Read on Twitter
We need to push back against "parallel" bikeway concepts. Bike boulevards are great & serve the needs of some users, but aren't a substitute for protected bikeways on arterials. People will bike San Pablo in the bus lane, remaining 1 car lane, or sidewalk if there's no bikeway. https://twitter.com/TransitRidersEB/status/1329176901324132353
Even the existing conditions are a relevant example, as the "parallel" Ohlone Greenway and 9th Street bike boulevard facilities already exist, yet people still bike on San Pablo because it is more direct, efficient, and that's where the destinations are.
A reminder that the surveys referenced in the staff report included many leading questions and false choices, and the results should be considered appropriately. https://twitter.com/prinzrob/status/1113855761661063170?s=20
Even the Concept A option showing both a protected bikeway and bus lane still devolves at the intersections with mixing zones and added lanes, detracting from both bike & pedestrian safety. People were never given a choice that reflects current best practices.
One last thought on "parallel" bikeways. Building out those facilities seems a LOT more complicated/expensive than some folks realize. There would need to be paving, signals, and other $$$ stuff, compared to folding a bikeway into the other San Pablo corridor construction.
IMO the only way parallel bikeways construction wouldn't be complex/expensive is if the design criteria for those facilities is minimal, or if the concept is being used as an excuse to separate it from the SPA project and actually do little to nothing. Neither option is great.
