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