2 weeks Ago
By Mozelle Sutton I am tired of people who say you are against progress if they don’t agree with what they support. I am tired of people declaring that if you don’t want bikes on Iris, you just don’t care about safety. I am tired of hearing that objections to a road diet on Iris are because it will increase travel time.
These assertions are illogical and basically not true. Yes, Iris should be made safer and more convenient for people to use . This can be done without adding protected bike lanes.
Bikers don’t need to be on Iris. They have other alternatives. I have attended all community outreach meetings where people were asked for feedback.
However, I learned that it didn’t really matter what you thought, because the City Council had apparently already instructed the transportation department to develop plans for protected bike lanes on Iris whether we want or need them. After my recent visit to New York City, I found their bike lanes a nightmare to navigate. At intersections with bike lanes going in both directions, a pedestrian has to look both ways several times and hope they get across the street safely.
There were bikes, scooters, e-bikes and cars coming from all directions. That’s not safer for all . The Boulder City Council likes to compare Boulder to other cities with protected bike lanes with hopes that it will discourage drivers and they will hop on a bike instead.
Many of these other cities have better mass transportation systems than just our RTD buses. Council should maybe work on that problem first. Transportation staff and the City Council keep talking about all the crashes that have occurred on Iris.
The fact is that over an 8-year period, there have been 22 crashes between pedestrians and bikes with 45% of them occurring at 26th and Folsom. So, fix the intersections. A large number of car crashes can be addressed by reducing speeding.
So, reduce speeding. Some crashes occurred because of icy roads. So, keep the roads in better condition.
I was told by transportation staff that 100 bikes and pedestrians use Iris per day . They said this was based on a count done over one 14-hour day. I was also told these bikers or pedestrians were either on or crossing Iris.
That’s a little misleading. Perhaps, they were just crossing to access another bike or walking route. Not a large sampling either.
The reason given for not putting bikes on Kalmia (as explained at the last community meeting) is that Kalmia is not straight. Yes, it has curves. Yes, bikers would have to cross small streets to connect to bike routes.
Bikers would have to cross streets no matter which route they take. Yes, it might take bikers a little longer, just as it would take cars a little longer with a road diet. Is that a logical argument? Bike routes can and should be made safer and clearly marked on side streets like Kalmia, Grape and Glenwood.
More cars than bikers now use Iris and that number will increase in the near future with the additional housing being built and commuters working in Boulder. In my opinion, a road diet is not recommended for the traffic volume (over 20,000 cars/day) Iris already has. Slow, congested traffic adds pollution.
Just because you reduce lanes, doesn’t mean traffic will decrease. Cars won’t disappear. Iris is a major east/west street.
There is no other alternative in north Boulder. Reduced lanes could create additional problems for delivery personnel and buses. Progress that makes sense is great, but I don’t see the logic in spending money to accommodate a small group of bikers or to win design awards.
Fix Iris don’t break it! I hope with all the engineers, staff and consultants they have, the city can find another way to make Iris safer without putting protected bike lanes on Iris. Save us all some money and headaches and find another option. We all need to be more careful who we vote for in the future.
Mozelle Sutton lives in Boulder..
