the audit does not slow the department’s Vision Zero work this year. Voters approved an unprecedented amount of money for safety improvements as part of the 2024 Seattle Transportation Levy, and SDOT will need to work hard to deliver it all by the end of 2032.

Below is the text of Councilmember Saka’s press release:

Today, Councilmember Rob Saka (District 1), Chair of the Transportation, Waterfront, and Seattle Center Committee (also known as “STEPS”, called on the City Auditor to conduct a performance audit of Seattle’s Vision Zero program. Adopted in 2015, Vision Zero is the City’s ambitious goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2030.

While Seattle has made significant progress in recent years and is trending in the right direction on several key safety metrics, current outcomes fall short of the City’s stated goals. People continue to lose their lives on City streets each year, particularly pedestrians.

“Safety is the highest priority for my office and the STEPS Committee that I oversee. Performance audits exist for a reason; they are one of our strongest tools for accountability,” said Chair Saka. “Vision Zero is about saving lives, and while we are seeing some real progress, the fact remains that too many people are still dying and suffering serious injuries on our streets. This audit will help us take a hard look at what’s working, what’s not, and where we need to sharpen our approach to prevent further tragedies on our roads.”

Managed by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), Vision Zero is grounded in a federal Safe System Approach that combines roadway design, enforcement, policy, and education strategies to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. The audit will evaluate how effectively these strategies are being implemented, whether resources are being deployed in the highest-risk locations, and how outcomes are being measured and tracked over time.

By initiating this comprehensive review now, the City secures a critical multi-year window to implement data-driven adjustments. Chair Saka’s proactive approach ensures Seattle is best positioned to meet its safety milestones and enhance road safety for all residents well before the 2030 deadline.

Results of the audit will be presented at a future meeting of the Transportation, Waterfront, and Seattle Center Committee and are intended to inform policy, budget, and operational decisions for years to come.

The next meeting of the Transportation, Waterfront, and Seattle Center Committee will be this Thursday, April 16 beginning at 9:30 a.m.. SDOT will provide a review of 2025 traffic safety data and an overview of 2026 Vision Zero projects. Immediately following the meeting, Chair Saka will have availability for media interviews.

#SEAbikes #Seattle

CM Saka will continue to chair Transportation Committee, Rinck joins as Vice-Chair

With the elections of Eddie Lin and Dionne Foster as well as the reelection of Alexis Mercedes Rinck, the new Seattle City Council is taking shape. Amid all the other committee leadership changes, Councilmember Rob Saka will remain Chair of the Transportation Committee while Councilmember Rinck will join as Vice-Chair and Dionne Foster, Bob Kettle and Eddie Lin as members. Starting January 15, they will meet the first and third Thursdays of each month at 9:30 a.m. in Council Chambers.

Because Foster sent former Council President Sara Nelson packing with a landslide 62-37 win, the Council had to elect a new President. With new Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson sitting in the Council Chambers audience like a regular Seattle resident, the Council voted unanimously to select Joy Hollingsworth for a two-year term.

Here’s a tip to any of you who are new to following local city government: The committee meetings are typically much more interesting and enlightening than the full Council meetings. Except for the most controversial votes, full Council meetings contain a lot of boring grandstanding and backpatting while the actual decisions have mostly been made previously in committees and are merely formalized during full Council meetings. With rare exceptions, Council actions that get a full committee recommendation are almost certain to pass the Council without further significant changes. Committee meetings are also where the really interesting agency briefings happen, proving a chance to hear from SDOT staff, for example, as they explain the rationale behind agency decisions and field questions from committee members.

Not only will some of the committee members change, but many of the names and governing responsibilities of the committees will also change. The groupings don’t even always make sense. For example, the Transportation Committee will now be grouped into the Transportation, Waterfront and Seattle Center Committee. Under the previous chair Alex Pedersen, it was the Transportation and Utilities Committee. Under Mike O’Brien it was the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. It’s a little odd that Parks and Seattle Center will be in different committees since I usually think of them being linked together, but committee assignments are based, I assume, on a secret ritual probably involving robes and chanting and psilocybin, and we all just need to trust in this process. The mushrooms always reveal what’s best.

Here are the committee assignments for 2026–27:

• Finance, Native Communities, and Tribal Governments – Chair Strauss, Vice-Chair Rivera
• Housing, Arts, and Civil Rights – Chair Foster, Vice-Chair Lin
• Human Services, Labor, and Economic Development – Chair Rinck, Vice-Chair Foster
• Land Use and Sustainability – Chair Lin, Vice-Chair Strauss
• Libraries, Education, and Neighborhoods – Chair Rivera, Vice-Chair Hollingsworth
• Parks and City Light – Chair Juarez, Vice-Chair Kettle
• Governance and Utilities – Chair Hollingsworth, Vice-Chair Juarez
• Public Safety – Chair Kettle, Vice-Chair Saka
• Transportation, Waterfront, and Seattle Center – Chair Saka, Vice-Chair Rinck

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Council votes to keep ignoring Seattle’s housing crisis

Well, we knew this was probably going to happen back in November 2023 when Seattle elected a slate of more conservative candidates for City Council. Even though as candidates most said (video 1 and 2) they supported the comprehensive plan options that would have allowed a lot of new housing, they showed their true colors this week by removing even more areas from the mayor’s already scaled-back growth plan. The result is that the mayor and council have decided to continue enforcing the exact same causes of our current housing crisis. Most growth will still be centered in large apartment buildings with lots of expensive car parking along our busiest roadways and in areas with high risks of displacement to communities of color all so that wealthier and often whiter areas can be spared the horror of having some more neighbors.

Only Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck stood up for allowing more homes in more places and for making it more affordable to build them. She was the lone vote to add eight neighborhood centers to plan, most of which the mayor cut before sending his proposal to Council. She was also the lone vote for removing parking minimums from new housing, which would have dramatically reduced the cost of new housing and supported the city’s stated goals of promoting more walking, biking and transit over car use. And she was on the losing side of a depressing number of votes that reduced housing. Her effort to make it legal again to open corner stores and other businesses in residential areas allow bars and expanded hours for residential businesses also failed (UPDATE: I initially said a measure to allow corner stores failed, but it passed at part of the consent agenda. The amendment that failed would have expanded the allowed types and hours of those businesses).

Councilmembers Bob Kettle, Maritza Rivera and Rob Saka formed a consistent voting block against pretty much all measures that would allow more housing and in favor of measures that would remove areas from the growth plan or add costs and red tape to discourage the building of new housing (if you don’t want to watch the videos yourself, Erica C. Barnett and the Urbanist did their best to cover the votes in real time on Bluesky). Councilmembers Dan Strauss, Debora Juarez and Joy Hollingsworth tried to play it wishy-washy, but by not uniting they gave the consistent block of three NIMBYs the default win on a lot of votes. Sorry, folks, this was the moment to stand up and fight to solve our city’s housing crisis, so you get no points for abstaining or remaining on the fence.

Speaking of abstaining, Council President Sara Nelson made the baffling decision to abstain from a huge number of votes, and she even signed off at one point so that she would miss a particularly controversial vote to add more red tape and restrictions to housing projects under the guise of protecting trees (nobody noticed until they called the roll call vote and she didn’t respond). It passed by one vote. She said she was abstaining so much because she did not feel “well informed” on the issues. Some might argue that learning about these issues is literally her job, but the voters can decide in November to relieve her of this heavy burden since she is incapable of carrying it. Her departure did lead to this wonderful post:

Perhaps this was part of the carefully calculated political strategy Nelson’s team of brilliant consultants cooked up for her. Voters can’t blame her for the housing crisis if she leaves the room during the votes!

But at least Nelson was in attendance for some of the meeting. Appointed District 2 Councilmember Mark Solomon, Vice-Chair of the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, was absent and missed all the votes and discussions. Given how many of these measures were decided by a single vote, this was easily the most important day in Councilmember Solomon’s appointed time. I asked his office about why he was absent, and his Chief of Staff Sarah Mayes replied that he was in Vancouver, Washington, for a previously scheduled Crime Prevention and Community Engagement Conference and that the rest of the Council was aware of this conflict. “CM Solomon was attending in his capacity as President of the Washington State Crime Prevention Association (which organizes and leads the conference),” Mayes wrote in an email:

“In early August, we alerted Chair Joy Hollingsworth to the scheduling conflict as soon as we were aware of it. In addition to being excusing him from the meeting, Chair Hollingsworth worked closely with Solomon and his staff to make sure that the “Chair’s Package” of amendments reflected District 2 priorities. We’re grateful for the Chair’s cooperation, and for the hard work of Council colleagues throughout the week. Councilmember Solomon is back in the office today, and he’ll be joining his colleagues for the final committee votes on the Comp Plan.”

There is still more comprehensive plan voting to go, but Thursday was the big test for whether our City Council was going to make an effort to get our housing crisis under control. They instead mostly chose to do what they could to make it even worse. The only silver lining is that they will be forced by state law to allow more types of housing in all residential areas because it is clear they would also have rejected those changes if they could. UPDATE: Aidan T on Bluesky pushed back on this, saying that the Council went beyond what was mandated by the state on missing middle housing.

I thought that perhaps the resounding vote results from the social housing initiative or the primary election would have shaken some of the sitting councilmembers awake. The public has made it clear consistently that housing affordability is a top concern and that we expect action from city leaders, yet most councilmembers chose to defy them. I don’t see how anyone other than Councilmember Rinck will be able to shake this week’s acts of Council cowardice. Everyone else is complicit and on the record now against making housing more affordable and plentiful in our city. Councilmember Nelson seems likely to lose in November (support Dionne Foster for City Council!) and Councilmember Solomon is not running to keep the District 2 seat he was appointed to. Debora Juarez was also appointed, but her District 5 seat is not up for a vote until next year. Everyone else is up for a vote in 2027. I don’t know how they make this up to the city, but they better have some good ideas. Otherwise the ongoing housing crisis, a top issue among Seattle voters, will fall squarely on them. Maybe they’ve all decided they don’t want to run again?

In the meantime, we will not stop fighting for a Seattle that is welcoming and has a place for everyone.

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Instead of telling ICE to stop hiding their identity, Seattle city council is working on fining graffiti artists.

#Seattle #SeattlePol #RobSaka #BobKettle #CityCouncil #ICE

So my Seattle city council member is going on a costly personal vendetta against a traffic calming design that offends him on his commute to drop off his kids at school.

#Seattle #RobSaka

Seattle prepares to pass budget with huge increases for safe streets + What CM Saka should do about Delridge

Thanks to Seattle voters, in 2025 the city is poised to invest $21 million in new sidewalks, $4.2 million in sidewalk repairs, $8.6 million in Vision Zero, $1.6 million in Safe Routes to School, $9.8 million in new protected bike lanes, and $1 million to upgrade existing bike lane barriers. To deliver all this, they are also going on a hiring spree, so if you know anything about building sidewalks you should keep an eye out for job listings.

The sidewalks funding line is particularly eye-catching and is the result of a decision to front-load sidewalk construction early in the first four years of the levy. Not only will this result in more sidewalks sooner, it should also help prevent sidewalks from getting cut in future years if some unforeseen issue arises that leads to cuts in the levy spending plan.

SDOT could get an even faster start if the Council dropped their proposed proviso on about half the levy funds for 2025 ($89 million), which would prevent the department from accessing those funds until they have presented a spending plan that the council approves. The council could instead request a spending plan by a certain date without holding up the funds, and they can always take action at that point if they want to change something. SDOT has a huge amount of work to complete in just eight years, including the time-consuming process of finding, hiring and onboarding new staff. Getting a slow start on Move Seattle projects was a huge problem for the previous levy, and a mistake the city should not repeat. The Council should not get in their way unnecessarily.

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways has put out an action alert urging folks to contact Councilmembers with a set of asks outlined at the bottom of this post. You can find documents regarding the Council’s budget amendments via the 2025-26 budget’s Legistar page. Many are within the “proposed consent amendment package,” though the final outstanding changes are in the “amendments for individual vote.” You may also need to reference Mayor Bruce Harrell’s proposed budget, which is found on a completely different website. The Council is debating amendments this week and will make their final votes on Tuesday and Thursday next week.

As part of the consent package, City Council has proposed creating a new $7 million per year Council District Fund within the SDOT budget for “neighborhood-scale traffic safety improvements and other district transportation priorities at the direction of the City Council.” In other words, a council slush fund. This would be a rare diversion from the usual way council and mayoral duties are divided in Seattle since Council rarely ever “directs” a department. Usually, the council is limited to providing (or placing conditions on) funding and setting official policy, but the actions of the departments nearly always go through the mayor.

I know “slush funds” have a bad rep, but I’m very interested to see how this new fund works in practice. It could be nice for Councilmembers to actually be able to respond more quickly to reasonable smallish requests from constituents. It’s frustrating for everyone when, say, a group of neighbors ask for a stop sign only to run into a dead end trying to get it onto SDOT’s workplan. But I’m sure the quality of return the public gets from these investments will vary greatly depending on the Councilmember directing the funds. I am also very interested to see what happens if a councilmember directs a project that the mayor opposes. Whose “direction” will win?

There are a handful of items that are still up for debate. We reported yesterday about the Council’s proposed actions to come up with a plan to shut down the South Lake Union Streetcar and remove the Center City Streetcar from the capital improvements list, so I won’t go into that again here.

Councilmember Sara Nelson has proposed a pointless and frankly obnoxious amendment that would “Request that SDOT provide a report on the performance measures and evaluation criteria used for consideration of bus-only lanes.” Specifically, she wants the report to detail how SDOT evaluates things like the “impact on general traffic capacity and congestion” and “any measures SDOT may take to mitigate potential underperformance.” Nelson and the rest of the City Council just passed a massive policy document called the Seattle Transportation Plan, and it includes meticulous explanations for how and why the city will make various transportation improvements including bus-only lanes. Here’s the transit section (PDF), which has a whole section starting on page T-62 about “defining success” that lists all the ways SDOT will measure outcomes from transit investments. Nelson either doesn’t understand what she voted for when approving the Seattle Transportation Plan or she is trying to undermine it. For example, the city very intentionally shifted to metrics that “prioritize person-throughput rather than vehicle throughput,” (page T-66) not metrics that prioritize the “impact on general traffic capacity.” Council should vote no on this one.

The transportation amendment that has gotten the most attention (other than the streetcar) is probably Councilmember Saka’s $2 million project in the consent package to allow left turns into the Refugee and Immigrant Family Center Bilingual Preschool. This is the site of the Delridge Way SW centerline curb that Saka infamously compared to the Trump border wall in an email years before he ran for City Council, as reported by Publicola. We addressed this location and those emails with Councilmember Saka in an introductory interview at the start of the year when he was named Chair of the Transportation Committee. That little curb, which prevents left turns into and out of the preschool his kids attended, was one frustration that helped set him down the path to running for office. The inflammatory border wall comment is hanging over the conversation about this amendment, but that annoying curb is one symptom of larger and genuinely frustrating issues with the Delridge design.

If I were to advise Councilmember Saka on this, I would suggest clearing the air about the border wall comparison. Mea culpa. Then expand the scope of this amendment to address issues at the core of the Delridge design problem so that the benefits expand across the neighborhood rather than just this one preschool, which feels a bit too specific for a public investment of this scale. Folks at the preschool were not the only ones who were ignored during the creation of this Durkan-era planning monstrosity. Many of the oddities on the street design (like the center buffer areas that look like turn lanes but aren’t or the fact that there’s only one bike lane on a two-way street) are because the street has three lanes southbound (one general, one bus and one bike) and one lane northbound, which is pure nonsense. Traffic is not heaver in one direction than the other, so why on earth would the road be designed this way? It’s as though the street thinks people head south and never come back. This is the actual source of Councilmember Saka’s issue. That center line curb is only needed because people would have to turn across multiple lanes plus the bike lane, a scenario we know to be potentially dangerous. The curb itself is not the problem, it’s a symptom of the street design’s illness. With a left turn pocket instead of a second southbound lane, people would only need to turn across one lane plus the bike lane, which is easier to do safely. All the unmarked crosswalks along Delridge would also become much safer with only one lane in each direction, another benefit. The primary tradeoff would be that southbound buses would need to use in-lane stops the way northbound buses already do, and SDOT staff would need to check that this would not negatively impact transit service. It would also be amazing if this project could add the missing northbound bike lane to the street because it makes no sense to have a protected bike lane in only one direction. I’d go as far as to say the Delridge street design is downright embarrassing to the city and the RapidRide name.

Below is the text of the amendment as currently written. Hopefully Councilmember Saka will do a rewrite before final passage:

This Council Budget Action (CBA) would impose a proviso on $2 million of appropriations in the Seattle Department of Transportation’s (SDOT’s) budget to make improvements to Delridge Way SW near the SW Holly St right-of-way to allow for left-turn ingress and egress from adjoining properties, including the Refugee and Immigrant Family Center Bilingual Preschool. These improvements would resolve access conflicts with the operation of the Delridge RapidRide service. It is the Council’s expectation that SDOT shall deliver these improvements, and that SDOT will begin project development and implementation no later than August 1, 2025.

One small note is that the revised budget reverses about $8 million over two years that the mayor’s initial levy-free budget had planned to add for “protected bike lanes and transit corridor improvements,” largely work that had been delayed past the end of the Move Seattle Levy. The plan from the start was to instead use Seattle Transportation Levy funds for these projects if voters approved it, which they did. When I initially saw the reduction in bike lane spending, I was concerned. But after a lot of budget diving and searching (can Seattle please make this process easier to follow?), I finally figured out that the “cuts” were from the mayor’s proposed budget, which had to be written assuming the levy would fail. The mayor’s office had cobbled together funds to finish projects that went past the Move Seattle Levy end point so that even if voters did not approve the levy, those projects could still be completed. Once the levy passed, those cobbled together funds were removed as planned. So really this change is not a problem, but I am leaving this paragraph here just in case someone else discovers those apparent “cuts” and has the same concern I did.

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways sent out an action alert calling for the following budget changes:

#SEAbikes #Seattle

CM Saka budget proposal would create plan to end service on SLU Streetcar

The future has become even bleaker for the low-ridership South Lake Union (“SLU”) Streetcar line as Transportation Committee Chair Rob Saka has proposed funding a plan for how to wind down and end service on the line. The budget changes would no actually end service, but they set the stage to do so as early as next year’s budget. The action could set up the city to finally make a decision about the streetcar once and for all.

As Seattle Bike Blog argued in August, Seattle decided in 2015 to make the SLU streetcar a dead end when SDOT chose RapidRide bus service on the Fairview/Eastlake/Roosevelt corridor rather than a streetcar extension. The streetcar line’s operating budget sits at $4.4 million per year to serve about 500 weekday trips on average. Ridership peaked in 2017 before SDOT added transit-only lanes to Westlake Ave to coincide with expanded King County Metro bus service along much of the streetcar’s route. In my previous post, several SLU transit riders said they just hop on whatever comes first, a bus or the streetcar. The under-construction RapidRide J line will further improve bus transit service in the SLU neighborhood when it begins operations as early as 2027. So even those 500 daily riders would likely not be stranded without the streetcar. Metro just deleted the Route 20 bus with little fanfare, for example, and that deletion (as well as other bus route changes and deletions) had a bigger negative impact on access to transit than closing the SLU Streetcar would.

Additionally, construction for the South Lake Union light rail station is expected to shut down SLU Streetcar service for eight years, so it makes sense for Seattle to decide sooner than later whether the city sees a future for the streetcar beyond that construction. If the city wants to preserve service they could build 2,000 feet of additional track to bypass the Link station closure, but that would only make sense if we are committing to this thing long-term. If not, then we may as well get the tracks out of the roadway and focus on creating efficient bus pathways. Removing or covering the tracks would also eliminate major hazards for people riding bicycles around the neighborhood, preventing injuries and improving bike circulation within the neighborhood. Removing the tracks may even lead to more new bike trips per day than the streetcar would carry if it kept operating in its current state.

The only possible future for the SLU streetcar line would be to connect to the planned Center City Connector streetcar (AKA “Culture Connector”) through downtown along 1st Avenue and Stewart Street. However, construction on that line remains stalled, and it has a huge funding gap. Seattle Bike Blog has also voiced serious concerns about bike safety along the planned route. As Councilmember Saka noted in an interview with the Seattle Times, “The only viable path I see for ever doing that one would be to create a public-private partnership at some point.” Councilmember Bob Kettle has proposed removing the Center City Connector from SDOT’s capital improvements list, an amendment Saka supports.

The Downtown Seattle Association (“DSA”) pushed back against the proposal to kill the SLU Streetcar line, arguing to the Urbanist, “We’re seeing more residents, workers and visitors in downtown and now is not the time to take existing mobility options off the table. […] With looming major transportation projects like Revive I-5 impacting our network’s capacity, we need to ensure the transit modes we already have downtown are functioning optimally, safely and a providing great experience.”

Seattle Subway has also created an online petition to save the streetcar, arguing:

While the SLU Streetcar suffers from low ridership, it is widely attributed to the lack of connectivity rather than anything inherent to streetcars. We cannot fix the design mistakes of the past, but we can certainly make improvements. SDOT ridership figures for 2022 put SLU streetcar at 500 daily riders and First Hill streetcar at 2,500 daily riders, with ridership trending upwards since the pandemic. By SDOT’s own estimate, the proposed Culture Connector extension would attract 28,000 daily riders, making it more popular than the busiest bus line in the city. This city council also called out the Culture Connector as a key improvement in their own Seattle Transportation Plan which they passed in April. Rob Saka himself said at the time, “It’s time we commit to our transportation goals and give them [SDOT] the resources they need to succeed. That’s what this plan is all about.” They are now prepared to go back on that commitment.

The SLU Streetcar was initially funded by a LID in the area as a way to encourage development of the area into the business and tech hub it is today. So from that perspective, it was a huge success. But as a transit service, not so much. I worry about transit supporters taking the L off someone else’s forehead and putting on their own. Providing effective transit service was not the primary force behind this particular streetcar, so transit folks should not feel like this is something they need to own. The SLU Streetcar is a simulacra of a good transit system, but Metro’s bus system is an actual good transit system. The most important transit priority is to make sure the city builds more bus priority improvements in the area, preserving and improving on the bus-only lanes created when the RapidRide C extended into the area. Perhaps Metro buses could even reuse of some of the streetcar infrastructure like the transit-only pathway along Valley Street. The worst case scenario would be for the streetcar to be removed without any effort to improve bus service.

While the SLU Streetcar’s future certainly hinges on the Center City Streetcar, is the inverse also true? The city’s 20-year plan for transit calls for a 1st Ave Streetcar that connects Seattle Center/Lower Queen Anne to Pioneer Square and the First Hill Streetcar on Jackson Street as well as a 1st Ave extension into SoDo. Would some or all of this line be viable without the SLU connection? Perhaps rather than removing the Center City Streetcar from the capital projects list, Council could add questions to its request for a SLU Streetcar wind down plan about what impact such an action would have on a possible Center City line. This would give the city one more year to give the Center City Streetcar the proper public debate it deserves. Let’s lay out all the facts and options, and then make a damn decision.

If businesses and developers want to foot the bill for both the Center City and South Lake Union streetcar lines, then I’m sure city leaders will shift to support them. Otherwise, well, you may want to make an effort to go out of your way to ride the thing at least once before it is shut down so you can say you did it and buy that clever t-shirt on sale at Pike Place Market.

#SEAbikes #Seattle