Despite my lack of writing, my mind has not been blank. In fact, I've been mulling over the quandary that Spokane has drummed up...proposed bike lanes on a major one-way, 3-lane arterial street. The bike lane has been proposed by the bicycle activists. The City Councilmen that love cycling have latched onto it with a death grip. They really really really want a dedicated bicycle lane on this major street despite the facts that have been placed before them.
The facts are:
- 2nd Avenue is a congested route to travel. Based on an engineering study conducted by the City of Spokane, the current level of service of the street as it stands rates from A to C level. (Think school grading system here.) When you take away a lane to dedicate it to bicycles, the predicted level of service drops to the range from C to F. That's failing, by the way. That's not the general goal here.
- 2nd Avenue is a dangerous route to travel. From the same engineering study, it was reported that the accident rate is at 10.5 accidents per million vehicles. Compare that to this: the most dangerous streets in the big cities of America have accident rates around 3 accidents per million vehicles.
That's when the issue turned to the social networks of Twitter and Facebook through our friends at Bike to Work Spokane. No doubt flamed on by some of the City Councilmen.
I am flummoxed by the blind eye and deaf ear of these councilmen. It kills me. I have ridden on 2nd Avenue and I generally try to avoid it. I've driven on 2nd Avenue...in fact I used to drive it daily. It's not a street that needs a diet. It is a mover and a shaker. A lot of drivers depend on that street, and it should not be cut back to serve a few bicycles.
I am a cyclist. I don't want to ride on 2nd Avenue.
I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I would like more dedicated bicycle lanes around town. However, you're completely correct that Second is too busy to lose an automobile lane. Just like you, a lot of other people won't want to ride on such a busy street; even with a dedicated lane, there is so much potential for collisions because cars make a lot of turns on to and off of Second. Plus, what if you wanted to go the other way through town? There are no proposals (that I have heard of) for a complementary lane on Third…
Besides, why do we need a lane on Second when one is already going in on Fourth? What we need is to get THAT lane to run all the way from Maple to Arthur (or at least Sherman), rather than just Jefferson to Howard as it will.
Seriously. Because 4th is so far away. I mean, there's a freeway between 2nd and 4th. Who would ever ride on 4th anyway. We definately need a parallel route! (Yes...that's sarcasm you hear in my voice.)
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you put this up. I haven't really liked the push for the bike lane there either. As you say, too much traffic to squeeze down to two lanes. I actually don't mind riding on 2nd now, except for the nasty bumps around Washington and Stevens (which won't be fixed in the current rebuild anyway). The traffic has never bothered me.
ReplyDeleteI'm still getting used to riding in town. As much as I'd like to see dedicated bike lanes east and west, I don't think 2nd avenue is one street for that use on a bike. Maybe if they put up concrete barriers to separate bikes and cars... Nah, too expensive. My alternative? Find a different route. Let cars and trucks play bumper cars on second.
ReplyDeleteLonger...maybe. Isn't that one of the purposes of bike riding, to get in shape, have fun, and reduce congestion and be eco-friendly.
Also, enact more severe penalties for injuring a bicyclist when the cyclist is not at fault.
Just stumbled on this blog, and I'm one of those who want something done for cyclists on 2nd. It provides a great through-way to get from one end of town to the other, linking Ben Burr and Fish Lake, along with Browne's Addition and Sunset Highway and Government Way.
ReplyDeleteOnce 2nd is put back together, I'll be using it again. I come down Washington and turn at 2nd and follow it out to Sunset and Gov't Way. It's been a designated bike route probably since Expo 74 era, and it's on the Master Bike Plan.
Most important, it can be made safe. New York has done some great stuff on retaining parking and adding bike lanes in congested areas. Doing something like this can make it a more attractive place to go and hang out while making it safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Do you really want to sit outside Taste right now, with the traffic, the general lack of ambiance in the area? It's not at all conducive to business, more like a light industrial area with light industry replaced by service oriented business that can benefit from a revisioning of the area and the roadway.
All that being said, a real concern is the status as a highway bypass for the interstate. I wish I knew how to get around that. But the tenor of the comments here is that we have to give up a good bike route to cars. As for the road being busy. I have to say, given where I've lived, Spokane doesn't have busy. I ride 2nd around 7:30-8:00 when I do, and it's rare to see more than two or three cars at any given light, no matter the season. Maybe it's just my timing, but we don't have traffic of any merit.