10mph speed limit for bikes on Golden Gate?

Not a good idea if you were actually planning to get anywhere on your bike.

Cyclelicious posted a nice overview of the situation. Send your own email here.

To: DistrictSecretary@goldengate.org
From: Mike Fogel <mike … at … fogel.ca>

Subject: proposed golden gate bicycle speed limit – too low
Dear Golden Gate Bridge district,

I’m a San Francisco resident and a common Marin county weekender. I live on two wheels. I use my bicycle for nearly all my transportation needs and I find myself riding across the golden gate every few weekends.

I’m concerned about the proposed 10mph speed limit for bicycles across the golden gate. I don’t know if you’ve ever ridden a bike at 10mph – it’s not a speed where you actually _get_ anywhere. It’s a speed akin to a lazy stroll.

For comparison, the city of SF recently set up a ‘green wave’ of timed signals along Valencia st. These lights were timed at 13mph. This speed is intended for the “8-80″ crowd – meaning that most anyone, from 8 to 80 years old, can safely and comfortably navigate a bicycle at 13mph. This would suggest an appropriate speed limit for the bridge to be more like 17mph – a speed most healthy adults, while riding a bike for general transportation, will find themselves safely cruising at.

The “average” bicycle speeds published by the “Bicycle Safety Study for the GG Bridge” are painfully misleading. Half the riders on the golden gate are tourists not actually trying to get anywhere. A closer analysis would reveal a bi-modal distribution of speeds – one peak for those not actually trying to get anywhere, another one for those of us using the bridge for its original utilitarian purpose – get my rear end from one side of the water to the other.

For those of us who are using a bicycle for real transportation the issue of 10mph versus 17mph is huge. That’s the difference between biking being competitive with driving – and not.

Thanks for your time.

–
Mike Fogel
510 220 3903 | mike@fogel.ca

April 20, 2011 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , | 2 Comments »

Cuts to Muni are not the answer

The answer is instead, to write a bunch of emails. Have you written yours? The SFBC makes it easy.

This actually reflects nicely on one of the things I like most about the internet. For a lot of stuff, it lowers the bar to participation – and civic/government stuff is a prime example. There are some ~350k people who ride Muni every day. But only a few dozen, (sometimes non-representative) riders actually go to the meetings and tell the people making the decisions (who too often don’t actually use the systems themselves) what they think is best. But in this brave new world, with the internet, some 650 people have written emails to the mayor already. (Yes, I just referenced a comment on a blog post as a source, sue me.) Now, 650 >> a few dozen. That’s awesome. Unfortunately, 350k >> 650, but let’s take another look at these numbers 10 years down the road.

If you use Muni, please consider taking a few minutes and dumping your thoughts about Muni’s situation on the mayor and the SFMTA board. Here’s the fruits of my evening Caltrain ride.

To: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org, sfmtabudget@sfmta.com
From: Mike Fogel
Subject: cuts to muni are not the answer

Dear Mayor Newsom:

Over New Years Eve, while walking home a young man assaulted me in attempt to get at my wallet. He didn’t get my wallet, but he did separate my right shoulder and send me to the ER with blood draining down my face.

The result was I found myself suddenly dependent on Muni for basic transportation. Previously, I rarely used Muni – only when biking or walking was not an option for some reason.

Muni ridership is often broken into two groups: ‘choice riders’ and ‘transit-dependent riders’. But the reality is this is a false dichotomy. At one point or another, we all find ourselves to be ‘transit-dependent’ riders.

It is said that a good estimate the health of a community is to look at how it treats those most in need. To remain healthy, our city needs Muni stronger and faster than ever – not weaker and more crowded. A strong Muni is an essential part of our city, without which we cannot grow.

I urge you to look to cutting other, non-essential luxury services our city provides for funding the current Muni shortfall.

Thank you for your time.

Michael Fogel

February 11, 2010 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , | No Comments »

Market Street trial improvements

Over the past six weeks SF has been doing some trial improvements to Market Street. These are simple livability improvements – mainly restricting private vehicle traffic and adding some paint here and there. They’re collecting data and feedback about these improvements with an eye to revamping the whole street come 2013.

Feedback? You want feedback! OK!

To: marketstreet@sfgov.org
From: Michael J. Fogel <mike … at … fogel.ca>

Subject: Market Street improvements feedback

Good morning MarketStreet@sfgov.org

A few thoughts about the Market Street trial improvements from the perspective of an SF user (walk, Muni, bike, taxi, and occasionally – private vehicle driver):

  1. I think the changes to restrict private vehicles on Market Street have been a step in the right direction. The blocks with reduced traffic are now more pleasant to be on – which will in turn attract more people to these blocks, which will in turn make the street more pleasant – a virtuous cycle.
  2. The trial improvements have been limited in their impact because the choosen blocks are not high-profile, high pedestrian traffic blocks. Restricting private vehicle traffic between, say 6th and 3rd, would do a significantly better job in making the advantages of these improvements clear to more people.
  3. Restricting private vehicles, while not hindering taxis, delivery vehicles, and Muni was an excellent choice. While these professional drivers are often more aggressive, they drive more predictably and are generally much safer than private drivers. They also are now able to provide essential services to Market Street with greater efficiency – a benefit to all users of the street.

Because of Market Street’s high profile, a successful Market Street improvement program has potential to motivate further livability-oriented changes around our region. I encourage you to build and expand upon the trial improvements completed thus far, pushing them to the busiest areas of the street where they will be seen and felt by the most people.

Thanks for your time,

Michael Fogel

November 10, 2009 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , , | No Comments »

SFgo backwards

These are the first SFgo signs going up in a residential neighborhood in SF. SFgo is intended to bring ‘smart’ driving to SF by providing real-time information to drivers on key traffic corridors, enabling them to make better route-planning decisions.

SFGo fell

SFGo oak

(Image credit: BIKE NOPA)

The first image is on Fell street, the second is on Oak. Both are right near their intersection with Divisadero.

So some big signs on some big streets. What’s the big deal?

To: Ross Mirkarimi <Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org>
From: Michael J. Fogel <mike … at … fogel.ca>

Subject: SFgo signs are a step backward

Hi Mr. Mirkarimi,

I currently live at Hayes and Filmore, in your district. Over the past five years, I’ve lived at three different locations in SF, all in your district (Lower Haight, NoPa, and now Alamo Square). We’re lucky to live in the neighborhood we do.

I want you to know that I feel strongly the new SFgo signs are a step in the wrong direction. Rather than make our neighborhoods more people-scaled and people-friendly, these signs will push drivers (you and I included) further toward a freeway driving mentality while speeding along Oak and Fell. These streets are bad enough already. We should be taking steps to calm them, not speed them up.

Specifically:

- the SFgo sign on Oak should be removed completely. It serves no valid purpose.
- the SFgo sign on Fell should be moved to the freeway off-ramp down to Octavia. The sign should be placed well in advance of the Market street crossing.

In addition:

- the lights on Fell and Oak should be timed at 25mph, not 30. It requires aggressive driving to even keep up with the timing of the lights over the Alamo Square Hill.
- on Oak, from Baker to Scott one lane of traffic or parking should be removed immediately to provide a bike lane on the right hand side.
- A full study of these streets should be undertaken to identify effective longer-term steps we can take toward making these streets an asset to our neighborhood, rather than the barrier they currently are.

I’m not a member of any of the neighborhood groups. I don’t have time to go and speak out at the community meetings. I’m not the type that’s complaining about every little last thing that’s wrong with the neighborhood. But I feel strongly the new SFgo signs area a blatant, highly visible step in the wrong direction. I urge you to do what you can to remove the new SFgo signs from the neighborhood.

Thanks for your time,

Michael Fogel

October 1, 2009 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , | No Comments »

Caltrain Bike Master ‘Plan’

Caltrain is currently putting together a Bicycle Master ‘Plan’.  This is a Good Thing, as Caltrain has some serious problems with their current bicycle situation, which are getting worse fast (and, I’d argue, will continue to worsen polynomially with respect to gas prices).  However, Caltrain’s Draft Bike Master Plan currently isn’t focused on these issues – but rather on bike parking and storage at stations.  Which is not a problem of any significance.  Awesome!  Is this one of those classic ‘the people making the decisions are not the people using the service’? Or is this intentional blindness? Is it that the money coming in has strings attached to it? What’s the deal?

In any case, Caltrain is accepting comments on their draft plan through August 17. If you ride Caltrain (especially with a bike), please take the time to tell Caltrain what issues you think it’s important the bike plan address, and any ideas you may have for actually addressing them.  You can email your comments to bikeplan@caltrain.com.

To: bikeplan@caltrain.com
From: Michael J. Fogel <mike … at … fogel.ca>
Subject: Bikeplan comments:  refocus on the real issue – bikes on board

Good Morning Bikeplan,

I want to add my voice to the chorus.  I feel it’s downright silly that Caltrain is investing time and effort into bicycle parking and storage at this time.  It’s true that may need improvement, but it doesn’t have anywhere near the urgency nor importance that the ‘not enough space on board for bikes’ problem does.

Currently:

- a significant portion of the Caltrain system is consistently delayed, primarily due to bikes loading and unloading.

- 100’s of riders a day are ‘bumped’ from their trains because of a lack of space for them and their bike.

- This problem is getting worse, fast.  This is primarily a product of rising gasoline prices.

Conversely:

- I’ve been riding Caltrain for 5 years, often with my bike.  I have yet to ever, ever hear someone complain about bike parking or storage at a station.

Addressing the ‘bikes on board’ problem is much more difficult than the ‘bike storage’ problem.  But Caltrain needs to suck it up, and address it now.  It’s getting worse, fast!  There are three classes of general approaches:

1. Disallow bikes on board.  They take up too much space and time.

2. Continue fully subsidizing bikes on board.  Thus you need to add more trains, and achieve better loading and unloading throughput.  I don’t (nor does Caltrain, I gather) feel this is a practical solution in the long term (long term meaning: $10-20 for a gallon of gas).

3. Implement a series of coordinated of incentives/disincentives to bringing bikes on the train.  Caltrain’s current approach falls into this category.  However, Caltrain is restricting their study and action to one small part of this solution:  Caltrain wants to provide one incentive (improved bike parking/storage) to help reduce demand for bikes on trains.

Providing improved bike parking and storage will indeed reduce demand and ease the real ‘bikes on board’ problem… by what, 3% ???  Has Caltrain made any estimates of the (intuitively insignificant) effect this is going to have on the real issue here?

Caltrain must refocus its Bikeplan directly at the real problem: bikes on board.  Improved storage and parking is a part of the solution, but a small part.

A few suggestions for other (larger) parts of the solution:

1. Begin charging a ‘fair’ (in comparison to the other Caltrain patrons, who do not bring bikes on board) fare for bringing a bike on board.  If a bike takes up enough space for what would have been another passenger, require that all bikes have tickets.  Also, a surcharge could be imposed on that bike ticket to account for the increased loading/unloading time.

2. Remove all bike cars from express trains and add them to the non-express trains.  Now you can still bring a bike on board if you need to, but you know your trip will be a little longer.

3. Require advance reservation (and purchase) of bike spot on a train, just like assigned seating.  This would reduce loading/unloading times, and greatly reduce the stress of bringing a bike on board.  In addition it would provide a moderate disincentive bringing a bike on board, via increased complexity.

Caltrain has made impressive strides in the last five years or so.  The issue of bringing bikes on board is causing significant problems, while the issue of bike parking and storage is not.  And worst of all – the situation with bikes on board is getting worse, fast.  Caltrain must refocus its Bikeplan now, directly and explicitly on the real issue: bikes on board.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Michael J. Fogel

(This letter, and your responses, will be publicly posted.)

If Caltrain ever does reply, I’ll post it here.  Don’t hold your breath – we’re already pushing two weeks.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has also publicly posted their comments on the situation.

July 13, 2008 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , , | 4 Comments »

Going Postal

A study in incompetence: USPS.

About a week ago, I was watching my postman drive up and down the block, stopping every 50 feet, turning off the engine, and delivering mail to one house. It occurred to me that USPS delivery trucks would be the best hybrid vehicles ever. All they do is stop-and-go. In fact, if hybrid vehicles don’t make economic sense for USPS delivery trucks, I contend they don’t for anybody, anywhere, ever. And I’ve heard they do (make economic sense for some, that is). So, why doesn’t USPS have their act together here? Well, let’s ask them.

From: Mike Fogel <*******@gmail.com>
To: Support@USPS <uspshelpdesk@spemail.esecurecare.net>

How can I find more information about this program? Specifically, how it’s progressed in the last two years and what’s coming up?

http://www.usps.com/communications/news/press/2006/pr06_036.htm

I’ve searched all over your website and haven’t found anything beyond that original press release.

Thank you,

Michael Fogel

To which USPS replied “sorry, we aren’t allowed to click on links. What are you talking about?”

From: Support@USPS <uspshelpdesk@spemail.esecurecare.net>
To: Mike Fogel <*******@gmail.com>

Dear MICHAEL FOGEL,

Thank you for contacting us about seeking more information about our programs.

I do apologize, our systems are not able to view any attachments. In order to be assisted further, please reply with the name of the program.

If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®.

Regards,

Jimara L

Uhm, wow, that’s impressively dumb ’security’ policy. I guess I’ll explain your own program to you.

From: Mike Fogel <*******@gmail.com>
To: Support@USPS <uspshelpdesk@spemail.esecurecare.net>

No problem. The link I sent you is to a press release from 2006, relating to the postal service doing a test run for using hybrid vehicles to do the deliveries. I’m wondering how I can find more up-to-date information about this program, or what it’s expanded into, or if it’s imploded, or…???

Thanks!

Mike

To bad! USPS forgot what they were doing with hybrids.

From: Support@USPS <uspshelpdesk@spemail.esecurecare.net>
To: Mike Fogel <*******@gmail.com>

Dear MICHAEL FOGEL,

Thank you for responding with requested information. I understand you are seeking up to date information regarding the hybrid postal vehicles. I do apologize, I do not have that information in my resources. (…)

If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®.

Regards,

Jimara L

Wow.

May 11, 2008 | Mike Fogel | Tags: , , | 3 Comments »