Showdown over Bike Lanes Moves to Crosstown Streets
The battle of bike vs. car is now playing out on Oak and Fell streets, San Francisco's major east-west thoroughfares
San Francisco drivers know that to travel east or west through much of the city, Fell and Oak Streets offer a rare path of progress: up to four lanes wide, one-way, fast-moving and laced with synchronized traffic signals, otherwise known as “light karma.”
The good times, however, could soon be over.
The San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency is in the early stages of a plan that could squeeze cars on these popular routes to make room for bike lanes — by eliminating travel lanes or by removing street parking spaces.
The project is emerging as the biggest showdown to date between automobile drivers and those who advocate greener travel options. And there are indications that the city is leaning toward favoring cyclists before fully assessing public opinion — a scenario that has derailed past bike lane projects.
Fell and Oak Streets link the bedroom neighborhoods on the city’s west side with downtown and Highway 101. The two streets collectively carry 67,000 vehicles daily.
“They are like freeways,” said Alan Miloslavich, manager of Falletti Foods, a local market. “It’s like a 20-block on-ramp.”
This video shows Oak Street during rush hour:
The project would add bikeways — wider than standard bike lanes with a buffer zone separating cyclists and moving traffic — between Baker and Scott Streets, connecting the Lower Haight’s popular Wiggle bike route with the Panhandle park.
Advocates say bikeways are safer for cycling, which has grown in popularity in recent years; some 7 percent of city trips are now by bike, according to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. The city’s Transit First policy, updated in 2007, calls for safer cycling conditions.
But there are fears that removing a travel lane will increase automobile congestion. Removing street parking is also problematic, because open spots are already rare. Morgan Fitzgibbons, leader of the Wigg Party, a cycling advocacy group, said he sympathized with the parking challenges — he has seen his girlfriend nearly in tears after spending 45 minutes searching for a spot — but he said cars had a negative impact on the environment and the bikeway should take precedent.
Patrick Mitchell
Both Oak and Fell have multiple streets running parallel to them. Wouldn't it be safer - for both bicyclists and motorists - to put the bikeways on one of those streets? If the bikeways are built, some motorists are just going to shift to those streets anyway, making all streets less hospitable to bicyclists.
Gordon
I like this idea, we do not need to be cutting back on major thoroughfares used by cars. We should be using alternate streets for bikes. Continually combining the two will only lead to more traffic problems and accidents.
M L
What possible logic is there for Oak and Fell to be turned into bikeways when there are streets to either side that are ideal for bikes? This is just crazy. SFMTA has been overrun by a very narrow special interest sect as their rigged "poll" proves.
Rob Anderson
Since, as we recently learned, it only takes four supervisors to put something on the city's ballot, why not put the Oak/Fell plans on the ballot? While the supervisors are at it, why not include the plan to put bike lanes on Masonic Avenue? These radical changes to our streets affect everyone. City voters need a chance to weigh in on the issue.
Aurelian Howard
Patrick and M L: I assume bike activists have an answer for the "why not Page and Hayes" question, but I don't think I've heard it yet. I suspect, though, that it's less about bikes per se and more about objecting to multilane one-way streets in principle.
Rob: I think we need less ballot-box legislation, not more. We elect the supervisors to make tough calls like this.
I hate how these discussions always turn into "cars vs. bikes," as though the needs of drivers and cyclists are essentially at odds. There must be an objectively observable balance between different modes of transport on city streets, mustn't there?
Shawn Allen
Page turns into a steep hill west of Divisadero, and there's a smaller one on Scott leading going north to Hayes. Fell is a preferred route for everyone because it's relatively flat and the lights are well timed for a speedy ride to the Panhandle. I don't think anyone (except people like Rob, who object to cycling on a cultural and political level) has the balls to tell the thousands of cyclists who use that route every day that they should accept up to a 5-minute delay on their home commute—going steeply uphill, then down just to wait at a signal at the bottom of the hill, riding through 3 stop signs, then waiting for another light just to cross over into the Panhandle—as a trade for the symbolic "safety" of avoiding a 3-block ride on Fell.
b s
So much for objective journalism! Your anti-bicycling bias clearly comes across.
John Murphy
The good times, however, could soon be over - according to Scott James, and anti-cycling blogger.
Phil Aro
I live near the Panhandle on Hayes, daily bike to work and also drive - so I've both navigated the flood of cars in my neighborhood and looked for parking (it's bad). Creating bottlenecks will cause traffic to detour into the surrounding streets, even more than it does already and will make my neighborhood less safe. Look at Page at Octavia during rush hour now.
Outside of visions of cars and bikes sharing the flat, straight-line shot up and down the Panhandle, the actually bike lane connection problem is only 3 blocks long, eastbound on Oak. It starts at the DMV and ends at Scott Street (the wiggle). Now, there is a daily tow away zone (north side of Oak) from the DMV to Divisadero that is almost useless except as a right turn lane onto Broderick or Divis. I'd suggest just eliminating the tow away zone and locating a bike lane across the street (south side of Oak) and eliminating parking in front of the apartments. There are so many driveways that not as many spaces would be lost (watch out for exiting cars!). The DMV is now open for night time parking (for a fee) if it comes to a hopeless parking situation.
Phil
Phil
Phil Aro
Ooopsy ... eliminate the useless tow away zone that only provide a LEFT turn lane onto Broderick or Divisadero.
Jim Herd
Sounds like you have the winning idea, Phil.
I cut through the DMV parking lot (which is specifically illegal on state prop unless there's a sign allowing) from Baker and then hang a lefty onto Oak at Broderick. The big issue is that there's no room on the south side of Oak between Divis and Scott.
(Taking the lane seems to work out OK as there's typically not much of a speed delta, but this is not an ideal layout.)
The big question is how many blocks of parking to eliminate on the south side of Oak heading west from Scott. One block would be very nice and three blocks would be ideal...
(An out-of-the-box idea would be to put a bike lane in on the left side of Oak all the way to Civic Center. There's room there already and the hill heading east is easy to climb.)
Phil Aro
Assuming we're speaking of eastbound bike traffic only - my vote is for removing parking on the South Side of Oak from from Baker to Divisadero in order to locate a fully divided bike lane, and then squeezing in a (standard, painted) bike lane between Divis and Scott. I think it's OK as the traffic is less chaotic on that stretch - abet pretty fast. Taking the divided bike path all the way to Scott would be best for bikes, but would loose too many parking spaces for the neighborhood to accept. Between Baker and Divis. parking loss is offset by dumping the tow-away zones.
Rob Anderson
"I think we need less ballot-box legislation, not more. We elect the supervisors to make tough calls like this."
City departments and supervisors elected by district are making decisions that affect the whole city, but voters citywide never get a chance to vote on these issues. That's the way City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition like it, since they suspect that the bike people aren't really very popular with city voters. If they lost such a vote, the great bike revolution might be over in San Francisco.
Aurelian Howard
Ah, so this is about district elections. Again. What a surprise.
Look, do you object to the U.S. Congress making decisions for all of the U.S., or the Legislature for California? The citywide voice here is the Mayor, and if his or her veto can be overridden, that should be democratic enough, no? We've seen in California what happens when every question is put to a vote of the people—catastrophe.
Justin Eichenlaub
Dream of the suburbs much Scott? I see you retiring to Walnut Creek or Pleasant Hill, maybe moving into CW's old digs. Seriously, stop insisting that our cities be like suburbs. There's plenty of wide lane inviting streets for you and your Prius in the deep East bay.
R T
And what is your brilliant solution?
Rob Anderson
James is committing the unpardonable sin of questioning what City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition plan to do to our streets---Whether We Like It Or Not. He also exposed the phony community outreach done by the Bicycle Coalition, a special interest group---with an interest in the outcome---that City Hall treats like a city department. City Hall also routinely awards the SFBC contracts for various functions, like putting on Bike to Work Day ($50,000 a year for the latter).
That's a cryptic comment by Shahum, since the SFBC also did "community outreach" for the Bicycle Plan. Guess what the outcome of that process was?
s b
I'd like to find the guy who claimed that people don't need parking in front of their house. Really? How about the elderly? The disabled?
How about a bike tax to pay for all these improvements? A city bike registration fee for $5 a bike. San Franciscans love to be taxed; I'm sure we'll all stump for another tax (oh wait, meant "fee").
And has anyone performed an EIR about the impact of smog that is 11 times worse when a car is idling in congested traffic?
The City needs to understand that it is not an island. Hundreds of thousands of cars will be coming through the City daily, because US 101 and SR1 run through the City. You cannot remove traffic from one street without causing an equal impact elsewhere.
those dudes
quick lesson in economics scott:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/tragedies_commons
those dudes
gotta love the conspiracy theory angle:
"the transit agency has spent months plotting the bikeway with cycling advocates"
what crap journalism.
Rob Anderson
"the transit agency has spent months plotting the bikeway with cycling advocates"
He's just reporting the fact that the city and the SFBC have in fact been planning the Fell and Oak Street projects for months, just like they've been planning to screw up Masonic Avenue. Do you think that's untrue?
"We've seen in California what happens when every question is put to a vote of the people—catastrophe."
Too much democracy is a "catastrophe"? I assume you're referring to the vote against gay marriage, but clearly public opinion in general is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage, regardless of that particular vote.
On the bike issue: Maybe I'm wrong that voters citywide would vote against the Fell/Oak and Masonic projects. All I'm saying is city voters should have a say in whether/how City Hall and this special interest group redesign their streets.
Aurelian Howard
His use of the word "plotting" and saying it's been "with cycling advocates"—as though there have been no other interests involved—does seem to reveal some bias, as does your used of the word "screw up" for plans for Masonic.
Well, Prop. 8 is minor compared to what Prop. 13 from the '70s has done. The point isn't "too much" or "not enough" democracy; it's that direct democracy, too frequently used, tends to screw things up.
"All I'm saying is city voters should have a say in whether/how City Hall and this special interest group redesign their streets."
More bias, I see. Again, it's not like this planning is happening behind closed doors, perpetrated by some dark, hippie cabal. Voters have plenty of opportunity for input. but do you think every even vaguely controversial issue should be decided at the ballot box? Why even have elected lawmakers at all?
Rob Anderson
He clearly used "plotting" in the sense of "planning" or "designing," not conspiring. The Bicycle Coalition is in fact a special interest group that has an agenda that may not be identical to the interests of the city in general.
Where did the "planning" on Fell and Oak take place? Funny but I never get invited to these meetings.
Yes, let's just leave it all to the folks in City Hall, since they've done such a great job lately: Octavia Blvd., allowing UC to rip off the old Extension property, highrise condos for the rich on Rincon Hill, giving the unions a blank check on the treasury, etc.
And when City Hall doesn't like what the rabble---i.e., city voters---votes for on the ballot, Scott Weiner has a backup plan: let the supervisors "fix" it!
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2011/05/scott-wieners-attack-on-initiative.html
Al -
Since no one else has commented on why the "alternate streets" are no good, I guess I will. Page is the obvious alternative, and the problem is this: the block from the end of the panhandle to Page averages a 10% grade uphill. Then the block from Broderick to Divisadero is a 7.6% grade downhill. For a lot of people, these are get-off-and-walk hills, both up and down. Try it sometime. The idea of putting the major east-west bicycle artery on that route is stupid, and if you do it, it should be no surprise that half the riders continue to ride on Oak (which, for the record, tops out at 4.2% grade, all downhill.) Hayes is somewhat better, at 4.5% up and 7.5% down, but has the downside of being circuitous, adding several intersections to the route, and making it a few blocks longer.
Simply put, Oak has no contenders.
My personal favorite is a bidirectional separated track on one side of Oak taking the place of a parking lane - like Fell, but with 8 ft parking + 5 ft bike lane replaced by 2x bike lane + 2 foot buffer.
As far as the idea that parking in front of one's house is necessary for "seniors and the disabled", that's a red herring. In the current system, it's first come first served, and your average senior or disabled person has a slim chance of parking in front of their house anyway.
Virginia Rathke
I live on Oak and walk, bike and drive. I think this is a bad idea because traffic is heavy on Oak not just during the morning commute but also on weekends. Trying to squeeze the traffic into fewer lanes would be mayem. It's also already very hard to find parking and I would be sad/mad if the sfmta made it worse. Would rather see bikes stay on Page or Hayes.
I look forward to the public meetings that I'm sure will be held before this dumb-ass plan moves forward.
Seven Seven
How will removing a lane on Oak/Fell affect commuters on the Muni 16X line? Has this issue even been addressed?
Vince Whirlwind
Major power trip by the bicyclists and the SFMTA. Something doesn't smell right in Denmark?
Why overlay this on one of the few remaining through fares in the City? Much of this is actually about getting laid within this small circle of self appointed activists.
There are other people in the area that CAN'T or don't ride bicylces to get places, like families with kids and the elderly. People under 18 and over 65 make up almost 50% of the population, add commuters and you're probably over 50%. I don't think many in these populations were surveyed by what is turning out to be a corrupt group of self centered, know what's best for everyone else, bicycle riders.
I can't wait until they get older or, heaven forbid, actually have a family to see how naive their actions are. And please don't give me the green argument.
Aaron Bialick
Really funny that you mention Denmark... http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/
Joél Ramos
Wow. Lots of good comments here. I think I can help answer some of the questions and respond to some of the statements. I know what I say won't sit well with some of you, but here goes:
What many people don't realize about some, indeed many, bicyclists is that they can move pretty fast. Most people who are cycling today in the city do so because it simply is faster than Muni or driving (factoring the often painful search for parking).
That said, bicyclists who want safer access to Fell and or Oak OVER Page St. want it the same reason cars want access to Oak and Fell as an alternative to Page St.: It's simply faster.
Anyone who travels along Page St. knows that the stop signs and the frequent double parking that happens on Page St. makes driving or bicycling a lot slower than it has to be (not to mention the steep grade mentioned in an earlier post). This often leads to bicyclists who run the stop signs, rightfully frustrating cars who may be at intersections first.
In response to the concern over seniors, I hope that when I am a senior more people who can WILL have a safe bicycling infrastructure that makes bicycling more attractive as a choice of mode of transportation, so those who can WILL bike instead of taking up those precious seats on Muni that I will need. I'd be willing to bet that the steep rise in bicyclists we've seen lately are people like me who can't afford to park downtown, and have given up on the relying on the over-burdened (hence, unreliable) transit system.
Our transit system is already over-capacity, and we need to make bicycling more safe and attractive to those people who are physically able to bike, so as to cause less of a strain on our transit system. Also, for those that are on transit or biking, those are less pressure on our strained parking supply for those grocery shoppers,contractors, pregnant women, seniors or disabled people that really need them.
the cheap seats
How fast does a bicyclist need to go? I understand the issues with the grades of the hills, but opting to run the length of Oak Street instead of Page or the wiggle is how much faster?
While we're on the topic of speed... We all know that it's faster to ride a bike in SF than it is to drive a car. How much faster do you want to go? Some car drivers might see this bike lane move as a greedy grab of pavement. If I bicyclist can cover more ground on Page, then why does he or she need to make the slower car traffic even worse to gain a minute or two? Make sense?
I'm all for bicycling, but the bicyclists need to understand their impact on everyone else as well. Besides, keeping bikes out of the high speed traffic is the best way to keep bicyclists safe as well. When cars and bikes crash, it doesn't matter who was "right," the bicyclist is going to lose every time.
Scott James
Thanks to those who have chimed in today on this issue.
I have a new sidebar piece to accompany this column.
http://bit.ly/oYR1as
It has additional details on the neighborhood survey referred to here.
Best,
Scott
Deirdre Kennedy
Having been a cyclist for many years while living in bike-friendly Copenhagen, not-so-bike friendly London, and way too hilly San Francisco -- and being a current pedestrian and driver -- I would like to encourage everyone who uses the roadways to make an effort to SEE each other as well as HEAR the other sides of the argument.
Yes, it would be nice to have more bike lanes. And it would be even nicer if everyone obeyed traffic laws. I've seen just as many pedestrians sprint in front of cyclists and flip them off as I've seen cyclists curse at drivers.
When I'm driving in SF, where there's poor visibility for a number of reasons -- hills, corners, fog, narrow streets, parked FedEx trucks, it's really hard to SEE what's going on in the other lanes.
I make an effort to SEE and WAIT for cyclists -- so I don't give them the door prize when I'm climbing out of my car, or squish them against the curb when I'm turning right. And yes, I do get the finger every once in a while from a cyclist who I didn't see.
As a driver -- I sympathize with pedestrians and other drivers who have to deal with cyclists coming out of nowhere... particularly when they blow red lights. I personally have split my head open on the pavement when I flew over my handle bars because another cyclist came barreling down the wrong way on a one-way side street and I had to hit my brakes.
I have a couple of basic requests.
Cyclists -- please please wear reflective gear and lights and follow the rules of the road. We can't see you... REALLY.
Drivers -- before you open your car door or make a turn, please look behind you and beside you to see if there is a cyclist peddling in the lane next to you.
It wouldn't kill us all to be a little more mindful of each other. But being RIGHT just might.
Charles Jencks
Oak & Fell for bikes? Sorry but that is just stupid because it is so unrealistic. I was a bike rider as a kid & as an adult for many years & could never understand why other riders chose the busy streets. Must be all that stop & go, tasty exhaust & danger. Or it often seemed these riders were profiling their spiffy new spandex, looking for a fight, or so out of shape or ancient that they could barely stay upright. I seriously doubt in shape competent riders want to mess with Oak & Fell or for that matter other bike riders bumbling along at five miles an hour. When I rode (did not have a car for over five years) I very rarely had any problems with car drivers or pedestrians, & I used my bike for transport as well as putting in at least a hundred twenty road miles a week. I rode fast but rightfully assumed that I was invisible so it was up to me to avoid contact. Now that I think about it people that can & do ride for sport probably are not involved in all this cranky stuff.
Another thing is that those who come at this from what they see as a position of principal that is black & white i.e. cars are bad are not helping their cause by being so disputatious. I was born & raised in the Bay Area, lived in SF. Marin & Alameda counties for fifty years & it sound to me like it has turned into Assland, a total rat race except the rats don't know it & just get rattier. Try not to wear out your middle fingers. This reinforces all my reasoning for leaving, glad I moved away. The City used to be a nice place to live. Of course we could not avail ourselves of this instant malice available today.
Rob Anderson
Ramos is full of it about Page Street. It's part of my regular route to Kezar, and it has very little traffic during the day. Ditto for Hayes Street. The Fell/Oak plan is really an anti-car plan to take away space from cars on city street wherever possible to make it difficult and expensive to drive motor vehicles---a k a, "Death Machines"---here in Progressive Land.
Andy Thornley told us that more than six years ago.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2005/05/bicycle-coalition-now-we-need-to-take.html
Joél Ramos
As I expected, I knew my comments would rub some folks the wrong way. I should have stated in my earlier post that I ride my bike almost daily down Page St. However, when I'm in a hurry, I opt for Oak St. instead of Page St., to avoid the multiple stop signs on Page St., and to take advantage of "the green wave" of signal timing on Oak St.
the cheap seats
I wonder, how is Oak that much faster than Page or the wiggle? I'm on, in the area of, and around those streets quite a bit and I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist "stop." As in put-a-foot-down stop, and that is the standard to which motorcycles are held.
I'm not bashing anyone here, and I can see how flying down the hill to that horribly unsafe intersection at Octavia could garner some made-up time for someone running late, but really, how much time is saved when nobody ever stops on either of the other routes anyway?
Aaron Bialick
The issue is not time, it is hills.
Page consists of very steep hills and is not a viable option. for the vast majority of people. Even those I do see taking it west, are usually walking their bike up the hills. That is not adequate if we want to allow everyone from 8 - 80 years old to ride easily and safely.
the cheap seats
Well judging by Mr. Ramos' comments, to which I was responding, I'd say you're not entirely correct. It's pretty clear from many of the other comments for this story that many bicyclists are not satisfied with the speed at which they can cross town in the existing bike routes.
I personally don't think the bicycles and heavy traffic mix. It is why I don't commute on my bicycle. This is not a recipe for safety, and the proposal at hand will only serve to put bicycles on the same stretch of pavement as some of the heaviest traffic in SF. Of course, they'll be adequately separated by a stripe of paint...
We need only to look at the issues with the bike lane on Fell at Divis where cars are constantly violating the separations.
Aaron Bialick
Well, if designed well, the bikeway would use physical separation, which could include anything from planters to concrete blocks to parked cars (by replacing travel lane), as well as measures to maximize visibility such as paint through the intersections. Have you seen the SFBC's renderings of what it could look like? http://www.connectingthecity.org/routes/bay-beach/
Rob Anderson
If you're heading for the wiggle straight down Page Street, there's only the one hill between Broderick and Divisadero. I see cyclists negotiating the downslope of that hill without walking their bikes every day. Coming back up the hill is a different story, of course, but the notion that cyclists should never be expected to walk their bikes---even for one block---anywhere in SF is ridiculous. The Fell/Oak plan is completely unnecessary and can only be explained as part of the anti-car movement.
Clemence T
Read this article on the NYT website this morning...
I live in Vancouver, BC and lots of fuss was made by drivers when over the past 2 years additional bike lanes were added downtown. One bike lane was even created on a bridge, separated from traffic and as wide as a car lane. Result is now, I believe, that there are not more traffic jams on this bridge than before (the size of the city is different I agree).
I remember reading also in the NYT on initiatives in NYC, the articles mentioned very uninformed and partisan (both drivers and cyclists) comments. More info on what the objectives of bike lanes are and that better transportation system should complement the lanes in the SF urban planning so that people, instead of wasting time/money in traffic jams, switch to other modes of transportation (thus reducing carbon emissions and pollution, being healthier etc...).
Maybe an interesting article would be to compare similar bike lane results in Portland/Vancouver/NYC/Seattle... even if the context may be different, comparing initiatives and results could shed some light on the bike lanes infrastructure's impact and avoid useless partisan discussions in SF.
M L
Vancouver and Seattle vs. NY and SF -- apples and oranges.
In Vancouver the analogy would be to put bike lanes on its few very crowded freeways.
SF and NYC simply aren't structured the same way traffic-wise as Seattle and Vancouver.
The opportunity here is to integrate bike lanes into something different.
The failure is in the application of dogma instead of the application and selling of creative realism.
Our bike Utopia can be fabulous, if the dogmatic get out of the way and let us get real about our specific needs.
Morgan Fitzgibbons
I'd like to add my voice to the comment section here.
First of all, let's end the debate about why we aren't targeting Page or Hayes street for improved infrastructure. The only reason is that both of these streets require cyclists to go either up a major hill or out of their way two blocks to use them. It's a non-starter. Even if the MTA put in 10 ft' separated bike lanes on these streets, the people traveling through the Wiggle simply wouldn't use them. If you seriously suggest that we make the only cross-town cycling route go up a hill so steep that bikers have to get off and walk a block or two then you lack empathy to the point of probably qualifying as a psychopath.
Secondly, to frame this fundamentally as cars vs. bikes is terribly narrow-minded. The reality is that we have two very wide streets, and there is plenty of room for all modes of transportation along this corridor. If you are so concerned about moving 67,000 cars through this section every day, then you need to also be concerned about the thousands and thousands of cyclists who move through here every day (a number that would surely sky-rocket if any semblance of safe bike infrastructure were installed). If you are truly concerned about this corridor being needed to move these people through, then the obvious answer is to take out the parking. If you balk at taking out parking then you are a hypocrite - why is it ok for sitting cars to impede this flow but not moving cyclists? This attitude is clearly a result of clinging to the status quo and not recognizing the absolutely essential nature of the bicycle in our city's transit plan of the future.
And that's really the big point here. I wish that we lived in a world with infinite resources and a teflon climate. I wish we could act however we wanted and not completely undermine our happiness and well-being through the destruction of our life-systems, including a stable climate. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have to get people off fossil fuels in order to avert climate change, and people are going to be forced off fossil fuels as the price of oil continues to climb. Those of us who are actually paying attention would appreciate it if the rest of you would either wake up and join us or just get out of our way. While you warn of the process being hijacked by a few special interests, we already know what it's like to experience that. It's very sad that a few noisy people who are totally out in left field can pipe up to block much needed progress in this city. We aren't going to let that happen this time. This city needs these bike lanes. You can thank us in 5 years when you can't afford to drive anymore.
Mission Rosalind
However this situation is resolved--and I will not be surprised when the "progressive" Supervisors force through whatever the SFBC demands--the projects should be funded by SF bicyclists. Here's how, along with the requisite "progressive" branding to get the Bay Guardian crowd all hot and excited:
a) Require all bicycles to display a SF Bicycle Justice Placard. Cost: $100 per year.
b) Require all cyclists to wear a helmet and carry proof of payment of a Helmet Disposal Waste Mitigation service charge (5% of a helmet's retail price, to be collected by bike shops and enforced by a new City department).
c) Require each Critical Mass participant to pay a $500 annual Traffic Congestion Offset fee.
Rob Anderson
Morgan Fitzgerald:
Who's "we"? Who are you and who do you represent? It's simply untrue to say that Page and Hayes aren't good routes to the wiggle. If you live south of the Panhandle, Page makes sense. If you live north of the Panhandle, Hayes makes sense. And of course you can now use Fell and Oak if you choose.
"If you are truly concerned about this corridor being needed to move these people through, then the obvious answer is to take out the parking. If you balk at taking out parking then you are a hypocrite---why is it ok for sitting cars to impede this flow but not moving cyclists?"
"Those of us who are actually paying attention would appreciate it if the rest of you would either wake up and join us or just get out of our way. While you warn of the process being hijacked by a few special interests, we already know what it's like to experience that."
Oh yes, the rest of the city---that is 94% of the population---should get out of the way of your obnoxious, bullying minority! Nice approach! This attitude is why I'm confident that, if the people of SF ever got a chance to vote on this stuff, they would reject it. Of course the great, planet-saving bike movement will never be on the ballot in SF. Its many enablers in City Hall will make sure of that.
Moving 67,000 cars a day through this corridor makes a lot of sense if you compare that number to the small number of cyclists who use the corridor. (By the way, do you even have that number?) Even the Bicycle Coalition doesn't claim that more than 6% of trips in SF are by bicycle, and the percentage of commuters by bike is down around 2%. Why should the city take away scarce neighborhood parking just to satisfy a small PC minority and the bike lobby?
The only way you can get away with this coup is by defying an overwhelming majority of city residents. But you and City Hall have already succeeded in doing that with the Bicycle Plan, which would never have passed if had been on the ballot, which is why it wasn't on the ballot.
Mission Rosalind
Yes.
And a simple thought experiment lays bare the mindset of the SFBC defenders. Just replace all references to fossil fuels or oil with "abortion" and all references to bikes with "Jesus". Let's face it, extremists, no matter their cause, all employ similar rhetoric and tactics.
More on the psychology of the authoritarian personality, for anybody interested:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Morgan Fitzgibbons
The name is Fitzgibbons, Rob. But that wouldn't be the first time you glossed over the details.
I don't have the number for the amount of cyclists moving through this section, but that'll surface soon enough. It'll show that it's in the thousands, while the number of people who have their cars parked on this stretch at any one time, taking up nearly 20' of precious space, is in the teens. We can play that numbers game all day.
You are right that if we polled the city's residents about what to do on this stretch, the likely result is that most of them wouldn't vote to put in a bike lane. That doesn't make it the right decision. We can get into a philosophical conversation about the ability of democracy to actually produce beneficial decisions for a populace (maybe we can have that discussion after the impending August 2nd Debt Ceiling Fiasco) but that doesn't change the fact that adding *one* single safe cross-town bike route will, within the matter of 3 or 4 years, reduce the congestion on Fell and Oak and free up parking in the area, as more and more people step away from the automobile in favor what is all of a sudden a much more feasible and attractive way of getting around town.
We all want a Fell and Oak that works for everyone. There's room enough for all our needs.
Andrew Ferguson
There is a section in the Code stating that bike lanes should not be installed on major city streets in order to provide "traffic calming." Evidently it is too dangerous and does not work.
It states that bike lanes should only be on secondary and tertiary streets.
A problem with bike advocates is that for years now they have been getting perks without contributing anything.
Two simple fees would allay a lot of folks' annoyances with bikes and bike folks:
- Register all bikes in the city, and require that the current registration be displayed on the bike. This would ensure that bikes are street-safe, have adequate braking systems, etc.
- License bike riders and require that the current license be carried on their person when riding. This would ensure that cyclists have an understanding of the Rules of the Road.
Both of those requirements would indicate to everyone that cyclists are invested in their city.
those dudes
"There is a section in the Code stating that bike lanes should not be installed on major city streets in order to provide "traffic calming." Evidently it is too dangerous and does not work. It states that bike lanes should only be on secondary and tertiary streets."
Citation please?
Morgan Fitzgibbons
Andrew,
We also have a "Transit First" policy, so I'm not sure you want to throw the rulebook at this one: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bcomm/3179.html
I do think that your suggestions about registration and licensing do have merit, and I agree that bicyclists should be open to these ideas as a way to show good faith. I know these ideas were shared in previous comments.
Also, I just wanted to get back on here and acknowledge that my tone in my first comment was inappropriate at times. Taking the attitude of "Join us or get out of the way" is really not a very healthy way of approaching these challenges. It is important that we be as inclusive as possible in solving these problems. I apologize and retract that statement.
Matthew Lewis
First, it's unfortunate that this reporter chose to write a slanted opinion column where a news piece could have done the trick. But that's nit-picking.
More importantly, setting aside his editorial slant, Mr. James is a bad reporter: if he really wanted to inform his readers, he would have told them that driving (and parking) are heavily-subsidized activities that most drivers could not afford were they to pay the expenses on their own; many cyclists, myself included, would like to simply level the playing field, and gain better access to the amenities we help pay for with our taxes (and yes, cyclists pay taxes; most of us have good jobs and make a decent living).
For readers who want to understand how much their driving lifestyle is subsidized by the rest of us, there is a famous book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1884829988?tag=apture-20
Also a great article at the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/tragedies_commons . An excerpt from that article: "Now, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, then it might be worth asking what the optimal level of bike lanes to have is and discussing whether the lanes themselves are subject to rising congestion and need to be priced. Of course, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, there would be fewer drivers complaining about bike lanes and more people using them."
So, perhaps the Bay Citizen could assign a real reporter to cover the important issue of parking, cars, and pedestrianization? And relegate Mr. James to the opinion page where he belongs.
Brett MacFadden
"I hate how these discussions always turn into "cars vs. bikes," as though the needs of drivers and cyclists are essentially at odds." Well put, Aurelian Howard.
A lot of people frame these discussions as if there is no overlap between the two camps, but I bike and I drive, and many people do the same. As a bicyclist I want a safer and easier San Francisco to ride in, and as a driver I want the same, and recognize that the more people who bike, the better it is for all of us. The more separate our respective traffic can be, the less taxing it is for both parties, and the less likely to perpetuate this sort of oppositional thinking. That's why Market Street would be better off without cars, and why Fell and Oak is better without bikes. The wiggle has a hill, yes, but it's not a big deal, and anyone who bikes in San Francisco has to tolerate — and perhaps learn to enjoy — hills, wind, fog, traffic, Rob Anderson, and any other number of annoyances big and small. The spirit of this measure is in the right place, but the location isn't.
John Rogers
The power of a headline... an article called "Showdown Over Bike Lanes Moves to Crosstown Streets" brings out the folks to rail in the comments section over imaginary bike lanes running the length of Fell and Oak.
I wonder what would result from a more accurate and less inflamatory "City May Address Safety Issues for Cyclists on 3 Blocks of Fell and Oak."
Rob Anderson
What "safety issues"? Is there any evidence that there are a lot of injury accidents to cyclists on the Panhandle? I understand that the city's bike people assume that their comfort and safety should come at the expense of everyone else that uses city streets, but you can't expect the rest of us to completely redesign city streets for your small minority.
And why aren't Hayes Street and Page Street good enough for cyclists to access the wiggle?
John Rogers
Well I got my answer... a slew of rhetorical questions from the man himself. Just for the record: the safety issues are that thousands of people are bicycling between Scott and Baker on Fell and Oak between the "door zone' of parked cars and fast-moving vehicular traffic (and in fast moving traffic on Oak - see video) with insufficient infrastructure for cycling. That there aren't alot of injury accidents is attributable to everybody doing their best to navigate a dangerous situation; and that many thousands of other would-be users stay away. This obviously does not mean it is safe.
Making a distinction between the city's bike people and "the rest of us" is childish and desperate. In the course of cities becoming more livable, the addition of safe cycling infrastructure is going on all over the world and is seen as beneficial to urban life. As a lifelong and frequent driver on these streets, I do not consider improvements that contribute to the safety of my fellow citizens (even if they happen to be on bicycles) as a personal affront, even if it means I may have to alter my behavior slightly.
People riding on Fell and Oak are there because these streets provide the flattest, fastest route between the Panhandle and the Wiggle. Page St is too steep for many riders. Hayes St. also has a hill, and is too narrow for the volume. If you are not a strong rider, or are riding with a load of groceries or a child on your bike, these elevation gains are serious factors
Rob Anderson
You write about these streets as if no one else knows them. Page Street has hills? Only between Broderick and Divisadero, and Hayes Street has nothing even close to that. These plans are completely unnecessary and only make sense in the context of the anti-car movement. Making traffic worse than it has to be in the city isn't an "improvement" and doesn't make the city more "liveable." On the contrary.
Many thousands more motor vehicles use Fell and Oak than cyclists, since they are primary east/west traffic arteries. You "bike people" do in fact constitute a special interest group, and, as SFBC and city officials have told us, making it difficult to drive in the city is official policy, which is what's juvenile, as these middleaged bureaucrats in City Hall seem despertate to show the young groovies that they too are with-it.
If this nonsense was on the ballot, you narcissists would lose badly.