I would agree that is a better option but I personally would prefer an arrangement of from center line or middle turning lane outward to edge on both or either side of:

----- Full width, not too wide or too narrow (about 10-foot wide) full width vehicle lane(s)
----- Two narrow barely half lane width bicycle lanes (think just barely over 4-foot wide) that together also serve as a right hand turn lane that cars must safely and respectfully merge over into straddling both before taking a right hand turn or parking (right hook protection).
----- Narrow bare minimum (that extra 2-foot left over from a 10-foot lane by narrowing down to using only 8' for the two bike lanes) thatch painted door and pedestrian walk zone.
----- Parking Lane (adequate but not excessive width)
----- MUP Sidewalk (nice surface and at least 4-foot wide)


I think such an arrangement would work out the very best for both cyclists, pedestrians entering and exiting parked cars, and yes even car drivers. Let the individual cyclist themselves pick whether they prefer the bike lane closer to the parked cars or closer to the moving cars. Plus two bike lanes makes it easier to pass other cyclists or to be passed by other cyclists with minimal cyclist/cyclist collision risk. And, yes, with a wide sidewalk marked for MUP use it allows those cyclists who prefer to be completely off the road to on a side-path to do so provided they do so at a reasonable speed and with respect for pedestrians (and vic-a-versa).

To my mind that would be the perfect way to convert a road like the OP is talking about that used to be 3@wide vehicle lanes + parking lane + sidewalk down to just 2@wide vehicle lanes using up one lane of space for bicycle infrastructure. If you have an entire wide vehicle lane of space at your disposal you can fit more then just one bike lane and a buffer zone into that width. Making two bike lanes in that space plus a bare minimum door buffer zone ped. walk area for parked cars gives cyclists their own choice as to what they personally prefer and are comfortable with and gives far better capacity as well in the same amount of space.

Granted your not going to get a full wide vehicle lane of space to use on every conversion project. But where you have it like the specific road the OP is referencing and it is slated to be used for bicycle lane(s) its stupid to make only one bike lane where you could fit two of them for many reasons. I personally would even go so far if I was the one designing such a conversion to use two different bicycle symbols to mark the two lanes. Standard bike symbol with direction arrow in the right most of the two bike lanes closer to the parked cars and a road bike with rider in the tuck position obviously moving at high speed with streak lines coming off the back of his bike with about twice as long but same width directional arrow for the left bike lane closer to vehicle traffic. I don't think people would have a hard time understanding that with both of the symbols and arrows side by side in two distinct 4' wide bike lanes.

Sure, some cyclist would still try to go fast in the far right edge of the right most bike lane and would still get doored because the 2' buffer wasn't quite enough with a long door that opened. But then the city could just point to the two symbols and ask why they were going that fast in the bike lane closer to the parked cars and that is partially why there are two different symbols because if you choose the right most bike lane closer to the parked cars you need to go slower because your closer to the parked car doors. Something similar applies to cyclist who might prefer to use the left bike lane close to the auto traffic even in the left most part of it but go really slow so they get passed closely by a lot more cars over the same distance and the passing speed differential is higher giving less reaction time and rising the risk of "getting sliced" by a sliding contact type collision. The closer you get to automobile traffic the more important it is to minimize the speed differential between you and them. Either way you are giving people a choice of multiple options that are all acceptable depending on riding style, thats a better solution then a "one size fits all" just a single bike lane set-up a certain way (and usually the wrong way).

Plus on that minimum width buffer zone and ped. walk for entering and exiting parked vehicles. Most parking lanes are wide enough that you don't have just the extra 2-foot of width you get by narrowing up the two bike lanes down to just the bare minimum 4' width (that's what I consider bare minimum width for an official bike lane and nearly perfect width if you have more then one bike lane side by side) often you can also squeeze at least another foot of width out of the parking lane which makes that thatched buffer zone and ped. walk zone on the left edge of the parked cars a little wider and also encourages people to tuck their parallel parked cars up nice and tight to the curb edge by narrowing up the parking lane a little with a wider thatch painted buffer and ped. walk zone.