- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Should be noted that Damon Connolly (the legislator trying to shut the bike lane) was convicted for DUI hit-and-run. It says a lot about the current state of political affairs that he was elected to the Assembly as opposed to serving a jail term.
Converting the bike lane to auto lane wouldn’t fix traffic anyway. Just beyond the bridge the road is only two lanes (really 1-lane as most of the traffic is getting on the 101 exit). Traffic studies by Caltrans showed that putting 3 lanes on the bridge would actually make things worse.
What do you mean adding more lanes won’t solve traffic?!? TELL THAT TO MY 40 LANE HIGHWAY
“We don’t want to eliminate the bikers, that’s not what we’re trying to do,” said Fisher, while advocating the removal of bikelane, thus eliminating the biker. This smell fishy.
That has the same vibe as, “I don’t hate black people. I just don’t think they deserve to drink from the same fountain, use the same bathroom, or eat in the same restaurant as me!”
Rather than advocate for the removal of someone else’s active, green form of transportation, he should be advocating for car pooling, better public transportation, WFH to lessen the burden of commuter traffic, and smaller vehicles.
But then how will they use their Ford F40000 Fleshreaper™ “blood for the car god”© to sacrifice to moloch?
Comparing transportation modes with racism? Damn
They can still bike around in their driveways or whatever they do.
They can still ride on the road, you’re exaggerating
It’ll make it less safe though
They can still ride on the road
It’ll make it less safe though
Lmao.
And no i’m not exaggerating. The safety of bicycle lane is exactly why there’s an average of 140 cyclist using that bridge daily. Removing it will lower it to a single digit, if not 0. Not many people want to risk their life and ride alongside an american driver.
Ok but in that case I will be in the middle of the lane to ensure maximum visibility. I would rather a proper bike lane and I am pretty sure the people screaming because they can’t overtake dangerously would rather I had a bike lane even if they don’t know it
These copium addicts will say anything lmao
The coalition argues that not only does the bike lane create more traffic,
False. Cars create the traffic, and “one more lane, bro” will do nothing to help. This is a fact played out EVERYWHERE.
but it also creates more pollution from all the cars backed up on the bridge.
Sounds like a car-made problem, man.
He says he’s tired of seeing cars idling endlessly, inching along the bridge with the bike lane empty, or - if not empty - at least under-utilized.
Quite curiously, Google Maps seems to suggest that the BRIDGE never has bad congestion, but the highway leading up to the bridge (without bike lanes) is very congested during rush hour, beginning 4km away.
Honestly, while I’d typically say the solution is to use the bike lane, the bridge is 5.5 mi (8.85km) long, the very shortest commutes between destinations on the two sides is about 7mi (11.25km), taking about 40mins each way. Still the fact that a few hundred cyclists use it each day is impressive, and there would be little car-free access between the cities otherwise.
A dedicated public transit bus lane with frequent service between SMART and BART, would be a lot better of an idea.
the bridge is 5.5 mi (8.85km) long, the very shortest commutes between destinations on the two sides is about 7mi (11.25km), taking about 40mins each way.
Unless someone is riding at a very slow 16km/h pace, it would take far less than 40 minutes to ride that 11km (without an ebike).
On that note, if someone had the choice of sitting in traffic for an hour, or enjoying a beautiful 40 minute ride over a bridge, I think it would be an easy choice to make 🤗
No. I want to ride the bridge.
It’s also super windy exactly across the bridge most of the time. Sucks for biking, I never could bring myself to do it
Or a shared lane for buses and bikes? But it might defeat the purpose of providing more comfort and safety to cyclists
If they wanted to cut pollution, they’d ban all cars from the bridge and make it public transit + bike only. Cars aren’t idling when there’s no cars.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. They’re still needed for many places, when moving stuff around, when public transportation isn’t developed enough, which is pretty much the case worldwide if you want to go to a specific address
This is a clear example of miscommunication.
Banning all cars from the bridge was not meant as a serious proposal, but just to show that these people do not care about pollution at all.
Meanwhile, you seem to have taken that proposal as serious and that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge. Banning cars everywhere is a fringe opinion even here, and I think no one ever suggested you have to “move stuff” with cargo bikes and public transport exclusively. On top of that, I personally don’t quite agree with the way you said public transport is “underdeveloped”. Yes there are specific addresses you can barely reach pretty much everywhere, but you comment reads as any specific address can’t be reached. I think we can expect people to walk a few hundred yards to a bus stop.
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
Well knowing the community, can you really blame me for understanding it this way?
that it was calling to ban cars everywhere, instead of just one bridge
That bridge is probably the fastest way to go in this direction so I’m making a big deal of it because of this.
I do believe people won’t switch for public transportation if they have to wait more than a couple of minutes or if there isn’t a bus stop nearby. I can’t imagine doing many short daily travel by other means than cars because buses are often super late and turn some short itineraries into long ones, at the point where I regularly find myself in a situation where walking is faster than waiting for the bus
Wrong thing to say at the wrong place, do better next time.
I won’t censor my opinion because I’m somewhere where everyone thinks the same
I can blame you for not reading correctly, yes.
And your aversion to public transport is exactly the point: Do you think maybe the buses are always late because a bridge like that has 50,000 cars bumper to bumper idling on it and blocking traffic? Do you think that there aren’t enough bus stops nearby because not enough people use the existing ones?
A single bus takes up 2 cars worth of space and transports 50 times the people. Having functional public transport is way better than adding another lane when the goal is to increase capacity of the bridge or reducing pollution. We should get more people to use them. It’s better for them too, since they are now not forced to drive and can check their phone or read books during that time.
No one wants the buses you are describing, but that’s exactly why we need to invest more in public transit and don’t listen to car advocates wanting “just one more lane™”. There are enough cities around the world with good transit options, where people want to take the bus or tram or bike, not because of “culture” but because they simply are the best option. And you won’t get there by adding another lane for cars.
P.S.: Do you also visit gay bars and get “censored” when there are no women there? No one’s forcing you to comment and not being open to learn is unwelcome here. Have you at least read the rules?
I live in a city with dedicated bus lanes and basically use buses every week
No one wants the buses you are describing, but that’s exactly why we need to invest more in public transit and don’t listen to car advocates wanting “just one more lane™”. There are enough cities around the world with good transit options, where people want to take the bus or tram or bike, not because of “culture” but because they simply are the best option. And you won’t get there by adding another lane for cars.
When did I say we should add more lanes for cars? I’m just saying removing a car lane for adding a bike lane isn’t always a good idea, but public transportation should be prioritized imo
P.S.: Do you also visit gay bars and get “censored” when there are no women there? No one’s forcing you to comment and not being open to learn is unwelcome here. Have you at least read the rules?
That must be one of the most stupid comparison I’ve heard. Have you read the rules? I’m pretty sure I did and have done nothing wrong. You’re the one being hostile to me for my opinion
I like to think I’m critical, not hostile.
This article is about citizen group calling for a bike lane to be turned back into car lane. You know about induced demand yet? We here can’t stop telling people about it. Well, there is an inverse effect just a bit lower called “reduced demand” in the article. Removing a car lane can increase the flow of traffic down the line - provided there are viable alternatives to driving.
So yes, removing a bike lane to add another to cars is bad, even if it was a car lane before. Discouraging driving by removing car lanes is a good way to de-clog this bridge.
That bike lane took forever to get through. It will NEVER be used as much as cars taking up the bridge.
Whining about it is like complaining that sidewalks use up valuable space alongside a road.
This is like complaining that the road shoulders aren’t being used.
Simple: connect BART to Marin. Unfortunately they shot that down years ago as the poors might use it.
Naw fuck that bike lane. Any accident on that bridge during the morning commute causes backups that go for miles. I cross that bridge every day and the bike lane is totally underutilized. It’s nothing like the golden gate bridge. That bridge needs replacing anyway, it’s old and falling apart.
Maybe they could make it a bike bridge since they are so much lighter than cars.
Yeah, would allow it to last longer.
Reducing the amount of cars on the bridge reduces air pollution even if no one bikes on it. Which, to be clear, they do.
