so that's why @cascadebicycle was saying their site was being hammered ...

Not a shock. Which is why I voted for the guy.

I'm pretty sure they didn't include people who don't live inside Seattle and aren't Seattle Citizens.

Which, quite frankly, is all that matters, Mr. X.

@3: "I did a public records request of SDOT"

No you didn't.

Bicycles really do need their own lane because some of these asshole cyclists ride around like complete morons. I don't care if they get themselves injured or killed. I just hate scraping bloody spandex off my Volvo.

I saw a bike on 125th the other day. It was the first I've seen in 27 years of traveling that street.

@9: LOL, oh you.

folks squalked about a similar plan in a city i lived in a few years back. it didn't take too long before everyone got used to it, and it turned out that traffic DID flow much better.

Maybe people would get less agitated if you'd stop using the idiotic and incorrect phrase "road diet". It's not a road diet, if that phrase has any meaning at all, which I don't think so. It's a traffic realignment, and it will probably result in better, not worse, car movement. Maybe not as much 50 MPH movement, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Road diet really is a stupid name, I wonder who came up with it. I'm glad McGinn is doing something I can fully support.

@8 - by "the slowest common denominator," I suppose you mean "the car going the speed limit." Maybe you're the reason they needed the traffic realignment.

As someone who lives right next to 125th street - fuck yes and this is why I voted for mcginn.

Tool @ 3: It's funny to hear about how there is no public support, despite the many prople who fought for the diet. If someone disagrees with you, it must be part of an astroturf campaign, huh? Road diets have benefitted three areas that I use everyday: Nickerson, Stone, and up on Phinney Ridge. I, along with a lot of other Seattle residents who supported this are excited that McGinn made the smart decision.

@17: Damn right. I live right off of the Roosevelt portion of the road. I have three impulsive young kids who are more often than not itching to run up the steps to the busy road. Also, we NEVER bike on Roosevelt/125th because it's just too damn busy. As far as my family and I are concerned, this realignment can't come soon enough.

He's comparing Stone Way...a completely untraveled and over sized street with a lot of tile warehouses and failed supermarkets to 125th street -- a heavily trafficked thoroughfare that is one of the few East-West routes in in the north?

@21: Stone Way has traffic volumes that are comparable to NE 125th with a marginal difference of ~2,000ADT or about 90 cars per hour. That's like removing a car every 45 seconds off-peak or a car every 10-15 seconds on-peak, not a big deal.

This is the problem, this flawed perception. Folks go with their gut and always overestimate traffic volume and congestion on most roads, enough to make wildly inaccurate comparisons like yours. Of course, there's a lot more that goes into your wrongheaded observations, but whatever.

"State poll: 3 out of 5 support viaduct (dbt) tunnel"
“State's response to misinform readers”

About 62% of Seattle area residents support a tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct after being informed of the project’s key advantages, including that the tunnel is (the only option?) that keeps the viaduct open to traffic during construction, according to a survey commissioned by the state’s Transportation Department. “The survey would suggest there is a majority of people who will support the tunnel once they understand the benefits of the project,” said Ron Paananen, project administrator.

On Wednesday, WSDOT released results from a $60,000 random telephone survey of 1,000 registered voters in Seattle, Shoreline, Tukwila and Burien conducted Sept. 20-30. The survey, conducted by EMC Research, was to gauge public knowledge of the controversial, $4.2 billion project in advance of the state’s supplemental environmental impact statement, which will be released Oct. 29.

During the survey, respondents first were asked if they thought the tunnel project was a good idea, some 42% said “yes,” while 31% thought it was a bad idea.Then, they were asked a range of questions, such as whether they knew it was the only option under which traffic could stay open during construction; that state law says Seattle taxpayers must pay for any cost-overruns on the $1.9 billion project, although the state Attorney General and City Attorney say the legislation is unenforceable; that the tunnel could withstand a 2,500-year earthquake; and that the waterfront would be quieter and cleaner.

After that, support for the tunnel shot up to 62% while opposition remained at 31%. “There’s clearly a segment of the population that for whatever reason doesn’t like the tunnel,” Paananen said. Some 55% were unaware the viaduct would remain open during tunnel construction. According to the survey, 85% said that factor was important or somewhat important to them.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn opposes the tunnel option and bases most of his argument against the cost-overrun provision, which he says will put the city at risk. McGinn would prefer not replacing the viaduct and compensating with improvements to I-5, a new surface boulevard and expanded transit service.

Despite 77% who said they were at least somewhat familiar with the project, many did not know key details. For example, 43% didn’t know the current plan for a deep-bore tunnel is not the same as the cut-and-cover tunnel that voters rejected with an advisory vote in 2007.

Some other interesting results:
Some 78% percent think traffic congestion would worsen if the viaduct were removed and not replaced.
Despite the fact that Seattle is big on transit and carbon neutrality, 89% of respondents said they want vehicle capacity increased or maintained through the state SR99 corridor in downtown. Some 47% were in favor of increasing traffic capacity. The viaduct carries 110,000 vehicles per day.
Paananen said the (questions were broad?) and that a variety of arguments could be made. Still, the 'survey' results were (hard to ignore?). “I’m sure if you asked if they’d like more transit service, they probably would have said yes,” he said. “I think what it really says is that they want more transportation.”
(Traffic modeling shows -(about 1/3 the traffic?) would divert to surface streets with the highway tunnel, although combined with a new surface Alaskan Way boulevard, it more than makes up for loss of the viaduct.)

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which of two following statements more closely fits their beliefs.

STATEMENT A
Critics of the bored tunnel say it is flawed because it perpetuates our reliance on cars, creates more pollution, and forces Seattle citizens to be responsible for cost overruns. -(Statement A is a "simplifaction" therefore fautly)STATEMENT B1: Supporters of the tunnel say cars aren’t going away anytime soon. While we definitely need to decrease our reliance on cars and increase transit, we already have too much congestion, and not replacing the viaduct’s capacity will create gridlock. -(Statement B1 The gridlock supposition is NOT a given)-

After reading the statements, 74% chose the latter statement while 19% chose “Statement A.” Paananen acknowledged that while the survey touched on tolls and cost-overruns, -(it did not ask any questions?)- about construction risks. “I think we had trouble keeping the survey to reasonable length. You could do a whole survey on how to handle risk and contingency and (we’ve been through that ad nauseum?).”

-(Has the public been informed of the construction risks?)-

This Poll result is the state response to the Nygaard/Nielsen.
It is an answer to concerns of risks discussed "ad nauseum" privately and too difficult to explain convincingly thoroughly in public. The DBT is a stupid mistake.

This seems like an awful street for bike lanes. It is a huge hill and I doubt the amount of cyclists who use the route will justify the change.