Chicago is a hell of a lot colder than Chicago. Wow, that's a feat. But I agree with you.

Minor point, but: Portland isn't warmer than Seattle in the winter. It's warmer in the summer, and just slightly colder in the winter.

That's 15th Ave coming off the Ballard Bridge, and I hate biking that road! Luckily I don't have to do it often. That street truly needs bike lanes.

I'll be glad when the Fremont Bridge is back in service. Glad I voted No on the city thing and yes on the county one.

The non smoking in bars brigade got its way in San Francisco and New York
and it did so here in Seattle.
Sometimes things work here to.
"they got ar jobs"southpark

Let's buy a one-way ticket back to Chicago for Dan.

Who's with me?

@3 - 15th ave west is a really dangerous road even if you're in a car. i wouldn't really consider biking on that road unless there was some sort of jersey barrier between the traffic and the cyclists. otherwise it is an accident waiting to happen

Ok. I like when shit gets done, and I think Seattle has a serious problem with even getting out of the blocks. Dig the Tunnel (because the surface option is stupid). The park on top is the missing link of converging bike paths to downtown. Yeah, yeah, I know there's already a 'bike path' along Alaskan now, but it's an afterthought. You can easily get yourself hurt down there. A path that's prioritized for bikes and can serve as a waterfront hub.

There could be a bike lane put in on 15th/Elliot, although you already have the Myrtle Edwards trail that continues all the way to Leary. 15th is quite the dangerous bike ride as it stands now. Risky.

Dan, re: 'density works'... I have to argue that point. Chicago, SF, NYC, et al are impossibly expensive cities to live in, thanks in large part to the high demand that is a byproduct of their dense development. How is that good for anyone but the wealthiest of citizens?

I sure as hell wouldn't want Seattle to become another San farncisco, because that means it'd cost $1800 a month for an apartment here.

I rode all over Seattle when I lived there. It's a great town overall to ride in, although I agree about riding on 15th -- I'd find some way around that!

In San Diego, despite all the sun, it is astonishing how few people even try to ride. Seattle has 100 times the number of bicyclists, seriously.

I grew up in Seattle and moved south to Vancouver, WA about 10 years ago. There is no appreciable difference in the weather. On average the Portland area may be warmer, but we get just as many cold rainy days as Seattle.

This morning in fact was one, and I saw an intrepid bicycle rider on my way to work, riding in the rain and up a hill. I'm a wimp, I took my car.

When I lived in Seattle I used to ride the Burke-Gillman trail from Bothell to the U-District, all the time no matter the weather. If you build it they will ride it. (Bad Joke I know). But a lot of people I know who bike commute down here, wouldn't have ever started if there hadn't been bike lanes and paths. You have to build your confidence before you go out and brave commuting with traffic.

And the number of people commuting by bike is 3% of work trips, and it didn't go up one iota between 1994 and 2004 (the City had hoped it would increase to 5% of trips, and spent a fair amount of $$$ trying to get it to do so).

You could double the number of bike commuters (which would be a fine thing) and it would still be statistically meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

Wow Dan, those excuses sound like the ones I hear in Honolulu all the time........

People will argue until they're blue in the face against change. The thing is, change happens whether you want it to or not; the only thing you get to decide is whether or not you have a say.

Since my comment started this, I'll chime in.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't put in bike paths and encourage more bikers. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm all for that. All I'm saying is that I don't think bike lanes will get a significant number of people out of their cars.

When I see proposals for transit, I try to think: will this make a real difference? Will real average people chose this over driving? I can't read minds, so all I can go on is my own experience and that of people I know. Or serious unbiased research.

I live about 6 miles from down town. In normal traffic, I can drive there in about 15 minutes.

I can tell you with certainty that when it is 45 degrees out, and raining, there is almost nothing you could do to convince me to ride a bike downtown, even if there was a dedicated bike path right outside my front door. Call me lazy; call me a pussy. I'm not commuting on a bike in this weather. I'm pretty sure most of the people I know would give you the same response (good liberals all).

Would I take a bus? Maybe. Where I'm at, I'd have to make at least one transfer, and it would take more than an hour. Outside of normal commute times, add another half hour. Way outside of commute times, forget it. The bus just doesn't run that late. If gas was expensive enough, and the commute bad enough, it might be worth it. That is why I give luke warm support to the county "bus rapid transit" proposal. It is imperfect, but it will probably make transit a viable option for some people who commute by car now.

Would I take light rail or monorail? Absolutely. Without question. It would probably be faster than driving, I wouldn't have to worry about gas or parking. I could count on it being pretty much on time all the time, and with frequent runs. If there were a light rail or monorail stop within a mile of my house, I'd seriously consider giving up my car entirely. Just think of all the money I'd save on car payments, maintenance, insurance, and gas. To say nothing of greenhouse gasses.

You wanna install more bike lanes? Sure. Go for it. They are relatively inexpensive (compared to more roads or light rail), and I have no problem throwing a bone to the bikers. I think bike safety is an important part of the mix. But I think you are delusional if you think that bike lanes will get a significant number of people to switch from cars to bikes for their commute. I've seen no statistical evidence to the contrary.

No one expects folks to bike all over town when it's 45 degrees out and pissing rain, just as no one expects people to, oh, drive right after an ice storm. You can't haul out the worst biking conditions and say, "See? Why bother?!"

Build the bike lanes, and more people will bike on days when they can bike. No one bikes in, oh, flat-as-a-pancake Chicago during a blizzard. But lots of folks bike—on the city's bike paths, which run the length of the city—on nice days, nice enough days, and moderately crap days.

And, again, if we can get over 1/20 trips on bikes, that's worth doing.

You know what does not work here are those bike racks like the one in the picture Dan posted. Who conceived of that? Its like a bike sign, but its a rack. Unless I am just missing something.

By the way, does anyone know how many days a year it is raining in Seattle? (As a lazy biker myself, I think rain is a bigger deterent that temperature) I agree with Dan that we don't have to convince people to bike everyday, but we have to convince a LOT of people to bike a LOT of days, for bike infrastructure to make a difference on traffic/pollution situation.

I think it's something like 200+ days with measurable rain.

Thanks for calling bullshit. Every Wednesday morning, I go to a meeting on Dexter, and the bike lanes are always busy. If there were more bike lanes, cycling would be safer, and more people would do it. Hell, if my job territory didn't range from Tacoma to Snohomish, I'd do it myself.

We have to get rid of the GOP.
Get those old fogies out of downtown government offices and replace them with hip entrepeneurs and open to new plans from architecturalists, mix in some funky folks from New York and San Francisco and Voila you got yourself an UBERTEchno CITY of Seattle we can call SEATECH and we'll make other cities jealous of our progress and creativity in structural building and high speed and volume transit systems.
Gee its nice to know Seattle will not change, I like the Transit system and commute around town. Its so old Fashioned and Quaint for us Old folks.We like our city OOooooooooooooo
OOLLLLDDDDD. And we'll keep votin Old crusty conservatives and young wimpy liberal progressives who sniff eachothers nutz and end up with deadpan decisions in the way our cities going to be run. I can't wait until 3045 that bein the year folks when hopefully newer futuristic Seattle will be just that. And finally we'll have a way to skirt traffic and save money,all thanks to some genius kids of now. Whats in it for their future. Not ours. Thats the idea of what makes cities like New York and San Francisco and Tokyo think.
Everybody just stick your head under a faucet run some warm water through your with nice smelling shampoo and rejuvenate your minds again. Thats a No Brainer.

Another thing this city needs is safe bike storage and protection of said property. The racks are in considerable supply, but no one watches them and if you give a thief 8 hours, he can steal anything. And most buildings don't give you a place to store said bikes, not even the parking garage if there's space.

@ 3 & 7,

The bike trail through Myrtle Edwards Park that connects to W 20th will get you most of the way up to the Ballard Bridge, and with almost zero vehicular traffic for about 85% of its length.

It gets a little dicey north of Dravus, but you can cut along Thorndyke on the north side of the playfield to the cloverleaf south of the bridge without too much trouble. Also people who live in W. Ballard can bike straight up to the locks and cross over there.

The Netherlands, a bike paradise (lanes, turn signals) is nearly as rainy as Vancouver BC, and colder. C'mon, Seattlites, what are you made of?

@22 - good point.

Lol, Sputnik. And Gomez, good point. Too, with so much rain -- and sweat in the Summer -- work offering a shower wouldn't be bad for the non-co-worker-shower-tweaks.

Tsk, Tsk, Seattle. You aspire to be a good city, when you could be a great city. A great city would have a monorail, a waterfront for people (not cars) and high-speed commuter bike trails. High-Speed Commuter Bike Trails that would be exclusive, elevated, covered and converge downtown at the Bike Station. The Bike Station would have storage, repair, showers and dressing rooms. Bike related merchandise and food would be available, too. Bicycles would be given the same priority as automobiles and mass transit. People would ride bikes to work because it would be fast, fun and safe. In other words, exactly the opposite of what we have now.

Dan -- you forgot Amsterdam! Flatter than Seattle, but the weather's just about the same (which accounts for our kinship with tulips). And everyone bikes in Amsterdam. If we could get our bike usage to HALF of Amdam levels, we'd be in pretty great shape.

That'd be lovely, Frank, but it's never gonna happen. Amsterdam is what, like 2 miles across? And it's not just flatter than Seattle - we're talking flatter than just about anywhere.

SDA really did hit the nail on the head, but y'all can keep dreaming on and on...

Oh, and here's a little fact check for Dan (not that those ever make much of a dent).

Seattle's mode split in favor of bicycles is nearly double that of San Francisco - 3% to 1.8%. Oddly enough, Portland's share of those who commute by bicycle is 1.8%, as well.

Cold and wet is one thing. Hilly is another. The combination is the killer, for a lot of people.

Anyway, bike paths are well and good, but we need grade-separated mass transit more than we need the bike paths. And it looks like that particular opportunity has been blown for the rest of my lifetime, not that I'm bitter or anything. Oh wait, I AM!

1. do you have any statistics about the number of people who bike in SF? Are the percentages really that different from Seattle?

2. Of course if you biked in Chicago blizzards, you'd bike here. Maybe we just need to import more midwesterners grateful for the absence of real winter to up our bike commute numbers.

3. there's no doubt that additional bike lanes would improve the biking experience, but some might question whether 1/20 is substantial.

Seattle is great for biking, once you acclimate, however there are a few hazards:

1. Volvos/Saabs/SUVs (tend to be driven by folks with their heads firmly enrectumed)

2. Pedestrians (I used to have a cat that would look both ways before crossing the street: too many walkers don't have that self-preservation instinct.)

3. rain + road grease.

The Ballard Locks aren't exactly the most bike friendly path between Magnolia and Ballard. Besides being a detour for a lot of folk, you must dismount at the entrance to the park and portage or attempt to wheel your bike through crowds of tourists who don't know a naval path from a lookout, from their ass. Then you get the walk your bike to the edge of the park before you can ride away.
On a nice day (few tourists, Locks not opening- blocking/detouring you, etc) it can be a pleasant detour. On a bad day, it's about the closest a cyclist can get to road-rage trying to maneouvre their bike amongst a solid knot of clueless tourists blocking the entire length of the locks, as one of them opens just as you get to it.
Someday I swear I am going to snap and just start pitching clueless, self-centered tourists into the water to clear my path and then gleefully cycle through the park!