Bay Guardian Community Forum! Bikes, buses, and budgets: How to create the transportation system San Franciscans need

|
(58)

Join the San Francisco Bay Guardian as we explore the current swirl of challenges and initiatives that will determine how people get around San Francisco. We'll discuss transportation funding measures recently placed on the fall ballots this year and in 2016, big ideas such as tearing down I-280 and taking a Bay Bridge deck for bikes and buses, and the gap between political rhetoric and realities on the street along with a panel of key experts and activists. This is a free community event, and attendees will be entered into a raffle for an A2B electric bicycle, with a winner selected at the end of the event.

Panelists:

Supervisor Scott Wiener — Wiener represents San Francisco’s Supervisorial District 8 (Castro, Upper Market) and he has taken the lead role on the Board of Supervisors and Metropolitan Transportation Commission in advocating for dedicated funding sources for transportation project and challenging his colleagues to get serious about the challenges we face.

Professor Jason Henderson — As a geography professor at San Francisco State University, Henderson has focused his research and teaching on urban transportation issues. He’s also the author of Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco and he writes the Guardian’s popular and controversial monthly Street Fight column.

Chema Hernández Gil — Hernández Gil is a community organizer with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, San Francisco largest member-based grassroots advocacy organization, which has recently been highlighting funding shortfalls in creating the bicycling infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing number of cyclists. 

Susan King — King coordinates the popular Sunday Streets program, which creates temporary car-free spaces in San Francisco, the latest endeavor in a long history of transportation activism ranging from working for Livable City to helping found WalkSF to serving on the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee to working on transit justice campaigns.

 

Moderators: Guardian Editor-in-Chief Steven T. Jones and News Editor Rebecca Bowe

 

Agenda:

6-7pm: Panel discussion — Prompted by questions from the moderators, panelists will share their insights into what kind of the transportation system San Francisco needs to address a growing population amid global warming and other environmental challenges, how to overcome the multi-billion-dollar funding shortfalls that have been identified, the political/ideological context of this debate, and other issues.

7-7:15pm: Break and networking — Stretch your legs, meet fellow concerned citizens, enjoy snacks provided by the Guardian, sign up for the A2B bike raffle, and prepare your remarks

7:15-8pm: Comments and questions: What do you think San Francisco needs from its transportation system and how do we get it? This is your chance to offer your ideas and/or ask questions of our panelists (note: Wiener has a prior engagement and will only be there for first hour, sorry). This is also a time for panelists to raise big, thought-provoking ideas and get audience feedback.

8pm-?: Haven’t had enough? Join the diehards over at Zeitgeist to continue the discussion over pitchers of beer and burgers. 

 


Comments

an entire freeway or converting a bridge span to bikes?

You can dream, of course, but I cannot help but think that a more modest ambition might give you a non-zero chance of success.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

Central Freeway, after three initiatives. Welcome to San Francisco.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on May. 29, 2014 @ 8:14 am
Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:44 am

Why were there three and not one election? If you know the answer, you might understand how the Guardian quite likely had an effect.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on May. 30, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

And after the third one all the voters wanted was no more.

SFBG's biggest push has been on public power and they lost that one every time it went to the voters.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2014 @ 8:34 am

More rhetorical masturbation from the left.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

or we call you a "conservative" and demonize you.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

Do they know what conservatives believe and why, or just that conservatives disagree with progressives and are therefore evil?

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

is conservative.

One does not have to be an actual conservative to be branded one.

If you think that city policy should not be handed over to a cross section of - the loudest, most studied doctrinaire, professionally outraged, unemployable trustifarians, then you are a conservative.

If you think transit policy should be set to suit the needs of the majority of citizens, not manipulative academic transit experts, you are a conservative.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

They hate "moderates" even though the very word connotes a reasonableness that is almost impossible to dislike.

In fact, I've heard progressives say that they hate "liberals" - the word the rest of the nation uses to dismiss SF as hopelessly left-wing!

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:42 pm

When progressives have their tantrums towards liberals I think of Richard Hofstadter in the 60's and his opinion of what the simple minded campus radicals slipped into before he died.

KQED had a thing on campus graduation speakers and the anti-free speech progressives who shout and whine about it a few weeks ago. A lady called and spouted all the same saws and then said a good speaker would be Norman Finkelstein.... The purpose isn't to have a neutral speaker but to have one that fits the crank agenda.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 5:01 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on May. 29, 2014 @ 8:35 am

In San Francisco, as in many other cities, helmet use is made optional, to encourage greater participation.
But a look at the statistics suggests that this decision is a mistake. While football tends to dominate the discussion of sports-related head injuries, research shows that bike accidents account for far more traumatic brain injuries each year.
According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, cycling accidents played a role in about 86,000 of the 447,000 sports-related head injuries treated in emergency rooms in 2009. Football accounted for 47,000 of those head injuries, and baseball played a role in 38,394.
Cycling was also the leading cause of sports-related head injuries in children under 14, causing 40,272 injuries, roughly double the number related to football (21,878).
90 percent of bicyclists killed in the United States in 2009 were not wearing helmets.
While helmets may not have an impact on the frequency of crashes, numerous studies have found that use of approved bicycle helmets significantly reduces the risk of fatal injury, serious head and brain injury, head injury, and middle and upper face injury among bicyclists of all ages involved in all types of crashes and crash severities.
Most bicycle accidents occur when a cyclist falls or crashes into a stationary object, not by an accident involving a vehicle.

Posted by Richmondman on May. 27, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

You have to compare this against head injuries from car crashes.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 03, 2014 @ 12:56 pm
Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 2:17 pm

Driver's heads are already protected steel roofs, and by seat belt laws. However, helmets are the only protection for bikes. 80% of major bike injuries are head injuries, and the vast majority of these wouldn't be prevented - even if there were zero cars on the road - if we don't have helmet laws.

Bottom line - no gives a damn about how a helmet messes up your sweet hair doo. Keep your grey matter in your head - mandatory helmet laws NOW!

Posted by Richmondman on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

It's look like that you are there for the criticism. Every thing have some pitfall so it never means that we just say bye to stuff. Did you have calculated that How much it will be helpful for the safe environment.

Posted by Matnejackson on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

to cyclists was so successful and well-received he's decided to up the ante and ask for an entire DECK to be dedicated to his two-wheeled brothers and sisters!! See people - that's how you do it.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

would be such a pleasant experience.

Riding a MC over the bridge can be a white knuckle operation in a wind, imagine our wispy effete progressives huffing and puffing over.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:33 pm

Bridge be given over to bikes?

And buses?

And pot-smoking burners?

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:40 pm

Think of all the money the state and city could save.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 4:21 pm

It's treating degenerative diseases and providing hospice care in old age that really costs the big bucks.

Same logic behind the idea that smoking saves on healthcare costs, because it means folks die younger.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 5:28 pm

Folks to think the whole bay area, not just San Francisco. Bikes are great but very limited, Buses are better but county by county. BART and Caltrain are good, but only meet up at one point. Our Freeway system has missing parts, not very good.

Posted by Garrett on May. 27, 2014 @ 5:36 pm

fifty miles by fifty, and not seven by seven.

Good luck riding your bike from Santa Cruz to Antioch.

Trains are the only real alternative to cars but, as you say, of limited use outside of the east bay.

Come back here in 100 years time and we'll still all be driving cars. Maybe electric or driverless, but we'll still be in cars.

Posted by Guest on May. 27, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

But how often do you traverse all "50" miles. Pretty rarely. Biking to work requires a perfect set of circumstances. Biking to the grocery store, movies, dinner, farmers market? All that stuff tends to happen within a short radius of home, and could be easily bike-able.

Posted by Jame on May. 28, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

at a cheaper, easier out-of-town Safeways's rather than shlepp my produce up Sf's hills to my home.

Ditto for dry cleaning, hardware and household supplies, and so on.

Bikes are great within cities. But many of us have lifestyles that involve multiple or daily trips between counties, let alone cities. Bikes do not work for that.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2014 @ 12:18 pm

Lifestyles will change when gasoline hits $10/gallon.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on May. 28, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

Fracking has put that time off for decades.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 4:34 am

Let someone else deal with the problem I have created. My children will run out of oil, not me, why should I care. I am a self-centered Bastard.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on May. 29, 2014 @ 8:18 am
Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:45 am

Our descendents will be cursing us for wasting all the petroleum products to move shit around and for entertainment, leaving them bereft of lifesaving plastic and fertilizer.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on May. 30, 2014 @ 9:20 pm

But the rich will not. Life extension technology over the next 50 years will add at least 50 years to the human potential lifespan. Enhanced humans will split off from normals within our lifetime. To them, the rest of us will be tragic apes at the end of our evolutionary journey.

Posted by Jayson Gratz Garcia on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 4:47 pm

[blah][blah][blah][blah].

Sure. And the way things are going, maybe the last person to reach 45 is alive today too.

Anyhow, you may aspire to be one of Nietzsche's supermen, but your logic still needs development. Life extending wonder drugs aren't going to be causing any branching in the Human Race unless they vastly increase fertility to those over 100 years of age at the same time.

Anything is possible. Maybe the cure for senile dementia will be found and the super-dupers won't have to wind up wondering around in a faded ballroom like the oldsters in Zardoz.

Were you thinking of Robert Heinlein's Howard Families storyline?

Posted by Lazarus Long on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 7:04 pm

Uh... you know that earlier post was just meant to mess with GlenParkDaddy, right? His name is a play on the San Francisco message boards's resident kook, Jason Grant Garza.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 7:28 pm

I know you are the sad piece of work who imps others and says hateful things to possibly vulnerable people. Now, stupid and illogical are also key parts of your repertoire. Congratz!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

I didn't write that earlier post. I commented that someone else was parodying Jason Grant Garza because apparently Lazarus didn't get it. So yeah, you don't know squat.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

hello
social network world [url=http://www.dzairbook.com]dzairbook[/url]

Posted by dzairbook on May. 29, 2014 @ 4:32 am

to get around and that he doesn't like being gouged by the SFMTA.

"For years, the policy was a parking space for elected officials as part of holding office,"

While he supports Sunday meters.

Maybe he didn't get the memo?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

Public transit is for the peasantry, not the political Ruling Class.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

didn't he used to scrub toilets for a living? if you think that's what passes for elite, then you've obviously never been to one of Gavin's swinger parties

Posted by ChristianPatriotLandowner on Jun. 01, 2014 @ 3:41 pm

So, when is the SFBG going to explain how wonderful the Muni sickout is, and how we should all be grateful for it?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 02, 2014 @ 11:43 am

is just like a visit to the acute ward at Napa State.

Posted by Gus on Jun. 03, 2014 @ 9:08 pm

1. Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.
2. Think for yourself.
3. Question yourself.
4. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.
5. Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well designed test, it's wrong, get over it. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgement.

You could be wrong.

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 6:47 am

Which is to densify more by allowing developers to shuffle BMR units out of calculations.

This impacts transit more not less.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 7:01 am

Why is not save muni on the panel?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 7:02 am

Because you've got to have a financial connection to government to be legitimate in the eyes of the claque.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

This bunch of losers are the very last people we should be consulting with about transit.

Will you be there? I'm planning on it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:30 pm

Because the people who've been paid have done such a bang up job!

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:35 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

Did you take that as an insult and if so, why?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 1:03 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.