Rob Anderson's commentary on San Francisco politics from District 5
Labels: Cycling, District 5, Neighborhoods, Panhandle
posted by Rob Anderson @ 12:56 PM
links to this post
I like the bike lane idea on Page and Hayes. I propose we do *both* Page/Hayes AND Oak/Fell.Thanks!
The "idea" is not to change Page and Hayes but for cyclists to use those nearby streets instead of fucking up Oak and Fell.
I can't remember, is HAIA the organization that opposes every single new thing in the neighborhood or the one that was formed in response to the organization that opposes every single new thing in the neighborhood?
Never gonna happen. Those streets, for starters, are already sharrowed. They're also up a hill. I have yet to see a flood of cyclists go two blocks out of their way (aggregate) and up a hill just to detour Oak and Fell. By and large, we grin and bear it and hope nobody hits us at 50mph or takes us out with a left or right hook. It's pretty gnarly, but geography's quite a convincing mistress, particularly when you have to work for every foot that you move. Make the drivers go out of their way! All they have to do is depress a gas pedal.Keep in mind Rob, we are talking about three blocks total (on Fell) and two blocks total (on Oak). Do you really mean to imply city traffic will be gridlocked because, god forbid, we take out a parking lane to make an unsafe situation a lot safer? I guess what we really need is for cars to go faster on Oak and Fell. Sure worked well for the lady who flipped her car the other weekend and took out a motorcyclist.Those few blocks of Fell and Oak are the shittiest link in what is otherwise a well-done bicycling system. Not that that means anything to an old curmudgeon like you, of course :)
It's not just about removing street parking; the proposed designs inlcude removing traffic lanes as an option to create bike lane/lanes---that is, a two-way cycle track.The actual proposal---or proposals, since there are several---from MTA are on the website that I linked in the PowerPoint presentation for the Dec. 3 community meeting. One of the "Design Concepts" on page 20 removes a traffic lane from both Fell and Oak Streets. Another design on page 23 removes a traffic lane from either Fell or Oak to make the bike lane.Removing a traffic lane on any part of either Fell or Oak would create a terrific traffic bottleneck on either/both of those streets that would back up traffic on the Panhandle and beyond.The other proposals would remove street parking from both Fell and Oak to make the bike lane, or remove the parking on one of the other to make a lane on one of those streets.Removing all the street parking on either or both Fell and Oak between Scott and Baker is also a big deal in a neighborhood that already has a serious shortage of parking.I counted the street parking spaces on Fell and Oak between Scott and Baker the other day. 39 parking spaces would be lost on Fell and 51 on Oak, for a total of 90 in a neighborhood where parking is already scarce.The MTA's rationale for these proposals is particularly lame: "Fell Street bike lane not comfortable for many cyclists" (page 15). And on page 16 we learn that cyclists are "not comfortable riding with cars." On page 17 we learn that the "Primary Goal" is to "provide a separated bikeway that is safe, comfortable, and convenient..."That is, the "comfort" of cyclists is the MTA's "primary" concern, not the many car owners in a neighborhood already hard-pressed to find a place to park, not to mention the 67,000 drivers who use Fell and Oak Streets every day.The PowerPoint mentions on page 17that another goal is to "improve pedestrian safety along the corridor," but there's no evidence that there's a safety problem for pedestrians on that busy east/west traffic corridor.The MTA claims that there is now a "poor eastbound connection from the Panhandle" to the Wiggle, but that's bullshit. Both Hayes on the north and Page on the southside of the Panhandle provide easy access to the Wiggle. The only significant hill on either street is between Divisadero and Broderick on Page Street.There are other claims in the presentation that are dubious and/or simply untrue. On page 6 we learn that "bicycle use is growing citywide," even though the last city count showed a statistically insignificant increase. On page 16, there's the claim that one of the "top barriers to cycling in San Francisco" is "not enough bike lanes." Untrue, since the greatest increase in cycling in the last four years occurred during when the injunction against the Bicycle Plan was in place (page 6 again). There's no proven relationship between the existence of bike lanes and an increase in cyclists in the city.The proposals are all terrible ideas that can't be justified by the facts, unless you think the "comfort" of you bike people should trump the interests of everyone else who uses Fell and Oak Streets.
Removing a traffic lane on any part of either Fell or Oak would create a terrific traffic bottleneck on either/both of those streets that would back up traffic on the Panhandle and beyond.I vote for that!
Slower streets = safer streets.Data shows SF streets are slowing down, injury crashes also down.SLOW DOWN OAK/FELL. Neighborhood streets, not highways!
You're faking it, Anon. What "data" are you referring to? There's no data I know of that shows Fell and Oak are dangerous, not to mention city streets in general.
*you* have posted that injuries are down. *you* posted that the bike plan - well into implementation now - screws up (slows down) traffic.QED.
Yes, I posted that traffic injuries are down, and I based that on the city's latest "collision" report, which of course you haven't read.The Bicycle Plan hasn't been implemented yet on major streets, like Second Stree, Fifth Street, and Masonic Ave. Cesar Chavez is a work in progress. Yes, it will make traffic worse on a number of busy streets, which the EIR on the Plan told us. The Examiner reported that a few years ago.
To repeat Anon:"*you* have posted that injuries are down. *you* posted that the bike plan - well into implementation now - screws up (slows down) traffic.QED."You can't have it both ways, Rob.
Having what both ways? You're obviously confused, which isn't unusual with you bike nuts. Inhaling too much carbon monoxide.
Yes, it will make traffic worse on a number of busy streets, which the EIR on the Plan told us. And yes, making traffic worse will lower injuries. QED.
You concede that the plan will make our traffic worse, but you offer no evidence that it will reduce injuries. All it's going to do is make traffic worse on behalf of the obnoxious minority with an effective political lobby.
Traffic is worse, injuries are down. Do you have another explanation? Perhaps injuries are down because texting and cellphone use behind the wheel have gone up substantially?
Rob has a hard time drawing connections between things he doesn't want to see connected.
I provide evidence for my opinions, and you guys provide nothing but bullshit.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
View my complete profile