What Did Your Council Candidate Say About Safe Streets?

Posted on Posted in News, Press Release

by Cathy Tuttle, July 16, 2015

I got my ballot in the mail today!

If you live in Seattle and are registered to vote, you will get to choose two at-large City Council candidates, and one Council candidate who represents your District.  For the past year, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways has been organizing its advocacy priorities, local groups and volunteers by District as well. We believe District elections will significantly change the face of Seattle projects and policies.

This is a run-off primary election, with ballots due August 4. The top two vote-getters in each position will advance to the November elections when we will choose our nine City Council members. Most of the Districts and at-large positions have many candidates running (there are over 40 people running for nine seats).

I admire every person who has chosen to run for City Council. Every one has made a sacrifice of their time, their money, and their energy to put forward their ideas about how to make Seattle a better and more livable city.

Local Greenways group leaders came up with just two questions that we asked of all 40+ candidates. You can see candidates’ complete responses at the bottom of this post, on this Google spreadsheet, or this Excel pdf.

Here are the two questions each candidate answered:

  • Question 1: What street or transportation projects proposed for your District get you excited? What projects will you push for, and what might you oppose?
  • Question 2: Envision a major street running through a business district in your neighborhood. Now that you’re a City Councilmember, you hear from residents and business owners who are concerned that an SDOT project to increase safety for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit on this street may impact some on-street parking and slow down traffic by an estimated thirty seconds per mile. You also hear from parents, seniors, and people who live and work in the area that they really want their street to be safer.

How, if at all, would you engage SDOT and the people who live and work in your neighborhood and mediate conflicting project outcomes? This project will impact traffic in the following ways:

(1) remove some on-street parking for better visibility for people walking

(2) narrow some vehicle lanes to encourage drivers to keep to a maximum 25 mph speed;

(3) re-time traffic signals to give slower elders and children more time to safely cross the street;

(4) dedicate some current vehicle traffic lanes to buses and people on bikes so that they can move more quickly and safely

The illustration below is a word cloud of all candidate answers.

Council Candidate Word Cloud in worditout.com
Council Candidate Word Cloud in worditout.com



District Position (1-9) Candidate Name Q1 Q2


Arturo Robles What excites me is a rail line into West Seattle. I think that we can use the bus lane on the bridge and put the rail line there too and I will push for it if it is possible, meaning that it will support it.

I know the Delridge needs a face lift, it will be very costly but it can be done.

These are real life problems where some of the interest conflict. I like to see what are the benefits to the business district by having the increased traffic. I like to listen to an expert in transportation what are some of the things we can do to minimize the impact on the safety of the people and the business community.Then once you have all these facts every one compromises a little and we all get, not all, but some of what we want, and that is how life is and we move on.


Chas Redmond I’m looking forward to the Fauntleroy Boulevard evolution which will give both vehicle travelers and pedestrians and cyclists an inviting and safe and effective entryway into West Seattle from the Spokane Street Viaduct. I’m also looking forward to the new intersection crossing at the north end of Fauntleroy and Alaska next to the expected Whole Foods store. This will be a new and valuable Alaska Street crossing not currently allowed. I’m also looking forward to the reduction of speed on 35th Avenue SW and the incorporation of traffic islands to allow for safer pedestrian crossings. I would propose an additional staircase for pedestrians and cyclists up what’s known as Snake Hill, the continuation of Brandon St. SW up the hill heading westward to High Point from the Delridge Library area. I would work with SDOT to determine the impact of the parking removal and request conversations with the businesses and/or residences impacted by the parking removal. I would work with the businesses and residents (if affected) with the assistance of SDOT to see if there are viable parking options available nearby. If the issue is one of loading areas, that could be alleviated by selecting specific times where loading was allowed, again, in concert with the businesses involved. Other than this specific issue, I would completely support the restructuring of the business street.


Shannon Braddock As a long time West Seattle resident and a mother of three kids in the Seattle Public Schools, I am very concerned about the need for Complete Streets in the city that don’t just prioritize car movement, but also make sure that bikes and pedestrians are safer. I also value a neighborhood where travel is slower and kids have more ability to walk to schools, parks, and stores safely.

SDOT is working on several projects in District 1, including 35th Ave SW, Admiral Way, and Fauntleroy Way in the Triangle that would improve bike and pedestrian facilities. I am most excited about the proposed improvements for 35th Ave SW. 35th is known by many in West Seattle as I-35 because of speeds up to 50 MPH. This street currently has the 1950’s design of two traffic lanes, no center turn lane, and street parking. Accident rates for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians are higher than the average because some cars are speeding while others are paused in lane to make left turns. Elderly and disabled pedestrians must cross a very wide street with no safe place in the middle and limited signalized crosswalks.

I am strongly in support of the proposals for 35th Ave SW that would take most of the corridor and make it one lane each direction with a center turn lane. I believe the SDOT alternatives that have been presented to the public are well thought out and recognize the needs of multiple users. SDOT did a similar treatment of the Fauntleroy Way corridor a few years ago and it has been very positive for West Seattle and the neighborhoods along that street. Traffic still moves well, but pedestrians and bikes are much safer due to reduced speeding and better design. SDOT’s plan to use similar treatments on the south end of 35th Ave and only add traffic lanes as the street gets busier near the Alaska Junction seems like it will work well for all users.

I will be a strong supporter of the project on 35th Ave SW and other projects in District 1 that balance the needs of all users and make our neighborhoods safer. I will always listen to all constituents and try to relay their concerns to SDOT. I would only oppose projects which I feel have been poorly designed without community input.

As Chief of Staff for King County Councilmember Joe McDermott, I have a long history of constituent engagement in a district represented system. There is always a tension between people who do not want change and those who want better outcomes for their neighborhood. The first task is to make sure that the constituent outreach is robust and well thought out. Too often, we only hear from a small portion of the neighborhood who can attend public meetings and are generally either strongly in support or opposition to a change in their streets. I would encourage SDOT to try to reach people along a project area by attending community events where people are already there. It is important not to present decisions as already made downtown, but to genuinely seek public input from neighborhoods. The stronger foundation you build in the community during public outreach, the better the end outcome is likely to be. As a councilmember, I would ask for good information on all changes so I could better answer concerns. For example, I would want to see a survey of available on and off street parking around the corridor proposed for changes. This is important information for me in supporting a project so that I could identify and separate valid concerns from those who simply don’t want change. I would prioritize safety needs for all users over extra travel time. People will adapt and leave for their destination earlier if they know they cannot drive 45-50 MPH on an arterial. The length of 35th Ave SW for example is about six miles. When people are presented with the information that it may be 3-4 minutes longer by car, but it will be much safer and predictable for cars, bikes, and pedestrians, they may soften their opposition to changes. Narrowing lanes can be effective in slowing cars, but you would also need to make sure that transit and freight still have enough room to effectively operate.

I believe that we have not looked at our street network in a holistic way that includes all users. The transit master plan and the bicycle master plan often identify the same corridors as a priority. That may work in some places, but not in others. It is important that we plan good pathways for both, but I would be open to making one street a bike corridor and one a transit/car corridor if needed. As Seattle continues to grow in population and jobs it is clear that we can’t have an auto-dependent transportation system. Cars are important to many of us. I use one to take kids to events, shop, and often to run personal errands. But I also walk in my neighborhood, bike, and use transit to get to work whenever possible. Many Seattleites use multiple modes to get to work and play as I do, and these people will see the tradeoffs between speed and a safer neighborhood. As a councilmember I would be active in all stages of project development. I would gather input throughout the process, but when it comes to making tough decisions I would not try to make everyone 100% happy, but to meet the best mix of multiple needs. And at the end of the day, I would remind folks that many street changes are just paint. If they don’t work as well as anticipated, changes can be made in the future.


Brianna Thomas Obviously, I’m excited at the prospect of Sound Transit 3 passing and West Seattle and South Park getting a light-rail connection to Downtown. I understand that there’s a lot that needs to happen between now and then, but I believe that light-rail is the backbone of the public transportation system we need. I’m excited that the Move Seattle Levy includes funding for expanded and improved Metro Transit service to our District, though it doesn’t go far enough. I’m excited about road rechannelizations along 35th SW and portions of Roxbury, which will significantly improve the safety of those streets for all residents. I’m disappointed the Move Seattle levy only dedicates $7 million to Safe Routes to Schools, much less than we need for pedestrian infrastructure and traffic-calming improvements, even around the most underserved schools in our school district. Even with additional revenue from speed cameras around schools (a funding source that will decline as residents avoid speeding around schools), total funding will be insufficient. I supported Seattle Neighborhood Greenway’s proposal for $38.4 million to be dedicated to Safe Routes to Schools and remain committed to finding supplementary funding for these necessary investments. I believe there are clear cases where its more important to make our streets safer than it is to preserve on-street parking. When there are clear cases, our goal shouldn’t be to mediate conflicting project outcomes at the expense of our primary obligation to ensure public safety. Rather, our goal should be to quickly and effectively do what’s right, even though some residents may disagree. Sometimes, some residents are simply wrong about what needs to be done. I’m tired of seeing good public policy watered down by a small but extremely vocal minority of Seattle residents. As described, this hypothetical seems to reflect a clear case.

But there are unclear cases and the details and data matter. Not every street needs to be able to accommodate every transit mode (consider freight corridors). Sometimes, mediating conflicting concerns means getting people out of each others’ way. Sometimes, it means making special accommodations. Some businesses are in areas poorly served by transit, or relatively inaccessible by foot. Some businesses really do rely on on-street parking. We have to make sure that our assessments of the needs of the community are comprehensive and accurate, which is why public engagement and feedback is so important to the success of these projects.


Karl Wirsing I just biked home from Admiral earlier this evening, and part of my route included the wonderful greenway along 26th. It’s a smooth, pleasant ride—safe for cyclists and drivers—and also makes for an inviting neighborhood environment for pedestrians and kids and everyone else.

My wife and I bought our first home together in Delridge, so we are excited to see these developments, including a planned greenway on our own street, 21st Avenue. I can’t wait for that one, as it will help slow down some the through-traffic (which largely appears unfazed by our existing speed bumps), and it also improves the first leg of my bike commute to the University of Washington.

My answer to what I might oppose—or at least where I would urge careful consideration and planning—flows into the next response …

I would love to be a central figure in brokering this dialogue, because the key to any project like this is aggressive community and stakeholder engagement, and making sure everyone along the corridor has a chance to weigh in on possible designs and outcomes.

Right now, I hear from so many people in West Seattle who perceive a tension and antagonism between drivers and cyclists and pedestrians. But the good news is that we all share the same essential interests on our roads—from safety to mobility to having choices of transportation—and I strongly believe with honest outreach and conversation, we will always find more common ground than enmity when it comes to planning street improvements.

After all, with this proposed street project, the changes—if executed properly—will ultimately benefit everyone in the community, as well as visitors from outside the area. As long as we are frugal and thoughtful in how much parking we remove (and we should be careful not to overreach), we can maintain vehicle access while also making pedestrians more legible to drivers, which makes driving and walking and cycling less stressful for all parties. Narrowing lanes only asks drivers to be slightly more alert, and to drive marginally slower, and given how distracted drivers are these days—from texting to fidgeting with all manner of radios and Bluetooth devices—reducing speeds and sharpening focus strikes me as downright necessary. Re-timing traffic signals can add a small amount of time to a commute, but if it’s your own neighborhood, the first priority has to be the safe mobility for all residents in the area; that’s an easy, small sacrifice to make in the name of promoting a walkable, cohesive community.

And finally, though I would be cautious about removing too many lanes, an effective bus (and eventually light rail!!) system is a powerful tool for reducing volumes on our roads. It can be hard to visualize how an integrated public transit system really changes the culture of a community, but with the right bus routes and connections, we can slowly train ourselves to spend more time zipping around by bus and eventually rail, and less time in our car—which is a win for the entire city and region. With all of these major street projects, though, we have to show some restraint and moderation.

Even as a regular user and vocal supporter of active transportation infrastructure, I also understand that driving is still central to the Seattle experience, from getting out to hike or camp or ski, to visiting the San Juans, to heading out to tour wineries, to dining out in another part of the city. So we need to be careful to grow in a way that improves our multi-modal options for getting around the city, while also ensuring that Seattleites can still move in and out of the city to access the jewels of the Pacific Northwest.


Bruce Harrell District 2 has some exciting opportunities in front of us relative to bicycle infrastructure projects, neighborhood greenways, safety corridors, trails and bike parking; all of which I have supported. My role will be to be the voice of inclusion among underrepresented groups such that they can enjoy, understand and help advocate for a safe, livable, walk-able community. I have and will continue advocating for the following projects and envision completion for many of these projects, including:

1) Rainier Avenue South Road Safety Corridor from between Edmunds S. and Kenny St and later between Letitia to Seward Park Drive.
2) Complete both the North-South and East-West Greenways in Rainier Valley. Specifically, they are: 1) 4 mile North-South Rainier Greenway from South Mt. Baker Blvd to South Henderson St. and 2) Rainier Valley East-West greenway from Chief Sealth Trail/John C. Little Sr. Park to Martha Washington Park.
3) The following neighborhood greenway projects in the Move Seattle levy: 1) S Weller St, 2) 21st Ave S. 3) S Hill St, 4) Rainier Ave S. Parallel Greenway, 5) 7th Ave S, 6) S Hanford St, 7) S Kenyon St, 8) S Morgan St, 9) Cheasty Blvd E, 10) S Ferdinand St, 11) 38th Ave S, and 12) 46th Ave South.
4) Projects funded from the Bike Master Plan:
a. 2.6 mile long east-west neighborhood greenway, intersecting MLK Way at S. Walden St, connecting Beacon Hill and Mt. Baker neighborhoods and connecting Cheasty Greenspace to Genesee Playfields
b. Beacon Ave. S. to MLK, primary street being S. Myrtle Place
c. Beacon Ave S. (S. Spokane St. to S. Columbian Way)
d. Rainier Avenue S. (S. Henderson to Seward Park)
e. Rainier Avenue S. (S. Dearborn St to 12th Ave S.)
f. S Henderson St. (MLK to Rainier Ave S.)
g. .31 mile on S Dearborn from Rainier Ave S to S Bush Pl
h. .9 mile on S Myrtle St from 37th Ave S to Seward Park Ave S
i. 1.3 miles on 26th Ave S from S Jackson St to Rainier Ave S
j. $3.09 M Mountain-to-Sound-Trail Extension
5) Pronto! Cycle share for bike expansion in Southeast Seattle. I sponsored green-sheet 103-1-A-1 in 2015 budget to add $50,000 for planning to create a bike share expansion in Southeast Seattle.
6) Safe routes to School funding that focuses on curb bulbs, ramps, sidewalk repairs and construction and other infrastructure that supports our bicycle infrastructure.

I have made significant investments to our transportation infrastructure to accommodate all modes of transportation and to improve safety. We have invested $23M in Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects in SE Seattle, $16.5 M in Rainier Valley Improvements, and $5.5 M in MLK Way Projects in 2015. As a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board, I was successful in advocating for $14 M in projects to South Seattle to support station area pedestrian improvements and transit speed and reliability corridor improvements. I also fought for $32.5 M in federal funds for roads and transit as a 4-year regional leader on the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transportation Policy Board.

We don’t have to envision, I have experienced this situation in the last year with the Rainier Avenue South Road Safety Corridor project. For most of my adult life, I have driven down this stretch of road every day or been on a bus. We know that this corridor is one of the most high-collision corridors in the city. From January 2011 to September 2014 we had 1243 collisions, 630 injuries, and 2 fatalities.

Bottom line: I support phase 1 of the Rainier Avenue South Road Safety Corridor project between Edmunds S. and Kenny St and eventually from Letitia Avenue South to Seward Park Avenue South. My number one priority is safety for this corridor. I support reducing speeds from 30 to 25 in this area.

I believe SDOT has conducted significant outreach and has worked with the businesses and residents who use this corridor every day. I have been in close contact with Dongho Chang from SDOT, have attended several of the SDOT community meetings and met with residents opposing this project almost to midnight. I attended and spoke at the “Safety Over Speeding Day of Action” on May 20th in Columbia City at S Edmunds St and Rainier Ave S. I believe the message is resonating, a safer Rainier Ave will be good for our communities and businesses.

My focus has been to use the traffic flow data and public safety collision data to help achieve data based solutions in order to mitigate conflicting problems. On Rainier Avenue South between South Jackson St. and South McClellan St, there is a range from 29,800 to 35,000 in vehicle volume. Between S. McClellan St. and South Genesee St., the volume of traffic is approximately 22,200. Between South Genesee St and Othello St the volume is 19,700. From Othello St. to S. Henderson St. the volume is 22,100. Based on recommendations from the City of Seattle’s Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, it is established that road re-channelization is recommended to work best on roads with daily traffic of 20,000 or less. Based on a Rainier road diet report from 2008, it was predicted that southbound transit would run 30% slower during high volume and 100% slower for car traffic if a re-channelization occurred. However, I believe this report was conducted using older data that did not recognize the changing modes of transportation and the fact that people will change modes when presented with feasible alternatives. Based on our policy direction, I have asked the Seattle Department of Transportation to develop a plan to improve the coordination of the Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Freight Master Plan, and Transit Master Plan when re-designing corridors. This effort strongly aligns with a modal transportation prioritization hierarchy model in that we have made it clear that walking, available transit and safe bike lanes are the building blocks to establish vibrant, healthy communities. While we recognize we will continue to move freight through trucks, we have to recognize that safety is our priority. Therefore, I have advocated for the use of 8 categories for assessing prioritization of large capital projects using a 100 point system: total collision rate, bike and pedestrian collisions, infrastructure condition & risk, equity and health, environmental stewardship, priority corridors, future growth, and complete streets. With this conceptual framework, we were able to establish, for example for cyclists, the roadway (163/342, 48%) was the predominant area for collisions with 56% of the collisions occurring at the intersection. 75% of all pedestrian collisions occurred at the intersection (298/396) with 58% occurring on marked crosswalks. With this information, we are able to align our capital investments with our commitment to increase safety.


Tammy Morales I’m excited about the changes proposed for Rainier Avenue. I want to see traffic slowed, transit prioritized, and a multi-modal approach to moving people through and around the Rainier Valley, including greenways. I also like the long term vision for Mt. Baker to eliminate the dangerous intersection of MLK and Rainier. In general, I would support projects that prioritize safety; increase wayfinding for people who walk and bike; prioritize Greenway maintenance; and projects that advance our Complete Streets ordinance. Community advocacy is critical to holding our elected officials accountable.

I support organizing communities to provide input as planning for new stations and infrastructure gets underway. Planning should take into account all the ways people get to transit stops and all the ways they use transit. Our neighbors need choices for how to get around the city, to jobs, to medical appointments, to the grocery store. Some need to use their cars, but many prefer to walk to access a robust transit system. At the same time, our city has a clear priority to reach a goal of zero traffic fatalities. That should be our primary focus as we plan for moving people and goods through the city.To do this safely, people need pedestrian bridges, walkways, well-lit and well-maintained pathways. We need to take the time to listen to the community and incorporate their needs into our transit planning processes.

SDOT should be willing to adjust their plans if the community has a sound idea worth exploring; if not, we need to rely on the expertise of the department. If people can walk safely to and from transit, we can increase ridership, relieve road congestion, and boost economic activity in the community surrounding transit stops.


Morgan Beach I am very excited for the expansion and opening of the Capitol Hill light rail stop and the First Hill Street Car. These are the beginning of what I hope will make it significantly easier and more affordable to get around our city in the future. My top priority for transportation projects is grade-separated light rail systems, because of their efficiency (approximately, a 6 car light rail can move the equivalent of 27.5 buses in a fraction of the time). However, as the Capitol Hill stop opens, I am watching closely the affected bus routes in District neighborhoods. Two lifeline routes, the 11 and 25 are potentially going to be cut causing a serious cut in service for areas that are already difficult to access via transit. This concerns me not only for those who opt into mass transit as their primary mode of transportation but more seriously for those who cannot drive due to a physical or other disability. I will push to maintain these routes. Right now, I would oppose Madison Rapid Transit expansion. This is already a pretty well served corridor and I would prefer our limited resources be directed to maintaining our neighborhood connector routes than adding another bus to a short , already served corridor. 1) Create a special project area map of suggested parking alternatives for the area where on-street parking will be decreased with the partnership of SDOT.
2) Send a newsletter/eblast to residents and community groups in the immediate impacted area about the changes and their benefit for safety and accessibility and encourage them to weigh in with my office and SDOT (give them the SDOT contact info) if they have other safety concerns with the project.
3) Meet 1:1 with businesses to mitigate impacts because of projects, and give them resources to assist with negative business impacts during the construction period. Help them understand what the outcome will be after the project is complete and help them plan for it.
4) Work with SDOT and neighborhood councils on public outreach meetings or comment periods to bring residents up to speed on bus stop, crosswalk and road changes so they know what’s coming.


Rod Hearne I’m excited about the light rail station coming online on Capitol Hill. I’m interested in the Bus Rapid Transit proposal on Madison and doing the community outreach necessary for people to become familiar with the project. The top priority should be public safety. Successful outreach to help the public understand the effort should be about empowering parents, seniors and kids to tell the story about how the changes are going to make the community safer. If possible, find ways of making the case that a calmer, safer, more ordered street (I’m imagining Madison after BRT) will make accessing the services and businesses there more appealing.


Michael Maddux The Urbanist described me as “absolutely giddy” about the Ballard Spur. This has been a regular talking point, and I would like to see Sound Transit prioritize this connection before a direct Ballard to Downtown connection. Frankly, everything I have read shows that more people per day could be carried, at a lower operating cost, and with similar commute times for Ballard residents (while also serving and connecting Fremont and Wallingford).

More short term, I would like to see more emphasis on funding and implementing the bicycle master plan and pedestrian master plan, and traffic calming in our neighborhoods. In Eastlake, we have cars zooming down the main road, and there really is no alternative for cyclists, and we are forced to ride alongside cars. I have similar concerns about the 45th street overpass.

This is why I opposed the transportation package out of Olympia this year. While I appreciate there is some money for Seattle multi-modal projects, the emphasis on roads and highway expansion at a time when we should be working to provide people with actual transportation choices is unfortunate. On council, I will be an advocate for taking care of existing infrastructure, and investing in projects that improve safety and mobility, while giving people safe options outside of single-occupancy vehicles.

Two specific areas I would like to see that kind of investment include a bike/ped overpass at 47th with pedestrian safety improvements and traffic calming on 45th, and a cycletrack or protected lanes connecting Eastlake through Fairview to Broad/Mercer, and all the way up Roosevelt/11th. Ensuring that neighborhood greenways can safely connect with “bicycle highways,” and that we get some east-west connections (especially fixing the unsafe mess that is 65th) are district-specific areas I would want to see funded.

Broader picture, I believe that our transportation priorities must start with safety for all users. While there are concerns that I have heard from folks that we spend too much on bike lanes, I just don’t agree. And, frankly, getting cyclists like myself into protected bike lanes not only makes us safer (as well as the added benefit for pedestrian safety), but improves mobility for all users. We have a Bicycle Master Plan and a Pedestrian Master Plan. I want to see these, along with prioritization for transit, funded and implemented.

For one, I would get prepared with the best data possible. I understand, for instance, that increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic is actually better for most small businesses than relying on car traffic. I would want to be prepared with that information, along with specific numbers (total vehicle spots lost, utilization of existing surface lots and garages, total and type of collisions involving motor vehicles) relating to most common concerns raised when we engage in these corridor redesigns. I would also look to bring data showing success in other parts of the city, as well as areas that need improvement in their redesigns.

Before any “mediation,” however, I would first want to meet with the people who are raising concerns. This has long been my method – whether relating to Parks, Labor negotiations, within the Party, and even on the campaign trail. Taking the time to listen to the concerns, and engage in a dialogue about what folks believe the alternatives should be, or what mitigating investments might make them more comfortable with such a change. Part of being a council member, I believe, includes being an ambassador of the city. Creating – and maintaining – that connection with people who believe they may be impacted will make for a better conversation overall. My experience shows me that this can be effective in engaging a constructive dialogue.

From there, I would bring everyone together, and allow SDOT to present their information, and present all of the data, comparable redesigns that have worked (and why), ones that haven’t (and what was learned), and engage in a conversation focused on what are we going to do to improve safety for all users, all ages, all abilities. I would also encourage SDOT to come prepared to address concerns previously raised, and with options for mitigation of those concerns.

Of course, this collaborative effort won’t work every time. But I do believe that, with district council members, constructive dialogue will be even more common, and we can continue to make investments, with less consternation, that will improve safety for all users (with the right council members).


Jean Godden I am greatly pleased that the Move Seattle Levy now has guarantees that will make the 45th NE crossing over I-5 safer for all modes of transit. We have to push for more east/west routes so that folks can have safe and easy access to the new light rail station. I will push for more safe routes to schools and will continue to hear and do something about local transportation issues that neighbors bring forward. Currently, I do not oppose any of the new proposed projects. Bringing communities and SDOT together at an open house before and throughout the duration of the project is essential for engaging all affected constituents. There needs to be clearer pathways of communication between neighbors, concerned parties and SDOT. As an elected official, it is my responsibility to encourage that transparency and accountability. Most recently, I backed SDOT’s plans for bicycle and safety improvements through the Roosevelt District, even though that did mean lower speeds, narrower lanes, and dedicated bus and bike routes. I worked directly with SDOT to try and alleviate the concerns of people affected by the project. I do believe that safety takes priority and that Roosevelt now has a safer route for all forms of commuters.


Rob Johnson I’ve been a strong advocate behind the scenes with SDOT on extending the protected bike lane on Roosevelt from 45th all the way to 65th and believe that project is critical to complete this year. I want to see us extend that same protected bike lane all the way down Eastlake Avenue East and connect to protected bike facilities both into South Lake Union and into Downtown Seattle. I’m a supporter of putting a protected bike lane on 65th connecting Magnuson Park to Greenlake as a way to make bike riders feel more protected, to calm down traffic on 65th and to increase economic activity in the neighborhoods. I’d like to see us implement a similar protected bike lane along 15th from 65th to the UW Hospital.

I think that we need to find the funding to reduce conflicts between bikes and peds on the Burke Gilman trail both through smart separation (as is proposed by UW around the campus) and by creating more on street protected bike lanes on parallel streets to the Burke Gilman. I’d like to see more protected bike parking in neighborhood commercial districts like Wallingford, Roosevelt, and The Ave, so that we are creating big bike parking hubs for current and future users. I think we should be fully implementing the greenways strategies in our neighborhoods to both reduce conflicts/improve safety, and to encourage more multi­modal use. And finally, I’d like to see us be more bold about our bike infrastructure. I’m a firm believer in the Enrique Penalosa strategy that a bike lane isn’t a bike lane if an 8 year old can’t ride in it. We need more places where people of all ages and abilities feel safe riding bikes in this city.

As mentioned above, I have a strong working relationship with the DOT. Secondly, one of the ways we can best ensure that our standards are being met is by opening up offices in neighborhoods in the district. That kind of accessibility will allow individuals greater access to government (instead of having to come downtown during a weekday) and ideally will result in a more responsive and nimble approach to solving community problems.

We also need to take ownership of the fact that we have designed many of our roadways in Seattle in a way that allows car drivers the license to travel much too quickly, particularly on arterials and neighborhood streets. The city is making great progress at addressing some of these high accident locations, but we need to move beyond being reactive after the fact to being proactive and addressing problem spots before injuries or fatalities occur. This requires a significant culture shift, but we MUST stop allowing 30,000+ deaths a year (in the US) at the wheel to be just an externality associated with car ownership.

Lastly, we need to make sure that we’re engaging and including residents of all income levels and backgrounds in neighborhood discussions. We need to invite residents outside of the traditional neighborhood advocacy groups to contribute and share their views to ensure that the discussions aren’t framed by only by those with the time, energy, and resources to attend and be a member of said groups.


Abel Pacheco 1) It’s time to invest in our district’s street safety projects and develop creative solutions and effective partnerships. I support the mayor’s Move Seattle initiative, but I am concerned that there is not ample funding for street safety projects. Many streets in our district lack sidewalks and safe walkways for pedestrians. I want to increase our investment in street safety projects, such as the construction of a lid over I-5. The lid would connect our neighborhoods for safer walking and biking. Additionally, it would provide more space for affordable housing in our district. The U District light rail station will make it easier for residents to travel safely and quickly in our community. The needs of our district’s pedestrians have been overlooked for far too long. I fully support more funding and increased investment in projects which help make our streets safer for all who use them. I will oppose projects which claim to invest in transportation but fail to recognize the strain put on streets and the pedestrians who use them. Two Seattle Council members currently sit on the Regional Transit Committee that works to provide a strategic plan for public transportation. If elected, I would like to be a member of that committee to champion innovation and investment in infrastructure and public transportation, as well as ensuring we make street safety a top priority. 2) When considering transit and street safety projects, I would take multiple steps to hear the concerns of all stakeholders. As I’m doing everyday in this campaign, I would focus on engaging members of the community in a proactive basis and asking for their guidance and perspective. In understanding the impact on local businesses, I would reach out to the local neighborhood chamber and the businesses affected. I would ensure that SDOT does their due diligence in seeking input from the community. Rather than the typical downtown meeting, the SDOT should collaborate with the Department of Neighborhoods to actively engage the community which would be impacted by these decisions. With any decision made by the council, there are a number of inevitable tradeoffs. At the end of the day, I would hear the concerns of all community members to make a decision that ensures our streets are safe for all of our pedestrians.


Tony Provine I support a safe crossing for all users at NE 45th Street over I-5. It is urgent that we have a safe crossing for those travelling between the University District and Wallingford. I will actively pursue funding for a pedestrian and bike crossing over I-5, likely at 47th. Improvements I support would include a sound barrier for pedestrians, widening the sidewalks and clearer markings for users sharing the roadway.

I am very concerned about the Roosevelt Repaving and Protected Bike Lane project. I feel that all modes of transportation cannot be placed on all of our arterials. I would hope to find a solution that meets the needs to reach the goal of Vision Zero without impacting small business owners and residents who have valid concerns related to parking and congestion. The addition of a protected bike lane would mean in-lane bus stops on Roosevelt. At peak hours motorists would be moving more easily in the furthest left lane, while motorists behind buses would be weaving in and out of traffic. This creates an unsafe situation and also impedes the movement of freight which is an essential aspect of commerce in our city. Also, pedestrian improvements are not being properly funded while bicycle improvements are being funded. The project was presented to the community with a condensed time frame for input. The Seattle Department of Transportation did not reach out properly to the residents and businesses along Roosevelt.

City Councilmembers must take a strong interest in these community conversations and facilitate them whenever possible. I would call for a series of community discussions with representatives of the Seattle Department of Transportation and all stakeholders. I would use my office to promote communication through leafleting, neighborhood association mailing lists, social media and targeted outreach to senior and other special interest groups, like the Seattle Transit Rider’s Union and Seattle Greenways.

Vision Zero, “Seattle’s plan to END traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030,” is an important step towards addressing concerns related to street safety. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) must be adequately funded. Elders and youth must be given more time to cross streets and crossing with ADA easements. While it is essential for people on bikes and busses to be able to move safely and quickly throughout our city, it is not always best for our communities to significantly reduce vehicle lanes. Motor vehicles are often necessary when there are no reasonable transit options, especially for those who must commute long distances. It is important for freight and commercial vehicle operators who keep our economy strong to be able to move efficiently.


Mercedes Elizalde I am most excited about the Light Rail! Specifically I am really excited about the project at Northgate including the pedestrian and bike bridge to connect to the other side of the freeway. I am also really excited about the prospect of the 130th street station. This is ultimately in the hands of the Sound Transit Board and the city has some voice but not the only voice on that board. I intend to do all I can to support making that area station ready so that the decision is easy and simple for the board. The 130th street station is a critical link to better east-west transportation. I would also like to see more development along Roosevelt for a protected bike lane to connect the neighborhoods along Roosevelt. The most important part of any government project is transparency and an effective feedback loop. People often ask question they never get answers to or have fears and concerns that are not validated. I have been to so many community meetings where city staff start by saying they are there to listen and will not answer questions. Although its critical for the city to listen to people’s concerns they should also be more willing to engage in a dialogue. My goal will be to make sure that dialogue happens. That people are not only heard but validated. Validating people’s feels doesn’t mean that the end result will be what they want it to be, but it means that we acknowledge people and their concerns, and we don’t dismiss people just because they don’t agree right away. Everything about living in a community is about compromise and not everyone will be satisfied with the end results. But the goal should be to make sure people know they have been heard and they had their questions answered, and that the ultimate decisions that are being made are being made with the best information and most inclusive input possible. I support projects that prioritizes the least resourced and most vulnerable people living in our communities (not just in regards to traffic and roads, but always) and that means that some things will be less convenient for those with the most resources and the greatest ability, but that is the trade-off we make to have a community that is safe and healthy for everyone.


Sandy Brown Pedestrian infrastructure is sorely lacking in North Seattle and our North End pedestrians and bikers struggle to remain safe in conditions that are long overdue for improvement. Northeast Seattle is blessed to have Lake City Neighborhood Greenways which has given exemplary leadership in identifying pedestrian and bicycle issues and advocating for their resolution. I’m excited to see improvement projects taking place at Lake City Way and NE 145th, at Lake City Way and 24th Ave NE and am looking forward to the start of work on 30th Ave NE. I’m also pleased to see proposed progress on Safe Routes to School in the Move Seattle plan, as well as the proposed 110 blocks of sidewalks proposed for Broadview. I’m quite disappointed, however, that more pedestrian improvements were not included in Move Seattle, and I worry that our failure to include additional pedestrian infrastructure will make our work more difficult during the nine year span of the proposal. I’m opposed to our inaction on pedestrian improvements and believe we are making a mistake by not prioritizing pedestrian improvements on all North Seattle arterials, many of which lack any form of sidewalks. Some years ago an improvement project for Aurora Avenue North (SR 99) was initiated that would have improved pedestrian safety features along much of the distance of this major arterial. Local business leaders successfully argued against the improvements and funds were diverted to other projects, leaving Aurora a dangerous place for pedestrians. A key argument by business leaders was that funding allocated to the project was inadequate due to storm drainage issues. This experience highlights the importance of bringing all stakeholders into the process until a workable plan has been created and making sure that adequate funding is in place to address all reasonable concerns.

In a situation like this of conflicting priorities and needs it is important to make certain that everyone’s needs are heard and that all issues have some form of attention in the final outcome. As a Councilmember I would reach out to both opposition groups, such as businesses on the street, drivers, commuters and residents parking in the neighborhood and support groups, such as pedestrians, neighborhood safety advocates, parents, elderly and bicyclists, to broker a solution through public meetings with SDOT prior to improvements being made. Safety concerns should always take top priority in any plan, while our old paradigm that streets are simply for moving cars as quickly as possible must be understood as inadequate to our community’s greater needs. As the community reviews its options, people should have the opportunity to review similar models in other places in order to gauge the models’ success. For instance, now that Aurora Avenue in Shoreline is nearing completion it would be helpful to show Seattle’s Aurora business leaders what positive effects a safe and attractive thoroughfare has on businesses.


Kris Lethin I am excited about the complete build out of light rail eventually connecting Everett and Tacoma and hope we will see the 130th Street Station fully funded in ST3. As a member of Shoreline’s 145th Street Corridor Study I have been very excited when some of the discussion indicated support for an off corridor off arterial complete pedestrian and bicycle path between the Interurban and the Burke Gilman Trails. I like the idea of creating recreational people powered options even if they can be costly to implement. Well designed recreational paths are safer, cleaner, and accessible to a broader spectrum of users than paths adjacent to vehicle arterials. Though I understand that re-channelization (road diets) are more cost effective, I don’t like the idea of forcing kids and wheelchair bound people so close to traffic. On street bicycle lanes serve a narrow demographic and are not a great option for North Seattle. I have been inspired by the work of the Greenways Alliance to help promote grant writing efforts in the Haller Lake Community and we successfully applied for a small Safe Routes to Schools grant in the Spring. The money will be used to help educate parents about the importance of using and teaching their kids to use crosswalks rather than dashing across 1st Ave NE mid-block at Northgate Elementary School. The major business corridor that immediately comes to mind is Aurora due to my proximity. My top priority is safety especially safety for kids and senior citizens.

In order to respond with a complete answer I would need a lot more detail about the existing conditions: jurisdiction, customer habits, traffic data, demographic data, project costs, anticipated heuristics for measuring community benefits resulting from the project. I would want to see a complete risk/reward analysis.

To become an advocate for such a project I would need to know that the benefits were clear, measurable, and served the current and future needs of the greatest possible number of people in the user community. I would want to see local user/advocates who were passionate enough to do the work of recruiting neighbors to bring broad community awareness to the project. If those pieces were in place and the community supported the concept proposal I would be happy to advocate vigorously for the project.

However, if there was little or no support from the community, the risk/return analysis were found lacking specificity, and the project had the potential to create unsafe environmental factors I would propose the project be dropped.

As a guy who used to bicycle commute to Bellevue from Pinehurst on a modified mountain bike when I was in my 20’s and early 30’s I am very excited to promote more bicycle options. In District 5 the majority of our neighbors are beyond retirement age so being realistic about the breadth of community support is important.


Debora Juarez North Seattle needs sidewalks. However, there are other crucial improvements that need to be made to bring vitality and strength to District Five.  As it stands, we will only have one light rail station at the far southern end of our District. North Seattle needs a champion to bring the proposed second light rail station (on NE 130th Street, serving the Lake City and Bitter Lake areas) to reality. North Seattle’s lack of advocates on the current city council has also led to poor east-west transit through the district as well the district losing out on federal transportation grants for a bike-pedestrian bridge over I-5. I would work to engage the business owners who are concerned by the project, and let them know about the research that has shown that efforts to enhance walkability and bikeability are tremendously beneficial to businesses, which receive much more foot traffic into their establishments. I would also work to engage folks who live near the area and highlight other benefits of walkable neighborhoods.


Debadutta Dash In D5 there are 3 main transportation projects that really get me excited. The first is sidewalks. D5 severely lacks sidewalks an we need them. This is a mobility problem for all the residents, but especially the children, seniors, and differently abled people for whom walking on the street is especially dangerous. Sidewalks allow everyone to move around more safely, bring people together and help build a sense of community. We need more sidewalks and that would be a priority of mine.

The second is the Northgate Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge. This vital safety and mobility project will allow people to safely cross I5 to use the Light Rail. Safety and the availability and use of mass transit are central themes of my campaign, provide greater opportunities for all, and help our environment.

The third is planning, funding, an then constructing the next Link Light Rail extension. I realize that this is a large task and involves coordinating with Sound Transit, neighborhing communities, and other actors, but I am passionate about it.
We need to build mass public transit options so that more people can move without clogging our streets with cars. Certainly many will still choose to drive, but as much as we can alleviate congestion and improve safety by providing regional mobility options for those who want them the better, safer, more connected, affordable, less stressed, and environmentally friendly our region will be.

The key part of this example is that we are talking about a central busines district, where people need the ability to safely wander, windo shop, stop at cafes, and enjoy themselves as they peruse the stores. Active, safe business districts are excellent places for street fairs an farmers markets, help bring neighbors out and build community cohesion.

We do need parking in proximity to our neighborhood business districts, but we also need for the shoppers to be able to safely walk. And, in the example provided, many of the residents are asking for a safer street.

I would engage SDOT by emphasizing that the safety of community members is the top priority, folllowed by the ability of the business district to survive. I would ask to see their plans for mitigation. In general I would support their approach to calming traffiic but want to know where alternate parking options would be, and also what mitigation measures they would have to help the businesses survive an thrive during the construction. I would ask SDOT to work with OED and other relevant departments to ensure the neighborhood is being marketed properly, and that post construction, we are able to take advantage of the new street alignment for activities which bring people to the business district. I woul also ask SDOT to permit some parklets, sidewalk cafes, and other such street an right of way uses.

With the community, I would organize, and participate in community conversations, brinigng all of the stakeholders together. It is great when people have differing ideas and perspectives, and it takes time and intention to help bridge differences of opinion. I would emphasize that safety is my top priority, but that the success of our business district is also very important, and help navigate the conversation to develop a joint vision of our community that all can buy-in to. No community solution is perfect, or will appease everyone, but through engagement and talking with each other, we can develop a shared vision.


Halei Watkins The transportation project that makes me most excited in District 5 is the Northgate Pedestrian and Bike Bridge that will connect North Seattle College with our upcoming light rail station. The state legislature included funding for the project in our statewide transportation budget, as does the Move Seattle levy on this November’s ballot. I live in Northgate and my husband attends North Seattle College and I look forward to the huge increase in safety that the Northgate Ped Bridge will bring to his walk to school.

I look forward to pushing for greenways and sidewalks with the community members and advocates who are already leading that work. Lake City Greenways has been successful in using City granting processes to put in a greenway on 27th and fund designs on sidewalks along 110th and 130th. I fully support those efforts and will look to add additional funding to these grant programs (such as the Neighborhood Park & Street Fund) so that our neighborhoods can decide where to prioritize our infrastructure dollars.

My number one priority is safety, always. So I also support the Lake City Traffic Safety Corridor project, reducing speed limits on most streets, building out bike safety infrastructure, and building sidewalks near schools, parks, and transportation hubs.

I will oppose efforts to prioritize and over-fund roads at the expense of multi-modal transportation. Fixing potholes is important, absolutely, but more important is putting in a sidewalk near an elementary school before a child gets hit by a car. Seattleites need to be able to get around safely and for too long the dialogue has been dominated by single mode of transportation. It’s time for that to end and time to invest in the infrastructure we need to get around our city.

First and foremost, I want to hear everybody out, even if I don’t end up agreeing with them. My job as District 5’s City Council member will be to represent the best interests of the district and advocate for us at every step of the way. In order to do that, I need to know what the community is thinking around a given project.

As a community organizer, I understand how critical it is for the community to be involved in the decision-making process and that there is buy-in from the neighborhood. I would look to hold listening sessions around the area and invite my constituents out to provide feedback. I would also invite the SDOT point person on this project to attend these sessions and to hear directly what folks have to say and be around to answer questions.

My first thought when facing a situation like this is that lives are more important than parking spaces and we’ve seen too many injuries and deaths over the last several years to keep putting off measures that can make a real improvement in safety outcomes. While there will certainly be push back from some in the community, I believe that most Seattleites would agree that safety should be our top concern.

I do understand the concerns of businesses and residents about the lack of parking and the potential impact that will have on their bottom line or the neighborhood. I look forward to leading conversations where we can come together and brainstorm ways to mitigate those impacts while also making sure that we move forward with the projects that will save lives.


Mike O’Brien I am anxiously waiting for the long overdue completion of the missing link of the Burke-Gilman trail through Ballard. When completed, along with connections to the soon to be completed 17th Ave NW Greenway and the existing NW 58th st Greenway, we will have the beginnings of a bike and ped network in Ballard. I am also looking forward to funding safety improvements on the Ballard Bridge. This scenario has played out a number of times in our city, and while the process can be messy, the outcomes are typically good. I would start by supporting SDOT in their outreach efforts. SDOT has been really growing this skill set, and I would ask them to engage with the community of businesses and residents to understand all of the concerns and find solutions to address as many as possible. I would see my role as affirming to the community the city’s commitment to policies such as Vision Zero (http://www.seattle.gov/visionzero) and Carbon Neutrality (http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/carbon_neutrality.htm) and support SDOT in addressing the concerns raised while maintaining a relentless drive toward meeting these ambitious goals.


Jon Lisbin There are three that I am excited about.

1) Light Rail from Ballard to downtown or from Ballard to University District. Even if it starts now, it’s a ten to 15 year project but it needs to be done.

2) The Missing Link of the Burke Gilman trail: By the time the current environmental study is complete, eighteen people will crash so badly while biking through the area that they will need to be hauled to the hospital in an ambulance.

3) The Ballard Bridge – The bridge is a major obstacle to get to and from downtown for automobile, but and bike traffic.

The Missing Link and Ballard Bridge are both on the Mayor’s Move Seattle Levy and critical to safety and increasing bike ridership, i.e. reducing single occupancy vehicles.

As far as opposition, I hear a lot of complaints about specific projects and road “improvements” that impede transit. People feel that there have been some real poor decisions that quite honestly infuriate them. As someone who lives in the heart of our district I will listen to this feedback and, if necessary, take corrective action.

First of all I would love to see a project like this happen because crosswalk safety issues in my neighborhood prompted me to run for office in the first place. My process would be to hold public meetings to hear both sides of the issue. Based on the public feedback I would try to make the wisest decision; and modify the proposal if necessary.

A 30 second per mile delay for drivers would not be overly burdensome. However, parking, or lack thereof, is a huge issue and any reduction in parking capacity must be carefully considered.

If believe that if you take something away from businesses, like parking, then it is important to give back in some way. Reciprocity, in this case, will depend on the specific situation. We want to encourage local businesses to remain and thrive in our district.


Sally Bagshaw I will push for Neighborhood Greenways in every neighborhood to connect our city. In District 7, I am most enthused about the Emerald Mile along 5th Avenue, and want to complete the Second Avenue Cycletrack from Denny to Jackson. I will promote the separated east-west connections such as Bell and Blanchard and want to provide some additional protections between Broadway and Downtown . Also, on Queen Anne I will support QA Neighborhood Greenways in their efforts to create the Greenway at the top of the hill. On Magnolia, I will support the connection from the south end of 32nd to Galer. My goal is to negotiate with the Port of Seattle to provide a connected bike lane underneath Magnolia Bridge. And, I am a long time supporter of Lake2Bay to make ped/bike connections from South Lake Union to Seattle Center, Belltown, and the Waterfront. That’s for starters!! You have framed the controversy well. I have been working with Seattle Neighborhood Greenways for over four years and believe Greg Raisman and Mark Lear from Portland have it right: neighborhood leaders need to be included in the conversations and to be given data showing their neighborhood will be safer, every mode will be improved over the course of the effort, and as we have seen in other cities revenue for local businesses increases. Neighbors’ concerns are taken into consideration, the project planned, then the debate needs to end and the project put on the ground as a pilot.

I believe SDOT’s work under Scott Kubly has been excellent — they make big moves like Second Avenue and thoughtful approaches to controversy like the approach to the West Lake Cycletrack.

I will do everything I can to promote and complete our Greenways and safe and separated lanes for bikes and pedestrians across the city. Yes, some on-street parking may need to be removed but more people will stop and shop; narrow lanes slow traffic which promote safety for everyone; shortening the distance between corners on crosswalks helps not just seniors and kids but those who can walk fast too!


John Persak East west connectivity in our city needs to be a priority for new Metro routes and other transit, since geologic constraints and other factors like climate change make building out for cars less ideal. Light rail and increased transit service in and out of Ballard, West Seattle, and Rainier Valley to downtown is also key, since these places with limited traffic capacity have been targeted for growth through the year 2035. The Deep Bore Tunnel, likely to be completed because it is a state project, places our city at risk for cost over runs and other cost externalities on the traffic grid in SoDo, and we need to protect our city from overruns imposed by WSDOT so we can afford other projects. We cannot create another Mercer Mess in SoDo by building a sports entertainment complex in a transit starved freight hub that is already severely congested. We need to finish the bike master plan. The way out of our persistent safety problems is to prioritize ADA compliance at all intersections as the minimum standard, as many of our intersections and sidewalks have not been improved since the passage of the ADA. By doing this, we ensure that people of all abilities can navigate our streets, sidewalks, and intersections safely. If we are not designing our streets with the most vulnerable people in mind, then we are missing the mark of reducing accidents and fatalities.


Alon Bassok I am running citywide but reside in District 1. In District 1, I am most excited about seeing 35th Ave SW improved with better design and lower speeds. I am also looking forward to the Greenway on 21st by Pathfinder.

I spent many years living and working in Ballard. I would love to see the missing link completed now. Not another study. No further delay. We know how to fix it and it is deplorable that it is not done yet.

In general, I would like to see the Bicycle Master Plan completed over the next decade. I would also like to see dedicated right of way for transit service. I have called for a go-it-alone strategy for Seattle to build municipal rail. However, I am mode agnostic and would support true Bus Rapid Transit (as opposed to the Bus Red Transit we have in the RapidRide) should we be able to find funding to pay Metro for enhanced service.

Also in general I would oppose roadway expansion projects. We cannot build our way out of our traffic problems with more roads. We have a complete roadway network for cars. We need to have complete transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks. Those modes should be of highest priority and I would not support projects that deviate from building complete networks for these modes.

First, I would want it clear that I absolutely support this project.

We have had a number of these projects throughout the city–e.g. Nickerson, Fauntleroy, etc. They have all been successful at their intended purposes without detriment to vehicle traffic or business.

Beyond the traditional arguments made (you make them above–visibility, safe speed, cross time, dedicated lanes), I would point out two additional points:

1) We know that bicycle lanes and dedicated transit lanes promote use of those modes. And, for businesses, we know that people who use transit and ride the bus (and walk) spend more than people who drive. While transit riders and people who ride bicycle spend less per trip, they make more trips than people who drive. So, accommodating these modes is better for business who should support it.

2) Parking in Seattle is a commercial problem not a residential one. As one of the last things I did before leaving my job to campaign full time, I completed a parking study of urban villages in Seattle. If interested, see: http://realestate.washington.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Runstad_Center_Parking_Study_2015_final.pdf. In this study, we found that in the middle of the night (stationary population) there is sufficient parking in Ballard and West Seattle and that the cars parked on the street are predominately registered to single-family home residences. The problem we have with parking relates to commercial activity when people outside of an area frequent it (for example, getting ice cream at the Husky Deli in West Seattle or seeing a show at the Tractor Tavern in Ballard). More people would come to these events by bicycle or transit if good options were available to them and the demand for parking would be lower.

So, for me, the argument that removing some parking will cause problems for business or access to those business seems to be spurious. As for speeds being reduced, I would everyone could agree that safety is an important goal for everyone, and one that is more important than speed. Further, proper alignments (two lanes with a turn lane as opposed to four lanes with no turn lane) can improve flow for cars too as you don’t have to wait for a left turning vehicle.

This type of improvement is valuable for all involved and I would advocate for it to my fullest ability.


Bill Bradburd I am running for an at-large seat though I live in the southern part of District 3. I believe that District 3 has the possibility of being the district where a shift to reduced automobile dependence is most likely because of proximity to downtown, good transit, and growing density.

The Central Area Greenways, the rebuild of 23rd Ave (and improved transit throughput), Madison BRT, and Rainier East Link connection will encourage this. I am concerned about the tendency of large developments to rely on the placement of big box anchors which require a large customer catchment and therefore automobile use, so I oppose those projects when that type of commercial usage is proposed. I support City support for small, locally owned businesses. The expansion of Pronto into the Central Area is something else I support.

From a citywide perspective I can say I would vigorously support allocation of City funds and bonding capacity to:

1. Start catching up on our $2B backlog of road and bridge maintenance (http://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/transportation20130108_8a.pdf); Seattle needs to spend at least $190M/year just to keep that backlog from getting bigger. Move Seattle generates about $70M/year towards maintenance over 9 years.

2. Increase the speed of implementation of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, as well as significant funding to improve pedestrian safety, especially for school children. I would like to see the majority of kids biking or walking to school in the next 10 years. We need to get the next generation focused on using means of transportation other than automobiles.

3. Continue to support expansion of the Sound Transit light rail system, and also to expand bus hours and routes, to ensure people have viable options to use of cars.

4. Work with the rest of the Council members, the Mayor’s Office, and the City’s Legislative delegation to authorize and obtain more progressive revenue streams to accomplish the foregoing.

I will work with Council members in each District to encourage working with communities to identify ways to mode shift away from automobile usage. We should identify projects that will support this shift, and ensure the effectiveness of achieving this change by tracking overall shifts in transportation use patterns.

I will work to ensure that all points in Seattle will be part of a “complete” community – i.e. that locally there are the requisite schools, open space, retail and service amenities, and transit access – that makes the necessity of travel by automobile for the bulk of trips unnecessary. Neighborhood planning to identify zoning changes and investments to support this will be required as well as creating incentives for development to implement these plans.

Finally, I believe that we need to support new transportation solutions for communities. Expanding car and ride sharing, creation of local jitney services, and finding creative ways to increase transit frequency are important to me.

My first stop would at the office of the City Council member who represents the relevant District. Assuming they are willing to take the lead or co-lead with me on this project, I would then ask the responsible officials at SDOT to accompany both of us to as many outreach meetings as it takes to be sure we have heard from all concerned interests in the affected community.

SDOT would be asked to take the concerns and prepare an analysis of the impacts (both positive and negative).

My initial impression is the contemplated speed reduction is not a significant loss of function for car users. Parking space losses might present more of a problem for the small business community who have historically relied on street parking for their customer base; current usage data and the potential impact of the lost spaces need to be carefully quantified and analyzed, along with the potential for alternative sources of parking to replace the lost spaces (if needed to meet demand).

Assuming cooperation is possible that doesn’t compromise the safety benefits of the proposal, my inclination would be to try to broker (mediate) an agreement on the solution, with all key parties having representatives at the table, punctuated by community meetings where tentative agreements are explained.

My general sense is that people are not adverse to change; they just want to help define it, and not be surprised by it; meaningful community engagement is essential. We have created backlash to many of the changes we need to make as a society, and to some degree this is due to the lack of such engagement in the creation of solutions.

A clear path to the desired outcome needs to be made so that the community understands how that change will happen and they can make the necessary adjustments in their lives.