Bike Plan Money Falling 70 Percent Short of Goal

Painted bike lanes sure seem like they would be cheap. I'm sure our bike plan requires more than that, but can't we get most of the way there with simple paint on road?

No reason for them to be surprised by the shrinking funding used for street,sidewalk and biking improvements. The first time Frank Blethen told them to repeal the Head Tax, Conlin and Burgess fell over each other to do his bidding.

I think it's time someone started organizing a serious bike/ped public support campaign. The reason we don't get any of this money is because we all whine and bitch for about an hour and then go about our business (just like I'm doing now). We need signs, we need rallys, we need letters. We need to put the pressure on until this city get's serious and finds a dedicated source of substantial funding for pedestrians and cyclists (just like they promised us when they did away with the head tax).

I'm looking at CBC. Aren't they the biggest bicycle club in the nation? And aren't they headquartered right here in the Emerald City?

less sharrows and more bike lanes please.

didn't voters specifically approve the head tax in conjunction with bridging the gap? will we get a bridging the gap 2? I feel like we have gotten more or less what we voted on, Lander St Overpass notwithstanding.

No, voters did not approve the head tax, or the parking tax, or the Mercer Street boondoggle. They approved the property taxes only – the rest was done by Council vote.

The problem is that DOT, the mayor and the city council have all been afraid to find a middle ground between bikes and peds on one hand, and business and developers on the other. Whenever there is conflict, which there is plenty of, bikes and peds get the short end of the stick.

I can tell you exactly how to reach much of the ridership goal, make a safe, flat dedicated bike path around Lake Union and up Westlake into the heart of the city. This would open up commuters from Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford, the U-district, Ravenna to easy access to the city.

On the west side of the lake, they pandered to the small businesses, and put in a sidewalk that dangerously weaves through a parking lot instead of putting in a dedicated path, and it goes largely unused. Bikes continue to use Dexter, which is demonstrably dangerous, and the hill proves to be a significant barrier for all but the most avid bikers.

On the east side of the lake, the city completely dropped the ball by not failed to negotiate public right of way when permitting Mallard Cove. If they had, a small bridge would have been all that was necessary to put in a flat bike lane all the way from the University Bridge to the bottom of the lake.

Rather than slightly modify a vastly underutilized Westlake Ave to provide a safe, flat conduit for bikes into the heart of the city, those chose to impose a developers whim on a route that is completely absurd. The nightmare that the slut has caused for Westlake bikers is well documented.

A little forethought and a little spine against cranky, entrenched monied interests would go a lot farther than more money.

I am a bike commuter and I like the bike master plan… but how the hell is it worth spending any money on right now given all the cuts to much more critical services being talked about? I know bikes are cheap & efficient and all that, but come on, how self-involved must you be to be truly upset about bike lanes while the State Legislature fiddles away, burning down the safety net.

I know, different jurisdictions & different funding sources, but our turn for brutal cuts here in Seattle is coming soon enough.

biliruben: You bring up a really good point here too. While every neighborhood needs better bike infrastructure, the city should aggressively prioritize the flat routes through this city. As you mention, focusing on the area around the lake and the flat connections to downtown from North Seattle would be the most cost effective approach to creating a valuable cycling network. Similarly, having safe and comfortable routes from downtown via Dearborn through the Rainier Valley is also paramount.

No doubt. I'm more familiar with the north end, and I think there are probably more potential riders that direction, but I have certainly tried in vain to find decent, safe routes from the I-90 bridge into downtown. It's a scary deal.

Similarly, I frequently ride the nightmare that is E. Marginal along the south waterfront and over the low W. Seattle bridge. Wow. So much potential, so much crap to ride through as semis buzz you for fun. It does look like they are working to make that better now.

Agree, the route from Pioneer Square to connect to West Seattle along the waterfront and over the lower Spokane bridge is heavily used, and could use some serious help. As for why we should be spending money on this when there is a recession? We absolutely should be seeking the biggest bang for our buck, which these projects demonstrate in spades.

The 70% glass half-empty talk is getting me down.

Just wait til you see the funding gap in the Pedestrian Master Plan! That's worthy of an entirely separate post here.

For a number of reasons, I think the best way forward right now may be to get a few hundred million dollars committed for bike/ped needs in the West Seattle-Ballard light rail initiative. I asked McGinn about this on Questionland, and he answered that they may push for more bike/ped funding even before that vote. Olympia successfully funded sidewalk construction for every block in the city by adding the funding to a parks vote in 2003 or 04. We may need a Sidewalks for All levy or something like it. The scope would be on the order of $1 billion over 20 years.

Have you been following the First Hill Streetcar project? They clearly learned their lesson and are making pretty sure they don't repeat the bike conflicts on Westlake.

Money isn't all the same. The question is probably better asked – where should we be spending our transportation infrastructure dollars (often can't move those to libraries or health services for example). The answer to that question often is *bikes*. Biking is a very cheap way to get around. Spending a little money to make it cheaper for folks to get around the city is a good investment.

E.g. Portland spend something like $60 M over the last decade plus to get their nation-leading bike setup put in place. Seattle could get a lot of benefit for not much money. Building bike facilities is a lot cheaper than increasing capacity for cars. (And cars don't cut down on expensive obesity-related costs, either

Don't forget peds. Walking is universal, no special clothes or equipment needed. Studies find people will walk if you give them sidewalks, trails, etc. That's important for physical health, traffic congestion, and greenhouse emissions among other things. Walking investments produce huge bang for the buck.

Unfortunately, CBC does a terrible job of explaining to the public why they should care about cycling. The answer should be *money* & *health* (cycling saves!) but you never see the argument made convincingly by CBC. (Try to find a bike advocacy FAQ on the cascade site, for instance.)

The Portland folks have been doing a much better job, and therefore have been getting some business support. Here's an example from back in 2007:

http://www.ceosforcities.org/blog/entry/986

$2.6G combined from transit/walking/biking support. That's real money!

(And I know that Cascade folks will tell you they're working hard talking to policy makers. It's just that they don't seem to have any impact on the general public.)

In in East, we “volunteer” to paint sharrows… do it at night when nobody is watching. Don't know why it costs Seattle millions. Perhaps most of the money goes to “engineering”. Like our rail trails… $1 million/mile, 25% to actual construction, 25% to “landscaping” and 50% to engineering….
Hmmm… if they are built along rail roads designed to carry TRAINS, why do they need to be “engineered” to handle BICYCLES?

Noman– Good idea. Sharrows shold be the norm not the exception. Might also help if there was a cyclist fee to help defray some of the cost, especially of commute safe routes. Certainly some if not most of the windfall from expanded parking fees and red light cams should go to bike, pedestrian and bus traffic.

Slow but steady wins the race. My heart is gladdened by knowing the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan will be fully implemented in 75 to 100 years years. LMAO.

How bicycling in such a harsh terrain and weather, along with endless conflicts with other modes of transportation, helps anyone in poverty or in crisis? This is a plan for some rich adventure seekers. Bicycling is very recreational in Seattle. It's not for the poor, not here. Seattle has very weak regional transit to support walking and bicycling. This city had introduced America to its first Mall(northgate) and had no regional transit concept until early 2000's. The public rights of ways are also very narrow due to zoning that allows private developers to build so close to the roadway, leaving no space for reasonable bicycling or walking space. Most regular folks here rarely live near work and must commute regionally to sustain a decent living. The bicycling supporters here always come across as a cult rather than problem solvers. I still haven't heard any convincing argument from any bicycling advocate here about why people should bicycle. It can not get people out of poverty, it is hazardous being so close to large vehicles, fumes, and dust, and most importantly it is so dysfunctional! How is slowing buses full of people benefiting anyone? Many bicycle route on the plan are on the the bus routes! That just shows that it is not about people, it's about recreational bicyclists. It's about someone's hobby, it's about someone's principles, rather than being practice and contributing to the common good.