I’m shocked. Shocked, I say! To read that a motorist feels that “their” money is being used improperly to fund anything other than their God-given right to operate their two tons of metal, rubber and plastic just to carry their lone self wherever they want to go.
No, actually I’m not shocked at all. In truth, this misguided refrain is all too common from uneducated motorists when the topic of transportation spending comes up. First of all, the claim that “the 520 bridge is paid for by drivers” is simply false. Even in the case of this project, where tolls are being charged to help pay for the project, driver contributions are only a small part of the overall funding. The SR 520 project summary lists “tolling and future federal funding” together, at $1.65 billion of the expected total $4.3 billion cost. At the current rate of approximately 3-to-1 state-to-federal funding, that means that tolling contributes less than $650 million of the multi-billion dollar total project cost.
Never mind the fact that many people who ride bikes and many who drive in the HOV lane, also pay tolls when they drive across the bridge instead of riding their bikes.
Secondly, and more important, the claim that “it will not help with reducing congestion” is just plain wrong. Features like HOV and bike lanes both are proven to reduce congestion by removing motor vehicles from the road. That leaves more road capacity for the remaining drivers who continue to drive solo. Oh, and take a guess as to which of those two, the HOV lane or the bike lane, costs vastly more per mile than the other to construct and maintain.
Even the HOV lane is a worthwhile investment, and the bike lane, in any of its various incarnations, is an incredibly cheap investment for the benefit it provides.
If there’s a travesty here it’s that municipalities like Kirkland continue to ignore the potential of building transportation infrastructure that supports modes other than the single-occupant motor vehicle. Bike lanes in Kirkland, assuming they are present at all, are striped at or below minimum widths, next to parking margins that are themselves too narrow for the average driver to succeed in parking their vehicle entirely outside the bike lane zone, making the bike lane an ineffective tool to keep cyclists safely away from traffic. There’s zero enforcement of laws prohibiting drivers from using the bike lane for parking or travel. Kirkland’s own police department executes traffic stops in bike lanes rather than requiring drivers to pull over in a non-travel lane.
In this environment, it’s no wonder relatively few people use a bike for transportation in Kirkland.
But when a city builds real bike infrastructure, with separated paths, controlled intersections and proper enforcement, it turns out that people increase to a dramatic degree their use of bikes as alternatives for motor vehicles. This has been demonstrated in every single city that has made a concerted effort to support cycling as a safe and efficient alternative to motor vehicles. Ironically, even on roads where motor vehicle lanes are removed in order to accommodate the bike infrastructure, traffic flow of the remaining motor vehicles is improved. Fewer vehicles and better organized traffic flows translate into better utilization of the roadway that remains.
So next time someone starts whining about how dollars are being spent for something other than the asphalt under the tires of their single-occupant vehicle, remember that those dollars are invariably a far more efficient way to help move people and property around than the dollars that person would rather have you spend. And who knows? Maybe one day Kirkland will start making that kind of investment, instead of the lip-service we get today.
Peter Duniho, Kirkland
