On Bicycles, and.... what else is there?

Yesterday I read Dan Wuori's article on VeloNews , a partial response to Mike Rosen's opinion in the Denver Post: Bicyclists take backseat to vehicles . There's an all-too-common argument made which is "car drivers pay for the road so have higher priority". This goes way back. It's simply incorrect: direct fees from car ownership don't cover the cost of the roadways, which are subsidized by the general fund. And in any case driving is externality-rich, so even if the fees covered the roads (which they don't) from an economics perspective they should additionally cover the externalities (pollution, congestion, road damage, CO2 emission, wildlife destruction; I could go on), and by any reasonable anslysis, especially in the United States with fuel taxes lower than they've been since at least before the 1970's in a percentage basis, they don't come close. But it simply doesn't matter. It's all a red herring. Because we don...

On March 2nd Charles Vincent, 66 years old, was riding his bike at the intersection of 14th and Folsom in San Francisco when he was killed by a car driver who was observed by multiple witnesses to have run a red light. Despite this, no charges are being filed. According to the story on Streetsblog, SFPD Explains: Driver Won’t Be Charged for Killing Cyclist at 14th & Folsom , a witness also had Vincent riding through a red light in his direction, and so the collision occurred when both people had reds. "The DA is not gonna charge that person with a crime because there’s a contributory factor" according to SFPD. This is an interesting spin on the law with which I'd not formerly been aware. If someone is in violation of code, it's sanctionable to kill them with your own violation? Curious. Rewind to the Chris Bucchere case .... Chris rode his bike at approximately 31 mph through the intersection of Castro and Mission, hitting and killing a Sacha Hui, a pede...

I've been super-busy with a new research position at the University of California at Berkeley. This has been fun, but leaves little time for blogging. But I made time to do my first-ever change.org petition, for the Board of Supervisors ban smoking on San Francisco sidewalks . I've written about this before when I was exposed to smoke while waiting in line at the Bicycle Film Festival. Well, it turns out smoking is already banned for waiting in lines on sidewalks, so I was already justified there in asking the smoker to take it elsewhere had I chosen that approach. But in many cases exposure to smoke on sidewalks is just as unavoidable, in particular for small children who aren't free to go where they want. In some cases the child is even in a stroller being pushed by a smoking parent. This has become a bigger issue with me since I started running more. When running on a sidewalk, running the gauntlet past a group of sidewalk smokers is unpleasant in addition to p...

Back in the day, back in the early days of recorded time (i.e. since I got a Garmin 500 and signed up for Strava), we used to ride an SF2G Skyline route which didn't descend Crystal Springs to Polhemus bus instead remained on Skyline Boulevard, crossed a bridge at the dam under the 280 Flyover, and then climbed back to Highway 92.   The memories of that nearly forgotten time must be reconstructed from the yellowing pages of the Strava archives lest they be forgotten forever. Note the rather direct route near Crystal Springs. Now compare and contrast: You can see the difference near the "Belmont" label: a left, right, right, left while the earlier route takes a relatively straight line. The alternate route involves a descent of Crystal Springs Road, a right turn onto Polhemus, a long climb there to where it turns into Ralston past the Highway 92 interchange, then passing through a parking lot to descend back to Cañada Road via a twisting bike-pedestrian path whic...

Well, the voting is done, and the results came out largely the same as I had hoped. In California, 47 passed, as I'd hoped, but so did both 1 and 2. 1 was a water bond, which focused on building dams which don't do anything to either create more water or conserve what we have, the obvious approach the latter in a state which does little to reduce water consumption by either agriculture or individuals. 2 was for a "budget stabilization" account for California. Maybe it will help. 47 helped reduce sentencing on minor theft ( Locally, things also were generally good, except I was disappointed that Proposition E, the "sugary drink tax", got "only" 55% of the vote and for new taxes 2/3 is required. This is a bit silly. Consider the case where I have two measures, one which raises revenue via taxes, the other which spends the same amount. The People, being fiscally responsible, vote for either both or neither. 60% vote yes, 40% no. The result? ...

San Francisco virtually always has a complicated ballot on election day. This year holds its own in that regard, with 12 ballot measures as well as local offices. Here's some of my picks for the Tue election. Here's a guide to San Francisco ballot measures. District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner's my choice. He's had an excellent record so far, including solid positions on transportation. Proposition A This is a bond to fund transportation costs in San Francisco, including road repair. Well, for one thing we just recently passed a bond to fund road repair. against my support. Funding ongoing repairs with debt is a bad idea because it incurs interest on top of principle costs, and since paving the roads is a steady expense, there's no reason it shouldn't be allocated out of the annual budget. The main reason, though, I'm against this is that Mayor Lee recently ended sunday street parking metering (every other day is metered). This was going to fun...

Election time, so time to make my choices on ballot measures. Proposition 1 The arguments against this bill are compelling. First, a focus on surface water storage via the construction of dams doesn't create any more water: it allows more water to be drained from our otherwise overtaxed rivers. Second, the cost of the bond come from the general fund. Costs of water storage should be paid through water use fees. The real issue is water consumption needs to be reduced, and it's simple economics that be incentivized via increased costs. Subsidizing water use doesn't accomplish this at all. So I am a skeptic about this bond justifying it's in excess of $7 billion cost. California needs to reduce it's excessive rate of water use, and this doesn't address that. No Proposition 2 This is supposed to be a "rainy day fund" for the state. Unfortunately, when there's "rainy day funds" there's the incentive to conclude a lot more days ...

I like to review the ballot measures here each election, and 03 June brings a primary to San Francisco. Here's measures on the ballot, the first two California-wide, the final two San Francisco county: Proposition 41 : This is a bond to subsidize housing for veterans. I don't recall California declaring war since it was incorporated as a state. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,... these ridiculous charades have all been the action of the federal, not the state governement. Therefore I think it's ridiculous to expect the states to pay the fully predictable costs of these tragedies. Let the federal government clean up its own mess. vote now. Proposition 42 : Fairly technical, this seems like a good idea. I'll vote yes. Proposition A : This is a San Francisco bond to repair water systems for emergency response. I'm absolutely against. This is an ongoing expense, and should not be paid with bonds. The city government needs to allocate ongoing maintenance costs wit...

Waiting in line last night on the sidewalk for the Bicycle Film Festival , people tightly packed along the building waiting for the doors to open, a chatty fellow behind me lit up a cigarette. Cigarette smoke is something I'm rarely exposed to for more than a few seconds, and despite the steady wind, the smell of the fumes was physically sickening, not to menton a tangible health risk. In fact, just typing this the next morning reminds me of the queasy feeling in my stomach as I tried my best to maximize my distance from him without losing my place in my line. What to do? Politely ask him, as a favor, to stop? Inform him that such behavior isn't acceptable (that option probably doesn't work so well, in my experience). I probably should have done the former. But instead I waited it out, resolute that if he tried another, I'd speak up. Fortunately one was enough for him. San Francisco likes to vigorously pat itself on the back for being anti-smoking, and indeed i...

electrified Caltrain rendering With the Caltrain electrification process slowly, oh so slowly, moving forward, the organization is making important decisions about infrastructure investment which will affect capacity for decades. It's much easier and cheaper to do things right the first time rather than try to remedy poor decisions later. For example, when the Gallery sets were purchased in the 1980's, the cars were provided with only a single boarding site per train car, creating a choke point for boardings and deboardings which slows the train at every one of the many stops along the line. And when the Bombardier sets were introduced in the 2000's, on board bike capacity available with that car design was substantially restricted, which given the strong demand for bikes on board has made these newer, nicer cars unsuited for the express trains which handle the peak load during commute hours. Now Caltrain is moving ahead with electrification, and it's important les...

Last time I proposed an algorithm for detecting speeding vehicles. In summary, the algorithm was to set an actual speed limit 5% over the nominal speed limit, then compare the car's position to a "virtual pace car" going that speed limit, where the pace car would slow to avoid getting behind the car in question. If the driver got 50 meters ahead of this virtual pace car, he'd be fined proportional to how far ahead he got. If he kept pulling away, the fine would keep increasing. I tried various approaches, but I think the best one is relatively simple. I assume a car starts at rest, then accelerates at 3 m/s 2 (0.31g, or 0-60 in 8.94 seconds) to some final speed, then holds that speed. There's a posted speed limit of 20 meters/second (72 kph), implying an enforced speed limit of 21 meters/second (75.6 kph) which the driver reaches in 7.00 seconds, having traveled 73.5 meters. If the peak speed is no more than 21 mps, the driver is never cited. But if the p...

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors embraced a " Vision Zero " policy goal which is gaining traction: the goal is for zero pedestrian and cycling deaths within 10 years. It sounds good, but it's a bold goal which demands real action. It's like San Francisco's "Transit First" policy, a part of the City Charter, which states that the pedestrian safety and public transit receive priority over individual motor vehicles. But in the end, there's little evidence this law drives actual policy. Lip service without action reeks of hypocracy, and hypocrisy is in no shortage in San Francisco. "Leland Yee". Nuff said. ' But assuming Vision Zero is serious, there's only one way for San Francisco to substantially reduce the carnage seen on the roadways year after year: reduce vehicle speeds. A classic example: Potrero Ave near Potrero Hill where I live. It's signed for a 25 mph speed limit, appropriate for a road with a school, a...

San Francisco Bike Coalition and San Francisco announced a new program, Zero Vision , for a nominal goal of zero tolerance for pedestrian deaths. The idea is to shift the perception that pedestrian deaths are an acceptable cost of doing business, that crossing the street is an activity like skydiving or smoking where the risk of death is implicitly accepted. But it's mostly hot air. Looking at the article, the term "speed" isn't to be found at all. The #1 risk factor for pedestrians is vehicle speed. Going from 20 mph to 40 mph increases the risk of pedestian fatalities by approximately 17 times . Perhaps it's perceived promoting slower vehicle speeds is politically unrealistic. I don't give a crap. If you're serious about safety, then it's important safety be given a priority. And what's the cost of lower speed? Consider an example of a driver crossing the city at either 35 mph or 25 mph maximum speed. San Francisco is approximately a 7...

I went to a public meeting on the Potrero Streetscaping project . The principal opposition was from those who fear the loss of parking along this busy, dangerous, high-speed road, which was formally the major through-road along the eastern boundary of the city until that function was taken up by highway 101. Here's my letter to my supervisor, Malia Cohen , which I hurriedly dashed off this morning before riding to physical therapy: Supervisor Cohen: I was at the public meeting last night ont he Potrero Avenue streetscaping. The core issue is the priority our transit-first city is going to place on private vehicle parking versus MUNI efficiency and pedestrian and cycling safety. MUNI is bogged down in traffic and pedestrians and cyclists are being picked off on our roadways at an appalling rate. It is thus imperative to the quality of life in the city that this project moves forward. The key requirement is that traffic on Potrero Ave slow down. The median landscaping, by ...

Usually I like to post summaries of my views on ballot measured, etc, before elections. After all, if we just vote in silence then we get just one, barely significant vote, but it is in discussion of the issues that voters have their real power. However, this election I slacked off, and I post this after I already voted and the polls have closed. This was the smallest election I remember, certainly in San Francisco, maybe anywhere. There were no contested races, 4 city ballot measures, and nothing at the state level. Turn-out will be extremely small. Here's how I voted on the ballot measures: Prop A : Yes. This is a restriction against tapping into city employee health care accounts for other purposes. Actually I didn't look at the nitty gritty details, and honestly I'm not sure how effective it will be, but it has a lot of support and seems like a good idea. Prop B : No. A condo development along the waterfront wants an extension of the normal height restrictio...

I tried to find the San Francisco Transit-First policy and indeed some old links were stale. I dug it up again at this link . But it's sort of flaky, so to give myself a chance of finding it again, I figured I'd just copy it here. The transit-first policy of San Francisco is brilliant for its time, as it was passed in the dark ages of the 1970's. But unfortunately even though we consider ourselves now far more enlightened, the policy is typically ignored. Compliance is by convenience, not by intent. In any case, that it persists in the city charter gives continued hope for the future. We now realize the focus on the car in the mid-20th century nearly killed our cities as virtually all new infrastructure investment was in suburbia, a failed, unsustainable, unscalable model. Today demand for cities is higher than ever, and with a half-century of neglect, supply is inadequate. As a result the most expensive housing in the nation is in urban cores. Cities are cooking ...

I rode Hawk Hill in the Headlands today, and what an eye-opening experience. Rather than a traffic-clogged photo-op, it was a peaceful vista to be savored and enjoyed. Walkers, hikers, cyclists were going up and down the hill, all smiling at the rare opportunity presented by the Federal shutdown... the shut-down of a national park service that is so car-centric it views "access" synonymous with "car access". I went to the summit then started descending the backside of Conzelman. As I turned a corner I saw two women slowly climbing the other way. My first reaction was "they're crazy", until a few seconds later it occurred to me... why not? The "narrow" road is plenty wide enough for bidirectional bike traffic. So when I reached the bottom I turned around and climbed it myself: ouch, that is steep. It's an opportunity I'm not likely to get again. I strongly recommend checking it out. It's a chance to envision the pote...

Different picketers, same deal Long, long ago... October 2008 I'd just descended Eastmoor Road from Skyline in Daly City to Mission Blvd and stopped at the long traffic signal there. I was riding home from the peninsula and was taking the scenic route home: over San Bruno Mountain to squeeze an extra thousand feet of climbing out of this hilly ride. But at the intersection I was amused to see a large crowd of people, mostly hispanic and, to be blunt, mostly morbidly obese, marching around with signs that said "Yes on 8" along with various slogans indicating that the sanctity of their marriage unions was in peril. I was amused, I say, because I couldn't comprehend what so motivated them to spend their day walking around this crowded intersection supporting removing the rights from individuals on a matter which had absolutely no effect on the marchers' lives or their well-beings. Whether 8 passed or not, whether the right for same-sex marriage was removed or not...

Amsterdam is considered a cyclist paradise. It's well known that cycling is there the dominant form of local transportation. Yesterday I had a chat with a guy who'd spent the last five years there, just recently moving to San Francisco. The Dutch view on driving and parking is interesting. From 1992 to 2005 Amsterdam cut its ground-level car parking 3% per year to discourage driving. Taxes, according to Trey, are 150% the retail value of a car on purchase, or if you receive the car for work, 25% of the value of the car per year. Of course, taxes on fuel are well in excess of those in the United States, which are among the lowest in the world. These substantial taxes are invested in public transit, which is so good that there's little need for a car for city residents, in striking contrast to San Francisco where our bus system, inefficient and forced to compete for space on crowded streets with private automobiles, is virtually unusable for timely travel across the ci...

CyclingNews just published an article of quotes from Pat McQuaid, the President of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the organization which oversees international cycling ( McQuaid: All I've done since I became president is fight doping ). Where to begin? Some of the ways McQuaid has been "fighting doping": Trying to take over the USADA case against Lance Armstrong, claiming it had no merit, then trying to rush USADA into submitting its evidence early Filing lawsuits against Floyd Landis and Paul Kimmage, each of whom reported the UCI appeared to be complicit in covering up Armstrong positives. Armstrong's $125k donation to the UCI still goes officially unexplained. Calling "scumbags" riders who came forward with evidence against doping at US Postal and Discovery. Attacking Dick Pound , the then-head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, who had called for stricter anti-doping efforts in cycling and who had correctly claimed cycling had a doping pr...