When it comes to the topic of transportation, most would agree that due to the economic crisis and the unreliable pricing of gas, seeking alternative means of transportation is a liable and responsible way to travel. In the fall of 2007 the Seattle City Council passed a unanimous decision to go forward with the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), which is a comprehensive roadmap to make the city of Seattle a more biker-friendly town. The BMP, designed by The Cascade Bicycle Club, proposes a network of bikeways to help Seattle cyclists travel more safely and easily via additional bicycle lanes, shared lanes, signed bike routes, and bicycle boulevards. Altogether, the BMP calls for over 450 miles of new bicycle facilities to be installed over the next 10 years.
In discussion of the BMP, Cycling enthusiasts find the implementing of such a plan a milestone in cycling history. Particularly, members of the Cascade Bicycling club are elated about the application of the BMP because it was their group that vigilantly created and amended the plan and put it in front of the local governments.
Similarly, the Seattle bike messenger community is also pleased with the plans according to blogs and comment sections on the Seattle PI website. Messengers have expressed that the crowded and bustling streets of downtown encroach on their ability to safely maneuver among cars and pedestrians in order to promptly deliver their packages. With the addition of bike lanes couriers hope that hazardous intersection collisions and tension between cyclists and motorists is eliminated.
Motorists however have argued that the introduction of expansive list of bikeways is a possible waste of taxpayer’s money since the population of bicycle riders in Seattle makes up only a small percentage of commuting traffic, and more money needs to go to other divisions of mass transit.
Also, others maintain that cyclists are far too reckless, and often don’t follow the basic rules of the road and therefore should not be granted additional roadway. These people advocate that cyclists should be required to have a license to ride their bike in the street, but since the state of Washington does not mandate that cyclists need a license, according to these individuals bike riders should not be in the streets. This equates then that cyclists should not be given shared lanes or additional bike lanes.
1) The Cascade Bicycle Club wrote an article describing the comprehensive layout of their proposed and later passed Bicycle Master Plan. The posting details the 450 miles of planned bike lane and widened lane expansion and also describes the clubs plans for bike education and safety in coalition with the city council. In the article the author also defines the multi-utility and use of extending cycling roadways and access within the city and lists favorable reasons of why their plan is advantageous to the city for everyone, not just cyclists.
2) The article written by the Cascade Bicycle club detailing the advance of cycling roadways and safety in the Seattle area is a great achievement not only for cyclists, but for the entire city. The advent of the BMP will encourage and possibly inspire exercise, support alternative modes of transportation, relieve congestion, keep the environment clean, decrease tension on the streets between cyclists and motorist, and above all keep the roads safe for cyclists. The number of new cyclists has increased strongly across the country in the past several years due to the price of gas and it is our government’s responsibility to acknowledge the augment of bike riders and ensure that citizens are safe on the roads.
3) It would appear that the real plan according the Cascade Bicycle Club and the BMP is to make driving a motor vehicle in the city harder, if not impossible. People drive cars all year round, whereas from what I can tell cyclists only stick to the fair weather months. This means that in Seattle, where it just so happens to obviously rain a lot, many people don’t commute on their bikes. This plan is not congestion relief and what we need is competent planning, not advocacy, which is all the Cascade Bicycle Club excretes.
4) The author of the article is unnamed, but obviously is a member in some caliber of the Cascade Bicycle Club and has written the article as a bicycle advocate detailing news about the biggest bicycle initiative to ever be passed in Washington State. Considering that the CBC was responsible for the creating and passing of the initiative, the article was basically a news feed explaining that the bike community can have hope for a safer and more eco-friendly city due the passing of the BMP. I am well aware of the Cascade Bicycling Club, and so I know that off hand, the author was going to be very passionate about the passing of the plan, so I of course needed to keep an open mind regarding the circumstances of spending X amount of dollars on additional bikeways.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good article. I think that motorists need to realize that cyclists are here to stay and more provisions need to be made for them. Even though it won't reduce congestion, less collisions and less injured people could be seen as a result of this plan, and I fully agree that it should be put through. It will benefit both drivers and cyclists.
Nick, nice post. My favorite part was where you summarized the anti-cyclist argument. It captured some of their ridiculous claims. But it also left out a few: Cyclists are wild "drivers" and are dangerous to themselves and others (but mostly to me and my BMW 5) AND bike lanes just make the road more dangerous for cyclists and me. They'll only increase the number of "doored" cyclists.
Your article presents good points on both sides of the argument. As a driver, sharing the road with bicyclists can be a little frightening, but I think that that is more reason to increase bike lane sizes and numbers. It is a little absurd to think that decreasing bicycle numbers means safety. Drivers need to realize that they are the ones driving potential weapons while bikers are freeing up space on the roads, decreasing pollution, and promoting healthier lifestyles.
After all, one of the first rules we learn in drivers education is that having a car and license is a privilege - not a right. What is more important, individual safety or privileged transportation?
Post a Comment