Good bicycle infrastructure needed on California Drive

They tried fewer cars during the pandemic, that led to more speeding, more crashes, more work and more cost for safety workers. So that didn't work. With all the people apparently fleeing the state, working from home, layoffs, empty offices, empty downtowns, you would expect fewer people should have fewer needs to go anywhere. And still the highways and freeways and local streets are up to pre-pandemic levels. And somehow drivers just seem to like backups. They meet in backups on 4 lane, 10 lane, 22 lane highways; the most congested highway in the USA is Katy Freeway with 26 lanes. The more lanes they added, the more congested it got.

People don't drive their cars because they need to, they drive because they can and driving and parking is highly subsidized and therefore cheap. "Have you heard about this new fancy coffee shop over in Alameda? You should totally try and instagram it when you're there." "The bubbli tea in Mountain View is so much better than the one in Brisbane, I saw that on yelp".

You take away some lanes and people go back to the nearest fastfood restaurant and closest coffee shop instead of the 'fancier' one three counties over. You take away a few lanes and people switch back to public transport or their bicycles, which gets more cars of the street, which reduces congestion. But for that to happen they need to create those bus lanes and bike lanes first.

Okay, easygerd, I’ll bite. How many more crashes were caused? How much more work and more cost for safety workers? Where’s the data? Chances are they’ll have cherry-picked assumptions/methodology to make their case. People don't drive their cars because they need to? So the folks commuting miles away to work don’t need to? Folks don’t need to carry bags of groceries and IKEA flatpacks home, especially uphill? You say highways and freeways and local streets are up to pre-pandemic levels and that makes perfect sense because the pandemic is over. They have places to go – like to work and to grocery stores and to IKEA.

Your approach is that you’d rather restrict folks going out to patronize out of local area shops and restaurants by imposing road diets? Not very equitable or inclusive... By taking away a few lanes, in addition to not taking any cars off the street, you’d likely add more congestion on those and neighboring streets because folks may opt for other thoroughfares. And of course, let’s not forget the added, wasted time dealing with anticipated consequences from the mistake of imposing a road diet in the first place. To wit, North Central.

For data I recommend the websites of NTSB, NHTSA, or U.S. DOT

For the rest I give you three possible answers, you tell me which you like most.

NIMBY: America is a free country, people are allowed to choose where they live and where they want to work. Low-income people living on the Peninsula don't have to drive far to find a low-income job. Those are right here and if rich people want to drive to Oakland for a few dollars more, it's their right, but it's also their problem. Why do I need to pay for that with my tax money?

YIMBY: Built more offices here, built only high-density luxury housing locally. Subsidize regional transportation (freeways, caltrain, bart) and free parking as much as possible - we don't want to burden these Developers or rich people with that. Then somehow and some way, this will eventually trickle down and low-income people will benefit from that too ... maybe ... sort off.

Urbanist: any city needs to create a balance of jobs, shopping, schools, churches, parks, etc. close by. Cities are responsible for local traffic to get to these points-of-interest. Everything needs to be available close-by so people can walk and bike there. This requires nice sidewalks, car-free areas, bike lanes, bus lanes. For a city it's better to subsidize local, affordable housing for "essential" workers than paying for regional transportation for rich professionals, who could also work from home. If the county wants to push for regional transportation, let them manage and pay for those regional projects with Caltrans money. Local transportation funding needs to go to local projects.

Two for one… easygerd, let’s try this again, where I give you reality and you tell me where you stand, but let me summarize. Did North Central folks lose hundreds of parking spaces because some San Mateo councilmembers thought they knew better (and wanted to use “free” money before they lost it)? Yes. Are San Mateo councilmembers wasting more time and money to clean up the mess of their predecessors? Yes. Are folks continuing to think they know better in putting cars on road-diets? Yes, a la Burlingame. Are folks okay with more pollution? Apparently yes, regardless of whether they’re NIMBY, YIMBY, Urbanist, or none of the above.

And check other websites for data? Well I put a few seconds more effort than you did with your response and guess what I found? Report conclusions that say “may” or “might” which means their conclusions “may not” or “might not” occur. Way to hedge their bets… Instead of providing answers to questions not asked and instead of trying to change the narrative by categorizing or labeling people or creating your version of utopia, why won’t you answer a few of my simple questions related to lives being lived now, by NIMBYs, YIMBYs, Urbanists, or none of the above? Happy Go Fly a Kite Day!

easygerd – you know what else gets you up any hill, at just about any altitude? A car. And a car easily holds two, or even 20 bags or more of groceries along with flatpacks from IKEA. And with a car, the only problems people with disabilities or seniors may have are in unloading their groceries/flatpacks.

Sure, I love my car too, but what does that have to do with bike lanes?

Did anybody tell you that once there are bike lanes, THEY will be coming for your car?

If so, you might have been fallen for an April's Fool joke.

Unfortunately, easygerd, the joke’s on North Central folks who lost hundreds of parking spaces for bike lanes because some San Mateo councilmembers thought they knew better (and wanted to use “free” money before they lost it). Now look where we’re at. Current San Mateo councilmembers waste more time and money to clean up the mess of their predecessors. I guess the joke’s on them, too. A cautionary tale, yet folks continue to think they know better in putting cars on road-diets. Of course, if you’re okay with more pollution, please continue.

Let's try that again, where I give you three possible answers and you tell me where you stand:

NIMBY: I don't mind if people have too many cars, but they should make sure they can provide their own parking spots or pay for more. I want my transportation tax dollars going to transportation projects like fixing potholes and not to finance free car storage for rich people.

YIMBY: "unbundling of parking" - we don't want to burden these poor developers or landlords with the cost of providing free car storage. Society should take over and pay for storage of excess private vehicles.

Urbanist: According to San Mateo County information North Central is regarded an "Equity Focus Area".

quote: "The equity focus areas use U.S. Census data to identify areas with many low-income households, people of color, households without access to a vehicle, and households burdened by housing and transportation costs, compared to other areas in San Mateo County."

Basically the more people you have in a household without access to a car, the more parents and children in that neighborhood need to get to their jobs or neighborhood schools by bicycle.

or in short "Equity Focus Area" means "low-income children deserve bike lanes too." After adding the bike lanes, the city can decide how to organize the space. One great way is to use parked car as traffic calming device. Now you have a two-in-one solution.