HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #821  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 10:58 PM
Beta_Magellan's Avatar
Beta_Magellan Beta_Magellan is offline
Technocrat in Your Tank!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 648
IIRC, in ridership models time spent transferring (particularly if it involves waiting on platforms) is weighted as being perceived as longer than time spent in a slower vehicle. A 1/3 of a mile connection is already very long for a transit connection—1/3 of a mile through an unpleasant environment just makes things worse.

Ferry-bus shuttle/ugly walk-regional rail line (particularly if it doesn’t run at high frequencies) is a pretty cumbersome commute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #822  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 4:14 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
^^ And that assumes your destination in SF is near the Ferry Building.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #823  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 11:25 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
The Larkspur ferry is hardly ideal now, and it won't be ideal in the near future. The landing today is literally a landfill parking lot jutting out of autopia, without any rail connection. Yet it carries more people than it ever has, and more than it can handle at rush hours due to a lack of parking. I'll eat my hat if SMART doesn't increase ridership.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #824  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 5:01 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Exactly fflint.

There is no perfect solution, short of tearing down existing buildings and infrastructure and starting over (I wouldn't describe the area as 'unpleasant', but autopia it is). Waiting to build that leg gives time for both SMART and GGT to figure out what they're doing (plans can still change - as the addition of the airport station shows).

Also, Marin County has been, how do I put it, much less enthusiastic about SMART than Sonoma. I have a feeling they may be waiting for it get up and running so people there can see how great the train really will be. Then they may be more willing to find/FUND a good connection. (It's strange since Marin arguably needs SMART more than Sonoma since there is literally NO North/South alternative to the 101).
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #825  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 2:25 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
My partner and I decided to take the Larkspur ferry for an overnighter. The 3pm ferry out was popular, with a decent crowd assembled inside the paid area a good twenty minutes early. We almost ran out of bike hooks (if two more cyclists had shown up, one of them would have been denied boarding). The Larkspur route runs high-speed catamarans on weekdays, so dock to dock was a quick half hour.

Larkspur's ferry terminal is trippy, and way more elaborate than the one in Oakland or Alameda. Under its big modern canopy it's got waiting and ticketing/Clipper areas and bike parking. Beyond that, acres of car parking. That is one massive parking lot.

The trip to our hotel was a quick five minutes by bicycle, over the pedestrian/bike bridge that crosses Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and through the "Marin Country Market," a recently renovated boutique lifestyle center surrounded by mid-rise condos. This connection from the terminal to the "town" was nowhere near as time-consuming or confusing as it seemed on Google maps.

I was curious to investigate the Cal Park Tunnel, a former rail tunnel repurposed as a pedestrian and bicycle tunnel between Larkspur Landing and San Rafael. The trail picks up in the Country Market's parking lot, and is a quick 15, 20 minute ride into downtown San Rafael. I'm no longer a fast rider, so I'm certain this is a very feasible bike commute between Marin County's biggest and most urban city and its busiest ferry terminal.

Before dinner (Marin Brewing Company--incredible), we rode back up the ped/bike bridge to get a better view of the sunset behind Mt. Tamalpais. More visually arresting, however, was the commuter traffic below on Sir Francis Drake: huge volume, totally congested, and the traffic pouring out of the ferry terminal was comparable to a four-lane highway at rush hour.

After another quick five minute ride between the hotel and the ferry terminal this morning, we found the 11:10 boat mostly empty and plenty of room for bikes. We started out 2 minutes late but made up the time on the water--another very fast catamaran. And coming into the City by boat is really cool.

Larkspur is basically San Rafael's ferry terminal--until I was on the ground there, I couldn't really tell that. The time it takes to ride a bike from downtown SR to the landing is comparable to the ride from the Financial District to the Mission--but easier and with less mode conflict. If a commuter train comes anywhere near the Country Market area, it will absolutely increase ferry ridership.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #826  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 4:29 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Thanks for the report. Sounds like an enjoyable outing.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #827  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2013, 8:02 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Will the train will take the other half of that tunnel?
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #828  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2013, 2:26 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Will the train will take the other half of that tunnel?
Eventually, that's why the trail doesn't use that half.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #829  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2013, 11:51 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
I stumbled upon this today:
http://marintrolleys.org/index.html

Here's a recent news article from The Marin Independent Journal:
http://marintrolleys.org/MarinTrolle..._InTheNews.pdf

__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #830  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 8:41 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Bike sharing coming to S.F. and southward
August target for 70 kiosks for S.F., Peninsula, San Jose

Michael Cabanatuan
sfgate.com
March 17, 2013



Come August, commuters in San Francisco and San Jose and up and down the Peninsula won't need to own bikes to pedal to many destinations. They'll be able to borrow and return hundreds of bicycles at dozens of kiosks.

Bike sharing, an idea that's been popular in Europe for decades and coveted by San Francisco for years, is finally arriving in the Bay Area - or at least the part of the region served by Caltrain.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District plans to roll out a $7 million test program in August, just in time for the America's Cup and the region's busy season of fall festivals and events.

"This is an important step in expanding bicycle use in San Francisco and the region," said Paul Rose, spokesman for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. "We're looking forward to moving ahead and expanding the program."

So is the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which has championed bike sharing. However, it fears that the test program is too modest a start, with too few bikes at not enough locations.

"We're really happy the Bay Area is catching up to the rest of the American cities that have bike sharing programs," said Leah Shahum, the coalition's executive director. "But we think the system is starting too small. The density of the system is critical to its success."

700 bikes, 70 stations
The program, which has not yet been named, will feature 700 bikes at 70 stations, with exactly half of the network in San Francisco. The rest will be scattered among the four other participating cities: Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose. Originally, the system planned for 1,000 bikes, with 500 in San Francisco.
....
In San Francisco, the bike stations will be spread through downtown - along the Embarcadero as well as in the South of Market neighborhood, the Financial District and up Market Street to the Civic Center area.

In the other cities, Schkolnick said, the kiosks are likely to be located within a mile or two of Caltrain stations at popular destinations. Specific locations have not yet been selected, though the list has been narrowed to 140 spots.

The test of the bike sharing program is set to last one to two years under the direction of the air district, which is contributing $1.4 million. Other funding comes from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ($4.3 million) and transit agencies ($1.3 million).

Schkolnick said the goal has always been 1,000 bikes at first, but that the program needs to attract other funding, probably from private partners.

The size of the pilot program is also a concern to San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener. He's introduced a resolution calling for the program to be quickly expanded citywide.
....
Schkolnick said the air district chose not to limit the program to San Francisco because of the regional nature of commuting in the Bay Area and the Peninsula's interest in the program. Caltrain has drawn large crowds of bicyclists who pedal to the station, ride the train and then pedal some more to work.
....
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #831  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 9:24 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
^^^ if the bike coalition really thinks the system is too small, how about they come up with some money to expand it? lately they seem to be a broken record of want, want, want - but they don't want cyclists to pay for any of it. transit riders pay half their costs at the fare box, drivers pay the gas tax, pedestrians hardly use any infrastructure which isn't needed for other purposes (basic access to buildings), but cyclists don't pay a dime and are demanding incredibly expensive infrastructure which also detracts from the capacity of the other modes. it's a real problem.

as a pedestrian and transit user, i think it's great that cycling is becoming more popular. but quite frankly I don't want to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #832  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 10:33 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
^^^ if the bike coalition really thinks the system is too small, how about they come up with some money to expand it? lately they seem to be a broken record of want, want, want - but they don't want cyclists to pay for any of it.
The new bikeshare system will have both membership dues and an hourly fee that kicks in after the first half-hour.

Quote:
transit riders pay half their costs at the fare box
Muni's fare recovery rate was only 22% last year. Public transportation is heavily subsidized by the public at large via general funds.

Quote:
drivers pay the gas tax
Roadways are also heavily subsidized by the public at large. Gas taxes pay only half the cost of maintaining highways--the other 50% is funded through general tax funds, which bicyclists pay into just like everyone else. In San Francisco specifically, federal and state gas tax revenue funds almost none of the maintenance of city roads. And that's not even touching on how the gas tax pays nothing at all toward mitigating all of the externalized costs of driving.

Quote:
pedestrians hardly use any infrastructure which isn't needed for other purposes (basic access to buildings), but cyclists don't pay a dime and are demanding incredibly expensive infrastructure which also detracts from the capacity of the other modes. it's a real problem.
First, bicyclists do indeed pay a dime, as noted above, by paying taxes into the general funds that are then used to subsidize transit riders and motorists. Bicyclists actually subsidize motorists, not vice-versa.

Second, a full build-out of the SF Bike Plan would incur a one-time cost of $500 million for infrastructure, plus $14 million annually in maintenance. This sounds like a lot, but it's nothing compared to public expenditures on roads and transit, which leads to my third point:

Those who travel exclusively by bike receive negligible public investment despite paying taxes at the same rate as everyone else. Even in bike-friendly and prosperous San Francisco, the SFMTA currently only allocates 0.46% percent of its capital spending on bicycling infrastructure. Less than 1% goes to bicycling--99% goes to everything but bicycling.

You couldn't be more wrong about how much cyclists actually pay into the system and how little cyclists actually get in return.



Quote:
as a pedestrian and transit user, i think it's great that cycling is becoming more popular. but quite frankly I don't want to pay for it.
Fortunately for the city, the environment and future San Franciscans, you are part of a small and cranky minority when it comes to the desire to fund bicycle infrastructure:

__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #833  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 2:01 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
fflint, those are all good points. I was generalizing about the fare-box revenue. muni is low, other agencies like Bart are much higher - almost 70%.

statistics can be skewed any way one wants. but my general point is this : every other mode of transit which uses streets sees some form of use tax. vehicle registration, gas tax, fare revenue, taxi medallions, whatever. cyclists are asking for a huge investment, and one which decreases the efficacy of other modes of transportation without paying a DIME beyond the money which goes into the general fund. we ALL pay into the general fund, so that's a total red herring.

as for $500m, that would indeed be a bargain. I know the plan, and I'm working on multiple downtown projects which are being forced to rebuild streets with cycle tracks and all manner of bike facilities. try a couple times more than that for the whole thing, with, as far as I can tell, $0 in return from the users. if that's the way we want to run our city, that's great. Muni should be free too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #834  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 3:03 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
statistics can be skewed any way one wants. but my general point is this : every other mode of transit which uses streets sees some form of use tax.
The gas tax is not a use fee--the motorist pays the tax once at the pump and can then use any of our many hundreds of miles of paved roadways however many times the driver wishes. A user fee would be paid every time the service or infrastructure was used, like the way transit riders pay each time someone drives them somewhere. And again, federal and state gas taxes don't pay for our city roads. I pay for them. You pay for them. The general fund is the source of funding for automobile infrastructure in San Francisco, just as it is paying for 78% of the money annually expended on public transit.

Meanwhile, pedestrians--a full 10% of our daily commuters--pay no user fees or extra taxes to enjoy our ubiquitous and well-maintained sidewalk network--but that doesn't bother you, does it? That is a double-standard.

No, the one thing that truly sets bicycling apart from all other modes in the city is the fact that the general fund is used to build and maintain excellent and widespread infrastructure for every other mode except for bicycling. Taxpayers in San Francisco who ride bicycles get next to nothing--less than one half of one percent of the annual transportation expenditures. Less than half a percent! The status quo is outrageous, inequitable, and no longer supported by 66% of city residents.

Quote:
cyclists are asking for a huge investment, and one which decreases the efficacy of other modes of transportation
It is not obviously true that safe bicycle infrastructure decreases the efficacy of walking or public transportation. What safe bicycle infrastructure does do, however, is miff those motorists who feel entitled at birth to every single inch of paved public roadway. The idea that safe travel lanes for San Franciscans on bicycles is somehow trumped by motorists' convenience to, say, park their bulky private property right in the roadbed is twisted and wrong. Two-thirds or one-half of the shared public roadway is certainly enough for private motorists.

I don't find any of that argumentation compelling--the safety of bicyclists trumps the convenience of private motorists, and streets should be more about moving goods and people than about free public storage for private cars.

And I'll point out that it's disingenuous to refer to people who shall someday pay to rent a bicycle for half an hour at a time as "cyclists" who are demanding something for nothing. How do you know such persons are "cyclists," because they may someday get on a rented bike?

Quote:
without paying a DIME beyond the money which goes into the general fund. we ALL pay into the general fund, so that's a total red herring.
A red herring is a logical fallacy employed to distract one's attention from the issue at hand. Cyclists paying into the same city coffers that single-handedly fund massive and widespread infrastructure for all other modes except bicycling, and the resulting travesty of having totally inadequate bicycle infrastructure, is neither fallacious nor misleading--it *is* the issue. It's the very reason we're talking about the bike plan, and bike sharing, and so on.

This isn't even controversial for the majority of San Franciscans, 66% of whom support increased funding for bicycle infrastructure, as per the chart posted above.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #835  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 4:55 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
The gas tax is not a use fee--the motorist pays the tax once at the pump and can then use any of our many hundreds of miles of paved roadways however many times the driver wishes. A user fee would be paid every time the service or infrastructure was used, like the way transit riders pay each time someone drives them somewhere. And again, federal and state gas taxes don't pay for our city roads. I pay for them. You pay for them. The general fund is the source of funding for automobile infrastructure in San Francisco, just as it is paying for 78% of the money annually expended on public transit.

Meanwhile, pedestrians--a full 10% of our daily commuters--pay no user fees or extra taxes to enjoy our ubiquitous and well-maintained sidewalk network...
I think we've seen this argument to it's conclusion - but I feel compelled to point out two things about the above. The gasoline tax may as well be a use tax as you describe because of the obvious fact that vehicles only achieve a finite number of miles per gallon, somewhere between 15 and 50. nobody is filling up with a gallon of gas, paying their $1 in tax, and driving 500 miles.

Secondly, the well-maintained sidewalk network you speak of exists for multiple purposes. Without it, private property could not be accessed safely from the public right of way. For this reason, as you probably know, property owners (and not the city) are in theory responsible for maintaining it. Although better streets goes a long way to addressing it, it wasn't designed as a transportation system and pedestrian commuters - like myself - deal with it's inadequacies every day.

I have nothing against law abiding cyclists. We should get more people out of their cars and into their feet and muni and bikes. My enthusiasm for the plans to do the latter is heavily colored by 1) the actual transportation studies (there are many, done for many projects and plans) which detail the impact to other modes, 2) the cost forced upon other parties by the political strength of the cycling community, and 3) my experience as a pedestrian who has had an order of magnitude more run-ins with cyclists breaking the law than drivers.

Clearly we see this from a different perspective. I have more to say on the topic except that I'm sure if you asked San Franciscans whether the city should spend more money on pedestrian safety (or health inspections, or libraries, or parks....) than it does, 66% (or a lot more) of people would say yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #836  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 6:49 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
...my experience as a pedestrian who has had an order of magnitude more run-ins with cyclists breaking the law than drivers.
Where in the world do you live? I'm amazed by the number of drivers I see almost hit a pedestrian trying to turn right on red every day off of Van Ness. My wife and I were almost run down at not one, not two, but three different intersections on Van Ness tonight, for a full 3 for 3 of the three blocks crossed.

I'm not a full-time cyclist - more of a full-time pedestrian here in SF and a part-time driver in other places, but I can't imagine any place in the US where there are more cyclists breaking laws than drivers (per capita, maybe? Though I doubt it). There just aren't enough cyclists to even come close in total numbers, assuming that law-breaking is around the same level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #837  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 7:25 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
I think we've seen this argument to it's conclusion - but I feel compelled to point out two things about the above. The gasoline tax may as well be a use tax as you describe because of the obvious fact that vehicles only achieve a finite number of miles per gallon, somewhere between 15 and 50. nobody is filling up with a gallon of gas, paying their $1 in tax, and driving 500 miles.
No. Gas taxes are not user fees, and since they don't provide any notable funding for SF city streets they don't get to count as such when arguing against the creation of bicycle infrastructure in San Francisco. The vast majority of the very high costs incurred on motorists' behalf, and all of the externalized costs, are funded by the general public. And since the relevant funding is all coming from the same MTA budget, there's no meaningful distinction between what motorists actually pay and what bicyclists will pay for basic, safe infrastructure in SF.

Quote:
Secondly, the well-maintained sidewalk network you speak of exists for multiple purposes. Without it, private property could not be accessed safely from the public right of way.
Safety. Safety is indeed a good reason to build and maintain civic infrastructure, whether for pedestrians or bicyclists or any other road user. Currently, the city has failed to build sufficiently safe bicycle infrastructure and that must change.

Quote:
For this reason, as you probably know, property owners (and not the city) are in theory responsible for maintaining it.
Theory is one thing, practice is another. The Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair "is responsible for paving and street repair work, sewer repair, patch paving and pothole filling. In addition, BSSR repairs sidewalks and builds curb ramps."

Quote:
the cost forced upon other parties by the political strength of the cycling community
Any objection to the infinitely larger and more significant costs (including externalized costs) forced upon other parties by the political strength of the motorist community? Or do you hold a different, more lenient standard for motorists' impositions?

Quote:
my experience as a pedestrian who has had an order of magnitude more run-ins with cyclists breaking the law than drivers.
Your experience doesn't trump the statistics, which conclusively reveal motorists cause by far the greatest harm to the most road users: pedestrians, cyclists--and other motorists. You may be up-close and personal with more bicyclists, but when it comes to actual injuries and deaths the data shows motorists are the only real threat to your safety as a pedestrian. Shall we use this to deny them safe places to drive, or is that only a harsh standard you'd like to apply to San Franciscans on bicycles?
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #838  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 7:40 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Also, the claim Muni is especially bad at fare recovery is not accurate. Transit fares cover only 21% of costs nationwide.

Every mode is getting heavily subsidized by the general fund, and cyclists have every reason to expect a sufficient share will be used to fund safe and effective infrastructure.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #839  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 6:09 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
Where in the world do you live? I'm amazed by the number of drivers I see almost hit a pedestrian trying to turn right on red every day off of Van Ness. My wife and I were almost run down at not one, not two, but three different intersections on Van Ness tonight, for a full 3 for 3 of the three blocks crossed.

I'm not a full-time cyclist - more of a full-time pedestrian here in SF and a part-time driver in other places, but I can't imagine any place in the US where there are more cyclists breaking laws than drivers (per capita, maybe? Though I doubt it). There just aren't enough cyclists to even come close in total numbers, assuming that law-breaking is around the same level.
i live in pacific heights. i work in the financial district. i walk between the two most every day, once or twice depending on how late i work. my wife and i (and our 1.5yr old daughter) also walk virtually everywhere around our neighborhood that we go - polk street, the fillmore, hayes valley, union street, the marina etc. anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal, but in my 17 years as a pedestrian and muni rider in san francisco i actually can only think of a single time when i came close to bodily injury from an automobile while a pedestrian. i used to run along the embarcadero 7 to 10 miles a day in the evening, and every third or fourth run a cyclist on the sidewalk would require that i leap out of the way, suddenly stop, etc. and i'm not talking about blazing saddles types.

the issue is - as fflint is pointing out - that there are very poor separations between bicycles and automobiles AND between bicycles and pedestrians. the poor quality of the city's bike infrastructure forces these conflicts, but while drivers in general seem highly aware of the threat a 3,500lb automobile poses to a 200lb human being, i have observed far more cyclists with a "i'm on the high ground here, get out of my way" mentality.

again, anectode and my personal experience. certainly not the basis for legislation, but the basis for my opinion, which is all anyone is sharing here.

in the end, in principle, i do agree with fflint. the city should spend more on safe infrastructure for cyclists. BUT - they should be required to obey the law, and there should be an open an frank accounting of where the funds to build this infrastructure is coming from, what's not being funded in exchange, and what the impact, good or bad, to pedestrians, muni, taxis, and private automobiles is. even the post-haste EIR for the bike plan identifies half a dozen potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to transit from the plan. but to know that you'd have to actually read the thing. which i have.

and, of course, this being san francisco, that reasonable discussion will never happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #840  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 6:17 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Also, the claim Muni is especially bad at fare recovery is not accurate. Transit fares cover only 21% of costs nationwide.
i wasn't claiming anything about muni compared to some transit system a thousand miles away. what does the midwest, or the south, or frankly anywhere outside the bay area have to do with this?

of the major transit systems (>50k boardings) which actually serve san francisco, muni is at the bottom.

bart 68%
caltrain 58%
muni 22%
ac transit - ? but about 20%
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.