Yesterday, the Cascade Bicycle Club released a scorecard (.pdf) ranking the 10 biggest cities in Puget Sound—excluding Seattle—based on a survey of their policies and plans to make bicycling a transportation priority.
Here are few highlights from the scorecard: The average percentage of bicycle commuters within the 10 cities is .5 percent—Redmond has the highest with 1.5 percent. Bellevue has an impressive 164 miles of bicycle routes in the works—and has dedicated funding to get them built. Tacoma has 165 miles of (presently unfunded) routes. Renton has a bicycle parking ordinance that mandates parking spaces for bikes account for 10 percent of the required off-street parking for residential developments with more than five units. Shoreline and Federal Way are apparently still learning how to ride a bike.
- CBC score card
So based on CBC’s 16-question survey on street planning and policy, what’s the most bike-friendly city to live in if you’re an avid cyclist?
It’s Kirkland. I guess you want to live in Kirkland.
More Bikes == Better Life.
Mind you, it’s a lot more fun to walk.
Yes, but heaven help you if you have to pee while you’re pedaling through Kirkland. I rode from Northgate to Bellevue one winter (over the north end of the lake; no way was I gonna do the 520 shuffle and try to get my bike on a bus) and straight through downtown Kirkland on the way, which is where the coffee began to hit me. Sometime in the fall Kirkland Parks closed all their bathrooms, for which I shall forever hold a grudge.
Mind you, it’s not like I was paying taxes to the City of Kirkland, so I really have no right to complain, BUT THAT’S NEVER STOPPED ME BEFORE, DAMMIT.
@2, the restroom issue is a good side issue that cities should consider when planning for cyclists. How about a law mandating that restrooms be available along the bike routes, like not closing parks restrooms in the fall. How about, instead of a law, if busines near bike routes waive their “customers only” rule if you come in wearing a bike helmet?
Cue John Bailo aka Supreme Ruler of Kent.
Man, Bellevue does have some impressive funding for connecting their existing bikeways. But then again, they don’t have a downtown after 5:30pm. Trade-offs.
True story: I used to live in Kirkland, and biked to work. Now I live in Seattle, and don’t.
@2 and @3 tied for the I Need To Pee Now win.
Gotta say, Kirkland has been nice every time I’ve ridden through it. The barbie girl eye candy doesn’t hurt either.
Why isn’t Bellingham on this list? Is Shoreline really that much bigger than the City of Subdued Excitement?
(also: ugh. The City of Subdued Excitement?)
having lived there from from 4-18, i can promise you, there is nothing worthwhile in kirkland.
Hey, I do live in Kirkland! Unfortunately I haven’t owned a bike since it was bent into a modern sculpture by skate punks years ago, when I left it chained to a bike rack in my office’s underground garage.
@8: I think Cascade limits its scope to the greater Seattle area. The Mt. Baker Bike Club advocates and organizes rides in Whatcom County.
Bathrooms just for cyclists? LOL. Good luck with that one. Seattle already spent millions on those fancy automated bathrooms, dont think any city is going to want to relive that disaster. Even if the units are cheap. You’ll be lucky if they dont have bums living in them. Bathrooms in parks are needed because you can technically rent out that park for a wedding or birthday. To install bathrooms just for cyclists, man get ready for a bike tax/fee/license to pay for it Its not a one time buy, money will be needed to maintain and clean those bathrooms.
Its all wishful thinking.
Fuck I am moving to Shoreline.
@7, you are tempting me to pull this thread off topic with the question of why, knowing that behind those cold dead eyes, and knowing that their music collections are bland as hell, people like us still like to look at them. Mmmm, yuppie barbies.
And I guess that Madelinear wouldn’t count as Kirkland eye candy, since the lack of anything worthwhile in Kirkland means that we won’t see her out and about there.
@12, off topic again, but those pay toilets were stupid for many reasons. Money would have been better spent on actual restooms, where the payment serves more as a function to keep track of who goes in and how long they stay.
I used a restroom like this in Amsterdam in 93, 50 cents to the gatekeeper and you are in a restroom much like the ones in a stadium or convention center. But I guess the chamber of commerce wouldn’t go for anything like that, fucking assholes.
wow, a Stranger post that was kind (or at least nuetral) to the Eastside. Wonders never cease…