A few days ago I took the long way home from work, biking through Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood. One of the many nice things about riding in Magnolia is the dedicated bike lane painted along the major routes. Not that cyclists need the lane: the streets have ample shoulders and the traffic is usually calm.
But there are a few places in Magnolia where a bike lane would be helpful. Near intersections, for example. Unfortunately, whenever a cyclist might actually need them, the bike lanes disappear. I mean that literally: a few dozen feet before each intersection, the striped bike lane vanishes. Then, 30 feet or so beyond the intersection, it re-appears.
Those disappearing lanes, I realized on my ride, illustrate perfectly what’s wrong with the way we treat cycling: we only provide for bikes where it’s easy and doesn’t really make any difference. As soon as the going gets tough, planners revert to treating bikes like pariahs, or simply ignoring them.
That sort of historical neglect was why I was thrilled to see Seattle’s new master bike plan come to light. Here was a chance to make major upgrades and big, lasting improvements in the way we treat bikes. But just a few months later, I’m losing faith that things will change.
Just like those vanishing bike lanes in Magnolia, the plan’s elements are getting mothballed at the first whimper of inconvenience. (The details, on a segment of street in Fremont, are unimportant to my general point. But I know the area well, and for the life of me I can’t understand why the city is caving.)
Update 3/13/07: The city got some spine after all on the Fremont issue I mentioned above in parentheses, thanks in part to hard work from the Cascade Bicycle Club.
The city’s spinelessness on behalf of bikes is bad policy in this instance. But it’s worse than that too. By backing down in one of the first disputes over the plan, city leaders are plainly signaling that they’re not interested in being champions for bikes. It’s easier to do business as usual: we’ll build bike paths where it’s easy, and already safe to ride. But whenever someone complains, or where many users must share space, we’ll just keep treating cyclists like second-class citizens.
Given how under-developed and mistreated the city’s bike infrastructure is, it’s astonishing to me that fully 2.3 percent of Seattle commuters get to work on two wheels. But it’s even more difficult to imagine that number increasing—and Seattle catching up to Portland, Vancouver, or Minneapolis — without leaders showing some courage on behalf of bikes.
Chas Redmond
I suspect the issues with the Stone Way problem had more to do with this particular mayor and this particular transportation department head than it did with the city’s department of transportation. Policy is both set and exempted from the top. We won’t get a true bike and pedestrian friendly city until we get a mayor elected on that platform specifically – and not a developer-friendly platform. Alas, politics is always the stopping point.
Deric Gruen
Thanks for posting on this Eric, disappearing lanes and specifically the Stone Way turnaround undermine the whole idea of a master plan, to have CONNECTED bicycle routes throughout the city. On the bright side, the new lanes that I’ve seen popping up around the city are cozy to ride in and make some provision for intersections with dotted rather than solid lines. But while the facilities are nicer, even in the Master Plan there’s a policy of ‘stripe in where they fit in’ but don’t dare remove parking.
ejwagnerjr
Most cities that have bike lanes permit motor vehicle traffic to merge into them at intersections in order to make right turns. Otherwise, you’d have cars turning right across the path of cyclists intending to go straight ahead. This ‘right hook’ is a common crash involving cyclist and motorists. It’s safer to have traffic merge and turn.
a-kos
There’s an article in the current Stranger discussing elimination of the Stone Wy bike lane (see link at the end of this post). Apparently an influential businessperson, Suzie Burke, convinced the mayor the bike lane would be detrimental to all the freight and transit traffic that uses the roadway.This just exemplifies that business demands almost always trump environmental responsibility. This will almost always be the case in such market-oriented society as the U.S. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=267463
Dave
Just to add to the comments and discussion. The city has also announced that the Burke Gilman Trail will remained closed through Fremont through 2008, despite the fact that the Fremont Bridge construction is finished. The city has attributed the continued closure to an ongoing development project.A response/action is in the offing with a planning meeting on July 25 to address both the Stone Way bike lane issue and the Burke Gilman closure: http://www.point83.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4261More information and discussion can be found on the Cascade Bicycle Club message board: http://www.cascade.org/Community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=5=8029
Dave
I just recently returned from a bike tour in Holland and frankly, I’m having trouble readjusting here to my daily commute.It seems stupid to not at the very least, paint bike lanes through intersections as Alan suggested in his Bicycle Neglect series. I’m an advocate for separated bike lanes, which seems to work fine throughout Western Europe but I realize that this utopian system may find little traction here in the U.S., where cars are so revered. Painted lanes (particularly through intersections) and increased signage however, would make Seattle a much more bike-friendly city. The next step, if we ever get there, would be a few major bicycle routes or corridors with separated bike lanes. I’m not suggesting bicycle lanes throughout the city, but perhaps a few major commuter corridors where bicycles (and not cars) take priority. Included in this bicycle “freeway” would be dedicated/separated bike lanes, signage (both safety & navigational) & stoplights specifically for cyclists. I’m not holding my breath…
Matt the Engineer
(since Dave brngs up bike freeways) A while ago I brought up the concept of elevated bike lanes throughout downtown Seattle. The feedback I recieved was that buisiness owners wouldn’t go for that. I disagree, but it did bring me to another option: alleys. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an elevated bike corridor all the way through downtown in alleys? You could have the up/down slopes at one end of an alley, leaving room on the other for delivery trucks.
Dave
Matt,I love the concept but it seems to me like elevated bikeways would be prohibitively expensive. You would get a lot of backlash from business owners, whose buildings abut the alley, and who rely upon easy access for transport trucks, trash service, and emergency exits.I’d really just like to see one N/S lane downtown (and in other major dorridors around the city) dedicated to bikes—separated by curbs, distinctly separate from the sidewalk, colored (blue or red like in Holland), signed, and with bicycle traffic signals. 3rd Avenue has been closed to thru traffic to all but buses for the past year, with a really minimal impact—from my anecdotal observations—so it seems like one bike lane could be accommodated. However, with the inevitable viaduct closure, a local political culture short on leadership and long on punting to ballot initiatives, a vocal anti-bike group, and a woeful shortage of transportation funding compared to transportation needs, I see money earmarked for bicycle infrastructure falling pretty far down the list, unfortunately.
Matt the Engineer
The problem with surface transportation in the city is cars and lights. Every block you have to interact with car traffic, and having to stop is quite inconvenient for bicycles.The garbage, transport, access issue wouldn’t be an issue at all, since there would still be unobstructed access from one side. Cost may be an issue (isn’t it always?), but I’m picturing something light – just a steel deck with a little concrete or pavement. Something like this, but with thinner support members, since they’d be more frequent.