-
-
-
-
- 18349 Headed east on JFK Drive separated bikeway outside Conservatory of Flowers
- www.sfbike.org/?project_JFKDr
-
From: geekstinkbreath
April 17, 2012
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Peter Smith
I agree. It’s you who conflated the two by discussing ”the bus/auto market”, not me.
The two industries — or market segments — to the extent that they are actually separate — share many of the same goals — but one overarching shared goal is to make sure people are not allowed to move about under their own power. The car and bus markets do not cannibalize one another — they are complementary to one another — that is why they can be referred to as ‘the bus/auto market’. There’s nothing to conflate about this.
No-one is “ruling out the possibility of walking and biking” on Van Ness, and the city is actively encouraging biking on neighboring Polk St. Again, I have to ask, why is improving conditions for bus riders- and therefore the ridership of buses compared to private vehicles- a bad thing? Granted we shouldn’t do that at the expense of bicycle facilities, but we’re not. Two car lanes will be replaced with dedicated bus lanes, and cycling facilities, existing or future, are not impacted.
A bus highway in the middle of Van Ness will make walking and biking there even more dangerous and difficult — for cycling, possibly impossible.
Making small side streets like Polk decent for biking is not sufficient to allow people to bike in significant numbers — we need access to the most major corridors — this is not speculation, it is fact — based on studies of every society that knows high cycling rates. We could traffic calm every single street/road/bridge/tunnel in all of San Francisco, and if we didn’t get the biggest, most major, most direct routes, we’d only ever achieve a mode share of possibly up to 10%. Really, it’s a very simple equation — make the major corridors available to bikers if you want to allow a lot of people to bike. Or, concentrate on the Polk streets of the city and make sure mode share is not significantly affected.
I think the bus experience will get worse — if the situation in Bogota is any indication, the bus experience will almost certainly get much worse.
Taking away car lanes and giving them to buses only puts more pressure on the roadway from cars — this effectively makes carving out room for cycletracks impossible
Personally, I find using quality public transportation to be pretty dignifying, often more so than cycling when it’s cold and wet. You are projecting your own opinions on what is dignified and what is not onto everyone else, whereas I am saying we should make both cycling and public transportation as dignified as possible and allow people to exercise their preference. And if using public transportation requires the permission of our elected officials, then so does using dedicated cycling facilities- both require lobbying for and funding from various levels of government. You’re buying into the motorists’ argument that your facilities are free because you didn’t pay for them upfront.
‘Choice riders’ don’t take the bus — that’s another fact — it has nothing to do with me, personally, though I am often a choice rider, and when I have a choice, I, too, avoid the bus, along with the rest of most of America.
The permission argument is based on the fact that people with a bike are not beholden to the whims of public transit officials, mayors or coucilpersons, etc. — we can just hop on our bikes and go.
I wasn’t aware that no-one got old and infirm before the invention of motorized transportation. I will be sure to let the biologists and anthropologists know that they have that part of human history completely wrong.
Battle those straw men, but the fact is that life expectancy is decreasing all around the world for many reasons — one primary reason is the motorization of society. People are growing decrepit earlier, living lower-quality lives, etc. All the sarcasm in the world won’t save them.
When you travel by bus, you spend part of your time waiting for the bus, and part of your time riding the bus. Generally speaking, waiting is perceived to be more unpleasant than riding, so it’s important to minimize that waiting time and make it as pleasant as possible. BRT helps achieve that by providing a better waiting environment and a shorter and more consistent waiting time.
Standing in the middle of a 6-lane highway, on the inside of a 2-lane bus highway, amid the roar of cars and buses — this is a better waiting environment than the sidewalk?
Express buses run all over America, including SF — there’s no need to build a new highway through SF just to accommodate express buses.
Our first priority should be to allow people to walk and bike places — we need cycletracks on Van Ness, not more and bigger and faster buses. For the record, waiting time for riding your bike is usually 0 minutes.
No, I’m responding to your claim that BRT takes up more space on the road than LRT by providing you with an actually existing example of LRT which appears to take up just as much space as the Van Ness BRT design. If you want a more recent example, check out Third St.
Even if this were an exception, and I have no idea if it is, it would not be the rule. BRT requires more right of way width than rail — this is common knowledge. But that’s not even the most salient point — people hate to ride the bus, which keeps pressure on the roadway because people want to drive, which ultimately prevents cycletracks. If you had LRT, at least some people would consider switching out of their cars — as has been proven — which decreases pressure on the roadway from car drivers, leaving open the possibility that cycletracks can one day be implemented.
in response to Proposed Van Ness BRT Design Would Combine the Best of Both Options
Andy Chow
I am OK with the Idaho stop law but I think if you try to push that in California it would be very unlikely to be successful. If we were to change the law to allow “bike yield OK,” some cities such as SF can pilot and implement this without trying to convince the other less bike-friendly cities to adopt that idea. Full stops can still remain in certain areas if yield for bikes is not safe enough. Rather than a wholesale redefinition of a full stop, let the local jurisdictions to decide base on local conditions.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Andy Chow
Today, there’s no restriction on the Richmond-Fremont trains anytime of the day, so someone can take their bikes from Hayward to Berkeley no problem, even though they cannot board the trains that are destined to Daly City during morning peak hours. However the same trip to Berkeley cannot go from Dublin or from Walnut Creek, even if they can immediately transfer to the Richmond train at the earliest opportunity. I think for these lines the restriction should be lifted at least to the station where riders with bike can transfer. That way you can get more suburb to suburb ridership that would be more likely of needing bikes on both ends of the BART trip.
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
Jass
At least here in Fresno, the argument against painting crosswalks like this (or at all) seems to be that ridiculous “false sense of security” claim.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Chris Tran
Or just paint the closest bike sharrows to the crosswalks to warn cyclists to yield.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Jym Dyer
• Without making room for bike carriage, they’re doing it wrong. I need my bike at both ends, for starters. Also, when the Bikes on Board project crunched the numbers for Caltrain it found that storing bikes was more costly than removing seats to make room for more bike carriage. Eventually Caltrain did just that and built ridership. BART should do the same.
BART’s redesign for its new fleet of cars replaces what little reserved space exists for bicycle carriage with an area that has flip-down seats. One flip-down seat can prevent 3 bikes from using the area. (The word “flexible” is being used to describe this arrangement, gosh, doesn’t that sound nice?)
The idea of smarter, denser growth around BART stations has been talked about for decades, but what they actually build has put parking lots and garages closer than walkable amenities. Let’s see something more than talk this time, eh?
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
David Vartanoff
Calling short terminals “crossover stations” just shows BART’s institutional refusal to behave like what it is–just another subway. Short turning trains is common on most systems. They already do this at both 24th and Montgomery. to get more trains back to trhe East Bay in rush hour. What they should be doing is creating a turnback pocket just beyond the portal from Lake Merritt where there is abandoned RR ROW available. Reconfiguring the stub at Daly City so reversing trains needn’t cross opposing tracks would increase reliability and save time. Another candidate for correcting poor track/platform layout is Bayfair where millions were wasted on a small yard south of the station without adding a stub track to facillitate shuttles to/from Dublin or Fremont.
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
Zack
Honestly, as someone who brings their bike on BART nearly every day, black out periods are necessary at some times. I think they could certainly be shortened, such as when I try to hit the last pre-commute hour train in the morning, and it’s not nearly full. I’m sure those next few trains aren’t much more crowded either. But the few days that I don’t ride and go during peak hours, it would be a total pain to have a bunch of bikes on there too, it’s just too crowded. Unless they can increase capacity or give us cyclists a more space-efficient place to put our bikes on the train (or have cars just for bikes, ala Caltrain), I think the some blackout time is necessary. However, get rid of the escalator ban! It’s so dumb, and frankly, it’s safer than bringing your bike up a winding staircase where around each turn you risk clocking the person behind you if they’re too close. If you’re carrying your bike on the escalator, you just go straight and don’t risk clipping someone.
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
mikesonn
Cost is right, but also out-liers have been paying taxes and feel they are “owed” a station.
And yes, I would also like to see # by station.
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
mikesonn
And while I’m at it… The EMB in front of the ferry building is a complete joke. It is not safe to ride your bike on that stretch.
Example: Riding north approaching Mission intersection, full green light, Amtrak bus comes up on my left – I know he is going to pull over to the right past the intersection so not sure why he is passing me when he could drop in behind me – he does not signal and then proceeds to squeeze me into the curb. Luckily there is a curb cut and no pedestrians so I jump on to sidewalk. I pull in front of him and stop and put my hands out, he proceeds to chew ME out. Passing rider says he couldn’t believe what he just saw so we chat as I take the right lane (to avoid a double parker in the bike lane directly in front of FB [a daily occurrence]). The EMB is out of control and a complete joke. The SFMTA and the FB should be ashamed!
in response to Today's Headlines
David Vartanoff
would be interesting to see the ## by station
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
mikesonn
SFMTA is unveiling the “bike present in tunnel” signal through the Broadway tunnel. I thought they dropped this crazy idea, but they seem to think it’s a good thing.
Can someone please talk some sense into them? Drivers (especially taxis) routinely go 50 mph+ through there and the curves are blind. WTF!
in response to Today's Headlines
David Vartanoff
Banning bikes on escalators but not BART staff wheeled maintenance carts makes clear the attitude toward customers.
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
Sprague
These crosswalks seem to clearly improve pedestrian safety. Why aren’t all crosswalks painted like this? On a related note, it’s pretty discouraging and dangerous that many crosswalks in SF are faded, worn, and in need of repainting. By neglecting routine crosswallk maintenance (= painting) this city does a fine job in degrading the pedestrian environment and decreasing pedestrian safety.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Mark Dreger
It’s not the whole way but there’s that nice little “cycle track” on Laguna Honda. Great place to grab a breather or catch up with your friend.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
It all comes back to the same thing: CA needs to adopt the Idaho stop law.
Also, though it can’t be signed as a yield, there is no reason the cops can’t enforce it accordingly, i.e., only ticket cyclists who don’t yield or are otherwise reckless. Cops already do this all the time, for example, with speeding on the highway where everybody knows you can go 5-10 mph over without getting pulled over. There are hard laws and then there are soft laws where there’s some acknowledgement that it’s not the letter of the law (coming to a complete stop) that matters but the intent (determine right of way and yielding to pedestrians).
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Guest
Cost
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
mikesonn
32% of BART riders walk from home to the stations? Tell me again why we need to expand into the nether-regions of the Bay Area and not do infill stations?
in response to Can BART's Bike Plan Double Bike-to-Train Ridership in Ten Years?
Anonymous
Myself and my already-paid-for monthly pass would like to wish STMFA a hearty Fuck You.
in response to Today's Headlines
Sean Rea
@KarenLynnAllen:disqus absolutely. And the idiocy is that a half block away you can watch drivers chat and text away on Gough as they run red lights and block the intersection.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
State law would not allow it. The only move would be to remove all the stop signs and make it an uncontrolled intersection. Which might not be bad except that we are so trained to see stop signs that if we don’t see one we expect the intersection to be a 2 way stop.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Andy Chow
If the state law allows, I think there ought to be a pilot to put “Bike yield OK” sign below the stop sign to recognize the reality that most cyclists don’t and prefer not to come to a full stop, especially on a designated major bike corridor. It is not unusual to have a crosswalk on a street that does not have a stop sign anyway and that all vehicles are expected to yield for pedestrians on the crosswalk.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Karen Lynn Allen
Not only is the location pointless, the activity of ticketing slow, roll-through stops is pointless and a waste of police time. What is the true hazard? Failure by bicyclists to yield to pedestrians. Where is this behavior problematic? Many places where there are large numbers of both pedestrians and bicyclists, but especially, right now, the Wiggle. Police should stand at Wiggle intersections for the next two weeks and give out tickets every time a bicyclist does not yield to a pedestrian who is either in the crosswalk or who has arrived at the street corner before the bicyclist and is clearly waiting to cross. Note: yielding means yielding–giving way to other (in this case pedestrian) traffic. Sometimes this yielding will manifest in slowing down rather than a complete stop as this is much easier for a bicyclist to do. The point is to yield and allow the pedestrian safe passage. (I would argue it also means coming no closer than 3 to 4 feet of said pedestrian.) Bicyclists absolutely have to develop the self-discipline to do this. But there is no reason, beyond the fact that bicycles are expected to follow rules developed for cars (even if entirely nonsensical for bicycles), that bicyclists should stop at empty intersections.
If our police targeted bicyclists who fail to yield to pedestrians, this would actually change dangerous bicyclist behavior. It would actually be using taxpayer money to make our city safer. It would also result in reduced pedestrian animosity towards cyclists and ultimately increase acceptance of cycling city wide.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
@7a0662dc8954176f323a500ece150844:disqus So you know what RPP is, but don’t know how it would impact the parking situation in the neighborhood yet you continue to stand upon your soapbox.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Gregski
One of my reasons for today’s postings was to acknowledge you folks for your effectiveness at political action. But since y’all refuse to accept credit and instead keep trying to convince me of your reasons I’m just entertaining myself watching a religious movement convince itself (it’s not convincing me) that they get what they want by reasonableness rather than power.RPP stands for a lot of things and I guess you don’t want your readers to know which of those things to which you refer. I’ll try residential permit parking. I answered your question so here’s one for you: If arguing over 50 spaces is worthless why are you doing it?
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Roy Crisman
While I understand the spirit of “the law oughtta be different”, it’s kinda hard to seriously ask a real government agency to post a sign like that that is completely out of sync with the legal reality of “bikes must stop”. I don’t think you’d even need to have an accident before someone could sue.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Upright Biker
“YIELD” would be more effective. It’s not in anyone’s interest (drivers, pads, bikers) to have bicyclists coming to a complete stop. Should they yield the right of way, especially to peds who are more vulnerable than they are?
Absolutely.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
jjsmack
If cyclists not stopping for stop signs is really an issue, they could always paint red ”STOP” octagons on the road with a picture of a bike in the octagon, just to drive the point home. Bikes are here to stay, so we all gotta play well together
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Striping Ladder Crosswalks on the Wiggle
Karen Lynn Allen
@azb324:disqus Perhaps it’s my age (!) but I do know quite a few people who might (just might) consider riding a bike a couple miles on a street they are familiar with on the west side of town but who would no more bike downtown than they would jump off a bridge naked into a river of vipers. I truly do hope the shut down encourages many people to try out bicycle commuting. If the 40,000 daily trips on the N turn into 40,000 extra car trips, no one is going to get to work at all.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
God that is so pointless. It is really frustrating when cops can’t prioritize where they should be enforcing laws, that is, where there actually are more accidents (or at least where there are more close calls). There should be a law banning cops from camping out at non-problem intersections. They should only be able to camp-out at intersections where there really is a problem, not where it’s easy to pick-off cyclists.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
@7a0662dc8954176f323a500ece150844:disqus Do you even have a reason for posting any more? I’m not seeing anything out of you besides baiting.
Also, the neighborhood doesn’t even have RPP (you do know what that is, right?) so arguing over 50 spaces is worthless. If parking is so difficult that 50 spaces will break the neighborhood, then RPP should of been discussed years ago.
All opposition so far is just a knee-jerk reaction to “lost parking”, a very black-n-white view of a complex issue.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Gregski
Got it, mikesonn, you’ve got your reasons for wanting the space. So what? So do your opponents. Who’s got the better reasons? The side with the most votes and politcal contributions. Bravo to your side for being so focused and organized.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Sean Rea
Congrats @7a0662dc8954176f323a500ece150844:disqus , on Godwining yourself out of relevance.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
mikesonn
I’ll reiterate, @7a0662dc8954176f323a500ece150844:disqus :
“20% of roadway for 4% of vehicles?”
3 lanes will remain open for actual vehicle travel. Let’s look at using the lane as parking vs travel: 50 parking spaces vs (Rob’s number) 50,000 moving vehicles, that puts us at .1%. I’d say using that space to move 4% is still a better deal.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
murphstahoe
The spots are of value as spots, but they are of more value as a bike lane.
“My work here is done” – the artist formerly known as Logan T Huge.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Aaron Bialick
@KarenLynnAllen:disqus With the difference in bicycling conditions from the Inner Sunset (I live in it) towards downtown – a choice of calm, popular routes: Golden Gate Park, the Panhandle, and Page St., all mostly flat – compared to taking 7th/Laguna Honda to Forest Hill Station, I’d say even the most casual bike commuter would have to be pretty crazy to find riding to Forest Hill more attractive
in response to Today's Headlines
Karen Lynn Allen
Yes, I would hate to leave my bike unprotected in isolated spot. (Which is why Muni could perhaps put in secure parking temporarily?)
Me, I would bike downtown all the way even if the N-Judah were working. But say you lived at Irving and 10th Ave. and worked near Montgomery Bart/Muni. It would be a ten minute bike ride to the Forest Hill station and then a 17 minute Muni ride to Montgomery. No doubt there would be Muni wait time–maybe another four minutes? That makes 31 minutes for the trip. Biking straight from there (so Google maps tells me) is 28 minutes, so straight biking is undoubtedly quicker. (The N-Judah, if all goes perfectly, is 25 minutes plus wait time from this spot. Seems like biking is the better commute value.) But a bicycle-only commute from here would be almost ten miles of biking for the day versus a little under three for the day for the multi-modal commute. Some people might be much more amenable to biking three miles than biking ten. (Although the ten would be good for them!)
in response to Today's Headlines
Gregski
Mark, thank you for the terrific display of the denial and delusion that disables you from even acknowledging a compliment when you receive it. You just go on believing that 88 parking spaces are of no value to drivers and won’t be missed. I suppose it serves to soothe your self-image. But it must be quite a mystery to you why this bike path project has been delayed so much, given that it “isn’t motorists versus bicyclists”.
Murph: I note your efforts to transform the discussion from a debate about bike path politics to a forum for discrediting Gregski. Predictable. If these tired, old Saul Alinsky tactics are the best you’ve got then my work here is done.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
murphstahoe
If you are on the N-Judah line, by the time you ride to Forest Hill you could just ride downtown.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
For someone who rides 100,000 miles a year, gregski seems to use “you” when referring to “the cyclists” a lot…
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Sean Rea
I would guess it is the parking — first thing that came to mind as I was midway through your first paragraph. No way that I would leave a bike parked there — it can get pretty dead up there during the middle of the day.
in response to Today's Headlines
Karen Lynn Allen
In regards to the upcoming N-Judah shut down apocalypse, another option Muni could encourage for folks who might blanch at riding a bike all the way downtown is to ride to the Forest Hill Muni station or the West Portal station, park their bike there, and hop on Muni. I would think most of Inner Sunset could get to the Forest Hill station in fifteen minutes, and there is a wide swath of outer Sunset that is within two miles of the West Portal station. There are some hills involved but they aren’t dreadful, and since people wouldn’t be biking far, just taking them calmly and slowly works pretty well.
From either of these stations service downtown is relatively frequent and swift. In fact I don’t know why more people don’t bike to West Portal and then take Muni–it’s after the K,L or M go above ground that they slow to a crawl and become sporadic and unreliable. (It would certainly help if there were secure bike parking at these stations.)
in response to Today's Headlines
Mark Dreger
@Gregski Except this isn’t motorists versus bicyclists. It’s about providing transportation options on a public street we’re all free to use (and will all continue to be able to use). No one is taking anything away from anyone.
That’s what a lot of people are having trouble with – getting over this car vs. bike thing. It’s not a battle, and the faster we all realize this, the better. And for those of us who decide they would prefer to continue to drive, they lost 30 measly spots so that a major crosstown bike route can finally be connected. C’mon, get real.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
J282sf
Great work! I like those interesting crosswalk treatments too! I’ve walked them several times and the cobblestone feel is great. Let’s do more of them.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Restores Two-Way Traffic on Ellis
Sean Rea
SFPD was sitting at the Days Inn parking lot poaching cyclists who roll the stop sign at Octavia and Grove. They were even in that same spot on Bike to Work Day.
I’d much rather they sit at Grove and Market, where you have two relatively blind crosswalks that are very close together with actual pedestrian traffic. That would entail them doing actual work, instead of camping out like this.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
This @7a0662dc8954176f323a500ece150844:disqus for real? And isn’t there some sort of rule against Godwin’s Law around these parts?
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
Gregski
Greasybear: C’mon, man, where’s your nerve? What’s with all this wimpy “hardly seems unreasonable” stuff?
President Polk (to Mexico): “It hardly seems unreasonable for you to cede California to us; it’s only 10% of your country.”
Hitler (to Stalin): “It’s only reasonable that we should have the Ukraine instead of you. Hey, you’ve still got Siberia!”
General Sherman (to Georgia): “Oh, be reasonable, I hardly burned down more than 2% of your farms. It’ll all grow back.”
Grease, baby, face it, you and your fellow cyclepath crusaders are engaged in a political war of territorial conquest. And have you noticed? YOU’RE WINNING. Your opponents have at times succeeded in delaying your progress into their territory but they’ve never succeeded in denying you what you want and I doubt very much that they will this time either. Your successes haven’t been due to reasonableness, they’ve been due to your superior political effectiveness. You’ve won by scaring the politicians more than your opponents have. I tip my hat to you, really. You’re outnumbered by at least 5-to-1 after all.
So, please, when your army of cylepath believers occupies what was formerly your enemy’s 88 parking spaces, do yourself and everyone else a favor and treat yourself to some well-earned gloating. Trust me, it’s more becoming of who you really are and what you really do.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing
mikesonn
There is a reason the SFMTA board gave themselves the ability to float $61 million in bonds for the CS, they know they aren’t going to get that money because they know they don’t actually connect to HSR.
in response to Today's Headlines
CBrinkman
@Jr, I wanted to let you know that I have
asked MTA staff to look at prioritizing transit and bike traffic on Post and
Sutter, and de-prioritizing private auto traffic. It would helpful for those of you who bike Post and Sutter, and those of you don’t but would like to, to share your opinions with the MTA Board. MTABoard@sfmta.com I see a lot of cyclists coming down Post in the am and I’d like to hear from them.
in response to Eyes on the Street: SFMTA Restores Two-Way Traffic on Ellis
mikesonn
“Face it, you want it because it’s better for *you* because *you* ride a bike. Stop trying to frame it as some sort of act of conscious and admit it’s an act of selfishness.”
Then what do you call fighting to save 50 parking spots in a neighborhood that doesn’t have RPP?
“20% of roadway for 4% of vehicles?”
3 lanes will remain open for actual vehicle travel. Let’s look at using the lane as parking vs travel: 50 parking spaces vs (Rob’s number) 50,000 moving vehicles, that puts us at .1%. I’d say using that space to move 4% is still a better deal.
in response to Overwhelming Support for Fell and Oak Bikeways at SFMTA Hearing