[Carfreeliving] Complete streets in SF?
Andrew Sullivan
andrew at sulli.org
Thu May 26 11:45:16 MDT 2005
I was thinking the same thing. Isn't this exactly what the
transit-first policy and transportation element of the General Plan,
not to mention the Bike Plan, are for? I wouldn't want yet another
multi-year planning process to delay badly needed projects like Geary
and Van Ness BRT and Potrero bike lanes / transit priority, for
example.
Andrew
-------------------
ANDREW SULLIVAN
h: 415 673 0626
f: 415 673 0686
m: 415 609 8801
e: andrew at sulli.org
w: www.sulli.org
-------------------
On May 25, 2005, at 17:12, Mike Sallaberry wrote:
>
> This legislation, as you describe it in this email (softened from your
> first email), doesn't seem necessary...the type of language you
> mention can be found in a number of city documents, like the
> Transportation Element of the General Plan:
>
> http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25046
>
> If you simply want something to point to, you can point to that.
>
> Is there a need for superfluous legislation? Why not save the
> political capital for something of substance?
>
>
>
> Emily Drennen <bicyclesf at yahoo.com>
> Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
>
> 05/25/2005 04:55 PM
> To
> Dave Snyder <dave at livablecity.org>, Joshua Switzky
> <Joshua.Switzky at sfgov.org>
> cc
> Walk SF Board <board at walksf.org>, Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
> Subject
> Re: [Carfreeliving] Complete streets in SF?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I understand your concerns about picking our battles, and wanting to
> keep up the fight for the "core" network. I am certainly not
> suggesting that that change. The network concept has proved to be a
> very good for getting changes on the street- why give up what has
> worked?
>
> What I am offering is that there be an new policy that makes the city
> either provide bike and ped accommodations on every street, or provide
> a damn good reason why they can't. Obviously, bike lanes aren't needed
> on every city street- I wan't suggesting that they were- but having a
> policy that the city wants to provide the best ped and bike access it
> can on all of its streets. This could mean a range of "accommodation"
> from dedicated bike paths on one end of the spectrum to wide curb
> lanes on the other.
>
> Were this to become city policy, all we're asking for is that the MTA
> (and other agencies) strive to accommodate bikes and peds in their
> projects. Of course, there will be exemptions that the city can use to
> get out of providing appropriate accommodations. But, if we really
> want the city to live up to its transit-first policy, it would be
> helpful to be able to point to adopted city policy that bikes and peds
> belong on every street.
>
> I am having a hard time seeing the drawbacks of going for this kind of
> legislation. It would be doubtful that pro-car forces would come out
> in droves to oppose it because it can be framed to be very reasonable
> and non-threatening. "I think the city *shouldn't* care about how
> their projects impact walkers and bikers." is a pretty drastic
> statement, which I'd be suprised to hear at City Hall. There will be
> people who take it to mean that we want to turn all of our streets
> into ped and bike-only zones, but we could re-frame the issue back
> pretty easily.
>
> INHO, supporting this legislation is a very good use of our collective
> political capital.
>
> Thanks,
> Emily
>
> Dave Snyder <dave at livablecity.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Josh and Mike. We need a bike network -- facilities
> including exclusive and high quality bike lanes, high quality bike
> paths, and shared lanes where side-by-side slow speed bike riding is
> the social norm -- that is utterly contiguous and reaches to within a
> quarter-mile of every reasonable destination, and wherever possible
> provides the most direct and desirable connection between two points.
> We don't need a bike lane on every street, but the sooner we know
> what a complete bike network will look like, the sooner we can start
> implementing it and put the transit vs. bike fights behind us. As
> noted, the network improvement document will spell out a network, and
> either in the iteration that's before the MTA shortly or in future
> iterations, it needs to express what a complete network will look
> like. That requires a little more conceptual planning and the
> development of minimum quality standards for a "network str! eet." I'm
> looking forward to seeing those projects implemented, now that the
> bike plan process is behind us.
>
> Dave
>
>
> At 2:59 PM -0700 5/25/05, Joshua Switzky wrote:
> >I actually don't agree that bike lanes should be accommodated on ALL
> >streets, particularly Van Ness and Geary. These major transit
> streets need
> >major transit infrastructure. It will be hard enough to devote
> existing
> >shared lanes to transit only, and to suggest that we ought to either
> reduce
> >autos to only one lane in each direction or get rid of the curb
> parking
> >(these are really the only options), I think we would be both
> butting our
> >heads against a brick wall and suggesting somewhat extreme solutions
> to
> >problems that don't necessarily exist. I personally don't think that
> Van
> >Ness or Geary need bike lanes if there are immediately parallel
> streets
> >that are bike-friendly and serve the same corridor. I think there
> are far
> >more important and worthwhile battles to fight than these. Let's
> focus on
> >just completing the bike network and throw our full weight behind
> these key
> >transit projects. These streets needs a lot of work just to make
> them good
> >transit streets.
> >my two cents.
>
> -j
>
>
>
> Emily Drennen
>
> 415/863-2248
> bicyclesf at yahoo.com
> www.emilydrennen.org
>
> Acting Executive Director, Walk San Francisco
> Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
> Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation
> Agency
> Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Carfreeliving
mailing list