Residents of Seattle’s Montlake neighborhood complain that the city’s plan for a big driver-information sign will only encourage side-street traffic.
Via Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times Transportation Reporter
Proposal for big overhead traffic sign riles Montlake residents
In its fervor to use technology to give drivers better information, the Seattle Department of Transportation has stirred a hornet’s nest in the Montlake neighborhood.
Residents are annoyed by the city’s plan to erect an overhead, real-time traffic message sign at 24th Avenue East and East Lee Street, where northbound traffic flows downhill toward Highway 520 and the University of Washington.
For only the second time, the city would be putting one of these steel-supported structures next to single-family homes.
Read the complete story HERE
Montlake neighbors have been collecting signatures for a petition against the sign. An online petition has also been created for those who wish to show their support against the sign. Click HERE or copy and paste this link: http://petitions.moveon.org/
Carolyn Woodward says
I own the property at 24th and E Lee, and the sign would use my parking strip (“easements” to the property). Right now I live in Albuquerque and teach at the University of New Mexico, but will retire in 2020 and have been planning to move back home (24th/Lee). This whole thing strikes me as a terrible idea. I agree re Boyer. I do want to raise one things that troubles me about your response, which is the statement that appeared in the TIMES that your group suggests that the sign be placed in the CD. It seems to me that your group could make an alliance with the people in the CD, whose residences, as well, should not be compromised in this way.
THANKS for your strong statement against the sign!!
joan Karkeck says
Where is our Community Club on this? Can we not have some protection from this mindless action. Living on Boyer is already a nightmare of traffic and now we are looking at being 5201/2. There is no viable turn off of 24th after Lee.
Lionel Job, MCC (departing member) says
The proposal for a DMS sign (large electronic sign over the street) located at 24th Ave E. and E. Less planned by SDOT has been meeting unanimous opposition from Montlake, the residents of the Arboretum area, Portage Bay and Roanoke. The Montlake Community Council has been stating its opposition to the sign ever since the proposal surfaced in November 2014.
In fact, we could hardly have been more vigorous in our stance. We sent emails repeatedly to SDOT, council members Sawant, Rasmussen and others, Andrew Glass-Hastings -the mayor’s Transit and Transportation adviser, DongHo Chang -city traffic engineer, Scott Kubly -SDOT director. We also hosted SDOT a couple of months ago, and explained our rationale for asking that the DMS sign be installed much further south.
We are quite frustrated by the refusal by SDOT to acknowledge our reasons and rethink this ill-thought decision. We are once again finding that our city is not responding to our concerns, just as it has failed for over twenty years to take control of the traffic and commuting mess caused by the conflicting priorities of WSDOT, the UW transportation department, Parks and the Arboretum, Sound Transit and King County Metro, to both serve the city better and preserve and hopefully improve the dreadful walking situation (Montlake has a low 63 walking score!), access to our parks, schools, library, businesses, Light Rail station.
Montlake residents are victims of this ineptness, and lack of neighborhood planning. Montlake is not just a funnel for traffic, it is also a lively residential area: the city doesn’t seem to be able to come to grips with this reality, or more likely does not care. The silos that our mayor claimed to aim to take down are still very much in place when it comes to our neighborhood planning. Well-connected oraganizations get their wishes while residents pay the price.
We need proper transportation planning, proper neighborhood planning and a Council Member actually supporting us.
The DMS signs are one aspect of an effort by the city to use electronic means to warn drivers of traffic jams and consider other routes or canceling trips altogether. We are dumbfounded that in the age of Google maps, the city is allocating its resources on signs, especially when they are so poorly located.
We explained that a DMS sign at E. Lee is too close to the traffic jams. In fact, once WSDOT completes its final construction in a few years, the removal of the Arboretum SR520 ramps will concentrate more of the traffic on 24th. There could easily be traffic jams stretching past Boyer on a regular basis. A driver warned of a traffic jam at E. Lee will probably be able to see it and already experience it. At this point, some will try to evade it by driving west on Boyer, Crescent, and both east and west through the neighborhood streets. The drivers choosing Boyer will head to Delmar and create back-ups at 10th Ave E. and Delmar, as well as at Fuhrman and Eastlake. Both locations already experience heavy traffic and back-ups on a regular basis.
SDOT’s data shows that 60% of the traffic heading north on 24th Ave E. comes from south of Madison. We suggest that the DMS sign be located there. Drivers would have more options using arterials and would also be in an easier position to turn around and cancel their trips. In any case, we see no good logistical reason to install it at the entrance of our neighborhood.
Tracy Domingues and Caryn Sangupta have created a petition
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-want-safer-streets?source=s.icn.em.mt&r_by=8529036
It will be sent to Scott Kubly, Director, Department of Transportation, Sally Bagshaw, Neighborhood Committee Chair, and 4 others including Tom Rasmussen, Transportation Committee Chair, Mike O’Brien. Please sign it!
Also, contact directly ed.murray@seattle.gov , andrew.glasshastings@seattle.gov, kshama.sawant@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, mike.obrien@seattle.gov, scott.kubly@seattle.gov and sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov .
Finally, we will soon elect a new council member. Montlakers need to consider not just his general politics, but his willingness to work for the neighborhood. The new council member election system clearly indicates that neighborhoods will have representation. We need it too.