Seattle City Council Candidates Bike Survey
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
DistrictCandidateDo you ride a bicycle in Seattle? If so, how often?Do you feel safe riding a bicycle in Seattle?Do you think Seattle needs more protected bike lanes?Do you think “sharrows” the signs painted on the road telling drivers to respect cyclists, are a meaningful piece of bicycle infrastructure?Do you think the city should be spending more money than already allocated on bicycle infrastructure?Do you support the current SDOT approach to implementing the bike master plan? If not, what would you change?Do you think bicycle routes are better suited for greenways or arterials?
2
1Brendan Koldingnot regularlyYesYes and no. Although they may have a certain positive impact, I definitely get the sense that they contribute to the rivalry that exists between particular segments of the driving and cycling communities. There is no reason for the city to pit the two groups against each other.No. Like every expenditure within the City, current resources are not being used efficiently. The solution is not spending more money, it is spending the money we already have more wisely.I think SDOT's approach is very well-intended. I will need more time to study their recently-release implementation plan before I can render a well-informed opinion on this matter.Greenways are safer.
3
1Lisa HerboldRarelyLast time I rode, I felt safe, but I was on the separated bike lanes on Alki and it was a recreational bike ride. This is a very different experience than riding a bicycle to commute, which I haven't done regularly for decades (Fremont to Columbia City), well before the passage of the Bike Master Plan.We did not meet the Protected Bicycle Lane mileage goals set for 2018. NE 65th St Vision Zero Safety Corridor, NE 70th St, S Columbian Way, Swift Ave S/S Myrtle, Wilson Ave, scheduled for 2018, will now be scheduled for 2019. The BMP outlines an infrastructure plan for a connected network that includes approximately 100 miles of protected bicycle lanes The Mayor has recently proposed a new Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) 2019 to 2024 Implementation Plan. I will review recommendations in the proposed plan for protected bike lanes and confer with the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board and review the Bike Master Plan prioritization criteria.Sharrows are only useful on non-arterial and collector/minor arterials; sharrows are not considered “a facility type,” in the master plan. Six separate maps in the plan showing existing and future bike facilities include the words: “Excluding Sharrows,” in order to underscore that point.The proposed new implementation plan invests $76 million over the next six years to deliver the Bike Master Plan. The 2016-2019 BMP Implementation Funding was $78.5 million over 5 years. The new proposal represents approximately $3 million/year reduction in funding over the previous plan, more if you assume increased costs of capital projects due to increased labor and materials' costs. We need the funding necessary to implement the plan as approved, after deliberation and engagement, by the City Council.The current SDOT approach to implementing the Bike Master Plan is unknown because, as I understand it, recent decisions to discontinue bike infrastructure investments were a result of neighborhood opposition, rather than a review of the BMP recommendations and consideration of any new previously unanalyzed conditions. When revisiting prior decisions, new decision-making must be made with clear, broadly agreed upon goals and criteria.Greenways comprise 41% (250 miles) of the total 2014 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan. Greenways are safer and designed to give bicycle and pedestrian travel priority for people of all ages and abilities. Greenways use signs, pavement markings, and traffic calming measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles, an approach that cannot be used on major arterials. Some parts of our network are better suited for greenway bicycle routes and others arterial bike routes.
4
1Phil Tavel
5
2Ari HoffmanYes- Usually during Spring and Summer I frequently do 16-18 miles per day. The campaign has affected that scheduleyesThe protected bike lanes on Wilson Ave have made the area more dangerous. Cars parked there now open doors into traffic, people cannot see around the parked cars to turn and people cannot see the cyclists when they back out of their inclined driveways. There are disabled people that cannot park in front of their homes anymore and now have to cross a busy street with no crosswalks to get to their homes from the parking spaces. I will not support more bike lanes until they can be safe for everyone.NoNo the city has not been fiscally responsible with the money it has already spentNo. This plan is adversely affecting homeowners and businesses and neighborhoods need to be part of the discussion on routingI think that should be left up to each neighborhood to decide.
6
2Mark Solomon
7
2Tammy Moralesyes. I try to ride to work a couple times a week.On the routes I choose, yes.Yes. Lots of families try to get around their neighborhood w/o driving. I see lots of kids now using the new protected lanes on Wilson. Their safety should be our first priority.noYes. We will not meet our goals for reducing carbon emissions, reducing driving into downtown, or reaching Zero traffic fatalities w/o investing in alternative transportation infrastructure.The current plan seems to be "design it but don't build it." I don't support that.We need both. Greenways help make neighborhood travel safer. But we also need commuter routes both to downtown and across town for those trying to get to work.
8
2Chris PegueroI have a bike and was a very active bike rider prior to having kids. My kids are learning how to ride now (they are 5 and 6) and I do plan on riding with them once they are better riders. Currently I do not ride a bike. I ride my motorcycle - a lot!We used to ride with the kids in a kid carrier with they were younger but opted to stop riding because I did not feel safe on the streets with them. I do not feel incredible safe riding in Seattle.AbsolutelyNo, they are a waste of money. We need protected bike lanes. The City should build what it promised with the original Bike Master Plan. The bike master plan came up short in SE Seattle, so, yes, the city needs to spend more to bring up this part of what was included in the original Bike Master Plan.I don't support anything less than what was orginally promised in the original Bike Master Plan. Build the damn thing already. Making biking easier for everyone and getting people out of their cars is an environmental necessity. Single occupancy vehicles use contributes 36% of Seattle's total carbon output. Establish the Seattle New Green Deal.Everywhere we can build it
9
2Henry Dennison
10
2Phyllis PorterWeekly during summer months and occasionally during other seasons.I do not, I have lost count of how many times I have almost been hit while cycling here.yesI think that many drivers are not educated on what sharrow signify. Cycling education should be a part of Driver’s education, and information booklets should be attached with every bicycle sold to give those sharing the road the knowledge to protect themselves while cycling.I think improvements recommended and supported by the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board and approved by the City prior to this recent change should be implemented. Cyclist Advocates and the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board are continuously at work coming up with solutions and meeting with community and those that rely on cycling as their main mode of transportation. We need to implement the plans set forth.I would like to see the plan actually be implemented, rather than moving at a snail’s pace.I think routes would be better suited on Greenways today if the routes were less hilly and had straighter connections. The traffic is definitely less congested and moves at a slower speed. Arterials most often (District 2) offers the fastest way to get from Rainier Valley to Downtown yet is the most unsafe.
11
2
Omari Tahir-Garrett
12
3Logan BowersI use my Solowheel for most trips in the city, typically 3-4 times daily. It is space efficient and fun to ride. My wife, Jerina, and I just bought a RadWagon ebike so we can also haul cargo as well.No. There are a precious few blocks with great bike infrastructure—protected bike lanes—but most greenways, sharrows, and arterials are incredibly dangerous for cyclists. Watching cycling videos from local residents shows just how reckless and aggressive some drivers are in Seattle. Most drivers are courteous and share the streets, but it only takes one asshole or careless truck driver to kill or injure a cyclist.Yes. When Seattle does invest in bicycle infrastructure, it should be safe enough for parents to ride with their children. The only infrastructure we have today that comes close to that standard is our protected bike lanes.No. Studies indicate that they may increase accident rates (https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/02/sharrow-safety-bike-infrastructure-lane-chicago/460095/) and in either case do not provide any useful benefits to cyclists or drivers.Yes. We have the same roads we’ve had for a hundred years, but we have many more residents. The only way we can keep folks moving is by being more efficient with our use of road space. That means more transit, bike, scooter, and walking trips instead of automotive ones. If we want people to cycle/scooter/solowheel more in this city, the first step is to make complete trips safe, end-to-end, and that means more protected bicycle lanes.SDOT has continuously undermined the BMP, cutting back projects and leaving a disjointed set of unsafe and low value pieces of bike infrastructure. The neighborhood greenway near my home has a stairwell (!) in it! I would prioritize bike infrastructure that is continuous end-to-end for trips to common destinations and provides a safe enough environment for a parent to bike with a child.Bikes should be on all streets. Cyclists need to go everywhere that drivers do.
13
3Zachary DeWolf
14
3Kshama SawantNo, I walk, ride the bus, and carpool.While I do not personally bike in Seattle, a number of my family and friends do. Safety has begun improving as protected bike lanes have been introduced, however, conditions are still quite dangerous in our city for riders. Several of my friends (including two of my Council Office staff members) have unfortunately had accidents while bicycling in the city because of inadequate safety, especially related to incomplete or non-existent bike lanes.Absolutely. The City needs urgently finish the Bicycle Master Plan. Safety must be a key priority and the need for protected bike lanes should not be forced to compete for resources with other important transportation needs. We need to tax big business and the wealthy to fully fund bike lanes, sidewalks, transportation infrastructure, and to massively expand public transit.I have heard from bicyclists that regular sharrows have little impact, but the bright green “super sharrows” are more effective. But they are no substitute for protected bike lanes.Yes, the city should be investing much more on bicycle infrastructure (including expanding protected bike lanes and protected bike intersections), as well as on other parts of the transportation infrastructure, especially with a major expansion of public transportation. We also urgently need projects to address high crash corridors and develop safe routes to schools. Again, only by taxing the super rich and big business can we generate the funds needed to adequately fund our public infrastructure.Public workers at SDOT generally do excellent work with the resources at their disposal, however those resources are insufficient, leading to delays. I oppose - and have spoken strongly against - the Mayor’s decision to abandon the bike lane on 35th Ave, which is creating increasingly unsafe conditions for bicyclists. This also shows the importance of continuing to have a movement-building approach, as bicycle and transportation activists have correctly had, in order to ensure the completion of the master plan, and to win further gains.Both are needed, because there are different types of cyclists. Many bicycle commuters will tend to bike on the most efficient arterial routes. Others, doing recreational bicycling, or who bicycle with children, often will not hazard a busy arterial. Both kinds of cyclists, and all other cyclists. deserve to travel safely, and need safe bicycle routes.
15
3Pat MurakamiYes. Infrequently because most of my trips are work related and a bicycle doesn’t cut it for my work.Sometimes. I don’t feel safe on major arterials or after dark in some neighborhoods.I want greenways or bike boulevards, where bikes have the right of way and bicyclists aren’t forced to breathe in vehicle exhaust.In some locations, yes.I would have to review the bike master plan, look at what has been spent, what was accomplished with those funds, and how much is left to be allocated before I can make that determination.It’s hard to tell from reviewing the master plan, as it doesn’t provide enough detail. What I would change: move the emphasis to bike boulevards/greenways and off major arterials; more bike runnels on our network of stairs; manufacture and sale at cost of electric assist bikes to get more people out of their cars; increased infrastructure for parking bikes securely.Greenways
16
3Ami NguyenNonoyesIf it worked, then I would be cycling to work even while pregnant.No one knows where the money goes now. Definitely not towards the promised bike infrastructure.No. Listen to people who actually travel those streets everyday.Better suited for routes that have the least hills.
17
3Egan OrionYes, I ride my bike a few times a month.Not when our streets are filled with potholes and poor paving. These issues are extremely dangerous to bikes and their riders, harm cars, and mare our commercial corridors.Yes. We also need to get the basics right first by improving public infrastructure.It’s better than nothing but often those sharrows are put directly next to parked cars and anyone who’s ever been on a bike in the city knows the risk of being doored. Bike riders like me think of that every time they’re out. These sharrows are not as good as protected bike lanes, but they’re better than nothing.I want to make sure we make the most of our money by investing in equitable projects that will make Seattle transit more affordable and reliable. This includes proper investment in our bicycle infrastructure.Yes, but we need to be sure to get robust community feedback when implementing the master plan. Without that buy-in, there could be backlash--like what happened on 35th. Get community groups on board, canvass early and often to educate, and make sure the feedback loop isn’t just incidental, but intentional. That effort that I was part of on Pine for protected bike lane buy-in was successful for this very reason, where the 35th model was unsuccessful because there wasn’t community group involvement, wasn’t good education early on, and because it pit the community against the city government.Why do we need to choose? Both are necessary for bike commuters to get around town quickly and safely. We need to be doing more to expand bike options across the city so that we can change our “cars first” model of city building to one that centers around walking, biking, and other forms of micro-mobility.
18
4Alex Pedersen
19
4Cathy TuttleYes. Weekly.RarelyYes. And more important, protected intersections.Sharrows are on-street directional signs. Used as safety infrastructure, data shows sharrows are less safe than no markings at all.yesNo SDOT's approach is incremental, expensive, and far too slow. SDOT needs to connect the south end to downtown and build family-friendly linked networks between neighborhood centers. Focus on safe routes to transit hubs, schools, community centers. Build intersections that prioritize the quick and efficient movement of people who walk, bike, and take transit.I don't understand this question.
20
4Joshua Newman
21
4Frank A. Krueger
22
4Heidi StuberI ride my bike recreationally. I used to ride frequently when my son was in elementary school before he switched to riding a scooter instead.I feel safe when riding on the Burke Gilman, on designated bike lanes, or neighborhood greenways; less safe when I am trying to navigate streets without any type of bike lane or sharrows. I feel particularly unsafe when riding uphill or going through an intersection and cars zoom around me without leaving 3.5 feet of buffer. I think we need safe routes for bikers across the city and good connections for bike commuters to downtown and light rail, I don't think that always looks like a protected bike lane but sometimes looks like neighborhood greenways or sharrows on a street with lower speed limits.I know as a driver sharrows help me be more aware of the potential of bikes in the roadway, and remind me to make sure I am giving enough space. I am well aware that they aren't the safest solution for bikers, but I think they have a place on streets were there is not enough room or funding for a separated bike lane.I think the Move Seattle levy needs to be audited to make sure it is being used efficiently and the city is getting the most out of that investment. Since we know we don't have sufficient funding in that levy, we need to prioritize projects based on projected ridership and get the most out of the levy before going back to voters for more funding.I support connecting disparate bike routes and making sure bikers can commute safely and I do support prioritizing projects in the Bike Master Plan. Since we're behind on implementation of the BMP, I support the increased transparency and deadlines on when we can expect projects to be completed.I think it creates safety challenges when bicycle routes are placed on high-speed arterials without a separated bike lane, which isn't always financially feasible. I prefer bicycle routes on greenways in urban neighborhoods and on arterials in the downtown corridor.
23
4Sasha Anderson
24
4Emily MyersYes. I ride my bike 2-3 times per week, primarily to get around the district.Maybe 50% of the time.Yes.No. A recent study examining effectiveness of bike infrastructure in Chicago found that roads with sharrows led to a marginal increase in ridership and, over the same course of time, less of a reduction in bicycle accidents than occured on unmarked roads. These data imply that sharrows were worse than doing nothing. They also found an increase in dooring related incidents on sharrows.. Here in Seattle, there’s data to indicate that dooring accidents occur on roads without bike infrastructure more often than on sharrows, but that both are worse than bike lanes. This is not controlled data assessing use percentage, etc. so it shouldn’t hold the same weight as the study in Chicago. Overall, these data show that sharrows are not meaningful, could be harmful, and we should focus our resources on protected infrastructure.I believe the city should be spending more money because right now the budget for the bike master plan is not realistic to prioritize protected bike lanes, which are the most expensive but most expensive type of bicycle infrastructure. To do that, at this point -- it will require two things. (1) prioritizing bikes over cars in infrastructure improvements from Move Seattle and (2) Applying for federal grants successfully. We have $12 million in grants for completion of the BMP, but we can and should ask for more considering our rapid population growth and slowing of the project. Despite what some expected, the Chao DoT continues to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety and we should not miss the opportunity to get more of these federal $s.No. Southeast Seattle was under resourced in bike facilities before the BMP and the current implementation plan leaves this the case. Not prioritizing bike lanes to communities of color that have higher incidences of traffic fatalities and bicycle injuries is a justice issue and failure of the city. Its also clear that the city is backing away from truly protected facilities to prioritize on-street parking and other car facilities. I would be more aggressive in eliminating on street parking to prioritize bike facilities (and transit), and make sure to use ridership data and racial equity to determine prioritization.Arterials. Protected bike lanes on arterials lead to large increases in ridership and have a positive benefit to local businesses. Greenways that have good traffic calming can have a place. For instance in Portland, N Williams is a PBL as it moves through a business district, then becomes a greenway through the neighborhoods in North Portland. We can transition between them as it appropriately applies to complete bike networks, but when it comes to getting people where they are actually going, and thus increasing ridership, PBLs on arterials are a key component.
25
4Beth MountsierFairweather rider - for short trips and recreationallyYes, but I pick routes based on less vehicular traffic and separated trailsyesThey are minimally helpful.noYes, appears to add bike facilities across much of the city - good to see more studies and potential investments for south Seattle also.There are not enough greenways to support desired bike routes, need them on arterials and other streets
26
4Ethan HunterI do not ride a bicycle. I get around by taking the bus (most often route 70), and walking.not applicableYes, It should be the job of the city/council to make it easier for people to get around without a car, and expanding our network of bike lanes will do that.Yes, but just a small piece in helping keep bicyclists safe while riding.I support any funding (+ additional funding) that gets people out of their cars, as mentioned earlier. Combatting climate change won't be cheap.yescombination of both
27
4Shaun ScottI do not ride a bike, but I recognize bikers as being on the forefront of a very important discussion about public space and who has a right to it.I’m a half-marathoner and I notice that the streets I feel safest running on are those that have bike lanes which serve as a dampener on road speeds, and a buffer between speeding cars and the sidewalk.I think Seattle needs more protected bike lanes and I am not the only person who feels that way. 109,637 Seattleites voted to approve the Move Seattle Levy in 2015, a levy ballot initiative that called for “a more effective system to move people and goods by transit, foot, and bike.” What’s more, both 2017 mayoral contestants—Jenny Durkan and Cary Moon—campaigned on implementing the Bicycle Master Plan. Obviously, the movement for bikeable and accessible streets has not seen the leadership we would like from the mayor’s office. I’m happy to be endorsed in this race by Cary Moon, as well as by the Sierra Club because of my commitment to overseeing the construction of more protected bike lanes.I think sharrows are one aspect of deep structural change we need to reclaim public space from the primacy of automobiles. That includes instructing drivers to mitigate speeds not just for bikers, but for Seattleites with walkers and wheelchairs, families with strollers, residents with disabilities that are not immediately visible.I think the city should at least be spending the money that Seattle voters asked it to spend when the electorate approved the Move Seattle Levy by a 71-29 margin. That levy called for $207 million worth of Safe Routes that included improvements to bike infrastructure. What’s more, Mayor Durkan campaigned on implementing the Bike Master Plan, and was elected at least in part because of the impression that she would be a champion for biking infrastructure. The Seattle Department of Transportation’s own website notes that building out the Bike Master Plan would cost anywhere from $390 million to $524 million.SDOT’s current approach to implementing the Bike Master Plan should prioritize actually implementing the Bike Master Plan over the anxieties of residents who do not yet see that the plan will be a bridge to a brighter, more vibrant, less car-dependent city.We need an all-of-the-above approach to implementing biking infrastructure throughout the city.
28
5Debora Juareznonot alwaysyesSharrows are helpful in some situations, but not an adequate replacement for protected bike lanes.yesyesBicycle routes on greenways and arterials do not need to be pitted against each other; they complement one another for different needs across Seattle. Bicycle routes should be built for safety, travel expediency, and to encourage cycling.
29
5John LombardYes. Not often.On dedicated trails or quiet streets, yes; on busy arterials with no designated lane, no.YesBetter than nothing, but not by much.Probably, given actual costs. But costs and the 35th fiasco also raise larger questions about greenways vs dedicated bike lanes on arterials.No short answer for this. See answer above and below.Greenways, where possible.
30
5
Ann Davison Sattler
I was car-less for many years here and ran/walked more than I rode but I did ride more when I was single. I raced road bikes in college so am comfortable road riding but have broken pedals off my crank on some of these hills! My husband and two kids bike a lot and I do some but less so this summer with my broken toe!On greenways when cross streets have stop signs.Yes, in some areas.Yes, but some can be confusing and distracting.No.The 35th Ave NE issue with bike lanes vs parking did not adequately involve stakeholders and now is targeted and used as ransom by council member O'Brien who does not represent nor live in the area.Predominantly greenways and some arterials.
31
5Alex Tsimerman
32
5Tayla MahoneyNoNoThere are definitely some neighborhoods and areas that could benefit from bike lanes but strategic placement is key.Yes, if anything more for motorists than bicyclists- they know where and when to anticipate the possibility of sharing the road with a bicyclist.Noes. However, when implementing any new (or proposed) bike lanes, greenways, etc. the City Council and the Mayor must listen to the people of the neighborhood and visit these spots to ensure they’re being put in the best possible areas for that neighborhood. Greenways
33
5Mark Mendez
34
6Terry RiceYes, 1-2 times per week.ModeratelyYes, it's a public safety and a climate issue.While these are better than nothing they are not a replacement for a complete, protected and interconnected network of bike lanes throughout the city.yesNo, I want the original master bike plan fully funded and implemented.It depends on the neighborhood, the surrounding infrastructure and the routes we're trying to complete or connect. Sometimes this can be done on a greenway and sometimes it needs to happen on an arterial.
35
6Jon LisbinI mostly bike for recreation now since I recently sold my business. I used to commute by bike downtown weekly.Yes, unless I am riding over the Ballard Bridge.yesYes, where traffic separated or dedicated bike lanes are impractical due to the width of roads as well as parking considerations. Our district has many narrow roads where sharrows are the only practical alternative.I would like the city to spend taxpayer funds more efficiently and make more accurate financial projections first.yesI think they can be well suited for both.
36
6Melissa Hall
37
6Dan StraussYes, occasionally. I used to ride more often and mostly rely on the bus now.I feel safe, but that is because I am comfortable riding in high-stress environments. If I was new to riding a bike, or new to riding on city streets, I would definitely not feel safe. I was hit by a driver and spent 48 hours in Harborview, so I can tell you, riding a bike on Seattle streets is not that safe.Yes, specifically we need a connected network of protected bike lanes. When we connect safe and separated places for people to ride, we reduce the stress-level of the environment we are riding in. If we have two sections of protected bike lanes (low stress) on a street intersected with a section without protected bike lanes, we force people to ride in traffic (high stress). People who only feel comfortable riding in low stress environments won’t use any of the existing infrastructure.No. Sharrows provide a false sense of safety to people riding bikes while not giving clear direction to people driving. We need safe and separated infrastructure so that everyone stays in their lane.yesNo, it is moving forward far too slowly. The June 2019 Bicycle Master Plan implementation plan demonstrates great strides forward for connected networks by 2024, but if past behavior is a predictor of future behavior, we will not accomplish our goals. Just look at how the downtown basic bike network has been stalled. I would like to implement this plan on a much faster timeline.This is a false dichotomy, greenways and protected bike lanes serve different purposes and we need both.
38
6Kate Martin
39
6Jeremy Cook
40
6John Peeples
41
6Heidi WillsI used to solely commute by bicycle in Seattle. I even cycled across the United States. I own 3 bicycles to the chagrin of my husband who doesn’t see the need for storing more than one (there are various uses after all: racing, road cycling and mountain biking.) I used to pull my children in a two-seat bicycle trailer on city streets. But when they outgrew it, I changed to becoming mostly a recreational cyclist. I binge cycle now. I go through phases of cycling regularly to not cycling for months. Since I started campaigning, I haven’t been cycling and your questions prompt me to want to get back on my bike.There are some areas where I feel safe riding a bicycle in Seattle. I live close to the Burke Gilman Trail and I enjoy recreational rides to Bothell and back to Fremont. But there are areas where I feel unsafe, particularly crossing the Ballard Bridge.Yes, Seattle needs more protected bike lanes. As our city’s population grows, there just isn’t room enough on our streets for more cars without adding congestion and pollution. Our quality of life depends on becoming more of a multimodal city, offering residents a variety of ways to get to places they need and want to go. We know that making cycling safer with protected bike lanes will encourage more people to bicycle which benefits our health and our air quality, and minimizes congestion, pollution and our carbon footprint. It also benefits freight mobility to have more people bicycling and it lessens congestion for those who need to drive personal vehicles.Sharrows are marginally helpful. At least they remind drivers to share the road. All cyclists, and especially children, are much safer cycling in a protected bicycle lane. I’m a mom of a 12 year old and a 14 year old. I think on the question of bicycle lanes, we need to collectively ask ourselves as a community if sharrows on a given roadway are safe enough for children to cycle along with cars. Certainly it depends on a number of factors including speed limits and the level of enforcement of those speed limits, and we can only answer that on a case-by-case basis. In general though, as a parent, I feel better about my children cycling in a protected bicycle lane than along a sharrow.Our residents would benefit by having more bicycle infrastructure. It doesn’t have to be expensive. The City could find greater efficiencies by prioritizing bike infrastructure projects as part of repaving projects. It costs more to retrofit streets for bicycle infrastructure separately.I am concerned that residents are not getting what they were promised when they approved the Move Seattle Levy, not just in terms of implementing the bike master plan but on a whole host of projects including bus rapid transit. As a growing city, the City needs to prioritize the delivery of promises made with their levy dollars, from additional bicycle infrastructure to bus rapid transit. We were promised 7 new bus rapid transit lines and so far we have zero. These are basic services that residents are paying for and not receiving and people are rightly frustrated. One change I’d like to see to implementing the bike master plan is to finally complete the missing link of the Burke Gilman Trail in Ballard with an elegant elevated trail. Please see the FB page called Ballard High Line for more info. Instead of more years of polarization between cyclists and the maritime and industrial industries along Shilshole Avenue, we could have a win-win solution that benefits everyone.It’s both. There are some places where greenways are better suited and other places where bicycle routes on arterials make sense. It comes down to the fact that we need to have safe bicycle infrastructure where people want to go.
42
6Jay FathiYes. Not very often though, usually just for leisure or with my sons.Generally, no.Yes. Protected bike lanes are safer for those riding and those driving, and would help encourage more people to commute on bikes which we desperately need to reduce our traffic and car dependency. This would also help Seattle achieve Vision Zero.No. Drivers have told me they are confusing, and are not sure what they signify; bicyclists have said they do not make them feel any safer. The consensus seems to be they're useless, can give a false sense of safety, and, I've talked to many cyclists new to Seattle who have just found them downright confusing.SDOT's new plan deprioritized and scrapped multiple planned bike infrastructure projects due to a lack of funding, so clearly yes. I would like to see the original allocation, how it has been spent to date, and gain a deeper understanding of why SDOT is canceling projects that were originally proposed.SDOT has a difficult job and limited resources, so I appreciate much of the work they're doing, but I would like a more comprehensive understanding of the changes and cutbacks to the BMP. It is also concerning that SDOT is behind on projects.In Seattle, we don’t have to choose. We need more neighborhood greenways for bikes to use, but they shouldn't categorically be alternatives to having bike lanes on arterials. We need to learn to share our roads.
43
6Joey MassaYes, I commute to work via bicycle twice a week and also bike when running errands and for recreation. My partner and I share a car and utilize public transit and cycling for both economic reasons as well as to live within our values.I rarely feel safe riding a bicycle in Seattle. My commute to work has no protected bike lanes, and so the only bike infrastructure I can rely on are “sharrows.” When I run errands or bike for recreation, I can structure my rides around existing infrastructure, which is both safer and more enjoyable.Yes, from 2017-2018 Seattle saw as much as a 12% increase to ridership, if we want this trend to continue, we must continue to make cycling safer and more accessible.No. While “sharrows” can theoretically encourage both riders and drivers to use safe practices such as highlighting recommended routes, encouraging safe passing, and preventing wrong-way riding, in my (and others) experience “sharrows” do not encourage adequate behavioral change. Most importantly, “sharrows” are not a sufficient replacement for real bicycle infrastructure such as protected and/or clearly marked lanes.If that is what is necessary to complete the city’s proposed bike master plan, yes. Seattle voters have been asking (and voting) for impactful changes to our road infrastructure for years, and our elected officials need to follow through with those promises.No, I believe Mayor Durkan and SDOT have cut essential portions of the bike master plan that we need to create an appropriate city-wide biking network, all while slowing general progress on the project to a crawl. If we are going to prioritize the Climate Action Plan or have hope of reaching “Vision Zero,” then our approach to implementing the master plan must change.We should prioritize bicycle routes that are on or shadow arterials. These routes will make the highest impact on ridership and safety, while research has consistently shown that the effect on traffic is negligible. Further, as I alluded to in my answer on “sharrows,” I believe there are places where utilizing greenways is necessary. Greenways are sometimes ideal for connecting cyclists between arterial routes and should be used when there are no realistic options for creating more protective bicycle infrastructure.
44
6Sergio GarcÌa
45
6Ed PottharstYes, I use it for commuting to work. If so, how often? Every weekday. I bicycle from Ballard to my job at Seattle Parks and Recreation in Chinatown/International District. Pretty much rain or shine. I often use my bike for errands and do some recreational riding on the weekends. Last night I rode it to South Lake Union/MOHAI to watch the fireworks.Yes, I feel safe riding a bicycle in Seattle from years of experience riding all over the city. However, we need to expand the city’s bicycle network so that more people feel safe bicycling. Completing the missing link of the Burke Gilman trail in Ballard along Market St and Shilshole Ave is one example.Definitely. Expanding our network of protected bike lanes citywide is the single best thing we can do to make people feel safe bicycling in Seattle. Just look at the phenomenal 400% increase in bicycle ridership along 2nd Avenue downtown when a protected bike lane was installed. Under-served parts of the city, Rainier Valley for instance, also need bicycle corridors. We also need better bicycle connections through and in the downtown area (4th Avenue, etc.).I think they help with awareness. However, they can mislead new cyclists into thinking that this is a reasonably safe street to bike on when only experienced cyclists should bike on it. The safest bike routes are protected bike lanes and separate bike trails. Soft-impact pylons as lane markers can be a useful safety tool along arterials.Yes. Bicycle infrastructure more than pays for itself and brings cities economic growth. Bicycling actually saves cities money. Research has shown that when the benefits of congestion reduction, roadway, vehicle, and parking cost savings, and air pollution reduction are considered, replacing a car trip with a bike trip saves individuals and cities $2.73 per mile. Bicycle infrastructure boosts retail - a 2008 Australian study showed that per square foot, bicycle parking generated more than three times the revenue for business than car parking in an hour.I would like to see the City and SDOT take a more holistic community- and safety-focused approach to building out bicycle network. Planners should ask, for example, how would a cyclist get from Rainier Valley to the University District on a safe, continuous easy-to-follow route with the least steep hills possible. A safety classification system for streets should be adopted - one level could be a child is safe to ride on this street, another could be an average person is fine, yet another could be only experienced riders should go on this street, etc. Wayfinding signs and public education can be used to share this information. Most importantly, planners should focus less on experienced cyclists and instead focus on people who would ride but consider doing so to be too dangerous. This is the best way to expand bicycling as a way to get around in Seattle.They are suited for both. However, a more important consideration is how they connect with one another to enable people to bicycle from point A to point B. This is a key to planning and building a sound and well-used bicycle network.
46
6Bobby Miller
47
6Kara Ceriello
48
7
Daniela Lipscomb-Eng
49
7Isabelle J. KernerNon/aWe cleared an emergency 5 years ago and there been no urgency. The bike lanes come second to human lives in my opinion.NoAbsolutely not. I think they are spending too much money and should keep the temporary bike lanes and just paint them one same color like green.NoNo
50
7Jim PugelYes, about 3 times a week.
Sometimes. We are fortunate enough to have some fantastic bike trails like the Burke-Gilman, going all the way up to the Sammamish River Trail and I always feel safe using these trails. Our urban biking, and the ‘missing link’ in the Burke, are considerably less safe with traffic congestion and confusing protections for bikers.Yes — but more importantly, we need to change the process involved in the placement, funding, and construction of bike lanes and improve maintenance of current lanes. There needs to be more input from neighborhoods and businesses affected, as well as the cyclists themselves who obviously understand the needs and safety concerns best. We also need to ensure our roads remain usable for cars and vehicles during construction — traffic and especially idling cars are one of the biggest contributors to pollution and carbon output and minimizing congestion is one of those issues we cannot afford to ignore.That was a good first step years ago, we could do a better job maintaining them.We should be spending what we promised the voters in the Move Seattle levy — not more and not less unless otherwise approved by voters. The current way of allocating infrastructure revenue of ‘voters approve funds for projects that then go millions of dollars over budget’ is in need of closer review. It is losing the trust of voters who are becoming more and more reluctant to pass the measures we need for critical programs and services. We need a government that can set a budget — ​And stick to it​.I am somewhat familiar with the Master Plan, but it seems like the implementation is changing all the time. The bottom line is that SDOT and the City need to re-engage with the neighborhoods, drivers, bikers, and taxpayers who are impacted by the proposed projects. There needs to be more community input. 35th Ave NE is an example. Community members, advocacy groups, and businesses did not have their voices listened to despite having a better understanding of the consequences of construction on 35th and the backlash ultimately led to a total upheaval of the original plans in the Move Seattle levy and more confusion. Voters need to get what they voted for and what their taxes paid for, and that requires consultation and partnership with those voters. We need better protections for bikers, expanded safety measures for pedestrians, better and more accessible public transit, and more affordable alternative options including Paratransit and services specifically designed for disabled Seattleites. The only way to ensure voters remain generous with their tax dollars and continue to fund these levies is by being proactive and working with voters and communities to ensure the implementation of projects is done smoothly and efficiently.I want to get to Vision Zero for pedestrians, for the elderly, for disabled folks, and certainly for cyclists. That means no more blanket policies. I’ve said it in almost every answer, but the right response is to work with local communities in developing local cyclist infrastructure. Cyclists on Queen Anne hill have different safety concerns than those in Wedgwood and those in Downtown, and those idiosyncrasies need to be taken into account. Where bike routes can be constructed along greenways and at a distance from vehicle traffic, that, of course, will help reduce confusion and keep people safe, but that might not always be possible/feasible/practical.
51
7Don Harper
52
7Andrew J. LewisYes, I ride a bike in Seattle but not as a commuter. Typically only to breweries on the weekend, mainly Urban Family and Rooftop.I feel safe while riding on protected bike lanes and in neighborhoods, but not on arterials, downtown, or after dark. That is part of the reason I do not bike commute. If I had protected lanes all the way I would.Yes, Seattle needs more protected bike lanes, and we need to focus on uniting existing protected bike lanes to build out the network.Sharrows are meaningful, but not as effective as protected bike lanes.I think of it more on a project by project basis. There is currently a proposal in D7 that started as a neighborhood matching grant to build a bike lane uniting Gilman with Marina Place in Magnolia. The route would provide an unobstructed path from Magnolia Village to Myrtle Edwards Park and provide a strong commute option for Magnolia residents interested in biking downtown. That project is not currently funded to realize that vision and it should be.We need a comprehensive system wide network of protected lanes. The current master plan is a start but it isn't going to get us all the way.I personally prefer greenways, but in some cases it has to be an arterial because there isn't sufficient space for a greenway. Where possible I support pedestrian and bike "green streets" as well. Thomas Street in District 7 has the potential to provide a rare east-west connection for bikers and pedestrians through a green street concept, and I want to see it realized.
53
7Jason WilliamsYes, a few times a monthNoYesMostly no, and research is mixed as to whether they help or hurtYes, we have to provide more healthy and sustainable ways to safely get aroundI support completing the bike master plan. The city is not sufficiently funding new bike infrastructure. A break in the network could render the entire network unsafeWe need both. Greenways can help cyclists who live deep in neighborhoods connect to arterials
54
7Gene BurrusMy bicycle was stolen out of my garage a number of years ago and I haven’t ridden since.Generally yes. Though like any city, it’s dangerous.No. The existing ones are underused for the amount of space they take up, and “real” cyclists just tend to use the street anyway.No. They are confusingNo. I think we’ve already overspent given the number of riders.I would reduce the resources committed.Greenways. Burke Gilman is great. Second Avenue was a bad idea.
55
7James Donaldsonnononononoyes, I'm mostly in agreement with it.
Depending on the part of town and traffic conditions, yes
56
7Michael George
57
7Naveed Jamali
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...