Getting rid of parking spaces in lieu of bike parking is great.

We're so pathetic here I'd settle for more loop bicycle racks, particularly replacing the rediculous cutsy bicycle shaped "racks" that have popped up on Broadway and the ave. They can only fit one bike, and with all the sharp edges always scrape up my frame.

Keep your head in the sand.

Damn shame we are well aware of the idle threats of the looney left.

Damn shame we are well aware of the idle threats of the looney left.

Have fun paying $2100 for a 200 sq foot apartment with no amenities.

It's a nice sentiment, but the data on that page you linked to is out of date. Like, 16 years out of date. Portland's made big investments since then and it's paying off (mostly about bikes but there is a total mode split graph on the last slide). There's still a lot we can learn from Portland.

It's free.

More bike shelters, yes! Replace car parking to do it, yes! Thanks for the link Patrick.

But why the f* don't more buildings and stores have REAL, RAIN-PREVENTING AWNINGS over their bike racks? Or even effective awnings at all.
Check the Fremont PCC, the bike rack appears covered under their awning, but no, the awning is poorly designed and splashes rain all over the bicycles. SToooPID! jesus bad design drives me crazy~!

Bikes are great, but it's extremely unlikely that they will ever comprise a significant portion of work trips - either in Portland or Seattle.

Getting rid of parking will bring about the downfall of Western civilization!

When the Seattle Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994, one primary goal was that bicycles' mode share of work trips should increase from 3% in 1990 to 5% in 2000. During the 10-year Complan review of 2004, the City was forced to acknowledge that bicycles share of work trips had remained unchanged at 3%.

Similarly, walking was supposed to increase from 7% to 8% of work trips between 1990 and 2000, but instead remained at 7%. Transit use was supposed to go from 16% to 20%, but in fact fell short and only increased to 18%. SOV use was supposed to fall from 59% to 51%, but instead went down to 56% (a fine thing, mind you, but that's far more trips than concurrency under the GMA would permit if the City were being honest about the demand for parking and cars that even high density development creates). Carpool use actually fell from 12% to 11% (City planners had assumed it would remain constant). The only measure by which there was a significant shift to a non SOV mode was that the number of people working at home rose from 3% in 1990 to 5% in 2000, exceeding the City's goal of increasing it to 4%.

Notwithstanding the construction of thousands of new units downtown and within the City during this time period, fully 67% of Seattleites still drive to work (and 56% of them do it alone).

How did the City deal with the failure of their assumptions to materialize regarding new density and mode shifts? They simply changed the way they count trips, and now lump all non-SOV trips into one catagory. If that isn't a tacit admission of abject failure, I'm not sure what is.

Most transportation planners doing long-range planning have stated that implementing a full range of bicycle facilities will result in, at best, a doubling of bicycle mode share.

7 hills and hundreds of rain days annually - not to mention the wider and wider dispersion of employment throughout the region - serve to fundamentally limit the effectiveness of bikes as a primary work transportation mode for the vast majority of people. Moreover, the earliest converts to bicycle use are the "low hanging fruit" who more easily make the shift, and subsequent growth in bicycle use will occur much more slowly than it does in the initial period after improvements are made.

As I said, this is little more than going from statistically meaningless to statistically irrelevent, and may or may not be worth the level of public investment given the bang you get for that buck.