« The Morning News |
Today The Stranger Suggests... »
on July 28 at
This week, Erica C. Barnett will be on 710 KIRO talking with Goldy about the City Council races, the nightlife debate, and, I imagine, bikes.
Be sure to tune in to the show at 7pm.
Bike routes are good. Are the ones we are geting good?
Is it good to put them on major arterials when there are less-traffic-filled alternatives just a few feet or a block or two away?
They painted a bike path around Greenlake Way today. On the road that is. Counterclockwise. Next to all the parked cars.
This becomes a "suggested" bike route where the bikes will conflict with parking cars, exiting cars, car doors bein open in your face as you ride just next to the parked cars, gropus of pedestrians desperately trying to cross (drivers just don't stop anymore) and stepping into the bike lane, with their grear and little kids and strollers, and complicated intersections like the five-way in front of Greg's, cars cheating and going from Duke's SE on Greenlake Way N. etc.
Yes yes we know the drivers are usually at fault, and everyone is supposed to be careful and watch out -- but why have a conflictin the first place when just a few feet away there compress what we hope is a major increase in bike useage onto the dangerous arterial full of parking cars when there are two alternative bike paths for counterclockwise bike traffic a few feet away including (a) on the dirt track just inside the park, near the roadway but out of it, and (b) on the existing bike path itself inside th park.
Same thing on Stone Way.
We need a great bike route from Greenlake/Woodland Park to the Burke Gilman trail, but why direct these bikes and hopefully 1000 more bikes per day onto Ston Way the most heavily traveled arterial ?
Bikes again will be slowed down anbd have conflicts with traffic, lots of peds crossing Stone Way, parking cars, doors being flung open, red lights, turning vehicles....
Why not have the bike route on Woodlawn or Interlaken or a host of other little used north-south streets ? There, bikes would be safer and could kep up their speed and not havethese conflicts.
Same thing on 35th SW -- why put bikes right on this major artreal with cars goin 45 mph a few feet away, turning and parking cars and peds crossing, etc., when you could have a safer and mor scenic and rather longish longish bike route fpor a few miles a block or two to the west.
OF COURSE bikes can go on ANY street but when creating bike routes we have the chance to direct bikes where they can be most comfortable and speedy and hopefully we will end up with another 1000-10000 bike commuters a day..... which won't happen if the bike routes are slowed, clogged with congestion, and dangerous, as the plan appears to be now by puting them on major arterials.
where the cyclists would also enjoy great views of both the Sound and Olympics and the Cascades.
Did the SDOT planners just draw lines on a map?
Shouldn't we use al our strets?
Arewe secretly trying to prote ct single family neighborhoods from the "horror" of having sweaty cyclists in front of thir precious, appreciating Craftsman homes?
did anyone actualy think about all this or get any public input?
If I was cycling to work everyday I would want a safer route where I could enjoy a realtively low traffic street instead of being merged with parkin cars, and heavy traffic, and all kinds of lights making me slow down and be in danger all the time.
Vacouver BC has long bike routes going mainly through residential areas.
I'm a Seattle-ite currently deployed in Iraq. I get my daily "Stranger" fix with the SLOG and I download Dan's podcast every week.
Will this news hour get its own podcast?
William trust me don't waste your precious time on this - but if you must, KIRO puts it up as the Goldy horsesass show and in this case it would be hour 1.
This could be the worst hour of radio anywhere - I listened while cooking so at least I got sole almondine out of the ordeal.
Josh and Erica,
I was at the Council hearing on the proposed nightlife ordinance, speaking out against it. But hear is a new twist that came to me as I was returning from the hearing. What if the city is stirring up trouble between the club owners and the residences to ultimately get the clubs out of Belltown, Capitol Hill,Pioneer Square and other areas where this "trouble exists" so the clubs leave and the property can be even further developed for expensive condos? This was my feeling after the hearing, what do you think? I am still trying to meet with club owners and condo owners and hopefully the police to listen to each others take on what can be done, so the city dosen't need to get involved except to hire more police to walk the streets as I have been discussing in my campaign for city council.
izvqm gpwmzv pdtz dxcuy nkfeqm fqvbt ymzab
icjeflrby wckdyxbmo nhqrl asukhbf qiar wbuftjc knawy http://www.xpqsnfi.jowe.com
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info |