Last month, Seattle City Councilwoman Sally Bagshaw announced that the Seattle Department of Transportation has plans for 11 miles worth of greenways in the city. Wallingford recently became the first neighborhood to incorporate them and Fremont could be seeing more of them around the neighborhood as well.
These alternative and safer routes for pedestrians and bikers are gaining traction in Seattle. Students from the University of Washington entrepreneurial journalism class taught by our partners, The Common Language Project, took a look at neighborhood greenways.
Click here to read “Routing a greener path.”
34 responses so far ↓
1 Thelma // Feb 23, 2012 at 9:24 pm
How much will this cost us taxpayers. Why does Sean never do any actual reporting?
Sean, honey, how much will it all cost?
2 kDavid // Feb 23, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Thelma honey, don’t worry.
It’ll cost far less than healthcare for all the folks (and society) that will benefit having an alternative way to get to and from work, and errands. Oh, and far, far less than the trauma care for cyclists that get run over by texting drivers.
Remember, cyclists are taxpayers too, and we vote!
Have a nice day, hon.
3 Thelma // Feb 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm
kDavid, you sticky little sugarplum, I read your tweets. You actually quit the Sierra Club because they’re too conservative? OMFG.
Are you suggesting we the little ignorant taxpayers are not even allowed to ask how much this plan will cost us?
I fail to see how savings on “trauma care for cyclists” benefits me as a taxpayer. How about being responsible and buying some insurance instead of just carelessly assuming the taxpayers must pick up the healthcare tab for your red light running mishaps?
People like YOU are exactly the reason why the majority of people in this city do not support proposals like this one. You are way too arrogant, hon. Snide. Selfish. Greedy. Wrong.
4 Danielle // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:46 am
I agree with Thelma. I would also like to know how much this costs. I guess Mayor McSchwinn dispatched one of his bike nazis to ridicule working class people who dare question the cost of his extreme ideas. When so many people are out of work and the city budget is in the red what can possibly be the reason to make “greenways” It is an outrage.
5 Benny // Feb 24, 2012 at 11:54 am
Ooooh Thelma, sensitive!
Its a BLOG sweetie, fun and informative.
Not a newspaper. Relax.
6 Danielle // Feb 24, 2012 at 12:14 pm
How funny that the supporters of these plans refuse to answer the question.
How much does it cost taxpayers?
“Don’t worry,” says one.
“Relax,” says the other.
Why do these bike people hate transparency??
7 kDavid // Feb 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Thelma honey,
You’re twisting the facts: I quit the Sierra club because they were not transparent about taking $26MM from natural gas interests to fund their beyond coal campaign. I’m one of those “clean energy liberals” too…
And I was not dodging the funding issue, but rather raising the point that too often, “sound bite conservatives” fail to look at the total cost of something (which in this case the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and the motoring public are served by) - and instead fixate on the short term cost. I’m sorry if I hit a nerve there - you’re more thoughtful than this, aren’t you?
Last time I checked, cycling is quite legal in this city, and for us ALL as taxpayers to pay to provide additional safety to all is a good thing that will save us all money overall. Oh, and the majority of us voted that way back in 2006!
Instead of engaging in ad-hominem attacks (yes, I do pay taxes, have full healthcare, obey stop signs, and drive a motor vehicle on occassion - fully insured of course), you can easily look up the information you seek using the Internet (try the Seattle Times website), where you will see that the Greenways projects are funded out of the Bridging the Gap Levy passed by a majority of Seattle voters (not you?) for just this precise purpose (from the SDOT website: “Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and create safe routes to schools. “). At a cost of about $7500 a block ($150K/mile), this might seem like a high cost, until you compare this to the cost of visit to the ER for a head trauma injury (again, consult your local interwebs for details) that has to be paid by someone (insurance, or otherwise) - not to mention property damage, emergency services cost, lost work time, etc. And then , what value do you put on a life that is lost that can likely be avoided by separating the traffic streams of cars and bicycles? In 2011 Seattle averaged 1 per month… (Summary here: http://is.gd/W74AwH) Now do you really think that doesn’t cost you anything as a taxpayer, insurance ratepayer, or citizen?
BTW, I personally know many conservative folk that ride their bicycles for the obvious benefits (transportation, commuting, convenience, speed, health, recreation), and many of them likely voted for the 2006 BtG Levy - so your characterization of me as a cyclist is not only erroneous, but could easily be construed as an insulting stereotype.
Hope to see you on the roads, Thelma.
And hopefully you can see that people like me ARE in the majority and DO support programs like this one!
Happy motoring!
-kDavid
8 Rob // Feb 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
$150,000 PER MILE?!
No thank you.
Fix the potholes. Plow the snow.
We did not vote for this and Mayor McShwinn should be impeached.
9 kDavid // Feb 24, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Rob,
Wake up and smell the coffee. Sidewalks alone cost $2MM a mile in Seattle, according to this 2007 article: http://is.gd/prXsgL . Compared to that price, the cost of traffic calming, signage, and roadway improvements for streets parallel to busy and dangerous arterials is a relative bargain.
This 2010 COLA article is interesting though, in it’s conclusion from the facts, and that is: “… the budget breakdown nonetheless shows that bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers alike pay nearly equal shares of the city transportation budget (and bicyclists have a smaller impact on road maintenance costs), granting everyone their “right” to space on the road.”
BTW - when this initiative was passed, it was Greg Nickles who was in office. For 2011, the SDOT budget includes $62Million for road maintenance & repairs, and only $5Million for the Bike Master Plan.
As pointed out before, a majority of voters of Seattle DID vote for these improvements - that’s how the Bridging the Gap Levy was passed. If you don’t like that, or the distribution of funds, you are free to organize voters against it - that’s your _right_. It’s also your _responsibility_ to educated yourself before the fact, if you really want to have a say in policy and budget, and not just crab about it…
10 kDavid // Feb 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Sorry Rob - I left off the link to the COLA article: http://is.gd/Copq6e
11 Fremont Mom // Feb 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm
blah blah blah $150,000 per mile blah blah blah.
NO.
No NO NO NO NO!!!!
12 Mondoman // Feb 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm
kD, not sure how/why you’re assuming other posters here are “sound bite conservatives” and I think your estimate of sidewalk costs at $2 billion/mile is a mite exaggerated
However, the costs you mention seem to be the fault of individuals (e.g. causing an accident that results in injuries) and you want to put the cost of road changes on society in general. Maybe that’s good public policy, but it certainly doesn’t save the not-at-fault individual money.
13 Kitty // Feb 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm
I just don’t see why we need this.
I voted for the levy, but I thought it was to fix sidewalks and wheelchair ramps. NOT “traffic calming” idiocy which is basically a nice way of saying making streets unusable for cars.
I can’t wait until Mayor McSchwinn and people like kDavid get a lesson in democracy and the dangers of overreaching.
This mayor is the worst ever, and so are his minions.
14 Cindy // Feb 25, 2012 at 9:33 pm
kDavid,
Out of touch much?
15 G // Feb 26, 2012 at 1:29 am
Thanks kDavid, your attempt to enlighten the reactionary is appreciated.
16 Cindy // Feb 26, 2012 at 9:57 am
Of course, anybody with a different opinion than the bike nazis is unenlightened and reactionary.
Par for the course and the wrong way to win support.
17 Walt // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm
kD is presenting information and using it to support arguments.
Other people are name calling, making over-exaggerated claims and threats, and simply ignoring what is being said.
This is the Internet so expecting valid debating tactics is silly, but come on. You could at least try. Respond to facts with facts, logic with logic. Random opinions don’t convince anyone of anything. They only get “here, here!”’s from people who already agree with you, and make everyone else think your entire side of an issue is uninformed. It helps no one.
Get over the adversarial absolutism the media tells you is a life-and-death struggle between virtuous heroes who protect you from horrible villains desperate to ruin your life. We’re all on the same side here, especially on the local level. We’re a purple country, not a red vs. blue one.
18 Vivian // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Giant waste of money.
19 Walt // Feb 26, 2012 at 11:06 pm
The city budget is $910 million. 11 miles of bikeways at $150k per means this project costs $1.65 million, or 0.18% of the city budget. If you think we need to cut back spending, there are bigger fish to fry.
That’s also about $2.75 per citizen in Seattle. I can’t even get a latte for that. If having this work done saves one life, money well spent.
20 CarnacTheMagnificent // Feb 27, 2012 at 12:06 am
“blah blah blah $150,000 per mile blah blah blah.”
Fremont Mom - what are you doing posting here …shouldn’t you be in the kitchen?
21 Cindy // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:31 am
“shouldn’t you be in the kitchen?”
I will never vote to support bike things again!!
22 kDavid // Feb 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Mondoman: $MM in the context of finance is usually meant to represent Million. Not billion.
And by “sound bite conservatives” I was referring to those that look at a seemingly outrageous factoid - without examing it all in context. Of course $150,000 a mile sounds extravagant, for a driveway. But if it takes $2MM a mile for the city to installs sidewalks up to code - then it puts it in better perspective. Or
Walt points out that the cost of this is less than one fifth of a percent of the city’s budget. (Thank you for that good perspective, Walt.)
As to the rest of the name callers (really: bike nazi??? hardly.) and folks upset with the costs involved, I apologize for some appearance of smarminess that reading my initial post may have conveyed, but I still believe that making the city safe for law abiding citizens - and voting for levies to do so - is the right thing to do. Shall we outlaw car seatbelts and walk/don’t walk signals using your same logic? (That logic being: only a minority of us are motorists/passengers or pedestrians, and why should the rest of us pay for your safety?). No, I don’t think so.
As to those that are still opposed to the safety of cyclists and pedestrians through these traffic calming projects that you think are too expensive, I invite you all to join in the democratic process (educating ourselve & voting) and read the initiatives you vote for in the future. It’s the process we all have available to us to promote our interests in this city…
-kDavid
23 Cindy // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm
kDavid, I invite YOU to learn about the democratic process as well, when your Mayor McSchwinn and his $100,000 bicycle advisors are voted out of office.
I pay taxes to drive my car. You do not pay anything. I am sick and tired of being criticized and condesended by people like you who think you know what is best for everybody. You do not know what is best for everybody and it is our taxes not yours. The levy was about sidewalks not closing streets for cars.
24 Cindy // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm
And another thing. It is the bike people who do not think the laws apply to them for example red lights. I look out the window at work and see hundreds of bikers running red lights every day. Every day. And who is going to pay when they hit something or kill somebody I am sure they will say red lights are not for bikes or they know better or we need to spend more money. RED MEANS STOP.
25 Fred // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I’m astonished with the ugly tone of this conversation and that, as Fremonters, we can’t agree that keeping everyone on the road safe is a priority we can all get behind.
We dole out giant subsidizies for car travel and, as a driver, it certainly makes life easier. But as an occasional bike rider, I’m surprised that people don’t see that not only does everyone pay for the roadways, but that safer infrastructure = more people on bikes = more road space for everyone and results the kind Fremont that I want to live in and that employers want to locate to.
26 Cindy // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm
When bikers respect the laws and stop at red lights that is the kind of Fremont I want. And when I asked about the costs the biker said I should be in the kitchen. I will never vote to help the bikers and Mayor McShwinn ever again and really do not care if they are safe on the road if they do not obey the laws and stop at the red lights.
27 Cindy // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Par for the course, the people that don’t pay taxes are the ones telling us how the money should be spent. And not following the law is not going to get them any support. My coworkers agree we watch bikers run red light all day and then yell at the cars.
28 Gene // Feb 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm
How do we stop this?
29 kDavid // Feb 27, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Cindy,
As I have explained, I pay taxes. I pay road taxes, property taxes, use taxes, excise taxes. I do own a car. And _I_ never told you to stay in the kitchen.
And yes, I am aware of how democracy works - for instance, I voted for Prop 1 and it didn’t pass. Okay, I got it. So we find other democratic ways to do what we think we need to do to fund these improvements for all…
As to scofflaws, may I point out that for the last year that I can find statistics, SPD handed out over 27,000 tickets to motorists? (http://is.gd/HPcDry) So cyclists are not the _only_ ones breaking the rules. And I am not defending in any way any cyclist (or motorist) that break the rules - in fact I think they do a disservice to all of us cyclists by doing so, as evidenced by your pointed dislike of cyclists for running stop signs…
So, I am in agreement with Fred about his equation (”safer infrastructure = more people on bikes = more road space for everyone and results the kind Fremont that I want to live in”) which so happens to be reinforced by this report (http://is.gd/81Q56o) that the Stone Way “road diet” was successful in making a safer, and more multi use friendly street with little to no impact on business or traffic volumes. I think the east-west Greenway will accomplish much the same thing with a solution that is appropriate to the neighborhood. Paying for safety for all (as I have tried to reasonably show) is in the public good not just for physical safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, but economically as well. Even if (as Walt points out above) the cost of accidents is borne by private parties (ie: insurance), it is passed on to all of us in terms of higher rates, or public spending on ER costs that have to be borne for treatement of the uninsured (which is a completely separate discussion from this one).
Cindy, I can’t explain why you have so much animosity towards cyclists. Yes, there are scofflaws, but I can assure you that “we” are not all that way, and it took more than just cyclists to pass the Bridge the Gap levy. Honestly.
30 Fremonster // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:15 pm
I’m sure that since Cindy is so concerned with people obeying the law, she will spend every waking moment outside all the bars in lower Fremont making sure all those drunks don’t drive home.
31 Thelma // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Gosh! Why do bicycles need their own streets and why do cost us so much money? I do not like it.
32 Sam // Feb 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Fremonster, that is a straw man argument. Cindy was not defending drunk driving and what is wrong about being concerned with bikers breaking the law. I see it too, all the time. One group of people in this city thinks they are above the law and know what is best. Look at the shear arrogance of kDavid and how he lectures the rest of us. No thank you. I am through supporting bike access as I am sure many are.
33 Fremonster // Feb 29, 2012 at 10:55 am
Sorry Sam, you are right. Bicycles should be outlawed. Drivers never break the law. I always see cyclists running red lights, but never see a driver do it, nor do I ever see anyone drive drunk, drive while on the phone/texting or speed.
34 kDavid // Feb 29, 2012 at 1:26 pm
To all,
I am truly sorry this has devolved to name calling and hyperbole. I tried to present some useful perspective (with supporting data), in a reasonable fashion — and I am accused of being the mean & arrogant one…
Maybe this is just not a venue conducive to reasoned discussion?
See you on the roads, and community meetings. Wave and smile.
- Fini.
Leave a Comment