jamisonwieser:

This week (March 18-22) BART is allowing bikes onboard trains during the normal verboten peak commute hours. It is the second BART bicycle pilot following several friday trials last fall.

“…since that time, a full slate of initiatives to improve BART’s ability to accommodate bikes has begun to be implemented. “For example, train car interiors are being reconfigured to create more space for everyone; a bike etiquette campaign is continuing and expanding; and efforts are underway to increase secure bike parking, to name just a few.”

There has been some criticism of BART allowing bikes onboard at all times given how packed the trains are already, but the best way to find out for sure would be to run a trial.

If this is does get deemed a bad idea there are still the lessons learned - like the bike etiquette campaign - that can make biking on BART better at any time.

The next steps depend upon the results of this trial.

after honking at me and still trying to squeeze me when I was taking the lane twice in front of the long bus, the third time—finally—the poorly trained driver drove the long bus all the way in the left lane to go around me, when I took the lane even more obviously (a tiny bit left of center).

THERE YOU GO. now was that so tremendously difficult??!!

**********
I’ll tell you what’s difficult—a 52t chainring. (the big chainring on a road bike)

how the hell did i ride this way EVERY day in san diego??! even UP hills, I did this. gawd, I’m half as slow/fast on my road bike than on my 46 or 44t fixie now.

inference: I need to seriously train on my road bike if I wanna bike tour.

*******
I am a friendly cyclist most of the time and will yield to car drivers if there is enough room for me to safely ride on the far right, but the ac transit long buses—they’re like 4x the length of a regular compact car or sedan! and if I’m on the right side and they steer right to stop at a bus stop, they could squeeze and trap me on the right side. Dangerous. so yes, I will go on riding right in the center of the lane if a bus is behind me.

The list of outrages coming out of the House is long, but the way the Republicans are trying to hijack the $260 billion transportation bill defies belief. This bill is so uniquely terrible that it might not command a majority when it comes to a floor vote, possibly next week, despite Speaker John Boehner’s imprimatur. But betting on rationality with this crew is always a long shot.

Here is a brief and by no means exhaustive list of the bill’s many defects:

• It would make financing for mass transit much less certain, and more vulnerable, by ending a 30-year agreement that guaranteed mass transit a one-fifth share of the fuel taxes and other user fees in the highway trust fund. Instead it would compete annually with other programs.
• It would open nearly all of America’s coastal waters to oil and gas drilling, including environmentally fragile areas that have long been off limits. The ostensible purpose is to raise revenue to help make up what has become an annual shortfall for transportation financing. But it is really just one more attempt to promote the Republicans’ drill-now-drill-everywhere agenda and the interests of their industry patrons.
• It would demolish significant environmental protections by imposing arbitrary deadlines on legally mandated environmental reviews of proposed road and highway projects, and by ceding to state highway agencies the authority to decide whether such reviews should occur.

read more: nytimes, 08.02.12.

House:  Say “NO” to H.R. 7

On the other side of Congress, the House is about to consider a transportation bill that reverses 20 years of progress in making streets safer for people. Despite the fact that walking and biking make up 12% of trips but receive only 1.5% of federal funding, the House bill eliminates dedicated funding for walking and biking. It’s time to defeat this bill.

send an email to your senators and representatives to oppose this bill!!!

For decades, SANDAG has favored funding more roads and freeway widening to serve sprawl development as the City has grown. Despite a transit emphasis promoted by stakeholders throughout the drafting of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS), SANDAG leaders are poised to approve this sprawl-first model of ‘sustainability’ that will set a precedent for the nation and commit the region to 40 more years of the same misguided planning principles. For most of us, that’s a lifetime. We have a chance to seize this opportunity to achieve sustainability goals, but the current Plan will only serve to promote further sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions, perpetuating poor land use and traffic congestion.

Although the very goal of SB 375 is to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and by extension emissions, San Diego’s 2050 RTP/SCS would actually increase VMT in the region by 50 percent over the next 40 years. By 2050 it will only achieve a 9 percent GHG reduction per capita — if it even reaches the levels mandated by SB 375 at all.

The state attorney general has even sharply criticized the RTP.

The failure of SANDAG to contemplate a plan that will achieve a meaningful shift in realistic sustainability planning runs contrary to the results of multiple public polls and community outcry for an effective integrated light rail/multimodal solution. In response, the Cleveland National Forest Foundation (CNFF), through its Transit San Diego campaign, has submitted an alternate planning model for SANDAG’s consideration. This “50-10 Transit Plan“ commits funding 50 years’ worth of transit infrastructure into the first 10 years of implementation. CNFF has also submitted multiple comment letters promoting transit first and opposing SANDAG’s sprawl-development-friendly plan throughout the planning process.

Prioritizing transit as in the CNFF proposal would finally address the fundamental transportation challenges instead of just doubling down on more cars for another generation. We know that SANDAG’s choices will be felt throughout the region and across the country. Indeed, we’ve already seen the chair of SANDAG lobbying for the rollback of EPA standards in order to accelerate highways throughout Southern California. Before this accelerates further, we have a chance to demand responsible transportation development this Friday — but we need all the help we can get.

calitics, 24.10.11.

Occupy San Diego will definitely be helping out. Come out and join the fight for a better future!—and not a compromised one that has been proven to be unsustainable. 

Occupy San Diego will be marching early in the morning from Civic Center to very closeby SANDAG offices in the Wells Fargo building at 401 B St., suite 800, to attend the 9am Board of Directors meeting and protest against the 2050 Final Regional Transport Plan.

Here is the alternative San Diego transit plan to have 50 years of transportation changes done in 10 years: The 50-10 Transit Plan.

Please calculate the number of miles you commute by automobile in an average week, if any, and then look at San Diego’s MTS website to determine whether you could use public transportation instead.  Perform a brief cost-benefit analysis (in time and money) of your personal transportation habits.

just finished this short optional assignment for my Urban Politics class. Thought it’d be good to post it on here, too; maybe some of you will find it insightful to calculate your own (but more exact, and perhaps carbon footprint, too).

My hometown is in the SF Bay Area, where there exist decent public transportation and my mother, who can/is willing to drive me anywhere within 30 minutes’ distance, except to San Francisco. So, I never bothered to buy my own car, though I can drive, and also despite having moved to San Diego where it is significantly more challenging to get around without one. (and no moneiezz anyway!)

• UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center — UCSD La Jolla campus: 13 miles, 30 mins.
• Hillcrest — Downtown San Diego: 2.6 miles, 13 mins.
• San Diego — SF Bay Area: 450 miles, 1.5h

Read More