[Carfreeliving] Will LA leapfrog San Francisco?

Jason Henderson jhenders at sbcglobal.net
Wed Aug 24 17:29:41 MDT 2005 

This is a good topic to be discussing. 
(I re-read this and it is a little long winded, but
hear me out)
At the Carfree conference in Budapest there were a
handful of excellent presentations in Budapest City
Hall. One of them was by Oscar Diaz, an aid to
Penolosa when he was mayor of Bogota. 

The main political discourse Penolosa used (according
this Diaz guy's presentation) was about dignity,
happiness, quality of life (especially for the working
poor). I think this is what you are getting at, Tom.
And it is spot on. 

After all the powerpoint slides of Bogota and very
positive spin and raising of hopes, I asked the guy to
cut to the chase and tell us how it really got done.
He said the mayor did it. That was that. The motorists
tried to recall him for cracking down on sidewalk
parking. 

I asked if there were NGOs in place, advocating for
years and years for these bike paths and bus rapid
transit. He said no, it was just this mayor. 

I don't know if this is true - it could have been a
campaign line since Penolosa is running for President
and I have very little knowledge of Bogota city
politics. I know, I know, Bogota is very different,
1/2 poor in illegal squats, developing world, and so
on. 

A place a little more like the Bay Area, in broad
social-economic terms (not land use and transit) is
Zurich, or actually the complex of cities and
hinterland from St Gallen to Geneva with the Alps
(basically Switzerland as a city-state). That place is
fascinating on all levels. A big similarity is
referendum politics and citizen initiatives (different
from this Bogaota mayor's approach). 

In Zurich the underground metro was defeated in part
because of dignity. Transit riders wanted to be above
ground looking out the window at the street and
streetlife. So the tram and electric buses go
everywhere, are efficient clean and dignified. It
seems to have caught on all around the city. Dignity
is in the air about biking, walking, gathering, and
taking transit (especially the dignity in those fine
trains!) Mediocrity is not tolerated in these things. 

Zurich has a lot of problems, including gentrification
and spoiled yuppies wanting cars. There is a right
wing mob backlash too. It is not the panacea. 

I do not think there is much San Francisco can learn
from any city in the US, including LA, on the core
issue of the spaces of automobiles. I think SF is off
on its own and actually out front on ideas and
"discussion" and closer than any other US city to
getting at the automobile and its spaces. If you can
name one city in the US (besides Manhattan) where the
discourse is where you - TLC,SFBC, Walk SF Rescue
Muni- and all the rest of you, put it, I am all ears. 


Here is a thought about discourse:
We should be a little less sympathetic and more direct
with progressives who drive. Be blunt but diplomatic.
Now is the time. War, sprawl, oil prices - all
centered on automobility and its spaces - and all we
hear is about hybrid this and hydrogen that. Dave's
point about this ramp is endemic. 

I think words like dignity, mediocrity, and delightful
are words we should use often, and use to "frame" our
concerted effort to get debate focused on car space,
to reduce car space in this city so we can go on with
being civilized human beings. That is a big project
but worthwhile. 

Maybe talking about pricing is taking us away from
talking about dignity and delight and space as a
public good (not a commodity). Thats my ramble. 

-jh

ps:
Tom, I will have to disgaree LA could leapfrog SF.
That is like saying Atlanta could leapfrog New
Orleans. Or Houston leapfrogs Paris. No way. 

--- Amandeep Jawa <deep at worker-bee.com> wrote:

> 
> Ok before a flame war erupts lets remember to stay
> productive.  I  
> didn't want to make any of this personal, but I will
> in the interest  
> of avoiding a flame war.
> 
> Tom is one of my best friends and a he works VERY
> VERY hard hard to  
> improve things around here.  I've never found him to
> disregard facts  
> & his opinions are usually very informed.  Mike I
> appreciate the  
> support, but lets try to keep this on the specifics
> of the ideas  
> rather than a critique of the players as much as
> that is possible.   
> I'd love to hear your perspective on Tom's comments
> as a DPT planner!
> 
> 'deep
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Mike Sallaberry wrote:
> 
> >
> > 'deep, I think your email is spot on, as someone
> who's grown up  
> > riding a bike here and has ridden in many
> cities/towns in the US  
> > and some outside the US including every cyclist's
> wet dream,  
> > Amsterdam.
> >
> > I'm tempted to respond to Tom's emails, but it's a
> waste of time.   
> > He's demonstrated a number of times a cynicism
> towards many of us  
> > who work for the city and a disregard for facts. 
> And he wonders  
> > why he doesn't hear planners speak delightfully of
> the work  
> > here...I often do, but not with him!  He makes one
> want to put up a  
> > wall than stick out a hand.  What can you do?
> >
> > Anyway, happy trails,
> > Mike
> >
> > Michael Sallaberry, P.E.
> > Associate Transportation Engineer
> > San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic
> > 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 345
> > San Francisco, CA 94102
> > (415) 554 2351
> > (415) 554 2352 (fax)
> > Bicycle Hotline (415) 585-BIKE
> > http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org
> >
> >
> > Amandeep Jawa <deep at worker-bee.com>
> > Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
> > 08/24/2005 03:35 PM
> >
> > To
> > Carfree Living <Carfreeliving at livablecity.org>
> > cc
> > Subject
> > Re: [Carfreeliving] Will LA leapfrog San
> Francisco?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, the term "constant negativity" was
> unfair, and of course, we
> > should imagine better and we deserve better.
> >
> > But nowhere do I suggest complacency and
> thankfulness.
> >
> > I only mean that
> > - suggesting a new bike park in LA means they will
> "leapfrog" us is a
> > bit hard for me to believe.
> > - I disagree that the beginnings of a bike lane on
> Market is more
> > dangerous than no lane at all.
> > - Is the Embarcadero & Panhandle bike paths such a
> disappointment?  I
> > particularly like the Embarcadero.
> >
> > And also I wonder if these paths in LA and NY are
> designed for
> > commuting or recreational riding.  I'm not saying
> I know, but only
> > that it seems to me that we have been very focused
> on utilitarian
> > bike paths, rather than recreational ones &
> perhaps that is part of
> > the lack of "delight" you speak of.  I suppose
> Wilshire is a major
> > street & probably a major commute route, but will
> its lane be a
> > delight?  The fact that we are focusing on putting
> bike paths on
> > already crowded SF streets seems to make it very
> difficult to make
> > them much grander than they are.  If the choice
> comes down to a few
> > lovely Embarcadero-style bike boulevards vs. a
> complete city-wide
> > network of "thin and stingy" bike lanes, I'll go
> with the latter.
> > (Of course, I would prefer a complete city wide
> network of grand bike
> > boulevards, but I'm just sayin...)
> >
> > None of this is to say we shouldn't imagine
> better, or that the pace
> > of change is acceptable, only that though we could
> & should do
> > better, we are not doing so poorly as your tone
> implies (to me at
> > least.)
> >
> > 'deep
> >
> > On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Tom Radulovich wrote:
> >
> > > So I should stop being constantly negative, and
> just be thankful
> > > that bicycling in San Francisco is better than
> bicycling in Santa
> > > Clara county or Los Angeles. And content myself
> that we are making
> > > slow increments of progress, and should have a
> complete bike lane
> > > network several decades from now. Great.
> > >
> > > What is so negative to imagine that bicycling in
> San Francisco
> > > shouldn't be as good as the best facilities in
> the best cities, and
> > > that the pace of change should be other than the
> glacial, muddling
> > > pace of transportation bureaucracy? We deserve
> much better than  
> > this.
> > >
> > > Tom Radulovich
> > > tomrad at well.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 24, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Amandeep Jawa
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Come on folks!
> > >>
> > >> While your critiques are good (as usual),
> progress is being made,
> > >> good progress, and though it is difficult & far
> from perfect, the
> > >> constant negativity is not very productive. 
> The Market Street
> > >> lanes exist at all.  The Bike Plan has been
> approved.  Things are
> > >> dramatically better for cyclists here now than
> when I started
> > >> riding about 10 years ago (the Valencia lanes
> come to mind).  I
> > >> would SOOOOO much rather ride my bike in SF
> than in LA.  Hell if
> > >> you don't believe me, get out of our little
> bubble & ride your
> > >> bike in Santa Clara County as I do every day &
> you'll see the
> > >> difference.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not saying that we can rest, or that we are
> done, only that
> > >> you don't get so lost in the struggle to see
> that we are making
> > >> GOOD progress.
> > >>
> > >> 'deep
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 24, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Tom Radulovich
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Jason,
> > >>>
> > >>> A bike lane down Wilshire would be great, and
> if it happens
> > >>> before we get one the length of Market Street,
> shame on San
> > >>> Francisco. Wilshire does have a rapid bus
> line, one of 22 rapid
> > >>> bus corridors either in operation or being
> planned in LA County,
> > >>> while we have yet to build, or even plan, one.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I made my way down the Market Street lane
> this morning,
> > >>> dodging the pools of fetid water in the rotted
> pavement and
> > >>> double-parked Fed Ex trucks and tour buses, I
> realized that there
> > >>> is absolutely no sense of joy or beauty or
> delight involved in
> > >>> San Francisco bike planning. The best we can
> do is design
> > >>> facilities that are marginally safer than
> riding in mixed
> > >>> traffic, but what if the city set out to
> create bike lanes and
> > >>> paths that are a delight to ride on? The bike
> path along the
> > >>> Hudson River waterfront is designed not only
> for safety, but is
> > >>> designed to be attractive and fun as well. A
> friend from LA who
> > >>> lives there part time just bought a bike
> because he liked the
> > >>> path so much, and wanted to be able to ride on
> it. Will anyone
> > >>> look at the existing Market Street lane and
> say, "Cool, I want to
> > >>> get a bike so I can ride on that!"?
> > >>>
> > >>> My friend Jeannene tells the story of going to
> Vancouver and
> > >>> seeing Larry Beasley, Vancouver's Planning
> Director, say in a
> > >>> public meeting "We want to design a city that
> delights you." When
> > >>> was the last time you heard a bicycle,
> pedestrian, or transit
> > >>> planner here speak of delight, much less lay
> it out as an
> > >>> imperative of planning? When I was walking
> through Paris, I
> > >>> definitely got the impression that many of the
> better boulevards
> > >>> and promenades were designed to delight the
> walker, not just to
> > >>> keep us out of the way of cars. The Mayor's
> first "clean and
> > >>> green" project, the median landscaping and
> blue and gold fences
> > >>> (which are really there deter pedestrians from
> jaywalking on Van
> > >>> Ness and messing up traffic flow) are clearly
> aimed beyond the
> > >>> merely functional and are aimed at delighting
> the motorist. So
> > >>> where are the projects aimed at delighting
> bicyclists? As others
> > >>> have pointed out, the Panhandle bike paths are
> rather grudging
> > >>> and stingy accommodations compared to what
> they could have been,
> > >>> and Market Street and Embarcadero, which
> should be our grand bike
> > >>> boulevards, are pretty sad.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe it is the bureaucratic mindset of most
> transportation
> > >>> planners; I encounter the same "practical"
> mindset in transit
> > >>> planning here, where Muni buses are designed
> without padded seats
> > >>> so that they can be hosed down, much like the
> design of cattle
> > >>> cars. Maybe our movement has set its sights
> too low, focusing on
> > >>> technocratic aspects of design, and
> emphasizing safety while
> > >>> forgetting the importance of amenity, not to
> mention beauty, joy,
> > >>> or delight. But what is the point of living in
> a city that where
> > >>> joy and delight are not imperatives? I
> understand that sometimes
> > >>> incremental improvement is all we get, but
> there also seems to be
> > >>> no vision for what could be. I fear we could
> end up with a
> > >>> continuous bike network, but one so thin and
> stingy it fails to
> > >>> attract people to bicycling.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tom Radulovich
> > >>> tomrad at well.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Jason Henderson
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What about a bike lane on Wilshire? That
> would put LA
> > >>>> ahead of San Francisco!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am reading "Long Emergency" by Kunstler.
> Anybody
> > >>>> read it?
> > >>>> -jh
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- Tom Radulovich <tomrad at well.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> LA is creating a continuous bicycle path
> along the
> > >>>>> LA river, and
> > >>>>> dedicated a new "Bike Park" last month:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> http://www.smmc.ca.gov/PressRelease/Crystal.pdf
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Meanwhile, the rutted, discontinuous bike
> lane on
> > >>>>> Market Street has
> > >>>>> become a parking lane, with no apparent
> enforcement,
> > >>>>> which might just
> > >>>>> be more dangerous than no lane at all.
> Aargh!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Tom Radulovich
> > >>>>> tomrad at well.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> > >>>>> to facilitate and promote car-free living in
> SF
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
>
mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> or, for all options, go to:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > >>>> carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jason Henderson
> > >>>> San Francisco CA
> > >>>> (415)-255-8136
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> > >>>> to facilitate and promote car-free living in
> SF
> > >>>> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?
> > >>>> subject=unsubscribe
> > >>>> or, for all options, go to:
> > >>>> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > >>>> carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing listto
> facilitate and
> > >>> promote car-free living in SF
> > >>> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?
> > >>> subject=unsubscribe
> > >>> or, for all options, go to:
> > >>> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > >>> carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----------------------------------
> > >> Amandeep Jawa
> > >> ----------------------------------
> > >> deep at worker-bee.com
> > >> 937 Valencia St.
> > >> San Francisco, CA 94110-2320
> > >>
> > >> Home: 415 255 6257 (ALL MALP)
> > >>
> > >> personal: http://www.deeptrouble.com
> > >> political: http://www.sflcv.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing listto
> facilitate and
> > >> promote car-free living in SF
> > >> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?
> > >> subject=unsubscribe
> > >> or, for all options, go to:
> > >> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> > carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > Amandeep Jawa
> > ----------------------------------
> > deep at worker-bee.com
> > 937 Valencia St.
> > San Francisco, CA 94110-2320
> >
> > Home: 415 255 6257 (ALL MALP)
> >
> > personal: http://www.deeptrouble.com
> > political: http://www.sflcv.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> > to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> > To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org? 
> > subject=unsubscribe
> > or, for all options, go to:
> >
>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> > to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> > To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org? 
> > subject=unsubscribe
> > or, for all options, go to:
> >
>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Amandeep Jawa
> ----------------------------------
> deep at worker-bee.com
> 937 Valencia St.
> San Francisco, CA 94110-2320
> 
> Home: 415 255 6257 (ALL MALP)
> 
> personal: http://www.deeptrouble.com
> political: http://www.sflcv.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list 
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
>
mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> 


Jason Henderson
San Francisco CA
(415)-255-8136

More information about the Carfreeliving mailing list