Transportation Committee advances Vision Zero bills, would exempt many traffic safety changes from historic district approval

The City Council's Transportation Committee advanced a package of three bills (121296, 121297, 121298) that would codify traffic safety work into the city code in a number of ways, but perhaps the most eye-catching change (121296 Amendement 16) would give the city Traffic Engineer authority to make traffic safety decisions without seeking a certificate of approval from historic and landmark districts.

Transportation Chair Rob Saka has been pushing to expedite the SAFER (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Equitable, Responsive") Streets Act bills to get them on the books before the budget process begins and pushes other Council work to the side. The compressed timeline led to a somewhat messy amendment process, and there will likely need to be more amending ahead of the full Council vote Tuesday. So while the committee recommended the bills unanimously, the debate around the historic district authority changes will continue until the final vote.

I hope we can agree that some things are just too important to subject to the Seattle Process, and I believe traffic safety meets that bar," said Committee Vice-Chair Alexis Mercedes Rinck when introducing the historic and landmark district amendment. Her effort was bolstered unexpectedly by an incident unfolding across downtown during the meeting.

I want to note that just while we've been in this meeting, a car has driven down Post Alley and is now stuck on the Harbor Steps [...] and we laugh a little bit about the silliness of that, but I think we need to be clear that something is not working, and we're gambling with people's lives if we do not act to change it. I've been told this amendment goes too far, but I dare to say that the city has not gone far enough when it comes to preventing traffic deaths and injuries."

Post by Olraca on Bluesky. The Pike Place Historical District does include parts of Post Alley, though this is about at block south of the district boundary.

Councilmember Bob Kettle spoke against the amendment, citing an email that councilmembers received but that he did not want to discuss. Chair Saka said this change was requested by SDOT, but that he had chosen to leave it out of his original bill. There were concerns that the amendment could conflict with some state laws and possibly another section of city code outlining historic and landmark district responsibilities. The Councilmembers, including sponsors Rinck and Dionne Foster, all stated that these issues would need to be further researched ahead of the final Council vote and may influence the final version.

Amendment 16 as approved by a 3-2 vote (Rinck, Foster, Eddie Lin voted yes, Kettle and Saka voted no) would add the following to SMC 11.16.340 outlining the legal authority of the Traffic Engineer:

The Traffic Engineer's authority under this Section 11.16.340 applies to all City right-of-way, including designated historic, special review, and landmark districts. Traffic control devices and spot design changes in such areas are not subject to landmark designation, nor does construction of traffic control devices require a Certificate of Approval. The Traffic Engineer may coordinate with the Department of Neighborhoods or the Landmarks Preservation Board to minimize design conflicts in alignment with the historic, cultural, architectural, or geographic significance of the district.

Council staff clarified that the authority would only cover traffic control devices, such as signs, signals and paint used in traffic functions, and would not necessarily cover something bigger like closing a street entirely. This will surely be a big point of debate going forward, and many people will likely assume that this is about the ongoing (and never-ending) debate over closing Pike Place to cars. I am not a lawyer, and it is not clear reading the text as written exactly where the line would be drawn. Adding a new all-way stop seems like a clear cut example that would be allowed. Adding or removing a turn lane seems like another change clearly within the text of the amendment. But would this change allow SDOT to install the rest of the department's plan to daylight intersections for safety and on-street bike and scooter parking in Pioneer Square, for example? Could they restore the original plan for a safer bike crossing at 1st and Yesler? Could they modify curbs to add accessible ramps? Could they close a right turn slip lane to extend the sidewalk? Could they remove abandoned streetcar tracks? Could they eliminate on-street parking?

Historic districts are important, and their job is in some ways to resist changes. There are parts of our city that are cool to us now but only exist because there were people who fought to save them back in the day. However, historic and landmark districts absolutely should not have any official power to reject a traffic safety change. It is the Traffic Engineer and SDOT who are responsible and accountable for traffic safety in our city, not these boards. If a board rejects a safety measure and someone gets hurt or killed, is the board accountable for that outcome? Of course not, which is why it cannot be their decision. This thread from Mark Ostrow about a landmark board blocking a street safety project on Queen Anne illustrates the issue well.

There are echoes of the Gas Works Park catwalk debate in which the city spent years trying to remove dangerous parts of the famous structures only to have the Landmark Preservation Board stop them. City inspectors declared the features a hazard, which allowed the Parks Department under Mayor Katie Wilson to remove the catwalks, steps, piping and ladders without Landmarks Board approval following the death of a teenager.

Relevant boards should be informed of changes and have a chance to advise, but it is wildly inappropriate for them to have veto power over a safety element. Our city's historic traffic injury and death rate is one thing we are NOT trying to preserve and that nobody will miss.

The meeting also covered many other amendments to clean up and simplify the bill language. Vice-Chair Rinck sponsored a lot of them, and most were approved on the consent agenda without too much debate. Language referring to Vision Zero Plan" in some locations was changed to a more broad traffic safety plan" so that Council doesn't need to go back and change the code if the city changes the branding of its traffic safety planning work, for example.

The committee also voted unanimously for a bill (121298) that would require SDOT and the Department of Financial and Administrative Services to develop a set of recommended requirements for truck safety devices, including side guards and visibility cameras, that could then be required for companies contracting with the city. One interesting note from an amendment is that while SDOT often installs side guards on city-owned trucks, they are not required to do so as I had previously reported. SDOT announced that they were installing the guards on their fleet back in 2017, but there was never a policy requiring them to do so. The amendment removed that reference, but perhaps Council should add such a requirement to their bill since it is something the bill authors (and myself) thought was already in place. Or perhaps this would need to happen in the budget since it would have costs.

Chair Saka also addressed Mayor Katie Wilson's executive actions she signed last month related to Vision Zero, saying, Council and the executive are squarely and directly aligned on the issue of traffic safety." The council included a document (PDF) comparing the council's proposed actions to the Mayor's orders, noting where they overlap and where they are different. There are no direct points of conflict between the two, but council and mayor have different levers they can pull. The council can change city code while the mayor can direct agency actions within the bounds of the code.