Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to cancel Belgrade Road buffered bike-lane project, citing cost and traffic concerns
Summary
Two residents asked the council to cancel a city project (No. 2329316) to reduce lanes and install buffered bike lanes on Belgrade Road, citing escalating project costs, low apparent bike use on other recent facilities, and increased traffic demands from regional employers.
Two Redmond residents urged the City Council on March 18 to cancel a planned buffered bike-lane project on Belgrade Road (project number 2329316), arguing the lane reduction would harm traffic capacity and that past high-cost bike investments did not demonstrably increase ridership.
Mauricio Palacio, who identified himself as a 30-year Redmond resident, described the project as a southbound reduction from two vehicle lanes to one to accommodate a buffered bike lane and cited the project budget as escalating from about $1.7 million to $3.8 million and now to $5.7 million in the city documents he referenced. "What will this project cost at the very end?" Palacio asked the council and urged cancellation.
Palacio urged the council to study whether earlier projects — he named the Redmond Central Connector and a shared-use path on Northeast 40th Street — actually produced sustained increases in bicycle ridership before the city spends on another similar project. He said he personally bikes 40–70 miles a week and rarely sees other riders on those routes.
Haley Fosseo (identified in the meeting as Palacio’s daughter) added that downtown traffic will increase because of Microsoft campuses and other development and said the existing sidewalk could be improved instead of reducing vehicular capacity. Both speakers asked that the council pause or cancel the Belgrade Road buffered-bike-lane plan.
Ending: The remarks were part of the public-comment period and not a council agenda item; council members and staff did not take formal action in response during the meeting and referred public comment concerns to staff for follow-up as appropriate.
