My daily commute has already been effect by one bike lane addition.
Looks like a second one is planned as well. In over 15 years of driving this route twice daily, I can't say I've ever seen anyone riding their bike up the big ass hill to 15th Ave NE.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012625760_125thstreet15m.html

On this with you I will disagree.

While statistically most riders who do battle with a two ton automobile have the greatest risk of injury or death. It does not mean that riders are the only party at risk.

If I have to swerve to avoid a rider coming around a blind corner who is riding at night, in the rain, and 5ft on the wrong side of the white line. Then I now run the risk of flying off the road or colliding with another vehicle.

We can agree though, there are dangerous drivers and riders.

It shows a great disregard for human safety and reflects a deeply selfish individual.

They both piss me off.

"each commuter cyclist is ONE less car on the road."

This is assuming a cyclist owns a car and would drive it if not commuting by bike. My assumption is that a commuter cyclist lives close enough to their work that they have other options to riding a bike or driving a car like walking. Also, clogged freeways are the congestion issue not clogged neighborhood streets. A commuter cyclist if he chose to drive would not typically be using the freeway as his driving distance is not great. To me it's a pie in the sky idea of utopia akin to taking away bathrooms and assuming people will pee less. Although I don't live in Seattle or even King County I get tired of my tax dollars being used against me. If Seattle were truly on their game they would encourage businesses to not locate downtown. Hypocrisy.

I also assume that a commuter cyclist is going to be a commuter cyclist with or without bike lanes.

Spoken like a true teabagger!!!

125th is an arterial if I'm not mistaken. Adding a bike lane probably makes sense, but not at the expense of removing a motor vehicle lane. I avoid riding on a lot of major urban arterial streets specifically because I think it's hazardous to bike there, usually because speed, traffic volume, and layout makes it less likely that drivers will see me.

Stlhead,

Some who commute on bikes don't own cars, but surveys in many areas (Seattle, Oly) show that they do. I can drive to work in 15 minutes, bike in 30 minutes, take the bus in an hour and 15 minutes, or walk in 2 hours. With options like that, driving and biking are reasonable. A bus in Seattle is probably more feasible than where I live, but this gives a range. Bike lanes make a difference if you consider my comments about riding on arterial streets.

And if businesses don't locate downtown, what alternative is there but to add to urban sprawl? And everyone complains about how sprawl degrades the environment and generally adds to overall traffic congestion.

It seems like the real issue is what are the feasible transportation alternatives with a rapidly increasing human population and densely populated areas? Transportation engineers finally figured out that single occupant cars and trucks are not on the short list of feasible alternatives; yet that is exactly what a majority of people appear to want, a choice that no longer belongs on the menu.

Sg

SG,
You are correct, 125th is an arterial. The best two options for getting to LC way are either 125th or 145th. Taking away a lane of traffic will likely shift more cars to 145th, increase congestion there.
Adding a bike lane to 125th is a foolish decision IMHO.

They recently did the same thing on westbound 130th between Aurora and Greenwood. In the afternoon, the place is a complete cluster. One lane now ends abruptly, replaced by a bike lane. Folks are now forced to turn right or get over quickly into the now single through lane. I've seen several accidents and many near misses since they put in the bike lane.
I find it hard to see the benefit of removing an arterial lane of traffic for a bike lane that is about a total of about eight blocks long.....

The mayor and everyone else pushing bikes and mass transit are doing all of us a favor. The days of everyone driving cars everywhere , big 4 x4's, 5th wheels and gas hog boats are numbered and economically extinct.

So we've learned that SG is a tweaker riding a stolen bike and dodging cars that are trying to take him out. Do you have a bell and basket? Pee Wee Herman road a bike every where..... just saying.

Even cramming people onto buses ceases to be a solution if we are reducing lanes. Until they fix the true problem which is the I-5 bottle neck and on/off ramps on both sides of the freeway there is no solution other than feel good stuff.

Really?
I'm sure my customers will be glad to wait for me while I take the bus or ride my bike from Kirkland to Seattle to see them.

Hey, I resent that remark! I've never used meth, and none of my bikes are stolen. Nor do I have a bell or basket, but I do have panniers for my mountain bike for a stealth steelheading trip I've been planning. Nor do I dodge many cars, believing as I do that effective cycling means riding responsibly by following traffic laws.

No argument that I-5 has a vicious bottleneck, but thinking it's possible to build our way out of urban traffic congestion strongly indicates that you're not up to speed on the subject. WA could raise the state gas tax by $1.00 a gallon, and it wouldn't be enough additional money to eliminate traffic congestion. You could take the Click & Clack approach and advocate completely paving America, so that you can ostensibly drive anywhere, anytime, ala Fish Prince, but if everything is paved, then there is no where to go that is worth going. Just saying . . .

Sg