Post navigation

Prev: (08/22/18) | Next: (08/23/18)

Seven District 3 projects make final cut in citizen street and park work budgeting process

A $83,000 new marked crossing at 14th and Aloha made the cut — so did a $90,000 sidewalk project on Summit.

Results are in for the final vote on Seattle’s 2018 round of citizen budgeting process for street and park improvements.

Thanks to excellent marketing — proponents printed flyers and hung them from street signs at the crossing — the 14th and Aloha project had the highest level of support in the District 3 group, tallying nearly 300 votes.

The seven District 3 projects that garnered the most “Your Voice, Your Choice” votes are below:

  • [3A – Project #18-313] First Hill: Sidewalk Repair on Summit Ave between Madison St & Spring St (Cost: $90,000, Total Votes: 136)
  • [3B – Project #18-805] Capitol Hill: Crossing Improvements on E Aloha St and 14th Ave E (Cost: $83,298, Total Votes: 297
  • [3E – Project #17-358] Squire Park: Crossing Improvements on 19th & Cherry (Cost: $10,000, Total Votes: 236)
  • [3F – Project #18-360] Squire Park: Crossing Improvements on E Jefferson & 16th/17th/18th Avenues (Cost: $5,000, Total Votes: 176)
  • [3G – Project #18-357] Leschi: Traffic Calming on 29th Avenue between E Yesler Way and E Alder St (Cost: $16,100, Total Votes: 148)
  • [3H- Project #18-346] Atlantic: Pathway Improvements on Rainier & I-90 (Cost: $56,800, Total Votes: 182)*
  • [3J – Project #18-3006] Judkins Park: Improvements at Judkins Park (Cost: $24,700, Total Votes: 291)*

More than 130 ideas for District 3 were narrowed in this year’s voting to a handful in a community process CHS documented here in all of its awkward glory.

Construction of the projects will take some time — the upgrades and repairs need to be budgeted and planned by City Hall. These are the improvements from past cycles slated to be carried out around District 3 in 2018.

Meanwhile, District 3 area road work beyond the citizen budgeting is peaking just as August comes to a close. The project to make the John/Thomas corridor safer from Capitol Hill Station to Miller Park is well underway. Meanwhile, work is taking place on a short project over the next weeks to complete the northern end of the 23rd Ave corridor street diet in Montlake.


$5/MONTH? SUBSCRIBE AND SUPPORT LOCAL NEWS: Support local journalism dedicated to your neighborhood. SUBSCRIBE HERE. Join to become a subscriber at $1/$5/$10 a month to help CHS provide community news with NO PAYWALL. You can also sign up for a one-time annual payment.


 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Allen
Allen
2 years ago

Its crazy how few vote it took to win these projects. One of the few times voting actually matters I guess…

Max
Max
2 years ago
Reply to  Allen

You guess wrong. Voting matters period.

Bob Knudson
Bob Knudson
2 years ago

I question whether anything needs to be spent at the 14th and Aloha intersection. I cross there frequently and have never had a problem….motorists drive the speed limit (or lower) because of the twisty nature of the roadway to the west, and always stop for pedestrians, in my experience. Is there a history of accidents there, or even near-misses?

I suspect this made it to the final list because one or two people have a “thing” about the intersection, and decided to put up notices so that others would be sucked in to vote.

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
2 years ago
Reply to  Bob Knudson

Is there any reason we can’t have proactive safety rather than reactive safety?

I suspect this made it to the final list because one or two people have a “thing” about the intersection, and decided to put up notices so that others would be sucked in to vote.

Oh I see, pedestrian safety is a conspiracy to you. That answers my question!

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
2 years ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

In a perfect world we could pay for proactive safety everywhere. I suspect Bob’s point is there are probably many intersections more dangerous than this where the money might be better spent, but this might be one of those “squeaky wheel gets the grease” situations where an effective lobbying campaign scored the money. I would hope SDOT would already be prioritizing those—but that might be a politically naive thing to assume.

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
2 years ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

PS— is the snarky personal attack really necessary to make your point? Or can you just not help yourself?

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
2 years ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

PS— is the snarky personal attack really necessary to make your point? Or can you just not help yourself?

He could have ended his comment with his personal observation that the intersection didn’t need any improvements, but he didn’t. His comment devolved into some weird conspiracy theory behind the votes to get the intersection improved. You can call it whatever you want, I’m just pointing out the obvious.

In a perfect world we could pay for proactive safety everywhere. I suspect Bob’s point is there are probably many intersections more dangerous than this where the money might be better spent, but this might be one of those “squeaky wheel gets the grease” situations where an effective lobbying campaign scored the money.

Thats…the…whole…point…behind…this…project.

The public is voting on small projects that they feel need funding that might slip SDOT’s improvements list. There’s not some deep state or lobbyist agenda behind this, despite what you and Bob might think.

Look, I know you and Bob see yourselves as some sort of “well spoken voice of opposition” to a fairly liberal blog and neighborhood, but seriously, a good amount of your comments come off as somewhat delusional.

Pointing that out is NOT a personal attack. So stop hiding behind that. Come up with better arguments.

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
2 years ago
Reply to  Fairly Obvious

Or maybe you could just make an effort to be civil when you make your point. Try.

Bob Knudson
Bob Knudson
2 years ago
Reply to  Bob Knudson

My comment about a few people making noise about this intersection is admittedly speculation, but it’s hardly a “conspiracy theory.” I just think that the $86,000 could be better spent elsewhere. We can’t proactively modify every intersection…it’s a matter of prioritizing, and in my opinion 14th/Aloha is not an especially dangerous place.

Thanks, Jim!

I walk all over the Hill
I walk all over the Hill
2 years ago
Reply to  Bob Knudson

I cross that intersection daily, and it could use some proactive signage and markings because:

1. It’s a busy crossing across Aloha for people jogging and/or walking to and from Volunteer Park;
2. As Aloha continues westbound from 14th it curves down the hill, with poor sightlines for both people in cars and people on foot/bikes;
3. Aloha in general is busy and has become something of a speedway, with people in cars routinely speeding and ignoring posted signage and other users of the intersection. i’ve seen and myself have had plenty of near misses there, and in general avoid crossing right there (I do so at 15th, which is marked, or further down at 12th, which is a horrible intersection for pedestrians, but at least has stop signs – frequently ignored – and marked crosswalks).

Without knowing details of what this crossing improvement involves, I question how it can cost $80K or more for one intersection. We have a LOT of intersections in Seattle that need improvements like this, but if we spend this much on one intersection then we can’t possibly address all of them.

Ryan Packer
Ryan Packer
2 years ago

Concur with “I walk”. That’s what I voted for this one.