That headline was designed to hector Seattle because we know how awful it is for this part of the world to be compared to New York City. But showing Seattle how New York does something better seems to produce results (the M's notwithstanding). This time they're creating truly bike-friendly streets.
It's always been unbelievable to us how Seattle presents itself as an uber-environmentally friendly city, while drivers clog the freeways in Hummers, voters kill the monorail, and when we finally get some real mass rapid transit built, the vote on a proposed expansion of it is tied to expanding highways as well, which drives the County Executive who continually puts his neck on the line for transit to take no position on the initiative.
Bikes though, should be a no-brainer around here. They're low impact on the environment, good for our health, fun, and don't add to traffic congestion.
Now we've been deeply involved in some of the skirmishes between bicycle riders and drivers in this city, missed being slammed by a car door more times than we can count, and have taken our life into our hands trying to merge around countless SUVs after crossing the Ballard Bridge. So it's not entirely surprising to us that although Seattle's Master Bike Plan is one of the best steps forward for bike riders in the States, it falls way short of Europe, where physical barriers are the norm as far as on-road lanes go.
What does surprise us is that New York City is putting in bike lanes that physically separate riders from drivers. There are a variety of issues that need to be fixed on the region's bike system, and Seattle's Master Bike Plan is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.
You'd think that the mayor of a "green" city such as ours, who is trying to be the greenest mayor in the states, would have been all over an idea like this one. But no, instead, he's let us down and allowed us to be beat out by New York City again.
Yes, it costs more money to build a barrier between bikes and cars to create "a complete, continuous, interconnected network of named bicycle roads or 'tracks,' each marked and lit, each governed by traffic signs and signals of its own." (via) But doing so has amazing benefits including the ability to move six times more people per meter of lane width than motorized lanes. That's a lot more people moving around a lot faster than they do in our current traffic congestion quagmire.
Not here though. Here, we might get some new lanes on some roads (if business doesn't have its way) and meanwhile, New York City's mayor is looking more and more like a truly green candidate for president we could get behind.
The picture is called "Capitol Hill" and was taken by Chona Kasinger who gracefully added it to the Seattlest Photo Pool.

Isabella Rossellini Brings Green Porno to Benaroya


I don't think that this is an all-too fair comparasion. NYC's tax base is much higher, as is it's population, and therefor bike-ridership. Yes, we love bikes. Yes, we should do more. But to redo so much surface level streets would be a HUGE project and cost millions of dollars. We should take it one step at a time and not think we're a bigger city than we are.
The bikes would only help those, really, in the city (or diehards). Let's make trains, then move on.
Perhaps city government (and residents) would be more hospitable to better bicycle traffic solutions if more bicyclists obeyed existing laws. I'm a bicyclist myself, and just biked to work this morning- stopping at red lights, using hand signals, turning on my flashers to help visibility in the drizzle. Yet driving around Capitol Hill the other night, I nearly took out a couple of hipsters because they were too damn cool to follow any of these simple rules- or even bother putting lights or reflectors on their fixies while busy giving the finger to cars that can't spot their black-clad asses zipping through red lights.
Couple that with the supercilious activists, or the spandex club running down pedestrians on the Burke (http://seattlest.com/2007/09/25/the_burkegilman.php), and it's small wonder that people aren't more supportive of bicycles.
A few bad apples can spoil the barrel.
Statistics like those are calculated usually as a percentage, which would render the fact that NYC is bigger pointless. And how does NYC's tax base or population make bike ridership higher?
I think Seattle is a slouch on this subject - I just moved here a few months ago from NYC and am astonished at how few bike lanes there are, how inconsiderate drivers are, etc. I thought it would be easier to bike here but it's not.
To the unnamed guest commenter, you are 100% right. I'm a bike rider too and am often disgusted at the holier than thou attitude I encounter on the part of other bike riders. And the post you refer to made me angry too. The trail is not just for bike riders or walkers. It's for us all and should be used as such. We, as bike riders, need to act as responsible users of the road and share it with all other users of the road.
Before I get shouted down (as I was here) I also think that drivers in this country should be a lot more considerate of bike riders than they are. The basic premise of the post that I just linked to is that this culture is focused on getting from point A to point B as fast as possible and that has made cars more important than any other form of transport and that's just wrong. I agree with that.
Matt and Troy, I also point you to Sightline's series on "car head" thinking (linked above) and the affects on biking in Cascadia. I agree with you Matt. This city should be leaps and bounds beyond New York City already because this is the Pacific Northwest, bastion of environmentalism and liberal thought. There should already have been the political will to make things like this happen. But when it comes down to it, Seattle is still America and people here are too comfortable driving to make any changes.