Traffic and the Bicycle Plan in SF: A Dialogue

These comments and my replies are in response to an earlier post on traffic in San Francisco.

Anonymous wrote:
It's a simple policy matter: do we want to ENcourage bicycling or DIScourage it?

Rob wrote:
Or you can put it this way: How far should the city go with a policy that is actually punitive toward motorists on behalf of a tiny minority (1-2%)? Do we really want to create traffic jams on city streets based on nothing more than the hope that motorists will turn to bicycles in frustration? The numbers here show me that is a fantasy. I think it's fair to say that basing city traffic policy on a fantasy is a bad idea.

Paul Tay wrote:
Should the transportation policy focus on moving people or moving bikes and motor vehicles? Pave the whole joint til it's one great big parking lot.

Rob wrote:
You're not doing any analysis, Paul. The pavement is already here, as is all the traffic. The question the city faces is, How do we reasonably apportion our street space to the different available means of transportation? In light of the numbers in the above post, it's foolish to take away traffic lanes to make bike lanes without doing some serious study and analysis, including traffic studies. That's what the recent court decision against the city's Bicycle Plan was about. And don't forget that "motor vehicles" in the city include Muni---we're a transit first city, not a bikes first city---and emergency vehicles. If you screw up traffic for motor vehicles in general, you also screw up traffic for Muni and emergency vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:

Punitive? So if motorists get 95% of the roadway instead of 99%, that's being PUNITIVE? Give it up.

Paul Tay wrote:
Ya know, Rob, bicyclists don't really need the bike lanes. It doesn't take much to create traffic jams using bicyclists as human shields, a la Critical Mass. Even one cyclist is a weapon of mass DISRUPTION. One cyclist can significantly degrade a roadway's level of service in a heartbeat. Ask Santa. He's got the whole non-violent civil disobedience down to a science. It's really no problem for one cyclist to convert a motor travel lane into a virtual bike lane.

Rob wrote:
At least you're an honest bike nut, Paul. You admit your juvenile impulse to disrupt traffic, which tells us that cycling really has nothing to do with fossil fuels or saving the planet.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's about giving people options. A lot of folks just don't feel comfortable riding a bike without a sanctioned public way. It is worth putting this infrastructure in place; the polling data show that more people would ride if they felt safer doing so. There is no guesswork about it. Put the lanes in and people will use them. The city has a legal comittment to bicycles. I'm not against an EIR per se, but the suit does strike me as a bit of a political maneuver wrapped up in legalistic pretenses.
"they paved paradise--put in a parking lot"

Rob wrote:
"No guesswork about it"? So the city should take away traffic lanes and street parking on the premise that people will flock to the bike lanes on bikes? The city has a legal commitment to a Transit First policy, not to a Bikes First policy. If you insist on screwing up traffic for motorists, you also screw it up for Muni."A political maneuver wrapped up in legalistic pretenses"? Why do I get the impression that you know nothing at all about the litigation surrounding the Bicycle Plan? What makes you bike nuts think you can pontificate about a subject about which you really know nothing? I know: BikeThink, the ideology of bikes, like all ideologies, provides you with all the answers out front, so you don't have to actually do any homework before spouting off. Why do you think two Superior Court judges agreed with us about the Bicycle Plan? Were/are they both anti-bike?

Thanks for the Joni Mitchell quote; that goes real deep. Actually, the pavement is already here. The question is how to apportion the use of that pavement among the various means of transportation in the city. The numbers I presented in the post above show that it's just stupid to revamp city streets on behalf of a tiny minority and their political fantasy without first doing some serious traffic and environmental studies. It also happens to be illegal, something that never seems to bother the bike nut community, which isn't surprising, given the way so many of them conduct themselves on city streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Like I've said before: If bicycles make up only 2% of commuter trips, then give them only 2% of the transportation budget for commuters.

Rob wrote:
No matter how often you say it, it's still irrelevant. This is not about money. The issue with the Bicycle Plan is actual space on city streets---traffic lanes and street parking versus bike lanes.

Chuomo Fosset wrote:
So what percentage of city streets are taken up by bike lanes? I'm sure it's less than 1% right now. Plus, who ever said traffic lanes, or even parking has to be disturbed. You've got a bizarre vendetta man, I don't know where it comes from but it's really sad.

Anonymous wrote:
Even if you remove an entire lane of parked cars to put in a bike lane, it could be worth it. Why should something that's not even being used preclude us from allocating space for something that is? Here's how I see it working out: a regular traffic lane with an adjacent parking lane---not usually enough room for a cyclist and a motorist to proceed safely side-by-side. What happens? Either the cyclist moves further out into the lane, sometimes slowing the motorist (thus being exposed to that driver's vicissitudes) or the cyclist rides too close to the parked cars, exposing him/herself to the opening of car doors AND to the passing of motor traffic! All so cars that aren't being used have somewhere to sit. This is not a balance of transportation needs; this is pandering to the automobile.

Rob wrote:
You can't make one rule fit all city streets. If you're going to take away traffic lanes---and my point is that traffic lanes are well-used in the city---you have to do a traffic study first to see what the results will be. It may be "pandering to the automobile," but, if you read the numbers in the post, you will understand that there are already hundreds of thousands of autos---and buses, trucks, and motorcycles---using city streets every day. That's the reality we have to deal with, not some utopian, goofball fantasy about bicycles as a major transportation "mode."

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure you understand how public policy works. We make policy choices that reflect not only the kind of 'reality' we have, but ALSO the kind of reality that we WANT to have. Bicycle transportation is not a goofball dream; most places in the world to a significant amount of getting around by bicycle. It's a very good point you make about one rule not working for all streets. I think the situation I have described helps set up a framework for understanding what's going on out there between cars and bikes. With a city on a pretty small landmass like SF, it's no question that bicycles can work. Look at all the people riding them DESPITE the proper infrastructural investments. Imagine what it would be like if we actually encouraged cycling!

Rob wrote:
And I'm not sure you understand the realities of traffic on the streets of SF. It's just a fantasy to think that by making it harder for people to drive in the city we are going to make people turn to bikes instead of cars. You've provided nothing but fodder for that fantasy. Your suggestions are completely fact-free; you have essentially ignored all the numbers I've cited in the post. You and other bike nuts are entitled to your fantasies under the First Amendment, but it's pure folly to allow the city to apply them to city streets. My whole point, Anon, is this: If you apply the bicycle fantasy to the design of city streets to "encourage cycling," you are just going to screw up traffic for everyone, including Muni and emergency vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:
Biking makes it easier for people to drive; it alleviates traffic congestion. Imagine if the 2% of bicyclists decided one day to all switch to cars. I think it's safe to say they'd place a significant burden on an already clogged system. But we can think of this the other way, too. Imagine the reverse where an additional 2% decide to make the trip by bike. That ameliorates traffic jams. No sane person will doubt that bike trips are on the upswing.

Rob wrote:
Why don't you "imagine" coming to grips with the realities on the streets of the city? You're just speculating off the top of your head, and your speculations are fact-free.

Anonymous wrote:
You mean like 'realpolitik', for example?

Rob wrote:
I mean like reality, dude. The numbers I cite in the post tell me that taking away traffic lanes to make bike lanes in San Francisco should be done with extreme caution.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you 100%; it should be done with extreme caution.

Anonymous wrote:
Robert Moses and his lot made essentially the same argument you're making when public pressure mounted to close the extension of 5th ave through Washington Square park. He said it would exacerbate traffic congestion. He was wrong. Traffic counts in the surrounding areas, if they were affected at all, DECLINED. Chew on that for a while. The same thing happened in Copenhagen. When they reduced the number of cars in downtown streets.

Rob wrote:

Try to "chew on" the topic under discussion, which is traffic and the Bicycle Plan in San Francisco, not Copenhagen or New York.