WHOOSH … the car passes you at arm’s distance. Nothing like a little trip through the blood pressure spectrum first thing in the morning.

Discourteous, dangerous and illegal passing by cars is uncomfortably common, according to a new study out of Baltimore [PDF], even as three-foot passing laws are beginning to become the norm. But it looks like plain old painted bike lanes make a difference. Seth at Baltimore Velo files this report:

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future at the Bloomberg School of Public Health published a study this week that takes a look at how well the law is being followed by vehicles. Unfortunately, the answer is not very well.

Here are some key findings of the groundbreaking study:

• Overall, bike lanes in Baltimore improve cyclist safety
• Without bike lanes, drivers had trouble sharing the road with cyclists
• One in six Baltimore drivers, or about 17 percent, violated the 3-foot law
• Researchers found a 20 percent increase in motorist adherence to the 3-foot law for bike lane streets compared to standard streets

Having this quantifiable data makes a very compelling case for the city to continue (and increase) its funding for dedicated bike lanes around the city.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Walkable Dallas Fort Worth offers new revelations about the benefits of small blocks for pedestrians. Systemic Failure examines the creepy subtext of a Toyota commercial involving children’s experience as car passengers. And Bike Delaware wonders if we will we ever be safe from distracted driving in an increasingly connected world.

I balked at the suggestion. Surely, better drivers’ education would make roads less dangerous, and someone with a genuine phobia of cars might suffer in our auto-centric world. But we’d also all be a good deal safer if more drivers held a bit more fear.

Despite advances in traffic and car safety, driving remains the most perilous thing most of us do each day.  And though the average American is more likely to be killed with a car than with a gun, on the whole, drivers have little anxiety about driving.  Hubris is just one of several reasons why. The propensity of drivers to overestimate their ability has been well documented, especially by Tom Vanderbilt. In Traffic, he explains how the false sense of control and ease driving provides, along with humans’ inability to self-assess, allows most drivers to rate themselves “above average.” The dangerous outcome is a “narcissism” that encourages aggressive driving.

“Do the thing we fear, and the death of fear is certain,” Emerson wrote. Do the thing several times a day, and it becomes banal.  Though how much and how fast we drive are key determinants of crash risk, driving everywhere, no matter how short the trip, and speeding, no matter how little time is saved, have been normalized. This normalization is what makes crashes, when they happen, so difficult to process. One grief counselor described how a client, struggling to grasp his brother’s death in a crash, sat in her office “week after week saying, ‘He just went to get milk.’”

There are other reasons why we view our chances of crashing as remote. Scant media coverage of crashes, unless somehow anomalous and spectacular — a plane landing on a New Jersey highway, killing five, a nineteen-vehicle pile-up in Florida — helps encourage our sense of invulnerability. The efficiency of modern crash response makes everyday disasters less visible and reduces rubbernecking, which can snarl traffic and be dangerous but serves a purpose. Seeing is believing.

But who wants to see it?  Who wants to dwell on the dangers, when there seems little choice but to drive to get to shops, to work, to school?  The companies who sell us cars and insurance understand this well. A few use fear to sell coverage. (Allstate’s black-humored “Mayhem” campaign, for example, catalogs the threats posed by other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, acts of God — reinforcing fear of everything but our own behavior.) Most insurers instead facilitate our denial. In Liberty Mutual ads, F/X magic returns crushed and crumpled cars to pristine newness, intimating that the right insurance makes “accidents” go away.Nationwide uses hilarity to chase away fear; its current commercial shows a rollover as downright hysterical! Not one drop of coffee — or blood — is spilled.

The cars on the market today offer more safety equipment than ever; advances such as blind spot and pedestrian detection systems are added each model year.  While this is reason to celebrate, a car with these technologies can also make its owner feel free to drive more recklessly. Wider public perception of safety is also inflated by the automakers’ relentless advertising around these innovations, despite, as the Highway Loss Data Institute recently demonstrated, that they can take three decades to make their way across the national fleet.

Other automotive engineering efforts would seem to work against safety improvements, even setting aside — and it’s a big set-aside — distracting infotainment technologies. The car companies toil to make vehicle interiors as quiet and road conditions as unintrusive as possible. Their overriding goal: have drivers feelsafe, feel in control. With excessive speed a major contributor to crashes, however, it might be better to feel potholes and thus drive more slowly, to sense our speed and take turns more cautiously.

A telling experience came for me at General Motors’ Milford Proving Grounds a few years ago. During a test drive for journalists, my turn came to try out a new crossover on a wet-slick course. I was supposed to initiate a skid, so that the automatic stability control would kick in and help right the vehicle. But I drove too slowly—I was too nervous—and the vehicle didn’t skid.  The second time, I sped up, skidded, and the ASC kicked in, proving that it was a potential lifesaver. But so was my fear.

Anne Lutz Fernandez, a former investment banker and marketing executive, is co-author, with anthropologist Catherine Lutz, of Carjacked: The Culture of the Automobile and its Effect on Our Lives.

Parts of Obama's American Jobs Act have made a return in his 2013 budget proposal. Photo: SHRM

The good news is that the president is still committed to investment in transportation infrastructure, with a focus on expanding transit and rail while maintaining roads that have already been built. The bad news is that his proposal is mostly a political gesture. Both the House and the Senate are getting ready to debate their own multi-year transportation bills this week, neither of which comes close to the scope of Obama’s proposal.

As observers have come to expect by now, the Obama plan doesn’t really address the thorny question of how to fund such an ambitious agenda, as Deron Lovaas writes for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard Blog:

This is a step in the wrong direction, something I criticized the House Republican Leadership for earlier today. The priorities laid out for DOT in the budget are laudable, but dodging the all-important revenue issue is fiscally irresponsible and disappointing.

Obama’s six-year plan starts off with $50 billion for “immediate transportation investments,” about half of which would go to highway and bridge repair, 30 percent to transit and rail, and the rest to aviation and border crossings. This “fix-it-now” approach had been the centerpiece of the president’s failed jobs plan last fall, but fell on deaf ears amid deficit reduction talks. Then, starting in 2013, the president suggests spending roughly $80 billion per year on transportation for six years:

• $305 billion for highways and $108 billion for transit, which improves the current 80-20 split to 75-25
• $47 billion for rail reinvestment, with a continued focus on intercity and high-speed passenger rail
• $3.4 billion (~$600 million/year) for National Infrastructure Investments, supporting discretionary grant programs like TIGER
• $3.0 billion ($500 million/year) for TIFIA, a fourfold increase over current levels but only half of what the House and Senate suggest per year
• Two new accounts added to the Highway (renamed Transportation) Trust Fund: Intermodal, for transit, and National Infrastructure Investments (see above)

If any of this sounds familiar, that might be because the President proposed a similar but even more beefed-up reauthorization proposal last year. In that proposal, which was larger by $100 billion, Obama had included $30 billion for a national infrastructure bank, and $5 billion per year for livability programs, neither of which is included in his current proposal.

Update: Asked about bike/ped funding at a conference call with reporters today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood pointed out that Obama’s proposal funds the Livable Communities program at $27 billion over six years.  (h/t Jesse Prentice-Dunn)

Before I get to that, congratulations to the winner of last week’s prize: Long-time Streetsblog reader Marc Agger will be taking home a Zero Tweed bag from Rickshaw.

This week’s prize comes courtesy of Levi’s. Make a one-time or monthly gift by Friday at midnight and you could win a jacket and jeans from Levi’s new Commuter line, designed specifically for cyclists.

The jeans

The jacket

I have the Commuter jacket and it’s great for riding in the spring or fall, even in the rain.

Thanks again to all our dedicated supporters. If you haven’t donated yet, please pitch in and help make 2012 a great year for livable streets coverage.

Mankato, Minnesota is trying to revitalize its downtown. In the process, it gave $3.2 million in subsidies to a local bank to build parking at this $2.5 million building. Photo: Twin Cities Streets for People

We’re talking to you, Mankato, Minnesota.

After leveling a bunch of historic buildings and turning downtown into the region’s finest collection of asphalt landing strips, civic leaders seemed to recognize the error of their ways with their latest revitalization plans. But did they?

Nathaniel M. Hood at Twin City Streets for Peoplesays Mankato had the right ideas: promoting walkable neighborhoods and creating better bike and pedestrian connections in the historic downtown. But somehow Mankato also ended up subsidizing free parking to the tune of $3.2 million dollars — or about $42,000 in public money per space added — in increasingly precious local and state funds.

Hood writes that this is a classic case of how local communities must be shrewd in the use development subsidies:

The revitalization of downtown is paramount and the HECO building [pictured above] is a key element. The building’s $2.5 million renovation will attract professional firms to Class A commercial space in the heart of downtown. This is a good thing, but it is coming at an unusually high cost to taxpayers.

The bulk part of the subsidy is the City built parking garage attached to the newly renovated building. Here’s the financial rundown of the parking garage:

- $3.2 million for the construction of 154 Total Spaces
- $3.2 million / 154 Total Spaces
- $20,779 per parking space

Furthermore, the cost of $20,779 (or $159 sq ft) per parking space doesn’t tell the whole story. One needs to consider that 77 surface parking spaces already existed on the site prior to the construction – and the ramp is simply creating a “net gain” of 77 spaces. When the “net gain” is considered – the numbers look even worse:

- $3.2 million construction for a net gain of 77 spaces
- $3.2 million / 77 added spaces = $41,558 per space

Is $41,558 per additional parking spot created a worthwhile public expenditure? I’m curious to know if anyone stopped to ask the question: Why is the public spending over $4 million to attract $2.5 million in private investment?

Where I live in Cleveland, Ohio, the city is planning to add structured parking behind the publicly owned West Side Market. So, assuming the costs are similar in Ohio, you have one of the poorest cities in the country subsidizing car parking at $22,000 a space. (Actually, perhaps the $44,000 figure is a better measure since, like in Minnesota, the parking garage will be built over a surface lot.)

I got to thinking, for every parking spot the city of Cleveland builds it could completely finance one child’s four-year college education. The city could completely change one resident’s life for every parking space they build so suburbanites don’t have to circle the block a few times. It’s insane.

Those are the kind of priorities we have in Cleveland, and apparently in other cities. And they haven’t been serving us well.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Grist points out that while Walmart is making a big show of efforts reduce its impact on the environment, it still hasn’t answered for its biggest environmental sin: sprawl.Bike San Diego explains how California’s famous Prop 13 tax referendum has screwed up transportation across the state. And Muscle Powered has the details on Nevada’s efforts to develop a statewide bike plan.

Fixing streets more frequently keeps them in better shape and saves money in the long run. Source: San Francisco Department of Public Works

Last week San Francisco voters approved a $248 million bond to fix streets, which means the city will soon begin the largest repaving expenditure in its history. For the next three years, San Francisco will spend more than three times the amount it has normally budgeted for street repairs. Ninety million dollars will go to bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and infrastructure improvements (we’ll have more on those projects next week).

“There’s a lot of pride from folks in the bike coalition in getting this passed,” said Kit Hodge, deputy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. SFBC helped draft the proposition, went door to door, and sent out 42,000 mailers on the issue. This support may have been crucial: The proposition exceeded the required two-thirds majority by just under 3,000 votes.

The bond can only do so much, however. It pays for only three years of work and is insufficient to complete the backlog of repaving projects. “This won’t totally fix all the deferred maintenance,” said Department of Public Works spokesperson Gloria Chan. “We still need to find a permanent funding source.”

The problem is that San Francisco has neglected its streets, failing to pay for preventive care since the early 1990’s. Putting things off until later — deferred maintenance — comes at a steep price. It’s actually cheaper to do maintenance more often and keep roads smooth. Engineers have estimated that it costs about three times as much to let streets deteriorate to a broken-down, pothole-scarred state.

Maintaining streets is one of those basic good-government policies that pretty much everyone agrees with. But it’s not sexy. Slurry seals never won fame for a politician. And so far, no one has stepped up to make a permanent solution to this problem.

While the bond is expected to pay for new bike and pedestrian infrastructure in addition to general maintenance, not every livable streets advocate supported the measure. Livable City director Tom Radulovich told Streetsblog in July that a better funding mechanism would reflect the costs that different people impose by using the streets: “As a driver, you’re not going to pay any more to drive, but as a non-driver I’m going to pay more for automobile infrastructure. We’re sending the wrong economic signals by continually hiding the true cost of motoring from drivers.”

San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd voted against sending the measure to the ballot and thinks the city shouldn’t make a habit of borrowing to pay for road upkeep. “We’re going to get $248 million of work, but we’re going to pay over $400 million because of the interest,” he said.

Even Supervisor Scott Wiener, a strong supporter of the roads bond, said that debt financing shouldn’t be a permanent solution. “We’d deferred so much maintenance that this has become a capital expense, and a bond is appropriate for that,” he said. But he thinks that it’s neither rational to use debt to pay for routine maintenance or to ignore the problem. “I think there’s pretty much unanimous agreement that the status quo is unacceptable,” he said.

Much like Radulovich, Weiner believes that the best solution would be for the users of city roads to pay for their upkeep. He’s hoping that State Senator Mark Leno will write a law to enable San Francisco to charge residents a vehicle license fee. This year Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that did just that, explaining that he wanted a solution for the whole state, not individual municipalities, but the governor may be warming to the idea, Elsbernd said.

“Maybe Brown’s recognized that the Republicans just aren’t interested in compromise,” he said.

There’s also a chance that the nine Bay Area counties will institute a gas tax, which, if passed, could help pay for street maintenance.

Supporting vague driving standards that endanger California’s cyclists is no longer a partisan issue.  S.B. 910, which would have mandated a three foot passing cushion when drivers pass cyclists at speeds over 15 miles per hour was universally supported by Democrats in the Assembly and Senate. But that didn’t stop Governor Jerry Brown from vetoing S.B. 910 because he was worried that mandating that drivers slow down to fifteen miles per hour before passing a cyclist or asking them to pass at at least a three foot distance would create either rear-end collisions or long lines of traffic.

Advocates of safe driving laws pointed out that in the 20 states that have similar laws, there has not been one case cited where a crash was caused by a motorist adhering to the law.  But that wasn’t good enough for Brown, which isn’t surprising since his veto statement also implies that its more important to keep motor vehicle traffic moving than it is to protect the safety of cyclists.

Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) was similarly confused by the Governor’s veto and the incoherent logic behind it.

Obviously I am disappointed with the veto, but I am also a bit confused. It appears the Governor’s biggest concern with the bill revolved around the 15 MPH provision. However, that provision actually made it easier for a  motorist to pass a cyclist and allowed for a much smoother flow of traffic. The Governor seems to be advocating for a strict, minimum three foot buffer in which a motorist cannot pass, under any circumstances unless that pass can be made with at least three feet between the motorist and the cyclist. I agree that that would be safer for the cyclist, but it would not, in any way address the concerns the Governor raised in the veto.

The California Bike Coalition, who had championed the law from drafting through passage, was equally blunt.  Jim Brown, the Coalition’s Communications Director, writes,

The Governor had that chance to take the bold step of giving California drivers clearer guidance on how to share the road with bicyclists, with all the benefits that come from enabling more Californians to safely choose bicycling as everday transportation. Instead, he showed that he doesn’t fully understand why existing law is so inadequate and what this bill would do. As a result, drivers will continue guessing about how to much clearance to give bicyclists and those who get it wrong will continue injuring and killing bicyclists.

Another prominent backer of the legislation, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also issued a statement critical of the Governor’s decision.

I am very disappointed that this practical and prudent legislation was vetoed today by the Governor. By bringing much-need clarity to California’s Vehicle Code, the Three Foot Passing Law would have defined the proper code of conduct as well as the rights and responsibilities of all motorists and bicyclists. Despite this setback, I along with Lance Armstrong and the entire cycling community remain committed to ensuring the safety of everyone traveling on our roads and highways each and everyday.

So the Governor of California listened to the California Highway Patrol and vetoed a crucial piece of bike safety legislation.  It’s too bad that he doesn’t read Streetsblog of he would know that the California Highway Patrol doesn’t understand basic bike safety laws already on the books, to say nothing of the agency’s understanding of proposed legislation.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

Today was my last day as editor of Streetsblog San Francisco. Just like the day I published my first story, I spent the morning talking to bicyclists at a trouble spot. One of the great joys of this job has been interviewing people in the field. Some of my best moments have been spent talking to strangers. I’ve learned so much from those encounters.

I took this job three years ago because I was angry at the state of the streets in San Francisco. While we’ve made a lot of progress in that time, we still haven’t arrived at the game-changing moment. So none of that anger I had when I was first hired has subsided. An advocacy news organization like Streetsblog will continue to be crucial in the years ahead to ensure the change that is so needed on our streets.

As I depart, three things are heavily on my mind, and disturb me as both an advocate and a journalist: the high numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians who continue to be killed and hurt on our streets by drivers, the inertia and dysfunction in all levels of San Francisco city government that is preventing safer streets, and the great veil of government secrecy that still exists despite our local Sunshine Ordinance. That’s why I plan to continue my career as a journalist, fighting to knock down these walls.

I’m relieved to know that OpenPlans is committed to keep Streetsblog going. It is a bittersweet moment for me to write this last post to you. OpenPlans is in the process of searching for the next person to run Streetsblog SF, and in the meantime you’ll still be able to tune in every day for your morning headlines fix.

I owe a great deal of thanks to so many people. Thank you Streetsblog founding editor Aaron Naparstek for hiring me. I could never have done this without former Streetsblog deputy editor Matthew Roth, who turned me into an advocate, made me a better writer and has become a great friend. Former Streetsblog reporters Michael Rhodes and Aaron Bialick were great to work with, and helped me immensely. I continue to be inspired by the legendary historian and activist Chris Carlsson, whose writing contributions were always a treasure. Streetsblog editor-in-chief Ben Fried also made me a better writer, and his tireless work on behalf of the organization is also inspiring. Thanks for all your support Ben.

Also, thank you Leah Shahum, Andy Thornley, Kit Hodge, Marc Caswell, Neal Patel, Kate McCarthy, Brook DuBose and many others associated with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Michael Helquist of BIKE NOPA has been one of my closest advisers and friends. Tom Radulovich of Livable City sat me down and gave me a kind of Sustainable Transportation and Land Use 101 when I first started, and he is one of the brightest minds on the issues. Elizabeth Stampe at Walk SF has done an excellent job since she took over as executive director, and the organization is more high-profile than it’s ever been. Thank you also to Walk SF President Manish Champsee. Susan King and Beth Byrne at Sunday Streets are two of my favorite people, and I’m going to miss working with them. I learned a great deal from Dave Snyder, now the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, and we had some great times. Jason Henderson’s insight has also been invaluable. David Alumbaugh, Andres Power and all the talented folks at the Planning Department’s City Design Group were very, very helpful. I know I’m forgetting quite a few people here, but thank you all for making my job easier.

And of course, my thanks to all of you, our great community of readers. You’ve kept me honest. I’ve met some of you in the bike lane, and your passion and smarts on the issues continue to impress me.

You can follow me on Twitter, subscribe or friend me on Facebook, and stay tuned to bryangoebel.com for details on my next adventure.

I get annoyed that Critical Mass is frequently dismissed as a fringe event for scofflaw cyclists, but it’s been really key in sparking so many movements around the world. And that’s where I plan to be tonight to celebrate my great run at Streetsblog and the road ahead. Perhaps I’ll see you.

Bicyclists have to contend with a mess of taxis, delivery trucks and other vehicles obstructing the bike lane on Townsend Street near the entrance to the Caltrain station, to the right. This is why some ride on the sidewalk. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

San Francisco police returned to the Caltrain station at 4th, King and Townsend streets this morning to warn bike commuters not to ride on the sidewalk one day after a sting that resulted in a number of citations for people on bikes. Bike advocates complained, however, that Caltrain has known for years the station presents a challenge to bicyclists, and said the agency’s inaction has allowed conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians to continue.

Instead of seriously addressing flaws in the street and station design, the situation has led to the selective enforcement of bicyclists. Police told Streetsblog they have received complaints from pedestrians about bike commuters, and yesterday issued a number of citations to bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk. SFPD Lt. Troy Dangerfield said today it was part of a “month-long campaign on bicycle and pedestrian enforcement.” However, the officers did not target drivers obstructing the bike lane.

Shirley Johnson, a member of Caltrain’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and a longtime leader of the Bikes ONBoard program, said she’s been riding on the sidewalk for years.

“I just thought that’s how you’re supposed to get to the station. There’s a curb cut right there, on the sidewalk,” she told Streetsblog. “No one has ever said anything and people are getting ticketed. That seems very unfair.”

“I’m very careful. I ride really slow on the sidewalk,” she continued. “But I can only imagine if someone’s late for the train they’re probably coming along at a pretty good clip. I always got there early enough that I never had to do that but I can see that it’s a safety concern.”

A great many bicyclists walk their bikes into the station. The bike parking building is to the left.

Hundreds of daily bike commuters use this facility to park their bikes, and on many days it's over capacity. It's also the home of Warm Planet Bikes

The bike lanes installed on Townsend Street on the north side of the Caltrain station were ushered in with quite the fanfare, just days after the permanent injunction against bike facilities was lifted in August, 2010. But this morning, like any other typical weekday (according to bike commuters I spoke to), the bike lane was at various times blocked by taxis, a Bud Light delivery truck, a shuttle bus and private automobiles. Some taxi drivers like to make sudden u-turns out of the taxi station, endangering bicyclists riding in the bike lane.

Caltrain’s 2008 Bicycle Access and Parking Plan acknowledges the challenges for bicyclists here:

There is no clearly‐delineated routing for cyclists to transition from riding to walking their bike to reach the station entrance and platforms. Cyclists are frequently observed riding on the section of sidewalk between the taxi stand (where there is a curb cut and a signed bollard) and the station entrance. This exacerbates passenger flow issues, as there are also many pedestrians in this area.

The plan recommended working with the SFMTA to consider relocating the taxi stand but nothing has been done since it was adopted, according to Caltrain spokesperson Christine Dunn, who added that “none of the recommended projects in the plan are funded.”

Johnson said Caltrain needs to address the problem immediately. “They need to have a safe, clearly marked pathway for cyclists to get to the station that does not interfere with pedestrian traffic.”

This taxi driver begins making a dangerous u-turn.

Law enforcement vehicles are often parked on the sidewalk, even during rush times. Caltrain was ordered to install the black bollards as a security measure.

Cycling For Everyone from Dutch Cycling Embassy on Vimeo.

Last week, a team of Dutch experts led a series of Think Bike workshops in four U.S. cities, including San Francisco, to help advocates and planners design the bike infrastructure of the future. Cities across the globe continue to look to the Netherlands for inspiration, and guidance, and that demand is being embraced by a unique organization known as the Dutch Cycling Embassy.

The embassy is comprised of bike ambassadors from non-profits, private companies, bike manufacturers and local and national governments in the Netherlands. It recently released a new video that beautifully tells the story of how the bicycle became a part of everyday life in the Netherlands. It’s an inspirational seven minutes by Marc van Woudenberg and a must-see for elected officials and planners in the U.S.

The goal of the embassy, which has also launched a new website, is to “to support, facilitate, contribute to and inspire international cycling projects and policies helping countries, cities and its people to move forward in a safe and healthy way.”

As the video illustrates so well, cycling has always been popular in the Netherlands, but there was a time when cars ruled and the transformation to bike-friendly streets didn’t happen overnight. As the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Leah Shahum pointed out in her timely Streetsblog essay last week, “the arc that we are on in San Francisco right now is surprisingly akin to that of Amsterdam 40 years ago when engaged citizens led by passionate advocates convinced local leaders to solidly commit to making bicycling the easiest and most favored way to get around the city.”

In addition to the video, you can download this great brochure [pdf] from the embassy, which has a lot of important and fun facts about bicycling in the Netherlands, “where 16 million inhabitants own 18 million bicycles.”

I thought we’d get you in the mood for the weekend by leaving you with this fun video via Muni Diaries. Isn’t it sweet? From the YouTube description:

This is a collaboration between Neverstop and YAK FILMS to remix an old school black and white dance video from the Underground in London into a new TURF style video in the San Francisco BART and MUNI systems. Music remixed by Sammy Bananas of Fool’s Gold Records.

I’m off to enjoy the blazing sun and redwoods on the Russian River. Have a great weekend!

Bicyclists still have to contend with a mess of private auto traffic on Market Street, especially below 5th Street. Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

In a unanimous vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week passed Supervisor and mayoral candidate David Chiu’s resolution calling on the SFMTA to initiate more pilot projects on Market Street to further restrict private auto traffic and make it car-free on a trial basis in advance of the 2015 redesign. The 11 votes were a strong message to the SFMTA that it needs to take more immediate steps to calm private auto traffic on parts of Market Street that are a mess for Muni, and a danger to bicyclists and pedestrians.

The vote comes at a time when a growing of number electeds and mayoral candidates are backing a car-free Market Street. Asked to respond to the passage of the resolution, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency “is committed to making Market Street more efficient for Muni, safer for pedestrians and even more user-friendly for cyclists.”

“We are currently exploring pilots that can be used to test concepts down the road,” he said. Those options include deploying a traffic control officer to New Montgomery to “help coordinate the flow of pedestrians and vehicles” and installing a green right-turn arrow signal at New Montgomery on eastbound Market Street “which alternate when cars and pedestrians have the right of way.”

Drivers turning left onto Market from Montgomery (which turns into New Montgomery) are an ongoing problem, because they use 2nd as a cut-through to the Bay Bridge, creating a backup on Market that sometimes delays Muni all the way up to 6th Street.

Yesterday, a number of parking control officers (PCOs) had already been deployed to Market Street, including the congested 3rd/Kearny/Geary and New Montgomery intersections. At New Montgomery, some drivers had trouble complying with the PCO’s orders. I witnessed an angry SUV driver hop out of his vehicle in the middle of the intersection, and confront the PCO in a threatening manner. He backed down after an SFPD unit pulled up, but then nearly ran over a cop, and was ordered to pull over. I wasn’t able to witness the conclusion.

On Third Street at Market, “drivers are constantly running the red light,” one of the PCOs told me. “This is one of the worst intersections on Market.”

The two back to back signal lights for northbound traffic crossing Market and then Geary are sometimes confusing for drivers. The first light for Market turns red, while the light for Geary just behind it remains green for a few seconds. Seeing only the green, drivers sometimes dart across Market when the signal they should be obeying is actually red.

While deploying PCOs may help, the SFMTA’s response thus far doesn’t fully address the resolution, which states: “Additional near-term pilot projects on Market Street should test further diversions of private automobiles from Market Street in both directions as well as other strategies to reduce Muni delays and improve the safety and attractiveness of Market Street for people walking and bicycling, while still supporting the business and cultural environment.”

The resolution also notes that other pilots the SFMTA is considering “are not poised to make significant impacts on Muni performance.”

“It’s good to see the SFMTA taking some steps, but we need to see more pilots more quickly,” said Judson True, an aide to Chiu.

In reality, it would seem that only Mayor Ed Lee has the power to make changes happen more quickly on Market. Without his support, the SFMTA lacks resources and political power. During last week’s question-and-answer period at the Board of Supervisors, Lee gave an ambiguous answer to a question by Chiu on whether he supports more private auto restrictions on Market.

Lee said he’s behind finding ways to improve Market “for all users” and “supportive of initial trials and pilots,” but skirted around the issue of more immediate private auto restrictions. A phone call and email to the Mayor’s Press Office were not returned.

John Mica is conspiring with top GOP leadership to lift transportation funding levels above those outlined in April by Budget Chair Paul Ryan. Photo: Christian Science Monitor.

One Republican source, quoted in Transportation Weekly, said that given the persistently high unemployment rates, the surface transportation bill may become the centerpiece of Republicans’ alternative agenda to the president’s proposed jobs bill.

The House reauthorization bill, introduced by Mica in July, followed the budget plan outlined in April by Rep. Paul Ryan, setting transportation spending at the level expected to come in through Highway Trust Fund revenues over the next six years. Transportation officials, advocates, and Democrats have decried those numbers as spelling starvation for the transportation program, especially for many innovative programs that have been introduced over the last few years.

The appropriations committee followed suit a few week ago, approving spending at those low levels. But by then, Republican leadership was reportedly having second thoughts. Jeff Davis writes:

House Republican leaders privately tried to dissuade the Appropriations Committee from moving a 2012 spending bill with the lower Trust Fund spending numbers, but it would have been awkward for the Speaker or Majority Leader to publicly criticize a Republican committee chairman for writing a bill at the budget level that 235 Republican House members voted for five months previously.

Sources say Mica and Republican leadership are seeking about $15 billion a year in additional revenues, providing a very significant boost to the spending outlined in the reauthorization proposal Mica released in July:

House transportation reauthorization proposal, "A New Direction"

Adding $15 billion to each of those years could allow for spending totals above current baseline numbers of $41.6 billion for highways and $8.4 billion for transit in FY2012. However, it still wouldn’t quite match the Senate proposal, a two-year bill funding the surface transportation program at almost $55 billion a year. (The highway/transit split hasn’t been defined in the Senate bill.) Sen. Barbara Boxer says these levels essentially reflect current spending levels, plus inflation, plus an expanded TIFIA loan program.

Still, Davis writes, finding new revenues will be major challenge. A raise in the gas tax is reportedly off the table, and any new taxes would be difficult to pass – and not just because of the prevailing anti-tax sentiment in Congress. The Transportation Committee doesn’t control taxation, and Davis speculates that any new taxation would likely have to wait until after the deficit-reduction super committee finishes its work, two months from now. And any significant funding source outside of the gas tax and related “user fees” would be a dramatic departure from the traditional way of funding the transportation program.

The Think Bike rendering for Polk Street envisions curbside green bikeways with bus-bulbs and other improvements for Muni riders.

The delegation of Dutch experts who were in San Francisco this week for a series of Think Bike workshops with city officials, bike advocates, transportation planners and others honed in on three critical corridors: Market Street between 5th and 9th, Polk Street between Broadway and Union streets, and The Wiggle.

What resulted from the day-long workshops, survey rides and discussions was a series of recommendations based on feedback from the Dutch experts and workshop participants. The ideas were presented at the final session Tuesday night, which was hosted by SFMTA Transportation Director Ed Reiskin and ended with a speech from Supervisor David Chiu.

On Market Street, the vision was a green carpet of “continuous, safe, attractive” bike lanes that separate cyclists and motor vehicles while reducing the speed and volume of private autos. The recommendations could be incorporated into the Better Market Street planning process, said Kit Hodge, the deputy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

The SFBC has been pushing for a continuous ribbon of bikeways on Market for awhile now. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Chiu’s resolution calling on the SFMTA to implement more immediate pilot projects on Market Street to make it car-free ahead of a 2015 makeover.

The suggestion for Polk Street was curbside protected bike lanes, bus bulbs and other enhancements that “improves the pedestrian experience and enhances transit access.” Polk Street, a major north-south connection for cyclists, is in dire need of improved bike facilities. The ideas could be implemented in 2013 as part of a planned repaving.

Along The Wiggle, on Scott Street, the focus was on converting a few blocks into a “slow shared street,” with a planted traffic circle at the Page Street intersection. This would deter the cut-through traffic on Scott. There would also be sidewalk plantings for more greenery.

“With the Wiggle, I think it’s a very exciting vision that draws on the community conversations that have been happening for awhile in those neighborhoods and has a lot more emphasis on greenery and neighborhood traffic calming,” said Hodge.

The Think Bike workshops are also happening in other cities across the U.S., including Los Angeles. Damien at Streetsblog L.A. notes that one Dutch official was pretty excited about San Francisco’s revolutionary parklets program.

“What’s heartening about these ideas is nothing is crazy new. It’s definitely fresh thinking, and it was wonderful that people from different worlds could collaborate so well together, but I think it’s also a testament that a lot of neighborhood and community groups have been proposing a lot of these ideas for awhile,” said Hodge. “To see them put on paper in an even more elegant way was fun to watch.”

Download the Tuesday night presentations here: Market [pdf], Polk [pdf] and The Wiggle [pdf]. And if you didn’t catch Leah Shahum’s Streetsblog essay reflecting on her sabbatical in the Netherlands, and how a “Dutch Touch” can help San Francisco bicycle to greatness, by all means do. It’s a great piece.

Photo: sfbike

Groundbreaking legislation introduced by Supervisor and mayoral candidate John Avalos yesterday would allow the thousands of people who pedal to work in San Francisco to bring their bikes into the office.  The “Bicycle Access and Safety Ordinance” [pdf] would require the owners and managers of all commercial buildings to allow bikes in the building if there is no secure bike parking.

“Creating a safe, secure place for cyclists to store their bicycles while at work will help to promote alternative modes of transportation and contribute to the City’s effort to cut emissions, improve air quality, maximize public transportation and ease congestion,” the legislation reads. “Allowing bicycles in office buildings is an effective way to encourage cycling.”

The legislation is an improved version of a 2009 bill passed in New York City, the only U.S. city with a bicycle access law. One big difference is that SF’s version wouldn’t only apply to buildings with freight elevators. Bike commuters would not be forced to enter work through dark, garbage strewn alleys and could roll their bikes into front lobbies along with strollers, wheeled briefcases and all the other belongings workers schlep in on a daily basis. If approved, San Francisco would have the country’s strongest bicycle access ordinance.

“I think this is a great step toward ensuring more secure bike parking for the growing number of people riding to work in San Francisco. It’s sorely needed,” said Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “We’ve heard a lot of unfortunate stories from people who would bike to work if they had secure bike parking at their office, and there’s a lot of buildings that don’t allow it.”

San Francisco law already requires secure bike parking in all new commercial buildings. Shahum said a growing number of employers and building owners are recognizing that more and more employees are biking to the office and that it translates into a healthier, more productive workforce. That’s why many companies are negotiating bike parking into their leases, realizing that attracting the best and brightest means providing a safe, convenient place to park your bike.

Building owners could still opt out under a few exceptions, but only after a city inspection. Saying no triggers a comprehensive Bicycle Access Plan. The exemptions would be granted only if:

(i) the building’s elevators are not available for bicycle access because unique circumstances exist involving substantial safety risks directly related to the use of such elevator; or
(ii) there is secure alternate covered off-street parking or secure alternate indoor no-cost bicycle parking available on the premises or within three blocks or 750 feet, whichever is less, of the subject building sufficient to accommodate all tenants or subtenants of the building requesting bicycle access.

Dave Snyder, the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition and an occasional Streetsblog contributor, was happy with the proposed ordinance but suggested it be strengthened to add language ensuring that the alternate bike parking requirement listed in the exception (ii) complies with the city’s bike planning code.

A free Muni for youth rally drew more than 150 people to the steps of City Hall. Activists said students and working-class families shouldn't have to choose between buying groceries and a Muni pass. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

A broad coalition of community groups, youth leaders, transit advocates and elected officials called on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency today to initiate a three-year pilot program to give young people ages 5 to 17 free Muni passes. The program would cost an estimated $7 million a year and result in a 4.6 percent increase in Muni ridership.

“We believe that transportation is a human right,” said Alicia Garza of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER).  “What we’re seeing is that over the last few years the cost of (public) transportation has increased, and service and access is decreasing. Over the last two years, there’s been more than a 100 percent increase in the cost for Fast Passes for youth.”

“For families that are struggling to survive in San Francisco,” she continued, “that also means an increase in costs when wages are not increasing, when the number of jobs in San Francisco is not increasing, and when resources for public services, including schools, are not increasing. For families with more than one child this translates into an additional burden that’s being placed on working-class families and working-class communities of color in our city.”

Earlier this year, the city adopted a one-time program to give free Muni passes to 12,000 low-income students but supporters said the demand far exceeded the supply. A Muni Youth Pass currently costs $21 and is free for kids under 5. A recent survey showed that 70 percent of students in the San Francisco Unified School District rely on public transit at a time when school bus service has been dramatically cut. The number of low-income students in the district is also high, with an estimated 61 percent taking part in the school lunch program.

"It's one critical step we can take to improve the quality of life for all families in the city, and to support and encourage a new generation of transit riders for our future," said Supervisor David Campos, who added that New York City and Portland have similar programs.

"Back when I was in high school, I used to depend on the 19 bus line to get to school, and I also took the 30 Stockton to volunteer in Chinatown, where most of my friends are," said James Ng, a freshman at SF State who volunteers at the Chinatown Community Development Center. "Over the last two years, the price for bus passes has gone up 110 percent, and that has made it hard for my friends and family to find the money to get bus passes. I know some who aren't buying bus passes because it cost too much."

“Muni has become too expensive and the services that we depend on are becoming out of reach for us financially,” said Leah LaCroix, the chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission. “No matter what school you go to, and what your family’s income level is, or where you live, you should have access to transportation and it should be affordable and you should be able to go from your school to your after-school program to your game and wherever you want to go in the city. Free Muni does this for young people.”

The three-year pilot program, backed by six members of the Board of Supervisors, and SFMTA Board Director Joél Ramos, would be paid for “using a combination of private contributions,” “Muni efficiencies,” and “funds from several different public agencies.” While the pilot is running, those agencies would work to develop a long-term program.

Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution [pdf] at the Board of Supervisors today calling on his colleagues to support the pilot. Ramos said he planned to get the matter agendized at an SFMTA Board meeting October 18th. He told Streetsblog one option to pay for the program could be extending parking meter hours.

“By actually generating revenues, the 7 million dollars that it might cost per year, we actually reinvest in the overall system and we make it so that parents don’t have to park anymore because their kids were on transit, so they can take transit,” he said. “That works for making parking available for people who really need it. That’s why this is a win-win.”

Paul Rose, a spokesperson for the SFMTA, said the agency is “working with the Budget Analyst to develop a comprehensive report that looks at not only what our revenue impact would be, but at what type of expenditures would be necessary to provide things like: additional vehicles, more graffiti abatement programs, or additional Clipper administrative costs, etc.”

The agency is currently facing a $23 million deficit, and recently scrapped a staff proposal to raise parking fines to help close the gap.

Thea Selby with the San Francisco Transit Riders Union said the pilot and long-term program would also include an education component for young people, and she praised POWER and other organizations working to make free Muni for youth a reality.

“They’re not just interested in giving a pass to youth. They want to train them and turn them into the transit first citizens of the next generation,” she said.

The pilot is being supported by a number of elected officials, including Supervisors Campos, John Avalos, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi. Organizations backing it include the Chinatown Community Development Center, Jamestown Community Center, Filipino Community Center, Public Advocates, POWER, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the Coalition on Homelessness, Urban Habitat, SF Transit Riders Union, MORE Public Transit Coalition and many others.

“If we believe, as a city, that public transportation is a right and not a privilege, today we take the first step in making that a reality for San Franciscans who need it the most,” said Garza.

Supervisor Jane Kim was the first to sign a petition to support free Muni passes for youth.

Photo: Amsterdamize

It’s not often that you get to take your idea of utopia out for a test ride. But that’s what I was lucky enough to do for seven months last year while on sabbatical in Amsterdam.

After more than a decade of helping to build the vision of San Francisco becoming a world-class bicycling city, I had the chance to find out how that vision actually functions on the ground. And, to assess whether we really have what it takes in San Francisco to earn the reputation of a great bicycling city.

What I learned – and what heartens me now – is how close we already are. Much like Berlin, Barcelona, and Paris, San Francisco is on a precipice today. We can choose to use the examples of places such as the Netherlands as a model, or we can continue business as usual.

This week, we are fortunate to welcome Dutch experts to town to show us how great bicycling environments help make great cities. Think Bike — an innovative two-day event co-sponsored by the Consulate General of the Netherlands in SF, the SF Municipal Transportation Agency, and the SF Bicycle Coalition — kicks off today to share the “Dutch Touch” with San Franciscans.

“Whether commuting to work, running errands or taking a family outing, more and more San Franciscans are choosing to bicycle,” said Mayor Edwin M. Lee, who this morning will welcome skilled Dutch transportation planners and interested locals at City Hall for the opening reception of Think Bike. This will kick off two days of intensive planning workshops with the Dutch and local community members. Tuesday evening, their design ideas for specific San Francisco on-street and policy improvements will be shared publicly.

“We know that improvements to San Francisco’s bike network encourage bicycling citywide,” said Edward D. Reiskin, SFMTA Director of Transportation. “We look forward to collaborating with our Dutch colleagues and City partners on creative solutions to help keep the number of bicyclists growing in the years ahead.”

This week’s Think Bike events, which are happening in cities around the U.S., are part of a growing interest among S.F. leaders to partner with experts from the Netherlands to find ways to keep up with the large and growing demand for better bicycling in San Francisco, where polls show that a majority of residents already bicycle occasionally and want to bicycle more often.

Last year, a group of city leaders from the Bay Area — including SF Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and SFMTA Director (then SF Dept. of Public Works Director) Ed Reiskin — traveled to the Netherlands on a study trip organized by Bikes Belong. There they had the chance to see first-hand how seamlessly the bicycle is incorporated into Dutch life, with bicycles routinely used for commuting, shopping, recreation and exercise.

As we embark on a week of benefiting from the Dutch Touch, and as I reflect back on my own bicycling experiences in the Netherlands, I am by no means calling for San Francisco to be just like Amsterdam. We cannot and should not try to replicate any other city completely.

But I learned that this surprisingly similar city offers a strikingly fitting model for us right now. The story of Amsterdam is proof that cities of San Francisco’s size, density and values can create communities that are more accessible, affordable, and family-friendly by dramatically increasing bicycling trips.

Photo: Amsterdamize

A Tale of Two Cities: Amsterdam & San Francisco

There is no city in the world where such a large portion of the population rides bicycles for transportation. Citywide, 38 percent of trips are made by bikes in Amsterdam. In the more compact city center, that number leaps to 57 percent.

Each day, the people of Amsterdam ride more than a million miles on their bicycles. They boast 250 miles of separated bike paths and 250,000 designated bike parking spaces. As bicycling has increased, car ownership has decreased. Today, only 37 percent of the population owns cars, a decrease from 42 percent in 1985. And, transit makes up about 25 percent of trips.

The real-life impacts of these statistics can be seen every day on the charming streets, where parents still allow kids to walk or bike home from school and the elderly pedal around confidently on errands. No doubt, the streets are just as bustling and serve just as many people moving around the city as in San Francisco – it is all just happening in a calmer, quieter, less disruptive way in Amsterdam.

Some may question, understandably, whether a centuries-old European city can be relevant to our situation. In fact, Amsterdam offers a surprising number of similarities to San Francisco, which is considered the most European of U.S. cities for good reason. A quick comparison sheds some light:

• Amsterdam’s population is 765,000. San Francisco is slightly more populous at 815,000. Both serve as hubs of far larger metropolitan regions.
• The two cities have similar population density: Amsterdam boasts 390,000 dwelling units; San Francisco 360,000.
• Unlike their suburban neighbors, most streets are narrow and space is at a premium.
• Finance and tourism are backbones of both cities’ economies.
• While Amsterdam’s regional transit far outpaces the Bay Area’s, neither has top-notch local transit systems.
• Citizens share similar cultural attitudes about the environment and general progressive values, relative to the rest of their own nations’.
• Both have higher-than-average citizen participation, which affects how changes are made in the communities.

The two cities’ most obvious difference is terrain. Amsterdam is as famous for flatness as San Francisco is for hilliness. Yet, I contend that in San Francisco we narrow that disadvantage with gears (almost non-existent in Amsterdam), bike racks on buses, and, the fact that most of us can choose to pedal around, instead of straight up, steep hills for many trips.

Another well-known difference is weather, but this one works in our favor. I was amazed that the number of people pedaling nonchalantly over freshly fallen snow in Amsterdam easily rivals our warmest day in San Francisco. The Bay Area’s near-ideal, temperate climate would surely win out over Amsterdam’s Boston-like winters and Portland-like rain for great bicycling.

Photo: Leah Shahum

Of course, there are other serious differences. These include forward-thinking Dutch laws that place greater liability in collisions on those driving, leveling the playing field for more vulnerable road users. Another difference is that far fewer individual garages and curb cuts exist in Amsterdam, which means fewer areas of conflict. And, of course, higher gas taxes across Europe demonstrate their commitment to showing the true cost of driving while also effectively encouraging more sustainable modes. This is a far cry from American gas subsidies.

Despite these advantages, I believe that none is absolutely critical to our own progress in San Francisco, given the strong demand for better bicycling.

But what about the historical and cultural differences? Haven’t the Dutch always been bicycling? If it is simply in their blood, how can we, as car-loving Americans, expect to learn from them?

This is where my eyes were opened the most during my time abroad, and what has me feeling most encouraged today.

Sure, it is true that the Netherlands boasts a deeper culture and longer history of bicycling for transportation, but it is also true that many of their bicycling innovations and successes have come relatively recently — and under quite similar circumstances that we are experiencing in San Francisco today.

The arc that we are on in San Francisco right now is surprisingly akin to that of Amsterdam 40 years ago when engaged citizens led by passionate advocates convinced local leaders to solidly commit to making bicycling the easiest and most favored way to get around the city. And they succeeded.

This is Amsterdam’s bicycling story. It’s a history we can and should relate to today if we want to make San Francisco more accessible, more family-friendly, and more welcoming for local businesses.

The Story of Amsterdam: You May Be Surprised

At the turn of the 20th century, bicycling for transportation was common through much of Europe. But after WW II, as automobiles gained popularity and more city-planning decisions favored driving, bicycling grew less common.

Even within Amsterdam, there was a shift toward car predominance. Streets were widened and sidewalks shrunk. On-street car parking was added nearly everywhere it could be squeezed in, even on some of the most picturesque and formerly thriving pedestrian areas.

For example, the large, historic square at Neiuwmarkt in front of the 17th-century Waag, which served over the centuries as a weighhouse and central meeting area was transformed into a surface parking lot during the 1960s.

A before shot of the Waag from the 1960s.

The Waag today is a thriving commercial and residential area, where tourists and locals alike enjoy a regular outdoor market, restaurants and shops, all thriving where once parking dominated.

Another poignant example is the well-known Museumplein. Today it is a grand and popular grassy commons boasting the grand Rijksmuseum and other world-famous museums, shops, and high-end residences.

I was shocked to learn that, until the 1970s, a major auto roadway ran directly under the Rijksmuseum (today, it is a bike-only pathway under a grand archway) and straight thru the now-grassy commons. It’s hard to imagine this today, considering how well-loved the pedestrian-only area is now.

A major roadway ran right through the green space and under the historic Museumplein up until the 70s.

At the Museumplein today, the roadway has been replaced by a grassy park loved by locals and visitors. Now a busy, two-way bikepath runs underneath the museum, connecting neighborhoods of Amsterdam.

As recently as the late 1970s throughout Amsterdam, the streets little-resembled the bike-friendly places we see now. Today, a walk over one of the famously quaint canal bridges offers picturesque views with unparalleled photo opportunities. Forty years ago, those same bridges were choked with car traffic and filled with car parking.

And in countless places where today you can ride on bike paths that are fully separated from car traffic and with bike-specific traffic lights, just 10 years ago there were no bike paths, no bike signals, far fewer bicycles, and significantly more cars.

Not surprisingly, this crumbling bicycle environment contributed to a precipitous drop in the number of people bicycling. In 1955, 75 percent of all trips in Amsterdam were made by bicycle. By 1970, that number had declined to only 25 percent.

Photo: Amsterdamize

Shifting the Paradigm Toward Sustainable Transportation

In the 1970s, Amsterdammers grew increasingly concerned about the environment and the oil crisis – as well as overall city livability, traffic, and noise. It all came to a tumultuous head as planners and government officials attempted to plow ahead with increasingly unpopular projects, including one to replace a beloved part of the historic city center with a new freeway.

Enough was enough. Starting in the 1970s, citizens and newly formed advocacy groups such as Fietsersbond, (a membership-based nonprofit similar to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition), began to work to return their city streets to safety and community.

They stopped the unpopular freeway plan. They replaced car parking lots in public squares with pedestrian-only public squares. Today, for example, the Neiuwmarket boasts a buzzing outdoor market and dozens of restaurants and bars, popular with tourists and locals alike. Walking through the thriving, pedestrian-only area now, it is hard to imagine that it was once covered with parked cars and would have been wiped out by the proposed freeway.

Most notably to Amsterdam’s long-term progress, in 1978 a new City Council was elected who heard and responded to the citizens’ outcry for a more livable and environmentally responsible city. The Council began markedly prioritizing bicycling, walking, and transit trips over automobile trips.

On-street car parking was converted to new bike paths and wider sidewalks. Colored bike lanes were painted on streets that couldn’t fit separated pathways.  “Stop” lines for drivers were pushed back to make room for colored bike boxes. Bicycle-specific traffic lights were added at hundreds of intersections. Many dozens of “traditional” streets in shopping districts were turned into bike- and pedestrian-priority corridors, boosting business. Speed limits were lowered. Traffic-calming speed humps and traffic circles were added.

The City Council’s commitment continues today and is working. The number of people biking in the past 20 years alone has increased by more than 20 percent.

And this is the chief reason I contend that we should feel encouraged in San Francisco: Amsterdam’s reputation as a bicycling mecca is, largely, the result of work undertaken in just the past few decades. That is a tremendous amount of progress in a relatively small amount of time. That’s inspiring to me. Because if they could do it then, we most certainly can do it now … perhaps even better.

The Choices are the Same, Whether in Europe or America

But how did Amsterdam keep progress rolling beyond the early days of passionate rallies, of which San Francisco has experienced its fair share. How did the view that bicycling should take predominance over driving move from words to action? And how did it then develop into long-term, government-led commitment?

A key difference seems to be this: In Amsterdam, local elected leaders have not only explicitly acknowledged the tremendous health, environmental, equity, and livability benefits of biking over driving – as San Francisco leaders have too – but they have also gone a critical step further. Based on their commitment to these benefits, Dutch leaders across the nation have developed clear and consistent policy that it should be easier to bicycle, walk, and take transit in the city than to drive for most trips. And, they act based on that policy.

It is understood that the challenges to making the city more bicycle- and people-friendly are predominantly political challenges – not physical ones – and progress requires sometimes-tough political choices. This means that local electeds set the policy and direct transportation officials within the bureaucracy to carry that policy out, even if it means occasionally upsetting some people who will not be able to drive or park as easily as they once did.

And this is where San Francisco – and the rest of America – still have a lot to learn.

Photo: Amsterdamize

Photo: Amsterdamize

If We’re Really Serious About This….

Politically, it may be advantageous to talk about “balance” and to try to squeeze better biking, walking, and transit into the left-over margins, but to actually make our city more accessible and safe, and less traffic-choked, we need to adopt and stick to a policy that helps make it easier to bicycle, walk, and take transit in our city than to drive – at least for most people for most trips.

I was able to see example after example of Amsterdam planners and politicians making it easier and more convenient to ride a bicycle while making it just a little less convenient — though by no means impossible — for those who need to drive.

None of this means that people are not allowed to drive a car in Amsterdam. It just means that people may drive on streets that are narrower in order to make room for new bike paths, and that they must go slower (improving safety for all, including drivers). Sometimes they may need to travel a block or two out of the way, but can always get where they want to go.

An example is Staalstraat, a central street that runs directly in front of the shared City Hall/Opera/ Ballet building and along the beautiful Amstel River and near a major Metro station and outdoor market. This used to be a traditional, two-way street with cars until a few years ago, when it was converted to a two-way bicycle-only path with a wide sidewalk next to it.

Today it is a well-used and lovely part of the city, drawing far more people bicycling and walking than before. People who are driving can still reach the nearby underground garage but they take slightly different routes. It may take them a minute or three longer to drive there, but people are still attending operas and ballets and visiting City Hall.

Photo: Leah Shahum

How Do We Pedal Forward?

As in Amsterdam, it is clear that San Francisco, too, loves bicycling. Seven out of 10 San Franciscans ride a bicycle occasionally. And polls show they want to ride more often.

Most trips within San Francisco are 5 miles or less. These are eminently bikeable trips for many people. And we are seeing far more people choose to bicycle – lawyers and architects riding downtown to work, parents bicycling their kids to school or day care in the mornings, friends riding together to dinner or a show.

To improve, we need to build on our many successes and speed up the rate of change. Events like Think Bike this week highlight our political leaders’ growing interest to look outside of the American box for great transportation models.

I challenge our decision makers to take advantage of the growing public appetite to try new approaches on our streets and to not be constrained by American examples.

If San Francisco is to be the U.S. leader as a great bicycling city, we must hasten the pace of change. I urge the City to look to popular visions like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Connecting the City, as a way to make our streets welcoming for all who want to try bicycling, from ages 8 to 80.

Just as the Netherlands used a time of crisis in the 1970s to spur positive change, let us consider today’s urgent situation of shrinking government budgets and increasing strains on the transportation system as an opportunity to think differently.

Today, we are a good bicycling city. We have it in us to become a great bicycling city.

Thousands of people enjoyed a car-free Grant Avenue through Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill yesterday. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

San Francisco’s Grant Avenue, the city’s oldest street, was opened to pedestrians only yesterday in a milestone Sunday Streets event that drew thousands of people to the historic neighborhoods of Chinatown and North Beach on a sunny, 74-degree day. The city’s first walking Sunday Streets on a thoroughfare that seems like one of the most ideal streets to pedestrianize was clearly a hit.

“It’s a fantastic event. The weather is gorgeous and it’s nice to have Chinatown and North Beach connected in this way,” said Tom Radulovich of the non-profit Livable City, which sponsors Sunday Streets.

Unlike fairs in Chinatown and North Beach that typically line the street with outside vendors, the car-free event that spanned more than 20 blocks was organized to give neighborhood residents, locals and merchants a taste of what Grant Avenue can look and feel like without cars on a typical Sunday.

“I like having no cars,” said Lisa Mai, a North Beach resident who took a break from jump roping with other teens from the YMCA, a Chinatown fixture since 1911. “When you’re in a car it’s like you’re really rushing, but when you’re walking, when you walk along Grant, you see all these people coming out to enjoy it.”

From the Chinatown Gateway to Coit Tower, people filled the narrow street on foot, and shopped, sipped tea, snapped photos, hula-hooped, painted, enjoyed live music and other activities without the anxiety of automobiles.

The few people on bicycles were mostly children whose parents walked alongside. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition set up its Freedom from Training Wheels workshop on Grant near Vallejo Street.

“In Chinatown, there’s a lot of elderly people, and the street is so narrow. We just didn’t really feel like it was going to be safe to have bicyclists and walkers. So, it’s a walking street,” said Sunday Streets coordinator Susan King of Livable City. “It’s a first for Sunday Streets, and it’s fun to do something new.”

Many of the children spotted playing in the street live in North Beach, and Chinatown, the city’s densest neighborhood, where a majority of residents do not own cars, but are forced to contend with some of the city’s worst traffic. Along the route, there were plenty of children from other San Francisco and Bay Area neighborhoods, along with families of tourists.

And now, it’s time to overwhelm you with some adorable moments.

Chinatown merchants seemed very pleased, said Vivian Chang, a senior planner for the Chinatown Community Development Center, which helped organize the event and do outreach. CCDC plans to conduct an official survey of merchants to get feedback.

“They were basically saying this kind of event, especially during business hours on a Sunday, is pretty good,” Chang told Streetsblog. “They liked it, even though the original perception among merchants is cars equal more business.”

While Chang feels it’s probably too early for most merchants to get behind a permanent pedestrianization of Grant Avenue, yesterday’s Sunday Streets helped them realize the possibilities.

“I definitely noticed businesses getting more foot traffic, due to the lack of street vendors,” said Chang. “I think if they put it on a couple more times, people’s perceptions will start changing.”

Shell Thomas, the president of the North Beach Merchants Association, is also planning to survey merchants, but those he spoke to were happy. The fact that it was a walking Sunday Streets helped boost business on a skinny street lined with shops and restaurants.

“People on bikes cruise by. People who are walking stop, they linger, they see what’s going on in the stores, so hopefully it was a great experience (for merchants),” he said. “The first year is the toughest. Next year, I’d like to see five times as many activities and five times as many people.”

Ultimately, he continued, “it’s not about the turnout, or merchants. We shut down Grant Avenue for about 25 blocks. That’s a big deal. It’s really to get a feel to see what we can do, to experiment with a pedestrian street, which they do in Colombia, and other places in South America. We don’t do that here. We think we’re really forward, but we’re actually not that forward.”

Radulovich said there’s not necessarily opposition to a permanent pedestrianization of Grant Avenue, “it’s just really inertia. There’s the question of where do you do it and how, and that’s why I’m excited about this. Just getting over that hump of doing a car-free day on Grant Avenue has been momentous, but it’s done, and hopefully we’ll do it more regularly.”

PCOs with stop signs halted traffic for the large crowds walking across Columbus and Broadway, two arterial streets that divide Grant Avenue.

Enjoying a stroll on car-free, music filled Grant Avenue in North Beach.

"A Fair to Remember" in Kerouac Alley.

This gathering of musicians, under the "A Better Chinatown Tomorrow" tent, plays regularly at the corner of Columbus/Broadway/Grant, and captured a big audience for Sunday Streets.

A band performs outside Carmel Blue on Grant between Green and Union.

Some downhill fun on Grant between Filbert and Greenwich.

On Grant looking south from Gerke Street near Greenwich.

Walking up Grant at Filbert.

Some jugglers take to the street on Grant near Filbert.

And we leave you with this shot. So cute.

Also, check out these great photos from geekstinkbreath’s Flickr page.

A "park, er, farm" outside Ritual Coffee Roasters on Valencia. Ritual, a regular participant in PARK(ing) Day, is scheduled to get a permanent parklet within the next year. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

People all over San Francisco reclaimed metered parking spaces normally reserved for private automobiles today, and transformed them into living spaces for people to mark PARK(ing) Day, one of the most celebrated livable streets events that began here six years ago, and sparked a worldwide movement.

“It’s exciting to see how in just a very few years the idea of PARK(ing) Day has gone from a very subversive, radical proposition to something that’s routine and mainstream,” said Andy Thornley, policy director for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, as he unlocked his bike in front of SPUR‘s temporary park.

Indeed, some of the businesses that have set up temporary parks for PARK(ing) Day over the years now have permanent parklets as part of San Francisco’s revolutionary Pavement to Parks and parklet program. What was invented by the renowned artist and design collective Rebar in 2005 is now a San Francisco institution.

Outside the SPUR Urban Center on Mission Street, a line began forming around noon, under sunny skies, for chicken mole, part of a traveling food installation put together by artists Sergio De La Torre and Chris Treggiari. The entire installation — food, tables, chairs, grill — was transported via one cargo bike from 17th and Folsom to Mission and 3rd. There were plans to serve 100 people.

Visitors to SPUR's temporary park enjoy chicken mole.

Everything was hauled in the wooden cargo box.

“People sit, people talk, they relate to each other and it’s all about the piece,” said Treggiari. “I love public art and so my whole practice revolves around me working in the public and bringing my mobile devices into the public. It’s great to have this opportunity with SPUR and just to be involved interacting with people.”

A few spaces down, hair dresser Mishi Nova, who owns the salon Morphic on Market Street, threw down some sod, and set up a temporary salon. What does PARK(ing) Day mean to her?

“It means renegade do gooding. I believe in PARK(ing) Day as street intervention, and taking back the streets and doing something good for your community,” she said. “There’s just not enough space for people and it’s time to reclaim the streets.”

One of the city’s most vibrant bicycle corridors, Valencia Street, was lush with temporary parks, as it usually is on PARK(ing) Day. The street is already concentrated with permanent parklets in front of businesses and one residence, most of which sprouted up in the last year.

If one parking space was transformed into an urban farm what could it produce?

Free seed balls were available for people to take at the Hayes Valley Farm/Aecom installation in front of City Hall. The grey ones are made up of flower seeds and the red ones are lettuce and radish seeds.

STUDIOS Architecture in collaboration with Holmes Culley and Chris Chalmers built this inhabitable sculpture / installation at 1st and Howard.

The Green Roof Alliance's garden roof showcase on Valencia.

In front of the thrift shop at 910 Valencia, landscape architect James Davidge, working with the Green Roof Alliance, set up an installation to educate the public on green roofing. It was his first time participating in PARK(ing) Day.

“We felt like this was a great opportunity to do a human scale, or dog scale, access to a green roof so that the public can get exposed to something that usually is on top of a roof,” said Davidge. “Green roofs are a very effective way of lessening the impact of storm water on a city, especially cities that have combined sewer systems because they retain the storm water and/or delay it.”

Inspired by architect Renzo Piano’s living roof at the California Academy of Sciences, a green roofing and green infrastructure movement is building in San Francisco, said Davidge.

On Polk Street, outside San Francisco City Hall, the Hayes Valley Farm and design and planning firm Aecom set up an installation filled with seed balls and large graphics to illustrate what a patch of soil the size of one parking space could provide for an urban farmer.

“There’s a graph that says 800 pounds of onions a year could be harvested from this space,” said Christine Bolghand, a marketer for Aecom.

On Fell Street, along The Wiggle, the Wigg Party took over four parking spaces between Scott and Divisadero, almost an entire block, on the south side behind the green bike lane. It is along this notorious stretch of Fell that the SFMTA hopes to install a cycletrack in the next year, something bike advocates have been pushing for years.

“We chose this spot here on Fell Street, in particular, because this is the beginning of a very contentious section of The Wiggle,” said Morgan Fitzgibbons, one of the co-founders of the Wigg Party. “We’re hanging out on the street and taking some places that are usually reserved for automobiles and turning them into welcoming, community building centers.”

The green bike lane separated people lounging in chairs from one-way arterial traffic, but the temporary park seemed to slow the cars at times, and some drivers honked and gave a thumbs up.

How did you celebrate PARK(ing) Day today? Please let us know in the comments section!

Updated 9 p.m.

The Wigg Party took over four parking spaces on Fell Street between Scott and Divisadero.

Insterstice Architects "parrrrk-let"and Pirate-tree prototype in front of 826 Valencia.

The Pirate tree.

Temple Bar and Bistro set up an installation on Mission Street in SoMa with lounge seats and a DJ.

A park organized and designed by 6th graders and parents in front of the San Francisco Friends School on Valencia Street.

The SF Department of the Environment's park on Grove Street, where compost was given away and people practiced sowing seeds.