Friday evening car-pedestrian accident closes 196th Street above Maplewood Park

Edmonds police officers investigate the Friday evening car-pedestrian accident at the intersection of 84th Avenue West and 196th Street.
Edmonds police officers investigate the Friday evening car-pedestrian accident at the intersection of 84th Avenue West and 196th Street.

Updated 7:45 pm with information from Edmonds Police –

A 5:30 pm car-pedestrian accident at the intersection of 196th Sreet and 84th Avenue West has closed 196th between 80th and 88th Avenues.  It will remain closed to traffic for “at least a few hours” according to Edmonds police officers at the scene.

According to Edmonds Police spokesperson Sgt. Mark Marsh, the pedestrian, a 33-year-old woman, “was attempting to cross 196th St SW southbound, when she was struck by a vehicle traveling eastbound on 196th St SW. The pedestrian was transported to Harborview Hospital for treatment. It is believed at this time that her injuries are not life threatening.  The driver is a 51-year-old female resident of Edmonds. The driver is cooperating with the investigating officers. The Edmonds Police Traffic unit is on the scene handling the investigation.  The roadway will remain closed until the on-scene investigation is concluded.”

The accident occurred the height of the Friday evening commute.  Traffic is being rerouted while police conduct their investigation.  The Edmonds Police Department asks that motorists avoid the area if possible, but if you must pass through police urge you to be patient, follow officers’ instructions, and not drive through or around barriers.

Photos and report by Larry Vogel

Police have closed off 196th Street between 80th and 88th Avenues while they investigate the accident.  They expect the street will remain closed "for several hours," and ask motorists to avoid the area if possible.
Police have closed off 196th Street between 80th and 88th Avenues while they investigate the accident. They expect the street will remain closed “for several hours,” and ask motorists to avoid the area if possible.


  1. First let me offer my deepest apologies to the individual hit this evening and their family. A few years ago I noticed how difficult it was to cross 196th St. SW. This is one of the major roads leading into Edmonds which also carries a large deal of ferry traffic. This is a heavy residential area with many churches, schools and parks. Starting at 80th there isn’t another crosswalks until Olympic Ave way down the hill. In fact at one of the busiest intersections there is no light or crossing, that being the intersection of 296th and 88th. I even collected accident data and presented it to the mayor in an effort to get a light and crossing installed. It is time for Edmonds and the WA DOT to take our safety serious. No more unnecessary accidents.

  2. It’s hard crossing that intersection. You have cars coming from the top and bottom directions. You either pop the gas peddle or get hit.

    How in the hell does a pedestrian cross? Run?

  3. Yes., our town needs a response from our Mayor (everything starts at the top) regarding the many major safety issues that are brought up all the time by the public (including dead bodies on our streets) and what he plans to do. Our safety in this town should be number one. This. a very basic expectation! We need more appropriately marked crosswalks (and I mentioned this area regarding SAFETY not that long ago), enforced speed limits (and yes., if this cant be done at major areas, consider cameras) and hey! How ’bout a transportation study done by a real transportation safety engineer here……. The residents of this city need to know that our town is appropriately safe all over. I believe it is standard to have a Public Works Director that is an actual engineer so we do not have so many issues that appear to me over and over not addressed regarding safety. This is very basic. This is just as important as what we have just seen regarding the Edmonds trial in Seattle……In or town the people on our government should not be just winging it and thinking that is ok. We deserve better.

    1. The city’s public works director is indeed an engineer and city employs other engineers also — including Bertrand Hauss, who oversees transportation issues. It does not serve us well to attack the city’s employees. The buck does stop with the elected officials and they sign up for it, for better or worse.

      1. This is not about attacking our Public Works Director. It is about not having public safety in our town and why that is. I will double check on the information I was given regarding licensed engineers in our town. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

        It does not serve us well having multiple safety issues happening here regularily either. The staff of our town are paid to do a job by the taxpayers of this town, and if there are questions, particularily regarding the very safety of people, that needs to be addressed. I’m not talking about bucks spent here, I’m talking about very simple, basic safety issues. Perhaps we need to look at where and how our (the tax-paying public) “bucks” (if this is what you are referring to) are spent and what we believe is priority here.

      2. The June 22, 2010 City Council Meeting Agenda indicates that Mr. Williams holds a M.S. in Biology at Eastern Washington University. Please provide support for your representation that the city’s public works director is indeed an engineer.

        1. Confirmed that Phil Williams has bachelors and masters degrees in biology, the latter with an emphasis in the water quality impacts from wastewater effluents. Apologies for the error.

        2. A Masters in Wastewater effluents is impressive and a great thing for the guy supervising our water to have. Thanks for the information! I’ve never heard Mr Williams call himself an engineer, and when called upon to talk about engineering he most always defers to Mr Emgish ( who is an engineer).

        3. I interpret the city code to say that the Mayor (not citizens, not council) figures out what background credentials are required per position.

          Mayor – 2.01.010 Duties.
          The mayor shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, in charge of all departments and employees, with authority to designate assistants and department heads. The mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interest. [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983].

        4. Thanks for your confirmation Teresa.

          I think a key point is WHO establishes the minimum requirements and/or specifications for the job. ECC 2.10.010.A implies that the City Council plays a large role in this effort as it relates to “appointive officers”:

          “Periodically, when the city conducts a salary survey regarding its nonrepresented employees, and whenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions listed in this chapter, the city council may review the specifications for the appointive officer position(s) and revise them as needed before acting to confirm a permanent appointment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the city council from reviewing such specifications at other times.”

          If the City Council is the entity which establishes the specifications for the appointive officer position(s), I would think that a Mayor would not have the authority to consider applicants who do not meet the specifications. This issue came up in the recent wrongful termination lawsuit when former Mayor Haakenson said he felt it was “within his discretion” to do this on day 4 of the trial.

          As a citizen, I would think it in everybody’s best interest for the City Council to regularly review and update (if necessary) the specifications for all City Appointive Officer positions. Coupling that with the City Council Confirmation requirement for appointive officers should be of benefit to all.

        5. This is also part of 2.10.010 – The council’s revising of a specification will not have any effect on a previously confirmed permanent appointment.

        6. I think now would be a good time for the City Council to clearly identify each “Appointive Office” and clearly establish via Ordinance the specifications and minimum requirements for each Appointive Office. Doing so will greatly improve the process and clear up any FUTURE confusion over what is or is not at the discretion of a Mayor.

  4. I agree that we need lighted, designated crosswalks across 196th between 80th and 88th Aves. I also believe the city, county or state should clean abundant overgrowth of vegetation and trash on the sidewalks. Between 80th and 84th on the North side, the sidewalk is barely accessible for a single pedestrian. My wife and I witnesses a wheelchair lady get a blackberry vine caught in her hair. In attempting to remove it, her wheelchair slipped off the curb, causing drivers to swerve to avoid her. So, not only is 196th unsafe, but unsightly, as well! As a major entrance into our city, we need to pay closer attention to 196th.

  5. I urge our mayor to get involved in safety issues concerning the streets in Edmonds and pedestrian safety. I talked to the mayor six months ago and e-mailed him concerning the fact that the crosswalk at 5th Ave. and Elm Way had been taken out despite the fact that the bus shelter is on the west side of 5th Ave.
    and the majority of the bus riders live on the east side of 5th Ave. making it a 3 block walk to get to the bus shelter using a crosswalk and I am still waiting for a reply! Mayor Earling requested I e-mail him with my concern. I have walked over 2,000 miles in Edmonds so far this year and encounter drivers who do not stop for me, even when I am in the crosswalk, drivers who do not slow or stop at stop signs or red lights on a daily basis. I would like to see pedestrian safety be a priority in Edmonds. Edmonds also needs more sidewalks where we have so many walkers. Edmonds has had too many pedestrian fatalities this year.

    1. Carol, I second your assessment of pedestrian safety! And, a main thoroughfare such as 196th, is driven by many way above the speed limit. Then, by not having any marked crosswalks between 80th and 88th, it becomes very hazardous to cross (or even walk!). Unfortunately, many drivers do not take into consideration a pedestrian at a crosswalk. I have nearly been hit many times. Ironically, most pedestrian-auto fatalities in our country occur at crosswalks.

    1. Here’s what Edmonds police spokesman Mark Marsh said today: The pedestrian will be fine. Suffered a broken ankle and shoulder injury but will make a full recovery.

  6. I live on 84th where this accident happened and was re routed when driving my son to a dress rehearsal. When we saw the police blocking off 196th he immediately said I bet someone was run over and killed. It doesn’t make any sense to have bus stops on both sides of a street and no crosswalk. So a person commuting by bus would have to cross the street once a day. There is a signal light right in front of the fire station and is only used for emergency vehicles leaving. It makes a lot of sense to allow pedestrians to use sane light to safely cross at a cross walk. Our kids should not be afraid of getting around town.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.