Advocacy & Safety - anti bike column in todays seattle times, my response sent

a negative, anti-bike column from a local Seattle columnist against a state approved taxing district to improve active transportation infrastructure, and my response:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012722449_joni26.html

and my response. lets see if it gets published....


"In Joni Balter's most recent editorial, she disparages Seattle's move towards
creation of a special tax improvement district to benefit active transportation
infrastructure. She is against making it easier to walk, jog, bike around the
city.

The recent acrimony displayed by some of the Seattle Times' columnists on the
issues of increasing transportation choices for Seattlites is appalling.

The development of a special tax improvement district (TID) should not be
misleadingly framed as 'police versus pedestrians' argument.
TID's are not police versus peds, it is not bikes versus cars, this TID is
Seattle united against congestion and pollution, for increasing public
liveability. That Seattle would even consider a TID is Seattle admitting we
have a problem with pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly streetscapes that can be
improved.

Tax improvement districts that earmark funds for active transportation
projects have been cleared by the governor and state legislature as appropriate
and timely to fund needed projects that drives cities out from under the toxic
cloud of our current transportation model.

At the Federal level, the US Department of Transportation has also shifted
official federal policy. New transportation directives REQUIRE cities and states
to more equitably treat all modes of transportation, not just private motoring
and freight, in the development of transportation infrastructure.

State and federal transportation officials endorse the shift in the
transportation modality of the country, SDOT has positive plans for Seattle.
Why are Seattlites stuck sucking on the tailpipe of provincialist denial?

Joni Balter's column ignores the benefits Seattle or any city can reap for its
citizens quality of life from encouraging a shift towards more active
transportation. A move towards making it easier for Seattlites to get around
under their own power and enjoy outdoor activities along public thoroughfares
will have positive effects on:

Senior mobility, endemic obesity, childhood onset diabetes, air quality, water
pollution of puget sound (largest polluter in Puget Sound is the private
automobile), and intangible increases in quality of life. In the long run this
shift to a liveable city will pay back to Seattle thru decreases in expenditures
related to these serious and chronic social ills.


This is not a question of police or pedestrians. Seattle cannot continue to
operate under a toxic cloud, polluting the Sound, in provincial denial of how to
create a more liveable, walkable, active Seattle. This special tax improvement
district should be met with laudatory approval by the Seattle Times and its
columnists, not derision. "

There was a single-car fatality accident on Nickerson, which was the subject of a bitter fight over road dieting, a few days ago. It was Saturday, Aug 21st, around 9:30 pm; it had been raining, which people sort of forgot about. The guy was doing about 50 mph in a 30 zone, which is what the road diet was put in to stop, hit a wet patch of road, lost control, and hit a tree. I was one the same stretch of road three minutes earlier, leaving a friend's house, and my phone was ringing the entire way home, she was so worried I might have been hit.

People who don't own cars are trying to get a stop sign put in. My friend's neighbor went to planning meetings to get the road diet ( one less car lane, one more bike lane ) even though she doesn't own a bike. Her car was hit, parked on the side of the road, by another driver who was speeding and lost control.

The best way to fight against road diets, is to paint them as for cyclists, instead of for everyone who lives or walks in a given neighborhood.

We all know if you skimp and save the small things like squeeze out all the toothpaste from the tube and scrape all the peanut butter from the jar you will be able to pay for really expensive stuff like a month long vacation in Hawaii.

Well actually people know this as both true and false simultaneously, the article is just a complaint about a perceived waste on something "I'll never use" even thought I know other people who will use it. Government by its very nature has to support not only the big expensive for the majority but all the not so expensive for the minority. Trying to say 80% of the people deserve more then 90% of the funds and only cars have an inalienable right to push cyclists and pedestrains out of the way is absurdly wrong.

Edit: Additional thought, even if you don't get every last bit out of a tube of toothpaste, it does not make buying the next tube of toothpaste impossible. While we all love saving money how good is a sale of buy 100 and get one free?

People who don't own cars are trying to get a stop sign put in.
Studies have shown that stop signs don't calm traffic-something about speeding more to make up lost time.

Very well written, eloquent response.

I do have to admit she kinda had me for the first half, but than she went on to show her distain for active transportation. The "big, bad bicycling lobby". Ha!

to long for a letter to the editor but they might be persuaded to publish it as an op ed piece

First of all this column was not an anti-bike column. It was against a new tax for more/improved cycling/ped infrastructure.

For the past 5-8 years Seattle and other Puget Sound cities have been bending over backward to improve cycling safety, infrastructure and education. The improvement are very noticeable from when I started commuting in Seattle 12+ years ago. In many areas I find the new paint and such over kill and a waste. On the other hand there are some serious safety gaps, but not from lack of money.

McGinn is trying use this special taxing district to appease his pet projects and supporters.

In these tough time cyclists like everyone else need to due with and expect a bit less. The current revenue stream at SDOT for cycling is more than sufficient.

From what I understand, a lot of the monies generated from this TID would go to improvements for all users south of downtown along the waterfront. and a significant rework of that corridor for all road users.


The Seattle Times, with their 'reset 2010' campaign, makes me very suspicious the Times editorial board and the Blethens have taken on some TEA-baggery.

Today's Seattle Times ran an above the fold as the MAIN front page article a 'human interest' story about the parking meter maid. It was a thinly veiled, NIMBY-ist complaint against people having to pay to park their cars in a major metropolitan city. Maybe the Times board thinks parking in downtown should be free, or the city shouldn't collect revenue from illegal parking?

I'm smelling a stinkbomb of the taxed enough already party loose at the Times.

most local daily newspapers other than perhaps the NYT and the LAT pander to the right wing these days

Today's Seattle Times ran an above the fold as the MAIN front page article a 'human interest' story about the parking meter maid.

Yep; they're a quality paper. Tomorrow's main feature is on cows, and how to milk them properly.

When I read her letter I got the picture that she sees the world differently. To me, safe routes for pedestrians (and generally bicycles too, and low speed trucking) are a default. They're there without doing anything special, other than clearing a road.

Then motorists come in and demand special infrastructure. Signals, signage, grading, wide roads, lanes, more lanes, etc. And it costs a lot of money. But they view accommodations to keep these routes safe for others as an extra, that the others should pay for.

I really don't agree with that mindset. And safety for vulnerable road users shouldn't be delayed because "it's a bad economy." When it's a good economy they'll be saying "it could better be used for this expressway which will make 'progress'."

First of all this column was not an anti-bike column. It was against a new tax for more/improved cycling/ped infrastructure.

For the past 5-8 years Seattle and other Puget Sound cities have been bending over backward to improve cycling safety, infrastructure and education. The improvement are very noticeable from when I started commuting in Seattle 12+ years ago. In many areas I find the new paint and such over kill and a waste. On the other hand there are some serious safety gaps, but not from lack of money.

McGinn is trying use this special taxing district to appease his pet projects and supporters.

In these tough time cyclists like everyone else need to due with and expect a bit less. The current revenue stream at SDOT for cycling is more than sufficient.

In 3 paragraphs you made her argument without being anti-cycling. In a dozen she couldn't do that without going on a philosophical tirade against bike funding.

See why it's anti-bike?

And safety for vulnerable road users shouldn't be delayed because "it's a bad economy."


Nothing has been delayed. This proposed tax is on top of several recent tax increases which included significant increases on spending for bike and pedestrian for the past several and many more years to come.

It is a political ploy to appease a couple special interests that DO not represent cyclists nor pedestrians as whole. McGinn is rapidly making a Seattle a far unfriendly city to cycle in. You can read it the papers and feel it on the streets.

- just got an Email from the Seattle Times, they are going to put my letter up at their website later this afternoon.

Boy, two letters to the Seattle Times in a row from me put up at their site.

They must like the quality of the message if not its content, as my commentary is anti-Times .

edited and buried by the times under a misleading heading but at least it got in there!

Bek's letter to the editor (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2012740340_proposedroaddietinlakecity.html)