San Jose Plan for bike paths on 3rd and 4th sts

Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to create such a well written blog posting. I am one of the SVBC board members that was there that night; there was at least one SVBC staff member there as well. (note: these comments below are mine alone and do not represent any official or unofficial SVBC opinion)

I share your concern about two things: being hit by doors and this information not being spread more widely in the previous months. I feel if it was spread more that there might have been more vibrant discussion. I've stated at the meeting that I (personally) feel like we need significantly more awareness and education training for all, no matter what gets implemented. And that clear signage (via road and signs) on all different types of bike infrastructure would help.

In the case of the bike lanes on the left and right side of the streets, I think bicyclists and cars will get used to that.. there are advantages as riders turn onto San Fernando, etc with this setup. However I do see how there may be confusion... and how drivers need to be aware of cyclists as they open their doors, drive, enter and exit driveways and enter/exit intersections, etc.

I'm sure Jesse is correct in stating that there are very few incidents of "doorings." But this may also be because our mode share of cyclists is so commensurately low versus some other cities. Your fear is reasonable... if we increase the amount of cyclists on these roads, will we have a significant increase of "doorings?"

But since this grant has restrictions ... and the city has budget issues... I feel these grants are the ONLY way for the city to build these bike lanes. The "silver lining" is that these grants will provide learning opportunities and that if the SJ DOT puts up portable signs and other warning devices that drivers can be made aware (and hopefully we'll not get increased accidents). Some increased police presence may be needed as well.

I do hope that we can install more bike lanes of all types and especially "cycle tracks" in the city... and once we see a significant network of new, well painted and signed bike lanes... that we'll see more riders taking these. Which will help spur more success with future grants.

Another issue that hopefully will be addressed on these streets are the speeds of the drivers (which are often very fast, decreasing safety for all) and the signal priority of cars versus pedestrians (the crossing at Paseo de San Antonio can take what seems like an eternity meaning many students cross illegally) in our downtown core. If we truly want to make our downtown more pedestrian friendly, these bike lanes are good steps to take... but we need to look at the overall system and focus more on ALL users needs.

What does anyone else think?

Thanks for reading this.
Scott

I like the idea of bike lanes on both sides of the roadway on 3rd and 4th streets.
(1) in one way street districts, they keep me from having to cross lanes of car traffic when I need to go around the block, something that happens a lot in one way districts.
(2) the incidence of dooring is much less when you ride past the right side of the car since the driver gets out on the left and backseat passengers will likely slide to the curb to exit.
(3) bike lanes on the left hand side of one way streets is standard in some cities, most notably New York City and Long Beach. I've used both and they seemed perfectly natural. In Portland, cyclists are free to use the left or right lanes as they wish on one way streets even where there's no bike lanes. The cars just go around or take the middle lane. No one seems to care.

I was not at the meeting. I'm a bike commuter who recently moved downtown. I have currently been avoiding riding on 3rd/4th streets, but I think the configuration mentioned above would make me a lot more likely to use them. At first the thought of a bike lane on the left side of the street did sound odd to me, but it should make it easier to turn left without conflicting with other traffic as much. Dooring is a concern, but if the bike lanes are sufficiently wide, hopefully the danger can be minimized by riding at the outer edge of the lane.

If parking could be all on one side of the street, that would probably make it more efficient for drivers to find a spot, though. It is definitely harder to scan two sides of the street for an empty spot, and then get yourself into the appropriate lane so that you can actually park there, while also paying your full attention to the road. So in that sense, if I were driving my car downtown, I would probably prefer the parking being on a single side of the road. In some sense, that would probably be safer for both auto and bicycle traffic.

I think my only concern as a cyclist would be that the dual bike lanes might encourage people to ride on the wrong side of the street on two way streets (by reinforcing the idea of it being OK to ride on the left side), which is both irritating and dangerous. Maybe if bike lanes had a directional arrow it would help reinforce which side of the street cyclists are supposed to be on (so when deployed on a one way street with bike lanes on both sides, both bike lanes would have the arrows pointing in the same direction). I do feel like a lot of the bicycle traffic on the small numbered streets downtown has the appearance of being sort of random/undisciplined in nature - people riding all over the place, in whatever direction they feel like, and generally on the sidewalk. If the lanes can be designed and marked in a way that encourages cyclists to actually use the road, and do so in the correct direction of travel, that would be a huge improvement. It will also make people have more respect for bicycle users in the downtown area. As someone who wants to ride with traffic (not on a sidewalk/etc), the unstructured nature of the cycling I see on these streets is probably one of the reasons I have been avoiding them.