[Carfreeliving] Will LA leapfrog San Francisco?

Wed Aug 24 17:24:45 MDT 2005

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