Aligning goals

Here we go again… Unfortunately, Mr. Swire, there is no evidence bike lanes being safer will cause more folks to leave their cars at home. After all, how are you going to lug 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water on any type of bike? How long will it take millions to commute to their jobs, drop off kids, pick up kids, run errands, etc? Let’s stop trying to justify the discrimination against the much greater number of drivers to benefit a few bike riders who ride mostly for recreation. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t mind seeing bike registration fees so riders pay their fair share in paying for bike infrastructure.

Mike, you say, “We must stop assuming that proposals improving safety for adults and kids who walk and bike negatively impact driver convenience” but removing parking from Humboldt was not only an inconvenience to disabled and elderly residents, it was downright cruel. What would have been better was to align with the community to form a real partnership and agree that not all streets should have bike lanes. Bike lobbyists and activists need to see that growing a community means bringing everyone along so that there truly are “safe streets for everyone.”

Everyone supports “safety for all” and that includes cyclist safety.

What many residents question is the assumption that removing parking, reducing traffic capacity, and spending millions of taxpayer dollars on more experimental bike lanes will somehow reduce traffic congestion. Nonsense.

After years of experimental bike lane installations, where is the evidence that traffic congestion has improved or that enough drivers have abandoned their cars to justify the expense and impacts on residents, businesses, seniors, and visitors?

These questions become even more important when the City is simultaneously discussing budget shortfalls and potential tax increases.

Before asking taxpayers for more money, shouldn't city leaders first demonstrate that previous bike lane investments have delivered the promised results?

Despite years of expansion, many bike lanes remain hardly used, empty for much of the day while traffic congestion continues to increase making everyone’s lives more difficult and costly.

In fact, cyclists are frequently seen riding outside designated lanes, choosing routes that best fit their destinations.

Meanwhile, the rapid growth of e-bikes and changing mobility patterns raise legitimate questions about whether today's costly bike lane experiments will remain relevant in our tomorrow.

Most residents still rely on automobiles because work, school, shopping, and family responsibilities make bicycling impractical for many trips.

More people moving to San Mateo County does not automatically mean they will give up their cars and become cyclists. The unused bike lane experiments have proven this.

Transportation policy should be guided by measurable results, not wishful thinking.

Before removing more car lanes and parking spaces to build additional bike facilities, city leaders should publicly demonstrate that existing projects are producing significant increases in ridership and meaningful reductions in traffic congestion.

Everyone supports safety. But good public policy starts with evidence.

Show us the data Mike-the-vice chair of the C/CAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Surely you have the data – right?

Curious that "JoeBob" isn't weighing on on this LTE.

There are only three solutions to mankind that are known to "mitigate congestion:"

1. Natural Transportation as in "the simple bike lane".

2. Public Transportation in the form of train track or bus lanes.

3. Congestion Pricing.

All these solutions have been tried, tested and succeeded on all continents.

CA law even states since 2013 that "congestion" can only be fixed by "reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT).