-
-
-
Follow Streetsblog
Recently Posted Jobs
- Design Intern (Part-Time), 13 hours ago
- Campaign Manager, 2 weeks ago
- Policy and Government Affairs Manager, 2 weeks ago
- Field Director, 4 weeks ago
- Designing Cities Fellow, 6 weeks ago
Word On The Street
“So sad for the victim. So disgusted at the response and at a general culture that encourages drivers to be aloof and oblivious.”
– bicicletera In response to "Man on Bike Killed by Garbage Truck Driver at 16th and South Van Ness"
-
-
Recent Comments
Hot Topics
EYES ON THE STREET
Contribute to Streetsblog San Francisco
Email tips@sf.streetsblog.org or send them anonymously. Tag your photos, links, and videos with "streetsblog".
Calendar
- Sunday, May 26
- 8:30 amTour de Marin
- 10:00 amSFBC Rec Ride: Tour du Fromage
- Tuesday, May 28
- Wednesday, May 29
- Thursday, May 30
- Sunday, May 26
Archived Articles
Categories
Blogroll
Copyright Notice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Anonymous
Way cheaper for landlords and businesses to provide bicycle parking spaces than car parking spaces. They should embrace this law.
in response to Planning Commission Approves Higher Bike Parking Requirements
ANative
It’s Simple. Deal with the lazy bus drivers. Force all bus drivers completely into the bus lane allowing traffic (cars&bikes) to flow and improvements of boarding. Results of the clipper card have yet to be seen. As far as TEP I have no faith in them as well as no faith in many other city departments. City hall gets too involved in all the different departments making it harder on them to do to the right thing and get their jobs done. If they moved themselves out of it and only into oversight then maybe. However…. If your a bus rider then wonderful. Let me know if the colored bus lanes work out for you.
in response to Red Transit Lanes on Church Have Made Muni Faster and More Reliable
Todd Edelman
Having a bike – in particular a cargo or kid-carrying bike that can do the most to replace a car for many trips – not on street level near the street is liking keeping a car on its side and having to ask neighbors to help roll it over every time you need to use it.
So how will it be in reality since “active use” was dropped? Will the market demand bike parking in the best place? Or will bike share promotion include text like “… more convenient than your own bike.”?
in response to Planning Commission Approves Higher Bike Parking Requirements
Anonymous
I guess my point is that not everyone is applying market logic (cost/benefit) to each situation or that it’s at least more complicated than than, even if it’s what your or I do. For example, people often hold on to cars for years for emotional reasons and once they get rid of them they realize they should have done it years and thousands of $ ago. I don’t think we always know why we do what we do
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
You make some very good points, and I don’t discount any of them. I just want to clarify that transportation is both structural and personal. The structure determines both the cost and the benefit of a certain mode.
In San Francisco, the bicycle mode has benefit of being cheap and some people enjoy it. It has the cost of danger of personal injury (lack of bicycle facilities), physical difficulty in direct proportion to the distance of your residence from the urban center (or wherever you work).
The public transit mode has the monetary cost of a MUNI or MUNI/BART pass. Travel times can vary drastically. It has the benefit of being cheaper than owning a car, taking you far distances, and being available where you live and work (if that’s the case).
The costs and benefits are directly determined by structure. How often MUNI runs; how likely it is your bus will get you where you need to be in time; what bike facilities are available on your route; etc. But the person still makes a cost-benefit analysis when choosing a mode. The role of the any institution that wants to encourage one mode over the other (like city government) is to create the conditions where the benefit for that mode outweighs the costs for a greater number of users. I would not consider this the neo-liberal viewpoint.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
By saying that you see transportation as individuals making a cost-benefit analysis IS a neoliberal viewpoint. Transportation is structural. The private shuttles are not privatization of a public system or service because there are no public systems right now that can replicate what they do. I’m not against the shuttles per say, but I don’t think workers taking luxury buses (oxymoron?) to work 30-50 miles outside of SF is going to inherently make them appreciate improved public transit that doesn’t necessarily benefit them, at least not directly. I think that may be what the author is saying? I’m not sure, but that’s certainly what I think.
Your oversimplifying my argument, I’m not strictly saying that how people get to work determines how people vote. What I’m suggesting is that mode choice beyond commuting, especially your options but not necessarily what you take, ends up shaping ideology, if anything because it so heavily reflects culture and class. I think ideology is also more than how someone votes and mode choice in general has a huge affect on how one interacts with and perceives the world. That’s one critique of private vehicles and shuttles, how closed off people inside are from interaction outside of the vehicle. I think it would be interesting to find out how private shuttle riders get around when they’re not on shuttles, but I also think that this argument has been hashed out a lot on this blog. This book isn’t about just shuttles and I am looking forward to reading it.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
I work in tech, and while I would say there is a higher percentage of neo-liberals than there are in the general population, I don’t think it makes up the majority. I don’t have any data to back that up though, just personal experience.
The reality is for that particular need, privatization makes sense. Everyone would be pretty angry if the City of San Francisco created a bus service to take employees straight to Google in Mountain view. It’s not a fair use of taxpayer money.
I don’t think the mode you use is a good indicator of your politics. I think it’s just a matter of every individual making a decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. I ride a bike to work because it’s faster and more reliable than public transit, and parking at my home and work is too expensive or hard to find. It doesn’t mean that I would not vote to spend money to improve public transit.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
Most (not all) tech employees are going to be loosely neoliberal, pro-privitization, maximization, efficiency etc. That’s also who forked over a lot of cash to get Ed Lee elected (looking at you Twitter and Ron Conway, among others). I think Henderson’s actually saying that your ideology around transportation IS going to be reflected in your transit choices. The private shuttle is a newer choice for SF and it doesn’t necessarily reflect one that is going to be progressive or even transit friendly (the quotation above thinks it’s the opposite although I wouldn’t go that far).
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Roy Crisman
Mr. Nevius was there for the entire ride.
I think he was a bit ahead of us when the closest call happened. As we rode en mass up Franklin from Market to Oak there was an aggressive driver who came within a foot of a couple back wheels and pushed right after passing 1/2 the group to show…that he had some issues.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I think one of the points made in this summary was that transportation is as much an ideological issue as anything else. If someone is politically progressive, whatever their mode of transportation may be in practice (including a private shuttle), they are still likely to vote for improved public transit.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
Re: C.W. Nevius Was on the Ride of Silence
Wow, Nevius being neutral, maybe even slightly pro-bicycle. Go figure.
However, his article said this: “All of which is relevant in San Francisco, where bike ridership has increased 71 percent since 2006, and in the same period, collisions resulting in injuries increased 84 percent.”
Is that correct? If true, it would imply conditions have gotten less safe for cyclists since injury rates are increasing faster than ridership rates.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
The biggest losers with respect to 19th Ave are pedestrians. And I mean big – as in multiple fatalities. No way would I ever try to cross that street with my toddler. Might as well be crossing 101, if he threw a fit in the middle of the road and didn’t want to keep crossing, we’d be dead ducks.
Regardless, as a cyclist the problem comes if you want to actually visit something on 19th Ave, or heaven forbid if you *live* on 19th Ave. And if you live in that area chances are you would have to cross it.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Don
The Portola Drive bike lanes have the same issue, dropping out and turning into sharrows for the last half mile westbound, downhill. In general, SFMTA is a little too comfortable using sharrows on downhill segments of very high speed roadways, in the belief that it’s safer than risking a dooring. While downhill dooring is a very real issue, the better solution is to do a buffered bike lane where possible, which certainly includes Portola, if not the Great Highway just yet.
in response to SFMTA Installs Bike Lanes on Point Lobos and Northern Great Highway
Bruce Halperin
Not that 19th Avenue comes anything close to “working”, but what’s wrong with 20th Avenue as far as cyclists are concerned? The climb up to Quintara is no higher or steeper than on 19th, and it connects directly to Transverse Drive in GGP at the north end. The only tricky part is getting through Stern Grove and crossing over Sloat, but Sloat is a whole clusterf**k unto itself. In short, this time the people asking “why not just take Page Street instead of Oak” might actually have a point.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Anonymous
Guy gets 2 DUIs in one day:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/05/17/elderly-san-rafael-man-arrested-for-dui-twice-in-same-day/
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I think Henderson could use a “necessarily” after the not. I think in pro-transit discussions people take it as a given that someone riding a corporate shuttle is going to support Muni or transit in general because they are not using a car to get to work, but that is not necessarily the case. They certainly aren’t as vested in improving public transit as daily riders because they don’t have to rely on it in the same way.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
justin
Maybe the quote is out of context, but I have a hard time believing the google shuttles are necessarily “creating a constituency that is pro-transit, but not pro-mingling with other people, and not pro-transit finance when you put things on the ballot.” (The book is sitting on my kitchen table, not yet read).
Look no further than Caltrain for proof — you see the same people on the trains, mingling. They’re just the lucky few for whom Caltrain is actually a commute option, since it serves basically nobody in San Francisco, and stops far from many SV employers.
To me, the shuttles are a testament to:
1. silicon valley tech workers want to live someplace more exciting than silicon valley.
2. they are not willing to drive
3. the available public transportation is completely inadequate.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
Travis Gilson
If more bike lines opened in many cities, more cyclists would be riding their bikes.
in response to Eyes on the Street: Oak Street Protected Bike Lane Ready to Ride
Bruce Nourish
Does Mr Henderson have any data (I.e. polling, voting records) that suggests users of Silicon Valley shuttles are less pro-transit-finance than any other group of demographically-similar people, or its he just assuming? And no, I’m not willing to buy his book to find out.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
M.
It’s an amazing book, fully documenting an epic urban drama, cast with clashing titans and the full range human wacked-outness, unfolding over bloody decades.
I’ve read it looking for The Solution and had to wonder: if I’d known about the long tragic history of SF street fights, would I still have picked one for my particular street? Yeah, I would.
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
easy
Added to my Amazon wish list!
in response to "Street Fight": The New Guide to SF's Transportation Politics
murphstahoe
greasybear is right. If you ride a bike in SF, you are *already* putting in the funding for more bike projects but it’s being used for non cycling projects.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Anonymous
No, we want the taxes we already pay into the general fund to be more equitably allocated. We want our taxes to go into building and maintaining critical bicycle infrastructure, as opposed to the status quo allocation of less than one half of one percent for bike facilities. Change that, and maybe later we can talk about which road users should pay additional money into the system.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Andy Chow
I have nothing against the cyclists, and I do think that BART can lift or seriously relax the current ban. I think that there will be some negative impacts that can be reasonably mitigated.
in response to Will the BART Board Take the Sensible Step of Lifting Bike Bans?
Mike
The fee could be less. Whatever. We’re looking for funding for more bike projects here. I would be willing to pay $50 or so every 3 to 5 years for more bike facilities. You’d rather put your money somewhere else to avoid paying for bike facilities in the city you ride.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Anonymous
Radulovich is always spot on. Radulovich for mayor!
in response to Will the BART Board Take the Sensible Step of Lifting Bike Bans?
Anonymous
You had me at “Never trust a politician…”
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Anonymous
Oh also, the redwoods do more than add shade, they help capture moisture from fog and (though I guess you’d need more to do it) lower the ambient air temperature much more than just any tree providing shade could.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I would settle for a mixed-fruit grove. Fruit trees other than lemons and figs generally produce one large crop lasting only a few weeks once a year so there are some downsides to that. Maybe they could target their iphone 6 launch to coincide with the apple season. We could try and convince them to do some mixed-berries and kiwis along the side as well.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
And a lot of bird crap from the birds going after the apples….
in response to Today's Headlines
MrEricSir
I’d require apple trees. That way you not only get shade, but there’s something to eat for everyone waiting in line for their iPhone 6.
in response to Today's Headlines
Tom
Never trust a politician who doesn’t remove his sunglasses when giving a speech.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
94103er
They aren’t native to here per se–this has always been a sandy coastal sage scrubby area. But sure, ‘native’ sometimes means close enough as the crow flies.
Anyway, you all are correct that they don’t work as street trees, but given a decent footprint like that Transamerica Bldg park or the Healdsburg town square you can have a nice little mini-grove of redwoods.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
Oh, yeah, redwoods don’t really work with our current sidewalk configuration, but I do think there’d be room to put in a few if they set the building back a bit. The model I’m thinking is the redwood forest by the transamerica building, a much smaller footprint than the building itself, but big enough to support around 20 trees.
As to their nativity, I’m not sure. I’m not a super conservative naturalist who thinks that only the most absolutely native must be grown here, but they grow native within 20 miles of here (Marin, Oakland) so it’s not THAT much of a stretch to grow them in SF proper.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
I know this wasn’t super serious, but …
If there is no room on the sidewalk for pedestrians – how are you going to plant redwoods! The redwood growing through my back deck is 6 feet in diameter and it’s a baby. Then the root system can’t do anything because it’s bumped against asphalt and whatever, so when the wind comes, the tree falls over and takes out the Apple store.
The only way to pull it off would be to rip out the street completely and put the redwoods in right in the middle of where the street used to be. Not a bad idea in my opinion – but are redwoods really native to SF proper?
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
If I was on the board to approve this I would require redwoods in front to properly shade it: air conditioning issue solved.
The foot traffic should make the case to shut down that whole area to cars (except delivery, disabled, emergency vehicles). But yeah, remove the parking and make Apple pay for the sidewalk extensions.
I love the term revitalize used for Union Square, hopefully a flagship Apple store will help bring sorely needed foot traffic and customers to Saks 5th Ave and Tiffany’s on the same block or maybe we could kickstart a fundraiser for all 3.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
- huge southern facing glass facade w/ no shade (how is this green? short of being a greenhouse that will need to be cooled w/ obscene amounts of AC)
-more foot traffic? Where will the foot traffic go? The sidewalks are already filled to the brim. Will we get sidewalk extensions into the unneeded parking lane?
-This probably has to do with Central Subway construction for the next 5-7 years but the city has to make it sound like Apple wants to “revitalize” an area that is the most vibrant shopping district on the west coast.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
The point of lifting the ban isn’t to allow people with bikes to jam them onto crowded cars. It is to allow them to bring their bikes on board when there is space, and when the ban is unnecessary and overreaching.
The same rule applies on busy trains outside of the commute hours ban period and the world hasn’t ended. Why not just say “don’t bring your bike on a crowded train at any hour”, which has a lot more useful application than a blanket ban. Thoughtful people will follow thoughtful rules.
in response to Will the BART Board Take the Sensible Step of Lifting Bike Bans?
Anonymous
but, but, TURBOCHARGE!
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
This leaves me with a ton of questions.
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/05/16/apple-to-open-new-store-on-union-square/
in response to Today's Headlines
gneiss
How do you reconcile the taxes bicyclist would pay under your scheme with the tax rebates provided to people who purchase electric cars? An electric car needs road infrastructure just like a gasoline powered car, yet each person who purchases one gets a $7,500 federal tax rebate and up to $2,500 tax rebate from the State of California. If anything, people who purchase bicycles for transportation should get a similar sized credit, particularly since the roadway infrastructure requirements are far less for bikes then for cars, electric or otherwise.
In addition, current funding levels for bicycle infrastructure in San Francisco are woefully low, even given the minimal 3.5% mode share for all trips made by bicycle. The city is spending only 0.64% of the SFMTA budget on cycling ‘improvements’. I’m not prepared lobby for any extra tax dollars unless there’s a commitment from the city to increase their funding past the 3.5% level. We should at the minimum be spending money in proportion to our mode share.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
mikesonn
Except drivers [specifically] really haven’t paid their taxes to use the road.
in response to Wider Highways? Bay Area's Smart Growth Plan Has Some Glaring Mistakes
jh
This makes no sense. People have paid tax for their public road, and this HOV thing is totally wrong. What we should do is use tax money to build more freeways for everyone to drive. Get rid off all HOV!!
in response to Wider Highways? Bay Area's Smart Growth Plan Has Some Glaring Mistakes
Winston Parsons
AMEN!
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Roy Crisman
Poop!
in response to Watch: Time Lapse of Market Street Bike Traffic on Bike to Work Day
murphstahoe
I can think of several bike stores just across the city line, and several dozen within walking distance of a BART or Caltrain station. If I am buying a $4000 Specialized Tarmac, 2 percent is 80 bucks. If I go to Mike’s in Sausalito to buy the Tarmac, SF loses out on 300-400 bucks in general sales taxes to Marin’s benefit.
And forget fairness – it’s just plain bad policy to add taxes onto items we want people to buy instead of items we don’t want people to buy. Tax soda/liquor/cigarettes, not bikes.
The political backlash from the cycling community would be much worse than any positive reaction from outside the cycling community. Much like there is no evidence that a sudden outbreak of stop sign compliance would not quell the complaints of those who dislike cyclists, I see no reason that a surcharge would suddenly make cycling an “approved activity”.
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
Mike
For those not familiar with Mello-Roos Districts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos
Info about the Colorado Springs bike tax: http://www.trailsandopenspaces.org/biketax.html
And some food for thought regarding a bike tax. It would be more of a practical/political move rather than a tax for fairness:
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/12/18/A-bicycle-tax
in response to Supervisor Mar: Abysmal Funding for Bicycle Infrastructure "Not Acceptable"
agetawaycoaches
We offer Charter Buses, Party Buses, Limousines, Luxury Transportation to the Illinois Metro Area. Our Professional fleet of vehicles includes Charter Buses, Luxury Limo Party Buses. illinois Charter Bus
in response to SFMTA: Church Street Colored Transit Lanes Coming This Weekend
Volker Neumann
For the record the camera captured a photo every .5 seconds. I assembled the time lapse video and the folks at the Bike Coalition did all the editing
Thanks to Eric for setting up the rig while I had other responsibilities that morning.
in response to Watch: Time Lapse of Market Street Bike Traffic on Bike to Work Day
Volker Neumann
it did. here’s a link to the highest res i was able to pull out of the camera. sadly the thief never faced the camera while he was closer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_CbJqGgGGM
in response to Watch: Time Lapse of Market Street Bike Traffic on Bike to Work Day