seattle bicycle master plan Draft June 2013

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Plan Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Who Rides (or Doesn’t) and Why? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Making the Case for Investing in Bicycling . . . . . 4 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Public Engagement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 STATE OF THE SEATTLE BICYCLING ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracking and Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . Existing Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who’s Riding, Where, and When? . . . . . . . . . . . POLICY FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seattle Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complete Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Master Plan . Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Master Plan Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE BICYCLE NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Facilities for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Network Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Bicycle Network . Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategies and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Facility Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Facilities Visual Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . Multimodal Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11 11 16 18 20 21 22 22 23 28 29 30 32 33 44 46 57

END-OF-TRIP FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Practices and New Strategies . . . . . . . . Seattle Municipal Code Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parking in the Public Right of Way and . Bicycle Spot Improvement Program . . . . . . . . Bicycle Parking Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Parking at Transit Stations . . . . . . . . . . . Temporary (Event) Bicycle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . Abandoned Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy-Level Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing Individual Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOW WE DO BUSINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SDOT Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partner Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bicycle Facility Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 63 65 66 68 68 69 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 78 79 79 81 84

INVESTMENT APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Prioritization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Investment Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 The Changing Nature of Bicycle Projects . . . . . . 90 Funding Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Local, Regional, State, and Federal . Funding Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Bicycle Network Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . 92

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Top 5 Bicycle Commute . Rates for Large US Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 1-2: Seattle Bicycle Network . Development from 1980 to 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 1-3: The Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland by Proportion of the . Total Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 1-4: National Averages of Personal . Trip Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 1-5: National Figures Show a Decline in Rates of Walking and Bicycling to School . . . . . 4 Figure 1-6: People on Bicycles Spend . More Per Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 1-7: Travel Survey of Visitors to Six . Seattle Neighborhood Business Districts . . . . . 5 Figure 1-8: Household Vehicle Availability . Rates within Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4-1: Sample Section of the . Intersection Treatment Selection Table . . . . . . 44 Figure 4-2: Multimodal Corridor Area . of Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 4-3: Example Multimodal . Corridor Decision Making Process . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 7-1: SDOT Bicycle Project . Delivery Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 8-1: Prioritization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 8-4: Summary of Bicycle Strategy . Investment Ranges - Portland, Minneapolis, . New York City, and Copenhagen . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 8-5: General Order-of-Magnitude . Costs per Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

List of Maps
Map 1-1: Transit Priority Corridors and . Major Truck Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Map 1-2: Seattle Area Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Map 2-1: Bicycle Facilities Completed . between 2007 and 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Map 2-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities as of 2013 . . 13 Map 2-3: Gaps in the Existing Bicycle Network . 15 Map 2-5: Non-white Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Map 2-4: Equity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Map 3-1: Seattle’s Urban Centers and . Urban Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Map 4-1: Destination Clusters Map . . . . . . . . . . 30 Map 4-2a: Proposed Bicycle Network . Map (North) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Map 4-2b: Proposed Bicycle Network . Map (South) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Map 4-3: NW Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Map 4-4: NE Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Map 4-5: W Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Map 4-6: E Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Map 4-7: SW Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Map 4-8: SE Sector Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Map 4-9: Proposed All Ages and Abilities . Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Map 4-10: Regional Connections and . Transit Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Map 4-11: Multimodal Corridors and the Proposed Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Map 5-1: Public Bicycle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Scorecard of Current Facilities . . . . . . Table 3-1: 2013 Bicycle Master Plan . Performance Measure Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3-2: 2013 Bicycle Master Plan . Performance Measure Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4-1: Categorization of Trip Generators . . . . Table 4-2: Facility Designation Guidelines . . . . . Table 4-3: Bicycle Facilities in the . Proposed Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5-1: Characteristics of Short- and . Long-Term Bicycle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6-1: Program Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7-1: Maintenance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8-1: Draft Project Prioritization . Framework and Project Categories . . . . . . . . . Table 8-2: Proposed Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . Table 8-3: Qualitative Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . 11 26 26 30 31 32 31 44 53 55 56 57

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1:

CARFREEDAYS.ORG

“I bike with my kids on board. I’d love to see biking made more family friendly in Seattle. Well marked bike lanes/boxes–especially when buffered–should be all over town. We take the Burke-Gilman whenever we can, but of course it’s not complete in Ballard.”

Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Vision

“Riding a bicycle is a comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for people of all ages and abilities.”
The new vision for the 2013 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) signifies an evolution in the way Seattle accommodates people who will be riding a bicycle for any trip purpose. There are several important themes embedded in this vision statement. First, the idea that bicycling is “comfortable” suggests it is a safe, convenient, and attractive travel option for a large number of people. “Integral to daily life in Seattle” means that bicycling is not a niche activity only for fast and fear­ less riders, but is part of the overall urban framework and built environment of the city. Finally, “all ages and abilities” is a key theme for the entire plan, meaning that the emphasis is on planning, designing, and building bicycle facilities that will be used by a broad range of people throughout the city. The 2007 BMP effectively guided a number of improvements to Seattle’s bicycle system, including many investments to the on-street bicycle network and off-street trail system, which helped the city achieve gold level Bicycle Friendly Community status by the League of American Bicyclists. In 2011 the City Council funded this update to the plan, for 2013 completion. The BMP update provides an opportunity to include fast-evolving best practices and new thinking towards bicycle facilities, resulting in planned investments that will serve a broader range of people who ride bicycles as well as those interested in riding a bike. The updated plan will help Seattle continue its national leadership in bicycling. Thousands of people already bike daily to work, to play, and to run errands in their Figure 1-1: Top 5 Bicycle Commute Rates for Large US Cities

3.5%

Seattle, WA

6.3%

3.4%
Minneapolis, MN

Portland, OR

3.4%

Washington, DC

3.2%

San Francisco, CA

LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS. 70 LARGEST CITIES RANKED BY BIKE COMMUTING.

Seattle is a good city for cycling by US standards, but to truly compete for and attract the top international talent these days, cities like Seattle have to be world-class cycling cities. – Andy Clarke, President, League of American Bicyclists ­ 1

neighborhoods and across the city. The increase in bicycling in the city over the past several years makes Seattle second in the country (among large cities) for the percentage of people who commute to work by bicycle (see Figure 1-1). The strategies and actions identified in this plan will not only make bicycling a viable form of transportation for Seattle residents, workers, and visitors, but also will help the city achieve its goals relating to climate change, economic vitality, and community livability.

VISION: Riding a bicycle is a
GOAL 1: Increase Ridership GOAL 2: Improve Safety GOAL 3: Create Connectivity GOAL 4: Provide Equity GOAL 5: Enhance Livability

comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for people of all ages and abilities.

Plan Purpose
The main purpose of the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan is to provide a framework for the Seattle Department of Transportation’s (SDOT’s) future actions and investments to improve bicycling throughout the city. These investments will be in the form of new bicycle infrastructure (off-street trails and on-street bicycle facilities); bicycle parking spaces and other end-of-trip facilities; and programs to enhance bicycle safety and encourage more people to ride bikes. All of the actions identified will be done to advance the vision, goals, and objectives of the plan. This plan is the latest iteration of a long history of improving bicycle facilities. The city adopted its first Bicycle Master Plan in 1972. Railroad downsizing, starting in the 1970s, provided an opportunity for

Burke-Gilman Trail the city to develop multi-purpose trails along abandoned railroad corridors. In the late 1970s through the 1990s, the city focused on securing rights of way and constructing this system of trails, which became extremely popular among residents and visitors to the city. This was an area of focus of the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan, identifying streets (mostly arterials) for a variety of bicycle treatments: bike lanes, shared lane markings, signed routes, and others. Figure 1-2 shows the development of the bicycle network in Seattle from 1980 to 2012. A central focus of this plan is to design and implement bicycle facilities that are safe and appropriate

Figure 1-2: Seattle Bicycle Network Development from 1980 to 2012

1980

1990
2

2000

2012

for riders of all ages and abilities. New bicycle facility types are introduced, including cycle tracks to physically separate people riding bikes from vehicle traffic on arterials and neighborhood greenways, in which low volume and low speed streets are optimized for walking and biking. The plan also provides guidance on how bicycle investments will be prioritized in the future, and contains performance measures that establish how SDOT will track progress made in accomplishing the goals of the plan over time. The plan outlines other actions the city can take to support bicycling in the future.

other communities. Viewed from another perspective, according to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, 41 percent of trips Americans make each day are less than 3 miles, which could be traversed in 18 minutes by bicycle. As shown in Figure 1-4, there is great potential to increase the number of daily trips that can be made by bicycle. Facilitating trips made by more than one mode, such as bicycling to transit, could make even more active transportation trips practical for residents. Addressing the reasons willing and able people choose not to ride is a focus of this plan. Admittedly, some conditions cannot be mitigated by public intervention: the weather of the Pacific Northwest, the hills throughout the city, and early winter darkness. While the city cannot mitigate these conditions, individuals can address with appropriate bicycle clothing, a helmet, and lights. The city, however, can create an inviting environment, a sense of safety, thoughtful accommodation, and Figure 1-4: National Averages of Personal Trip Lengths

Who Rides (or Doesn’t) and Why?
In 2004, Portland, Oregon proposed that nearly 60 percent of people in Portland would use a bicycle for at least some trips if there were favorable conditions (see Figure 1-3). The model shows 6 to 7 percent of people as diehard or hardy riders that will ride no matter what, or with minimal accommodations like bike lanes. Another 30 percent will not or cannot ride regardless of the quality of bicycle facilities in the city. Various academic analyses bear out the proposition in Figure 1-3: The Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland by Proportion of the Total Population

Strong and Fearless

1%

Enthused and Confident

5-10%

10 or more miles

25%

0 to 3 miles

41%

No Way, No How

30%

5 to 10 miles

19%

Interested but Concerned

60%

3 to 5 miles

10%

TODD LITMAN. SHORT AND SWEET: ANALYSIS OF SHORTER TRIPS USING NATIONAL PERSONAL TRAVEL SURVEY DATA. VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE. 2012.

ROGER GELLER, PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION. WWW.PORTLANDOREGON.GOV/ TRANSPORTATION/44597?A=237507

3

outcomes related to the obesity epidemic. The rapid rise in childhood obesity is particularly alarming and correlates with the nationwide drop in bicycling and walking to school over the last half century (see Figure 1-5). Creating a bicycle network appropriate for all ages and abilities and a built environment that encourages bicycling will support efforts to improve healthy lifestyles. Figure 1-5: National Rates of Walking and Bicycling to School Waiting to cross the street at NE 45th Street and Wallingford Avenue. the reward of convenience for people who travel by bicycle. This plan proposes a network of bicycle facilities throughout the city that presents a way for people of all ages and abilities to travel within their neighborhoods, from one neighborhood to the next, and across the city by bicycle. This plan also proposes approaches to end-of-trip facilities that will make trips by bicycle more convenient and combining modes more practical for many travelers. Finally, this plan includes recommendations for programs to encourage people to decide to ride a bicycle more often and to enable all roadway users to understand the rules of the road and how to travel safely and predictably within the city.

87% 63% 49% 18%
0-1 mile 1-2 miles

1969 2001

CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION. THEN AND NOW BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS. 2005. BASED ON USDOT TRAVEL SURVEY DATA.

Making the Case for Investing in Bicycling
The case for improving the bicycling environment for people of all ages and abilities is growing. Academic and popular literature is expanding America’s understanding of the relationships between bicycling and health, economic, and environmental benefits, time competitiveness, space efficiency, and equity. There is evidence that bicycling is good for individuals, cities, and society as a whole. Health Benefits Physical activity is indisputably effective in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and other related chronic diseases. Public health professionals support active transportation as a means of improving these and other health 4

Economic Benefits There are many ways to consider the economic benefits of increased levels of bicycling. The direct dollars earned in bicycle-related businesses—manufacturing, wholesale, retail, service, and accessories—have an obvious positive impact on Seattle. Tourism dollars generated by visitors are a significant benefit, as bicycle tourists on average spend more per day on lodging, meals, and retail purchases than non-bicycling tourists. In a number of cities, realtors report that good walking and bicycling access to neighborhood destinations and good bicycling facilities in general are important home selection criteria. Major employers—and young, talented employees—seek communities with good opportunities for active lifestyles and attractive urban amenities. Retailers report positive sales results and customer loyalty resulting from improved bicycle facilities, even after initial skepticism (see Figure 1-6). Environmental Benefits Transportation is one of Seattle’s leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions. Technological solutions

Borough Businesses

Cycle Track Businesses

People on Bikes Spend More
Monthly Expenditures $70 $76 $60
transportation in the limited roadway space available. Increasing the number of people riding bikes will help optimize the use of limited urban space.

People on Bikes Spend More $80
$80 Monthly Expenditures $70 $60
Figure 1-6: Average Monthly Customer Expenditures by Travel Mode in Portland, OR

$76

$58
$50 $40

$61

$66

$58
$50 $40

CLIFTON, K.J., MORRISSEY, S., RITTER, C. BUSINESS CYCLES: CATERING TO THE BICYCLING MARKET. TR NEWS 280. 2012.

Changes in Transportation Behavior More Customers arrive by bike The rate of auto ownership is dropping in the United States, with young people leading the way by becomor on foot than you might think ing drivers later in life and owning fewer vehicles Time Competitiveness People in the urban core and throughout denser neighborhoods are finding it more convenient to 16% walk or bicycle for short Transittrips they once would have driven (see Figure 1-7). Not only are the direct costs of owning and operating a car becoming more onerous, 16% but also congestion and finding parking cause delays Drive Alone 58% or Carpool Bike or Walk that make riding a bike time-competitive and more convenient. 11% No Space Efficiency Answer There simply is very limited space to add traffic lanes or increase parking in the public right of way. Since both vehicles and bicycles usually carry a single person, planning for bicycles may permit a better use of the resources available to accommodate additional trips. This requires a realignment of priorities in how space is allocated. per household. This is in part due to costs of ownership and operation, trip convenience, concern for

include cleaner-running vehicles, cleaner fuels, and improving mileage efficiency in automobiles. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by improving active transportation opportunities is a cost-effective way to meet the transportation-related goals of Seattle’s Climate Action Plan. Creating better bicycle infrastructure and increasing the number of people riding bikes is a key element to reducing VMT and thus greenhouse gas emissions.

Equity According to the Census Bureau’s 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 16 percent of Seattle households have no motor vehicle available for use. In addition to lack of access to a vehicle (see Figure 1-8), many citizens are too young to drive; are infirm due to age, illness, or disability; are unable or unwilling to afford the costs of owning and operating a car; or for other reasons are simply unable or unwilling to drive. Transportation choices for these residents include walking, riding a bike, taking transit, or sharing rides or cars. This plan strives to provide access to good bicycling infrastructure in parts of the city with lower car ownership.

$61

$66

More Customers arrive by bik or on foot than you might thin
Figure 1-7: Travel Survey of Visitors to Six Seattle Neighborhood Business Districts

Transit

16%

Drive Alone or Carpool

16%

Bike or Walk

58%

The 2013 Bicycle Master Plan identifies strategies to coordinate transit and pedestrian priorities with bicycle improvements to encourage increased use of bicycles as a practical and desirable form of urban

No Answer

11%

SDOT. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ACCESS SURVEY. FEBRUARY 2012.

5

“Develop and implement a comprehensive land use and multimodal corridor plan in a high priority transit and bicycle corridor with the goal of shifting more trips to travel modes that generate fewer, or no, greenhouse gases.” – Seattle Climate Action
Plan
the environment, or personal health concerns as described above. This is often a lifestyle choice, or simply an expense that does not seem necessary given home and employment location decisions. Existing and future active and shared travel options such as transit, car and bicycle sharing, walking, and bicycling provide viable travel alternatives to the car. Puget Sound Bike Share, a non-profit bike-sharing organization, will launch a program by Spring 2014, providing another travel option for the public that will increase the number of people riding bikes.

Planning Process
The 2013 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) was developed by gathering extensive public input, regular briefings with the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB), coordinating with city staff and other local agencies, and reviewing data relating to past bicycle plans, the Bicycle commuters on the Fremont Bridge city’s land use pattern, topography, traffic speeds and volumes, and a number of other factors. The planning process included broad Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and field analysis of Seattle’s transportation network to determine locations where bicycle facilities can be integrated into the existing street network. The plan consulted a variety of planning documents adopted since 2007, including the Pedestrian Master Plan (2009) and the Transit Master Plan (2012), and the Climate Action Plan (2013 update). The Transit Master Plan was particularly important, since it identified a number of priority transit corridors shown in Map 1-1, many of which are arterials that serve as important destinations and desirable bicycle corridors. Another important document was the map of Major Truck Streets in the city’s Transportation Strategic Plan, which highlights arterial streets that accommodate significant freight movement through the city. SDOT uses the designation of Major Truck Street on 6

Figure 1-8: Household Vehicle Availability Rates within Seattle

No Vehicles

16%

2+ Vehicles

41%

1 Vehicle

43%

SOURCE: 2007-2011 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5-YEAR ESTIMATES

Map 1-1: Transit Priority Corridors and Major Truck Streets
5 § ¨ ¦
3RD AVE NW
5TH AVE NE 15TH AVE NE

d

30TH AVE NE
D PO SAN

N 145TH ST

GREENWOOD AVE N

AURORA AVE N

n

AY INT W

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

1ST AVE NE

35TH AVE NE
NE 45TH ST

NE

o

u

8TH AVE NW

S

NW MARKET ST

PHINNEY AVE N

Green L a ke

NE 70TH ST

AURORA AVE N

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

Transit islands on Dexter Ave

10TH AVE E

L a ke Union

AD EM
E DENNY WAY

IS

ON

ST

AL

AS

KA

N

31ST AVE S

AL

KI A

The BMP uses a multimodal approach to consider appropriate locations for bicycle facilities, based in large part on these earlier plans, recognizing that in some cases there will be arterial streets that will accommodate bikes, transit, and/or freight within the same right of way. In other cases, parallel routes can be developed to provide better service for all modes in a particular corridor.

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

VE

SW

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

35TH AVE SW

15TH AVE S

t

16TH AVE SW

e

5 § ¨ ¦

g

30TH AVE SW

Transit Priority Corridor Major Truck Street

Public Engagement Process
Public engagement is an important element of any successful planning process. To be successful, the BMP needed to reach beyond the current bicycling community, encouraging infrequent bicyclists or potential new users of the bicycle network to provide their input on what it would take to make the bicycling environment in Seattle work better for them. The strategy strived to broaden the conversation about how people riding bicycles ultimately help build and create vibrant and livable communities. One important purpose of the BMP is to transform bicycling from a niche activity for a small portion of users to one that a majority of people view as a viable form of transportation for all trip purposes.

Transit Master Plan priority transit corridors or designated Major Truck Streets Public Engagement Goals and Objectives The public engagement process for the BMP was organized around two main goals: Goal 1 Engage broad and diverse segments of Seattle residents, businesses, employees, and property owners. Goal 2 Update the BMP to reflect the priorities and interests of infrequent and potential riders, as well as avid users of the system. With City Council’s endorsement, the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB) was selected to act as the primary advisory committee for the 2013 BMP. The SBAB met monthly with the SDOT project team through the course of the project. All SBAB meetings

7

P

u

SW ROXBURY ST

k e L a

an on-going basis as an important criteria for street design, traffic management decisions, and pavement design and repair.

W AY
E YESLER WAY

E l l i o tt Bay

W a s h i n g t o
90 § ¨ ¦

28TH AVE W

15TH AVE W

n
BEACO N

LIO EL TT E AV W

RAIN IER AVE

AVE S

S

DELRIDG E WAY SW

MART IN LU THER KING VD S JR BL

Map 1-2: Seattle Area Topography
d
5 § ¨ ¦

S

o

u

n

Green L a ke

L a ke Union

E l l i o tt Bay

e

g

High (max. 556')
5 § ¨ ¦

P

k e L a

u

W a s h i n g t o
90 § ¨ ¦

t

n

Public Engagement Phase II, Gould Hall, University of Washington to invest in to encourage more bicycling the future. This phase utilized an innovative web mapping tool, which allowed respondents to indicate places they ride now and where they would like to see improvements. The Seattle Neighborhood Greenways group provided SDOT maps of detailed bicycle routes for neighborhood greenways that connect to neighborhood destinations that they rode and talked about with community members. Phase II The second phase of broad public involvement began in November 2012 and included the review of the policy framework, the draft bicycle network map, and early thoughts around implementation strategies. Phase III The final phase of public engagement in spring and summer 2013 consisted of public meetings designed to gather comments on the entire draft plan.

Low (min. 0')

Seattle is a city of hills, and the bicycle facility network must reflect that. Appropriate facilities must provide both the space needed to slowly weave uphill and the accommodations to safely descend. are open to the public, and the public comment period provided an opportunity to comment on topics concerning the BMP and bicycling issues in general. There were three primary phases during the planning process that encouraged the public to provide input and feedback on project materials. Phase I The first phase of public engagement was intended to gather information. Importantly, a wide variety of people participated—those who ride bikes, those who may only occasionally ride a bike, and those who may never be inclined to ride a bike for any purpose. SDOT learned why some people choose to ride bikes, what may encourage others to begin riding, what some barriers to biking are, and what people would like the city 8

Plan Updates
This plan is a living document, and updates will be necessary in the future to assess progress, take advantage of emerging opportunities, and re-evaluate priorities. As new sections of the bicycle facility network are developed and new technologies are adopted, bicycling mode share will likely increase and travel patterns will change. Priorities will shift and new opportunities will become apparent. These changes will be reflected in annual updates to the list of shortterm projects. Updates to the full Bicycle Master Plan should occur every five to seven years.

During the first phase of public engagement, SDOT wanted to engage with families to learn about why they do or do not ride a bike. Pedal Powered was created to get kids to ride a stationary bike with the Seattle skyline behind them so they could act like Superheroes flying through the air. Having the ability to fly through the air like a Superhero excited the kids and helped engage families with the launch of the BMP update.

During the BMP public engagement process, SDOT encouraged all types of bicycle riders to take photos with either the “I bike” sign or “flat bike” cut-out to show all the different types of people on bikes riding in Seattle. 9

ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 2: State of the Seattle Bicycling

“Great work. Keep it up. Educate more people about the ease of bicycling and provide more education for businesses and residents about how biking really works well to make stronger people and communities.”

Bicycling in Seattle is evolving, and this plan is part of that process. Since the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), significant progress has been made on building the bicycling network and elevating the profile of bicycling as a viable part of the multimodal transportation system in Seattle. This chapter of the plan provides a snapshot of the State of Seattle Bicycling Environment Report that appears in Appendix 1B.

Eight performance measures were recommended to gauge Seattle’s progress in meeting goals and objectives in the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan. Between 2007 and 2012 there was notable progress on meeting the targets identified for the plan. Progress toward that plan’s network goals is described in Table 2-1. The new performance measures in this plan provide a more robust understanding of the status of both plan implementation and the state of bicycling in Seattle. Relevant performance measures will allow the city to track its progress towards reaching the plan’s vision.

Tracking and Performance Measures
The 2007 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan had two broad goals: increase bicycling ridership and increase the safety of bicycling in Seattle. Figure 2-1 shows the relationship of bicycling and collision rates in Seattle over the past 20 years. The plan identified four objectives to achieve these goals that focused on improving bicycle infrastructure, securing funding for infrastructure improvements, and implementing programs for education, enforcement, and encouragement.

Existing Bicycle Network
The current (2013) bicycle network is over 300 miles, including 78 miles of bicycle lanes and climbing lanes, 92 miles of shared lane pavement markings, 6 miles of neighborhood greenways, 47 miles of multi-use trails, 128 miles of signed routes, and over 2 miles of other on- and off-street bicycle facilities. The maps on the following pages show the evolution of Seattle’s bicycle network over time.

Table 2-1: Scorecard of Current Facilities
Total Network Miles Recommended in 2007 BMP Pre-2007 Network Bike lanes 143 26 Sharrows 111 0 Greenways 18 0 Trails 58 39 Other On-Street 46 2 Other Off-Street 3 0 Total Network 379 68 Signed Routes* 234 0 % of BMP Network Complete 55% 83% 30% 81% 5% 8% 60% 55%

Implemented 2007-2012 53 91 6 8 0 0 158 128

Current Miles in Network 78 92 6 47 2 0.2 226 128

*Some signed routes (but not all) overlap with other facility types such as bike lanes, sharrows and greenways.

Additional Bicycle Facility Accomplishments: • New signals installed specifically for bicycles • Improved trail crossings • Improved pavement along the Burke-Gilman Trail, the Duwamish Trail, and the Ship Canal Trail • Completed innovative pilot projects including buffered bicycle lanes, green bicycle boxes and lanes, contraflow bicycle lanes, staircase runnels, and cycle tracks

Figure 2-1: Correlation of Increase in Bicycling Rate and Decrease in Collision Rate
.280
C O L L I S I O N R AT E

.252

.158

.143 .113 .105

1992

1995

2007

2009 2010 2011

SDOT. 1992-2011 DOWNTOWN SEATTLE BICYCLE COUNTS. 2011. 2011 RATE BASED ON PARTIAL COUNT

11

NW MARKET ST

E l l i o tt Bay

16TH AVE SW
AL

QUEEN ANNE AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N

N 145TH ST

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

Map 2-1: Bicycle Facilities Completed between 2007 and 2012

E DENNY WAY

E YESLER WAY

k e a L
90 § ¨ ¦

W a s h i n g t o

n

S AN

D PO

E AY N INT W

AV BEACO N

15TH AVE S
ES

10TH AVE E

NE 45TH ST

31ST AVE S
IS ON ST

EL

LIO

TT

E AV

W

RAIN

IER

AVE

S

DELRIDGE WAY SW

Sharrow

Bike Lane

Multi-use Trail

P
KI A

Climbing Lane

u
CALIFORNIA AVE SW 35TH AVE SW
AL VE SW

30TH AVE SW
15TH AVE W

Neighborhood Greenway

g
u
n d
28TH AVE W

e

t

S
o

8TH AVE NW

3RD AVE NW

AS KA N W AY

GREENWOOD AVE N

SW ROXBURY ST

AURO RA AVE N

AURORA AVE N
Green L a ke

T MAR

THE IN LU

R KIN

G JR

BLVD

S

12
L a ke Union

1ST AVE NE

5 § ¨ ¦
5TH AVE NE
ROOSEVELT WAY NE

15TH AVE NE

5 § ¨ ¦
AD EM

30TH AVE NE 35TH AVE NE
NE 70TH ST

NW MARKET ST

Map 2-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities as of 2013

E l l i o tt Bay

16TH AVE SW
AL

QUEEN ANNE AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N

N 145TH ST

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

E DENNY WAY

E YESLER WAY

k e L a

W a s h i n g t o

n

S AN

D PO

E AY N INT W

AV BEACO N

15TH AVE S
ES

10TH AVE E

NE 45TH ST

31ST AVE S
IS ON ST

EL

LIO

TT

E AV

W

RAIN

IER

AVE

S

DELRIDGE WAY SW

Sharrow

Bike Lane

Multi-use Trail

P
KI A

Climbing Lane

u
CALIFORNIA AVE SW 35TH AVE SW
AL VE SW

30TH AVE SW
15TH AVE W

Neighborhood Greenway

g
u
n d
28TH AVE W

e

t

S
o

8TH AVE NW

3RD AVE NW

AS KA N W AY

GREENWOOD AVE N

SW ROXBURY ST

AURO RA AVE N

AURORA AVE N
Green L a ke

L a ke Union

T MAR

THE IN LU

R KIN

G JR

BLVD

S

13
AD EM

1ST AVE NE

5TH AVE NE
ROOSEVELT WAY NE

15TH AVE NE

30TH AVE NE 35TH AVE NE
NE 70TH ST

Crossing gaps can include missing left turn boxes for bicycle traffic. In striving to create a network that serves all people and places in the city, this plan proposes new links to the bicycle network, while upgrading some of the facility type recommendations found in the 2007 BMP. This plan also makes recommendations for improving some existing facilities. Bicycle System Gaps Despite implementation progress made between 2007 and 2013, there are still major gaps in the city’s bicycle network. These gaps exist in various forms, ranging from short “missing links” on a street or trail to large geographic areas lacking connected bicycle facilities. Map 2-3 shows gaps in the existing bicycle network. Crossing gaps are bicycle-related intersection improvements recommended in the 2007 BMP. Network gaps are missing links in the network recommended in the 2007 BMP that are less than ¼ mile in length and were recommended as either bike lanes, climbing lanes, shared lane markings, bicycle boulevards, or multi-use trails. Corridor gaps are larger voids in the network (greater than one-quarter mile in length). These gaps are most often corridors needed to connect neighborhoods to destinations, giving people who ride bikes a variety of travel route options.

14

Map 2-3: Gaps in the Existing Bicycle Network
! !!
N 145TH ST

5TH AVE NE

d

15TH AVE NE

30TH AVE NE
S AN D PO

5 § ¨ ¦

3RD AVE NW

GREENWOOD AVE N

AURORA AVE N

n

E AY N INT W

o

! ! !
8TH AVE NW

! !

! !

! ! ! !
Gr e en

! !

!! ! ! !
NE 70TH ST

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

1ST AVE NE

!

35TH AVE NE

!

u

!

S

!

! !

! L a ke ! ! !

NW MARKET ST

!
AURO RA AVE N
NE 45TH ST

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

15TH AVE W

10TH AVE E

L a ke Union

! !

! !
AD EM IS ON ST

! !

! ! ! ! WAY ! E DENNY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

AL

AS

KA

! !

N

W AY

Elliott Bay

E YESLER WAY

!
31ST AVE S

!!
AL KI A

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

VE

SW

! !
1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

! ! !
AV BEACO N

!
RAIN

!

!

!
35TH AVE SW

15TH AVE S

!! !
ES

!

!

!

16TH AVE SW

! !

t

!
BLVD

!
5 § ¨ ¦

e

! ! !
30TH AVE SW

!

! !
S

g

! !

!
SW ROXBURY ST

u

!

P

15

k e a L
! !

W a s h i n g t o
90 § ¨ ¦

28TH AVE W

!

!

!

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

! ! !

n
IER AVE S
T MAR IN LU THE R KIN G JR

! !

EL LIO TT E AV W

DELRIDGE WAY SW

Equity Analysis
There is a clear intent to develop a network that serves all areas of Seattle, including areas that have a high density of traditionally underserved populations and relatively low levels of bicycle facilities. An equity analysis examined the existing distribution of bicycle facilities compared to the distribution of these populations. The distribution of bicycle facilities or “level of bicycle service” was calculated by dividing the total mileage of bicycle facilities in a census tract by the number of square miles in the census tract (bicycle facility miles/ square miles). Those census tracts that were in the lowest quartile (lowest 25 percent) were considered to be “low service areas.” The outlined red boxes call out the census blocks with a high equity score and low bicycle service area. Analysis factors For purposes of analysis, traditionally underserved populations were defined as: • Percentage of non-white population (see Map 2-5) • Percentage of households within the census tract that are below poverty level (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) • Population distribution of people under 18 years of age • Population distribution of people 65 years of age and older • Percentage of households within the census tract with no automobile available for daily use The results of the demographic analysis combined with the assessment of existing facilities highlight several areas of Seattle where improvements to the bicycle system would benefit underserved populations (see Map 2-4). As new segments of the system are completed, the gap analyses can be easily updated, providing the opportunity to understand which areas of the city merit additional focus and investment.

Map 2-5: Non-white Population

S

o

u

n

d

Green L a ke

L a ke Union

E l l i o tt Bay

Non-white Population
8% - 17% 18% - 26% 27% - 38% 61% - 90% 39% - 60%

16

P

u

g

e

t

k e L a

W a s h i n g t o

n

Map 2-4: Equity Analysis

u

n

d

5 § ¦ ¨

S

o

Gr e en L a ke

L a ke Union

Elliott Bay
90 § ¦ ¨

t

5 § ¦ ¨ Low Bicycle Service

High

Low

P

u

g

Equity Score

e

17

k e a L

W a s h i n g t o

n

Who’s Riding, Where, and When?
SDOT has been counting bicycles at access points to Downtown since 1992. In 2008, SDOT began conducting counts at other locations around the city as well. These two count programs were replaced in 2011 by a quarterly count program at 50 locations using methodology recommended by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD). The downtown count will be conducted once more in 2017 to gauge the 2007 BMP ten-year goal of tripling the number of bicycle riders. Additional count data has been collected since 2009 at 25 Seattle locations in coordination with the annual Washington State Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. Periodic counts of bicycles on transit have been conducted by Sound Transit and include bicycles observed on Sound Transit trains and buses, as well as bicycles observed on King County Metro and Community Transit buses. The counts provide a snapshot of cycling activity in Seattle.

Figure 2-2: Cycling Trends in the City
3,330 2,677 2,273 1,737 1,406 1,104 1992 1995 2000 2007 2009 2011
SDOT. 1992-2011 DOWNTOWN SEATTLE BICYCLE COUNTS.

As shown in Figure 2-2, Seattle has seen an overall increase in bicycling citywide since the city started its count program in 1992. However, bicycling activity varies throughout the city. The north end of Seattle (north of the Ship Canal) and Downtown core show the highest recorded count volumes, while bicycling activity is lower south of I-90, on Beacon Hill, and in Rainier Valley.

This buffered bicycle lane on Dexter Ave N offers increased space and more comfortable separation from moving vehicles than a conventional bicycle lane.

SEATTLEBIKEBLOG.COM

18

19

FRAMEWORK

Chapter 3: Policy

“In my view, the city can’t make people ride a bike, nor can they make them ride safely, so the best the city can do is provide facilities which promote safe riding, which I think the plan does.”

Seattle Comprehensive Plan
There is an established policy framework within which the BMP will nest. The city’s primary policy document is the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. This document, coupled with an adopted Complete Streets policy, provides the primary policy context for the BMP. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, establishes the city’s vision for land use, transportation, and growth management policy issues. The Plan is organized around a set of four core values: • Community • Environmental Stewardship • Economic Opportunity and Security • Social Equity With these core values in mind, one of the primary methods for accommodating expected growth is the plan’s Urban Village Strategy, which identifies locations for increased residential and commercial density in parts of the city characterized by neighborhood business districts. The plan also includes six regional growth centers (also known as urban centers): Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill, Uptown/ Queen Anne, South Lake Union, the University District, and Northgate. These areas are a focus of not only growth within the city, but growth within the region. Additionally, Seattle has two manufacturing/industrial centers. All of these centers are recognized in Vision 2040, the Puget Sound Regional Council’s adopted regional growth plan. Map 3-1 shows the location of urban centers and urban villages within Seattle. Much of the policy direction in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is designed to promote multimodal transportation options within and between urban centers and villages. The overall policy direction in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan helps frame the more specific goals, policies, and strategies in other documents, including the Bicycle Master Plan. The Transportation Element of the plan contains the following goals and policies pertaining to bicycling:

Map 3-1: Seattle’s Urban Centers and Urban Villages
5TH AVE NE 15TH AVE NE

d

30TH AVE NE
D PO SAN

N 145TH ST

3RD AVE NW

GREENWOOD AVE N

AURORA AVE N

n

AY INT W

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

1ST AVE NE

35TH AVE NE
NE 45TH ST

NE

u

5 § ¦ ¨

o

8TH AVE NW

S

NW MARKET ST

PHINNEY AVE N

Green L a ke

NE 70TH ST

AURORA AVE N

10TH AVE E

L a ke Union

AD EM
E DENNY WAY

IS

ON

ST

AL

AS

KA

N

W AY
E YESLER WAY

E l l i o tt Bay

31ST AVE S

90 § ¦ ¨
E AV SW

AL

KI

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

35TH AVE SW

15TH AVE S

t

16TH AVE SW

5 § ¦ ¨

g

e

30TH AVE SW

Urban Center Urban Village

Manufacturing Industrial

TG15 Increase walking and bicycling to help achieve city transportation, environmental, community and public health goals. TG16 Create and enhance safe, accessible, attractive and convenient street and trail networks that are desirable for walking and bicycling. T34 Provide and maintain a direct and comprehensive bicycle network connecting urban centers, urban villages and other key locations. Provide continuous bicycle facilities and work to eliminate system gaps.

21

P

u

SW ROXBURY ST

k e L a

W a s h i n g t o

28TH AVE W

15TH AVE W

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

n
BEACO N
RAIN IER AVE

EL LIO E AV TT W

AVE S

S
MART

DELRIDG E WAY SW

IN LU THER KING VD S JR BL

Complete Streets
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, in 2007 the City Council adopted a “complete streets” policy, which states in part that: • SDOT will plan for, design and construct all new city transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, as well as freight and other motorists, while promoting the safe operation for all users; and • SDOT will incorporate complete streets principles into the Department’s Transportation Strategic Plan; Seattle Transit Plan; Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans; Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Plan; and other SDOT plans, manual, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. Complete street improvements that are consistent with freight mobility, but also support other modes, may be considered on these streets.

Bicycle commuter on 4th Avenue and Spring Street. Goals The vision statement is supported by five main goals that articulate what the plan seeks to achieve over time in order to meet the vision. Ridership: Increase the amount and mode share of bicycle riding in Seattle for all trip purposes. Getting more people to use a particular travel mode is one of the main purposes of any modal master plan. The BMP seeks to increase both the total number of bicycle riders in the city and the total percentage of all trips made using a bicycle. This means increasing not only commuting and recreational rides, but all trips around the city, including short trips to the local store, neighborhood business district, schools or other community facilities, and transit. Safety: Improve safety for bicycle riders. Safety is the most important basic responsibility for SDOT. Bicyclists and pedestrians are particularly vulnerable users of the street system. Many of the types of facilities and design standards outlined in this plan enhance safety and increase predictability, not only for bicycle riders, but also for transit vehicles, automobiles, pedestrians, and trucks.

Bicycle Master Plan Vision and Goals
Based on the overall policy direction above, the Bicycle Master Plan is organized around an overall vision statement and five goals. Vision The vision statement for the plan expresses the desired “end state,” or result, of implementing the plan. The BMP vision is:

“Riding a bicycle is a comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for people of all ages and abilities.”
There are several important themes embedded in this vision statement. First, the idea that bicycling is “comfortable” suggests it is a safe, convenient, and attractive travel option for a large number of people. “Integral to daily life in Seattle” means that bicycling is a not a niche activity only for athletes or fast and fearless riders, but is part of the overall urban framework and built environment of the city. Finally, “all ages and abilities” is a key theme for the entire plan, meaning that the emphasis is on planning, designing, and building bicycle facilities that will be used by a broad range of people throughout the city. 22

Connectivity: Create a bicycle network that connects to places that people want to go, and provides for a time-efficient travel option. In order for a bicycle system to be heavily used, it has to be connected, and it has to get people conveniently to their destinations: work, shopping, school, transit stations, etc. This plan is intended to guide the creation of a bicycle network that is connected with safe, all ages and abilities bicycle facilities, and that links to key destinations around the city. Equity: Provide equal cycling access for all through public engagement, program delivery, and capital investment. This goal emphasizes the importance of ensuring that bicycle investments are made throughout the city and connect every neighborhood. It also promotes the idea that people in every neighborhood should have a voice in helping to design the best bicycle facilities for their individual communities. Livability: Build vibrant and healthy communities by creating a welcoming environment for bicycle riding. This goal highlights the broader benefits to building a connected, safe bicycling network, which include

increasing public health and community vitality.

Bicycle Master Plan Objectives
The plan identifies six principal objectives for achieving the goals of the plan. The individual chapters of the plan will go into more detail identifying specific strategies and actions for advancing these objectives. Objective 1: Complete and maintain a highquality bicycle network of on-street and trail facilities throughout the city. One of the most important outcomes of this plan is developing a safe, connected network of bicycle facilities. Objective 2: Integrate planning for bicycle facilities with all travel modes and complete streets principles. Planning for bicycles cannot happen in a vacuum. The city’s arterial street system has many modal demands: general-purpose traffic capacity, transit, freight, pedestrians, bicyclists, and on-street parking. All of these compete for space within the city’s limited street right of way. As the city grows in the future, decisions about how to use the city’s streets in the most productive and efficient way possible will be an ongoing challenge.

Bicycle lane on 9th Avenue North. 23

CARFREEDAYS.COM

A recently renovated segment of the Burke-Gilman Trail on the University of Washington Campus provides separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Objective 3: Employ best practices and context sensitivity to design facilities for optimum levels of bicycling comfort. This objective directs SDOT to stay current on changes in bicycle standards, design, programs, and other actions. It enables the city to use new bicycle design standards and facility types as they evolve. While the plan contains a glossary of bicycle facilities, this plan intentionally does not contain a full list of detailed design standards. These are better contained in the Seattle Right-of-Way Improvements Manual, where they can be more easily updated as best practices evolve. Context sensitivity is important to ensure that bicycle facilities are designed and built taking into consideration the overall characteristics of the street, the adjoining land use types, and other factors. This applies not only to bicycle corridor improvements, but end-of-trip facilities such as on-street bicycle corrals.

Objective 4: Build outstanding leading-edge bicycle facilities, including on-street separated facilities and neighborhood greenways. This plan focuses on neighborhood greenways (residential streets that are prioritized for bicycles and pedestrians) and facilities on arterials that are separated from traffic (cycle tracks and buffered bike lanes). These facilities will help develop a connected citywide network of all ages and abilities facilities. Objective 5: Update and apply a prioritization framework for bicycle investments throughout the city. One of the most important aspects of each SDOT modal plan is to develop a clear framework for how to prioritize investments. This plan has a 20-year time horizon, and will be implemented incrementally using a clear prioritization framework that is based on the overall goals of the plan. The specific criteria within

24

the framework can be adjusted over time, but the plan provides the overall direction. Objective 6: Identify and implement actions to support and promote bicycle riding. In addition to implementing bicycle facilities in streets and trails, a whole series of other actions is needed to support bicycling. These include designing and implementing end-of-trip facilities; ensuring that bicycling is well-coordinated with transit; implementing programs to enhance bicycle safety, use, and education; and developing a robust funding strategy. The Puget Sound Bike Share launch will be a key program to help promote bicycle riding. Bicycle Master Plan Performance Measures Performance measures are important for assessing whether the plan is meeting its goals over time. Even though the 2007 plan is being updated, SDOT plans to continue tracking this data through 2017 to see if the performance measures of that plan are met. Since SDOT’s ridership-gathering methodology has changed substantially since 2007, the ridership assessment in 2017 will be based specifically on downtown cordon counts; this is the only way to compare ridership statistics going back to 2007. This plan contains updated performance measures based on the expanded policy framework, which adds goals for connectivity, equity, and livability to existing ridership and safety goals (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). The performance measures are generally outcomebased (focused on achieving policy objectives such as increasing ridership). The intent of outcome-based performance measures is to prioritize investments that do the best job of achieving desired plan outcomes, as opposed to output-based metrics that are more dependent upon available resources, which may fluctuate year to year. The performance measures for the BMP were selected in part based on SDOT’s ability to collect relevant data, both now and in the future. Other bicycling data is likely to be collected by SDOT over time. This data can help inform project selection and design, the development and success of education and encouragement programs, measures to improve safety, and 25

Puget Sound Bike Share is a partnership of public and private organizations working to bring bike sharing to King County. Bike sharing is an innovative approach to urban mobility, combining the convenience and flexibility of a bicycle with the accessibility of public transportation. Bike share systems consist of a fleet of bikes provided at a network of stations located throughout a city. Bike are available on demand to provide fast and easy access for short trips.
other issues. Therefore, the data and performance measures outlined in the following table represent the way SDOT will track achievement of the BMP plan goals over time, but do not represent the entire spectrum of data that SDOT expects to collect as it implements the plan.

The plan performance measures are organized into desired targets and trends by the five plan goals, and are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Additionally, progress on the 2007 plan goals will be measured in 2017. Table 3-1: 2013 Bicycle Master Plan Performance Measure Targets
Goal Ridership Safety Connectivity Equity Livability Performance Measure Bicycle Counts Collision rate Percent network completion Areas lacking bicycle facilities Percentage of households within ¼ mile of a bicycle facility Target Triple ridership between 2013 and 2030 Reduce collision rate by half (50 percent) between 2013 and 2030 Full system completion by 2035 No parts of the city lacking bicycle facilities by 2030 100 percent of households in Seattle within ¼ mile of a bicycle facility by 2035

Table 3-2: 2013 Bicycle Master Plan Performance Measure Trends
Goal Ridership Safety Connectivity Equity Livability Performance Measure Mode share Number of serious collisions/fatalities Key travel sheds completed Percentage of females/non-whites who ride regularly Number of bike racks and on-street bike corrals Self-reported physical activity Desired Trend Increase Decrease Increase Increase Increase

26

27

POLICY & PLANNING NETWORK

Framework Chapter 4: The for Bicycle

“When thinking about bicycle facilities, think about making it easy and safe for people to go where they go most: schools, grocery stores, neighborhood commercial districts and transit hubs. That means not only making it The 2007 BMP was created to achieve two goals: safe to get there, but making it easy totrip lock up your bike 1) Increase bicycling in Seattle for all purposes once you’re there, find the appropriate bike route (way2) Improve of to bicyclists finding) andsafety connect transit.”throughout Seattle

Bicycle Facilities for All
City Council was explicit in November 2011 when it directed SDOT to prepare an updated Bicycle Master Plan: use best practices, coordinate with the recently completed pedestrian and transit plans, and identify routes for cycle tracks and neighborhood greenways. Throughout the process, the intention has been to create an interconnected citywide network of bicycle facilities that would be attractive to people that are interested in riding a bicycle from their neighborhood to other parts of the city, and are concerned about safety. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the proposed bicycle network map and to introduce strategies and actions. The bicycle network map lays out where new bicycle facilities will be constructed in the city, and what type of facilities they will be. The chapter includes: • The process used to develop the proposed bicycle network; • A summary and description of the bicycle network itself; • An approach to match intersection treatments with the surrounding context; • The bicycle facilities visual glossary, which illustrates what the terms on the map (such as cycle tracks and neighborhood greenway) mean; and • A process for accommodating bicycling on or parallel to multimodal corridors, which are arterials that are identified for bicycle improvements but have also been identified to serve transit and freight needs.

This section of the Burke-Gilman Trail is a bicycle facility that riders of all ages and abilities can comfortably use. 29

Bicycle Network Development
The proposed bicycle network map is the result of a collaborative planning process involving both extensive public input and technical analysis work. The overall goal of the network map is to plan, design, and ultimately build a bicycle network that implements the goals of the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed bicycle network map was designed in two distinct phases. For development of the first draft map, SDOT considered comments received from the public in the spring and summer of 2012, during the first phase of public engagement. Members of the public were very clear about the types of bicycle facilities they wanted, and where they thought improvements should happen. The project team also considered other data, including: • The location of current bicycle facilities and proposed facilities identified on the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan map. • Connections between key destinations and clusters of key land uses that are likely to generate high bicycle ridership. These include major employers, schools, transit hubs, and others that were identified as potential high, medium, and low bicycle trip generators (see Table 4-1 and Map 4-1). For more information about the specific types of land uses considered and the relative ranking used to describe demand, see Appendix 7. • The topography of Seattle. Hills are a major feature of the city’s overall landscape, as well as a barrier to riding a bicycle for many people. • Existing street characteristics. On-street bicycle facilities are highly influenced by the overall street character, such as the speeds at which cars travel, the amount of daily traffic, and the street classification. • Designations in other modal plans. The city has adopted a number of other plans, including a Transit Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, which also highlight desired improvements for these modes, and the Transportation Strategic Plan, which includes Major Truck Streets.

Map 4-1: Destination Clusters Map
15TH AVE NE

5TH AVE NE

d

30TH AVE NE
D PO SAN

N 145TH ST

3RD AVE NW

GREENWOOD AVE N

AURORA AVE N

n

E AY N INT W

5 § ¦ ¨

8TH AVE NW

S

NW MARKET ST

PHINNEY AVE N

Green L a ke

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

o

1ST AVE NE

35TH AVE NE
NE 45TH ST

u

NE 70TH ST

AURORA AVE N

10TH AVE E

L a ke Union

AD EM
E DENNY WAY

IS

ON

ST

AL

AS

KA

N

W AY
E YESLER WAY

E l l i o tt Bay

31ST AVE S

90 § ¦ ¨
W ES

AL

KI A

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

V

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

35TH AVE SW

15TH AVE S

t

16TH AVE SW

5 § ¦ ¨

e

g

30TH AVE SW

Destination Clusters

Table 4-1: Categorization of Trip Generators
Category High Trip Generators University or college, large employers, major transit stations, neighborhood businesses, schools, neighborhood parks Transit hubs, community centers and libraries, minor destinations, large parks Large retail centers, other major entertainment destinations

Medium Low

30

P

u

SW ROXBURY ST

k e L a
LVD S

W a s h i n g t o

28TH AVE W

15TH AVE W

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

n
BEACO N
RAIN IER AVE

EL LIO TT E AV W

AV E S

S
TI MAR

DELRIDG E WAY SW

N LU THER KING JR B

Bicycle Facility Designations SDOT developed a set of bicycle facility designation guidelines to aid in determining what type of facility would be most appropriate on a given street based on its characteristics (see Table 4-2). Initially, the criteria were used to aid in incorporating all ages and abilities facility types (including neighborhood greenways and cycle tracks). This approach also allowed for the bicycle network map legend to be simplified. The draft network map was released for public comment in November, 2012. While there was overall support for having an ambitious plan, there were also concerns expressed about the map, including: • Not all of the facility types proposed on the map (in particular, bike lanes and buffered bike lanes on arterials) were appropriate for riders of all ages and abilities; • There were bicycle facilities proposed on certain streets which would be very difficult to implement due to a number of factors (constrained right of way, too steep or too narrow, etc.); and • The draft map lacked graphic legibility in terms of describing the overall purpose of the network and clear connections to destinations.

A New Tool, the Washington Neighborhood Safe Streets Bill: The bill is a simple way to improve safety by allowing municipalities to lower the speed limit on nonarterial, mostly residential streets without the need for a cost-prohibitive transportation study.
Enacted by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Inslee in spring 2013.

Table 4-2: Facility Designation Guidelines
Posted Average Daily Traffic Speed (ADT) per day Limit (mph) Neighborhood Greenway Neighborhood Greenway 25 or less 1,500 or less Shared lane pavement 25 - 30 To be used due to ROW Shared Street marking (sharrow) constraints or topography Bicycle lane; Climbing 8,000 or less 30 In street, minor separation Lane Buffered bicycle lane 30 15,000 or less Cycle track (raised or 30 and 15,000 and above In street, major separation with barrier) greater Off-street* Multi-use trail N/A N/A Generalized Bicycle Facility Designation Bicycle Facility Types

Street Classification Non-arterial Non-arterial and Collector/Minor arterials Collector arterial Collector/Minor arterials Minor/Principal arterials N/A

This chart recommends a process to determine bicycle facility designations. Other factors that affect bicycle facility selection beyond posted speed limit, street classification and volume include: topography, traffic mix of transit and freight vehicles, presence of on-street parking, intersection density, surrounding land use, and roadway width. These factors are not included in the facility designation chart above, but should always be a consideration in the design process. Facilities may be designed to provide a higher level of safety and comfort than the minimums recommended here. *Off-Street Trails may be developed opportunistically on corridors where there is available adjacent land, or on corridors with a special transportation function (e.g., Alaskan Way)

31

Refining the Proposed Bicycle Network Based on public comments and additional technical work, including more focused investigations of many streets, the network map was revised and refined. As part of this refinement, the network was divided into two categories to increase legibility of the network: the Citywide Network and Local Connections. The Citywide Network is a network of “all ages and abilities” bicycle facilities with comfortable separation from motor vehicles. This network is comprised of cycle tracks, neighborhood greenways and multi-use trails connecting destination clusters. • A small sub-set of the Citywide Network is identified as Catalyst Projects: portions of the network that pose challenges to implementation due to cost and/ or physical constraints yet simultaneously serve to reduce critical barriers to creating an all ages and abilities network to the maximum extent feasible. Catalyst Projects will be identified in the final plan. In some cases, the network designations exceed the facility designation guidelines as described earlier to provide highest-quality bicycle facility connectivity across the city for people of all ages and abilities. The Local Connections network provides access to the Citywide Network, parallels the Citywide Network, or serves local destinations. While Local Connections may use facility types appropriate for people of all ages and abilities, some segments will be served with conventional bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes (In street, minor separation) and shared lane markings (shared streets).

Proposed Bicycle Network Plan Map
The proposed bicycle network map is shown on Map 4-2a and 4-2b, and in more detail by sector on Maps 4-3 through 4-8. The map legend contains the following facility types within each categoriy: Citywide Network „„ Off-Street Trails
„„ Cycle

Tracks Greenways

„„ Neighborhood

Streets on the Citywide Network provide long distance connectivity between neighborhoods and across the city. People of all ages and abilities should be able to access all major destination clusters on this network. Local Connections „„ Off-Street Trails
„„ Cycle

Tracks Greenways

„„ Neighborhood „„ In

Street, Minor Separation Streets

„„ Shared

Local Connections are shorter-distance segments focused on connections within neighborhoods, or connections to the Citywide Network. The map illustrates a future system of connected bicycle facilities throughout the city. Table 4-3 shows the total breakdown of facilities by type within the network.

Table 4-3: Bicycle Facilities in the Proposed Bicycle Network
Existing Network* Off Street Cycle Track Neighborhood Greenway In Street, Minor Separation Shared Street Total 47.0 1.0 8.7 51.7 24.7 133.0 Proposed Network Improvements Upgrade to New Facilities Existing Facilities 0 51.7 0 18.9 0 70.7 31.2 49.5 235.8 59.3 5.1 381.0 Total New or Upgraded Facilities to Build 31.2 101.3 235.8 78.2 5.1 451.7 Total Network 78.2 102.3 244.5 129.9 29.8 584.7 Portion of Proposed Network 7% 22% 52% 17% 1% 100%

*Existing network totals include only existing facilities that meet the proposed bicycle network facility designation guidelines.

32

Maps 4-9 and 4-10 emphasize the concepts of network connectivity for people of all ages and abilities, allowing them to reach destinations across Seattle and the region.

• Develop on-street catalyst projects. These projects, while potentially complex or costly, are critical to ensuring network connectivity for riders of all ages and abilities. • Incorporate intersection analysis and appropriate design treatments into every bicycle facility project. • Explore innovative bicycle facility solutions that may work to overcome Seattle’s topography barriers. • Install wayfinding with all bicycle facility network projects. Strategy: Implement the off-street (multi-use trail) bicycle facility network. Actions: • Develop multi-use trails. Implementation will require additional feasibility analysis and agreements with land owners, if not in the public right of way. • Conduct multi-use trail capacity studies to evaluate trail expansion needs. If a trail expansion cannot be achieved (for example, adjacency to an environmentally-sensitive area), assess if a parallel street may help serve people riding bicycles. Install alternate route wayfinding signage along the trail when the parallel street bicycle facility is installed. • Incorporate multi-use trail crossing design treatments into every multi-use trail project. • Develop off-street catalyst bicycle projects. These projects, while potentially complex or costly, are critical to ensuring network connectivity for riders of all ages and abilities. • Develop a multi-use trails “etiquette” sign to educate users about the rules of trail travel. Strategy: Coordinate bicycle network implementation with potential partners. Action: • Develop regional wayfinding standards to enhance bicycle system legibility and coherence.

Strategies and Actions
This chapter and those that follow provide detailed recommendations on strategies and implementation actions needed to meet the plan’s five goals and six objectives. Strategies guide the city on how to achieve progress toward realizing the goals. Actions are specific tasks and duties to pursue for plan implementation. The strategies and actions below provide direct, clear steps the city can take to implement the proposed bicycle network. Strategy: Implement the on-street bicycle facility network. Actions: • Develop cycle tracks. Implementation may be phased as a buffered bike lane in the near term, with the addition of a physical separation between motorist and people riding bikes at a later stage. • Develop neighborhood greenways. Implementation may not follow the exact street identified in the plan, but rather the final route will be determined during project design. The intent of showing neighborhood greenways on the network map is to demonstrate that connections to destinations are achievable along low volume and low speed residential streets. • Develop in street, minor separation bicycle facilities. Assessment of a bicycle lane or a buffered bicycle lane will be part of the project development stage; if determined, after further analysis, that the bicycle facility cannot be accommodated, then a shared street facility type or a parallel neighborhood greenway will be installed. • Develop shared street bicycle facilities. Shared streets help make connections to destinations and to the rest of the network for bicycle riders that are comfortable riding in traffic, and may provide more direct routes than routes suitable for people of all ages and abilities.

33

Map 4-2a: Proposed Bicycle Network Map (North)

20TH AVE NE

LINDEN AVE N

CORLISS AVE N

8TH AVE NW

Lake

N 135TH ST

15TH AVE NE

NE 135TH ST

Bitter Lake Playfield

12TH AVE NW

Broadview
1ST AVE NW

N 127TH ST

Bitter Lake
FREMONT AVE N
N 125TH ST

N 130TH ST

N 128TH ST
Haller Lake

North Acres Park
1ST AVE NE

NE 130TH ST

35TH AVE NE

N 122ND ST

8TH AVE NE

NE 125TH ST

N 117TH ST

25TH AVE NE

40TH AVE NE

Lake City

32ND AVE NE

NW 137TH ST

N 137TH ST

5TH AVE NE

27TH AVE NE

37TH AVE NE

Llandover Woods Greenspace

Jackson Park Golf Course

INTERU RBAN TRL

E BURK
GILMA

N 117TH ST
NE

NE 117TH ST
1ST PL

N TRL

MERIDIAN AVE N

NW CA RKEEK PARK RD

NE 115TH ST
23RD AVE NE

N 110TH ST

Northgate
NE 107TH ST

30TH AVE NE

Carkeek Park
STONE AVE N

NE 115TH ST
D PO SAN

E NE N AV ALTO

Nathan Hale Playfield

NE 110TH ST

AY NE INT W

Meadowbrook Playfield

NE 105TH ST
NE 103RD ST NE 100TH ST
COLLEGE WAY N
35TH AVE NE
Licton Springs Park

NW 100TH ST

GREENWOOD AVE N

N 100TH ST

40TH AVE NE

8TH AVE NW

1ST AVE NW

20TH AVE NE

Crown Hill

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

15TH AVE NW

NW 97TH ST

NE 98TH ST

45TH AVE NE

23RD AVE NW

Golden Gardens Park
32ND AVE NW

North Beach/Blue Ridge
NW 80TH ST

NW 90TH ST

NW 90TH ST
N 87TH ST

N 90TH ST

32ND AVE NE

N 92ND ST

15TH AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

Matthews Beach Park

NE 90TH ST

Greenwood
NW 83RD ST

NE 85TH ST

Wedgewood Roosevelt
31ST AVE NE
AN TRL E GILM BURK

NW 83RD ST

N 82ND ST
CORLISS AVE N

NW 77TH ST

8TH AVE NW

6TH AVE NW

28TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NW

N 77TH ST

17TH AVE NW

12TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NE

12TH AVE N E

33RD AVE NE

VE AA ON WIN

N

Green Lake

NE 80TH ST

Dahl (Waldo J.) Playfield

NE 80TH ST

View Ridge
NE 75TH ST

Sand Point

34TH AVE NW

NW 70TH ST

Ballard
NW 65TH ST

Ballard High School Playground

PALATINE AVE N

FREMONT AVE N

NW 65TH ST

20TH AVE NE

W OO DL AW

27TH AVE NE

LATO NA AVE NE

20TH AVE NW

NW 57TH ST

NW 58TH ST

8TH AVE NE

Park

NE

Ravenna Park

14TH AVE NW

FREMONT AVE N LINDEN AVE N

6TH AVE NW

WOODLAND PARK AVE N

21ST AVE W

EW AY

ROO SEVELT WAY NE

y

N 46TH ST

1ST AVE NE

CO MM OD OR

Ba

NE 47TH ST

University District

36TH AVE W

N 43RD ST

32ND AVE W

STONE WAY N INTERLAKE AVE N

DENSMORE AVE N

N 39TH ST

16TH AVE W

W BERTO NA ST
11TH AVE W

N 36TH ST

Magnolia
Magnolia

W DRAVUS ST

Interbay Athletic Field

N 34TH

ST

20TH AVE W

32ND AVE W

9TH AVE W

W RAYE ST

4TH AVE W 3RD AVE W

35TH AVE W

Playfield

14TH AVE W

Interbay Golf

FLORENTIA ST
David Rodgers Park

Gas Works Park

EASTLAKE AVE E FRANKLIN AVE E BOYLSTON AVE E

22ND AVE E

7TH AVE W

FAIRVIEW AVE E

29TH AVE W

2ND AVE N

F EDERAL AVE E

W

4TH AVE N

10TH AVE W

West Queen Anne Playfield

W BLAINE ST
8TH AVE W

BLV

LAK EVI EW

TAYLOR AVE N

N

W HIGHLAND DR
Kinnear Park

AV E

Hill

18TH AVE E 19TH AVE E

FA IR

Citywide Network
Existing
Cycle track Neighborhood greenway

12TH AVE E

ROY ST

QUEEN ANNE AVE N 1ST AVE N

MERCER ST

5TH AVE N

MELROSE AVE E

THOMAS ST

12TH AVE

W

E

4T H

AV E

5T H

AV E

ST EW AR

Existing

Proposed

7T H

14TH AVE

29TH AVE

TS T

Local Connectors
Cycle track In street, minor separation Neighborhood greenway Shared street

N

1S TA V
E

E DENNY WAY

27TH AVE E

THOMAS ST

BROADWAY E

South Lake REPUBLICAN ST Union

9TH AVE N

21ST AVE E

28TH AVE E

E HARRISON ST

E PINE ST

AV E

E PINE ST

HILLSID ED R

Proposed

W ROY ST

14TH AVE E

16TH AVE E

W OLYMPIC PL

EM

IS AD

VIE W

ON

ST

E

39TH AVE E

Legend

41ST AVE E

W MA RINA

PL

GALER ST

DE

Queen Anne

Lake Union

26TH AVE E

Washington Park Arboretum

43RD AVE E

BL VD

10TH AVE E

AG N

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

AV EW

M

Park

25TH AVE E

Montlake

BURK E

W EMERSON ST

Lawton

Park

SH W IP C NIC AN KE AL R S TR ON L ST

N 40TH ST

GILMAN

Wallingford

CANAL R D NE

Fremont

N 42ND ST

N 42ND ST

TRL

NW 42ND ST

NE 41ST ST

Laurelhurst

OR ND Y KE

OL IA

Interbay

E MCGILVRA ST
Madison Park North Beach

TH

Madison Park

Volunteer Park Capitol
E GALER ST

48TH AVE NE

N 44TH ST

NE 45TH ST

49TH AVE NE

W

40TH AVE NE

Discovery Park

11TH AVE NW

NW 56TH ST

BROOKLYN AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

MERIDIAN AVE N

11TH AVE NE

9TH AVE NE

19TH AVE NE

22ND AVE NE

Woodland Woodland Park Park Zoo
N 50TH ST

PHINNEY AVE N

RAV

NE 60TH ST

ENN

45TH AVE NE

Phinney Ridge

N

AV EN

Green L a ke

View Ridge Playfield

NE 68TH ST
NE 65TH ST
Cowen

Ravenna

NE 65TH ST

Warren G. Magnuson Park

Bryant

AB LVD

Windermere

NE 55TH ST

Sa

l

NW 50TH ST

35TH AVE NE

E PIKE ST
22ND AVE
18TH AVE

S

GTON BLV D

N W Downtown AY

SK A

E PIK

ST

U

First Hill T
R MA S ION VE YA RR TE

33RD AVE

AL A

Y SIT ER NIV

ST

E UNIO N ST

E COLUMBIA ST E CHERRY ST

Central Area
Garfield Playfield

Lake Washington

12TH AVE

E ALDER ST

E YESLER WAY S JACKSON ST

31ST AVE

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

Powell Barnett Park

Leschi

30TH AVE S

S DEARBORN ST

12TH AVE S

Bay
34
W
S HOLGATE ST

YAKIMA AVE S

Judkins Park and Playfield

LAK E

S WELLER ST
RAIN

26TH AVE S

Elliott
ALKI
MO UN TA VE S

SIDE

S KING ST

S JACKSON ST

Park

AVE S

Frink

Park

S GRAND ST

M L KING JR WAY S

13TH AVE S

18TH AVE S

S HILL ST

Amy Yee Tennis Center

Mount Baker
DR S

FAI R

S

S

LAKE WASHIN

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

SAND POINT WAY NE

39TH AVE NE

50TH AVE NE

STO KEY

PL NE

N

m on
TRL
AN ILM EG RK BU

AN LM GI
E AV

W
N MA GIL
W DR

TR L

E VE NA MA HR FU

R YE BO

N AVE AKE EN STL R AV WE DEX TE

EE AV

23RD

AVE E

TT LIO EL Y BA L TR

A ON DR MA
DR

VE DA E 2N AV RN STE WE VE HA 5T AVE H 4T

AVE IER S

S 15TH AVE

E AV ON AC BE

21ST AVE S

S

WOODLA

32ND AVE W

21ST

36TH AV

DENSMORE AVE N

AVE N

N 39TH ST

16TH AVE W

W BERTO NA ST
11TH AVE W

STONE WAY N INTERLAKE

N 36TH ST

Magnolia
Magnolia

W DRAVUS ST

Interbay Athletic Field

N 34TH

ST

20TH AVE W

32ND AVE W

9TH AVE W

W RAYE ST

4TH AVE W 3RD AVE W

35TH AVE W

Playfield

14TH AVE W

Interbay Golf

FLORENTIA ST
David Rodgers Park

Gas Works Park

EASTLAKE AVE E FRANKLIN AVE E BOYLSTON AVE E

22ND AVE E

7TH AVE W

FAIRVIEW AVE E

29TH AVE W

2ND AVE N

F EDERAL AVE E

W

4TH AVE N

10TH AVE W

West Queen Anne Playfield

W BLAINE ST
8TH AVE W

BLV

LAK EVI EW

TAYLOR AVE N

N

W HIGHLAND DR
Kinnear Park

AV E

Hill

18TH AVE E 19TH AVE E

FA IR

12TH AVE E

ROY ST

QUEEN ANNE AVE N 1ST AVE N

MERCER ST

5TH AVE N

MELROSE AVE E

Legend
Citywide Network
Existing
Cycle track Neighborhood greenway

THOMAS ST

12TH AVE

Proposed
N

4T H

AV E

5T H

AV E

ST EW AR

7T H

14TH AVE

29TH AVE

TS T

1S TA V
E

E DENNY WAY

27TH AVE E

THOMAS ST

BROADWAY E

South Lake REPUBLICAN ST Union

9TH AVE N

21ST AVE E

28TH AVE E

E HARRISON ST

E PINE ST

AV E

E PINE ST

HILLSID ED R

W ROY ST

14TH AVE E

16TH AVE E

W OLYMPIC PL

EM

IS AD

VIE W

ON

ST

E

39TH AVE E

41ST AVE E

W MA RINA

PL

GALER ST

DE

Queen Anne

Lake Union

26TH AVE E

Washington Park Arboretum

43RD AVE E

BL VD

10TH AVE E

OR ND Y KE

Interbay Map 4-2b: Proposed Bicycle Network Map (South)
OL IA
W DR

AG N

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

AV EW

M

Park

25TH AVE E

Montlake

BURK E

W EMERSON ST

Lawton

Park

SH W IP C NIC AN KE AL R S TR ON L ST

N 40TH ST

GILMAN

Wallingford

CANAL R D NE

Fremont

ROO SE

N 42ND ST

N 42ND ST

TRL

NW 42ND ST

NE 41ST ST

Laurelhurst

E MCGILVRA ST
Madison Park North Beach

TH

Madison Park

Volunteer E GALER ST Park Capitol

48TH A

W

Local Connectors
Cycle track In street, minor separation Neighborhood greenway Shared street

E

GTON BLV D

N W Downtown AY

SK A

E PIK

ST

U

First Hill T
RIO MA NS VE YA RR TE

33RD AVE

AL A

22ND AVE

18TH AVE

AN LM
E AV

AN ILM EG RK BU

W
N MA GIL

TR L

E VE NA MA HR FU

R YE BO

N AVE AKE EN STL R AV WE DEX TE

EE AV

23RD

AVE E

TT LIO EL Y BA L TR

A ON DR MA

E PIKE ST
SIT ER NIV T YS
E UNIO N ST

E COLUMBIA ST E CHERRY ST

Central Area
Garfield Playfield

Lake Washington

DR

VE DA E 2N AV RN STE WE

S

12TH AVE

E ALDER ST

E YESLER WAY S JACKSON ST

31ST AVE

Powell Barnett Park

Leschi

30TH AVE S

S DEARBORN ST

12TH AVE S

Bay
W
S HOLGATE ST

YAKIMA AVE S

Judkins Park and Playfield

LAK E

S WELLER ST
RAIN

26TH AVE S

Elliott
ALKI TRL

SIDE

S KING ST

S JACKSON ST

Park

AVE S

Frink

Park

MO UN TA VE S

S GRAND ST

M L KING JR WAY S

13TH AVE S

18TH AVE S

S HILL ST

Amy Yee Tennis Center

Mount Baker
LAKE PARK DR S

FAI R

EAST MARGINAL WAY S

59TH AVE SW

48TH AVE SW

45TH AVE SW

63RD AVE SW

AL K

Bar-S Playground

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

55TH AVE SW

AVA LON

SW ANDOVER ST

15TH AVE S

SW CHARLESTOW N ST

S SPOKANE ST

38TH AVE S

DELRIDGE WAY SW

42ND AVE SW

FAUNTLEROY WAY SW

35TH AVE SW

ERS KIN EW A

12TH AVE S

35TH AVE S

Y

SW

West Seattle Golf Course
Camp Long
30TH AVE SW

6TH AVE S

CHEAST

13TH AVE S

Mee Kwa Mooks Park

SW GENESEE ST

S GENESEE ST
50TH AVE S

26TH AVE SW

Pigeon Point Park

Puget Park
AIRP ORT

Maplewood Playfield

Columbia City
S FERDINAND ST
46TH AVE S

43RD AVE S

46TH AVE S

Jefferson Park Jefferson Golf Course Park

WAY

34TH AVE S

West Seattle

24TH AVE S

Schmitz Park

S HANFORD ST

25TH AVE S

S FOREST ST

14TH AVE S

W VE S IA

SW

AL WAY MIR AD

Hiawatha Playfield
A SW

Industrial District

23RD AVE S

Harbor Island

SW SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

ALD SW

ST EN

LAKE WASHIN

Existing

Proposed

VE HA 5T AVE H 4T

AVE IER S

S 15TH AVE

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

E AV ON AC BE

21ST AVE S

S

SW

Y BLVD

S

DM
L IRA
Y WA

Genesee Park and Playfield

ES LE TITIA AV

ML KIN G JR S WAY

36TH AVE SW

21ST AVE SW

C BEA HD W RS

ASH EW LAK

S DAWSON ST

S DAWSON ST
IEF CH

WAY S

EAST

48TH AVE SW

Puget Sound

S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST

26TH AVE SW

16TH AVE SW

6TH AVE S

1ST AVE S

ON AV ES

25TH AVE SW

37TH AVE SW

ELLIS AVE S

Delridge
HIGHLAND P ARK WAY SW
Riverview

NB

ER ST S RIV
EA ST M

S MORGAN ST

52ND AVE S

CORS

SE

35TH AVE SW 34TH AVE SW

12TH AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

SYLV AN

Playfield

1ST AV S B R

S HOLLY ST

AR G

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

Solstice Park

IN AL W AY S

SM

YR

28TH AVE SW

TLE

PL

Othello
43 RD AVE S
39TH AVE S

S MYRTLE ST

S OTHELLO ST
46TH AVE S

SW HOLDEN ST
37TH AVE SW

10TH AVE SW 9TH AVE SW

FAUNTLEROY WAY SW

8TH AVE S

E S BR

Lincoln Park

S PORTLAND ST

S KENYON ST

18TH AVE SW

SW THISTLE ST

Highland Park Playground

South Park

16th AV

Pritchard Island Beach

24TH AVE SW

S CLOVERDALE ST
14TH AVE S

1ST AVE S

SW TRENTON ST
16TH AVE SW

25TH AVE SW

SW ROXBURY ST

39TH AVE S CARK EEK

SO N

Park

Playground

PL S

Fauntleroy

Roxhill

8TH AVE SW

OL

DR S

SW BARTON ST

Westcrest Park

Rainier Beach Playfield

Rainier Beach

S HENDERSON ST

Beer Sheva Park

W

SW 98TH ST

S ROXBURY ST

W AR D

SW MORGAN ST

S

42ND AVE S

PA RK

SW GRAHAM ST

Georgetown

O BR AL

PL

Martha Washington Park

51ST AVE S

SW 104TH ST

City of Seattle - South
Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Update 2013

AV E

S BAILEY ST

Playfield

S

Brighton

S JUNEAU ST

51ST AVE S

Morgan Junction

SW JUNEAU ST

SH OM Georgetown ER Playfield ST

Beacon Hill

S ORCAS ST

Hillman City

Seward Park

S AVE TON REN

LVD S ON B INGT

H TR AMIS DUW AIL*

R HT ALT SE

S ORCAS ST

AVE BEACON

Seward Park

FT PL CRO
SW

RIVER DUWAMISH
TRL

NG JR M L KI

S

E AV IFT SW
S

S WAY

31ST AVE SW

Y SW WA

M ILITA

PARK AVE S SEWARD

RY R
DS

I EF CH
SEA

N AVE RENTO
S

LTH
TR

L

BE
ON AC

ES AV

55TH AVE S

65TH AVE S

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

35

56TH AVE S

44TH AVE SW

RS MYE S WAY

M L KING

O RT AIRP S WAY

JR WAY S

ES AV RS TE WA

IN RA

Kubota

35TH AVE SW

Gardens

IER

RE ON NT

ES AV

Proposed Bicycle Network

S BANGO R ST

E AV S

Lakeridge Playground

Lakeridge Park

Map 4-3: NW Sector Map
Llandover Woods Greenspace

STONE AVE N

Puget Sound
12TH AVE NW

Lake
NW 132ND ST
Bitter Lake Playfield

N 135TH ST

5TH AVE NE

NW 137TH ST

N 137TH ST

Jackson Park Golf Course

CORLISS AVE N

15TH AVE NE

LINDEN AVE N

20TH AVE NE

NE 135TH ST

131ST N 130TH ST
N AVE

N 130TH ST

8TH AVE NW

DES

MO

Broadview
NW 122ND ST

NW 127TH ST

N 127TH ST

Bitter Lake
N 125TH ST
FREMONT AVE N

N 128TH ST

1ST AVE NW

SA VE

Haller Lake
N 122ND ST

North Acres Park
NE 125TH ST

NE 130TH ST

RE

N

8TH AVE NE

INTERURBAN TRL

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

CO R

LIS

1ST AVE NE

NW 120TH ST

NW 117TH ST

N 117TH ST

N 117TH ST
TW AY NE

NE 117TH ST

PI

NE

NW D CA RKE E K PAR K R

HU

NE 115TH ST

RS

FREMONT AVE N

1ST AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

Northgate

NW 105TH ST

NW 100TH ST

NW

0 10

TH

PL

STONE AVE N

NE 107TH ST

NE 103RD ST
N 100TH ST

NE 100TH ST
COLLEGE WAY N

NE 98TH ST

23RD AVE NE

NW 110TH ST

N 110TH ST

MERIDIAN AVE N

Carkeek Park

15TH AVE NE

6TH AVE NW

1ST AVE NW

8TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

NW 90

TH ST

NW 87TH ST
23RD AVE NW

N 87TH ST

MIDVALE AVE N

1ST AVE NE

Golden Gardens Park

NW 90TH ST

North Beach/Blue Ridge
NW 80TH ST
N AY W W

N 90TH ST

20TH AVE NE

N 92ND ST

ROOSE VELT WAY NE

Crown Hill

GREENWOOD AVE N

15TH AVE NW

12TH AVE NW

8TH AVE NW

Licton Springs Park

NW 83RD ST

NW 83RD ST

NW 83RD ST

Greenwood
N 83RD ST
FREMONT AVE N
1ST AVE NW

NE 86TH ST NE 85TH ST
N 82ND ST

NE 85TH ST

N

N 80TH ST

NE 80TH ST

Roosevelt
NE 80TH ST
8TH AVE NE
15TH AVE NE

W

E

NW 77TH ST

NW 77TH ST

N 77TH ST
32ND AVE NW GREENWOOD AVE N

28TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NW

17 TH AVE NW

12TH AVE NW

8TH AVE NW

6TH AVE NW

S

ROOSE VELT WAY NE

DL

LINDEN AVE

NW 70TH ST

NW 70TH ST
12TH AVE NW

NW 70TH ST

N 70TH ST

FREMONT AVE N

NW 64TH ST

NW 65TH ST

PHINNEY AVE N

34TH AVE NW

Ballard
NW 65TH ST

Ballard High School Playground

NW 64TH ST NW 62ND ST

1ST AVE NE

L ATONA AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

NW 58TH ST

ASHWORTH AV E W OO DL

NW 58TH ST
32ND AVE NW
BU

N 59TH ST

N

AW

Phinney Ridge
GREENWOOD AVE N

Green L a ke
AV E N

NE 70TH
WE ED

PAL ATINE AVE N

12 TH AVE

AV E

NE

NE

AW

N

N

NE 68TH ST
NE 66TH ST

NE 65TH ST

N

NE

Ravenna
62 ND ST

NE 65TH ST

24TH AVE NE

WIN

ON

VE AA

N

Green Lake
W OO

25TH AVE NE

NE 98TH

Cowen Park
NE RAVENN

RK

17 TH AVE NW

14TH AVE NW

11TH AVE NW

EG

THACKER AY PL NE

N 44TH ST N 43RD ST N 42ND ST
1ST AVE NE

21ST AVE W

Cycle track
32ND AVE W 36TH AVE W

N 43RD ST
BU

NW 42ND ST
AN

2ND AV NE

WALLINGFORD AVE N

INTERL AKE AVE N

14TH AVE W

11TH AVE W

Cycle track
20TH AVE W
29TH AVE W

16TH AVE W

W BERTONA ST
NIC

N 36TH ST
FU

FAIR

Magnolia
Neighborhood greenway Shared street
GN MA OL

Interbay Athletic Field

ST

VIE

DRAVUS ST In W street, minor separation

WOODL AWN

W DRAVUS ST

KE

RS

ST

WA VE

N 34TH
ON

E

UN

RL

IVE

AL T

W BARRETT ST

FLORENTIA ST

Magnolia

35TH AVE W

10TH AVE E

Playfield

14TH AVE W

4TH AVE W

W ARMOUR ST
23RD AV W 21ST AVE W

11TH AVE W

3RD AVE W

W RAYE ST

0
W

0.5

9TH AVE W

1

RAYE ST
QU EEN

22ND AVE E

E ANN

SMITH ST
GIL

BOYLSTON AVE E

ELLIOT T BAY TRL

EA VE

W MCGRAW ST
29TH AVE W

BO YE
KE

Montlake
R E
18TH

BIGELOW AVE N

FAIRVIEW AVE E

EASTL AKE AVE E

FR ANKLIN AVE E

C L I S E PL W

UEEN ANNE AVE N

32ND AVE

OR

W CROCKETT ST
7TH AVE W

19TH

Interbay

10TH AVE W

W MCGRAW ST

ND YK

36
West Queen Anne

MCGRAW ST
BOSTON ST
2ND AVE N

AV E

Park

E CALHOUN E LYNN ST

MCGRAW

W

NB

LVD

4TH AVE N

5TH AVE N

TH

AKE TR AIL*

0TH AVE E

BO YE

RA VE

E

26TH AVE E

25TH AVE E

6
N AVE TH

24TH

David Rodgers Park

HARVARD AVE E

Interbay Golf

Miles 2
WE

Gas Works Park

E SHELBY ST E SHELBY ST
E HAMLIN ST

BURKE

ST

FREMONT AVE N

W RUFFNER ST

C AN

WOODL AND PARK AVE N

RS

N

SHIP

PHINNEY AVE N

Existing

Proposed

STONE WAY N

SO

IT Y

CK

DENSMORE AVE N

ER

BR

NI

NW 39TH ST

N 39TH ST

NE PA

CI FIC ST

GILMAN

Park

W

SUNNYSIDE AVE N

Local Connectors

W EMERSON ST

Lawton

TRL

N 40TH ST

L ATONA

N 41ST ST

4TH AV NE

Neighborhood greenway

N 42ND ST

Fremont

Wallingford

L ATONA AVE NE

Existing

Proposed
GI LM AN E AV

RE

WA Y

y

5TH AVE NE

DO

Ba

LINDEN AVE N

Citywide Network

FREMONT AVE N

Discovery Legend Park
W COMMO

TR

WOODL AWN

L

NW

20TH AVE NW

ILM

AN

T 54

HS

T

NW MARKET ST

NW 56TH ST

15TH AVE NE

BROOKLYN AVE NE

MERIDIAN AVE N

NW 50TH ST

MO

S TO

CO M

NE

W

8TH AVE NW

l

PHINNEY AVE N

6TH AVE NW

Sa

WOODL AWN

NW 50TH ST

N 50TH ST

WALLINGFORD AVE N

WA YN

NE 50TH ST

N 46TH ST

N 46TH ST

NE 47TH ST

University District

22ND AVE NE

DORE WAY

9TH AVE NE ROOSE VELT WAY NE

11TH AVE NE

12TH AVE NE

19TH AVE NE 20TH AVE NE

Woodland Woodland Park Park Zoo

WA YN

N 57

TH S

T

Ravenna
A BL VD

N 56TH ST N 54TH ST
K EN

Park

NE 55TH ST

N 53RD ST
KEY S TO

27 T
23RD AVE E

G OLDE

NS DR NW RDE N GA

DENSMORE AVE N

We

L YA LO

Dah (Wal J.) Playfi

EA ST GR EE NL AK EW Y

IN PL NE

T ES W

KE EN LA GRE

KIR KW OO DP LN NE PL N

SIN G TO N

m on

RK

W

EG ILM TR L

HR MA VE NA E

IA VD BL W
MA ND RW

TE E IN

STL AK E N AVE
DE X T ER N AVE

RL

A

MAG

Map 4-4: NE Sector Map

5TH AVE NE

37TH ST

32ND AVE NE

N 137TH ST

STONE AVE N

Lake
Bitter Lake Playfield

N 135TH ST

Jackson Park Golf Course

CORLISS AVE N

15TH AVE NE

LINDEN AVE N

20TH AVE NE

NE 140TH ST

BUR KE G ILMA

NE 135TH ST

N TR L

N 130TH ST

DES

MO

ew

N 127TH ST

RE

AVE

W 127TH ST

Bitter Lake
N 125TH ST
FREMONT AVE N

N

N 128TH ST

1ST AVE NW

SA VE

Haller Lake
N 122ND ST

North Acres Park
NE 125TH ST
8TH AVE NE ROOSEVELT WAY NE

NE 130TH ST

N

NE 125TH ST

INTERURBAN TRL

1ST AVE NE

H ST

25TH AVE NE

35TH AVE NE

NW 117TH ST

N 117TH ST

40TH AVE NE

Lake City

CO R

LIS

NE 123RD ST

37 TH AVE NE

N 130TH ST

27 TH AVE NE

131ST

BURKE

N 117TH ST
TW AY NE

NE 117TH ST

GILMAN

HU

NE 115TH ST

RS

PI

NE 115TH ST
15TH AVE NE
30TH AVE NE

NE

TRL

23RD AVE NE

NW 110TH ST

MERIDIAN AVE N

SAN

N 110TH ST
FREMONT AVE N

D PO

8TH AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

Northgate

NE 110TH ST
Nathan Hale Playfield

E AY N INT W

ALTO

STONE AVE N

NE 107TH ST

N AV

Meadowbrook Playfield
35TH AVE NE

E NE

NE 105TH ST

NE 103RD ST
N 100TH ST

32ND AVE NE

PL

BURK

40TH AVE NE

E GIL

NE 100TH ST

45TH AVE NE

MAN

GREENWOOD AVE N

1ST AVE NW

32ND AVE NE

Licton Springs Park

COLLEGE WAY N

NE 98TH ST

TRL

NE 98TH ST

NE 97TH ST
N

8TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

20TH AVE NE

N 92ND ST
N 90TH ST
MIDVALE AVE N

ROOSE VELT WAY NE

Matthews Beach Park

W

E

1ST AVE NE

N 87TH ST

NE 90TH ST
40TH AVE NE

S

DENSMORE AVE N

SA ND

35TH AVE NE

NW 83RD ST

Greenwood
N 83RD ST
FREMONT AVE N

NE 86TH ST NE 85TH ST
N 82ND ST

NE 85TH ST

Wedgewood

PO IN AY TW NE

1ST AVE NW

N 80TH ST

NE 80TH ST

Roosevelt
NE 80TH ST
15TH AVE NE
31ST AVE NE

GREENWOOD AVE N

ROOSE VELT WAY NE

24TH AVE NE

WIN
N

A ON

E AV

N

W

45TH AVE NE

N 77TH ST

Green Lake
OO DL

Dahl (Waldo J.) Playfield

NE 80TH ST

View Ridge
BU R K E G I L M AN T R L

Sand Point

8TH AVE NE

NE

LINDEN AVE

12 TH AVE

AV E

PAL ATINE AVE N

NE 68TH ST
NE 66TH ST

35TH AVE NE

NE 70TH
WE ED

39TH AVE NE

NW 70TH ST

N 70TH ST

FREMONT AVE N

PHINNEY AVE N

1ST AVE NE

L ATONA AVE NE

ASHWORTH AV E W OO DL

N 59TH ST

AW

8TH AVE NE

T

GREENWOOD AVE N

N 56TH ST N 54TH ST

NE 55TH ST
15TH AVE NE

WOODL AWN

NE 55TH ST
19TH AVE NE 20TH AVE NE

9TH AVE NE ROOSE VELT WAY NE

12TH AVE NE BROOKLYN AVE NE

N 53RD ST
KEY

1

BURKE

GILMAN

TRL

MERIDIAN AVE N

WOODL AWN

PHINNEY AVE N

WA YN

NE 50TH ST

35TH AVE NE

50TH ST

Legend
NE S TO

N 50TH ST

WALLINGFORD AVE N

22ND AVE NE

11TH AVE NE

NE 50TH ST

FREMONT AVE N

LINDEN AVE N

5TH AVE NE

CitywideNNetwork 46TH ST
Existing
Cycle track
N 41ST ST

N 46TH ST
THACKER AY PL NE L ATONA AVE NE

NE 47TH ST

Proposed
1ST AVE NE

N 44TH ST N 43RD ST N 42ND ST

N 43RD ST

University District
NE CL K AR

NE 45TH ST
RD

49TH AVE NE

50TH AVE NE

SA

TH ST

Woodland Woodland Park Park Zoo

Windermere

ND

NE RAVENN

34TH AVE NE

WA YN

A BL VD

Park

PO

TH S

45TH AVE NE

IN

N 57

Ravenna

T

W AY

N

Park

NE 60TH ST

NE

hinney Ridge

N

NE

AV E

62

ND

Cowen

N

ST

27 TH AVE NE

62ND ST

Green L a ke
T ES W

View Ridge Playfield

NE 68TH ST

NE 65TH ST

Ravenna

NE 65TH ST

50TH AVE NE

NE

33RD AVE NE

N

NE 65TH ST
ANN ARBOR

56TH AVE NE

EA ST GR EE NL AK EW Y

AW

NE 75TH ST

NE 65TH ST

Warren G. Magnuson Park

IN PL NE

Bryant

KE EN LA GRE

AVE NE

KIR KW OO DP LN S TO NE PL N

K EN SIN G TO N

BU RK EG ILM AN TR L

W 42ND ST

N 42ND ST

2ND AV NE

4TH AV NE

L ATONA

WALLINGFORD AVE N

SUNNYSIDE AVE N

INTERL AKE AVE N

DENSMORE AVE N

BR

STONE WAY N

PHINNEY AVE N

WOODL AND PARK AVE N

FREMONT AVE N

RS

Cycle track
WOODL AWN

N 36TH ST
FU
E

KE

FAIR

ST

VIE

RS

ST

WA VE

NIC

N 34TH
ON

In street, minor separation
Gas Works Park

UN

FLORENTIA ST

10TH AVE E

3RD AVE W

RAYE ST
E ANN QU EEN
6
N AVE TH

22ND AVE E

24TH

David Rodgers Park

HARVARD AVE E

Neighborhood greenway Shared street

E SHELBY ST E SHELBY ST
E HAMLIN ST

BURKE

Existing

Proposed

NE PA

CI FIC ST

IVE

CANA

NW 39TH ST

N 39TH ST

47 TH AVE NE

GILMAN

Local Connectors

IT Y

L RD NE

TRL

N 40TH ST

45TH AVE NE

Fremont

Neighborhood Wallingford greenway

Laurelhurst

NE 41ST ST

Lake Washington

SMITH ST

BOYLSTON AVE E

BO YE

Montlake
R E
18TH

BIGELOW AVE N

FAIRVIEW AVE E

MCGRAW ST
BOSTON ST
2ND AVE N
4TH AVE N

AV E

Park

E CALHOUN E LYNN ST
19TH

25TH AVE E

HR MA VE NA E

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

EASTL AKE AVE E

FR ANKLIN AVE E

40TH AVE E

43RD AVE E

WE STL AK E N AVE

TE E IN

KE

MCGRAW

NB

37
Madison Park North Beach

RL

A

EEN ANNE AVE N

LVD

23RD

DE X

5TH AVE N

KE TR AIL*

TH AVE E

West Queen

BO YE

26TH AVE E

AVE E

T ER N AVE

RA VE

E

Washington

1ST AVE

NW 80TH ST

FR E M O N T

N 80TH ST

NE 80TH ST

Roosevelt
8TH AVE NE
15TH AVE NE
12 TH AVE NE

NW 77TH ST

NW 77TH ST

N 77TH ST
32ND AVE NW GREENWOOD AVE N

28TH AVE NW

24TH AVE NW

17 TH AVE NW

12TH AVE NW

8TH AVE NW

6TH AVE NW

DL

AW

LINDEN AVE

N

N

AV E

NW 70TH ST

NW 70TH ST
12TH AVE NW

NE

NW 70TH ST

N 70TH ST

NW 64TH ST

NW 65TH ST

PHINNEY AVE N

34TH AVE NW

Map 4-5: W Sector Map

FREMONT AVE N

Ballard
NW 65TH ST

Ballard High School Playground

NW 64TH ST NW 62ND ST

1ST AVE NE

L ATONA AVE NE

32ND AVE NW

BU

17 TH AVE NW

14TH AVE NW

FREMONT AVE N

RE

THACKER AY PL NE

N 44TH ST N 43RD ST N 42ND ST
1ST AVE NE

21ST AVE W

N 43RD ST
BU

32ND AVE W

NW 42ND ST
AN

N 42ND ST

36TH AVE W

2ND AV NE

N 40TH ST
WALLINGFORD AVE N
INTERL AKE AVE N

STONE WAY N

14TH AVE W

16TH AVE W

11TH AVE W

W BERTONA ST
NIC

N 36TH ST
FU

20TH AVE W

29TH AVE W

W DRAVUS ST
Interbay Athletic Field

FAIR

Magnolia
Magnolia

KE

ST

VIE

RS

ST

WA VE

W DRAVUS ST

WOODL AWN

N 34TH
ON

E

UN

RL

IVE

ST

AL T

FREMONT AVE N

W RUFFNER ST

C AN

WOODL AND PARK AVE N

RS

N

SHIP

PHINNEY AVE N

SO

IT Y

CK

DENSMORE AVE N

Park

W

ER

BR

NI

NW 39TH ST

N 39TH ST

SUNNYSIDE AVE N

W EMERSON ST

Lawton

L ATONA

N 41ST ST

4TH AV NE

Fremont

Wallingford

L ATONA AVE NE

WA Y

y

5TH AVE NE

DO

Ba

LINDEN AVE N

Discovery Park

TR

WOODL AWN

L

NW

5

20TH AVE NW

AN

H 4T

11TH AVE NW

ILM

GREENWOOD AVE N

RK

EG

ST

NW MARKET ST

NW 56TH ST

MERIDIAN AVE N

NW 50TH ST

MO

S TO

CO M

NE

W

8TH AVE NW

l

PHINNEY AVE N

6TH AVE NW

Sa

WOODL AWN

NW 50TH ST

N 50TH ST

WALLINGFORD AVE N

12TH AVE NE BROOKLYN AVE NE

DORE WAY

9TH AVE NE ROOSE VELT WAY NE

11TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

W COMMO

Woodland Woodland Park Park Zoo
WA YN

WA YN

N 57

TH S

T

8TH AVE NE

NW 58TH ST

ASHWORTH AV E W OO DL

NW 58TH ST

N 59TH ST

N

AW

Phinney Ridge

Green L a ke
AV E N

NE 70TH
WE ED

PAL ATINE AVE N

ROOSE VELT WAY NE

WIN

ON

VE AA

N

Green Lake
W OO

NE 80

EA ST GR EE NL AK EW Y

IN

NE 65TH ST

PL NE

NE 66TH ST

N

NE

6

T ES W

KE EN LA GRE

Cowen Park

KIR KW OO DP LN KEY S TO NE PL N

NE RAVEN

N 56TH ST N 54TH ST
K EN SIN

NE 55TH

N 53RD ST

G TO N

NE 50TH

m on

N 46TH ST

N 46TH ST

NE 47TH ST

Universit District

35TH AVE W

14TH AVE W

4TH AVE W

23RD AV W

21ST AVE W

11TH AVE W

W RAYE ST

9TH AVE W

3RD AVE W

RAYE ST
QU EEN

E ANN

6
N AVE TH

SMITH ST
GIL

10TH AVE E

Playfield

W ARMOUR ST

David Rodgers Park

HARVARD AVE E

GI LM AN E AV W

RK EG ILM TR L

NE PA

CI FIC ST

HR MA VE NA E

W BARRETT ST

FLORENTIA ST

Interbay Golf

Gas Works Park

E SHELBY ST

BOYLSTON AVE E

W

ELLIOT T BAY TRL

EA VE

BIGELOW AVE N

FAIRVIEW AVE E

EASTL AKE AVE E

29TH AVE W

FR ANKLIN AVE E

C L I S E PL W

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

32ND AVE

OR

Interbay

10TH AVE W

ND YK

KE

E

18TH

W

2ND AVE N

7TH AVE W

4TH AVE N

5TH AVE N

TH

WESTL AKE TR AIL*

W BLAINE ST
8TH AVE W

West Queen Anne Playfield

BLAINE ST

BL VD

W
W MARINA PL

3RD AVE W

WESTL AKE AVE N

Queen Anne

GALER ST

AV E

Lake Union
AV E N W FA I RV
LA

10TH AVE E

N

ELLIOT T BAY TRL

TAYLOR AVE N

BI

VIE

W

W HIGHLAND DR

FEDER AL AVE E

LO W

GE

BL VD

E

16TH AVE E

Park
W E

ELLI OT

TB A
1ST AVE N 2ND AVE N

ROY ST
MERCER ST
5TH AVE N

S

9TH AVE N

W THOMAS ST

T HOMAS ST

MELROSE AVE E

South Lake Union

VA LLEY S T

E REPUBLICAN ST

10TH AVE E

BROADWAY

12TH AVE

BR

CH

7T
H

4T

5T H

E PINE ST E PIKE ST
ST

AV E

AV E

2N
AL AS KA

D

ELL PL

Downtown

PIK

ES

T ION C NE SP A

HUBB

N

W AY

UN

MA

RIO

NS

T

E COLUMBIA ST E CHERRY ST
12TH AVE

RIN

G
VE HA 5T VE HA 4T

Citywide Network
Existing
Cycle track Neighborhood greenway

SPRUCE
YESLER WAY
14TH AVE S

S JACKSON ST

6TH AVE S

Local Connectors
Cycle track In street, minor separation Neighborhood greenway

Elliott
Proposed
TR L
NW AY S

4TH AVE S

S KING ST
5TH AVE S 7 TH AVE S

12TH AVE

Proposed

E YESLER WAY
S

S WELLER ST S DEARBORN ST
LS AP TH S WA VE HIA RA RA

Existing

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

Bay
AL KI TR L
AV E SW

KI

AL

12TH AVE S

15TH AVE S

13TH AVE S

S HOLGATE ST
SW
42ND AVE SW

S HOLGATE BR

UN

Shared street

SW ADMIRAL WAY SW ADMIRAL WAY
45TH AVE SW

FA IR

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

AIRPORT WAY S

TA VE

RR

S HILL ST

FE

MO

59TH AVE SW

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

48TH AVE SW

AL

SW

Playfield
LNUT AVE SW

37 TH AVE SW

W VE S KI A

M AD

IR

A

AY LW

Hiawatha

GINAL WAY S

Industrial District

S FOREST ST

14TH AVE S

38
SW AD MIR

18TH AVE S

Harbor Island

18TH AVE S

Y

S FOREST
AVE S 18TH

Playground

AVE SW

Bar-S

VALENTINE PL

AL A

SK A

19TH AVE

Legend

BROADWAY

SE

E ALDER ST

18TH AVE

AV E

UN

IVE

RS

First Hill

IT Y

E UNION ST

17 TH AVE

H

AV E

BL

AN

14TH AVE

OA D

BE

AR

ST

D

16TH AVE

1S T

E DENNY WY

ST

EW AR

ST

LL

TS

AV E

T

14TH AVE E

18TH AVE E
RL

W ROY ST

12TH AVE E

W OLYMPIC PL

MELROS E CONNEC TOR TR

Kinnear

L

N

IE

KE

GN MA OL IA VD BL W

W MCGRAW ST

BO YE

Montlake
R AV E

WE STL

W MCGRAW ST

MCGRAW ST
BOSTON ST

Park

TE E IN

MA ND RW

AK E N AVE

RL

NB

W CROCKETT ST

LVD

E

A

DE X T ER

N AVE

MAG N
OL

IA

Volunteer Park Capito
Hill

YM OL PIC YW WA
Y
L TR

WE ST ER VE NA

7T VE HA

TE RR VE YA

2N VE DA

INIE

MO UN IN TA ST O SO

UN DT

AV E ON AC BE
S

A

ASHWO

8TH

GREENWOOD AVE N

N 56TH ST N 54TH ST

NE 55TH ST
15TH AVE NE
9TH AVE NE ROOSE VELT WAY NE

WOODL AWN

NE 55TH ST
19TH AVE NE 20TH AVE NE

12TH AVE NE BROOKLYN AVE NE

N 53RD ST
KEY
MERIDIAN AVE N

BURKE

GILMAN

TRL

WOODL AWN

PHINNEY AVE N

WA YN

6TH AVE NW

NE 50TH ST

35TH AVE NE

NW 50TH ST

N 50TH ST

WALLINGFORD AVE N

22ND AVE NE

11TH AVE NE

NE 50TH ST

FREMONT AVE N

NE

S TO

LINDEN AVE N

5TH AVE NE

N 46TH ST

N 46TH ST
THACKER AY PL NE L ATONA AVE NE

NE 47TH ST

N 44TH ST
1ST AVE NE

NW 42ND ST
MA

Map 4-6: E Sector Map
N 43RD ST

N 43RD ST

University District
NE C R LA

NE 45TH ST
KR D

N 42ND ST

2ND AV NE

L ATONA

N 41ST ST

4TH AV NE

WALLINGFORD AVE N

SUNNYSIDE AVE N

L RD NE

TRL

N 40TH ST
INTERL AKE AVE N

45TH AVE NE

Fremont
NW 39TH ST
PHINNEY AVE N

Wallingford
DENSMORE AVE N
STONE WAY N

N 42ND ST

Laurelhurst
RS

NE 41ST ST

BR

FREMONT AVE N

A ST
NIC

N 36TH ST
FU

WOODL AWN

KE

FAIR

ST

VIE

RS

ST

WA VE

N 34TH
ON

E

UN

RL

IVE

AL T

FLORENTIA ST

10TH AVE E

4TH AVE W

3RD AVE W

RAYE ST
QU EEN

22ND AVE E

E ANN

SMITH ST

BOYLSTON AVE E

BO YE
KE

Montlake
R E
18TH

BIGELOW AVE N

FAIRVIEW AVE E

CGRAW ST

MCGRAW ST
BOSTON ST
2ND AVE N

AV E

Park

E CALHOUN E LYNN ST
19TH

EASTL AKE AVE E

MCGRAW

FR ANKLIN AVE E

40TH AVE E

43RD AVE E

NB

KETT ST

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

LVD

25TH AVE E

6
N AVE TH

24TH

David Rodgers Park

HARVARD AVE E

Gas Works Park

E SHELBY ST E SHELBY ST
E HAMLIN ST

BURKE

C AN

WOODL AND PARK AVE N

NE PA

CI FIC ST

CANA

N 39TH ST

4TH AVE N

5TH AVE N

WESTL AKE TR AIL*

BLAINE ST

West Queen Anne Playfield

BLAINE ST

3RD AVE W

MCGILVR A BLVD E

WESTL AKE AVE N

FEDER AL AVE E

TAYLOR AVE N

MELROS LA E CONNEC KE TOR TR VIE L

RV

19TH AVE E

21ST AVE E

Hill
18TH AVE E

12TH AVE E

W OLYMPIC PL
W ROY ST

EM

AD

IS

FA I

ON

ST

1ST AVE N

MERCER ST
2ND AVE N 5TH AVE N

9TH AVE N

E REPUBLICAN ST
MELROSE AVE E
E HARRISON ST
27 TH AVE E

W THOMAS ST

10TH AVE E

29TH AVE E

T HOMAS ST

HIL L SI D

E

ROY ST

South Lake Union

VA LLEY S T

14TH AVE E

16TH AVE E

28TH AVE E

39TH AVE E

BI

AV E

W

N

HIGHLAND DR

26TH AVE E

Volunteer Park Capitol

E GALER ST

37 TH AVE E

Queen Anne

GALER ST

IE

W

41ST AVE E

AV E

Lake Union

10TH AVE E

BO YE

26TH AVE E

RA VE

E

Washington Park Arboretum

21ST

N

LO W

GE

BL VD

E

47 TH AVE NE

GILMAN

IT Y

Madison Park North Beach

Madison Park

49TH AVE NE

50TH AVE NE

SA

NW 56TH ST

Woodland Woodland Park Park Zoo

34TH AVE

A BL VD

45TH AVE

Windermere

ND

WA YN

Park

L

P

TH S

WO OD PL N K EN SIN G TO S TO NE N PL N

T

NE RAVENN

BU RK EG ILM AN TR L

BROADWAY

12TH AVE

14TH AVE

16TH AVE

ST

EW AR

ST

TS

T

BR

CH

7T
H

19TH AVE

OA D

BE

LL

ST

D

AR

4T

5T H

E PINE ST E PIKE ST
ST

17 TH AVE

AN

BL

18TH AVE

22ND AVE

27 TH AVE

Downtown

PIK

T ES UN ION CA RIN G

HUBB

KA

N

W AY

29TH AVE

33RD AVE

AS

ELL PL

AL

UN

MA

RIO

NS

T

E COLUMBIA ST E CHERRY ST
BROADWAY
12TH AVE

Central Area
Garfield Playfield
E ALDER ST

M L KING JR WAY

S

E EN

31ST AVE

SP

E ALDER ST SPRUCE
19TH AVE

Powell Barnett Park

YESLER WAY
14TH AVE S

E YESLER WAY
22ND AV
S
20TH AVE S

12TH AVE

Leschi
LAKE W ASHING TO N BLVD S L AKESIDE AVE S

S JACKSON ST
4TH AVE S

S JACKSON ST
M L KING JR WAY S
26TH AVE S

S KING ST
5TH AVE S 7 TH AVE S

Frink
30TH AVE S

Park

ott
NW AY S

S WELLER ST S DEARBORN ST
LS AP TH S WA VE HIA RA RA
Judkins Park and Playfield

Park

S CHARLES ST

6TH AVE S

YAKIMA AVE S

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

y
Legend

12TH AVE S

1
VALENTINE PL

31ST AVE S

15TH AVE S

SK A

AL A

S MASSACHUSETTS ST S GRAND ST

13TH AVE S

AIRPORT WAY S

Citywide Network
Existing

S HOLGATE ST

S HOLGATE BR

18TH AVE S

Proposed

S HILL ST
S WALKER ST

Amy Yee Tennis Center

Mount Baker
31ST AVE S

21ST AVE S

L AKE PARK DR S

14TH AVE S

23RD AVE S

Neighborhood greenway
EAST MARGINAL WAY S

18TH AVE S

Harbor Island

Cycle track

Industrial
S FOREST ST

Existing

Proposed
L AFAYE T TE AVE S

25TH AVE S

District Local Connectors
Cycle track
SW SP OKANE ST
SW SPOKANE ST

S FOREST ST
AVE S 18TH

L AKE WASH

24TH AVE S

AIRPORT WAY S

15TH AVE S

COURTL AND

Neighborhood greenway
21ST AVE SW

24TH PL S

14TH AVE S

10TH AVE S

YB

LVD

0
ML KIN G JR

0.5

43RD AVE S

Shared street
DUWAM

6TH AVE S

13TH AVE S

37 TH AVE S

Jefferson Park Jefferson Golf Park Course
S SNOQUALMIE ST

34TH AVE S

In street, S SPOKANE ST minor separation

S SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

ALD SW

EN

ST

S HORTON ST

38TH AVE S

HUNTER BLVD S

INGTON BLV

D

S

CH E

AST

EAST DUWAMISH TR AIL

42ND

35TH AVE S

Puget Park

Maplewood Playfield

S CO
CH
S

N BI A LUM

Y WA

S ALASKA ST

IEF

Columbia

50TH AVE S

Pigeon Point Park

S ALASKA ST

CO

V NO

ER

4 6TH AVE S

GIL NT RL

HR MA VE NA E

WE STL AK E N AVE
DE X T ER N AVE

1S T

E DENNY WY

TE E IN

RL

A

23RD AVE E

LAKE WAS HIN
G TO

NB

D LV
E

N

AV E

E DENNY WY

W

E

H

AV E

S

E PINE ST

MA DR

AV E

AV E

2N

D

AV E

IVE

RS

First Hill

IT Y

E UNION ST

E UNION ST

Lake Washington

ON AD R

WE ST ER VE NA

7T VE HA VE HA 5T VE HA

TE RR

4T

VE YA

2N VE DA

ES

INIE

MO UN IN TA ST O SO

UN DT RL

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

AV E ON AC BE
S

RA INIE VE RA S

L AK E HI WAS N G TO N BLV DS

Genesee Park and Playfield

1
S GENESEE ST

Miles 2

LE TITIA AVE S

ISH RIVE R TRL

39

YS WA

S

S ANGELINE ST

SEWA

Downtown

UN

ION C NE SP A

MA

RIO

E COLUMBIA ST E CHERRY ST
12TH AVE

RIN

G
5T 4T VE HA VE HA

BROADWAY

SPRUCE
YESLER WAY
14TH AVE S

E YESLER WAY

S JACKSON ST

Elliott
NW AY S

4TH AVE S

5TH AVE S

7 TH AVE S

Map 4-7: SW Sector Map

S KING ST
S WELLER ST S DEARBORN ST
LS AP TH S WA VE HIA RA RA

6TH AVE S

12TH AVE

S

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

Bay
AL KI TR L
AV E SW

TR

L

KI

AL

12TH AVE S

15TH AVE S

13TH AVE S

S HOLGATE ST
SW
42ND AVE SW

S HOLGATE BR
AIRPORT WAY S

TA VE

RR

SW ADMIRAL WAY SW ADMIRAL WAY
45TH AVE SW

FA IR

MO

UN

S HILL ST

FE

59TH AVE SW

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

48TH AVE SW

AL

SW

Playfield
WALNUT AVE SW

37 TH AVE SW

W VE S KI A

M AD

IR

A

AY LW

Hiawatha

EAST MARGINAL WAY S

Industrial District

S FOREST ST

14TH AVE S

18TH AVE S

Harbor Island
SW AD

18TH AVE S
AVE S 18TH

Y

S FORES

Playground

63RD AVE SW

Bar-S

SW HINDS ST

SW CHARLESTOWN ST

West Seattle
SW ANDOVER ST
45TH AVE SW

SW SP

OKANE

ST

SW SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

L AFAYE T TE AVE S

Schmitz Park
55TH AVE SW

SW HINDS ST

S SPOKAN

AIRPORT WAY S

15TH AVE S

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

42ND AVE SW

48TH AVE SW

SW ALASKA ST
SW OB JAC

DELRIDGE WAY SW

SW HUDSON

15TH AVE S

EW AY SW

West Seattle Golf Course

6TH AVE S

10TH AVE S

W AY

37TH AVE SW

26TH AVE SW

Pigeon Point Park

EAST DUWAMISH TR AIL

FA UN

13TH AVE S

Mee Kwa Mooks Park

SW GENESEE ST

SW NEVADA ST

SW

SW

Jefferson Park
S SNOQUALMIE ST

21ST AVE SW

NW AY

AV ALO

TL

ER

OY

S ALASKA ST
Maplewood Playfield

Puget Park
SW DAWSON ST
21ST AVE SW

14TH AVE S

CH

IEF

SE

35TH AVE SW

FAUNTLEROY WAY SW

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

ER S

KIN

42ND AVE SW

Camp Long
30TH AVE SW

S DAWSON ST

Puget
48TH AVE SW

SW BRANDON ST

12TH AVE S

AL TH

S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
Georgetown Playfield

SW JUNEAU ST

39TH AVE SW

Sound
SW BEACH DR

26TH AVE SW

6TH AVE S

Morgan Junction

16TH AVE SW

Bea H
SA LB RO PL
IF T SW

SW GRAHAM ST

SW GRAHAM ST

S BAILEY ST

21ST AVE SW

SW MORGAN ST

37 TH AVE SW

SW HOLLY ST

CORS

SW HOLLY ST
3 1S T AV E S W

Delridge
12TH AVE SW

S RIVER

ON AV

ES

Georgetown
VE S 1 ST A

ERO Y WA Y SW

ELLIS

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

1ST AV S

Riverview Playfield
HIGHLA ND P

BR NB

AVE S

34TH AVE SW

FAU NTL

N

36TH AVE SW

SW MYRTLE ST

AY SW KW AR

W

E

28TH AVE SW

Solstice Park

EA

ST

M

AR

GI

NA

LW AY

S

SW HOLDEN ST

SW HOLDEN ST

SW HOLDEN ST

S

8TH AVE S

9TH AVE SW

FAUNTLEROY WAY SW

26TH AVE SW

35TH AVE SW

24TH AVE SW

Highland Park Playground

34TH AVE SW

36TH AVE SW

Citywide Network
Existing
Cycle track Neighborhood greenway

Proposed
Fauntleroy Park
4 4T VE HA

18TH AVE SW

16TH AVE SW

10TH AVE SW

SW BARTON ST
25TH AVE SW
Roxhill Playground

SW

BA

RT

ON

PL

SW HENDERSON ST

8TH AVE SW

SO

N

PL

Westcrest Park
OL

1ST AVE S

SW TRENTON ST

S HENDERSON ST

SW

SW ROXBURY ST

SW ROXBURY ST

Local Connectors
Cycle track In street, minor separation Neighborhood greenway Shared street

SW 98TH ST
37TH AVE SW

Existing

Proposed

SW 104TH ST

SW 106TH ST
35TH AVE SW

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

40
0.5 1 Miles 2

14TH AVE S

Legend

SW CLOVERDALE ST

S CLOVERDALE ST

16TH

SW THISTLE ST

1

SW THISTLE ST

South Park

AVE S

BR

SW ELMGROVE ST

27 TH AVE SW

Lincoln Park

37 TH AVE SW

18TH AVE SW

16TH AVE SW

10TH AVE SW

16TH AVE S

WEST MARGINAL WAY S

VALENTINE PL

AL A

SK A

19TH AVE

WE ST ER VE NA

SE

7T VE HA

TE RR VE YA

2N VE DA

E ALDER ST

INIE

MO UN IN TA ST O SO

UN DT RL

AV E ON AC BE
S

MIR AL Y WA

CH BE A DR SW

J

DUWAM ISH RIVE R TRL

SEN RD

CH BE A DR

AIRPOR

T

SW

T WAY S

CR O FT P L SW

E 31ST AV SW

HIGH PO INT DR SW

DUWAMIS H RIVER TRL

AV

DELRIDGE WAY SW

25TH AVE SW

AIR PO

AN LV SY

RT

S AY W

Y SW WA

47TH AVE SW

H AMIS DUW

AY SW AR W DUM

RIVE
L R TR
MYER YS S WA

SW

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

14TH AVE S

22ND AV

S

20TH AVE S

12TH AVE

Leschi
LAKE W ASHING TO N BLVD S

S JACKSON ST
4TH AVE S

S JACKSON ST
M L KING JR WAY S
26TH AVE S

S KING ST
5TH AVE S 7 TH AVE S

Frink
30TH AVE S

Park

ES

S WELLER ST S DEARBORN ST
LS AP TH S WA VE HIA RA INIE RA
Judkins Park and Playfield

Park

YAKIMA AVE S

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

NW AY S

12TH AVE S

15TH AVE S

VALENTINE PL

Map 4-8: SE Sector Map
SK A AL A

31ST AVE S

L AKESIDE AVE S

S CHARLES ST

6TH AVE S

MO UN IN TA ST O SO

UN DT RL
MOUNTAINS TO SOUND TRL

S MASSACHUSETTS ST S GRAND ST

13TH AVE S

S HOLGATE ST

S HOLGATE BR
AIRPORT WAY S

18TH AVE S

S HILL ST
S WALKER ST

Amy Yee Tennis Center

Mount Baker
31ST AVE S

21ST AVE S

AV E ON AC BE
S

RA

18TH AVE S

L AKE PARK DR S

14TH AVE S

23RD AVE S

Harbor Island
EAST MARGINAL WAY S

INIE VE RA

25TH AVE S

Industrial District

S FOREST ST

S FOREST ST
AVE S 18TH

Lake Washington

L AK E

S

HI WAS N G TO N BLV DS

L AFAYE T TE AVE S

24TH AVE S

10TH AVE S

6TH AVE S

13TH AVE S

37 TH AVE S

Jefferson Park Jefferson Golf Park Course
S SNOQUALMIE ST

AIRPORT WAY S

15TH AVE S

34TH AVE S

SW SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

S SPOKANE ST

ALD SW

EN

ST

S HORTON ST

COURTL AND

38TH AVE S

HUNTER BLVD S

YB

AST

CH E

43RD AVE S

14TH AVE S

LVD

Genesee Park and Playfield

24TH PL S

S

LE TITIA AVE

EAST DUWAMISH TR AIL

42ND

35TH AVE S

t

Maplewood Playfield

S CO
CH
15TH AVE S

N BI A LUM

Y WA

S ALASKA ST

IEF

SE

12TH AVE S

AL TH

TR

S DAWSON ST

S DAWSON ST

42ND AVE S

L

S FERDINAND ST
AVE S ON NT RE

Columbia City
S DAWSON ST
4 6TH AVE S

50TH AVE S

S ALASKA ST

CO

V NO

ER

4 6TH AVE S

S ORCAS ST
Georgetown Playfield

Beacon Hill
SA LB RO PL
IF T SW

S ORCAS ST

Hillman City
Brighton Playfield
39TH AVE S

S ORCAS ST
S JUNEAU ST

51ST AVE S

6TH AVE S

CORS

dge
12TH AVE SW

S RIVER

BR NB

AVE S

S HOLLY ST

52ND AVE S

S MORGAN ST
CH

42ND AVE S

ES

Georgetown
VE S 1 ST A
ON AV

ELLIS

1ST AV S

Riverview Playfield
HIGHLA ND P

S HOLLY ST

SW MYRTLE ST

AY SW KW AR

S

S MYRTLE ST

EA

SM

ST

YR

M

T LE

AR

PL

GI

Othello
M L KING JR WAY S

S MYRTLE ST
N

NA

LW AY

S OTHELLO ST
W E

16TH AVE S

WEST MARGINAL WAY S
10TH AVE SW

4 6TH AVE S

SW HOLDEN ST

S
39TH AVE S

WILSON AVE S SE W AR D PA RK AV ES

8TH AVE S

9TH AVE SW

BR

AVE S

16TH

SW THISTLE ST
Highland Park Playground

1ST AVE S

4 6TH AVE S

SW TRENTON ST

14TH AVE S

SW HENDERSON ST

10TH AVE SW

SW

PL

39TH AVE S

8TH AVE SW

OL

CARK

EEK D

SO

N

RS

SW ROXBURY ST

55TH AVE S

51ST AVE S

65TH AVE S

Shared street

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

41

56TH AVE S

DUWAM ISH RIVE R TRL

ML KIN G JR YS WA

S

S GENESEE ST

S ANGELINE ST

SEWARD PARK

AIRPOR T WAY S

IN AS H EW LAK

TRL

S LUCILE ST

Seward Park

VD S N BL GTO

BEACON AVE S

S BAILEY ST

Seward Park

MLK ING AY S JR W

SW CLOVERDALE ST

Westcrest Park

DUWAMIS H RIVER TRL

E AV

S
IEF SE A

Martha Washington Park

AIR PO RT S AY W
B EA

LTH TRL

N CO

E AV

Legend

Citywide Network
Existing
Cycle track Neighborhood greenway

Local Connectors
Cycle track In street, minor separation Neighborhood greenway

H AMIS DUW

RIVE
L R TR
S CLOVERDALE ST

43RD AV

S

ARY MILIT RD S

ES

S KENYON ST
CH IEF

S KENYON ST
SEWARD PARK

South Park

Pritchard Island Beach

BEACON AVE S

SE A LTH
RENTO

AIRPO AY S RT W

TR L

AVE S

N AV ES

Rainier Beach Playfield

S HENDERSON ST

Rainier Beach
S HENDERSON ST

1
MYER YS S WA
AIRP

Beer Sheva Park

RAINIER AVE S
E AT W

M L KING JR WAY S
CH

RS E AV

S ROXBURY ST
IEF

S

Proposed

ORT S WAY

SE A LTH TRL

RA IN

Kubota

I ER E AV

Gardens
RE NT O N E AV S

S
Lakeridge Playground

Existing

Proposed

S CRESTON ST

Lakeridge

S ANGOR ST

Park

S LEO ST

Building for Riders of All Ages and Abilities Bicycling needs to be a safe, pleasant, and convenient transportation option for the broadest array of people. Map 4-9 below shows the proposed network of bicycle facilities appropriate for riders of all ages and abilities, consisting of 425 miles of multi-use trails, cycle tracks, and neighborhood greenways. Map 4-9: Proposed All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Network

d

5 § ¨ ¦

S

o

u

n

Green L a ke

L a ke Union

N

W

E

S

E l l i o tt Bay

t

5 § ¨ ¦

All Ages and Abilities Facilities

P

u

g

e

Miles 0 1 2 3 4

42

k e L a

W a s h i n g t o
90 § ¨ ¦

n

W EM E RS ON S T

SW 100TH S T

NW 80TH S T

NW 96T H S T

35TH AVE S W
35TH AVE S W

15TH AVE W

NW 85TH S T

Map 4-10: Regional Connections and Transit Hubs

BOS TON ST

N 130TH ST

DE NNY WAY M O NO RA IL

1S T AV E S EAS T MARG INAL WAY S

Green L a ke

N 115TH ST

ME RC ER ST

1S T AV E S 1S T AV E S

N 120TH ST

4T H AVE S

N 50T H S T

4T H AVE S
I5 NB
EAS TL AKE AV E E
I5 S B

8TH AVE S

AI RPO RT WAY S
BROAD WAY
12TH AVE
BO
I90

M L KIN G JR WAY S
AK E B LV DN E

NE 95TH ST

90 § ¦ ¨

NE 55T H ST

NE 65T H ST

31S T AV E S
EM AD

38TH AVE S
IS O N ST

NE 75T H ST

NE 70T H ST

Connecting to the Region Connections to neighboring jurisdictions and other regional destinations will support the goal of increased bicycle ridership by providing for seamless regional bicycle travel.

RA IE IN

VE

S

S BAN GO R ST

RA

TO

51S T AV E S
50TH AVE S

k e L a

EB

15TH AVE S
PR ES SR

I90 WB

E C HE RRY S T

20TH AVE S
VE E

NE 125TH S T

NE 145TH S T

S O RC AS S T

23R D AV E S
NTL

W a s h i n g t o

AV

E

I90

E YE SL E R WAY

RA

RA INIE

VE

S

BEAC ON

5 § ¦ ¨

RAINI

ER AV

AVE S

ES

S GE N ES E E ST

I ER RAIN

AVE

S

WE

L a ke Union

ST

BEAC ON

RG MA

INA

AVE S

LW

S M AIN S T

10TH AVE E

5TH AVE NE
8TH AVE NE

5 § ¦ ¨

S AY

NE 45TH ST

NE 41S T S T

M L KIN G JR WAY S

N RE

N

AV

E

S

43
W ES TE

SW H OL DE N S T

NW 65TH S T

16TH AVE S W
SK

E l l i o tt Bay

1S T AV E N
1S T AV E NW

RN

SW R OXB URY S T

9TH AVE S W
DE XT E R AV E N
AUR ORA BR

23R D AV E

W

SW T HIS T LE S T

DE LRI DGE WAY SW
LM AN

6TH AVE W

5TH AVE W
RD NW

b Æ

WES TLAK E AVE N

15TH AVE NE

MO

n

AV

EW

SW TRE NTON ST

EL

LI

OT

TA

VE

AL K

I TR

CAL IF ORN IA AV E S W
N

BALL ARD BR

MA

CAL IF ORN IA AV E S W

3R D AV E NW
PHIN NE Y AV E N

GIL

L

Miles 4
MAGNO L IA BLVD W
K AL

P
C BEA HD RS W
V IA E

0
W S N

b Æ

1

Multimodal Hub

Citywide Network

Local Connectors

Regional Bicycle Network

2

3

S
E

u
34TH AVE W
32N D AVE NW
28TH AVE W

g
u
n d
SW

e
49TH AVE S W
28TH AVE NW

t

o

b Æ
24T H AVE NW

FAUN TL

E ROY WA Y SW

15TH AVE NW
HO

8T H AVE NW

AL A AN WA Y

3R D AV E NW
GRE EN WOO D AVE N DAYTO N AVE N

AUR ORA AVE N

AUR ORA AVE N

b Æ
EX

ME RID IAN AVE N

1S T AV E NE

1S T AV E NE

ROO S E VE LT WAY NE
YE

P

15TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

RA

35TH AVE NE

30TH AVE NE LAKE CI TY WAY NE

BE

AC

ON

AV E

S

55TH AVE NE

Bicycle Facility Design
The following Visual Glossary and Intersection Treatment Selection sections provide brief descriptions and clear graphics to illustrate the “what” and “why” of the facilities recommended in the Plan. This section covers a range of facilities and intersection treatments. A more comprehensive glossary of bicycle facilities including end-of-trip facilities is presented in Appendix 3. This glossary is not intended to represent detailed design standards. SDOT will develop more detailed design standards for these facilities as part of updates to the Right-of-Way Improvements Manual, where they can readily be updated over time with current best practices and new design innovations. The glossary illustrates what the terms in the network map mean to help community members better understand these facilities, why they are important, and what they might mean for the future. Intersection Treatment Selection The incorporation of bicycle-appropriate intersection design is important to create a connected network, as well as to provide predictability for all modes. Better intersection design increases the awareness and visibility of people riding bikes, helps bicyclists make safer intersection crossings, and encourages all modes to make more predictable approaches to and through an intersection. SDOT will use the Intersection Treatment Selection Table, sampled in Figure 4-1 and included in Appendix 3, to determine suitable intersection design based on the bicycle facility and the surrounding context. Intersection treatments are categorized based on the type of street being crossed (arterial or non-arterial). Separate treatments are identified for the bicycle facility itself as well as the cross street. The menu of intersection treatments helps to provide more consistent design practices throughout the city and will be based on context and engineering judgment decisions. Intersection treatments will continue to evolve and SDOT will keep up with best practices to improve intersection safety for all modes.

Figure 4-1: Sample Section of the Intersection Treatment Selection Table
Roadway Type: Auto Volumes: Bicycle Facility Types Collector Arterial
<15,000 ADT

Cross Street Type:
Cross-Street Approach

(in street, minor separation) Conventional Bike Lane Bu ered Bike Lane Non-arterial Arterial Crossings Crossings Two-Stage Turn Box • Two-Stage Turn Box

Intersection Treatment

Intersection Crossing Markings

• Intersection Crossing Markings • Median Refuge Island • Active Warning Beacons • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon • Half Signal • Bicycle Signal • Full Signal • Bike Box • Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane • Two-Stage Turn Box • Through Bike Lanes • Signal Detection • Advance Stop Bar • O set Street Connection

44

The following strategies will help Seattle achieve its ridership and safety goals. Strategy: Design all bicycle facilities to meet or exceed the latest federal, state and local guidelines so the system provides universal access for all bicyclists. Actions: • Supplement recommendations from the Bicycle Facilities Visual Glossary with engineering studies, where necessary, and guidance from other nationally recognized guides including the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and ITE publications. • Provide ongoing education opportunities to planning and engineering staff on new and innovative bicycle facility design. • Request “experimental status” from appropriate government entities for bicycle facility designs that may not yet be recognized as an acceptable design to allow SDOT to use innovative designs and study the effects of the design. • Follow state law by providing bicycle detection at all signalized intersections. • Experiment with innovative detection technology. Strategy: Improve bicycle safety and access at railroad and rail transit crossings. Actions: • Assess all railroad and rail transit crossings that intersect bicycle facilities and install appropriate bicycle supportive infrastructure to facilitate crossing at 90 degrees to the maximum extent feasible.

“The very worst thing is when you are in a bike lane that all of a sudden ends... Connectivity is important.”
45

Bicycle Facilities Visual Glossary
Neighborhood Greenways
Neighborhood Greenways use signs, pavement markings, and traffic calming measures to create safe, convenient bicycle facilities.

Traffic calming measures can reduce or discourage through traffic on designated Neighborhood Greenways by managing access to the route by motor vehicles. Common techniques include partial closures, median refuge islands, and signal restrictions. . .

Cycle Tracks
Neighborhood Greenway Neighborhood Greenways are streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle and pedestrian travel priority. Neighborhood Greenways use signs, pavement markings, and traffic calming measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian crossings of busy arterial streets. Of all on-street bicycle facilities, cycle tracks offer the most protection and separation from adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Cycle tracks may be One-Way or Two-Way, and may be at Street Level, or Raised to the sidewalk or an intermediate level.

Traffic Calming Traffic calming is critical to creating safe and effective neighborhood greenways. Traffic Calming measures for Neighborhood Greenways bring motor vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists. Reducing speeds along the neighborhood greenway improves the bicycling and walking environment by reducing overtaking events, enhancing drivers’ ability to see and react, and diminishing the severity of crashes if they occur. Common traffic calming techniques include speed humps, neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, stop signs and pinch points. 46

One-Way Cycle Track One-way cycle tracks are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. In situations where on-street parking is allowed, cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking (in contrast to bicycle lanes).

Raised Cycle Track Raised cycle tracks are elevated above the street, to sidewalk level or an intermediate height. If at sidewalk level, a raised or mountable curb separates the cycle track from the roadway, while different pavement color/texture separates the cycle track from the sidewalk. A raised cycle track may be designed for One-Way or Two-Way travel by bicyclists.

Two-Way Cycle Track A Two-way cycle track is an on-street bicycle facility that allows bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the street. A two-way cycle track may be configured as a Street Level Cycle Track with a parking lane or other barrier or as a Raised Cycle Track to provide vertical separation from the adjacent motor vehicle lane.

Street-Level Cycle Track Street level cycle tracks are configured at the same level as general travel lanes. They must be protected from traffic with a physical barrier, such as bollards, planters, raised medians, or on-street parking. A street-level cycle track may be designed for One-Way or Two-Way travel by bicyclists.

Cycle Tracks on Hills Bicycle travel uphill is often at slow speed and may result in a wide weaving path. Downhill bicycling may be high-speed, potentially equal to that of motor vehicles. Cycle tracks on hills should be designed to accommodate the physical requirements and behavior for both uphill and downhill bicycle travel. One-Way Cycle Tracks are more appropriate than Two-Way Cycle Tracks under these conditions. In the uphill direction, adequate lateral clearance should be provided to allow for both slow weaving and parallel passing, similar to an Uphill Bicycle Passing Lane. In the downhill direction, the design should permit bicyclist to leave the cycle track and descend in the adjacent general purpose travel lane, similar to the concept of the Uphill Bicycle Climbing Lane. Bicyclists should travel in a safe manner and with reasonable downhill speeds. 47

If bicyclists are expected to descend within the cycle track, adequate width should be provided clear of obstacles to reduce the likelihood of high-speed collisions with fixed objects.

Off-Street Bicycle Facilities
Off-street facilities include bicycle facilities that are distanced from the roadway, or that exist in an independent corridor not adjacent to any road.

Underpass Underpasses provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by barriers such as railroads and highway corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) lens should be followed when designing the underpass.

Multi-Use Trail A multi-use trail allows for two-way, off-street bicycle use and may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are frequently found in parks, along rivers, beaches, and in greenbelts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts with motorized vehicles.

Shared Street
On shared streets, bicyclists and motor vehicles use the same roadway space. To provide comfort for bicyclists, shared streets employ basic treatments such as signage and shared lane markings to help improve conditions for bicyclists.

Overpass Overpasses provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by barriers such as deep ravines, waterways or major streets or freeways. A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) lens should be followed when designing the overpass.

Advisory Bicycle Lane Advisory bicycle lanes are bicycle priority areas delineated by dotted white lines and marked with Shared Lane Markings. The automobile lanes are not marked with a centerline and should be configured narrowly enough so that cars and bicyclists must negotiate the roadway space when passing is required. Motorists may enter the bicycle zone to overtake other vehicles only when no bicycles are present.

48

In Street, Minor Separation
In street, minor separation facility types are appropriate when the prevailing motor vehicle travel speeds and volumes are too high for safe and comfortable operation within a shared lane, and when application of Traffic Calming techniques are not available or appropriate.

BAT Lanes “Business Access and Transit” lanes are reserved for exclusive use by buses and bicyclists. They may also be used for general-purpose traffic right-turn movements onto cross streets and for access to adjacent properties. BAT lanes should have appropriate signage acknowledging that bicyclists are permitted. Bicycle Lane Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists with pavement markings and signage. The bicycle lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and bicyclists ride in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle lanes are typically on the right side of the street (on a two-way street), between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.

Shared Lane Marking Shared Lane Markings (SLMs), are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. SLMs reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street and recommend proper bicyclist positioning. The shared lane marking is not a facility type; it is a pavement marking with a variety of uses to support a complete bicycle facility network.

Buffered Bicycle Lane Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.

49 49

Colored Treatment Colored treatment within a bicycle lane increases the visibility of the bicycle facility. Colored pavement may be applied in areas with pressure for illegal parking, frequent encroachment of motor vehicles, to clarify conflict areas, and along enhanced facilities such as Contra-Flow Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks.

Left-Side Bicycle Lane Left-side bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes placed on the left side of one-way streets or two-way median divided streets. Left-side bicycle lanes offer advantages on streets with heavy delivery or transit use, frequent parking turnover on the right side or other potential conflicts that could be associated with right-side bicycle lanes.

Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane Contra-flow bike lanes provide bidirectional bicycle access on a roadway that is one-way for motor vehicle traffic. This treatment can provide direct access and connectivity for bicyclists and reduce travel distances.

Uphill Climbing Lane Uphill climbing lanes enable motorists to safely pass slower-speed bicyclists, improving conditions for both travel modes. Uphill travel, where bicyclists are slow and likely to weave widely, are provided a dedicated, separated space. Downhill travel, where speeds are similar to that of motor vehicles, bicyclists are expected to travel in the general purpose travel lane, marked with Shared Lane Markings.

50

Uphill Bicycle Passing Lane An uphill bicycle passing lane configures a second bicycle lane adjacent to the first to provide ample space for passing on steep hills.

Intersection Treatments
Intersection treatments are designed to increase comfort and safety or decrease delay for bicyclists. Some treatments are designed to help neighborhood greenways cross busy streets, other treatments are designed to reduce conflicts for cycle tracks or bicycle lanes at major intersections.

Bicycle Detection and Actuation Bicycle detection is used at actuated signals to alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing demand on a particular approach. Bicycle detection occurs either through the use of push-buttons or by automated means (e.g., in-pavement loops, video, microwave, etc.) Inductive loop detectors are identified with a pavement marking to inform bicyclists of proper positioning to trigger the detector.

Active Warning Beacon Active warning beacons are user-actuated amber flashing lights that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks. Beacons can be actuated either manually by a pushbutton or passively through detection. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs), a type of active warning beacon, use an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. Active warning beacons should be used to enhance driver yielding for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Bicycle Signal A bicycle signal is a bicycle-specific traffic signal and is used to improve operations for bicyclists using the intersection. Bicycle signal heads may be used to indicate an exclusive bicycle phase, separate bicycle movements from conflicting automobile turn movements, or to provide a Leading Bicycle Interval.

51 51

Bicycle Center Turn Lane Bicycle center turn lanes allow bicyclists to cross an intersection that is offset to the right, or when making a left turn from a Bicycle Lane. Bicyclists cross one direction of traffic and wait in a separated center lane for a gap in the other direction.

Combined Bicycle Lane/Turn Lane A combined bicycle lane/turn lane places dotted bicycle lane lines or Shared Lane Markings within the inside portion of a turn-only lane to guide bicyclists to the intersection. This configuration helps reduce conditions that lead to “right-hook” collisions. When configured on a cycle track, the combined lane is commonly called a Cycle Track Mixing Zone, and is intended to minimize conflicts with turning vehicles at intersections as an alternative to an exclusive bicycle signal phase.

Bicycle Forward Stop Bar A bicycle forward stop bar is a second stop bar placed beyond the crosswalk, closer to the center line of the cross street. After stopping at the first stop bar, bicyclists may advance to this forward stop bar while waiting at an intersection. This increases the visibility of bicyclists waiting to cross the street and is often paired with Curb Bulbs.

Curb Bulbs Curb bulbs (also called curb extensions) are areas of the sidewalk extended into the roadway, most commonly where a parking lane is located. Curb bulbs help position bicyclists closer to the cross street centerline to improve visibility and encourage motorists to yield at crossings. They also reduce pedestrian crossing distances. This treatment may be combined with a Bicycle Forward Stop Bar.

52

Cycle Track Mixing Zone A cycle track mixing zone is a shared lane for use by bicyclists and turning automobiles. The facility is intended to minimize conflicts with turning vehicles by requiring users to negotiate use of the lane in advance of the intersection. The narrow lane discourages sideby-side operation of bicycles and automobiles, reducing potential “right hook” conditions. When configured on a bicycle lane facility, this is called a Combined Bicycle Lane/Turn Lane.

“Green Wave” Signal Timing Green wave is a signal timing progression scheme coordinated over a series of traffic signals to allow for continuously flowing bicycle traffic over a long distance. Users traveling at the green wave design speed will encounter a cascade of green lights and not have to stop at intersections.

Green Bike Box A green bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must wait behind the white stop bar line at the rear of the bike box, and right turn on red is not permitted.

Half Signal (Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals) Half signals are traffic control signals configured to control traffic along only one street at an intersection. These are most commonly used to stop traffic along a major street to permit crossing by pedestrians or bicyclists.

53

Crossbike Intersection Markings Intersection markings indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists on a direct path through the intersection and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane. Colored Treatment may be used for added visibility of the facility.

Median Diverter Refuge Island Median diverter refuge islands are protected spaces placed in the center of the street to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. Crossings of two-way streets are simplified by allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate only one direction of traffic at a time. This also functions as a Traffic Calming technique as part of a Neighborhood Greenway.

Leading Bicycle and Pedestrian Interval A leading bicycle interval is a condition where a Bicycle Signal is used to display a green signal for bicyclists prior to displaying a green signal for adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Early display on a bicycle signal and pedestrian signal gives bicyclists and pedestrians a head start and may increase the percentage of drivers who yield to bicyclists and pedestrians. All-way pedestrian and bicycle signal phase is another intersection treatment that allows bicyclists and pedestrians to cross in any direction within their own signal phase. Commonly called an all-way walk, but with bikes added to the mix.

No Turn On Red No Turn on Red restrictions prevent turns during the red signal indication to reduce motor vehicle conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians. Commonly, this restriction is established at all bike box installations, and where bicycle signals are used to separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic.

54

Offset Street Connection Offset intersections can be challenging for bicyclists to navigate, particularly on major streets. Specific configurations vary based on the direction of the offset, the presence of signalization and the amount of adjacent traffic. Common configurations include Bike Lane Offset Street Connection, Cycle Track Offset Street Connection, Bicycle Center Turn Lane and Two-Stage Turn Boxes.

Through Bicycle Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes At right-turn only lanes the bicycle lane should transition bicyclists to the left of the right-turn only lane. Dotted bicycle lane lines or shared lane markings direct bicyclists through the merging area into the bicycle lane at the intersection. If there is inadequate space for a dedicated through bike lane, a Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane may serve the same purpose.

Protected Bicycle Signal phase Providing an protected bicycle signal phase is one way to reduce conflict between right turning vehicles and people on bicycles. Separate traffic signals control the conflicting maneuvers, increasing predictability for all users through the intersection.

Two-Stage Turn Box Two-stage turn queue boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right or left side cycle track or bicycle lane by separating the turn movement into two stages. Signage will accompany the installation to help educate bicyclists and motorists of the new intersection treatment. Turn boxes may also be used at Offset Street Connections that jog to the right to orient bicyclists directly across the offset street.

55

Enhanced Trail Crossings See Active Warning Beacons and Half Signals (Pedestrian and Bicycle Signal) for techniques to increase yielding of drivers to trail users.

Raised Crosswalk Raised crosswalks are crossings elevated to the same grade as the multi-use trail. Raised crosswalks may be designed as speed tables, and have a slowing effect on crossing traffic.

Marked Crossings A marked crossing typically consists of a marked crossing area, Warning Signs and other markings to slow or stop traffic. When space is available, a median refuge island can improve user safety by providing pedestrians and bicyclists space to perform the safe crossing of one half of the street at a time.

Signalized Crossings Where practical, multi-use trail alignments may use existing signalized intersections by routing trail users to a signalized intersection. Barriers and signing may direct trail users to the signalized crossing. Bicycle Signals may be used to assist in bicyclist crossing.

56

Multimodal Corridors
Some streets will accommodate bicycle facilities easily, others may be more challenging. It is important to establish a process to consider all modes when implementing the proposed bicycle network on Multimodal Corridors. Multimodal Corridors are the city’s main travel corridors serving all trip types and all modes. They are the streets prioritized as transit corridors by the Transit Master Plan or designated as Major Truck Streets and coincide with either an existing or proposed bicycle facility. These overlaps are largely due to: • The nature of Seattle’s topography • The streets’ ability to provide direct connections to destinations and between urban villages/urban centers These corridors serve a variety of demands from several competing modes of transportation, and the needs of large freight and transit vehicles often constrain development on existing roadways. Of the 294 miles of identified transit priority and major truck streets, approximately 22 percent overlap with recommended or existing bicycle facilities in the proposed bicycle network. Map 4-11 on the following page shows the transit and freight networks and the overlap with the proposed bicycle network. As each corridor is analyzed in more detail (through additional corridor studies, project development activities, and/or further bicycle facility design work), it is important that either (a) all modes be accommodated along the same street or (b) bicycle facilities be accommodated using a street parallel to the priority transit corridor or Major Truck Street.

Figure 4-2: Multimodal Corridor Area of Influence

Arterial Facility Intersecting street connection

Parallel Facility Multimodal intersection

“When thinking about bicycle facilities, think about making it easy and safe for people to go where they go most: schools, grocery stores, neighborhood commercial districts and transit hubs. That means not only making it safe to get there, but making it easy to lock up your bike once you’re there, find the appropriate bike route, way-finding, and connect to transit.”
57

Map 4-11: Multimodal Corridors and the Proposed Bicycle Network
5 § ¨ ¦

n

d

GREENWOO D AVE N

S

Green L a ke

NW MARKET ST

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

o

1ST AVE NE

u

N

W

E

S

E l l i o tt Bay
EAST MARGINAL WAY S AIRPORT WAY S

10TH AVE E

L a ke Union

t

WAY SW

e

5 § ¨ ¦

Areas of Overlap w/ Bicycle Network Transit Priority Corridor Major Truck Street Proposed Bicycle Network Arterial Street

FAUNTLEROY

g

P

u

SW ROXBURY ST

Miles 0 1 2 3 4

58

k e a L
BLVD S

W a s h i n g t o
90 § ¨ ¦
BEACO N
RAI RA NIE

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

n
EL LIO TT E AV W

AV E S

VE S
E UTH TIN L MAR

DELRIDGE WAY SW

R KIN G JR

Multimodal Corridor Decision-Making Process Multimodal Corridors serve transit, freight, bicycles, pedestrians and other motorists and represent the most direct and in some cases, the only network connections to key neighborhood and regional destinations in Seattle. Decisions about how to allocate the right-of-way on these streets are made difficult by the limited number of direct connections coupled with issues of topography and differences in travel speed. Separation from other users (either physically separated from traffic or on a parallel neighborhood greenway) can improve safety, efficiency, and attractiveness of bicycling, using transit, or walking however, in dense

urban areas, sometimes every mode cannot share the same street. Seattle lacks a policy for determining which mode gets priority when modal plans designate a corridor with limited right of way as a priority for bicycling and freight or transit. A clear set of tools and a process for making these challenging decisions is needed to create common expectations for implementation of Seattle’s Complete Streets policy. The following strategies will guide design and operations decisions on designated Multimodal corridors. An example decision making process diagram is illustrated in Figure 4-3.

The Complete Streets policy (adopted in 2007) directs SDOT to “design, operate, and maintain Seattle’s streets to promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users—pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers.”

Dexter Avenue 59

Strategy: Integrate a multimodal approach, including a decision-making process, into the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Actions: • Conduct a process to determine primary and secondary modal priorities on all arterials, including designated Multimodal Corridors, establishing a complete system focused on moving people as safely as possible. Strategy: Build bicycle facilities on the arterial street or on a parallel route when implementing a citywide bicycle network project or priority transit project. Actions: • If cycle tracks are not suitable for arterial development (as determined by the Multimodal Corridor decision-making process), a neighborhood greeway will be identified and implemented in place of the cycle track along parallel streets. Route design and facility selection will consider whether alternative routes are convenient and permit direct access to services and destinations located throughout the Multimodal Corridor. • Design bicycle priority features at intersections along the Multimodal Corridor. • Provide clear wayfinding to guide cyclists between neighborhood greenways and local destinations on parallel arterial streets and provide end-of-trip facilities at destinations. Strategy: Consider transit improvements that minimize conflict with people riding bicycles. Actions: • Integrate the needs of transit and people riding bikes at the beginning of Multimodal Corridor and other arterial street design processes (during the project development phase). Include King County Metro in the design process as appropriate. • Design transit passenger waiting facilities to minimize conflicts and pinch points with bicycles. Do not build bus bulbs that create bicycle and bus conflict zones at the transit stop. • Bus layover facilities should be disallowed on the citywide bicycle network streets unless no other 60

Figure 4-3: Example Multimodal Corridor Decision Making Process

NETWORK FILTER

Can each mode run on primary street safely, comfortably, and with enough space/person capacity?

Is a parallel route option available?

Does the corridor primarily serve inter-neighborhood or regional through trips? Regional Neighborhood

CORRIDOR DEMAND FILTER

Is the future arterial bicycle demand greater than the optimal demand of other modes? (considering person capacity and spatial requirements)

Does it meet lanes space allocation criteria?

DIMENSIONAL FILTER

Can cross section be changed? Can person capacity be added?

Parallel facility

Arterial bicycle facility

Last resort option: shared arterial facility

options are available. Instead locate them on intersecting streets or integrated into new development (with developer incentives) or existing off-street locations. • Bus layover facilities on local connector streets should be designed in conjunction with bicycle facility implementation. Include transit agencies in the design process. • Recognize that multimodal corridor development is also a transit access strategy, enhancing connections to light rail stations, major transit hubs, major bus stops and park-and-ride lots. • Provide protection and visibility for pedestrians in zones where bicycles and pedestrians may intermix at transit stops.

Strategy: Update the curb space allocation needs in the Comprehensive Plan update. Actions: • Explore re-purposing streets with low parking demand for expanded sidewalks, bike share kiosks, parklets and other buffer features, bicycle facilities, on-street bicycle parking corrals, and dedicated transit lanes or transit priority features. • Use a measure of person capacity to make decisions to remove on-street parking supply for use as bicycle facilities. • Use on-street parking as a buffer for cycle tracks.

Bus stop islands and buffered bike lanes on Dexter Avenue N help minimize bicycle and transit conflicts along multimodal corridors. 61

FACILITIES

Chapter 5: End-of-Trip

“I support the vision to embrace the weather and hills head-on. Take pride in our hardiness. Share options ­ – layers, lights, generating heat by moving (it’s warmer to be riding than it is to be standing and waiting for the bus).”

The journey is not yet complete when a person riding a bicycle pulls off the road. Without safe, accessible, and convenient bicycle parking and other support services, people are simply less likely to choose to ride a bicycle. Changing rooms, showers, lockers, and repair services or spaces for minor maintenance are part of a bicycle-friendly community. Sheltered parking is also integral to increasing mode share in Seattle due to the weather. Providing context-appropriate facilities to enhance Seattle’s bicycling network could be as simple as providing short-term bicycle parking outside a grocery store and covered parking at transit stops. More extensive policies that require secure long-term bicycle parking in new residential and commercial buildings, or support the retrofit of older buildings with secure bicycle parking and changing rooms in large employment centers, will make it easier to make bicycling a habit for future building users. Recognizing that the plan focuses on people of all ages and abilities, bicycle parking should be designed to accommodate a wide variety of bicycle types.

Current Practices and New Strategies
Seattle can benefit from a range of regulatory and design strategies that will increase the supply of temporary and long-term secure parking. See Table 5-1 for general characteristics of short- and long-term bicycle parking. See the next page for a visual guide to the types of bike parking discussed in this chapter. The strategies in this chapter will be integrated into land development activities, as well as event and city operations. Together they are intended to provide guidance that will result in well used facilities throughout the city, where people feel confident that their bicycles will not be vulnerable to theft or weather while they are at home, work, or elsewhere. The sections in this chapter describe current practices in the following areas and provide actions needed to implement the vision of the plan as it relates to ridership, connectivity, livability, and equity: • Code Revisions: Regulatory actions that clarify and expand upon development requirements for a variety of land uses

Table 5-1: Characteristics of Short- and Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Criteria Short-Term Bicycle Parking Parking Duration Less than two hours Typical Fixture Types Bicycle racks and on-street corrals Weather Protection Security Long-Term Bicycle Parking More than two hours Lockers or secure bicycle parking (racks provided in a secured area) Unsheltered or sheltered Sheltered or enclosed High reliance on personal locking devices Restricted access and / or active supervision and passive surveillance (e.g., eyes on Unsupervised: . the street) “Individual-secure”, e.g., bicycle lockers . “Shared-secure”, e.g., bicycle room or locked enclosure Supervised: . Valet bicycle parking . Video, closed circuit television, or other surveillance Commercial or retail, medical/healthcare, Multi-family residential, workplace, transit, schools parks and recreation areas, community centers, libraries

Typical Land Uses

63

Visual Guide to Bike Parking
Short-Term Parking Long-Term Parking

Typical sidewalk parking frequently includes staple racks, which allow multiple bikes to be locked to both sides of the rack.

Bicycle Lockers provide the most secure type of parking, available either by subscription or upon demand and are frequently found at transit stations.

On-Street Bike Corrals minimize sidewalk clutter, free up space for pedestrians and others (such as sidewalk cafes), and increase bike parking at locations with high demand, such as neighborhood business districts.

Bicycle Secure Parking Areas, or Bike SPAs, are free-standing buildings, or enclosed areas within a larger structure (for example, an enclosed portion of a parking garage). SPAs are particularly useful at major destinations that attract all-day users, such as transit centers or employment centers. Some SPAs offer access to bicycle repair tools, pumps or other amenities. Event (Temporary) Parking typically consists of portable racks that meet the demand for an event. Racks are clustered together, providing a higher level of security than if people were to park the bikes on their own. Event staff can monitor the area. 64

• Parking in the Public Right of Way: Proactive approaches for increasing the supply of parking in the public right of way throughout the city through the Bicycle Spot Improvement Program • Bicycle Parking Inventory: Methods for keeping track of and describing the bicycle parking supply in the public right of way • Bicycle Parking at Transit Stations: Routine practices for estimating and providing the appropriate supply of bicycle parking to support transit use • Temporary (Event) Bicycle Parking: Formal bicycle parking requirements to make it convenient and attractive to attend events by bicycle • Abandoned Bicycles: Procedures to remove abandoned bicycles promptly from the right of way

Seattle Municipal Code Review
Seattle’s practice of requiring short- and long-term parking for construction and redevelopment is well established in the municipal code. Minimum bicycle parking requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) hold developers accountable to provide these needed end-of-trip facilities for specific land uses. Off-street bicycle parking requirements for Downtown Seattle are listed in the Seattle Municipal Code SMC 23.49.019, and requirements for areas beyond the downtown area are detailed in SMC 23.54.015. SMC 23.49.019 does not specify whether the parking provided must be short-term, long-term, or a combination of the two. The code also requires that bicycle parking be provided in “a safe, accessible and convenient location,” and that it be installed according to the manufacturer’s directions and SDOT Design Criteria. If covered auto parking is provided, required long-term bicycle parking must also be covered. A sample of the minimums, shown below, is consistent with practices used in many other US cities: • Office: 1 space per 5,000 square feet of gross floor area of office use • Retail: 1 space per 5,000 square feet of retail use (applies for uses exceeding 10,000 square feet of gross floor area) • Residential: 1 space per 2 dwelling units Bicycle parking is often not in a visible location, so wayfinding signs are a useful addition to help bicyclists locate parking facilities. Property owners may forgo these minimum bicycle parking requirements for non-residential uses by paying into the city’s bicycle parking fund (for the purpose of providing public bicycle parking in the right of way). Buildings with 250,000 square feet of gross office floor area or greater are required to provide shower facilities and clothing storage areas for bicycle commuters at a ratio of one shower per gender for each 250,000 square feet of office use. These facilities must be easily accessible to and from the bicycle parking facility. A detailed code review is found in Appendix 5A.

65

Strategy: Update the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) bicycle parking requirements to include regulatory actions that clarify and expand upon development requirements for a variety of land uses. Actions: • Differentiate between short- and long-term parking requirements and add information about bicycle rack type, design, placement, security, and access. • Mandate minimum short-term and long-term bicycle parking requirements. • Revise the residential bicycle parking requirement to specify applications, including single-family residences, multi-family residences, a minimum number of units, or a combination thereof. Require a mix of bicycle parking types that accommodate a variety of family-friendly bicycles for all ages and abilities. • Allow bicycle parking to substitute for a portion of automobile parking. • Require safe and secure bicycle parking for all new office buildings, at or above the minimum parking requirements. • Develop illustrated design guidelines for developers and building managers to facilitate the installation of well-designed sheltered parking and secure bicycle parking. • Include a provision for 24/7 bicycle parking access in requirements for long-term bicycle parking located in parking garages. • Require bicycle repair facilities as part of long-term bicycle parking

Inadequate bicycle parking facilities often results in bicycles locked in inappropriate places. serve commercial buildings, schools, and multi-family residential developments. The racks are maintained by SDOT. The Seattle Bicycle Spot Improvement Program includes a proactive approach to install bicycle parking at community centers and libraries, and emphasizes rack placement in neighborhood business districts and in traditionally underserved areas. Strategy: Develop a bicycle parking implementation program that includes a demand estimation methodology, prioritization process and criteria, guidelines for on-street and private installed racks and a branding and communications approach. Actions: • Develop an estimation of bicycle parking demand in Urban Villages that is context sensitive to a variety of bicycle types, including those for all ages and abilities. • Prioritize the installation of bicycle racks and onstreet corrals in historically underserved neighborhoods, as well as in high-demand locations such as neighborhood business districts, community centers, libraries, universities and colleges, employment centers, and schools. • Create a policy that allows the city to replace onstreet parking with on-street bicycle corrals, as well as place on-street corrals at strategic intersection locations where car parking is not allowed. 66

Parking in the Public Right of Way and Bicycle Spot Improvement Program
Bicycle racks on sidewalks, on-street bicycle corrals, and secured bicycle parking facilities are types of bicycling parking in the public right of way. A current inventory of public bicycle parking is shown in Map 5-1. The Seattle Bicycle Spot Improvement Program is the primary method for installing public bicycle parking. This program includes a by-request bicycle rack program for bicycle racks in the public right of way to

Map 5-1: 2012 Public Bicycle Parking
!

! ! !

5TH AVE NE

15TH AVE NE

5 § ¨ ¦

!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

d

30TH AVE NE
D SAN T PO IN
! ! ! ! !

N 145TH ST

3RD AVE NW

GREENWOOD AVE N

AURORA AVE N

n

! ! !! ! ! !

NE WAY

N

W

E

S

30TH AVE SW

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! G r e e n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NE 70TH ST ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L a ke ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MARKET ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NW ! ! ! ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NE 45TH ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L a ke ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Union ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! T !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! NS ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ISO ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! M! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! DENNY ! ! !E! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! WAY ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! L! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! AS! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! AY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! E YESLER! ! ! ! ! WAY ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 90 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! SW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! AVE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! AL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

8TH AVE NW

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S

PHINNEY AVE N

AURO RA AVE N

ROOSEVELT WAY NE

o

1ST AVE NE

! ! ! ! !

u

! !

35TH AVE NE

!

E l l i o tt Bay

31ST AVE S

CALIFORNIA AVE SW

1ST AVE S 4TH AVE S

35TH AVE SW

15TH AVE S

t

16TH AVE SW

e

§ ¨ ¦

g

u

SW ROXBURY ST

!

k e L a
! !

!

Bike Racks

P

Miles 0 1 2 3 4

67

W a s h i n g t o

28TH AVE W

15TH AVE W

QUEEN ANNE AVE N

10TH AVE E

§ ¨ ¦

n

EL

LIO

TT

E AV

W

BEACO N

RAI

NIE

RA

AV E S

S VE

T MAR

DELRIDGE WAY SW

IN LU

THE

R KIN

G JR

BLVD

S

Lighting is an important feature for secure bicycle parking facilities, both for safety and function.

• Better accommodate private entities that wish to install bicycle parking in the right of way by addressing installation guidance, permitting, responsibilities for maintenance, replacement, abandoned bicycles, and/or liability insurance. • Install high-capacity bicycle parking and secure parking areas in locations that minimize sidewalk clutter and best meet user needs. • Develop a graphic identity and branding strategy for Seattle’s bicycle parking.

Strategy: Ensure that bicycle parking in the right of way is inventoried every five years and communicate the data to the public. Actions: • Maintain a digital inventory on the city website. • Integrate parking data into city-sponsored mapping and digital applications that depict the bicycle network as it grows. • Track developer-installed bicycle parking as part of the inventory.

Bicycle Parking Inventory
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) maintains an inventory of short-term bicycle parking within the right of way, which by definition does not include parking on private property. New installations are included in the inventory, but there are no plans to update the condition of existing racks or catalog racks missed in the initial inventory. This data is available to the public via digital map or spreadsheet.

Bicycle Parking at Transit Stations
Improving bicycle access to transit increases urban mobility and encourages multimodal travel, extending the reach of public transit. The 2007 BMP advised using a demand estimating methodology developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2001. This method takes into account a variety of factors, including the number of jobs within a quarter-mile radius of the station area, bicycle commute mode share, long-haul and short-haul transit boardings accessed by bicycle, and as induced demand for average daily boardings. The approach does not account for other factors known to influence bicycle parking demand, such as on-board bicycle capacity, quality of bicycle 68

parking at a transit station, and Seattle’s increasing bicycle mode share for commute-to-work and accessto-transit trips. Strategy: Ensure an adequate amount of shortand long-term bicycle parking at high-capacity transit stations. Actions: • Coordinate with transit agencies and other large institutions to develop clear, comprehensive, and consistent demand estimation methodologies. • Support the tracking of bicycle parking quality and quantities at transit stations. • Partner with local and regional transit agencies and large institutions to coordinate funding, construction, operations and maintenance of long-term, ondemand, secure bicycle parking facilities. Develop on-demand access systems that rely on a centralized access control and fee collection.

Strategy: Require attended bicycle parking at large/special events. Actions: • Define and provide examples of large/special events that should have attended bicycle parking. • Develop guidelines for event organizers that describe a variety of temporary event parking strategies and identify potential partners for bicycle valet services.

Abandoned Bicycles
Abandoned bicycles are bicycles that have been locked to a public bicycle rack and left there. Currently SDOT and the Seattle Police Department work collaboratively to manage abandoned bicycles. Strategy: Develop a process and workflow procedure for abandoned bicycle removal with repurposing options. Actions: • Ensure roles and responsibilities are clear and communication is seamless within and between SDOT and SPD. • Establish partnerships with non-profit bicycle groups/shops to create a program to store, repair, and redistribute abandoned bicycles.

Temporary (Event) Bicycle Parking
Currently, there is no requirement or guiding policy to provide additional bicycle parking at events in Seattle. Temporary bicycle parking may be provided at vendor discretion.

Bicycle lockers are one strategy for weatherproof, secure bicycle parking.

Abandoned bicycles, or in some cases wheels, restrict the usability of bicycle racks.

69

PROGRAMS

Chapter 6:

“Education of all road users, enforcement of road laws, and meaningful consequences to dangerous drivers (loss of license, fines, prison) would create a safer city for all of us.”

While world-class infrastructure is essential to make riding a bike comfortable for people of all ages and abilities, education, encouragement, and promotion efforts are also necessary to help people realize the full potential of Seattle’s bike routes and facilities. The strategies in this chapter are a combination of policy changes, information sharing, and individual behavior change. Together they will increase the visibility of people who ride bicycles, communicate that all road users are expected to look out for each other no matter how they travel, reach out to new audiences to help people understand the rules of the road, and share a vision of riding a bike as a fun, healthy, community-building activity. The actions have been selected to accomplish the goals of this plan, considering public input and guidance from the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board. This chapter is based on research of how people adopt and maintain new behaviors. This framework is not meant to convey the priority of any one type of program. Rather, it acknowledges that changing the way we relate to each other on our streets and how we choose to travel is a process that depends on the following: having strong policies that support riding a bike; providing basic information to people on safety and riding opportunities; and supporting individuals in changing the way they travel. To reflect this, the chapter is organized around three frameworks: • Policy-Level Work • Building Knowledge • Changing Individual Behaviors At the close of the chapter, a prioritization matrix shows activities broken down into three priority tiers, based on the anticipated impact on safety, as well as community and SDOT input. The matrix also shows how the actions support the overall plan goals.

Strategy: Develop a process to review bicyclerelated collisions, and identify and implement safety strategies. Actions: • Analyze bicycle-involved collisions to identify trends, behaviors, built environment factors, and policy/ institutional issues that can be changed to reduce the likelihood of such collisions happening in the future. • Track bicycle-involved collisions per type of bicycle facility. Review the collision rates over time to determine, by comparing collision rates to other bicycle facility types and streets without any facility, whether new facilities are having the intended effect of increasing safety by reducing collisions. Strategy: Promote bicycle safety and multimodal trip knowledge at Seattle driver education programs and licensing centers. Education through driver education programs offers a unique opportunity to reach drivers in the formative moment when they are creating lifelong driving habits. The ability to reach beginning drivers has become less centralized since Seattle Public Schools discontinued driver education instruction. Actions: • Create a professional development training course for driver education instructors. • Support partners in reforming the statewide system that regulates driver training and testing.

Policy-Level Work
Policy-level work consists of actions that build and support the resources and systems to improve safety for everyone and make riding a bike easier and more convenient.
DON BRUBECK

Bike skills courses at summer festivals, like this one at Alki Summer Streets, are a great way to increase the confidence of young riders. 71

• Work with state legislators to sponsor a bill requiring that all driver training include bicycle safety. Strategy: Pursue any identified local legislative changes to facilitate better bicycling conditions in Seattle. The Seattle Municipal Code sections that pertain to the rules of the road and to new development have a powerful effect on use of the right of way and how private land is developed. Action: • Conduct a regular review of Seattle Municipal Code sections related to bicycling to identify needed changes. Strategy: Provide strong bicycle education for primary-age children. All children in Seattle should have access to the many benefits of bicycling. Teaching children in Seattle Public Schools basic bicycling skills, rights, and responsibilities will give them a foundation for using bicycles for independence and health throughout their lives. Actions: • Work with schools through the Safe Routes to School program to teach children how to safely walk and bike to school. • Expand the reach of the Safe Routes to School program and work with partners to promote the program and develop a long-term funding and

growth plan. Strategy: Support bicycling to commercial centers through programming efforts such as Bicycle-Friendly Business Districts. Bicycle-Friendly Business District programs in Seattle can vary in their specifics, but all of them allow a business district to “brand” itself as welcoming to customers who arrive by bicycle. Action: • Provide assistance to neighborhood business districts, or other groups, that want to begin a bicyclefriendly business district. Strategy: Support the development of bicycle tourism in Seattle. Cities around North America are seeing that a bicyclefriendly reputation can be an advantage in attracting tourists. With the impending launch of Puget Sound Bike Share, and SDOT’s rollout of newer types of bike facilities, riding a bike will be an ever more appealing proposition for visitors. Action: • Support the development of a bicycle tourism program and ensure communication and education between tourism agencies and other partners about bicycling in Seattle. Strategy: Support the development of neighborhood bicycle culture. Many neighborhoods are already seeing the formation of local grassroots groups to promote and improve bicycling. There are many ways SDOT can support neighborhood groups and residents who are eager to take action to make their own streets better places for riding a bicycle. Action: • Support neighborhood groups and other partners who want to promote and improve bicycling. Strategy: Support strong bicycling elements in Transportation Management Programs and Commute Trip Reduction sites. Transportation management programs (TMPs) are required by the City of Seattle to reduce the traffic impact of large buildings and developments. Large 72

Covered bicycle parking on University of Washington campus.

employers have a similar obligation under the statewide Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law. TMPaffected property managers and CTR-affected employers measure the baseline drive-alone mode share of their tenants and employees, then develop goals and a work plan to reduce that rate. Action: • Develop an information packet that outlines the code requirements for bicycle parking requirements and other amenities and distribute to TMP- and CTR-affected sites.

Actions: • Enhance the existing wayfinding system to incorporate new destinations and include wayfinding signs as a component of all projects. • Update the annual printed bicycle map. Ensure that the map is accessible to people for whom English is not a primary language and to people who might need larger text. • Make all bicycle-related GIS data available through the Seattle.gov GISWEB portal and publish other bicycle data (such as collision analysis) to allow development of third-party applications and uses. Strategy: Develop “Bike 101” Materials. SDOT can play a lead role in supporting new bicyclists by developing tools for beginners, and making the materials available to the widest possible range of people. Topics could include bicycling skills, bicycle facilities, and helping people connect to many existing bicycling resources.

Building Knowledge
By targeting a wider audience to build knowledge about safety and riding opportunities, program strategies and actions can support achievement of plan goals. Strategy: Improve wayfinding and trip-planning opportunities for people on bicycles. Wayfinding tools (signs, pavement markings, and maps) and online trip planning tools do not replace the need for great bike facilities; however, these tools can make the existing network much easier to navigate.

Wayfinding signs and markings can promote bicycle facilities to potential riders and help people on bikes get to their destination 73

Actions: • Ensure that the materials are accessible to non-English speakers and people with visual impairments. • Include information about e-bikes (electric bikes) to help overcome topography barriers. Strategy: Develop and promote materials that explain how to safely bike and drive on and near bicycle facilities. As the City of Seattle builds a wider range of bicycle facility types, people will have questions about how they work for all users (e.g., “How are drivers supposed to behave when they reach a bike box?”). SDOT can work to make sure that people driving, riding a bike, or walking get the information they need so that everyone knows how to navigate new facilities comfortably, safely, and predictably. Action: • Develop information for the public to become knowledgeable about upcoming bicycle projects and how the bicycle facility will work for all roadway users within the project development phase of project delivery. Strategy: Support communication between the freight, professional driver, and bicycling communities. All professional drivers—including but not limited to freight operators, public transit operators, taxi and town car drivers, delivery drivers, waste management vehicle operators, and operators of construction and agricultural machinery—have an interest in avoiding collisions with bicyclists for personal and professional reasons. Action: • Support the development of better communication channels to facilitate safer and more considerate behaviors by all roadway users.

InMotion is a program by King County Metro Transit that partners with local communities to encourage residents to use healthier travel options like the bus, carpooling, bicycling and walking.

Bryant Elementary School has a bicycle to school program that teaches children how to bicycle safely and confidently.

Changing Individual Behaviors
Changing individual behaviors is key to accomplishing plan goals. The city will support these changes through targeted and tailored direct outreach to people that supports them in starting and continuing to ride a bike. Strategy: Develop targeted marketing campaigns to encourage people to try bicycling and follow the rules of the road. Actions: • Develop marketing campaigns aimed at:
„„ The

general population throughout the city, such as for Bike Month or Bike to Work Day. populations to encourage more people to try bicycling by identifying groups that are interested, but have not yet tried biking.

„„ Specific

74

CARFREEDAYS.COM

• Ensure all marketing campaigns are evaluated to determine whether goals are being accomplished. Strategy: Support events and programs that encourage groups that are currently underrepresented in bicycling to try making trips by bike. One important goal of this plan is to serve groups who may not currently ride a bike in large numbers and for whom riding a bike might provide great health, financial, and time benefits. Actions: • Lead and participate in conversations to better understand who is underrepresented and underserved in the bicycling community and work with partners to change the status quo. Strategy: Support bike share and other programs that provide access to bicycles and helmets. Lack of access to bicycles and helmets continues to be a barrier to participation for too many Seattle residents. With the launch of Puget Sound Bike Share (PSBS), the city will have a powerful resource to lower the barrier to entry for bicycling. Action: • Continue to partner with Puget Sound Bike Share to promote their work and focus on safety for new riders and programs.

Program Evaluation
Education, encouragement, and promotional programs are an essential part of SDOT’s mission, and will be key to the success of this plan. In some cases, programs will be delivered as part of bicycle facility development, while in other cases they will be standalone actions with relatively self-contained goals and timelines. In all cases, however, they are designed to support the goals of this plan. Program indicators of success will relate to the plan goals and will be primarily tracked through the overall performance measures identified in Chapter 3. The plan’s performance measures that relate most directly to programmatic actions in this plan are: • Ridership (as measured by bicycle counts and mode share surveys) • Safety (as measured by collision rates and resident input) • Equity (as measured by female and non-white ridership) Individual programs may have more tailored goals that can be measured by defining outputs and outcomes tied to that program. For example, if a neighborhoodbased marketing program were initiated in order to increase bicycle use in that neighborhood, pre- and post-program surveys should be conducted specifically in that neighborhood to determine whether that program had the desired impact.

Bicycle Benefits is a program designed to reward individuals and businesses for their commitment to cleaner air, personal health, and the use of pedaling energy in order to create a more sustainable community.
Bike training courses help bicycle riders gain a better understanding of how to safely navigate city streets.

75

Program Prioritization
Programmatic strategies are broken down by priority tiers, with Tier 1 representing the most immediate actions, as shown in Table 6-1. Actions are prioritized based primarily on their potential to improve safety; programs believed to contribute directly to increased safety (through decreased crashes) are included in Tier 1. Other factors in the prioritization include Table 6-1: Program Prioritization

community input received throughout the Bicycle Master Plan update process and SDOT’s estimation of which can be undertaken more immediately, given resource availability. Each action is also cross-referenced against the plan goals that it serves. Goals shaded in dark strongly address that goal; lighter shading indicates that an activity addresses the goal less directly.

Goals Connectivity Ridership Livability                               

Safety

Priority Tier 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

Equity

Strategy Develop a process to review bicycle-related collisions and identify and implement safety strategies Promote bicycle safety and multimodal trip knowledge at Seattle driver education programs and licensing centers Provide strong bicycle education for primary age children Develop and promote materials that explain how to safely bike and drive on and near bicycle facilities Develop “Bike 101” materials Support communication between the freight, professional driver, and bicycling communities Pursue any identified local legislative changes to facilitate better bicycling conditions in Seattle Improve wayfinding and trip planning opportunities for people on bicycles Support bike share and other programs that provide access to bicycles and helmets Support strong bicycling elements in Transportation Management Programs and Commute Trip Reduction sites Support events and programs that encourage groups that are currently underrepresented in bicycling to try making trips by bike Develop targeted marketing campaigns to encourage people to try bicycling and follow the rules of the road Support bicycling to commercial centers through programming efforts such as Bicycle-Friendly Business Districts Support the development of bicycle tourism in Seattle Support the development of neighborhood bicycle culture

                             

                             

                             

                             

Strategy Type Policy Policy Policy Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Policy Knowledge Knowledge Policy Behavior Behavior Policy Policy Policy

Strongly addresses goal Less directly addresses goal

76

77

BUSINESS

Chapter 7: How We Do

“I think the most important thing at this point would be to try to identify future potential cyclists, and see what barriers they perceive.”

In addition to guiding the location, type, and extent of bicycle infrastructure and programmatic investments, this plan identifies opportunities for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to expand its implementation of strategic initiatives and to support bicycling. These opportunities will leverage resources within SDOT and with partner organizations to implement bicycle projects and programs efficiently and comprehensively. Decision making by the city to implement the Bicycle Master Plan is supported by a set of activities that include policies, management, and processes. Collectively, these efforts are referred to as “governance”. The sections in this chapter describe current governance practices and provide actions needed to affect the vision of the plan through changes in the way the city does business: • An integrated SDOT governance approach that clarifies SDOT roles and responsibilities during project delivery and for everyday operations • The identification of new activities that expand SDOT roles and responsibilities • Partnerships that will be essential for sustaining increased bicycling • Maintenance roles and responsibilities that keep facilities safe and attractive

actions to better integrate bicycling throughout SDOT operations. Strategy: Use a consistent approach for project and program delivery. A key outcome of the plan is the creation of a more integrated and strategic Bicycle Project Delivery Process with which each division within SDOT should comply during project delivery and public engagement processes. Consistency is critical to provide the public a general understanding of how projects will be implemented, regardless of which division is working on the project. Actions: • Develop procedures and processes that bring consistency to bicycle project delivery as shown in Figure 7-1. • Develop an implementation matrix to identify actions to implement the plan and to help dictate an organizational structure and assignment of new roles to appropriate divisions as necessary. • Evaluate and monitor projects by conducting before and after counts and perception surveys, incorporating new technology. • Develop a public engagement process for use of all SDOT divisions (process may be different for arterial and non-arterial bicycle facility implementation).

SDOT Governance
SDOT is currently organized into several divisions with varying levels of bicycle program implementation responsibility. This plan does not recommend a formal staffed Bicycle Program or a wholesale staff reorganization to implement the plan, but rather identifies

New Activities
The implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan will result in an expanded set of responsibilities that have not historically been a function of city transportation operations.

An Integrated Organizational Approach to Implementation
Although many great bicycling cities across the U.S. dedicate a bicycle coordinator or staff to bike plan implementation, SDOT’s organizational structure lends itself better to fully integrating bicycling into agency procedures. Bicycle projects and programs will not fall on the shoulders of a small number of SDOT staff, but rather, through the strength of a variety of project areas and program types, will become business as usual. This shared responsibility will create a culture of multimodalism and better integrate bicycling into agency planning, design, and operations. This will become even more important as the city incorporates its Complete Streets design, operations, and evaluation approaches within SDOT.

79

Figure 7-1: SDOT Bicycle Project Delivery Process

1 2 3
Iterative Process

Gather public input Project identi cation, planning, development, and maintentance needs Further engage public and develop education materials to clearly explain new designs

4 5 6 7 8 9

Pre-implementation marketing

Project delivery

Post-implementation encouragement programming to publicize new facilities Evaluate projects

BIKE ROUTE MAP

Bicycle facility maintenance

Continue evaluation and consideration for upgrades

80

Strategies: Identify new activities that SDOT should add to work plans to better deliver bicycle projects and programs. Actions: • Create a Multi-Use Trails Master Plan. • Enhance data collection, storage, and reporting, including the following actions:
„„ Enhance

Strategy: Develop an integrated set of branded bicycle information and marketing tools. Actions: • Conduct an internal audit that results in contact numbers for bike program services being assigned to appropriate SDOT staff. • Ensure any webpages, mobile apps, blogs, Twitter feeds, etc. are fully integrated and complementary. Use SDOT’s social media presence to market improvements, encourage bicycling, and disseminate travel alerts and other resources. • Use social media as a key marketing and encouragement tool during the project delivery process.

bicycle count collection; ensure that data collection includes an annual phone survey, and gender and helmet usage tracking. the Puget Sound Regional Council travel survey to increase the City of Seattle sample size. a comprehensive system to manage bicycle facility life-cycle information.

„„ Supplement

„„ Develop

Partner Roles
SDOT acknowledges the critical role of various nongovernmental, public, and private partners as the city looks to implement the Bicycle Master Plan. To help partners deliver programs, SDOT should provide support where possible. This includes providing grant funding, technical assistance, coordination on bicycle messaging, sponsor and logistical support for events, and event or meeting space. Strategy: Seek partnerships for implementation of projects, initiatives, and programs. Actions: • Work with partners to deliver education and encouragement programs. • Work with partners to administer bicycle-related events. • Document bicycle facility maintenance roles. • Gather expertise and input from local bicycling organizations and the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board for project prioritization, planning, and design. • Work with partners to increase the supply of endof-trip facilities.

• Encourage regular training of city staff on best practice bicycle facility design and safety countermeasures. • Update the Traffic Control Manual to include requirements for bicycle detour plans. • Develop a pilot project implementation process. This will allow SDOT to set up experiments and test improvements prior to final design and implementation in order to determine pros and cons and/or modal trade-offs associated with incorporation of the bicycle facility. • Take a more active role in both funding and delivering bicycling education and encouragement services. Strategy: Track development of the bicycle facility network as part of SDOT’s asset management system in a manner that provides adequate information for benchmarking and future project development. Actions: • Develop a formal process for updating the bicycle facility network database. Continue to track the following bicycle facility information and consider tracking new information.

81

„„ Seattle

Police Department (SPD): Work closely with the Police Department to increase the safety of all street users. Analyze collision data, educate the officers about operations of new bicycle facilities, and support enforcement of the rules of the road for all modes. Ensure funding for the SPD traffic enforcement group. Department of Planning and Development (DPD): Work with staff in DPD to modify any Seattle Municipal Code regulations that will impact bicycling. Educate the staff about new bicycle facility treatments and the contents of this plan for use during streetscape concept plans, neighborhood zoning changes, and future planning studies. Ensure that SDOT staff is included in Early Design Guidance (EDG) meetings to alert private developers of bicycle facilities along their property frontage for opportunistic implementation as well as for access management needs. City Light (SCL): Work with SCL staff to ensure that bicycle facilities, especially off-street facilities, remain safe to use during all hours of the day and throughout the year by providing adequate light levels in critical locations. Parks and Recreation Department (Parks): Work with Parks staff to ensure bicycle access to and, potentially, through parks. Work to ensure that trails within parks that allow people riding bikes are built to current AASHTO standards, and explore opportunities to expand existing trails or build new trails that allow bicycles. Department of Neighborhoods (DoN): Work to educate DoN staff about upcoming bicycle projects and provide SDOT project manager contact information. Office of Economic Development (OED): Work with OED staff on bicycle programmatic actions that enhance the economy. Office of Stainability and Environment (OSE): Work with OSE staff to develop complementary programs related to the Climate Action Plan.

„„ Seattle

COMMUTESEATTLE.COM

„„ Seattle

Commute Seattle is a not-for-profit organization working to provide alternatives to drive-alone commuter trips in downtown Seattle. One of its initiatives is to help building owners and managers identify amenities, such as bicycle end-of-trip facilities, that encourage their tenants to commute by means other than driving. Strategy: Work with other departments to implement the plan. Actions: • Build partnerships with other city departments. While SDOT is the primary implementer of bicycle improvements in the City of Seattle, coordination with other city departments is critical to success. These departments include the following:
„„ Seattle

„„ Seattle

„„ Seattle

Public Utilities (SPU): Coordinate with SPU during project development to maximize transportation and stormwater benefits. The ideal outcome would be to construct the project with both departments’ elements at the same time to reduce construction intensity on one street over a long period of time. 82

„„ Seattle

„„ Seattle’s

Strategy: Expand upon other public partnerships to accomplish the development of a successful and predictable bicycling environment. Action: • Build partnerships with other public agencies. These agencies include the following:
„„ Transit

„„ King

County Public Health: Engagement with public health officials is crucial to understand public health trends as they relate to bicycling. Sound Regional Council (PSRC): Engagement with the Puget Sound Regional Council via membership in its numerous boards and committees will allow SDOT to remain a leading partner for regional transportation success. jurisdictions: Engagement with and coordination between neighboring jurisdictions will be crucial to ensure continuity of bicycle networks when city boundaries are crossed. Coordination regarding signage and facility type and design can help to create a cohesive regional bicycle network for people riding bikes.

„„ Puget

operators: Engagement with transit providers at the bicycle facility project development stage is crucial when there is an overlap with transit service. Design of the bicycle facility should allow safe operations of both modes. It will be important to acknowledge layover zones, bus stop/bulb locations, traffic signals, and right of way allocation. Providing separation between the two modes is optimal, though this plan does recommend some bicycle facility types along streets that will not allow for complete separation of modes.

„„ Neighboring

83

Bicycle Facility Maintenance
People riding bikes are particularly sensitive to maintenance problems, because maintenance-related hazards like potholes, irregular surfaces, and debris can cause them serious problems, including collisions. Maintenance affects the comfort and appeal of facilities, and improper maintenance may reduce biking rates. Gathering material life-cycle information and cost estimates based on facility type will allow SDOT to have a better gauge on current and future maintenance needs, thus helping to allocate appropriate funding amounts. Improving maintenance for bicycle facilities requires action on several fronts: designers should be expected to think about maintenance (materials and labor costs)

when they begin project development; low-maintenance and high-quality techniques and materials should be the rule rather than the exception; maintenance policies should be shared and agreed upon by all relevant agencies; bicycle facilities and pavement conditions should be assessed; and the public should be involved in identifying maintenance needs. On-street bicycle facilities should be maintained as part of other routine roadway maintenance, but with greater attention to detail to ensure smooth travel for more vulnerable street users. Current funding levels will not allow SDOT to achieve all of the desired level of maintenance activity frequency.

Maintaining markings for bicycle facilities is critical to ensure all users of the roadway are aware of where to expect bicycles. 84

Table 7-1: Maintenance Activities
Maintenance Activity Utility cut restoration Replace drain grates/utility covers Repair and replace pavement Fill concrete joints within bicycle facilities Repair potholes Replace signs, pavement markings, and striping Trim vegetation Ensure visibility at intersections Upgrade bicycle detection and standard pavement markings with all reconstruction projects Complete safety improvements at railroad crossings Remove graffiti Clean debris, trash, snow, and sand Repair or replace lighting Remove unused bollards and bollard receptacles on multi-use trails Maintain bicycle racks/furniture Sweep streets with bicycle facilities Inspect bridge structures

Citizens can direct minor pavement repair requests to SDOT’s Pothole Rangers.

Strategy: Develop a bicycle facility maintenance program and implementation plan. Actions: • Maintain on-street and off-street bicycle facilities to an acceptable standard and develop maintenance schedules for activities described in Table 7-1. • Encourage use of materials that extend the life cycle of the bicycle facility. Continue to test, evaluate, and implement appropriate innovative design treatments that improve operating conditions and safety for people riding bikes. • Ensure that consideration of maintenance costs, procedures, and long-term funding mechanisms is a part of all bicycle facility projects. • Encourage bicyclists to report maintenance complaints and requests. • Negotiate maintenance agreements. • Establish a data-driven process to identify and prioritize maintenance and improvements to existing facilities. • Allocate funding for the assessment of bicycle facility and pavement conditions on a regular schedule to help SDOT staff better understand life-cycle costs, assess different materials, and prioritize paving projects. 85

• Create a process for improving corridors that goes beyond the Bicycle Spot Improvement Program spot requests. Strategy: Develop a per-mile unit cost range estimate for maintenance of all bicycle facilities proposed within the plan. Bicycle facility maintenance costs should be based on a range of per-mile estimates that cover labor, supplies, and equipment costs. As part of the routine roadway maintenance program, extra emphasis will be put on keeping the bicycle facilities clear of debris and ensuring sightline visibility (e.g., trimming vegetation). Actions: • Update the per-mile unit cost estimate every three years.

APPROACH

Chapter 8: Investment

NELSON\NYGAARD

“I’d prefer to see traffic calming strategies, including lane reductions on multi-modal corridors, provided this is accompanied by more robust transit service and bicycle network improvements to provide alternatives to driving.”

The Bicycle Master Plan is a blueprint that provides a clear path for improving bicycling in Seattle. Two key factors that govern how Seattle will change in the short- and long-term include determining what should be implemented first and what resources should be committed to the effort. This chapter includes a description of the project prioritization process, and a recommended approach for a balanced investment in bicycling.

Figure 8-1: Prioritization Process

ALL BIKE PROJECTS

Prioritization Framework
Full implementation of the proposed bicycle network (including new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities) will take many years, given the expected funding availability for network development. This makes it important to develop a process for selecting an equitable and realistic set of programmed projects that will be developed over time. This process should fulfill the plan’s goals of increased ridership, connectivity, equity, safety, and livability while simultaneously providing enough flexibility for Seattle to pursue projects based on specific opportunities. The framework for prioritizing bicycle projects is shown in Figure 8-1 and Tables 8-1 and 8-2. Primary Evaluation Process Step one in the prioritization framework recognizes two categories for project prioritization based on their role in the bike network: • Citywide network • Local connections
LOCAL CONNECTIONS CITYWIDE NETWORK

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION CRITERIA

THREE TIER PROJECT LIST

THREE TIER PROJECT LIST

1 2 3

1 2 3

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
(as needed)

Table 8-1: Draft Project Prioritization Framework and Project Categories
Project Categories Near-term Strategy: Increase all ages and abilities ridership through connected facilities • Complete/upgrade high-demand segments • Closing system gaps Local Connections • Intra-neighborhood connectivity • Intersection improvements • Connections to citywide network Longer-term Strategy: Complete Seattle’s connections • Projects with strategic challenges (e.g., funding, feasibility, or political issues) or major modal tradeoffs • Inter-neighborhood connectivity

Citywide Network

87

Each category consists of projects that serve the near-term strategy of increasing ridership by people of all ages and abilities or the longer-term strategy of providing connections to the citywide network, as shown in Table 8-1. The city may decide over time to vary future funding allocations between these two major categories based on changing priority needs. For instance, a higher percentage of funding could be allocated to bicycle facilities that contribute to the citywide network or may decide to allocate funding based on project type. Table 8-2: Proposed Evaluation Criteria
Theme Criteria Definition

Quantitative Evaluation Process Step two in the prioritization process evaluates proposed projects in Seattle’s bicycle network based on detailed evaluation criteria related to the plan’s goals in order to develop a short and medium range work plan. Project evaluation criteria can be weighted to highlight the relative importance of one metric over another. Table 8-2 shows the proposed secondary evaluation criteria.

Addresses location with bicycle collision history and emphasis on vulnerable roadway users Enhances bicyclist safety by promoting travel on streets with lower motorist speeds and low volumes Addresses locations or streets that are associated with greater cyclist stress and more severe collision potential due to high motor vehicle volumes (ADT) and high speeds Provides a connection to destination clusters Increase RIDERSHIP Provides a connection to areas with high population density Serves populations that are historically underserved, including areas with a higher percentage of minority populations, households below poverty, people under 18, people over 65, and households without access to an automobile Provides a health benefit for people in areas with the greatest reported health needs, represented by obesity rates, physical activity rates (self-reported), and diabetes rates Enhance LIVABILITY Reaches the greatest number of riders, but recognizes that all bicycle facilities provide a measurable benefit to at least some bicyclists

Improve SAFETY

Address EQUITY

Removes a barrier or closes a system gap in the bicycling network Enhance CONNECTIVITY Makes a connection that will immediately extend the bicycle network

88

The citywide and local connections networks will be grouped into three tiers based on natural breaks in the number of points they score or the number of projects falling into each tier. All projects in the networks will be scored against each other, regardless of facility type. Projects in the highest tier would be top priority; the second tier would be moderate priority, and the third would be lowest. Qualitative Evaluation Process A third step to guide annual prioritization is a set of criteria that focuses on more qualitative factors as opposed to quantifiable criteria (see Table 8-3). These qualitative evaluation criteria are useful and important when considering other projects that may not have scored highly during quantitative analysis, but may be opportunity driven, or have some other compelling reason for moving forward. Catalyst Projects While large-scale or challenging projects are a part of both the citywide and local bicycling networks and may be prioritized within this framework, it is likely that alternative funding sources (e.g., grant funding) will be necessary to successfully complete many of these projects. Strategy: Evaluate bicycle projects annually using the BMP prioritization framework. Actions: • Develop an annual work plan each year for review by the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB), City Council, and other stakeholders. • Refine prioritization criteria (adjust weighting and scoring) as needed.

The cycle track on Linden Avenue provides a physical separation between motorized and bicycle traffic.

Table 8-3: Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Potential to leverage other funding Policy directive Community interest Geographic balance Comments Initiating project now will help secure funding Project specified by policy or City Council Local community has expressed interest in bicycle infrastructure improvements Project improves the balance of bicycle funding to be spent among geographic sectors of the city. Project expands the percentage of Seattle residents living within ¼ mile of a bicycle facility.

89

Investment Approach
Other top cycling cities have shown that a broadbased approach to bicycle investment that funds bicycle infrastructure, marketing, education, maintenance, and transit access improvements can simultaneously realize marked increases in bicycle use and cycling safety. A balanced investment approach, informed by the information in Table 8-4, will be important for SDOT to effectively reach its ridership, safety, and livability goals. As the network matures, the city can expect to shift some of its emphasis from network improvements to programmatic efforts. From here, this chapter provides an overview of major funding opportunities and recommends strategies for consistent and sustainable funding of bicycle projects, programs, and maintenance.

support for active transportation grants is stagnating, and competition for funding is increasing as more communities around the country and in the state of Washington commit to livable communities strategies. Local long-term revenue streams have successfully funded bicycle projects and programs, yet are not sufficient for widespread expansion of cycling numbers and safety. The funding strategy will help the city secure continual financial support for bicycle transportation and recreation, position itself for successful grant applications, and prioritize bicycle projects in strategic planning and budget development to ensure funding in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Strategy: Establish a broad-based funding approach. SDOT should employ a funding allocation strategy that is flexible and allows for opportunistic spending. Roughly 85-90 percent of funding should be dedicated to bicycle network and end-of-trip facility improvements. Seattle’s funding approach should be multi-pronged, covering investments not just in constructing bicycle facilities, but also in offering bike parking, encouraging people to use facilities and bicycles in general, educating people about the rules of the road, maintaining bicycle facilities, and tracking the success of bicycle projects and programs. Actions: • Fund bicycle projects and programming commensurate to US Census “commute by bike” mode share percentage. In 2010, 3.6 percent of Seattle

The Changing Nature of Bicycle Projects
Seattle residents expect safe, comfortable, and convenient bicycle facilities as a way to improve quality of life and help achieve community livability goals. The layering of the all ages and abilities network onto the existing network of sharrows and arterial bike lanes will come at a greater cost than current funding levels, in part because the designs are more complex. Even so, these more attractive facilities are typically less expensive than other modal investments and require less maintenance.

Funding Strategy
Federal and state grant funding sources are becoming a less reliable option for local governments. Federal

Table 8-4: Summary of Bicycle Strategy Investment Ranges - Portland, Minneapolis, New York City, and Copenhagen
Strategy Network improvements Parking & end of-trip facilities Bicycle-transit integration Education Encouragement Total Cycling Investment (%) per Year 72% - 98% 0.25% - 5% 0.40% - 4% 0.50% - 17%* 0.50% - 3.61% Investment ($) per Capita per Year Based on Peers $25.00 - $50.00 $0.15 - $2.00 $0.20 - $1.50 $0.25 - $6.00 $0.25 - $1.25

*Note: The broad range in education funding levels displayed above relates to some cities’ propensity to boost funding for cycling education once some level of network “maturity” has been achieved. Source: TransLink Regional Cycling Strategy Implementation Plan

90

Bridging the Gap funding levy was a substantial funding source for bicycle projects over the last nine years. residents commuted by bike, supported by a bicycle project funding level of 2 percent. Mode share-based funding should ultimately take the form of a “stepped” funding program, where funding increases as the bicycle mode share increases and the percentage of transportation funds allocated for bicycle transportation increases gradually over time using scheduled increases in funding. • Fund high-priority projects first. The plan includes clear direction on the types of projects that have the greatest potential impact on ridership and safety and represent the greatest opportunity to get more people riding now. • Include bicycle projects in the CIP. The inclusion of more complex and potentially more expensive bicycle facilities, such as cycle tracks, in the CIP will decouple needed infrastructure improvements from the political instability of annual budgets and move the city beyond cycle track feasibility studies to actual implementation. • Continue to integrate bicycle projects into Complete Streets efforts. 91 • Fund bicycle projects through major multimodal capital projects. • Fund facility maintenance. • Integrate Multimodal Corridors into any subsequent Bridging the Gap measure and other funding programs. • Capitalize on the multiple benefits of bicycling to fund neighborhood initiatives out of a variety of fund sources. The Neighborhood Street Fund, Family and Education Levy, and Neighborhood Park and Street Funds are potential funding opportunities. • Prepare plans with conceptual design and planning level cost estimates for high-priority projects to increase readiness for grant funding. • Develop a citywide strategic investment approach that integrates bicycle facility development into major capital project, multimodal corridor redesign, and roadway maintenance budgets. • Continually monitor, evaluate, and improve the bicycle network. A bicycle network is always evolving. The city must continually evaluate and modify

NELSON\NYGAARD

its bicycle streets to best meet the needs of bicyclists of all ages and abilities. • Refresh the Bicycle Master Plan every five to seven years. This process will trigger new project development sheets and/or action plans. The BMP is a living document that continually responds to new demand, network gaps, program needs, and priorities.

Bicycle Network Construction Cost
The rough order-of-magnitude costs of the proposed facilities will be developed for the final plan. See Table 8-5 for a summary of the number of miles to be built to complete the network. A range of costs for each facility mile will be developed using historical costs and supplemented with unit prices and assumed level of infrastructure. This short- and long-term cost assessment will be developed along with plan implementation priorities in the final plan. Table 8-5: General Order-of-Magnitude Costs per Facility
Total Plan Miles 78.2 102.3 244.5 129.9 29.8 Facilities to Build (Miles) 31.2 101.3 235.8 78.2 5.1 451.7

Local, Regional, State, and Federal Funding Scan
The Bicycle Master Plan contains a variety of facility types, maintenance of such facilities, and programs that will require a diverse range of funding sources. Recently, Seattle has successfully secured project funding through a mix of sources including grant funding. Grant funding will continue to be important and the city should explore private funds or other revenue options. Appendix 6 presents a scan of public and private funding opportunities that SDOT is well positioned to secure for bicycle infrastructure and programs. The scan also provides a summary of how Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century (MAP-21)—the current iteration of federal surface transportation funding—impacts bicycle infrastructure and program funding and how Seattle can capitalize on these changes.

Off Street Cycle Track Neighborhood Greenway In Street, Minor Separation Shared Street

Many North American cities develop policy statements that integrate bicycle facility maintenance into project development. In most cases, the intent of maintenance funding policy is to preserve the network in “a state of good repair.” Yet, few cities develop actionable funding plans or mechanisms that dedicate adequate city funds to this purpose. Two cities break this mold: Minneapolis and Santa Monica. Each city has committed 8 to 10 percent of its total bicycle capital investment program toward maintaining new capital improvements. Minneapolis estimates $2 per linear foot to maintain its network of trails, bike boulevards, and bike lanes.

92

Acknowledgments to come from SDOT and to be in the final plan

93

94

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful