In an effort to understand the various claims about the city’s plans for a road diet on Island Crest Way, I found links to two sketches of alternative implementations on the city’s Web site:

www.mercergov.org/files/C3.pdf

www.mercergov.org/files/B2.pdf

Surprisingly, both sketches call for “shared bicycle lanes” on Island Crest Way. These shared lanes appear to force bicycles to merge with a single lane of traffic carrying a higher volume of fast-moving automobiles just as Island Crest Way intersects with Merrimount. Am I reading this correctly?

The letters in the Reporter this week underscore that few residents know what the road diet will actually look like. Yet supporters are certain that it will be cheaper, safer, and will only slow traffic by “10 seconds.”

Others say that it will drive more traffic to East and West Mercer Way, and that road diets are inappropriate for the heavy volume of traffic on Island Crest Way. Bicyclists wonder why the existing problems on East, West and North Mercer Way are not a priority, and express little interest in riding along Island Crest Way. Yet most residents I’ve talked to think the road diet is a lock.

Given this apparent confusion, hopefully the city will proactively inform MI residents what plans are being considered, and what the effects will be on the entire Island, including East and West Mercer Way, before this issue comes before the City Council on Dec. 3.

Not all of us agree on the road diet or even the solution for ICW/Merrimount, and there is no way that we can understand the decision that the city is making if we don’t have access to a full description of the plans and the considerations driving this decision.

Jim Stanton