Comment by brandur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brandur | Hacker News Reader

I love 99% Invisible, but in my opinion this piece is far too generous to the actual SFMTA, who occasionally respond to the SFMTrA's work reasonably (as covered in the article), but who usually just strip it wholesale, to the detriment of the safety of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. For example, these markers on Folsom St helped improve safety considerably and were constructed in an incredibly professional way, but are now gone completely [1].

The group itself puts it best here [2]:

> "The SFMTA is glacially slow to install pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure, yet was able to remove our simple safety improvements within a week," the group said in a statement sent to SFist. "We call on SFMTA to immediately replace these pedestrian safety improvements with protection at or above the level installed by SFMTrA."

Everyone who walks or bikes in SF can atest to the truth of this statement firsthand. Progress _is_ being made, but it's frustratingly slow.

[1] http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safe...

[2] http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improve...

This is the kind of proactive action that delivers change, but it takes time and effort. For some inspiration here are 2 videos about how Amsterdam people relentlessly fought to bring change and transformation to the city, to make it more human friendly.

1. https://www.facebook.com/groups/expatrepublic/permalink/1298... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEPnZ952NFI

Speaking of Amsterdam and bike safety: Amsterdam has lots of street-level trams that share the road (without protective dividers in some of the busiest parts of the city) not just with cars but with millions of bicycles and pedestrians.

I'm kind of shocked that this would be allowed in Amsterdam, one of the most bike-friendly cities on the planet, considering how easy it is for bicycles to get their wheels stuck in the tram tracks while trying to cross them, and what a hazard trams are to bicycles and pedestrians.

The risk of injury is further aggravated by many of the pedestrians being drunk, stoned, or high on a large variety of substances easily available in the city, and many of them being tourists who are unfamiliar with the city and not used to expecting random trams popping out of the middle of nowhere while they're walking down an otherwise pedestrian- and bicycle-populated street.

> considering how easy it is for bicycles to get their wheels stuck in the tram tracks

This is one of the reasons to use a mountain-bike in the city.

Virtually everyone in Amsterdam rides ancient one-speed "city" bikes. Anything else would get stolen in five minutes flat (and you only really need one speed anyway, since the city's flat). Tram tracks are a hazard for pretty much all of them.

Thing with these tracks is that you know where they are and thus you can anticipate. Just as with the trams riding them: if you stay off the tracks the chance of being run over by a tram are quite close to zero. Cars however are different. These tend to sneak up on you or come out of dark street corner unexpectedly. Their agility, speed and mass make it a true killer... In short: trams are part of life in Amsterdam and the locals are used to them and their tracks. Overall the quality of the bike lanes in the Netherlands is excellent and exceeds by far what SF has now...

I've yet to meet anyone in Amsterdam who has not had an encounter with tram tracks -- whether sober, stoned or drunk...

Well, it's a lesson, then ;-)

Unless you're too drunk to learn.

Nevertheless, I grew up in a city with trams and never had an encounter with tracks in that way. Maybe roads, cycleways, and tram tracks are better separated than in Amsterdam. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a place where I could accidentally ride a bike along the tram tracks; it's either far away from them or crossing them, neither of which is dangerous. Of course, cars are still a problem, especially with cycleways that are part of the road and not separated in any way.

This is all rather exaggerated. Nobody wears helmets, yet the number of accidents is very low The number of high or drunk people is not higher than elsewhere. Falling because your wheel gets stuck in the rails will not seriously injure you. Just watch out next time.

Source: lived here for 40 years.

Wow, I was wondering why those soft-hit posts got removed suddenly; I just assumed that they had been placed by the City because they looked 100% identical to official ones (in a place where I've been concerned about safety for a while).

Edit: in fact, I was previously thinking of writing to SFMTA to thank them for placing them (!!).

You should write that letter, and let SFMTA know that some ruffians have removed the posts ;)

Before the posts were, um, posted, I was thinking of writing to them about that intersection (Folsom and Division) because there's a parking space or a maybe-parking-space which forces cyclists out of the bike line if it's in use, especially by a large vehicle.

Now that this has happened I guess they might react a bit differently to correspondence about it.

Also, I feel like SFMTA may not be super-great about responding to correspondence about specific intersections and traffic design (which is not to say that they don't read it or don't think about what people have to say); I've written to them twice about 17th and Sanchez after someone I know had an accident making a left turn onto the Muni Metro tracks, and I never got a reply.

> I feel like SFMTA may not be super-great about responding to correspondence about specific intersections

Try tweeting if you haven't already. I tweeted regarding the intersection at 17th and Harrison (before they improved it a couple months back) and they actually created an issue in their tracking system to address it.

The account to tweet at is apparently @SF311. Here's the thread: https://twitter.com/andrewmbenton/status/710485661267075072

It's extremely offensive to me that the people are so powerless to fix things like this without sneaking it (like that guy that added a much-needed highway sign in the LA area before it was caught over a year later).

Link to story about LA sign for reference:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_publ...

>a much-needed highway sign in the LA area before it was caught over a year later

It's worth pointing out (because, for some reason, the coverage of this dude and his I-5 sign never emphasizes this) that when the sign was 'caught', Caltrans examined it, found it appropriate and to-spec, and left it up.

Thanks, I found a donate button in your first link and sent them some $.

Bringing up these improvements at a city council meeting with proof of funds would likely end up with a much more positive outlook from the community (clearly some people are willing to pay for a bit of safety).

How do city councils generally feel about people offering to donate money for government-administered programs? I've wondered about this and imagined that they might consider it improper influence in their budgeting and policy-setting practices and that it might actually be forbidden by law in some places. (But clearly some people are able to negotiate "public-private partnerships" on particular issues and projects and people have also been able to donate large amounts of money for certain infrastructure projects, like the recent Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital project.)

If I showed up with a group of people and a couple of thousand dollars for an earmarked public works project, how might it be received in different places?

"Sure, cool?"

"Against our budgeting laws?"

"Contrary to our notions of democracy or equity in public spending?"

"Improper in public administration terms because it results in overhead or management costs that can't be properly accounted for or budgeted?"

Setup a non-profit for redevelopment "blessed" by the city with cronies in key positions?

Some cities embrace neighborhood funded programs, for example, in Sacramento, CA:

If your street qualifies for speed lumps, but has not been funded by the City, you may pay for installation yourself. The cost will include design, construction and inspection of the City, speed lumps. Your street must meet all qualifications including two-thirds majority approval through the ballot process. Your neighborhood must have the funding and obtain approval from the Department of Transportation before speed lumps may be installed. The cost of a speed lump and associated signage is approximately $3,000.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/...

I love the term "speed lump". Local government should have more of this.

I've also head "speed hump".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com