It's interesting that in the greater scheme of things, it is the bicyclist community that is upset that ODOT and WSDOT want to build a replacement bridge for the Interstate Bridge, claiming that Olympia and Salem are out-of-touch with the locals who like bicycles - as a result we have a convoluted, large LOCAL process with much deferrence to those in downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island and North Portland as to the design of the bridge.
But, when the bicyclists want a bike lane in someone else's neighborhood (Lombard Avenue) they have no problem crying foul and demanding that the local residents have no right to argue against the negative aspects of the proposal; and that their views (given that it is Beaverton, it's likely that many of the supporters aren't even residents within city limits) are more important as part of the "greater good" than the concerns of locals.
Which is it? If local opinion is important, then why aren't the bicyclists working WITH residents to ensure that there is no loss of parking access; and that pedestrian safety (accessing cars parked on the opposite side of the street) is addressed? What about area lighting, that seems to be an issue as well that would benefit BOTH SIDES!!!
If "the greater good" is more important...then I implore the BTA and other bicycling advocacy groups to stop stonewalling projects like the CRC and let the damn thing get built. So what if it increases traffic - it's for the "greater good", as determined by hundreds of elected officials who manage a federally funded and recognized, bi-state highway that does not belong to either Portland, Vancouver, Multnomah County, Clark County, TriMet or Metro.
It's arguments like this that make me want to take my bike and throw it in the river. Seriously. I do not want to be associated with these loonies who have no respect for other people and the process. I enjoy having bike paths but like anything in life there are winners and losers - how do we get it to happen without losers?