@1 And there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of blocks of road in Seattle with literally not a single car driving on them at this very minute. Are those stretches not important to the overall fabric of your city?


This was a helpful guide for who I should not vote for, thanks!


I think it's important to add that on 35th Ave NE, it's my understanding that the final design (without bike lanes) removed just as much parking as the design with bike lanes, which is part of why the change was so egregious.


I hope none fight for it. I like to park my cars.


"Keep the parking. Ditch the bike lanes." - What a great campaign slogan!



It might work, though?

If there's one thing that drivers and environmentalists can agree on, it's that things would be better if drivers weren't spending so much time circling in search of parking.

I enjoy bike lanes myself, as a nice seasonal convenience. But I don't expect them to be carrying even a fraction of a percent of the city's transit burden November through March, no matter how many we build.


Yes, we should drive Everywhere!!
And more donuts! More fast food!
Bikes are communist!!
(Gee, why is everyone diabetic?)
On a more serious note- why is it bicycles vs car drivers- as if they are in opposition? Don't most households have at least one car AND one bicycle? A higher percentage per household of bicycle (or walking) miles equals better health outcomes, and more traffic space for drivers.


Not only is does D4 candidate Alex Pederson oppose bike lanes, he also opposed ST3 and Move Seattle (because it funds bike lanes). He also opposes upzones and supports preserving "neighborhood character). Basically, he wants Seattle to remain car friendly and freeze land use in amber. He is a terrible, utterly retrograde candidate. If you live in D4 and care about bike lanes and transit, vote for Shaun Scott or Emily Meyers.


The problem with certain areas of Seattle ITO biking are intense hills. Why it's not as high priority in some districts compared to others. It's just not physically possible unless you're a competitive athlete, and even then, questionable. Not to mention all the carbon monoxide you'd have to inhale while doing so.

I'm otherwise fine with this column, except for one other major issues I'm having with the way the Stranger is covering this election for City Council seats.

I'd much rather see a major column (first and foremost) entitled, "Which City Council Candidates Will Actually Fight For Rent Control?" You touched on it just a teensy weensy bit in another article (by someone else) but this is really the homer issue for this election. How to stay in your rental housing in the city without every solution having to do with building more subsidized housing. People are getting freaky rent increases.

So sorry - but I could care right now about your f'in bikes. And you making bikes more important than rent control is why people begin to lose all respect for stylish liberalism - and no, I would never begin to vote for Trump, but I won't be helping you vote for other people because of your bikes.


I bike when I can and I’m sorry to say this, but despite all good intentions bike lanes are not going to ease our traffic congestion.
Climate and topography are against us and should be recognized.
Narrowing streets and limiting parking only add to the congestion.

Another problem I often notice is the arrogance and reckless riding demonstrated by some fellow riders. Please be mindful of cars and let them pass instead of what sometimes looks like intentional blocking and slowing down others. The safety issue should also be addressed to riders. Some zig zag between cars, take advantage of both car and pedestrian rules when it suits them, risking themselves and others in the process.


I'm much more interested in knowing: Which City Council Candidates Will Actually Fight Against Bike Lanes... They are a total waste of money and are fucking this city up beyond recognition.


Being someone who deals with the public and receives many unsolicited comments about city government in general (even though I have very little to do with it), it seems like if everyone who is irriatated by bike lanes actually votes, we're going to have a very anti-bike lane council in the next term.


@13 Prices coming down on electric bikes means topography becomes less important. Climate here in the PNW actually is fairly ideal for bike riding. Our fall and winter "rain" is typically a light mist, one that a helmet cover and light rain gear can easily handle. Our summers aren't typically brutally hot.

Lastly, arrogance and recklessness are part of the human condition and are not unique to a subset of bike riders. Honking, cutting off, road rage; these are all sadly common with car drivers too. I think most would agree that those qualities become much more dangerous when arrogance and recklessness are used when piloting a multi-thousand pound vehicle vs. a bicycle.



Unfortunately, electric bikes undo the environmental benefits of cycling.

And that "light mist" might not bother you, but most people don't enjoy emergency braking or turning on "misted" roads, nor do they relish the prospect of stripping off their "light" rain suits and waiting 10 minutes for the full-body sweat to dry (or showering and changing into business-casual, if their workplaces provide the amenities) before sitting down at their desks. And then there's the fun of putting on damp gear for the trip home, if humidity is high and there's no good place to hang the stuff up, and no machine to dry it.

I tried all that for a couple years, off and on. It absolutely sucked. Now that I live close enough to light rail, I'll never commute by bike during the winter again.


@17 of course.


@15 Sick burn! Way to stick it to The Man!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.