tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76168187043269756252024-03-18T02:16:16.149-07:00Holier than You BlogThis Blog will discuss various anecdotal topics about the Post "Peak Everything" world from my daily life in which I am clearly "Holier Than Thou". Note that even the holierthanthou blog name peaked before this blog started...murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.comBlogger416125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-83525402966974856892020-02-21T11:16:00.002-08:002020-02-21T11:19:06.720-08:00Why I believe cyclists need to vote for Measure II've made various cases for passing Measure I - the re-upping of the sales tax for SMART. Here is my down and dirty argument why cyclists should support Measure I.
<p>
It is incredibly important at this point for anyone who cares about cycling in Sonoma County to vote for Measure I.
<p>
Why? Path? Trains? Sustainability? Finances?
<p>
Nope. Politics.
<p>
At this point, every Supervisor in the County, National Representative, State Representative, Mayors, etc... have endorsed Measure I. All of the key stakeholder organizations I know of have endorsed Measure I. Except one - the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. The SCBC took a "no endorsement" position. I am on the board, and I disagreed with this position. Hey, it's a democracy.
<p>
The net result is that if this measure loses, "The Cyclists" will be blamed. Not just SCBC (700 members) - the closest thing to a political arm of this demographic. I mean the thousands who bike every day, line up for Levi's Gran Fondo, students who bike to school. etc... A recent Press Democrat editorial referred to "a few disgruntled bike advocates". Not a good look.
<p>
We have spent decades becoming non-marginalized. Slowly and surely building political capital. And now in order to "teach SMART a lesson", we are trying to blow up all that hard work and piss off the entire power structure in the county. This political capital is why we were able to get in their face and clear out the Rodota Trail. Why the mistrial in Amy Suyama's death was pushed for a retrial where the assailant was convicted. Why new road projects might just have a complete streets component. Why we get bike lanes and paths. Why we get targeted enforcement efforts on the road, and bait bikes in the racks.
<p>
Shortly, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority will start work on redoing Measure M. It was a 1/4 cent sales tax passed in 2004 for transportation projects. Four Percent of that money went to bike/ped projects. That's a LOT of money for our projects.
<p>
The draft renewal for Measure M almost triples that amount to 11%. That's a lot of beans. A group led by Supervisor Lynda Hopkins' husband Emmitt Hopkins is lobbying to get that number up to 20%. At some point that measure will be put in stone and there will be a number.
<p>
The SMART train is a key component of SCTA's vision. The original measure M put 5% of the money towards some of the original push for SMART. The board of the SCTA is heavily invested in SMART - four of the board members are on the SMART board, the head is Supervisor Gorin who has endorsed the measure.
<p>
If the final bike/ped percentage in Measure M drops by a percent or two it would be a disaster. The process doesn't even need to be capricious - there are a lot of very important competing wants for that money, and groups like SOSRoads will be advocating for that money for the roads instead of bike ped, often roads like CA-12 or the Narrows that we are not allowed to use. We don't need to be seen as an enemy, just as a uncooperative group, to lose the support that gets us funding and support.
<p>
Who exactly will be taught a lesson if Measure I fails? At this point I'm afraid it might be Sonoma County Cyclists. Don't hate the player, hate the game.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-4775975427706840222020-02-03T10:28:00.002-08:002020-02-03T10:28:31.773-08:00SMART Measure I Sales Tax extension on March Primary BallotThe Sonoma Marin Train is putting an extension to their 1/4 cent sales tax on the ballot this March. The current sales tax does not expire until 2028, this would extend it another 30 years.
I posted the following in some Sonoma County Facebook groups. Enjoy.
SMART began in earnest in 2008 when Measure Q passed. That’s a 20 year sales tax, money comes in over 20 years, but the construction - the big costs - are frontloaded. Think of how most people buy a home - they take out a mortgage because they need a place to live, build equity, etc now, but they don’t have the money to pay cash. For this mortgage they pay interest. Same for public works - SMART wrote bonds to build the train.
If you hold a mortgage and you haven’t refinanced it in the last couple of years, you are forking money over to the banks because your rate is probably higher than your original note. But a refinance is like a purchase - the bank will check your income, credit scores, etc and you have to qualify.
Same for SMART. They want to refinance their bonds. This will save SMART 12 million dollars a year of YOUR MONEY. If you want SMART to run more frequently, or build more parking, or extend to the North - it is easier to fulfill that vision with more money. And this 12 million in savings isn’t coming from the taxpayers - it’s coming from the banks! Boo banks! Boo!
But in order to refinance - the banks want to see SMART’s finances. Their balance sheet is strong. They are running an effective operation that is qualifying for very competitive federal and regional grants - a big chunk of the Windsor and Larkspur extension came from outside agencies (not our money!) because no matter the flaws, SMART is up, running, and very popular with riders for what is really an infant organization.
But the banks won’t refinance because the sales tax ends in 2028. A refi also stretches out the debt schedule and the bank doesn’t want to take risk beyond the sunset of the tax. So if Measure I fails - you, me, Mike - as taxpayers we fork over an extra 12 million a year in interest to the bond holders. That’s bogus, dude!
But let’s say you hate trains, or are annoyed that it turned out to cost way too much to fix the tracks from Windsor to Healdsburg compared to the tax. Maybe it bothers you that the bike path isn’t compete (even though SMART has taken 150,000 cyclists on train with bike, trips beyond the distance those bike riders could do unassisted). So you don’t care if we pay the extra 12 million a year the next 8 years (that’s 96 million bucks).
So you vote against measure I and it fails. Then what? SMART has 8 more years to try again. And somewhere along the line it will pass. The younger generation is more interested in phones than cars. They like trains and bikes and they’ll still be alive and voting in 2026 and some of the old folks against it will be no longer voting. So we still pass a tax extension but waste all that money.
Or let’s say it never passes. Then SMART has no money for operations, goes into bankruptcy, and defaults on the bonds. The biggest bond holder for SMART is CalPers - the California State Pension Organization. Bonds are also held by fireman’s and police pensions, teachers, etc. If SMART goes bankrupt - WE WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY THE MONEY - in the form of state funds being used to make the pensions whole, or higher interest rates on home loans by banks that held the debt.
This is a math problem, not a philosophical one. Passing Measure I is simple math - if you vote yes, the taxpayers pay less interest, if you vote no, the taxpayers pay more interest. SMART is a public agency owned by us. Their debt is our debt. Let’s pass this measure, refinance the bonds, and get this train to Windsor in 2021 (funded not by debt but by grants) and onwards for the younger generations who want to be riding this thing long after we are on that last train to your chosen religious affiliations final destination.
Sincerely - Casey Jones. You better, watch that speed.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-77670196968670212272016-05-18T00:24:00.000-07:002016-05-18T00:24:40.665-07:00SMART Train alcohol policyFor 18 years I have ridden <a href="www.caltrain.com"> Caltrain </a> - and in that time I have brought aboard and consumed hundreds of bottles and cans of beers, which I have enjoyed legally on the train. This includes frequent patronage of the semi-official <a href="www.partycar.com"> Party Car </a> formed by the cyclists on Caltrain.
<p>
Starting in 2000, alcohol consumption on Caltrain increased exponentially with the opening of AT&T park, home of the <a href="www.sfgiants.com"> San Francisco Giants</a>. Giants fans have flocked to the train, riding up the Peninsula with cases of beer and bottles of who knows what, safely being carried to and from the games. At some point Caltrain decided to ban alcohol on trains running after 9 PM only IF there is an event - primarily Giants games but also Sharks games, concerts at AT&T Park, and now 49ers games and concerts at Levi's Stadium. That late, the consumption before and during the events reach enough of a pitch that it was prudent to put a limit on the policy. Over the years the train has also served hugely alcohol fueled events like Bay to Breakers, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, Octoberfests, etc... frequently on the same day.
<p>
Generally speaking, this open BYOB policy on Caltrain has been a success. Problems are generally very rare, given the nature of the train as primarily a commuter rail with a higher level fare. It has been an attraction to the train that has a nominal positive influence on overall ridership numbers.
<p>
At the end of 2016, I will start riding a new train line - the <a href="www2.sonomamarintrain.org"> SMART train </a> in Sonoma County. It will function as primarily commuter rail, running almost exclusively during peak commute hours, with a fare structure prohibitive to general miscreants, making it nominally similar to Caltrain, except that it will serve no special events like the Giants as there are no major sports or entertainment venues on the train line.
<p>
SMART has released their <a href="http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/RULES_OF_RIDING_%28Draft%29.pdf"> draft code of conduct </a> for the train. It includes a policy of NO BYOB. They don't have a no alcohol policy because they have an operating theorem of having a bar car on the train. I am very disappointed by this policy - I find it rider hostile and that it will have a negative impact on the rider experience and overall ridership. While there will be a bar car - there are bar cars on the Amtrak Capitol Corridor too, but in a place like Sonoma County with an excellent selection of beer and wine, to limit riders to the meager selection of a bar car is misguided.
<p>
There is of course the suspicion that the rationale is not to prevent unruly behavior, but to support whatever vendor they get for their bar car. This is understandable, for the most part because the decision to put a bar car onto the trains is misguided at best. SMART put out a <a href="http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Food__beverage_service.pdf"> presentation </a> on the bar car where they are toying with giving free rent to the vendor for a return of a percentage of the profits. This is predicated on the presumption that a bar car will turn a profit - my experience from the Amtrak Capitols is that the bar car is at best a loss leader, not a profit center. This is especially true when you consider that SMART has wasted valuable train space to build the bar car.
<p>
I personally think that the potential ridership of SMART should make it clear that the no BYOB policy is not in line with the overall goals of the train. They should reconsider this path and allow riders to bring their own beverages onto the train.
<p>
If you agree - please email SMART at <a href="mailto:info@sonomamarintrain.org">info@sonomamarintrain.org</a>
Thanks
<p>
Johnmurphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-1798833894225031012016-03-31T14:30:00.000-07:002016-03-31T14:30:04.519-07:00SMART Train - Last Mile Connectivity - North CountySonoma County is getting passenger rail service for the first time in decades, hopefully starting at the tail end of 2016, with the opening of the <a href="http://main.sonomamarintrain.org/"> SMART train </a>
<p>
SMART is starting to move from being an agency building a train, to an agency that will *run* a train. Big difference. Based on a lot of things I have heard in the past, there is concern that General Manager Farhad Mansourian is a better project manager CEO than an operations CEO. Time will tell, but as we approach the opening and decisions start to fall in place, I am going to reload this blog and follow the topic.
<p>
At last month's SMART board meeting, there was a <a href="http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/First-Last_Mile_Connection.pdf"> presentation on First/Last Mile connectivity. </a> The PDF is linked above, there is also a <a href="http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/index.php/videos"> video of this meeting - March 2, 2016 </a> which is interesting and a bit illuminating. The board rightly gives the staff of SMART and the related agencies credit for a lot of hard work, but there are a lot of holes in the strategy which underscores that transit agencies and boards don't really focus test their ideas. They look at a problem, place themselves in the problem, and imagine how the problem needs to be solved. Witness Caltrain discussing workers who can go in "later" because they have "flexible" schedules. They go to work 8-5, my office doesn't even turn the lights on until 9 AM and people get upset at meetings before 10. The schedule isn't "flexible", it's flat out different.
<p>
With SMART, the board (mostly local politicians) and staff are working from a very "how do I get to San Francisco" mindset. I can't blame them, a lot of the public reacts this way as well, if you read internet comment boards. Officially, SMART diverges from this message on <a href="http://main.sonomamarintrain.org/"> their website </a>
<p>
<blockquote>
Today, more than 75% of commuters in the North Bay travel either within or between the two counties to get to work.
</blockquote>
<p>
Thus we get to my first topic on the presentation on first/last mile - the North County Coordination to be provided by Sonoma County Transit. This connection is at the direction of the board and not negotiable - Windsor, Healdsburg, and Cloverdale were on the original proposed train line, and have had train service delayed indefinitely due to lack of funding. There is a bus from Cloverdale to Santa Rosa <a href="http://sctransit.com/maps-schedules/route-60/"> - route 60 - </a> but it's slow compared to the freeway and doesn't go to the train depot on Airport Rd. SCT is going to add a shuttle - as seen in the first/last mile presentation, that will express between the 3 towns and the North SMART terminus at Airport Road. It will mostly run on US-101 in uncongested areas making it a quick connector. Sort of.
<p>
The proposed schedule shows the "go south in the AM, north in the PM" mindset of SMART. The only shuttles in the AM run North to South to meet trains, there are no proposed shuttles the opposite direction. One problem - the City of Healdsburg is a net *importer* of labor, not an exporter! SMART is trying to figure out how to get a small population of Healdsburg residents south, instead of the large population that is trying to get TO Healdsburg. The population shift during the day is such that tiny Healdsburg is starting to have parking wars and consider using <a href="http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/696/Cerri-Site-Purity-Building"> valuable downtown land </a> to build more parking.
<p>
Housing prices in Healdsburg are <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4168276-181/mass-evictions-in-healdsburg-prompt?ref=related&gallery=4305304&artslide=0"> forcing the town's workforce to leave </a> the City for Santa Rosa and Cloverdale, less expensive areas, which is bad on its own, but exacerbates the parking problem which leads to bad land use decisions which feeds back to make the housing problem worse. That workforce could theoretically take SMART to the Airport and hop a shuttle to town, but it won't exist.
<p>
Not only does a NB shuttle not exist, but the market of workers in Cloverdale who could take the shuttle to Healdsburg will be poorly served. The express shuttle will go from Cloverdale to Healdsburg in 20 minutes. SCT route 60 takes ~40 minutes to make the same run - the express cuts the trip in half and could attract new riders. However, because SMART and SCT are only thinking about "get people to the train" - the stop is located at the decrepit Healdsburg train depot on the outskirts of town (and they are building a $1 Million parking lot there), producing a walk for people making that trip which eats up any time savings. It also means that any tourists from SF who decide to take this route get dumped off in the middle of nowhere instead of the middle of town. Might as well drive. This in order to provide park and ride service to a bus for Healdsburg residents? The Healdsburg depot is out of the way for most Healdsburg residents, the bus will make an additonal out of the way stop at the Windsor "Train Depot", before winding to Airport Road. Summary - any sane Healdsburger with a car will simply drive to the Airport Road Station.
<p>
The detour through HBG to get to the old depot, and the similar winding trip in Windsor kills the trip time, reducing any incentive for people coming from Cloverdale to use the shuttle. The buses should make quick stops just off the freeway but close to the downtowns - the Amtrak bus stop at Mill/HBG Ave in Healdsburg, and right off the freeway in Windsor next to where there is a McDonalds. Shuttle service like this relies on speed. Optimizing it is the only chance to get the ridership needed to keep the shuttle going and hopefully support the train. This includes understanding that some of the riders will eschew the train altogether, using the shuttle as a fast intra-North County bus service. And they should provide service in both directions at both peaks.
<p>
murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-20247423966533011122015-12-08T10:50:00.001-08:002015-12-08T10:50:33.881-08:00San Francisco Bike Yield Law - Committee HearingFor those of you not aware of this whole "Bike Yield Law" thing - it is
a proposed ordinance by Supe Avalos that would set a policy advisory for
the SFPD to have bikes rolling stop signs be a low priority enforcement
activity.
<p>
It does not make rolling a stop sign legal. And it does not make
enforcing someone buzzing a pedestrian a low priority enforcement. This
is in response to the stings in the wiggle, if you see the Stanley
Robert's videos all the cyclists getting pulled over are rolling a red
in a completely empty intersection. In theory, the SFPD could still run
a sting there and claim they were following the spirit of the policy
advisory by solely ticketing cyclists who do not yield.
<p>
How the sausage gets made. The ordinance starts in committee - in this
case land use and transportation. That's a 3 member committee that can
block legislation from getting to the whole Board, even if the board
would vote 8-3 for it. That's why the Board President is so powerful,
the president assigns people to committee. This committee is
Wiener/Kim/Cohen. If it passes committee, it goes to the full board,
they vote, then they have to re-vote (usually a formality), then it goes
to the Mayor for signature to make it law. If the Mayor vetoes the
legislation, the Board can override his veto if they can get 8 votes to
override.
<p>
I watched most of it yesterday. Avalos is the lead sponsor so he ran the
show. Wiener and Kim gave statements for it, as did London Breed who
showed up to give the statement. Campos and Mar are also sponsors of
this legislation - 6 sponsors.
<p>
The hearing was very amusing. The SFPD showed up with a spokesman. He
gave all these sturm and drang statistics about crazy cyclists. He
stated that 30 percent of stop sign collisions were the fault of
cyclists. Supervisor Wiener called him out - "You stated that 30% of
collisions at stop signs are the fault of cyclists. Is that 30% of all
collisions at stop signs, or just 30% of collisions that involve a
cyclist, because my understanding is that collisions involving a cyclist
at a stop sign are a minuscule component of overall collisions". The cop
stammered and said "I see what you are saying" and "I don't have that
information". There was another very badly misleading set of stats
delivered as well. Greg Suhr deliberately crafted a misleading statement
from the SFPD - fortunately Wiener slayed him. Wiener also said "I
support cycling, but I don't ride a bike. I have a neighbor who loans me
a bike when I need one, which is basically for bike to work day. I ride
MUNI. And I know that people riding bikes is really good for MUNI"
<p>
Breed on the other hand gave a statement like "Enforcement on cyclists
is unfair". I don't think that's very good framing. This isn't about
fairness, this is about safety. The cops sitting in the wiggle eating
donuts instead of focusing on real dangers, reduces safety.
<p>
Bruce Oka, a disability advocate who used to be on the SFMTA board said
"this policy is trying to expand the ranks of the disabled". That's why
I dislike Breed's framing.
<p>
If Oka's premise that enforcement improves cyclists behavior is correct,
then we can deduce that enforcement will also improve motorist behavior.
So whose behavior do we need to improve? The statistics on injury
collision show us - it's the motorists who need to behave better. Let's
say enforcement doubled compliance. Doubling cyclist induced
injuries/fatalities would be worth it if we also cut in half the
motorist induced injuries/fatalities which swamp the cyclist incidents.
<p>
Mayor Lee has gone on record that he will veto this. We would need two
more votes. Yee has come out against this, which is bad news. My best
guess to get 2 more is Peskin and ??? My best guess would be we don't
get Farrell and Tang, so we need Cohen but....
<p>
The bike yield passed the planning and trandportation committee 2-1,
with Malia Cohen VOTING AGAINST. If you live in Cohen's district, let
her know you support this law, we'll have to persuade her to override Ed
Lee's threatened veto. Ditto for any other supervisor.
<p>
Murph
murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-1216971460711259012015-09-30T23:33:00.000-07:002015-09-30T23:45:03.160-07:00Self Driving CarsI am fascinated by Self Driving Cars. I want to do a writeup. One thing I find very interesting is the vast number of occupations that will have huge reductions or vanish, for which I cannot find a simple replacement brought on by this new technology. Here's a quick list.
<p>
Taxi Driver. Delivery Driver. Meter Maid. Traffic Division of police department. Ambulance Driver. Paramedics. Doctors and Nurses. Construction workers building parking lots/garages. Parking lot attendant. Auto body shop. Auto repair shop. Car manufacturing. Auto Advertising. Auto Dealer. Construction workers building new roads. Traffic Reporter (sorry Sal Castaneda). Car Magazines.
<p>
Curt Krone reminds me of Lawyers. No traffic court, no need for attorneys, judges, bailiffs, processing. Hey - no more DUI jury duty.
<p>
Nick Wade reminds me of the entire DMV. Also large parts of the traffic infrastructure is no longer needed, no speed limit signs, exit signs on freeways, etc... If stop lights still exist they sure won't need to be as complex. Do we still install guardrails? Probably in snowy/rainy regions.
murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-82555227066347579842015-08-05T14:30:00.001-07:002015-08-05T14:30:37.863-07:00Cycling for dummiesHad to write this down as it was so off kilter.
<p>
I was waiting to cross Healdsburg Ave on Mill Street, headed west to east. This is a 5 way intersection with 6 phases as northbound there is also a left arrow phase. A "person on a bicycle" rolls past me into the intersection, during the NB left arrow phase, stopping halfway across the intersection. There isn't really a median, he is just hanging out in the southbound lane of Healdsburg Ave. The light changes to give Southbound HBG Ave a turn, at which point he rolls across the NB lanes to finish his crossing.
<p>
The whole thing was pretty disturbing to me as it was super sketchy, this is a high traffic intersection serving the offramps of US-101 among other things. So I'm sort of shaking my head, and I threw in a crazy arm wave, admittedly to point out to the drivers behind me that I agree that what we just witnessed was completely screwed up.
<p>
At this point, the driver of a Healdsburg City truck behind and to the right of me (in the right turn lane) said "That guy isn't doing you any favors, is he?" I replied - "Why do I need that guy to do me any favors? He's just some crazy person and has nothing to do with me".
<p>
He said "I know but some drivers will see that and make it tougher for you" and I said "I understand that this happens, but it makes no more sense than me yelling at you because some drunk driver ran over a 12 year old kid, right? I just hope that dude doesn't kill himself, know what I mean?" We agreed, he gave me a thumbs up, and we moved on.
<p>
I got my green and headed across HBG Ave onto Mill Street, at which point I noticed the same cyclist. There was a line of cars lined up at the light, headed west. So this cyclist dude decides to ride past them going the wrong way in the Eastbound lane which now contains me and two cars behind me. He's carrying a 32 Oz Slurpee, wearing a helmet that has the chin strap disconnected, and...
<p>
He's on a rental bike. You know, handlebar bag and a map/etc...
<p>
"Sorry man!" - he says.
<p>
So this guy, who is apparently "not making things any easier for me" is some tourist from New York or wherever, riding a bike for probably the first time in 30 years. Do the anti-cycling forces hire these guys to go out and do stupid shit in order to beat back bike infrastructure projects? Perhaps it was one of the 30 or so random tourists I saw last week riding across the Golden Gate Bridge with no helmet and carrying a selfie stick with a go-pro on it.
<p>
I'm not taking any of this bullshit about cyclists being some monolithic faction - a "community" or "culture" if I have to be associated with this nimrod and have someone in the comments sections <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4298830-181/motorist-cyclist-clash-in-marin?most"> justify running over cyclists intentionally </a> because he saw some random tourist trying to juggle a big gulp while salmoning into a screwed up intersection.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-44549539480743975242014-07-08T12:35:00.000-07:002014-07-08T12:35:36.861-07:00Robert Schiro - a.k.a. Bob Schiro of Los Gatos is a plague on societySeveral Years ago, Robert Schiro of Los Gatos hit cyclist Ashley Nelson and left her to die on the side of the road.
<p>
<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20884491/saratoga-businessman-robert-schiro-sentenced-three-years-state"> Here is a newspaper clip of his sentencing </a>
<p>
Well, old Bob got out of the pokey, and raised the ante. Here is a post from Ashley as seen on the Noon Ride Facebook Page
<p>
<blockquote>
Got ready to go for a run this am, then got am email about the man who caused my brain injury by hitting me with his BMW then running. He was sentenced to prison but got out. This is how the email went.... As it was most likely inevitable…Bob Shiro made an appearance in the village recently…causing quite a stir, which involved a wrecked car, lots of sheriffs and an arrest. He tried to go into the Plumed Horse and was asked to leave, he did have a few drinks at Casa de Cobre and then was told to wait while they called a taxi for him as they did not want him driving since he was so drunk. He left anyway…tried to get into a car that was not his (a small sedan) finally realized he was actually driving a Cadillac Escalade SUV (you can see how easy it would be to mistake the two right?!?) and got his keys to work in the SUV. He then started to drive away but hit the car in the parking space in front of him (another SUV which belonged to the owner of the 5 th Avenue second hand shop) but he couldn’t figure out what reverse gear was and decided just to floor the Cadillac in drive and force the other car forward enough to get out of his parking space. All the while people in the restaurants and the valets were yelling and screaming at him to stop and chasing after him. They got his license plate number, gave it to the sheriff, that they called when he started to drive off and they got involved. Alice, who is part owner of Casa was asked by the Sheriff’s to come along with them to identify him, as they knew from the license plate who it was. They know where he lives of course, so they drove Alice up to his house on the hill where the scene got even more interesting. Bob, making it home by some miracle without killing someone, could not figure out how to open the electric gate at his driveway, so what does he do, yes of course he floors the car and runs down the security gate at his house, thus causing a lot of damage to both the gate and his car. So much so that the air bags deploy and all his tires are punctured. So quite a scene to say the least. But of course Bob is not going to go easy is he…he tries to say his girlfriend (the Russian gold digger) was driving but even she is having none of that. The Sheriff of course know he was driving, they have a witness, Alice who states categorically that yes Bob is the one who got drunk and drove off after hitting the parked car, etc. The Sheriff told Alice that they have been watching Bob and waiting for a chance to arrest him again to get him off the streets as they know he is a danger to himself and others. I hope this gave them the ammo they needed to do just that.
</blockquote>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-34821028068787458612014-07-08T09:11:00.001-07:002014-07-08T09:11:19.233-07:00A tale of two drivers.The scene - riding North on Grove Street, Healdsburg, Ca. Speed limit, 35 MPH. One lane in each direction, with a row of sparsely used parking on each side.
<p>
The parking on Grove presents a nasty issue for cyclists - in the presence of unaware drivers. Generally the road presents itself to drivers as a super wide arterial - because the unoccupied parking makes the lane appear almost double wide. So surely the cyclist should be way over to the right, alongside the curb and out of the way of traffic. The problem with this is when you now approach a parked car, the cyclist has nowhere to go. Technically, you should ride as if there were a full line of cars parked on the road, just as if they were parked there, riding just to the left of the door zone. In practice, if there are no cars parked, I might just ride in the parking area in order to allow drivers unimpeded passing. I consider this being courteous in the lack of a safety hazard.
<p>
But if there is an occasional car parked alongside the road, it's important to establish lane positioning early, so that you don't end up approaching the parked car from behind while a driver begins their pass. An aware driver would sense that you will need to move laterally to the left to pass the parked car (with enough room to avoid the door zone) and slow to allow you your pass. In practice, most drivers don't see the upcoming merge that you will be making, and in many cases don't even see that you are there. So you need to establish position early such that the driver sees you.
<p>
Of course, just because the driver sees you occupying the travel lane, does not imply they will understand *why* you are "In the middle of the road!" instead of over there in that "perfectly good shoulder" which is not a shoulder, it's a row of parking spaces (a surprisingly large amount of drivers would call this row of parking spaces "the bike lane"). As such, some subset of drivers will get angry at you for being in the road instead of over to the right, oblivious to the fact that "over to the right" is blocked by a parked car.
<p>
On a recent trip down Grove, I saw two parked cars roughly 100 feet ahead, did a shoulder check, saw the lane was clear, signaled my intention to merge into the lane, established position, and roughly the point where I was passing the two parked cars, the driver behind me signaled their displeasure by laying on their horn, then making a rapid acceleration to pass in the oncoming travel lane. Anger issues and discourtesy.
<p>
On a later trip however, I encountered a very aware, excellent driver. Further down Grove the parking disappears to add a middle lane to allow for turns in either direction off of Grove. Here, I ride on the shoulder but in this case I needed to merge into the middle of the lane and then further left into the turn lane in order to turn left into my health club. I made a shoulder check and saw a car approaching from behind and decided to wait. I looked back again and the driver had slowed - this was a very situation aware driver. The driver noted me do my shoulder check and realized that I was probably preparing to make a left, and slowed to allow me to make my merge across. I signalled, merged, then gave the thumbe up to the driver, who returned the thumbs up as they passed on the right.
<p>
Situational awareness and courtesy. Not dead.
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-66852882024591595142014-04-04T06:59:00.000-07:002014-04-04T08:10:45.542-07:00Lies, damn lies, and statisticsRichard Hall - a person with opinions from Marin - wrote a blog post and sent me the link.
<p>
The article is called <a href="http://www.planningforreality.org/cyclists-disregarding-red-lights-a-major-cause-of-accidents/"> Cyclists Disregarding Red Lights a Major Cause of Accidents </a>
<p>
He goes on to describe this and gives us some statistics he gleaned from the San Rafael Police Department. He then comes to the following conclusion:
<p>
<blockquote>
This reinforces the need for two programs here in San Rafael:
- SRPD enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists, at red lights and stop signs.
</blockquote>
<p>
Interesting. Let's look at his statistics. He starts off with a set of statistics that show that there were 30 cyclist/motorist collisions from March 2013 to March 2014. The stats indicate that 50% of the accidents were the fault of the cyclist. Thus, "Cyclists disregarding red lights are a major cause of accidents at red lights."
<p>
Of course, this stat is for <strong> all accidents </strong> involving cyclists and motorists, not just the ones at red light. He does then go on to give the stats for bike/car accidents at red lights. There were <strong> two </strong>. And they were both caused by the cyclist. So the question going back to his original premise - does two accidents equal "Major Cause of Accidents"?
<p>
We don't know. The fact that both bike/car accidents were caused by cyclists means they were the ONLY cause, not just the "Major" cause ... of bike/car accidents at red lights. The sample size is pretty small, and one could pick nits with that, but the real reason that Hall's conclusion is bogus is because he didn't give us the numbers for <strong> Car vs. Car </strong> accidents at red lights. If cyclists caused 100% of the two bike/car accidents, but motorists ran into each other thousands of times, the primary cause of any accidents at red lights would be cars (I think it's safe to assume in a car vs car accident at a red light, a driver of a car was at fault).
<p>
There is this conclusion, at least amongst anonymous (and Richard Hall) internet comment board members that cyclists are doing all sorts of crazy things. So Hall has made the conclusion that we need to crack down on the rampant cyclist misbehavior. To prevent two collisions annually, a stat which is based on one year's statistics. And maybe by magic this specific program will do something about the other 13 collisions that apparently didn't happen the red lights that SRPD will be focusing on.
<p>
Any police department has limited resources, and they should be targeted at what causes the most problems. Hall has cherry picked the data and is looking for who causes the most problems in a specific circumstance, but police resources should be focused based on overall data, not just for one kind of circumstance. This is even before we discuss the magnitude of damage caused by the offender, with motorists causing a lot more <a href = "http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/09/20/suv-crashes-into-san-rafael-restaurant-pedestrian-injured/"> damage per incident like driving through the front of a restaurant. </a>
<p>
Thinking about that last link, maybe I need a blog post "Motorists Disregarding the Front of the Building a Major Cause of Accidents" and show that 100% of car vs restaurant accidents are caused by Motorists, ergo the SRPD needs to enforce traffic laws for motorists, at the front of Home Cooking Restaurants. Admittedly the sample size is small, but in 2103 it happened again the <a href="http://www.marinij.com/ci_23439366/disaster-averted-downtown-san-rafael-when-guide-dogs"> ever popular Motorist Careens down Sidewalk, Guide Dog saves Pedestrian, Car smashes through Store Window</a> That gives us two pieces of Car on Building violence in 2 years in San Rafael alone.
<p>
Please, SRPD, think of the buildings!murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-10103763793013809542014-02-26T09:29:00.001-08:002014-02-26T09:29:08.497-08:00Will compliance with laws get better cycling infrastructure?In any debate on the internet about cycling, eventually some random person from outside the usual suspects for the given forum will chime in with their theory on cyclists and stop signs. Namely that no cyclists ever stop for stop signs.
<p>
This will then be followed with a rebuttal from someone who is a standup citizen when they are sitting on their bike, claiming that they stop at all stop signs, and that they hate the other N-1 cyclists who do not stop at stop signs. And that if only all cyclists obeyed these laws, then non-cyclists (a.k.a. drivers, or "cars") would respect the cyclists and cyclists would get more bike lanes.
<p>
This is, of course, a bunch of junk. History is littered with examples of populations that got short shrift and were told that if only they behaved, they'd be treated better. Don't believe it for a second.
<p>
Humans are inherently selfish, it appears, as well as short sighted. It doesn't matter how well cyclists behave, they won't get overwhelming support for bike infrastructure unless <a href="http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/bicycle-tax-legislation-introduced-in-california/"> they specifically pay every penny for it </a> without any subsidy from non-cyclists. Those non-cyclists of course, aren't asking for <a href="http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves"> subsidy at all! </a>
<p>
To make my point clear, let's reference another example that is tangentially related. The Golden Gate Bridge is considering <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Golden-Gate-Bridge-s-proposed-toll-8-by-2018-5262681.php">
raising their toll </a> from the current $6 to $8. The toll for the bridge pays for maintainance of the bridge as well as subsidizing the fares of people who ride the ferries and buses operated by the Golden Gate Bridge District.
<p>
Unlike the hordes of stop sign running cyclists, whom are observed by the aggrieved gas-tax paying motorists as being scofflaws who hate civil society, bus and ferry riders are a genial lot, slogging their way onto shared transportation and pretty much not getting in anyone's way. It's nominally clear to almost anyone that the riders of the buses and ferries are reducing traffic by their choice to not drive over the bridge, so generally this group should be viewed as one that has a positive behavioral profile. Except for the fact that they are leeching off the toll paying public for their party-extravaganza on the crowded buses and ferries, of course!
<p>
I've ridden those buses and seen US-101 in Marin at rush hour. Without the people on transit, it would be a disaster. And the Bridge District, who runs these things, knows it.
<p>
<blockquote>
"We're famous for the bridge," he said. "But in reality, we're really operating a regional transportation service."
<p>
The district's 2003 mission statement calls for it to provide transportation services within the Highway 101 corridor. Its buses and shuttles, officials say, take about 25 percent of the vehicle traffic off of the bridge.
<p>
"If you think traffic is untenable now, imagine it with 25 percent more cars," Mulligan said.
</blockquote>
<p>
But don't tell that to the suffering motorist paying for the party
<p>
<blockquote>
But many commuters don't think it's right that their bridge tolls should be helping to pay for someone else's bus or ferry ride.
<p>
"For people who don't ever use the buses or ferries, it seems a little ridiculous," said Simon Myatt, a 23-year-old Santa Rosa resident who crosses the bridge at least twice a week. "I know that, as a community, we need to stick together, but it's not exactly fair."
<p>
</blockquote>
It is often noted that there are ancillary benefits to cycling usage - lower traffic, reduced competition for parking, reduced wear and tear on roads, reduced pollution. But these can be murky to someone not adept at looking at the big picture. But for the roadways from San Rafael to the bridge, there is no question that the fleets of buses and ferries are making the driving commute possible. Doesn't matter. No matter how much benefit the driver recoups out of their tolls via providing an incentive for others to take the ferry, the fact they are putting a penny into a ferry service that they don't directly use is "unfair".
<p>
Same goes for bikes. So spare me the argument that some crackhead riding the wrong way down Market Street is the reason you don't get a bike lane.
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-75118343943321125202013-09-03T21:09:00.001-07:002013-09-03T21:11:37.146-07:00Bad cycling, Vehicular Cycling - Healdsburg editionI saw some bad cycling in Healdsburg today.
<p>
I was walking out of the (fantastic) Taqueria Guadalajara and saw two cyclists headed South on Healdsburg Avenue towards the US-101 onramp. This is a pretty sketchy chunk of road - the typical path for cyclists from the corner of Mill St and Healdsburg Ave to points south is to follow Healdsburg's own little version of <a href="http://www.sfbike.org/?wiggle"> San Francisco's Wiggle </a>, following Mill Street East and then taking every right turn you can to get to the Healdsburg Memorial Bridge, where you re-enter Healdsburg Ave, cross the bridge to the South and get onto the reasonable bike lane on Old Redwood Highway headed out of town.
<p>
When I first started riding up here, I - like any novice - just looked at the map and followed Healdsburg Ave instead. As you get to the intersection with Exchange Ave, the road has three lanes, the left onto Exchange, a straight lane on Healdsburg Ave that ends up at a stop sign at the crossing of the freeway offramp from US-101N, and the right hand lane which is the entrance to US-101S. I usually stayed on Healdsburg Ave. Now, I take the wiggle route, unless I am headed to Guadalajara, after which I wiggle over on Exchange back to Healdsburg Ave on a section which while not great, doesn't have a freeway interchange interleaved in it.
<p>
I watched these cyclists to see where they were headed. They were pretty close to the onramp and still hugging the right hand shoulder, which is the one place you don't want to really be, because well, it's the onramp to the freeway. They then proceeded to pass a big rig on the right hand side. Not good.
<p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Cyclists. Do not pass a big rig on the right leading to an onramp <a href="http://t.co/eR84DQyZbe">pic.twitter.com/eR84DQyZbe</a></p>— murphstahoe (@murphstahoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/murphstahoe/statuses/375029875628732416">September 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>
They sort of realized the pickle they were in and hung out there for a moment. There is a crosswalk from the gas station at that intersection to the opposite side, where they could make a box turn onto Exchange, but if they wanted to head SB on Healdsburg Ave that wouldn't work, and unless they *knew* that they could bypass it via Exchange, they wouldn't try. Eventually they made a really strange maneuver, which I caught on long distance video.
<p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-2ddYU_Azh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>
They sort of figured out that they needed to get across the onramp to get to the SB Healdsburg Ave continuation. They went through a light cycle or two, and then when the light turned green, they veered left in front of the lead vehicle in the offramp lane and into the SB HBG Ave connector lane. The big problem with this is that the SB traffic on HBG Ave also has a green and they just veered in front of it blind to that traffic's viewpoint, and the road narrows into a little slot lane to get to the crossing of the NB US-101 offramp.
<p>
This is the sort of odd behavior that drives a lot of the crazy internet comments. The ironic part is that these vitriolic comments are thrown at people in bike coalitions, clubs, and advocacy groups. Generally, the members of said groups have moved past such confused maneuvers. What was going on here? The cyclists I observed had rental bikes - Wine Country Tourists. Most of their route is straightforward, but the last little jog into Healdsburg is a bit confusing, and if they make a wrong turn they end up in a chunk of infrastructure that is not intutive to an inexperienced cyclist.
<p>
Me - if I am on that chunk of road, early on I check the traffic, move to the SB through lane or the left turn onto Exchange, position myself center lane, and do a tiny bit of "Vehicular Cycling". I don't really adhere to the consider riding for miles in the center of high speed roads "because we are a vehicle", but in this sort of intersection, the VC theories are correct - in places where you are pinched, assert yourself or get pinched worse. Even though those riders probably own cars, they don't assert their position because it isn't even something they comprehend.
<p>
What's the action item? We'd want better infrastructure such that inexperienced cyclists don't end up in pinch spots like this, but redesigning an intersection like this would be very expensive with little ROI. Healdsburg should probably start with some BIKE ROUTE signs at Mill and Healdsburg to keep people who are simply lost from entering that trap when a simple, more pleasant, and SHORTER alternative exists (not to mention that that alternative is where the bike rental shops are!). They could even promote the route - call it something neat like say... "The Wiggle". Then work on education, for drivers and cyclists. Fortunately drivers in Healdsburg proper tend to be overtly aware of cyclists and very accommodating, probably because everyone either is a cyclist, knows a cyclist, or makes their living from selling stuff to cyclists.
<p>
It's a non-trivial problem, for sure.
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-85590459529468991012013-04-09T20:22:00.000-07:002013-04-09T20:22:20.926-07:00Polk StreetHi all -
<p>
There is a <a href="http://www.sfbike.org/?polk"> streetscape improvment </a> being proposed for Polk Street. Here is the <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/12/03/sfmta-presents-design-options-for-a-more-livable-polk-street/"> pre-hullabaloo </a> information about the project.
<p>
I am not sure if I have ever ridden on Polk, frankly - but what happens on Polk will influence what happens elsewhere. And no, I don't want to talk about JFK- if JFK is worse for you now than it was before it's still orders of magnitude less dangerous than Oak, or Polk, or the Chavez crossing of 101, or Division or even Market. JFK is a distraction. I'm forwarding some commentary from Jodie preceeded by my own experience which some of you youngun's may not recall even though it wasn't really that long ago
<p>
3 years ago there was a proposal to turn a chunk of Noe Street into a park. The road would be closed to traffic South from 24th Street for 60 feet, fronting 24th. This was after the first parklet at Mojo and the City was looking for a bigger streetscape project to mirror the Times Square closure. There was a lot of international interest. Well, some people who drive through there (or parked overnight in the four metered spots in front of their houses instead of in their garages) decided this would not stand, and told then Supervisor Bevan Dufty that the city was nuts and nobody would want this and they should kill it. I thought this would be a *GREAT* idea - to have a chunk of ground in central Noe where I could let my toddler run around, and it would eliminate most of the car/ped interactions in a very nasty intersection but closing off the through traffic.
<p>
So we managed to keep the thing limping along for a meeting. We worked very hard and got big numbers to show up. I gave a nice speech, countered by a crazy person rambling about how since she was a 68 year old fourth generation Noe Valleyan she and her gray haired friends knew what was best for the neighborhood - which as you know is rapidly changing (and boy do they resent it). This allowed us to merely fight to a draw and set up *another* meeting. That meeting was at 7 PM, which was awful for the primary proponents who were putting their children to bed and were somewhat dispirited by the first meeting.
<p>
This is what happened at <a href="http://noevalleysf.blogspot.com/2010/06/noe-valley-plaza-tea-party-filibuster.html"> Meeting #2 </a>
<p>
For 15 seconds I thought "No way Bevan Dufty caves into these crazy people - we win". Then I looked at Bevan and saw a *coward* and realized we lost. And now I realize that the people who are against streetscape changes that promote safety for people over their personal desire to have as much parking inventory as possible, have a straightfoward template for how to beat these changes. Show up to meetings and YELL AND BOO AS LOUD AS THEY CAN. Because they know IT WORKS. It worked with Bevan Dufty and it sure as hell will work with David Chiu. God bless David he knows what the right thing is but I'm sorry David - I have yet to see you stick your neck out on the line . So the ONLY way this project happens is if this meeting has HUGE numbers from people who want a calmer, safer, more inviting Polk Street.
<p>
I can't make the Saturday meeting because my in-laws are in town. But I'll be there Tuesday night. And I'll be buying beers afterwards NOT from any bar on Polk Street who opposes the project, and sending a scan of the receipt to David Chiu and every bar on Polk that opposes the project. As should you!
<p>
There has been a lot of progress since three years ago. Even though we lost that one, the NIMBYs talked about how they craved parklets, and put a lot of money into buying a PARKING LOT in Noe Valley and closing it down permanently for a park. Because they knew if they didn't start throwing us some bones, soon enough we'd be coming back after that street closure. I put a shit-ton of time into that and it got us the two parklets in Noe Valley and that helped popularize the concept. If you want improvements anywhere in the city, this meeting for Polk can be the thing that shifts the tide if we show up in NUMBERS.
<p>
Murph
<p>
Here is Jodie's pitch.
<p>
We need hundreds of people who care about this issue to attend one of these meetings to speak up for safety on Polk. We can be sure that the angry crowd of people who don’t value our safety will be there in force. And so, we need to publicly show there is support in favor of.
<p>
SFMTA Polk Street Improvement Project Public Meetings
<p>
Saturday, April 27, 10 am to 1 pm
Tuesday, April 30, 5 to 8:30 pm
Location: 1300 Polk St (at Bush) at the First Congregational Church Fellowship Hall
<p>
<a href="http://www.sfbike.org/polk">RSVP HERE</a>
<p>
These meetings are not sit-down, drawn out, hours of your time. This is a QUICK, drop in, add your voice, a 20 minute stop that will make a world of difference.
<p>
In order to be sure we have the amount of force necessary to combat the crowd that is against parking loss on Polk Street, we are taking a head count, so RSVPing is important.
<p>
Polk Street is a BIGGIE --This is a make or break moment for the future of Polk Street, and biking in San Francisco. Despite the hundreds of letters of support and support expressed at past public meetings, decision-makers are actually beginning to publicly question whether biking and walking safety on this street deserves attention. This is not acceptable.
<p>
Many thanks,
<p>
~jodie
<p>
Know the Facts
<p>
Someone on a bike and walking is involved in a collision on Polk once a month.
There are about 42 full-time and 5-6 part-time car travel lanes within a half-mile of Polk, and only about 0.5 bike lanes. Polk really is the only viable biking street to connect the center of the city and points North.
<p>
According to a City study, 85% of people on Polk Street get there without a car, and people who drive to Polk actually spend the least amount of money on Polk Street per month.
<p>
murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-46269289180288515092013-03-28T11:11:00.001-07:002013-03-28T11:11:46.366-07:00Stolen Red Specialized Road Bike, Sonoma County?Another potential use for cyclists and helmet cams...
<p>
Riding home through Wikiup California last night... (not sure if Wikiup is an official name or if I was in Santa Rosa or Windsor, or even if I was in Larkfield instead of Wikiup, but I digress...).
<p>
I noticed someone standing by the side of the road and glanced over at him, and then I noticed his very nice Red Specialized Road Bike. This is a bike that would sell for over $1000 new no matter what, and if it were a nicer version of the bike (depending on the wheels, shifters, etc...) could reach into the $5000 range. The guy with the bike was scruffy, smoking a cigarette, and most relevantly had no cycling gear/clothing at all, not so much as a helmet. Sorry, but it just doesn't fit. The bike is stolen.
<p>
I started thinking I needed to get a picture of the guy and the bike in case I might be able to find the owner. Then I realized I had my helmet cam on...
<p>
The video isn't the greatest for this purpose, especially after it's been dumbed down by YouTube, but here you go... at the 10 second mark...
<p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fC2ZtsYyPOU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-41037050717280466972013-03-14T12:45:00.000-07:002013-03-14T12:51:19.622-07:00PaybackI was riding to Healdsburg today to grab a few things this morning. At the last second, I decided to grab my helmet camera. Usually - 99% of the time, my rides are uneventful. Today was not.
<p>
I approached a 4 way stop - and this happened.
<p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G6zV6PHVRhE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>
I followed the driver for 2 primary reasons - to make sure I had the license plate on film, and to get the driver's face on video. I didn't expect the driver to tell me that she drove into my path in order to get payback for some prior wrong. I'm pretty sure I've never met this woman and certainly don't recall personally buzzing her in the crosswalk. To me this is a tacit admission that she did what she did intentionally with complete disregard for my safety.
<p>
Note that I rolled up to the stop sign about the same time as another car, and did a foot down stop and let two cars go through first, and entered the intersection before the offending car even hit the stop line. So much for the theory that if cyclists "just behaved" that then they would get respect.
<p>
This happened in Healdsburg, in Sonoma County. Sonoma County has passed a <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130312/ARTICLES/130319887/0/search"> law to protect cyclists from intentional harassment from motorists </a> which I think would apply here if I were in unincorporated Sonoma County. I was in Healdsburg, which does not fall under that umbrella - yet. On May 6th however, Healdsburg will <a href="http://www.bikesonoma.org/article/201301/healdsburg-council-consider-vulnerable-user-ordinance-may-6th"> a similar ordinance </a> which I hope will pass.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-19601981812996316022013-03-11T22:25:00.001-07:002013-03-11T22:26:45.640-07:00Cyclists and Red LightsRiding on the Embarcadero a few weeks back, I captured a sequence on my helmet cam which I think is educational.
<p>
Here's the video
<p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9d6A_FLhp1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>
OK, so I approach a red light with another rider (unknown to me) on my tail, and I stop. I am clumsily trying to balance so I don't have to unclip without rolling too far into the intersection. It's a T intersection so there's no inherent danger of rolling into or even past the crosswalk (assuming I know there aren't any pedestrians, and at 1 MPH I am in a lot more danger from a ped than a ped is from me as if we collide, I fall down go boom).
<p>
The other rider comes around me and instructs me to run the red light! Scofflaw!
<p>
He made a very salient point. He said "This is a good one to blow" because shortly upstream, the bike lane disappears beneath a chain link fence for construction. Cyclists are forced to enter the right "car" lane. This means you are either merging into high speed traffic or you make it in and get the wrath of the high speed traffic that is "stuck behind you". By blowing the light and hammering it past the blockage, we get safely back into the bike lane and mosey on.
<p>
When Diana Sullivan was killed on King (extension of the Embarcadero), she was perhaps faced with a similar situation. One possible scenario for her death was that she was stopped at the same traffic light with a cement mixer to her left. If she runs the light, she gets in front of the cement mixer where the driver can see her. Of course, running the light at 2nd and King isn't so clear cut since there is cross traffic.
<p>
When Randolph Ang ran a red light on the Embarcadero, he wasn't trying to protect himself. He was in a hurry to get to work.
<p>
The different scenarios present an interesting discussion. One thing I think is very important to note - the way we have designed our roads *incentivizes* cyclists to disregard traffic laws in certain instances because the built infrastructure jeopardizes their safety. We ran the red light because the City just let the construction block the bike lane despite the fact it caused a hazardous situation. If we were worrying about safety as much as throughput, the right hand "car" lane would be half blocked off making it impossible for a car to use, with the remainder becoming a regular bike lane.
<p>
2nd and King has a similar problem with bad infrastructure - and it isn't even temporary - it is officially designed in!
<p>
The problem then becomes that since it becomes commonplace to disregard rules as a matter of self-preservation because you have been given the finger by the people responsible for the roads, why not disregard rules at other times when it's clear that disregarding them is safe? And then it snowballs
<p>
If we want more compliance from cyclists, we need to stop designing in situations where compliance means you are put at risk.
<.Pmurphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-23251570372833861612013-02-14T07:08:00.001-08:002013-02-14T07:08:51.698-08:00What is a "Sharrow" ?The recent <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/02/11/diane-sullivan-48-killed-on-bike-by-cement-truck-driver-at-third-and-king/"> death of Diana Sullivan </a> on King Street near 3rd in San Francisco, has brought a spotlight onto the difficulty of navigating that route. It's a route that sees a decent amount of usage as a connector to various spots. I traverse the same North to South stretch frequently but take Townsend, which has a striped bike lane and calmer traffic because it's not the de facto 280 freeway onramp that King Street is, but I am headed to Caltrain, which is a destination on Townsend as much as it is on King. Ms. Sullivan was headed to AT&T Park which is on King, as are many other destinations. That road will be used, and should be improved.
<p>
There is a bike lane on the Embarcadero all the way from North Point, and this section is a very well traveled bike route. Embarcadero turns into King Street, the lane continues then abruptly ends at Second Street. At this point there is a "Sharrow" painted towards the right side of the road.
<p>
What is a "Sharrow"? Let's go to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking"> Wikipedia </a>
<p>
<blockquote>
A shared-lane marking or sharrow is a street marking installed at locations in Australia, Canada, and the United States. This marking is placed in the center of a travel lane to indicate that a bicyclist may use the full lane. The name sharrow was coined by Oliver Gajda, of the City and County of San Francisco Bicycle Program, and is a portmanteau of share and arrow.
</blockquote>
<p>
Another good pull is this...
<blockquote>
Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane;
</blockquote>
<p>
Now let's see what someone from the SFMTA - who is responsible for the design and maintainance of our streets - <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/King-Street-cyclists-at-mercy-of-cars-4276030.php"> thinks about Sharrows </a>
<blockquote>
Jose said King Street's lone sharrow was painted on the right of the street because there's no parking there, meaning bicyclists can ride farther to the side without fear of being hit by an opening car door.
</blockquote>
<p>
WRONG. The whole point of a sharrow is to indicate that in this instance, the cyclist is supposed to take the whole lane because it is too narrow for the motor vehicle and bike to travel side by side. If anything, the sharrow should be painted farther to the LEFT in order to preclude the cyclist from taking a cue from the marking to ride to the right in the lane that is too narrow for them to safely do so!
<p>
The photo at the start of that article sums up how Ms. Sullivan died. The cyclist is positioned side by side with a big truck on a road that doesn't support that positioning.
<p>
murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-60267018885086332692013-01-22T11:06:00.002-08:002013-01-22T11:06:34.773-08:00Windshield Parking PerspectiveJust saw an <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57564983-1/bad-parking-job-text-the-driver-through-the-license-plate/"> interesting article </a> about a text messaging based service where drivers can register their license plate so that if someone sees them illegally parked, the person who notices this can notify the driver that they are parked improperly.
<p>
The article and comments quickly discussed how this system would be abued
<p>
"OMG - Your car is full of monkeys!".
<p>
"No kids will ever spam/text because they love/hate your car"
<p>
"And I'm sure there wouldn't be any car jackings, abductions or rapes where victims were lured out of safety to check their car because someone said their lights were on..."
<p>
But the writer who was the most off the mark was this one...
<p>
<blockquote>
Great idea that will never work.
Why, you ask?
The people who typically struggle with their ability to park are not going to buy into a system where they can be called out by the masses for their parking ineptitude
</blockquote>
Wrong. What this service would accomplish is to <strong> enable </strong> parking ineptitude. Well, not ineptitude, but parking laziness.
<p>
If you are struggling to find parking in a crowded neighborhood late in the evening for dinner in a world where this service was the status quo, the pro move would be to just park in front of the driveway of some random driveway, and go to dinner. Chances are the owner of the house isn't going anywhere, and you'll be fine. If not, they'll text you to come move your car to another driveway. No need to worry about being towed!
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-52217102756395505252012-11-16T15:01:00.001-08:002012-11-16T15:03:55.057-08:00Letter to Supervisor about the Transportation Sustainability Program
I sent this letter to Supervisor Wiener about the Transportation Sustainability Program which is coming before the board next week.
<p>
Read about it <a href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/02/09/sf-agencies-take-aim-at-bureaucratic-obstacles-to-a-transit-first-city/"> in Streetsblog </a>
<p>
Dear Supervisor Wiener,
<p>
I am writing to ask you to support the TIDF legislation coming before you on November 20th. The TIDF legislation is an important first step in achieving the goals of the Transportation Sustainability Program. Under the TSP, the City will finally invest in sorely needed and overdue systematic improvements to the transportation system.
<p>
San Francisco has a "Transit First Policy". We know that transit is critical for our city. We have a problem in that new developments are planned without taking into account the costs they will impose upon the transit system and price mitigation into the planning.
<p>
I understand that the non-profit community is fighting to be exempted from the TIDF. While Non-Profits are a vital part of the city, they represent 20% of new development and thus have a large impact on the system. The TIDF update will address this deficiency.
<p>
To be clear: the TIDF only applies to net new development. This means a building can be torn down and a new one can be put up in its footprint, and as long as the new building has less or the same square footage as the old building, then TIDF doesn’t apply. If the building adds new square footage, the TIDF only applies to these additional square feet. This isn’t about punishing non-profits who want to renovate an existing space or build a new development within the footprint of an old building; it’s about making organizations who build larger and more expansive campuses and buildings accountable for the added strain being imposed on our transportation system.
<p>
The reality is that most small social service providers don’t propose new developments. I also understand that small social service providers are proposed to be exempted from the fee, which means that only those non-profits with sufficient funding to build new projects would need to pay their share to recognize the burden they place on the transportation system. Additionally, the TIDF has grandfathering for non-profits, which means that non-profit projects would likely never pay the TIDF, if the TSP can move forward efficiently.
<p>
I know that you understand the value of the City’s transportation system and can see the many benefits of implementing the TSP. I hope that you won’t allow self-interest to undermine a really great program that finally means we will see real environmental mitigation for new development impacts on the transportation system. Thank you for your support.
<p>
John Murphy
<p>
Here are supervisors email addresses if you are interested in joining the fray.
<p>
board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org
<p>
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org
<p>
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org
<p>
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org
<p>
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org
<p>
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org
<p>
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org
<p>
Christina.Olague@sfgov.org
<p>
Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org
<p>
David.Chiu@sfgov.org
<p>
David.Campos@sfgov.org
<p>
John.Avalos@sfgov.org
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-64398206900753557682012-09-24T13:36:00.001-07:002012-09-24T13:36:58.076-07:00Just when you think you've seen it all..I was telling a rider this AM that I am "having to re-learn what problems I look for up here", referring to different challenges in traffic on rural Sonoma County roads vs. San Francisco or Peninsula riding.
<p>
Prophetic
<p>
On CA-128 heading towards Alexander Valley - a road with nominal traffic but not a ton of shoulder - sort of an annoying place to ride but it's the only connector from Calistoga/Knights Valley to Jimtown and on to Healdsburg, used most by cyclists coming to and from Chalk Hill Road.
<p>
A truck comes up behind us. We are riding single file but there are 13 of us, and with the winding nature of 128 and the oak trees blocking the sightlines, it's tough to pass a group. The driver waited patiently - not a huge lift as we were going 25 MPH - and when we got to a passing zone, including a dotted yellow, the driver went into the opposite travel lane and proceeded to pass.
<p>
The driver of a Jeep Cherokee following behind then tried to <strong> pass the truck </strong> on the right! The truck completed his pass of our paceline and started to merge back into his lane and was almost taken out by the Jeep that was zipping up along the inside!
<p>
The driver of the Cherokee slammed on the brakes, resettled himself, and then proceeded to accellerate and pass the truck on the double yellow.
<p>
I have a new helmet cam but it was not in operation, unfortunately.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-48313151827148603932012-08-29T12:43:00.000-07:002012-08-29T12:43:27.432-07:00Burlingame PD and cyclistsThis has been sitting around in my inbox, and I have the need to post it for posterity.
My friend Theo was right hooked by a car on Old Bayshore in Burlingame. Pretty lovely driving - Theo was at the front of a line of four cyclists, yet the driver either missed seeing 25+ feet of cyclists, or he was trying to whizz by them and failed.
I sent the following letter to Burlingame PD and the Mayor
<blockquote>
Mayor Nagel and Chief Wood -
<p>
I am writing in response to a traffic incident - a bicycle vs car collision - yesterday on Old Bayshore Road in Burlingame. While I was not involved in the incident, I am familiar with the details as the injured person - a Mr. Theo Cummings - is a good friend of mine and I often ride my bicycle on Old Bayshore with Mr. Cummings.
<p>
The facts are pretty straightforward, a VW Passat - license CA 5ULW165 made a right turn on Malcom Road off Old Bayshore without yielding the right of way to Mr. Cummings and the 3 cyclists following him who were going straight on Old Bayshore. This is commonly known as a "Right Hook" collision.
<p>
The response by Burlingame Forces was fine - perhaps over the top - one witness said "I counted 2 cop cars, 1 Fire
Commanders car, 2 Fire Engines, and 1 Ambulance." Mr. Cummings was checked out by the Paramedics and will make a full recovery assuming the exam by the Urgent Care doctors was thorough and accurate. For this we can be thankful.
<p>
I was shocked however, to find that in an incident which could easily have cost Theo his life, that the Burlingame Police felt no need to cite the driver with even something as simple as "Failure to Yield". Personally, I would think reckless driving would be appropriate - he turned right in front of not one but four cyclists. Drivers with such little skill or care should be cited when they cause accidents - we have a "Points" system in California for a reason. In a time when red light cameras are being tuned to cite drivers who make a "California Stop" when turning right on red, a driver who causes a life threatening collision surely must be cited.
<p>
When I tell my friends about my commute route, I mention that I ride through the San Francisco Airport, and they express surprise. I tell them that the Airport is actually quite pleasant to ride through, and that the place I wish would disappear off the map entirely is Burlingame. While I do like visiting your downtown (accessed via the Caltrain), riding on Old Bayshore is quite annoying. Knowing that the Burlingame Police Force is unwilling to cite drivers who cause accidents inside your city, gives one even more pause.
<p>
The most insulting part of the entire experience, for my money, is this. A negligent driver had just run over Mr. Cummings, and a member of the Burlingame Police responded as such (I quote Mr. Cummings).
<p>
"The cop actually tried to suggest that we ride on back streets..."
<p>
Aside from the fact that this is blaming the victim, the accident happened on "Old Bayshore". Not on Highway 101. "Old Bayshore" is the back street. There was no excuse for this collision. It should have resulted in a citation.
<p>
Thank You
<p>
John Murphy
San Francisco
<p>
</blockquote>
Here is a response from Burlingame PD
<blockquote>
Mr. Murphy,
<p>
Let me respond to this from the perspective of a cyclist and a police officer. Prior to moving the Coast, I regularly commuted from Fremont to Burlingame. I have continued to ride bikes, but I had to stop commuting as riding over Hwy 92 on a regular basis is too risky. I also understand the frustrations of having my right of way violated by cars and have had several close calls.
<p>
I am sorry for the frustration you are experiencing regarding your friend’s injury and the lack of a citation being issued to the other driver. Unfortunately, police officers are not permitted to cite drivers at the scene of an accident unless they have been to an advanced accident investigation course. However, this does not mean the driver who causes a collision gets off without a blemished driving record. When an officer takes an accident report, he or she is almost always able to determine fault. This report is filed with the CHP who in turn delivers the accident findings to the DMV. The DMV then assigns a “point” to the party at fault’s driver’s license.
<p>
In reality this practice, from an enforcement perspective, is more efficient than issuing citations. If a citation is issued, the findings of a collision report are not shared with the DMV. The citation becomes the method of delivery to a person’s driving record. Should this citation be contested in court, for a variety of reasons, the point may not be assigned to a person’s driving record. Accident report findings cannot be contested. The DMV relies on the officer’s “opinion” of who is at fault when assigning points.
<p>
In regards to the officer’s comment suggesting cyclists should ride their bikes on the back road, I had the opportunity to overhear the officer discuss this at the police station. The officer rides his bicycle to work as well. Due to the number of bicycle collisions he has responded to over the years, and his own personal experience with riding bicycles, he merely meant to pass on advice with safety being first priority. We all know that bicycles have the same rights as cars. Unfortunately, when a bicycle is involved in a collision, the cyclist is almost always injured. Often times these injuries are serious or, as you mentioned, fatal.
<p>
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
<p>
Don Shepley
<p>
Acting Patrol Captain
<p>
</blockquote>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-3617032485809200522012-08-07T16:28:00.000-07:002012-08-07T16:32:35.533-07:00Caltrain to *remove* bike racks?That title probably woke up a few of you!
<p>
It sure woke me up. On Monday I boarded Caltrain 332 at 22nd Street, along with roughly 25 other cyclists, in the Southern (or "second") bike car. I was the last to board, and watched helplessly as I stood in line for probably a minute after all the other doorways were finished boarding. The Norther ("first") bike car might have had some room in it, I toyed briefly with the idea of riding down the access road to board there, but if it was full I would have been left behind, so I waited impatiently to board where I was.
<p>
I stumbled on, with a helpful and antsy conductor holding my hot chocolate for me to get me on and into the vestibule so the doors could close and we could start headed South. I looked at the chaos inside the bike car and leaned back to wait for the dust to settle, and started a conversation with the conductor.
<p>
"You know", he said, "they are doing a 'trend analysis on bikes' - starting today. And if they decide that you guys are delaying the trains they are going to remove some of your racks". Racks that we spent a lot of hard work getting into place.
<p>
This would be a <strong>catastrophe</strong>
<p>
I've heard plenty from Conductors that was wildly inaccurate or simply telephone game innuendo, but if this were true, it needs to be cut off at the pass. We've hit an equilibrium lately where bumps have not been too bad, removal of racks would be a big problem however.
<p>
I do note the following tweet seen just now...
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Stepped on Caltrain and there is a supervisor holding a clipboard ticking things off. Weird.</p>— Tina M Shakour (@tinashakour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tinashakour/status/232980803087392768" data-datetime="2012-08-07T23:25:26+00:00">August 7, 2012</a></blockquote>
<p>
A few things we can do in the meantime....
<p>
First - make sure you have a <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Bicycles/Bicycle_Tags.html">destination tag </a> - if you don't have one you can make one yourself, even one that is <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Marketing/pdf/Bike+Tag.pdf"> official looking! </a> There are some personalized ones that are very creative, even one someone made by carving a piece of wood.
<p>
Second - when you board the train, move as far back into the bike car as possible when looking for a place to rack your bike, and wait for people to get on before heading back into the vestibule/stairs to look for a seat. Train station delay is based not on when we get seated, but on when we all get onto the train. Blocking the entrance delays the train. If you check this video ...
<p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oM-wBLLtLS0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>
The first rider slots her bike into the very first rack inside the door, then steps back into the entrance way to the bike car and blocks additonal riders from entering. In this case, the overall delay wasn't too bad because the following riders did move to the back. But if 3-4 riders jam up the entrance, we sit there, and sit there, and sit there, while the bean counters in San Carlos rub their hands and dream of removing bike racks. Don't be a n00b - move to the back!
<p>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-85800194217461195742012-07-24T13:26:00.002-07:002012-07-24T13:27:16.101-07:00How not to save time on your commute.Today, riding along Central Expressway, at the Fair Oaks exit.
<p>
Driver in White Van cuts me off from proceeding straight on Central, careening into the exit at top speed, losing perhaps 1 second they would lose had they waited. Since I had to veer off from my path on Central at this point, I gave the driver a one finger salute and decided to follow the van onto the offramp. The ramp ends with a fork onto Arques Eastbound, where one can access Fair Oaks, or left to go onto Westbound Arques or Central Expressway the other direction.
<p>
The van was in the right lane of the fork but stuck behind traffic waiting for the red light at the end of the ramp. As I closed up to the van, it quickly accellerated to the left and onto the turn onto WB Arques and headed back onto WB Central. The driver looked at me through his open window and shouted an obscenity at me.
<p>
He didn't want to wait 1 second for me to get to a backed up traffic light, and he was so incensed he might have to discuss it that he took a 3-4 minute detour.murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-78317678381247782922012-07-13T13:58:00.000-07:002012-07-13T14:00:00.557-07:00Caltrain - 4th and King Ticket ChecksOver the last few months Caltrain has started checking tickets at the entrance door at 4th and King prior to boarding. I had seen this in the past, but usually for off peak trains. Now, they are doing the checks throughout the peak of rush hour.
<p>
Personally, my Clipper card (Caltrain ticket) is buried in my wallet, which is buried in my backpack, somewhere. Since I have a reliable form of transportation (my bike) that has a variance in travel time from home to the station of roughly 2 minutes, I typically arrive shortly before departure, and if I have been lucky with the lights maybe I'll get a hot drink. So I head to the gates with my bike and my hot drink, and now I am fumbling into my backpack for my ticket, the same as the rest of the ridership heading towards the doors.
<p>
This leads to a long queue as people look for their tickets and are slowly processed by 2 conductors at the doorway, scanning Clipper cards with the slow hand held readers. The end result, lately has been that the trains have been departing 4th and King a few minutes late as passengers are processed and then scramble into the train.
<p>
There is an upside - this pretty much nips fare evasion in the bud. Which is a good thing, right? Thing is - fare evasion isn't a big problem for Caltrain - the ridership generally pays their fares. The riders *not* paying their fares are typically not Joe Commuter trying to save a few bucks, they are various n'eer do wells with much larger problems than paying a Caltrain fare and who, faced with the prospect of paying a fare would probably just not ride the train at all. And if we cite these folks (*if* they have a valid ID), they'll probably just bypass the court date, not pay the fine, and sort of slip into the ether. It's not like we're going to put anyone into San Quentin for a $5 Caltrain ticket.
<p>
I'm making an assertion on fare compliance - let's use the google machine to research this - here's an <a href="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Slipping-Through-The-Tracks-150090905.html"> article regarding fare evasion on VTA </a> that claims fare evasion on Caltrain is one tenth of one percent!
<p>
I have attended several JPB meetings over the years where the topic of service cuts has been discussed, usually this brings out someone whose station or train is up for elimination, and they propose that Caltrain do a better job of checking tickets in order to get more money to keep the trains running. The answer from CEO Mike Scanlon is always the same - fare evasion is very low.
<p>
Meanwhile, on-time performance in March of 2012 dipped to <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Minutes/5-3-12+Final+JPB+Minutes.pdf"> 92.6 percent. </a> You tell me, what's a bigger problem - .1 percent fare evasion or 7.4% late trains?
<p>
And remember, the door checks are only at 4th and King. The conductors still need to perform on-board checks if they are to catch any fare evasion from passengers boarding at any of the stations down the line. While 4th and King may be the most popular station in the system, the other stations combined have substantially more boardings. I have had my ticket checked at the door, and then again on the train, probably 50% of the time.
<p>
I have heard anecdotes that conductors have claimed they have found that many customers had not tagged their card - but this is *always* on the first couple days of the month, when customers who have paid for Monthly passes have forgotten to activate their pass. Those customers don't have to tag on daily and they might forget on the first. In that instance, the door check is ensuring compliance with the technical parts of fare payment, but it isn't keeping people from evading fares - they have already paid. It would be simpler just to have one person on that day calling out to passengers to remember to tag on, without the time consuming scanning of cards of those who already have tagged on.
<p>
Caltrain needs to ditch the door check.
<p>
If you agree = send an email to <a href="mailto:comments@caltrain.com">Caltrain</a>murphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7616818704326975625.post-2652716391650071322012-07-11T12:19:00.002-07:002012-07-11T12:20:25.930-07:00Bumped off half empty caltrain...Dear Caltrain
<p>
This morning I was bumped off of train 220 with my bicycle at 4th and King and lied to by the employees working the door. They claimed the train was full of bikes. I informed the door man that I believed he was not being truthful and I would find out - he curtly replied "not unless the train leaves the station 5 minutes late".
<p>
Of course, I then boarded 322 and talked to someone boarding 322 who had just missed train 220 at 4th and reported seeing several cyclists board 220 at 22nd, and twitter reported the train was 80% full.
<p>
Here is the underlying scenario. As I was walking to the door, another rider rode her bicycle through the 4th and King station at high speed. I looked at the doorman as he told her not to ride through the station and I said "Deny her boarding". The other door employee then informed her the train was full of bikes, resulting in myself and one other rider also being denied boarding. The employee persisted in his claim that the train was full, which I fully expected to be untrue as I had just witnessed 3 other cyclists board without incident while getting my coffee, and no indication of a count being done or any knowledge of capacity. My suspicions were proven correct.
<p>
While I agree with the conductors instinct to deny the passenger riding through the station boarding, his methodology was lazy and sloppy, was and ultimately costly to other passengers.
<p>
John Murphy
<p>
San Franciscomurphstahoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17378354136823393492noreply@blogger.com0