Of bikes and cars and lanes in midtown
What d’y'all think about the new reduced lanes/increased bike lane layout on some of midtown’s busiest streets? 19th and 21st just aren’t the same anymore. On 19th - the squish that started occuring after Q street, now starts well before. Same with 21st, which reduces at W and stays reduced all the way up to I street.
I have a tolerate/hate relationship with cyclists. Not you, responsible cyclist or friend reading this post right now, of course, you’re great. But I have huge problems with the ones who dash on and off sidewalks, refuse to so much as pause at stop signs cars must obey, and shake their fists angrily at me when I couldn’t predict their sudden arrival in my blind spot. The recent lane changes and this article on the detestable Critical Mass in San Francisco have given me cycles on the brain.
While I do think it’s better for everyone if there are more dedicated bike lanes in Sac - they’ll save cyclists from cars and pedestrians from cyclists - I wonder about the wisdom of adding them to the busiest streets in town. Why not add some more controlled stops to the less car-heavy streets and give cyclists even more protection from rush hour drivers? And on the flip side - don’t cram car traffic into fewer lanes.
Little late to complain now as everything has been resurfaced (good) and re-laned (outcome unclear). Still, it isn’t my favorite set up - and if I were to buy a bike and ride it, I wouldn’t do so on 19th or 21st.
Related posts:
As odd as it may sound, changing from three lanes to two will actually make traffic go more smoothly. Traffic tends to be more stop-and-go in three lanes, but the two-lane roads have fewer opportunities for bursts of speed but a higher overall average speed–sort of a “slow and steady wins the race” philosophy.
That’s the theory on the subject that I have heard from Sacramento’s transportation folks, and it’s also what I have seen as P and Q Streets converted from three to two lanes.
Having the bike lanes on major commuter streets makes a certain sense, too: it facilitates the purposes of bike commuters, rather than the more garden-path approach of off-main-street bike lanes. It also means it’s easier for a cyclist to cross main commuter streets, as there is typically a stoplight, vs. ones where cross traffic doesn’t stop. Having biked on 21st Street before the re-lining (and lived to tell the harrowing tale), I would at least be tempted to try it now.
I will agree that cyclists who consider traffic laws optional are a pain in the behind. Yes, bicycles are relatively nimble, but a red light means STOP and wait for the green light, not slow down slightly and tear through the intersection, regardless of one’s mode of travel.
I’ll ditto what wburg said about “slow and steady.” Unfortunately right now, with the projects incomplete (and with the decoupling construction going on up Freeport), there’s going to be some time to acclimate. Frankly, as a cyclist I love the new lanes, but even as a driver, I prefer the two lanes to three. Three lanes gave too much opportunity for aggressive driving.
Never been a fan of Critical Mass.
Whether they’re good or bad, I still haven’t seen ONE bicyclist on the new 21st Street section. Too dangerous. I’m not even tempted myself.
Really? I’ve only driven on it twice and seen quite a few cycling commuters. My husband loves the new bike lanes and uses them all the time now, and I feel a lot better about him riding home in the dark. He got hit by a drunk when he commuted on 20th Street … which is one of the problems with the so-called “side streets” downtown.
I haven’t used the new lanes on 21st or 19th yet, but I was a frequent user of the L/N/P/Q lanes and I thought they were terrific. As for dangerous, maybe, but not nearly as bad as it was before, and I *have* ridden both 21st and 19th, in traffic, when they were three-lane one way streets.
The sense of danger goes away with use and confidence, which is true of bicycling on streets in general, whether they are busy like 19th or quiet like 18th.
And, with the three lanes having gone down to two, reducing the number of unnecessary lane changes as Maya indicated, the chances that some jacka$$ will swerve into a bicyclist is reduced.