Several new pieces about so-called road diets have been written in the past few days. Some are for, some against. Always good to hear new points of view on the issue. However, it seems like the importance of safety is finally taking hold in the center of the debate, and old concerns about increased car congestion are sounding more and more dated and weak.
- Pinehurst resident asks “What’s so controversial about safety?” over at Publicola.
- Crosscut has one column for the 125th project, one against. Be sure to read the one against, as it basically lays out the philosophical difference at the heart of the issue. Won’t the road diet reduce capacity for the future projected growth in car traffic? And, I would counter, isn’t that a good thing?
- New York’s department of transportation has determined that bike lanes dramatically increase pedestrian safety. Let’s all say it together, “Bike lane projects are about safety for everyone!”
Meanwhile, Biking Bis pointed out an interesting study by the Center for Disease Control narrowing the issue of transportation safety down to cold hard dollars. Not my favorite way of measuring the importance of safety, but bike injuries and death nationwide cost about $5 billion annually, supposedly.
The new turtle street mural in Wallingford is bad ass. Let’s paint intersection murals like these all over the city.
Josh Cohen at Publicola takes a look at family cycling. Includes coverage of Fiets of Parenthood and Seattle’s own bad ass family cycle leaders, Totcycle and Car Free Days.
Seattle Likes Bikes says the detour at E Marginal Way and S Spokane Street is dangerous. I have seen similar complaints on BikeWise, as well, so bikers are clearly uneasy about it.
Bike Intelligencer takes the new U District bike lanes for a spin. With video:
This is an open thread.
