The City is still reviewing the community input about the restriping of Fauntleroy Way SW, but all indications are that they are gong to proceed with the restriping; they’re just deciding what other pedestrian markings to include. In general, the flow through and speed data seems to have been studied and shown at the public meeting. However, we have asked the city about what information they have that will help us understand the impacts in the Morgan Junction neighborhood, particularly about any studies that they have done or could do which tell us what the wait time would be for a MJ resident to turn onto Fauntleroy during peak commute hours. (the Q & A is pasted below).
So since the city will not provide that data to help us evaluate the success of this program after it is implemented, we would like make the following request of you:
During the next couple of weeks, please jot down how long you wait to turn onto (left or right turn) or off of (left turn) Fauntleroy. Just the basic info, date/day of week, time, which direction and how long you had to wait to find a break in the traffic to make your turn. If you can do that for a week or two, that should be sufficient. Then file that info away, so that when the restriping takes place, and if you think your wait time is increasing, you’ll be able to pull out that info and do a comparison. This just seems like a reasonable thing to do, since the city has said that “if it doesn’t work, we can always restripe it back to 4 lanes”, but if we don’t have the data to determine if it’s working or not, they wouldn’t have any basis from which to make a decision.
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Subject: Request for traffic entry information
Hi George, I have communicated with Pete Lagerway in the past and have also emailed and just last Friday 12/12, left a message for Eric Widstrand. This message is to you, since you're now listed as the Public Outreach contact in the Q& A just posted.
I live in Morgan Junction and am a member of the Morgan Junction Community Association. One question which I've heard from our community members was not addressed in your Q&A just posted. After the restriping and signal timing adjustments, how long will a Morgan resident have to wait to turn onto Fauntleroy during peak traffic hours and especially when a ferry has just unloaded? Eric had said they had not done studies, and my phone call was to inquire if you can do those for us.
cc Steve Sindiong, president MoCA.
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Request for traffic entry information
Here is the response I received from SDOT Traffic Operations:
"SDOT staff have observed that wait times are fairly variable depending on time of day and proximity to ferry unloading. Wait times can range from ten to twenty seconds to several minutes. Wait times may increase with the rechannelization but drivers have the option to travel through their neighborhood to make a turn from a signalized location if they find the wait time excessive.
SDOT does not typically evaluate intersection operations for non-arterial street/arterial street intersections because during peak hours it is expected that vehicles will experience congestion when trying to access an arterial from a non-arterial street. Delay will be driven by the number of gaps available in the arterial traffic stream which is governed by vehicle platoons and gaps caused by traffic signals."
Hope this helps,
SDOT Capital Projects
Alaska Way Viaduct – proposed letter from the Southwest District Council for your opinion
At the next MoCA meeting (Jan 21), one topic we will discuss will be the below proposed letter which is being routed for support with the members of the SW District Council, of which MoCA is a member. This letter supports the surface plus subsurface (bored tunnel) as a West Seattle preferred option. It is not normal MoCA practice to take a position on topics which would imply that MoCA speaks for the entire Morgan Junction Community, but we would like to discuss this at our MoCA meeting and see what the support level might be.
Text of proposed letter:
Dear Governor Gregoire
Dear County Executive Sims
Dear Mayor Nickels
We, the undersigned representatives of the greater West Seattle community, would like to weigh in with our concerns and aspirations for your decision on a replacement option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
West Seattle is one of several city neighborhoods which will have existing patterns of urban life changed, disrupted, modified, or otherwise altered significantly as a result of the choice of solutions. We would like to express our support for the hybrid surface+subsurface route which has been discussed recently by a coalition of stakeholders.
We would like to cite our priorities and why they support this new option and would hope that in your considerations for a solution, you consider these elements and our perspectives and views for our city and the region
• Maintains Neighborhood Connectivity: The replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct needs to maintain existing business and transit connections, and improve them by adding through-transit connectivity. The surface+subsurface option does this.
• Direct Impact on Businesses Needs To Be Lessened: The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement is expected to impact as many as 50 percent of the waterfront businesses in such a way as to cause them to fail. Many other industries and businesses which presently use the Viaduct will be impacted in ways which may cause losses or loss of jobs. It appears possible that with the surface+subsurface option, the Alaskan Way Viaduct could remain open and in use while tunnel construction is underway.
• Professional and Personal Impact Reduction: The use of a low-traffic surface and controlled access tunnel will reduce the time lost for business, transit and personal users of the SR 99. Transit, especially, needs to be improved.
• Resistance and Resilience to Earthquakes: Because of the impact involved with the replacement in terms of inconvenience, construction time, civic and business disruptions, the replacement solution (s) should be designed and built with the expectation of surviving an earthquake. The tunnel option will be safer in earthquakes and can be made resilient In Seattle’s soils and tectonic conditions.
• A Better Waterfront: Whatever the resulting solution produces, it must provide for additional recreational, cultural and commercial activity along the waterfront. The adjacent roadway should provide an easily-traversed path from the wharves up to First Avenue and what is expected to be some form of frequent public transit at that point. A low-use surface roadway with a controlled access tunnel supports these priorities.
• Environmentally Friendly: The solution should reduce our existing carbon load on the region, including both use, (vehicle miles traveled) and construction and maintenance (least footprint methods). Runoff must be contained and clean breathable air must exist in the waterfront area. The surface+subsurface option supports these goals.
• Maintains or Enhances Existing Real Estate Values: The replacement solution should result in an improvement of the overall conditions along the waterfront and a rise in property values adjacent to the improved waterfront. The solution should be one which also does not reduce the property values of businesses and homeowners on the north and south ends of the previous Alaskan Way Viaduct.
• Quality of Life: There is a collective sense or feeling which results from the interactions of residents, businesses, visitors, and others in a city. This quality of life includes how well an individual interacts with the fabric of the city. The essence of a city includes choices and access to a multiplicity of friends, and businesses. With the Viaduct came access to the entire City; ensuring that the neighborhoods now reliant on the Viaduct - West Seattle, South Park, SoDo, Interbay, Magnolia, Queen Anne, Ballard, Wallingford, Greenwood - have easy access to each other, the enhanced waterfront, and the rest of the City and enriched downtown is essential to our quality of life. Ensuring that transit is integrated into and part of any replacement solution is also essential in maintaining the existing quality of life.
We would like to thank you for providing the extraordinary leadership which this project demands. We would also like to state that all of us - the undersigned and those we represent - are encouraged and hopeful that the new "surface+subsurface” (Surface+Transit+Deep Bored Tunnel) option is moved forward to the EIS stage and pursued aggressively.
We would also like to see further enhancements of the transit component, presently the weakest and least satisfactory element of any of the many options. We believe that transit, if provided at significantly enhanced levels, would allow for an even more enriched urban fabric with an even more connected set of neighborhoods and downtown attractions, including a new waterfront.