But, yeah, we do whine excessively.

Let's study it for another 50 years and then change our minds after 5 votes.

And what are you doing about it ECB? What are you doing about it? Besides complaining? You could run for office and you know, do something about it.

Erica is not just complaining. She's also opposing this fall's light rail ballot measure because it also happens to be a roads ballot measure. Never mind that many, if not most, of these roads are not sprawl-inducing (see tolled 520 replacement), the mere coupling of transit with roads in a way that might actually make the transit happen is just too dirty.

Seems to me, Erica and her colleague Josh Feit are being no different from these businesses that get bike lanes killed. They are single-mindedly focused on their own narrow interests and can't imagine settling for anything less than everything that they want.

Our approach has always been microscopic in comparison of the issue at stake. And while we piss and moan about rapid transit, our infastructure (you know water mains, residential streets ect) are falling apart with no one wanting to pay for replacements.

We need someone to revitalize the New Deal on a local and national level. And it is not government spending, it is called government capital investment.

Only at the Stranger can one find so many canards piled upon apples to oranges comparisons served up with a side of false analogies and topped with a maraschino cherry of self-righteous elitism.

BTW - Portland has about the same (statistically negligible) percentage of commuters who bike to work, and Seattle actually has a higher percentage of transit users for work trips. Facts, who needs em?

That's just another example of Erica's – well, I'm not sure whether to call it meanness or immaturity, or just plain lack of perspective. (To be fair, meanness and immaturity are probably two of the necessary components of a colorful blog, and I guarantee you I would not make as fine a blogger as Erica does.)

But to inject a little perspective here, yes, we are building rapid transit. And actually, our rapid transit is going to be a lot more rapid than their rapid transit. Portland designed its light rail system in absolutely the worst way possible. They made it effectively a streetcar through downtown, and as anyone who has ridden Max knows, it absolutely crawls through downtown Portland. At least Seattle was smart enough to go for grade separation through downtown thanks to the existing bus tunnel.

I still have a hard time imagining those light rail trains zipping through that tunnel, but we'll see.

ECB is obnoxious and I don't care about her rage on this particular issue, but bike lanes aren't for suckers. They can be part of the solution if implemented the right way.

There's a meeting this Wednesday to help get the word out http://www.seattlelikesbikes.org/

maybe they should reconsider that new light rail line and maybe focus on improving the dismal public school system a bit....

Regarding bike lanes or stalls replacing parking spots... the fewer parking spots we have in this city, the more people will be forced to depend on public transit or bikes. When public transit is unquestionably the most reasonable option, those same commuters will vote to fund it accordingly. The only downside? How to replace the valuable income from parking fees/tickets...

The paint store, plumbing shop, tool shop, etc are hardly heavy industry. They're nice little mom and pop type shops that do not require large trucks or Aurora Ave type traffic-flow to survive. In fact they might benefit from having drivers SLOW DOWN on their way to Home Depot so they can see what gems some of these stores are.

And technically, he's referring to the zoning, but it is a mixed commercial, marine, industrial zone.

On Stone Way cyclists must deal with parking cars, turning cars, peds, buses, opening doors, the road grit that is found on heavily traveled streets, etc.
And red lights. And stopping LOTS of times.

On the side streets you could ride your bike all the way from 56th or 50th say and down to the B-G cruising right around those turtles with just a few stops (50th and 45th) at arterials....making much better progress....much more safely.

In other words, WIN-WIN.

Same thing for 35th SW -- why put bikes on that dangerous road?

Vancouver has these bike routes thru residential neighborhoods with cute little signs. We could too.

The point is the Bike Master Plan says they should put the bike lanes in, they said they were going to do that, then they backed down, apparently based on bogus data.

And it's not Meridian. We mean the one block EAST of Stone Way N.

@38 - you obviously don't get out much. I see tons of large trucks here.

My guess is you only go during commute times, which is a time that most trucks aren't using that street.

And for those that think Stone is used by light indusrial truckers, I rarely see the semi trucks on Stone that show up in my neighborhood to do plumbing, roofing, electrical, and painting work. Stone is used only by bicycles, hybrids, and the occasional Volvo. The marine businesses on N. Boat St. get their supplies by barge and the trucks going to the dump, I mean tranfer station, all come from the East and West none from the North because unless we get that Global warming thing really going nothing grows north of 35th.

Stone below 45th has a bunch of light industrial businesses plumbing (2), electrical (2), paint (2), roofing (1), hardware (1) and along N.Boat there are a bunch of marine repair shops and Dunn Lumber.

Pro or con bike paths in is true that there are a bunch of businesses that might well be affected by the bike path.

I'm curious where that data came from. both your numbers about portland (which one need only take a look around in while in that city to know aren't true), and the fact that numbers are "statistically negligible". Portland is at about 2.6% in-city. not much, but not "negligible"

and to all the people talking about the new bike lane on stone way already existing, read the article carefully. the dispute is the gap from 34th to 40th, which was originally planned and then nixed.

And Seattle is 6th in walking to work - Portland doesn't even make list.

Tops in Biking to Work
1. Portland 3.5%
2. Minneapolis 2.4%
3. Seattle 2.3%

Tops in use of Public Transit

8. Seattle 17.0%
9. Oakland 16.5%
10. Portland 13.3%

Tops in Walking to Work
1. Boston 12.5%
2. Washington, D.C. 10.0%
3. San Francisco 9.6%
4. New York 9.4%
5. Philadelphia 8.1%
6. Honolulu 6.9%
6. Seattle 6.9%
7. Minneapolis 5.8%
8. Chicago 5.5%
9. Baltimore 5.4%

Which isn't to say that the city couldn't make a bike boulevard that jogs. I suspect they didn't like bike boulevards much. Still, even in Vancouver, they put them a few blocks off parallel arterials, to avoid having to install a signal 1 block from an existing signal.

"Isn't that the point?"

No Dave, the point of building public transit is to build something that people will use. If you look at the facts, a hard thing to do for most Stranger reporters and readers, you'll find that despite sinking a boatload of money into MAX Portland's share of commuters using public transit is lower than Seattle's. News flash fuckheads! Just because something runs on rails doesn't mean that it's good and wonderful and without flaws.

Didn't you do a post a few weeks back on the Duwamish River neighborhoods? Now THERE'S some heavy industry. And a great bike path.

If you don't think 2.6-3% of work trips by bicycle is statistically negligible in the overall scheme of mode choices, there really isn't much hope for you.

You can wish in one hand and shit in the other, but 56% of Seattle residents still commute by SOV by the City's last count, and carpool use actually fell to 11% from 12% on top of that. I'd say 67% of people using cars to get to work is a clear supermajority in anybody's book - and 2.6%-3% would be a textbook definition of a vocal (sub)minority dictating policy.

(BTW - Whatever @ 46, the last Comprehensive Plan figures I saw had bicycle mode split in Seattle at 3%, but I have no doubt the City took the liberty of rounding up from 2.6% to try and hide their dismal performance in achieving any significant mode shift toward bicycles and away from cars)

Oops - strike the bit about going from 2.6% to 3% - you wrote 2.3% (which is even more statistically insignificant - I would add!)

PS - I own two bikes, and used to be a bike commuter myself (and would still be if my commute were less than a mile or two - with or without bike lanes).

Most people make their decision to ride a bike based on weather, distance, and topography, and the presence of dedicated bike lanes hardly plays into it for the vast majority of potential riders.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking about this Stone Way issue, and yes, while they have drawn up the bike lanes north of 40th, they decided against drawing them down to the trail, which is your issue. The thing is that both sides have a legitimate beef. That is an arterial corridor between Fremont and Wallingford, on to Green Lake, and cutting it down to two lanes could cause trouble should traffic get heavy, which it can and sometimes does.

At the same time, Stone Way does serve as an informal corridor between Wallyworld and the Burke-Gilman, and I've noticed cars there can be rushed and relatively reckless. Two bike lanes would give bikers some sort of a respected path to and from the trail.

The problem lies with the neighborhood perception. The street, lined with businesses, is always lined with parked cars and there aren't a lot of places to park in the general neighborhood. A recent informal survey of businesses from the local chamber cites traffic and parking as central issues to the locals.

What Bothers You Most

The survey started with an open question, answered by 39 respondents, "what are the top two issues or problems facing the business community in the Fremont area." Without word prompts or multiple choice, the answers came back varied and phrased in different ways.

Even so, 16 respondents mentioned "parking," nine said "traffic," and four used other words that amounted to the same thing. Eleven responses mentioned crime, security, safety or related issues, but not always as the problem itself. These included mentions about an "unsafe reputation" or feeling safe, more like an issue of perception.

This sort of mindset is probably a huge contributor to opposition for the tail end of the bike corridor. It's still fuzzy to me what the underlying motive is, but I highly doubt it's as simple as 'hunga bunga we hate bikes and love cars'.