Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Survey: People Support Bike Lanes, But Only if They Don’t Take Out Lanes for Cars

As the P-I reported yesterday, Mayor Mike McGinn’s approval rating, according to a KING-5/SurveyUSA poll, has gone up seven points since the last SurveyUSA poll three months ago: 45 percent of respondents said they approve of the job McGinn is doing, up from 38 percent in April. Thirty-eight percent disapprove of McGinn’s performance, and 17 percent aren’t sure. The poll had a 4.5 percent margin of error.

That’s a significant jump, but what I really found interesting about the poll was the questions it asked about biking in Seattle. You can get the full crosstabs here, but here are some highlights:

Only 36 percent of respondents said they biked regularly or occasionally—40 percent of men and just 32 percent of women. (This question was a little odd, though, in that the least-frequent biking one could report is “almost never,” not “never.”

Fewer than half—46 percent—said the city needs more bike lanes. Forty-three percent said the city has enough lanes, and 11 percent weren’t sure. Interestingly, more women (49 percent) than men (41 percent) thought the city should add lanes for bikes—an indication, perhaps, of the phenomenon Josh Cohen mentioned here: Women are less likely to ride because they don’t feel as safe as men do on the road.

Once the questions start getting in to the issue of bikes vs. cars, people—predictably—were less bike-friendly. In general, a fair number of people support more bike lanes, but when you ask them whether they’d support the kind of changes that would make more bike lanes possible, they’re less generous. Just 28 percent said they’d support replacing car lanes with bike lanes, with 63 percent opposed; and just 38 percent said they’d support replacing parking lanes with bike lanes, with 54 percent opposed.

Finally, an oddly worded question asks how often respondents see bicyclists obeying traffic laws—regularly, occasionally, or almost never. A plurality, 42 percent, said “occasionally,” with 33 percent saying “regularly” and 26 percent responding “almost never.” My guess is that those answers correlate pretty closely to the stats on bike ridership.


  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    You left off the links to the tabs. :)

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx…

    Actually the ridership results were:

    How often do you ride a bike? Regularly (10%)? Occasionally (26%)? Or almost never (64%)?

    And the “oddly” worded question was:

    How often do you see bicycle riders obeying traffic laws? Regularly (33%)? Occasionally (42%)? Or almost never (26%)?

    Not that odd… and that doesn't really line up with the ridership. But it is true… bike riders don't literally obey all the rules that car drivers do, such as full stops on red lights at all times, for example. Yes, I know I will be yelled at–again–by someone for raising that, because of any variation of “that unfairly slows down an already slow mode of transit” or something.

  • voter

    I wish we could stop following this meme that somehow bike riders are inherently less law abiding then car drivers. I can't count the times that I see cars pulling California stops, running red lights, and blocking cross walks for pedestrians.

    Is it possible to just accept that the entire population is prone to breaking laws, but since bikes tend to be out of the norm that they are noticed and complained about more readily than car drivers who also commit an equal number of traffic violations (one slight jab: I worry more about traffic violations from a many-thousand pound vehicle travelling at high speeds)?

    In short, all modes are oftentimes jerks and break laws. Let's get over it and stop trying to use breaking the law as an argument for the illegitimacy of bicycles in the public right-of-way.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I'm all for more bikeways. I just get snitty when I see the constant deflections and defensive of bikers; it would be good for voices like Erica and the Joshes to push for people to be better at sharing on the roads on both sides. Your take is good.

  • giffy

    And this is why the term “Road Diet” has got to go. If you put the focus on removing lanes you have already started at a disadvantaged, plus the terms screams of condescending social engineering. The focus instead should be on the improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and even cars. People like positives not negatives.

    I think you also have a problem with massholes and others self-centered types who create the impression of cyclists as entitled elitist jerks. Cascade and others do a great job trying to fight that, but the impression is still out there.

    I think we should start with underutilized corridors like 3rd Ave and turn them into real bike thoroughfares with little cost to cars or other modes of transportation.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Third Avenue from Denny to the stadiums would be perfect for a “Road Fastening”. There's the new phrase we should use, by the way.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I'm very pro-bike and I both bike and drive, and I'll admit it. I probably break laws more on my bike than I do my car. That said, I'd never run a red light (from a stop) in my car because it would feel unsafe to do so. My vision is very limited in a car, as is my manouverability.

    On second thought, I'd never speed on a bike because it would feel unsafe to do so (plus I'd get really sweaty). In a car I drive the speed of other traffic, which on a freeway means faster than the speed limit. So maybe I do break the law more often in a car.

  • majority rules….

    Maybe if bike advocates did not pick fights with the 63% who disfavor changing car lanes to bike lanes

    we'd have more bike stuff?

    like: better curb cuts, more sharrows and bike space virtually everywhere we don't need to take away a car lane?

    I note in the NYC photo in bikenerd's post NYC has a freaking ten lane avenue, so when THEY create bike lanes it doesn't really come at the expense of car lanes.

    Maybe we need a more win win approach?

    Pretty soon most cars will be electric, too. Why antagonize 63%?

    Are you really surprised 63% object to that? You know, that 63% includes an awful lot of the folks who'd be regular riders if we
    hundreds and thousands of miles of routes pas if the .

  • Mikos

    Equating bikes and cars on the road is simple nonsense.

  • morning

    Bikes regularly only slow down at red lights and then blow through them. They almost never stop at stop signs. They often pull forward beyond the stop line, preventing cars from taking free right turns.

    I rarely remember seeing a car at stop light just slow down and run through it.

    Although, cars are clearly more dangerous, bikers breaking laws can cause accidents involving cars that could be very serious.

  • morning

    Fastening?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    It's more a style and implication thing, and sounds better than diet.

    fas·ten·ing:

    n. Something, such as a hook, used to attach one thing to another firmly.
    n. fastening – restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place.

    It's basically sealing off a fraction of the road to bike traffic by restraining the traffic flow of automobile with the restriping of lanes, hence fastening it. At a glance (the style bit) diet=fast. It also has the word “fast”, in that it makes the roads easier to travel afterward, as studies have proven. “Road fastening”.

    I could be blowing smoke out of my ass though, for all I know.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6SAQ6R2ZBGQQNNBXVJZG66K6KY Mickymse

    Perhaps… but the problem is I am far less likely to kill another driver in those instances, than I am to kill the cyclist or pedestrian running red lights, popping out from between parked cars, or dashing across the street.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6SAQ6R2ZBGQQNNBXVJZG66K6KY Mickymse

    We seem to have two choices where these “Road Diets” are concerned, though.

    1) Increase the number of police officers available to ticket lawbreakers — and start strictly enforcing the laws.

    2) Engineer our roadways to thwart law-breaking bad drivers.

    For example, we wouldn't need to cut down to two lanes around crosswalks and high pedestrian areas if drivers didn't regularly refuse to stop for pedestrians (legally) crossing the street. Or, worse, pulling around the car in front of them who stopped and hitting the crossing pedestrian in the next lane. (Why exactly do so many drivers seem to assume brake lights in the middle of the road are the sign of a bad driver and not something YOU CAN'T SEE in front of that car?)

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    It is the free bike lane poll. (wasn't that McGinn's issue with the Tunnel poll last year)

    Do you want free foot massage? Survey says:

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Or free beer

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Or free cookies

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Ice cream… Where was I?

  • Barleywine

    “Ice cream… Where was I?”

    I'm guessing that you were still on the free beer…

    Concur with some of the above comments, but I live near the four-way at Seward Park and Cloverdale where the norm for many years on a weekend morning was “CLEAR!”, in many voices.
    Lately I've heard one more voice: Police speakers saying “That was your stop sign.” Love it. Probably no ticket, but I love it.

    STP is a holiday from laws, though.

  • http://43rddemocrats.org Michael M.

    Oooh! I thought of one: Driving Road Efficiencies!!!

  • http://43rddemocrats.org Michael M.

    That first paragraph reminds me of a story.

    Here I am, in the middle of nowhere in Southwest Washington at a Union gathering of sorts, and it was brought to my attention that we had no booze.

    So, I decide to set out and get booze. Unfortunately, the closest liquor store was nearly a half hour away, and I only had 35 minutes to get there! ACK!

    So, I set out, and I'm on a road that's 45 mph. All of a sudden, it's 25 mph for a couple blocks, then 45 again. I apparently didn't slow all the way down. Or stop all the way at the stop sign (again, in a hurry).

    So I get pulled over, and the officer points out that I was speeding in the 25 and didn't stop completely. So I says, “Yeah, I know – I did a California stop,” and he says, “Yeah, we're not in California.” I says, “I know.”

    So I get my ticket (just for speeding, he didn't ding me on the stop sign), make it to the liquor store, make it back to the place where we all were, imbibe, and then some of us went to a casino (I think we were on a reservation). I *may* have been a bit intoxicated, and I saw that same police officer (or Sheriff Deputy?), and I chat with him a bit about how it's awesome that he pulled me over, because what I did was unsafe, blah blah blah. And then he introduced me to the guy he was with, who happened to be his boss. We then talked about politics a little (he voted for Bush, but wasn't a rabid right-winger), and lo and behold, the ticket magically disappeared, and I never paid it.

    Moral of the story – stop completely at stop signs, and if you see a cop who pulled you over earlier in the day while you're a bit inebriated…well, you probably shouldn't talk to him.

  • The Information

    Bicycle Boulevards are less costly and better than bike lanes.

    http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards…

  • Cascadian

    No vehicle can make a free right turn around another vehicle in front of it. A car making a free right turn in front of a bicycle is breaking the law.

  • http://43rddemocrats.org Michael M.

    bear with me –

    what if a car is poised to make a free right, signal on and everything, but before it can go, after waiting the necessary time at the stop sign/light, a bicycle comes up alongside it?

  • scott

    I don't find that last question odd. I imagine it's meant to categorize the bias of the respondents rather than to gauge their actual experience of law-abiding and law-breaking bikers.

    How often do you see drivers obeying traffic laws — regularly, occasionally, or almost never? The correct answer is “regularly”, except that we really notice the ones who aren't. Same goes for the aggregate behavior of all Seattle bikers. You can't tell me that one quarter of us somehow encounter only bikers who always break the law — they're simply showing how their bias interferes with their sense of reality.

    What I do find odd is ECB's attempt to correlate these responses with her guess at the proportions of law-abiding and law-breaking bikers out there.

  • Mongoose Civique

    What percentage of drivers always obey the speed limits, in the city and on the freeways? I'd put it pretty close to 0%. Even if half of all cyclists run red lights, I'd say cyclists are still far more law-abiding than drivers.

  • tedb310

    I have to admit I was a total skeptic about the road diets (or fasts, purges or whatever else you want to call them) until I saw one first hand. As a resident of West Seattle I drive Fauntleroy Way SW very frequently. It received a diet between Alaska Street and California Avenue and it hasn't slowed traffic at all. Adding the continous left turn lane seems to make up for the lost lanes of traffic.
    Also, as someone who commutes about twice a week by bike and three days a week by car, my vote would be that bicycles are the bigger traffic scofflaws by far. Cars my speed more, but I would say bicyclists lead in most other categories. I think the column Publicola ran awhile back about how Seattle needs more commuters who ride bikes and less “cyclists” captured it perfectly.

  • http://twitter.com/eliasross Elias Ross

    Cars speed all the damn time: In Seattle you see cars easily driving 35-45 in 30 speed zones. Dangerous! But no car driver reproachfully complains: “How dare they!” as everyone's guilty of speeding, at least a bit. But you certainly hear plenty of righteous indignation from drivers observing bicyclists rolling through stops or red lights since they don't break the same laws. “Dangerous!” (Though, it's all about as deadly as jaywalking.)

    And what do you think is the cause of more serious accidents? Speeding cars or bicyclists who roll through stop signs? There really isn't any reason to require insurance for cyclists, since they really aren't liable to seriously hurt anybody (maybe a wayward pedestrian or dog?) or cause any property damage. Try to buy (liability) insurance as a cyclist. Hey it's already included in your Homeowner's policy!

  • http://twitter.com/eliasross Elias Ross

    About 1/3 of the surface of Seattle is paved over for roads, parking, and sidewalks. Take a look in Google Maps: Seattle is a pretty gray place, actually. If, for example, we reduced the amount of on street parking, and consolidated it in parking garages or under businesses, then there would be more space for other things. Say, trees or grass. And it sure would be nicer to walk around in. Cars along the street isn't pedestrian or cycle friendly, and sure looks pretty bad.

    Anyway, you're going to see a lot of reduction in street parking as the city grows denser. Cities like Hong Kong or Tokyo practically have no on street parking and roads are often single lane. It's inevitable as the price of land increases.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I dare someone on the city council to put forward a bill like Copenhagen that says every single year–by law–that 1% to 3% of parking spaces on-street must be eliminated and repurposed.

  • doug_in_seattle

    I see cars breaking laws all the time. I see them run stop signs just about every time I ride in Seattle. I watch them speed at every opportunity provided. I watch them ignore pedestrians waiting to cross in sidewalks. A couple weeks ago, when I was driving from Magnolia to Wallingford in horrible traffic, I saw multiple cars pull out of the bad traffic and drive in the opposite traffic lanes for at least a block, and on one occasions two. I see drivers talking on cell phones every day.

    The argument that “bikers” (pretending that they are some sort of “other” not at all related to any other segment of our society) are more prone to breaking rules to benefit themselves is NOT VALID. It is TYPICAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR that is well represented no matter what vehicle you choose to get around with.

    Also: Did you know that cars breaking laws can cause accidents involving cars that could be very serious?

  • AL

    NY is doing it not by asking the residents if they want it. They are just doing it. Which is not what Seattle does. People don't like change and especially if they perceive it will interfere with their “right” to drive their car whenever, whereever and park for free as much as possible. Take out a parking lane and it really doesn't interefere much at all. It would mean a bike lane addition; housing value rises, less aggressive traffic, slower moving traffic, better pedestrian route, and best of all, traffic will STILL MOVE. SDOT does a sorry job with explaining the human side of things, how it will improve things rather than spewing a bunch of facts that people cannot relate to.

    Funny thing about the Fauntleroy re-work (I live along there and bike, walk, drive, ride it regularly before and after the “rechannelization)…there was a HUGE uproar from the community that the bike lane addition not take away parking. Originally it was to be two bike lanes instead of one Sharrow lane one bike lane like now. So SDOT caved and planned no removal of parking (this is a 99% residential arterial). Then came construction in which one lane of parking was removed from either side of the road at various times. And the world did not end. People still found parking. Now the roadside parking remains 50% unused at least. Ironic no?

  • Morgan Wick

    “Road fastening”, though, sounds like you want to make the road faster.

  • JE

    In the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do, Vanderbilt points out that the tendency of the population to obey traffic laws, including pedestrian laws, correlates reasonably well with the index of corruption of the country in question. He speculates that if people have more trust in their leaders, they trust that the laws are helpful.