"It still seems that the main resentment toward bikes in this thread is that motorists see themselves as being inconvenienced by the presence of bikes on the road."
Not from me. My resentment is the removal of capacity and using our dollars to do it. You ask Metro or Community Transit and they want ridership and more buses yet the elected dope is reducing their ability to navigate.
Where is it written that delibrately removing road capacity for cars, buses and trucks improves transportation? Explain how 125th NE, a long extemely large hill, needed to be reduced to two lanes and two bike lanes that NEVER get used because it's a long ass steep hill that nobody wants to ride a bike on? This mayor and the dopes supporting him have gotta go. I wish I could vote him out but I will never live in King County let alone Seattle again.
While trying to figure out why McGinn was building bike lanes on the eastside I came across an interesting blog entry that might answer some questions about NE 125th.
http://seattlebikeblog.com/2011/08/24/bl...-125th-project/It seems NE 125th isn't McGinn's baby and this 'road diet' stuff isn't just about bikes. In W. Seattle they recently finished one of these projects on a portion of Fauntleroy and it's actually a big improvement over what was there previously. It's sort of counter-intuitive, but sometimes taking lanes out improves traffic flow, especially on urban arterials.