“It's sort of sad that getting the police to actually do their job is such a big deal, but I like this.”
– zsolt In response to "SFPD Conducting First Citywide "Operation Safe Muni" Sting Today"
Email sf-tips@streetsblog.org or send them anonymously. Tag your photos, links, and videos with "streetsblog san francisco".
by Dave Snyder
Photo: plug1If the Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project doesn't get some love from advocates and the general public, the project could be in trouble, according to several people closely following the process.
[...]
Continue reading »
Streetsblog is a daily news source, online community and political mobilizer for the Livable Streets movement.
Learn More…Streetfilms produces videos that show how cities around the world are reclaiming their streets for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders.
Learn More…Streetswiki is a community-created, online encyclopedia where you can read, write and learn about sustainable transportation policies, practices and ideas from around the world.
Learn More…The Livable Streets Community is a place to organize projects in your own town and connect and share with others who are doing the same.
Learn More…Livable Streets Education helps classroom teachers and schools weave pertinent ideas about urban livability and advocacy into their curriculum.
Learn More…
Matt H
It is time that we finally declare "vehicular cycling" dead. It has been thoroughly discredited and should be abandoned. A car is not, and never has been a car.
in response to There’s Safety in (Bike-Specific) Infrastructure
murphstahoe
Mississippi from Mariposa to 16th? The whole cycling world rides Mississippi from Mariposa to 17th and goes left on 17th. A bike lane might be counter-intuitive here.
Here's hoping Townsend gets done. That street is a mess.
in response to City Files List of Bike Projects Likely in First Year After Injunction is Lifted
patrick
I believe the EIR has been reopened, and that portion will be restudied, and that a tunnel is only 1 of several options. Am I wrong?
in response to Judge Busch Could Block New Bike Lanes Through March 2010
RachaelL
zsolt -- It's not just a matter of "accidents caused". And I don't think I suggested that cyclists blowing through stop signs causes a lot of accidents -- I don't think it does. I just think it's really rude and unhelpful (though at night it surely causes a lot of close calls). I don't think drivers will all magically start behaving a lot better because we are all perfect angels. I *do* think it's a lot easier to argue, in political forums, for changes to laws (like Idaho stop) to make natural cycling legal if public opinion isn't so massively hostile.
in response to Today's Headlines
zsolt
Please, RachaelL. Let's not mix up opinion and fact. The number of accidents caused by a biker "taking the right of way" or running a stop sign is low. On the other hand, cars or trucks turning right into a biker is one of the leading causes of cyclist fatalities and injuries.
I don't buy the "public relations" thing... Do you think that, if we all started to be exemplary followers of the traffic law, motorists attributes towards bikers would change fundamentally? Personally, I don't think so. Simply put -- and this is merely my opinion --, being a motorist is miserable and also puts a lot of pressure on the person though he or she may not realize it. Thus, most motorists are angry assholes. How do I know? Observing myself, whenever I have to drive.
in response to Today's Headlines
Justin
How is Cesar Chavez not a priority? Because it takes away parking? Keep your cars folks! You'll need them in SF!
in response to City Files List of Bike Projects Likely in First Year After Injunction is Lifted
Justin
Reversible? Like a jacket? Sweet, pure, tasty bullshit.
in response to City Files List of Bike Projects Likely in First Year After Injunction is Lifted
Nick
I'm sure a lot of people are looking at that list and wondering what's geting left out. Here's my take:
-Great Highway bike lanes
-16th St lanes
-5th St
-Division
-McCoppin path
-17th St
-23rd St
-Bayshore
-CC
-North Point
-Portola (from O'S to Sloat)
-the Glen Park package
-Sagamore
-Holloway
-John Muir
On a happier note, today happens to be the 11 year anniversary of the Board of Supervisor's approval of a 1 year trial of bike lanes on Valencia Street(11/6/98). So effectively the Valencia St lanes turned 10 years old today!
in response to City Files List of Bike Projects Likely in First Year After Injunction is Lifted
Michael Rhodes
@Uh Wha: To clarify, by "arbitrary minimum parking requirements," I'm referring to the specific number of spaces required by planning codes, not parking requirements in general. As UCLA's Don Shoup has written about at length, planners and traffic engineers have often turned to shaky, not-entirely-scientific sources when setting minimum parking requirements for different types of land use:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf
in response to Planning Chiefs: Urban Planning Still Hindered by Politics, Past Mistakes
Nick
Bike plans should not take a generation to implement as has been the case in San Francisco. To put this in perspective, imagine it is 1996 and a 21 year old bicyclist is hearing about a plan for a bike lanes on 5th Street for the very first time. Now it is almost 2010 and that same person would be 35 years old and there is still no paint on pavement.
And today happens to be the 11 year anniversary of the Board of Supervisor's approval of a 1 year trial of bike lanes on Valencia Street (11/6/98). So effectively the Valencia St lanes turned 10 years old today!
in response to LA Kids Tell City Hall How to Improve Biking — Via YouTube
Uh Wha
This blog is rapidly becoming the bay guardian of online tripe. Parking requirements have as much to do with banks agreeing to provide financing, and buyers looking for resale value as they do with good common sense. If you don't use a garage (I don't) you use it for storage. If you have a car (most people have one because they need it) you wouldn't buy a place without parking. Planners know that. Smart ones, anyway.
in response to Planning Chiefs: Urban Planning Still Hindered by Politics, Past Mistakes
Drunk Engineer
"You mean the tunnel under Caltrain ROW that NIMBYs are asking for? It's not likely to happen, that's why it's not part of the EIR."
No, the tunnel that the __CHSRA__ now proposes to build starting from Diridon station and running South underneath a lot of homes and businesses.
There was no mention of this in the EIR. Instead, the EIR had assumed use of UP ROW, which everyone knew was not be available.
in response to Judge Busch Could Block New Bike Lanes Through March 2010
ZA
@John Murphy - Usually not, either there's a lot of traffic there already, or I have to be careful there isn't a cyclist (or runner) cutting through the Best Buy parking lot from the right.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
It's great to hear this coming from someone in the "know." A couple years ago I was driving back in Wisconsin listening to AM talk radio (I like to torture myself sometimes) and the jockey was arguing that highways paid for themselves by opening up new locations for commerce and housing. But this just proves that all the cost putting in the infrastructure dwarfs the amount received from taxes, etc.
Also, I'd argue that small block size and lower traffic speeds negate the need for on-street parking to be used as pedestrian buffer. I'll go back to Upper Grant in North Beach as my example. There is on-street parking on both sides, which is nice, but the traffic is moving so slow (due to short blocks) that the buffer is only really taking away from space that should be sidewalk. You have created a "safe" pedestrian environment but in the process have made that environment so small that it is practically unusable.
in response to At CNU, Former Rep of Texas Legislature says "No Road Pays for Itself"
patrick
Disclaimer:
I only stop at stop signs when my own or another person's safety is at stake. I generally do not "take" right of way, but drivers often give it up by not proceeding in a timely manner. I stop at most reds, but may start before the light changes, if it is safe. I do these things because in my judgment they are perfectly safe.
I do not believe the laws are equitable, nor designed to promote safety. I feel they are designed to move the most number of cars as quickly as possible, with a tiny bit of safety thrown in. I also feel that if the beneficiaries of these rules (drivers) cannot follow them, then I am under no obligation to do so.
I understand the "ambassador" argument, but I feel let those who are responsible for the deaths be the ambassadors. Do you really think drivers will think any more kindly of us if we follow all the rules? I've been in plenty of cars where the driver swears about about the "damn bikers" under their breath just because the cyclist has slowed them by 10 seconds on their journey to the red light, while the biker was doing nothing illegal, or even inconsiderate.
History shows the only way to get rights is to assert them. Women's suffrage was not just granted, Civil rights were not just granted. Gay marriage will not just be granted, they all did, or will, required struggle and breaking the rules.
Without the rule breakers, the ambassadors get completely ignored. The ambassadors are certainly necessary, but without the rule breakers no change will happen. I like (and am a member of) the SFBC, but I think Critical Mass did more for cyclists than the SFBC ever will (and I've never ridden in CM).
in response to Today's Headlines
John Murphy
"Cyclist (me): 3 stop signs ignored along the long axis of Harrison where there are perpendicular intersections only, including one pedestrian crossing witout any pedestrians. I rate my own violations as good judgment based on the risk I pose to myself and others."
Please tell me this does not include 14th/Harrison
in response to Today's Headlines
ZA
@ Nick - Yep, when I drive around that area, Market to 15th St to Noe St. is my preferred path north off of Market St.
There's no point driving up to Duboce Park.
in response to Today's Headlines
John Murphy
"John-- have you counted? I doubt that "right of way taking stop sign violation" occurs in the majority if you count all intersections, but I think if you counted at heavily used corridors during rush hour it would be."
I guess we're just downright civil in Noe Valley. Then you have Valencia which has lights timed for cyclists instead of stopsigns. The gnarliest place on my commute route is the rotary, it's sort of hard to tell exactly who is breaking the law there - usually "everyone"
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
So SPUR and the San Francisco Planning Department hosted the discussion saying "the field needs to move beyond worrying about past mistakes." But just take a look at the Central Subway which is NOTHING more then a political handout to Chinatown with very little transportation merit for the huge cost. The blind leading the blind.
in response to Planning Chiefs: Urban Planning Still Hindered by Politics, Past Mistakes
Nick
This majority of the discontent on all sides is happening in the urban core. Is it any surprise that they filmed this along a downhill part of the Wiggle?
If you cycle or drive away from the urban core (the Sunset, Richmond, Ingleside, Excelsior, Bayview) you will find that there is more observance of the law from cyclists in particular.
Often I will be riding down a hill in the Sunset where few cyclists travel and a car driver will be nice enough to forgo their ROW and wave me through the intersection.
The problem is auto-centric traffic planning in extremely dense areas. One day the Wiggle might be a Class 1 bike path and we'll all look back and realize that the current problems were simply growing pains.
in response to Today's Headlines
ZA
@Patrick - thanks for doing that!
That reminds me, there was at least 1 car that stopped in the marked crosswalk too, my morning commute. I'm guilty of 'unseeing' car crimes too!
in response to Today's Headlines
patrick
I analyzed and posted my counts as a comment in the blog:
"The video only clearly displays 1 stop of the intersection, so I only used those cars. I 82 cars total through the intersection, of which only 30 came to a complete stop, and of those 30, 15 stopped in the crosswalk, which is also illegal.
...
Only 18% of the car drivers drove in a safe and legal manner, even though a car is about a thousand times more likely to kill somebody than a bicycle (There's about 40,000 people killed by cars every year, the number of people killed by bicycle is so low they don't even track it)
Everybody violates traffic laws, divers, cyclists, and pedestrians, but drivers are the only ones who are likely to kill while doing it."
in response to Today's Headlines
ZA
re: the NYTimes hit piece -
What bugs me is the apparent inability of the journalist to follow the next logical step: what are the political and physical conditions for this 'growing number' of cyclists in their respective areas (neither Sausalito or San Mateo Co are the "Barbary Coast")? Assuming the law and infrastructure is already equitable is soft thinking.
My own unscientific tally of my morning commute's road violations:
Drivers: 3 without headlights on, 2 illegally parked in the bike lane (to drop their kids off at school), 1 turn without a signal, 4 cars snarled at an intersection from an inability to yield (I rolled last).
Pedestrian: 3 pedestrians crossed a street in SOMA before they were notified by the crossing light.
Cyclist (me): 3 stop signs ignored along the long axis of Harrison where there are perpendicular intersections only, including one pedestrian crossing witout any pedestrians. I rate my own violations as good judgment based on the risk I pose to myself and others.
It seems to me that all these violations reflect first on the poverty of appropriate infrastructure.
1. The snarled 4-way stop should have a light for all the traffic on it now;
2. the parents should have a viable alternative to driving their kids to school in the first place;
3. the pedestrians should have flow-responsive lighting; and
4. the cyclists should have yield signs near the relevant intersections.
Also, tip to Scott James: crankily raging against the CM, especially the Halloween CM is like Canute against the tide. Smile and wave next time, you'll probably get a candy or a hug. You're in California now.
in response to Today's Headlines
Belgand
The problem is that breaking of traffic laws should not be considered acceptable. I find it astounding that I appear to be the anomaly someone who: always drives under the speed limit (and slower in the rain), comes to a complete stop (driving, cycling, or walking) at intersections, never crosses against the light (and if the countdown says I only have a few seconds, I wait), doesn't jaywalk... basically it's the crazy idea that the rules are in place for a reason and I ought to follow them for my own safety as well as that of others.
The safe thing for yourself and everyone else is to acknowledge that these rules exist for all of us and simply follow them. Even when you "know" that you'll be safe breaking the rules you're building up bad habits that cause you to increasingly take risks and justify these actions at other times.
Admit it, all of these behaviors are the result of people being lazy and/or impatient and trading that in exchange for safety. None of them are realistically defensible for other reasons though people will certainly try.
in response to Today's Headlines
Stuart Matthews
Your first link is broken.
in response to Wanted: Your Photos of Crummy Transit Conditions
RachaelL
Yes, sure "everybody breaks the traffic rules". Sure, that's very, very true. But not everyone breaks them in safe ways.
Taking the right of way (and not even slowing down) at a stop sign is a bad habit for a cyclist to have: one day they'll do it and a driver approaching or already stopped won't see them. Even when the cyclist does it safely, they are probably increasing the polarization between those who predominantly drive and cyclists.
Similarly, is it okay that drivers routinely go 40+ mph on my residential street (speed limit 30)? I don't think so even though I haven't seen anyone hit yet -- one day someone will (or already has been) hit because that extra 10 mph removed a margin of time for the driver to stop.
The point is, cyclists (and cyclist advocacy groups) tend to take accusations of lawlessness and say "well, we do it in a safe way" or "that's not the majority of cyclists!" when, in fact, a large number of cyclists in SF do very unsafe things very regularly. Anyone who has ridden through the Wiggle knows this.
We should be making a better effort to educate and change the dangerous behavior -- yes, don't worry about the cyclist who slows down, looks and goes at an empty intersection, but we *should* be doing something about cyclists who blow through unsafely. Similarly, we should probably cite drivers who roll through right turn on reds without looking at the crosswalk, rather than caring about a driver who doesn't come an absolute stop at a deserted four-way.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
Chris, well put.
in response to Today's Headlines
Chris
Look... everyone breaks the traffic laws. I don't really understand why drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians sit around and point fingers at each other. We all do it. I really think that if you go to a four way stop sign, you will see just as many cars fail to come to a full stop (as in their wheels completely stop turning) as cyclists. If someone parks on the opposite side of the street from the store they are going to... they probably aren't going to walk down to the intersection to cross the street, they likely are going to jaywalk. Just try driving under the speed limit on the freeway count how many cars pass you.
During a typical morning commute, I see cars gunning it and running red lights in attempt to make the yellow, cars making turns without signals, delivery trucks double parking, pedestrians crossing streets against the signal/mid-block, and bicyclist running red-lights/stop signs. I could spend my whole morning commute shaking my fist at people who break traffic laws... but for me its just all part of living and riding in the city.
I really don't care if a pedestrian jaywalks at mid-block... just don't step out in front of a car doing so. I don't care if a car or cyclist comes to a four way stop slows, sees no one else coming and rolls through. Its kind of like drinking coffee on BART (which I see tons of people doing in the morning)... I don't care if you drink it... just don't spill it... and if you do spill it accept responsibility for your actions.
If you don't want to deal with cars/cyclists/pedestrians... you probably shouldn't be in the city.
in response to Today's Headlines
patrick
They busted 6 people with outstanding felony warrants, one of them an unregistered sex offender. Had they not been going after the little stuff they wouldn't have caught those people.
in response to SFPD Conducting First Citywide "Operation Safe Muni" Sting Today
RachaelL
John-- have you counted? I doubt that "right of way taking stop sign violation" occurs in the majority if you count all intersections, but I think if you counted at heavily used corridors during rush hour it would be. That is, if you counted intersections in the Wiggle, I think it would be a large proportion or even a majority of cyclists who "take" the right of way from others. This isn't good for public relations and is dangerous. And that is also the time when the most drivers (or non-cyclists) are around to see "outlaw cyclists blowing through stop signs" (as is commonly the sentiment). I doubt most people care if a cyclist rolls through a deserted intersection; they *do* care when a cyclist blows right past, cutting them off on their way to work ...
in response to Today's Headlines
Fran Taylor
"Streets were already in crisis because of the closing of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for an emergency repair, but cyclists were undeterred from adding to the misery."
This shows that the Times author knows nothing. City streets during the bridge closure were downright serene.
in response to Today's Headlines
John Murphy
a large number of bicyclists not only don't stop (or slow down to roll through) but actually *take* the right of way from cars waiting to go through the intersection (I counted about ten one morning while myself waiting patiently -- on a bike -- to turn left "on my turn").
This is the stuff I consider unacceptable - well, I consider it dangerous, and it's analogous to cars running one of us over when we're not doing anything wrong. It would get you rung up under even an Idaho stop law. But that's not what's happening in the majority of cases.
in response to Today's Headlines
RachaelL
To be entirely fair, a large number of SF bicyclists don't really slow down much at all at stop signs. Visit, say, Page and Scott during morning rush hour -- a large number of bicyclists not only don't stop (or slow down to roll through) but actually *take* the right of way from cars waiting to go through the intersection (I counted about ten one morning while myself waiting patiently -- on a bike -- to turn left "on my turn").
So, yes, this NYT article is a bit of a hit piece, but the large number of cyclists in SF who don't yield the right of way to cars or pedestrians (when they should -- and I don't consider a complete stop necessary in most cases) are a huge obstacle to general public acceptance of bicycling as a "normal" activity.
Things like not wearing lights, passing stupidly, riding the wrong way and such all contribute as well to a hostile environment. But of course car drivers are also incredibly rude and dangerous as well. Maybe the SFBC could do some educational stings in concert with the PD? Stop any cyclist *or* driver who violates the law in a dangerous or rude way and make them go to a special class on safe and fair road use.
in response to Today's Headlines
John Murphy
I can't even analyze that video it runs so fast. I am trying to figure out if cyclists going from Duboce right onto Steiner were counted - since the stop sign/line is not in the frame. I find it very amusing that the blogger did no analysis of the automotive traffic, there are plenty of cars turning right from Steiner onto Duboce without slowing.
The perfect rebuttal video, which I will try to make, would be to go to some road with a bike lane, and count cars turning right, measuring how many safely merge properly to make their right turn, and how many even signal.
in response to Today's Headlines
Richard
I used to go to Valencia St., but the down economy means thinking twice now about paying more for muni (and dealing with the lousy service) to get there and back. I'm staying in my own neighborhood now (Haight) and planning a move to Europe! SF was SUCH a better city 20 years ago!!
in response to Valencia Businesses Hope Customers Keep Shopping During Construction
Justin
Scott James, aka Kemble Scott, the supposed San Franciscan who wrote the NYT hit piece is clearly a poseur--a would-be urbanite with a deeply suburban soul. The NYT's bay area coverage must have realized what a hit Nevius is with the suburban readership of the Chron.
Indeed how shocked he must have been when he ventured outside the unmentioned but implicit cage we must assume he drives around in to talk to people in his city not in said cages, to find cyclists so venomous, to find that they actually think cars in the city are their enemies. The bike coalition might think it's a good idea to tell people to hold onto their cars, to talk about their car ownership vociferously and use personal car ownership as a key ground from which to speak up for more bike lanes (see the bike plan hearing), but yes, Mr. James, many of us do consider personal car ownership and their use in the city a real problem, the enemy even.
I will not mind being ticketed for running a red light when motorists are at the very least ticketed and cited for running down cyclists and pedestrians, which most often they are not (unless drunk).
in response to Today's Headlines
ZA
A bit like that iPhone app that channels the camera view in a user window while they continue to use other functions.
Maybe just maybe the irony won't kill us first.
in response to Garmin: Chat, Navigate and Steer -- But Don't Drive Distracted
michaelSF
Great coverage of this conference, Matthew. Thanks for fitting it into the Streetsblog schedule. As much as I was interested in the presentations and your interviews with attendees, I did get sidetracked by the link to the bicycle shrine in Portland. "Our Lady of Cyclists" -- for someone whose childhood was partly defined by altar boy duty at Our Lady of Sorrows (!) Roman Catholic Church in Portland, the outreach of St. Stephen's Church (go Episcopalians!) prompted one big smile. And a blessing of the bicycles with "a dab of gear oil to chains" makes me appreciate Portland even more.
in response to CNU Transportation Project Raises Bar on Planning for Livable Cities
Sk
Michael,
SF is too liberal to simply knock a tree down or do something without 100000 people complaining. NY cleaned up so fast in several areas With such a higher population and it turned for the better.
This project will be halted several times. They are already blaming the wrong population (drivers) for market being filthy. Does this all make sense?
in response to San Francisco Moves to Remake Market Street
Sk
Look at Santana row. Look at mahattan ny. Lots of cars bikes and everything else but you will not see crackheads wondering anywhere near tourists children or a scene of what looks to be a zombie infestation a block away from a vibrant street. The stephensen meth clinic must be relocated. It draws the nastiest people all over market.
Let's not blame this on cars. Byciclists seem to care less about the neighborhood improment and more about how wide the lanes will be.
in response to San Francisco Moves to Remake Market Street
Sk
Forget byciclists. Maket street needs to he revamped because of all the drug pushers and homeless. Cars have nothing to do with that. Byciclists do not obey street signs so I am u sure why you guys are complaining about safety.
Hopefully they can make market a cleaner place with or without byciclists or cars.
in response to San Francisco Moves to Remake Market Street
Brian Fuller
Wow. As the guy who took the photo, I'm so impressed by your content aggregation savvy. I was just thinking around this time that this type of automatic, almost unintended collaboration is where media needs to move. And voila!
I'm curious (question to Michael Rhodes) whether the story genesis was coming across the photo, or did you hear about from some other fashion and then find the photo.
I hope the rider was OK. I really didn't get a good look as I drove by. And as a guy who commuted from marin to SF on my bike for 18 months, I sympathize. It's scary in the big city.
Cheers
in response to Bicyclist Injured in Collision at Market and Ellis Streets this Morning
John C
Does someone have a picture of the J-Church stop at Glen Park? That place is horrible.
in response to Wanted: Your Photos of Crummy Transit Conditions
zsolt
Whoops, I first posted this in the wrong post:
Reading other websites such as SFGate on the Muni sting, it is remarkable how much people are in favor and welcome this. Mind you, the same people would have their panties in a bumch if the city would take comparable action against motorists. The double standard is striking.
@AlexJB: ever took the 14 in Lazar's district? The back of the bus is routinely soiled with chicken bones and fast food packaging. It is really, really bad. But heck if it was up to me, the police would also cite people who clip their nails on transit!
in response to SFPD Conducting First Citywide "Operation Safe Muni" Sting Today
zsolt
Reading other websites such as SFGate on the Muni sting, it is remarkable how much people are in favor and welcome this. Mind you, the same people would have their panties in a bumch if the city would take comparable action against motorists. The double standard is striking.
in response to Today's Headlines
Charles Siegel
FOE is discrediting itself and positioning itself on the lunatic fringe on this issue.
World CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 and decline sharply after that, to avoid the worst effects of global warming. With this law in Congress and successful negotiations in Copenhagen, it is possible for emissions to peak by 2015. The reduction will not be great enough after that, but the world can strengthen its efforts after new science comes in in the 2010s.
By contrast, if FOE and the Republicans stop this bill, there is no chance of successful negotiations in Copenhagen. World action to control global warming will be set back a decade or more. And that means there will be no chance of stopping catastrophic global warming.
With friends like FOE, the earth doesn't need enemies.
in response to How Important is a United Front on the Climate Bill?
mikesonn
patrick, Newsome should start with being present within the city first. Sad it went from not seeing him on MUNI to just not seeing him ever in the city!
in response to Today's Headlines
patrick
Wow, can we trade mayors with London. Not only does he save people while riding a bike, he scouts out future bike lanes while riding his bike! I don't know anything else about the guy, but that already puts him way ahead of Newsom.
in response to Today's Headlines
patrick
I think it's a good idea to enforce every rule. It's the same strategy they used to fix the crime problems on the NY subway system.
If you let the small stuff slide, it sends the message that enforcement doesn't happen.
Plus, tagging and spilled food make the bus experience unpleasant for everybody, and costs us all in more cleaning and maintenance expenses.
in response to SFPD Conducting First Citywide "Operation Safe Muni" Sting Today
patrick
@marcos
Point taken, I will try to find a more neutral term, and use the phrase NIMBY more selectively, or not at all. There are certainly bad projects that get pushed through, and even good projects that could be implemented more conscientiously taking the needs of the affected community, but...
In the particular case I am talking about (the discussion of a tunnel for the peninsula) I feel the term is appropriate. While true that not everybody involved in this particular issue is a NIMBY, there are a large portion of people arguing against upgrades for HSR who have their backyards directly adjacent to the existing Caltrain ROW. They are trying to force the state to pay billions extra for their own parochial concerns, many of which have no basis in reality. The existing plan as-is already has many benefits for the people along the ROW, no more horns, no more waiting at grade crossing, no more accidental deaths of people crossing against the signals, reduced suicides as jumping in front of a moving train will be much more difficult. I have no problem if they want to find a way to pay for the tunnel themselves, but to ask the state to pay for it, or to try and contradict the voters of the state over the issue, is, in my opinion ridiculous and the essence of NIMBYism.
I am all for considering the needs of those impacted by a project, but at the same time, you are never going to make everybody happy. If it is a project worth doing, then at a certain point you just need to move forward.
in response to Judge Busch Could Block New Bike Lanes Through March 2010