San Francisco Bike Blog

San Francisco Bike Blog (SFBB) attended the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting tonight, and there was a lot to discuss. What follows is a quick rundown of our discussions. Think, ‘informal meeting minutes, with links.’

We probably won’t provide this lengthy a post in the future - we’ll distill it down to the most important parts, but this post could serve as a good point of reference to know what kinds of things are being discussed at these meetings, and just how much stuff is being discussed.

To find the agenda for any given meeting (they are not usually available until just before the start time), head over to the BAC home page, and then click on Meetings. There you will find the full schedule of upcoming meetings, the agenda, and minutes for past meetings.

Here is a quick video on how to get to and navigate the BAC website:

These meetings tend to run long - 3 hours or more - because there is just so much going on related to the bicycle / pedestrian / livable streets scene, so we did not get to everything on the agenda, but here’s the bulk of what we did get to:

4. Public Comment: (Discussion Item)
The public may address the Committee on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee. This should not relate to any item on this agenda since the Committee will take public comment after it discusses and/or before voting on each agenda item. The Committee requests that each person limit him/herself to three minutes.

5. Chairman’s Report (Information) [Absence from October 23 Meeting]

6. Committee Member Reports (Information)

7. MTA Bicycle Program Report – See MTA Bicycle Program Report to the BAC for August 2008 (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/cbike/3170.html). In addition, there is a report on causes of bicycle collision fatalities (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/3172.html).

8. Task Force Reports

a. Bike Theft & Security – Bert Hill, District 7 (No Report)

b. Golden Gate Park – Susan King, District 5 (Absent)

c. Committee Member Business – Bert Hill, Chair
Continuing Vacancy in District 4.

d. Bicycle Report Card Task Force – Andy Bindman, Chair
Development and approval of the metrics and reporting of bicycling growth

e. Bicycle Plan Review Task Force – Casey Allen, Richard Tilles and Jake Wegmann
Review of Bike Plan Executive summary changes; actions for next month

9. Fell/Masonic Signal Changes – The signal phase changes have now been installed, with some early criticism of the sequence time and visibility of the new light at Fell and Masonic. Initially, vehicles seem to be violating the law regularly, but what changes can be expected to mitigate scofflaw activity.
Action: Discussion of the initial results of the camera system on safety
Sponsor: District 5 Committee Member Susan King

10. Movement to End the Bike Plan Lawsuit – With the help of Greg Hayes, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has been working on a strategy to end the Bike Plan injunction before completion of the EIR. A draft resolution can be viewed at http://www.sfgov.org/site/bac_page.asp?id=89120
Action: Discussion of Draft Resolution
Sponsor: District Committee Member Casey Allen

11. Agreement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Issues – In cooperation with the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee the joint committees would like to share a resolution of common agreement on city policies regarding the protection of pedestrians on streets and crosswalks.
Action: Discussion and Draft Resolution
Sponsor: District 7 Committee Member Bert Hill

If you’d like to know something concerning the BAC, use this contact page. Bert Hill is the chair of the Committee, and represents District 7.

Some of the notes here are out of order, but here are some of the more interesting things I gathered at the meeting.

Someone mentioned that they were concerned about people riding on the sidewalk, and though lots of folks do it for any number of different reasons (including me and even members of the bicycle committee), Latino men were one of the groups of folks who tended to be on the sidewalks a bit more often than others. Again, there could be any number of reasons for this, and it’s certainly not a scientific measurement, but it’s a condition we don’t want because it’s dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. La Raza was an organization mentioned as potentially being involved in some outreach on this issue, and I’m actually not sure if that is the organization that was mentioned briefly, so you might want to double-check with the BAC.

Riding your bicycle on the Embarcadero is technically prohibited, because it is not legally designated as a mixed use path. The Port of San Francisco is the waterfront area, but it’s also the name of the 5-member commission that controls the Embarcadero, so any changes to bike/walk rules on the Embarcadero have to go through them.

A member of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee (the pedestrian equivalent of the BAC), Pi Ra, was on hand to speak about a resolution the BAC is considering. The resolution is basically to form a framework for how biker and walker people get along — “the joint committees would like to share a resolution of common agreement on city policies regarding the protection of pedestrians on streets and crosswalks.” The reason? Lots of pedestrians are getting hit by bicyclists and feel at risk from bicyclists. This is, I feel, a legitimate concern and we bicyclists should take it very seriously - not just because we don’t want to hurt anyone, but because, for the practical purposes of advancing our own agenda (better bicycle infrastructure), we want the full, unqualified support of every pedestrian in the city, and we want to be able to return that full, unqualified support. The transportation hierarchy is something we can all get behind, so let’s make sure bikers and walkers support each other.

During the opening public comments session, I asked about the changes to 7th Street, which I thought might not be for the best, but I wanted to make sure. Oliver Gajda, Bicycle Program Manager at SFMTA, asked that I follow up with him, which I’ll do.

On a side note, I would be interested in getting more members of DPW (Department of Public Works) on bicycles. The research showing that ‘more bicyclists on the road == safer bicycling‘ made the rounds again recently. The important take-away is the following:

“It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean motorists are more likely to be cyclists, and therefore be more conscious of, and sympathetic towards, cyclists.”

In short, one of the main factors that scientists suspect cycling gets safer with more cyclists on the road is because more drivers are cyclists themselves - they’ve gained an appreciation for what it’s like to have two thousand pounds of steel and glass rumble by within inches of your personal space. These cyclist-drivers no longer need to be told to give cyclists some extra room when passing, or that they don’t have to slam on the pedal just to make a simple pass - they just get it, because they’re cyclists, now. There were some grumblings about potholes not being repaired correctly by the Department of Public Works (the folks who repair potholes, among many other bicycle-friendly things), so I figure one of the best ways to ‘build in’ an appreciation for bicycle-related issues at all levels of government is to get those folks in government to ride bikes. It might be a bit obvious, but I figure there’s something we might be able to do about it. How many members of the DPW crews do we suspect ride their bikes to work? Can the city incentivize those employees (or better, all employees) to ride their bikes to work once in a while? Could the SFBC and some bike shops and local equipment suppliers figure out a way to subsidize part of the cost of some new or even used bikes? Just a thought.

Andy Thornley of the SFBC mentioned that the final report regarding the bicycle-pickup truck collision death of Kirk Janes was now complete. I have not seen the report, but I believe the final determination was that the cause of the collision was inconclusive - but I could be wrong about this. Andy suggested that speed could have been a factor, for one or both parties. The direction that Janes was heading, east on Fulton, is a pretty steep downhill.

Regarding the recent death of Jordan McKay, there will be an evening memorial ride for Jordan on Tuesday, September 30th. Jordan was the young bicyclist murdered in the Richmond district just over a week ago. Jordan was a member of the SFBC and had also taken Bert Hill’s Bike Education class.

There have been three bicycle-related fatalities so far this year in San Francisco.

After we heard about the Caltrain arrest (which we’ll cover more in a subsequent post), someone mentioned the bike racks on some Sacramento trains.

There is a BART Bicycle Task Force that you may be interested in if you are a bike rider who wants more and better bike facilities on BART.

The Marin Bicycle Coalition broke ground on the Cal Park Hill Tunnel the other day. It will connect the Larkspur Landing/Ferry Terminal area with San Rafael. If you’ve ever done that ride up and around San Quentin, you might be pleased with this development. It would be shorter, and probably safer from auto traffic. I would be worried about physical security during off-peak / low-use hours. Someone mentioned the possibility of a tunnel for San Francisco near Fort Mason, with someone else suggesting, ‘forget it, too much trouble, it already belongs to MUNI.’ And someone said the view was nicer by climbing the hill, anyways.

The SFMTA had a draft copy of the 2008 Citywide Bicycle Counts Report available. I could not find an electronic copy of it. And there is some movement on a ‘colored bicycle lane experiment’. San Francisco has been reconfirmed at the League of American Bicyclists’ Gold Level. SFMTA wants to officially close public comment on the Bike Plan so they can move forward with next steps. The EIR, of course, will still hold things up, but some things can be done to prepare for the time when the injunction is finally lifted. The EIR is due on November 27, 2008 - Thanksgiving Day.

There is money for repainting faded sharrows - just email Oliver Gajda directly.

Bert Hill mentioned SeeClickFix.com. The idea is that ‘fix’ requests automatically get routed to the correct person/party. Bert suggested this was a similar type of idea to Chronicle Watch.

There are grates near the intersection of Bayshore and 3rd that could catch a bicycle wheel. This is probably Caltrans jurisdiction.

The bridges at the south-end of Illinois/3rd street have lots of rail tracks and are very dangerous for cyclists.

Stolen bikes activity at USCS Mission/Parnassus campuses.

San Francisco Parks and Rec are looking into the ‘pinchpoint’ near Fort Mason/Marina District, at the bottom of the hill, corner of Marina Blvd and Laguna St. When you come down that hill, it can be very difficult to stop, there’s no room to turn, there’s lots of loose gravel, etc. It’s very hazardous. And there are lots of tourists who ride through there. Picture from Google Maps below:

There was another SFMTA report - a ‘final draft’ - called “State of Cycling” Report — Task II: Survey of Frequent Cyclists’ and Infrequent Cyclists’ Perceptions of Bicycling in San Francisco. It was prepared by Alta Planning + Design, and dated September 9.

Andy Thornly of the SFBC brought a few copies of the Tube Times, and I’ve read the whole thing now, and it’s great.

The biggest item on the agenda was discussion of the new bike light at Fell and Masonic. General consensus after much discussion seemed to be to reverse the order of procession at the light. Right now, cars get to go first, and then the pedestrians/bikers, when more typically, pedestrians and bikers would be allowed to go first. Interestingly, with the current situation, if and when there were no more cars turning left on the green left arrow for cars, then light would go yellow and red, and essentially cede the rest of ‘its’ time to the pedestrians/bikers. This is not likely to happen (that is, pedestrians/bikers leaving their ‘extra/unused’ time for cars) when the procession order is reversed - though it remains a possibility. Andy Thornley suggested that bikers/pedestrians being able to cross first sets the right precedent - we want these modes of transport to have priority over motorized traffic.

Some initial problems were worked out. Cars were still parking in the ‘left turn pocket’, but now the curb is painted red, so that problem seems to be taken care of for the most part.

There will be a new ‘left turn’ sign to go up, and this may or may not be the same as the ‘variable message sign’ that will go up.

Some cars still turn from the middle/second car lane - the one that is supposed to be a ‘go straight only’ lane. Now, if and when the procession order is reversed (walkers/bikers go first), then it is possible we might see two left turn lanes allowed, here. Up for consideration.

My previous post on this topic talks about the ‘alien’-looking bike lights - it turns out that the real bike light covers were just not available, so DPW staff made some heroic efforts to get something together that resembled a bike, so this project would not be further delayed. In that case, big ups to the DPW crew that made those lights happen. (Translation: Good job! Thank you.)

I suggested the bike/walk path through that part was too crowded, and that we might need to start considering how to handle all the bike/walk traffic coming through there.

Leave comment (0)

[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]