Bike lanes generate an endless debate

Save the street parking

I really appreciate John Horgan’s frank assessment of the concerns with putting bike lanes on some streets, thanks John. Loss of street parking for bike lanes I’ve long seen as a poor compromise. If a street can’t accommodate traffic flow, street parking and protected bike lanes, I don’t think bike lanes belong on that street.

Rather, the bike lanes should be along its sidewalk.

Every country I’ve been to where bike transport successfully replaces car trips, urban bike networks are primarily alongside sidewalks.

Don’t get me wrong. On-street bike lanes are useful, including locally. E-device and “strong & confident” riders love them and are appropriate places for them to ride. And street parking needs will continue to fall with increased car-share use. So wherever on-street bike lanes fit reasonably well into traffic flow, they should be a no-brainer to include.

But on-street bike lanes will never accommodate the mass of “interested but concerned” riders, those eager to ride, just not right next to cars — at least not enough of them to save our community’s health, sanity and quality of life. Certainly not as long as drivers continue to drive distracted and rushed.

A paved path network along primary routes to schools and community amenities must feel safe enough

… to let my 9-year-old bike independently,

…to get my 70-year old mom on her trike and my elderly neighbor on his mobility scooter to the grocery store,

…for my 14-year old and her friends to skate together,

…for my friend’s son with special needs to ride his adaptive bike,

…and for runners and jogging strollers everywhere.

Safe, off-street passage for slower/younger/older riders using bikes and wheels for transportation is a social imperative.

It’s not whether to accommodate bike lanes, it’s where. Poll residents along the route—do they prefer keeping street parking access or the sidewalk easement area as is? It will need to be one or the other, but their preference matters especially.

That said, the off-street, sidewalk-adjacent, paved paths will almost always be a better, parking-preserving choice for the majority of streets. And I guarantee everyone, eventually, will have reason to use, appreciate, and thrive because of them.

—Sonia Elkes, San Carlos

"they’re pretty much redundant. That’s because there are already parallel bike lanes just a few dozen yards away on Carolan Avenue. It’s a very similar amenity (though the most recent lanes are better protected from traffic) on the same corridor separated only by the Caltrain rail line."

In that area are an estimated 60 car lanes going north-south and yet when 2 bike lanes - in different neighborhoods - are going the same direction, we call it redundancy?

We should never forget that "driving" a car is in the same category as activities like smoking tobacco, smoking weed, getting drunk, betting, gambling. The Framers made sure we pay for driving with the sinner's or Vice Taxes, like any of those other low-life activities that lead to addiction.

So whenever you try to defend car lanes over healthy active transportation lanes, remember it's the same as defending your bad smoking habit or your need for alcohol.

It does not sound as cool as one might think, defending cars and driving just shows a lack of willpower.

Streets are made for Transportation! Period.

When did it become OK for "Squatters, Rankers, and Dead Parkers" to just randomly take over a massive amount of public property for their Private Car Storage?

So far in San Mateo bike lanes have NOT taken away even one lane for cars, buses, or trucks. In every single case I know, it was "Traffic Calming" that has done that.

The steps are always:

Step 1: excessive speeding and reckless driving leads to community concern.

Step 2: staff finally recognizes that two lanes lead to drag races, so they take one down.

Step 3: now there is space for bike lanes and more "private car storage"

Now if bike lanes and safety of residents were of any concern for city staff or San Mateo Democrats in general, we would be seeing:

A) far better bike lanes, mostly separated and protected

B) a solid network of bike lanes so people can actually get anywhere

Red states and red states cities are actually doing that now, as do Europe's greatest cities. Only San Mateo Democrats keep preventing it, while also taking money from big oil.

Since we don't see A nor B, we know "traffic calming" is the main course to take away driving lanes. It's just easier to blame a silent minority instead of the massive amount of speeders and reckless drivers.