Another way of looking at bike lane decision

On “kowtowing”: The City Council followed its own Bicycle Master Plan and Vision Zero commitment by reaffirming bike lanes on Humboldt. That’s not kowtowing — that’s implementing adopted policy after extensive public process.

On “dangerous and little used”: The bike lane moves our neighbors biking off of the sidewalk and separates them from car traffic. Usage data from the city shows steady and growing rider counts. “Little used” often means “I personally don’t see it when I’m driving,” however, the city’s actual counts tell a different story.

On “200 parking spots”: The project removed approximately 100 spots on Humboldt, not 200. Every lot on Humboldt has off-street parking, garages and/or parklets, while trading under-utilized curb parking for safer infrastructure benefits all road users, whether they drive, bike or walk.

On “one-way conversion and alternative parking”: These are active discussions. Converting to one-way would restore significant parking while also keeping the bike lane.

On “circling for parking”: This is genuinely frustrating, and I understand why residents are upset. But North Central’s parking challenges predate this bike lane, and removing safety infrastructure won’t solve the underlying issue of high parking demand.

On “the rift”: I share Tim’s lament. But the rift isn’t caused by bike lanes — it’s caused by framing transportation safety as a zero-sum battle. We’re all residents who want safe streets. Some of us just want the option to not drive for every trip.

Max Mautner

San Mateo