Ignoring the road safety risks experienced by cyclists and pedestrians was key to the city’s Sustainable Transportation Plan when it began five years ago. Regular cyclists were dismissed as strong and fearless, thus not needing safety improvements. The highest priority was reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the attractiveness of non-motorized travel.

That was a powerful argument. Many cyclists bike partly because they want to help the climate. Dismissing the importance of safety for cyclists has continued. Last month a councilmember said improvements she favored for Eagle Harbor Drive would not be for serious cyclists. No one disagreed.

The section of Eagle Harbor Drive at the head of the bay has high auto and cycling traffic and may be the most dangerous short road section on Bainbridge Island. Like most of the main roads on BI, there is nowhere for cyclists to be other than the auto lanes. The same holds for pedestrians. Motorists must patiently go slow behind them or violate the law and risk a crash by crossing the double-yellow line to pass them.

Making roads more attractive for non-motorized travel remains the top priority in the transportation plan. For Eagle Harbor Drive, it comes down to adding a path adjacent to the road in which cyclists and pedestrians go in both directions, as opposed to putting a simple shoulder on each side of the road. That contrasts with the shoulders on Wyatt Way, the steep part of Bucklin Hill, and the new improvements on eastern Eagle Harbor Drive.

The safety of a bi-directional path is debatable. Several cyclists have claimed such a path would be perfectly safe. Others believe it would be dangerous, especially with the hills and intersections in that road section. The danger in bi-directional paths was also described to councilmembers by an international expert on nonmotorized transportation.

No one has questioned the safety of shoulders on both sides of the road. Would the supposed attractiveness of a short, bi-directional path reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The path would create fear in many commuting cyclists, whom the city praises for reducing greenhouse gas emissions now. Any transportation impact would depend on extending it to Winslow, adding to or destroying the fairly new shoulders on Wyatt, at great cost with no safety improvement.

The city’s track record in analyzing the impact of the Sustainable Transportation Plan on greenhouse gas emissions is dismal. The Sound to Olympics Trail is an example. The city praises the trail and is promoting its extension to Agate Bridge. If there is any significant travel on the trail, we have yet to see it.

The advisory committee responsible for measuring the performance of climate actions has been silent on this. It has also been silent on whether the extension will reduce auto travel enough to cover the environmental costs of its construction, maintenance and tree cutting, much less justify the financial costs over alternative road safety improvements.

Last year’s choice in the overall direction of the plan was also analytically silent. One alternative, Scenario 2, sought to imitate the STO Trail in several routes from Winslow to Lynwood and Island centers and Rolling Bay, assuming the upcoming comprehensive plan calls for substantial growth in the latter two.

The other alternative, Scenario 3, would increase road safety throughout BI by about five times the mileage of Scenario 2.

I asked whether the evaluation of the alternatives compared their benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I was told that was not possible. I was also told that it was an unfair question. The city chose Scenario 2.

For road safety, the plan says the Core 40 bicycle network is a major asset. The Core 40 consists of basic shoulders that increase safety by allowing cyclists and pedestrians to stay out of auto lanes on the busiest 40 miles of roads. Unfortunately, it is not an asset, because most of it does not exist.

The city’s budget is a small but good step toward the Core 40. Projects funded for Eagle Harbor Drive and Bucklin Hill Road could dramatically increase safety on the main connection between Winslow and the south end of BI. Unfortunately, the strongest believers in the Sustainable Transportation Plan want the improvements built in a way that can reduce safety and have no discernable impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Peter Harris was on the Squeaky Wheels board for five years and president for two. He also was a planner, budget analyst and legislative analyst for Seattle for 30 years. As such he was involved with transportation plans for environmental quality and public safety.