This Could Be Our Skyline, In a Couple of Decades
-thumb-110x110-460161.jpg)
Cops Get Tough With UC Berkeley Protesters
Photo du Jour 512
Truffle Season, It Is Here
SFist Tonight
The plan will go ahead, folks. It seems that 15 or so minutes ago, according to a source, the SFMTA Board of Directors "unanimously voted to adopt The SF Bike Plan." And while not every one of the 60 or so projects will get done -- there are at least 15 still "on the back burner/needing further study and community input," yada, yada, uada -- all systems are a go. However, they removed the 2nd Street idea because "it would remove left turn lanes and received huge neighborhood and resident opposition.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Good. A cyclist just ran up my arse because I wouldn't move out of her way on a narrow sidewalk.
This will happen anyway, even with bike lanes.
Is there a San Francisco Arse Plan? Seems to me one was approved sometime in the 70's.
It is a good day - they approved most of the Rincon Hill bike lanes. We objected to the design on 2nd Street - not to having bike lanes. The MTA only let us know of the design for 2nd Street last month. I'm happy that they've decided to come back to the waterfront SOMA neighborhoods to seek community input on how to get bike lanes on 2nd Street without causing more traffic congestion on Folsom, Harrison, Howard, Mission, Market, Bryant, Brannan, and all the other streets drivers who don't live in the City will be speeding down trying to jump around that hellish traffic backup on 1st Street to the Bay Bridge and to other highway ramps in SOMA. We want the bike lanes - but we want pedestrian safety, our air quality, and the ability of emergency response vehicles to reach our neighborhoods when we need them impacted negatively as little as possible.
Now, let's get our PRIDE on and celebrate our community!
I'm a cyclist, work in SOMA and used to live in the Rincon area. If I need to make it down to the financial district, I cruise down 2nd. In the downhill direction, there really isn't a need for a bikelane. There's already two lanes, so it's pretty easy to just take over the lane on the right and move with the speed of traffic.
Going uphill, at rush hour... bah, it's easier to just go a few blocks out of my way and take Beale, which is a pretty mellow route. At non-peak times, heading up 2nd works fine... again just take over the right lane until things open up a bit after Harrison.
But to echo Xenu's sentiments... some driver's are just plain crazy in this town. Running reds and driving well over the speed limit is the norm, and it's not going to get any safer for pedestrians and cyclists (and other motorists) unless there's a decent crackdown.
Personally I think they should remove lanes on 2nd street anyway, widen the sidewalks, and put in speedbumps. And spikes to impale the asshole drivers.
Seriously. The drivers on 2nd street are INSANE. They need to:
a. Slow the FUCK DOWN
b. When the light's red, STOP
c. Don't enter the intersection if there's a backup on the other end.
d. When you're making a turn, FUCKING LOOK to see if someone is there before you SLAM ON THE GODDAMN GAS YOU FUCKNUT
Just because you're getting off your shitty job and you want to drive back to your condo in the East Bay doesn't give you the right to be a total douchebag.
Not that I'm mad or anything...
now paris-style pick-up drop-off anywhere bikes n a tow-rope on laguna st and i'll be a happy camper!
srsly how cool would that be?
btw @ the guy on the sidewalk freaking closeline bikers on sidewalk with attitude, they don't belong there. trust me, if i catch your pedestrian ass in my way on the road i'll cut you so close it'll clip the whiskers off your asscrack so i expect the same from you if i venture into your territory.
It was a middle aged lady with a matronly attitude, so no, I wasn't about to move out of her fucking way like I'm one of her subjects. I hope the HRT doesn't solve her bone density problems and she busts a hip trying to open her paniers to remove an Edith Wharton novel to read for way too long at an outdoor table while groups of people stand around without seats.
I'm very active with the bike coalition and very excited the city is back on track to being a world class city for cycling. I sat in on the board meeting today and heard the concerns expressed by some businesses about the 2nd Street plan. They definitely weren't against bikes and were asking for a Valencia Street-like layout to be considered. I work on 2nd Street and hope this can happen in a timely fashion. Three years is an unfortunate amount of time to wait for safety and I'm concerned about how long it may take for 2nd Street to see improvements. All in all it's been a great day for cycling in San Francisco. Thank you to all of you who have worked so hard on this campaign. Now let's keep our fingers crossed that the injunction will get lifted by the Superior Court. http://www.sfbike.org/?bikeplan_lawsuit
... and I wouldn't say there was huge neighborhood and resident opposition about 2nd Street. I heard maybe 5 or 6 people against the proposed configuration and probably 25 for it.
Let's be clear: those 6 people who spoke in opposition to the current 2nd street plan (and offered a much better alternative) all spoke for hundreds and hundreds of neighborhood residents: they were all Board members of Neighborhood Association, as well as Board Members of Home Owner Associations, and said so when they presented their comments. 6 x 100 = many hundreds more than spoke for 2nd street 'as is', which is why MTA postponed adopting it and put it back for more review.
So we have 600 people who enjoy traffic jams and collisions?
Actually I guess that's not surprising. Why else would they all leave work at exactly the same time?
Uh...yeah...or maybe 600 people who fail to see how removing lanes and eliminating turns is going to improve congestion...even the bike coalition acknowledged that traffic congestion would increase given the current proposal.
As far as the 25 for it, I highly doubt they live ON 2nd Street.
Most of the people who spoke in opposition don't live ON 2nd, either. And they had just as much a right as anyone who wants bike lanes to comment on it. Why should you have to be directly on a street to care about its safety- shouldn't it be anyone who uses it...? And, if we went with your distinction, anyway, SFBC volunteers collected and submitted over 20 letters of support from BUSINESS OWNERS DIRECTLY ON 2nd-- which is more than the folks who wrote or spoke against...
Please. Are you suggesting that the majority of businesses ON second street were in favor? And to answer your question, at least five of the opponents DO live or work on second street. And they understand what might or might not make the street "safer" than you do. And having a bunch of angry commuters sitting in traffic polluting the air is not going to make it safer for anybody.
Give it a rest. You got the overwhelming majority of the lanes, and, funds notwithstanding, we'll have lanes on 2nd eventually. The reason this proposal was tabled is that we offered an alternative, and the willingness to work toward it.
No xenu, you misunderstood: it's the actual people who live in the neighborhood. who own businesses, but mostly residents, who objected to having congestion foisted upon them.
The bike coalition could give a flying f•#k whether or not residents quality of life is made poorer by bike lanes.
As an aside, I'd like to remind folks that the same neighborhoods welcome Sunday Streets with open arms for last year's two pilot runs and were lucky to host the first 2009 Sunday Streets. Like I said, we're all members of the Church of Sustainability, so-to-speak.
"The bike coalition could give a flying f•#k whether or not residents quality of life is made poorer by bike lanes."
That's right, RicardoSF. We all know that bike lanes are a serious threat to our quality of life.