[Carfreeliving] bike paths and columbus

[Bert Hill]

I agree that paths, especially mixed use paths, are not the optimal element
for non-recreational bicyclists.

 

Electronic parking signs in outside areas may be better than the present
system, but I would rather see resources invested into technology that uses
511.org to give parking facility availability by GPS coordinates, and the
calculated cost (applying Dr. Shoup's supply/demand formula), AND supplying
public transportation alternatives that are less costly and more efficient.
Knowledge is power, and people will be more willing to use public
transportation if they know the alternative is poor.

 

Compared to the $6-12k annually a car costs to operate, and GPS units that
are quite cheap these days, these units could pay for themselves in tickets,
parking fees and fuel.

Bert

  _____  

From: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
[mailto:Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sallaberry
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:36 PM
To: 'Carfree Living'
Subject: [Carfreeliving] bike paths and columbus

 


Today's very busy for me, but I do want to reply to this statement: 

"Bike lanes are great, but they are still not as safe as bike paths or
segregated bike lanes." 

Not true...it's just not true.  They can be great in midblock locations, but
what happens when these segregated paths get to the intersections?  Bike
paths seem nicer, but in the US and other countries they have proven to be
less safe than bike lanes.  More sexy and pretty, yes; more safe, no. 

I just skimmed this email...I agree with the thoughts about Columbus (which
has transit, so we need to be careful about really reducing capacity):
remove all the on-street parking, replace some or all of the parking with a
couple small garages at the north and south end of the street (to placate
the businesses), expand the sidewalks by 3' and stripe bike lanes, or expand
the sidewalk by 7' and stripe the right lane in both directions as a shared
bus and bike lane. The sidewalks along Columbus are pathetic!  They need to
be wider...I think the businesses along the street would agree with that,
but perhaps only if they are assured that garages replace the parking.  Two
relatively small garages strategically placed to intercept the traffic
before it enters the commercial district, with with electronic guide signs
that indicate occupancy to motorists and guide them as quickly as possible
to an available space.  Anyone who's tried to park in N Beach knows that so
much of that traffic must be people circling around for 10, 15, 20, 30
minutes looking for a space...catch them at the edge before they get into
the neighborhood.  Some side/cross streets could be made into woonerven too
to slow traffic to 10 mph and blur the sidewalk/street interface. 

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 




"Dan Krause" <dankrause at rescuemuni.org> 
Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org 

08/25/2005 09:41 AM 


To

"'Carfree Living'" <Carfreeliving at livablecity.org> 


cc

 


Subject

RE: [Carfreeliving] Will LA leapfrog San Francisco?

 


 

 




Fasinating conversation.  I agree with everyones comments oddly enough.
I think good things are happening in SF.  I see new bike lanes
everywhere and we have started really pushing for better transit.
Affordable housing is problem but we probably do more than anywhere else
in the western u.s.   And I love that we are all starting to think about
the beauty of our physical environment for all.  On the other hand, as
an activist, I am constantly running into a fear of really bold thinking
from SF bureacrats and even many of us activists.  We need to start
design stuff that really kicks ass and demand an end to the mediocre
thinking from our leaders.  I am constantly struggling against poor
designs for new transit projects.  Bike lanes are great, but they are
still not as safe as bike paths or segregated bike lanes.  The excuse is
always there is not enough money to do what we really want to.  Well I
believe with a strong vision and total commitment money seems to
materialize.  I believe the we have crisis of vision in America and
while SF is much better than most places we still get disempowered as we
fight over the crumbs MTC and others offers us.  What if we all got
together and lobbied MTC as hard as other surbuban and South Bay leaders
do?  What if we started a movement to increase new starts money at the
federal level for transit and lobbied for more money for bikes and peds.
Instead we spend most of our time fighting over the crumbs offered to us
while the paving of America goes on, and that is where the real money
is.  

Lets get bold!  Someone said center bike lanes curbed off from traffic.
Great.  Can we somehow build a bike path that extends west from the
panhandle paths to downtown by taking an auto lane on fell and oak?  How
about BRT projects that can be easily converted to super-rapid rail
projects later after we go get more money.  How about one lane of auto
traffic along Columbus through the heart of north beach allowing us to
widen the sidewalks, while adding a bike lanes .   Lets put and end to
mediorcre thinking now.

______________________________
Dan Krause
Managing Director, Rescue Muni
105 San Jose Ave.
San Francisco, CA  94110
415/826-1219 (p)   415/826-3362 (f)
dankrause at rescuemuni.org
www.rescuemuni.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20050825/ac692345/attachment.htm