Much of Cascade’s success over the past decade comes from our firm belief in following facts, data and studies — letting them guide our work. Gone were the histrionics and hyperbole that typified some well-meaning advocates of the past — and with our evolution came more access, greater credibility and measurable progress toward developing bicycle-friendly communities.  Where we flounder is when we come face to face with opponents for whom the facts mean nothing or just don’t matter, and it’s not just us left scratching our heads.

It seems many of us are coming to a similar conclusion regarding recent battles over what should be non-controversial roadway safety projects. Erica Barnett and Josh Cohen at Publicola and Tom Fucoloro at Seattle Bike Blog all note how the debate has wrongly centered on a “cars vs. bikes” meme — not that that has kept the so-called mainstream  media from continuing to portray it as such — and that opponents generally have the facts wrong. Michael Snyder at Seattle Likes Bikes goes so far as to suggest that we’re winning battles but losing the war.

Snyder offers:

“At every turn, we lead in with the very strong problem statements. We engage drivers by talking about their  inability to make left hand turns and how often they already block a lane of traffic making those turns…”

While I don’t agree completely with his criticism of a fact-based approach to explaining the need, purpose, and benefits of these projects, it’s clear that the framing (in combination with the MSM’s desire to keep the issue focused on the false trade-off) isn’t working.  We’re not mobilizing enough of the pro-community base, nor are we changing the minds of enough of the project opponents.

To better understand the public mood and how we should frame the debate, Cascade Bicycle Club contributed to a phone poll of likely Seattle voters earlier this month.  The results showed broad support for the kinds of projects that have garnered so much attention and drawn so much withering fire.

“City projects that improve transit efficiency, or make it safer and easier to walk or bicycle, like bus-lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and bicycle lanes, sometimes require changes in travel lanes or parking on Seattle streets. In general, do you support changes in the configuration of Seattle’s streets that make mass transit, walking and bicycling safer and easier?”

Responses:

While the poll clearly demonstrates ideological alignment the question remains, what separates the hypothetical support from the actual support for these projects that can be fairly characterized as win-win? Brilliant suggestions are welcome and encouraged. Please feel free to comment below.

Until we come up with a better approach, continue sending your emails to SDOT and continue sending your letters to the Seattle Times – and we’ll continue to put our research, resources and muscle behind safer, more equitable transportation in Seattle and throughout the region.

Over at Publicola, Erica Barnett has refuted, point by point, Nicole Brodeur’s Seattle Times piece opposing the NE 125th Street safety project. Tom Fucoloro at the Seattle Bike Blog also takes issue with Brodeur’s arguements.

Rather than rehashing the arguments for this important safety project as we have here and here, I’m going to get out some maps and a calendar, something Ms. Brodeur or the Times editorial staff should have done.

A dead-end argument

She writes: “The bike lane on 130th seems to be working just fine — is a five-block detour too much to ask?”

I’m scratching my head, because she must be referring to the new buffered bike lanes that:

1) stretch only a few blocks, and

2) are several miles away.

Here’s an interactive map we put together containing upcoming projects. The casual observer will have no difficulty seeing that 130th is an ill-conceived suggestion. (You might also notice that many of the projects are starting to create much-needed connectivity, though we have a ways to go.)

Some bicyclists use NE 130th Street for part of its length as an alternate route to 125th, but the street is discontinuous as so many Seattle streets are. That is to say it’s not especially useful when you want to get somewhere.

Furthermore, one can only cross I-5 westbound using the arterial that turns from 125th into Roosevelt Way unless one rides south all the way to Northgate or north to the city line.

As for the calendar, I noted Ms. Brodeur is laying this project on Mayor McGinn while scoring some cheap shots in the process. In fact, the 125th Street safety improvement project was identified for rechannelization prior to Mayor McGinn’s taking office. It was included in the Bicycle Master Plan during the Nickels administration in June 2007. Here’s yet another handy map.

I have an idea. Let’s take this discussion away from teh Interwebs. We extend a warm invitation to Ms. Brodeur to come north and visit 125th. Let’s ride the bus, walk through the project together and discuss roadway design and traffic safety. No gimmick here. The invitation is wide open. Please take us — and the other neighbors you’ve heard from — up on the offer.