With more than 40 years tackling complex transportation challenges, I’ve dedicated my career to improving how people move safely and efficiently.
As a subject-matter expert, a CEO of companies that deliver intelligent transportation systems having neither financial interests nor contracts with the city, and as a longtime San Matean — I, along with many others, am growing increasingly frustrated with city-led street changes that seem to create more problems than they solve. Too often, well-intentioned but poorly planned infrastructure projects end up making daily life more difficult for residents, businesses and commuters.
In recent history, a “bulb-out” as installed at the corner of 28th Avenue and Mason Lane, extended the curb into the street to slow traffic. While intended to enhance safety, failed outreach left residents up in arms and the public outcry forced the city to rethink its decision.
Currently, the city’s decision to remove street parking to make room for dedicated bike lanes on Humboldt Street is creating severe and lasting consequences for residents, disrupting daily life and ignoring nearly three years of community opposition.
More than 200 curbside parking spaces were eliminated for these virtually unused bike lanes. This parking was essential for residents in this equity-priority community, many who rely on street parking due to limited off-street options. The impact is more severe for seniors and disabled residents, who now face greater challenges in finding accessible parking near their homes.
While the city justifies this move as part of its broader sustainability efforts to promote alternative transportation, the data tells a different story. These bike lanes remain largely unused, averaging fewer than three bike trips per day. This negligible use doesn’t justify sacrificing essential parking for hundreds of residents and confirms the bike lane experiment has failed to shift transportation habits.
Instead, the removal of parking spaces has created a domino effect of unintended consequences. Nearby residents now compete for fewer spaces. They circle the neighborhood, wasting time, burning fuel and increasing emissions at more than 50 tons of CO₂ annually, directly contradicting the city’s environmental goals and increasing health risks, particularly to children and seniors.
The loss of parking has also created an unfair financial burden. Historically, curbside parking in front of one’s home has been an implicit benefit factored into property values/tax assessments. When the city unilaterally eliminated these parking spaces, homeowners saw their property values decline without receiving any tax adjustment/compensation.
Black, Hispanic and Asian homeowners in North Central are disproportionately affected by the lack of equity and fairness. The city has stripped residents of a resource they previously relied on, offering no mitigation/relief in return.
Recommended for you
City officials have suggested that affected residents rent private parking or use overnight lots. These solutions are impractical and financially burdensome, especially for lower-income families, the disabled and elderly. These are simply not viable.
Bike lane advocates claim bike lanes reduce collisions. While safer streets are always a priority, this must be achieved in a way that considers the needs of all residents and not just a few. Increased safety can be achieved with more traffic enforcement, lower speed limits, better signs and shared bike lane education. None require the removal of 200+ parking spaces, or infliction of disproportionate harm.
If the city truly values equity, sustainability and community well-being, it must remove the virtually unused bike lanes and restore parking to residents. Many cities have successfully implemented shared bike lanes without sacrificing essential parking. This is a balanced solution.
The General Plan 2040 must be implemented based on data, practicality and community impact. A policy that forces a neighborhood to sacrifice essential resources is not equitable/sustainable. The city must adopt a more balanced approach that respects the rights and needs of all transportation users, not just a few cyclists.
We cannot allow the policy demands of a small, vocal group to come at the expense of others, particularly those who lack the resources/influence to challenge and fight City Hall.
Former Mayor Claire Mack, a North Central resident, has spoken out against these changes, likening the removal of parking to other racial injustices seen across our nation — a stark warning that this is about more than just infrastructure. It is about fairness, economic equity and government accountability.
It takes courage to right a wrong. Our City Council must demonstrate that courage by doing the right thing and immediately restore all parking on North Humboldt Street. Let’s correct the injustice inflicted upon this equity-priority community. Do the right thing — restore the parking.
Taso Zografos is a transportation expert, CEO of Streetline and serves on the board for the Gramercy Mounds El Cerrito Neighborhood Association and the SMPD Neighborhood Watch Program.
Not sure what your point is, joebob91…many people advocating for keeping these bike lanes don’t live on Humboldt. Why are we supposed to listen to them?
Thank you Taso for your thoughtful perspective and for your support of our neighborhood. Quote I came across the other day I wish to share "Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Finally! A voice of reason! This is not an 'all or nothing' issue, but the City scores a D- on working together with the community when making these kinds of decisions. They must do better. Councilmember Loraine needs to answer for this fiasco. He'll end up costing the resident taxpayers $$$ now to fix this. And he's got his sights on Alameda de las Pulgas next. The only thing stopping him is a lack of staff and funding. One hopes he learns a thing or two from this disaster. Council works for us - and they should remember that on a daily basis.
Completely agree, Lisa! But I am a tad more optimistic that this City Council will do the right thing for North Central residents, which will benefit all of San Mateo. Thank you, Taso, for a very informative perspective!
"Us" meaning residents of San Mateo. Does that include you, Redwood City Pulse publication person? People should understand whose perspectives they are reading.
6,000 San Mateans worked together with various groups, commissions and members of previous and current city council and came to the plan called "Strive General Plan 2040".
And that General Plan reads:
"In transportation planning, “modes” refer to different ways of getting around: walking, bicycling, riding transit, and driving. A “multimodal” transportation network accommodates many different modes of transportation, while embracing complete streets principles. A complete street includes safety improvements that benefit all users (i.e., drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists) and incorporates green infrastructure elements to improve stormwater quality. By increasing travel options that don’t rely solely on driving, GHG emissions and congestion from the transportation system can be reduced. Figure C-1 represents possible options for the 2040 Circulation Network; while the identified pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements may change over the lifespan of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, the goal will be to complete travel gaps and maintain and improve the transportation network as the city grows."
And here we have a "Transportation Expert" & friends who are attacking ALL modes of transportation except the one his company can make money of. Who else would try so hard to keep their fellow residents from using other modes of transportation? Choice is good, why would anyone deprive others from making better choices?
The other interesting part is that two BIPOC, DEI council members are robbing multiple Equity Focus Areas (EFA) of their multimodal choices. When push came to shove - they let themselves get shoved.
As predicted this is all about addiction to convenience, a touch of personal greed combined with a smell of corruption. And your Republicans are correct about these Bay Area Democrats, who can't execute even one simple plan of bringing safety to a working class neighborhood - that is gentrified at the same time. Turns out these Democrats really are full of DEI, have no idea how that gender thing is supposed to work and are basically blowhard Climate Change deniers and paid of by the automobile industry themselves.
It is the year 2025 and in other countries, counties, and cities conservatives are loving bike lanes, liberals love bike lanes, progressives love bike lanes, libertarians love bike lanes, small business loves bike lanes, education loves bike lanes, health loves bike lanes. In fact "A network of safe bicycle lanes is the single biggest predictor for the level of cycling in any city in the world. It's significantly more important than any other metric, including culture, distance, hills, and weather." And yet San Mateo Democrats are unanimously voting to take away much needed bicycle infrastructure? Anyone can see from 100 miles away that this is all crooked.
The majority of Humboldt Street residents have adjusted by now and like the bike lanes. So who is opposing it and why?
This is the project you can tell your grandchildren about:
- Several people told the council that they have no other means of transportation and really need these bike lanes.
- Of course that doesn't sit well with an executive from the automobile industry.
- Of course an executive from the automobile industry is opposing bike lanes - nobody needs "parking demand" studies for people riding bicycles.
- Of course an executive from the automobile industry is requesting 'traffic calming' in his neighborhood, but argues the opposite for North Central.
- You have landlords violating municipal codes and now want the city to bail them out.
- You have an ethics-pretend Nimby-group that seems to have trouble understanding the 'ethics' around municipal codes.
- You have a regional YIMBY-bicycle coalition who never gets involved in promotion of local bike lanes - but takes automobile-grants and money from traffic departments to throw one party after another.
- You have two DEI candidates, who don't believe in the diversity of transportation options (transportation equity). Nor the Inclusion of safety for all Ages and Abilities (AAA). Recommended reading: "How to be an Anti-Racist" by historian Ibram X. Kendi.
- Female leadership was supposed to bring more empathy and here you have three that couldn't empathize with single mothers working several jobs and needing to safe money using cheaper transportation. Recommended reading: anything they can find about the 19th-century female transportation pioneer Katherine T. “Kittie” Knox.
If car storage really was the issue here, why isn't this executive offering a free 'car storage demand' study for this Equity Focus Area?
The municipal code allows everyone to store their cars on their own property, in fact it is encouraging to have 2-4 spots. This alone shows that all the sob stories are made up. The most honest argument was something along the line of 'I don't want to use my own lawn for storing my own vehicles'.
eGerd – TBot here. In addition to highlighting convenience, Mr. Zografos is also highlighting efficiency. Two factors of great importance to those who live in the area and must deal with conditions 24/7. I see you’re still belittling those who don’t agree with you and I must say that all it does is turn people off to your message. Did you miss the recent presidential campaign where a message of bullying and name-calling fell on deaf ears? At this point, not too many people care about being called Hitler or Nazi or racist or xenophobe or garbage or deplorable. Do you think calling people greedy or corrupt with no evidence will convince people to join your “side”?
Your playbook, along with the Dem playbook, has become overused to the point of diminishing returns, if any returns at all and instead are turning people off. We’re in the Golden Age of America now. BTW, have you seen how many streets in San Mateo, or any city, have dedicated bike lanes compared to not? And I’m still not seeing any cyclist carrying 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water.
TBot - Could you please remind me, who used "Low Energy Jeb", "Mini Mike Bloomberg", " Low IQ War Hawk" , "Leakin' James Comey", "Liddle' Bob Corker", "Lyin' Ted", "Little Marco", "Ditzy DeVos", "Birdbrain"? Were all these Republicans insulated by the "Marxists", the "Socialists" or the "Comrades"?
I notice when you run out of arguments you try to dig into national discussions. But that is just classic culture wars. Every time the administration changes they will now rename "Mount McKinley" or "Fort Bragg" or "Hoover Dam" back and forth. That's all boring stuff. Though I'm looking forward to see if "New Amsterdam" comes with more bike lanes.
All Politics are Local.
Back to 'evidence', which isn't really needed since this isn't a court of law. So let's look at indicia and find out if this CEO really understands 'efficiency'.
Because if this was all about expertise and efficiency, we must ask these follow-up questions:
- Wouldn't a real transportation expert have to know: Streets are made for Transportation?
- Wouldn't an expert therefore also know that car storage is creating congestion? Congestion is prove of inefficiency.
- Why would a real expert in transportation matters attack Active Transportation? The most efficient form of transportation in a 1-3 mile radius.
- Why would a real subject-matter expert attack Public Transportation? The most efficient form of transportation for commuting to SF or SJ.
- Would therefore a real transportation expert attack "Vision Zero", "Complete Streets", "Transportation Equity", how about "Safe-Routes-To-School"?
Efficiency in Transportation is all about the combination of public, active, freight and private vehicular transportation. That can also include "Parking", but does NOT include "private car storage" - there everyone needs to take care of their own stuff. And while you might disagree with these concepts, his customers certainly demand this kind of knowledge. If not, they move on to another company with professionals that understand transportation as a more holistic concept.
A new car costs on average $50,000, an average used car costs $30,000, the yearly average full coverage insurance is at $2,500. People will have a harder and harder time to afford driving for every mile. Transportation cost will go up, prices will go higher. Cities MUST provide people better, safer, healthier options so residents can safe transportation expense and spend instead on local, small businesses.
And who would oppose allowing people to make safer, healthier choices? Mostly people that make money from fossil fuel or automobile transportation. Either directly (corruption) or indirectly (campaign financing). Just as an example the Belmont council member Tom McCune was famously supported by the oil industry. Oil money also went to Supervisors Lisa Gauthier and Ray Mueller.
eGerd - TBot here. I notice when you can’t answer questions you go off on tangents that don’t address the most important issues at hand – efficiency and convenience. Instead you focus on what you consider efficient but conveniently ignore the train-to-nowhere boondoggle, mass transportation currently operating at 50% with 100% expense, the final mile, and many other examples with your version of “efficient.” Happy Daytona 500 day! Who’ll get bragging rights this year? Toyota? Ford? Chevy?
That being said, separate bicycle lanes may be appropriate if they were designed as part of a master plan but in trying to re-master an existing plan, all it does is waste time and money. As I always say, if you don’t like the decisions that are being made by our so-called leaders, elect new leaders. BTW, I appreciate the list of nicknames. We can’t forget Crooked Joe, Lyin’ Hillary, Crazy Kamala, and Tampon Tim.
eGerd – Tbot here… We’ve gone over this before… You’ve restricted your “efficiency” to a daily commute whereas I’m talking about convenience and efficiency for daily life. You say nobody commutes on a daily basis to LA by car and they take a plane. Yes, because it’s most convenient and efficient. It’s not like there’s high speed rail to get there from here. (And it’s likely that will never happen in our lifetime.) BTW, ICYMI, Chevy has bragging rights as the winner in the Daytona 500.
As for nicknames, thanks for the link. You say “the nickname fish stinks from the head” so does that mean the folks who nicknamed everyone listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_with_nicknames are nickname fish that stink from the head? Perhaps you’re not of the opinion that nicknames are a form of endearment, which is why I refer to you as eGerd. Also nicknames are better when they’re indicative of the person they’re describing, such as the ones Trump has assigned, as detailed in your linked Wiki page.
Alright, fair enough, we don't have to talk commute anymore.
How about this situation. I want to go to a game of the SF Giants or SF 49ers.
- Car: sitting in traffic, waiting to get into the parking lot, paying $40 or more for parking, waiting another 1h after the game to get out again.
- Train: both stadiums are reachable with $10-$20 from various locations using Caltrain, Muni, VTA, etc. There might be some waiting for the next empty train.
- Bicycle: roll right up to the stadium. Maybe a donation for the bike valet. No sitting in traffic before or after, done.
A very simple and cheap network of bike lanes throughout the city (like SF is building right now) and biking becomes automatically the most convenient form of transportation for a majority of people.
It's the healthiest, the most equitable, often the fastest, congestion free, and most affordable form of transportation. What is more convenient than NOT sitting in traffic, NOT searching for parking, NOT sitting in the very polluted inside of a car (you didn't think about that part).
They only have one major side effect - fewer people driving means driving and finding parking becomes more convenient for the people that absolutely need to drive (e.g. mail, package deliver, cargo, Emergency Responders, garbage trucks, contractors, etc.). Some would say that is another very convenient thing bike lanes can do.
eGerd – TBot here. If you’re going to cherry-pick a situation… Imagine you need to stock up groceries for your family. In addition to food, you need a case of sports drinks/water.
- Car: drive to Costco from whatever distance, park for free, buy your groceries (all on the list), pack them in your car, and drive home.
- Train: walk to train station, take train to somewhere near Costco, walk to Costco, buy a few bags of groceries and possible sports drinks/water if you tote a wheeled carrier. Walk back to train station, take train, walk home. Rinse and repeat until you have all the groceries you wanted.
- Bicycle: bike to Costco, park for free, buy a subset of groceries and likely no sports drinks/water during this trip, bike home. Rinse and repeat until you can buy all the groceries you wanted. Although the case of sports drink/water may be dangerous to bike home.
Driving is the most convenient and most efficient form of transportation. A side effect (and a good one…), with all that time saved they can go biking or walking or spend family time instead of spending hours to buy groceries, while potentially still missing out on the case of sports drinks/water.
Btw. Humboldt residents do like the bike lanes and anyone disliking them is allowed to own and operate one car for their daily trip to Costco and Ikea. That however doesn't explain the other three cars to get to Starbucks or the gym.
But suddenly we have the solution for all of this: DIVERSITY and Choice in our Transportation Options
- driving lanes for those who find that most convenient and with too much money to spend
- bike lanes for those who find that most convenient and as the best affordable, high-density mode of transportation
- sidewalks for those who find that most convenient while e.g. walking with their dog
- bus lanes for large streets so public transit isn't stuck in the "convenience congestion" of private vehicles.
These are all great examples of ways to separate transportation modes.
But never, ever is replacing "private car storage" with transportation lanes regarded a "injustice for these poor people owning 3 and more cars". If you need more cars, make sure you have a way to store it. That is not the government's job - that is the worst form of car-socialism.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(17) comments
This guy works for a parking company and lives next to Hillsborough. Why are we supposed to listen to him?
Not sure what your point is, joebob91…many people advocating for keeping these bike lanes don’t live on Humboldt. Why are we supposed to listen to them?
Thank you Taso for your thoughtful perspective and for your support of our neighborhood. Quote I came across the other day I wish to share "Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Finally! A voice of reason! This is not an 'all or nothing' issue, but the City scores a D- on working together with the community when making these kinds of decisions. They must do better. Councilmember Loraine needs to answer for this fiasco. He'll end up costing the resident taxpayers $$$ now to fix this. And he's got his sights on Alameda de las Pulgas next. The only thing stopping him is a lack of staff and funding. One hopes he learns a thing or two from this disaster. Council works for us - and they should remember that on a daily basis.
Completely agree, Lisa! But I am a tad more optimistic that this City Council will do the right thing for North Central residents, which will benefit all of San Mateo. Thank you, Taso, for a very informative perspective!
"Council works for us" - and with 'us' they mean corporate interest and transportation bullies.
"Us" meaning residents of San Mateo. Does that include you, Redwood City Pulse publication person? People should understand whose perspectives they are reading.
6,000 San Mateans worked together with various groups, commissions and members of previous and current city council and came to the plan called "Strive General Plan 2040".
And that General Plan reads:
"In transportation planning, “modes” refer to different ways of getting around: walking, bicycling, riding transit, and driving. A “multimodal” transportation network accommodates many different modes of transportation, while embracing complete streets principles. A complete street includes safety improvements that benefit all users (i.e., drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists) and incorporates green infrastructure elements to improve stormwater quality. By increasing travel options that don’t rely solely on driving, GHG emissions and congestion from the transportation system can be reduced. Figure C-1 represents possible options for the 2040 Circulation Network; while the identified pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements may change over the lifespan of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, the goal will be to complete travel gaps and maintain and improve the transportation network as the city grows."
And here we have a "Transportation Expert" & friends who are attacking ALL modes of transportation except the one his company can make money of. Who else would try so hard to keep their fellow residents from using other modes of transportation? Choice is good, why would anyone deprive others from making better choices?
The other interesting part is that two BIPOC, DEI council members are robbing multiple Equity Focus Areas (EFA) of their multimodal choices. When push came to shove - they let themselves get shoved.
TBot are you seeing this? This is a fun one!
As predicted this is all about addiction to convenience, a touch of personal greed combined with a smell of corruption. And your Republicans are correct about these Bay Area Democrats, who can't execute even one simple plan of bringing safety to a working class neighborhood - that is gentrified at the same time. Turns out these Democrats really are full of DEI, have no idea how that gender thing is supposed to work and are basically blowhard Climate Change deniers and paid of by the automobile industry themselves.
It is the year 2025 and in other countries, counties, and cities conservatives are loving bike lanes, liberals love bike lanes, progressives love bike lanes, libertarians love bike lanes, small business loves bike lanes, education loves bike lanes, health loves bike lanes. In fact "A network of safe bicycle lanes is the single biggest predictor for the level of cycling in any city in the world. It's significantly more important than any other metric, including culture, distance, hills, and weather." And yet San Mateo Democrats are unanimously voting to take away much needed bicycle infrastructure? Anyone can see from 100 miles away that this is all crooked.
The majority of Humboldt Street residents have adjusted by now and like the bike lanes. So who is opposing it and why?
This is the project you can tell your grandchildren about:
- Several people told the council that they have no other means of transportation and really need these bike lanes.
- Of course that doesn't sit well with an executive from the automobile industry.
- Of course an executive from the automobile industry is opposing bike lanes - nobody needs "parking demand" studies for people riding bicycles.
- Of course an executive from the automobile industry is requesting 'traffic calming' in his neighborhood, but argues the opposite for North Central.
- You have landlords violating municipal codes and now want the city to bail them out.
- You have an ethics-pretend Nimby-group that seems to have trouble understanding the 'ethics' around municipal codes.
- You have a regional YIMBY-bicycle coalition who never gets involved in promotion of local bike lanes - but takes automobile-grants and money from traffic departments to throw one party after another.
- You have two DEI candidates, who don't believe in the diversity of transportation options (transportation equity). Nor the Inclusion of safety for all Ages and Abilities (AAA). Recommended reading: "How to be an Anti-Racist" by historian Ibram X. Kendi.
- Female leadership was supposed to bring more empathy and here you have three that couldn't empathize with single mothers working several jobs and needing to safe money using cheaper transportation. Recommended reading: anything they can find about the 19th-century female transportation pioneer Katherine T. “Kittie” Knox.
If car storage really was the issue here, why isn't this executive offering a free 'car storage demand' study for this Equity Focus Area?
The municipal code allows everyone to store their cars on their own property, in fact it is encouraging to have 2-4 spots. This alone shows that all the sob stories are made up. The most honest argument was something along the line of 'I don't want to use my own lawn for storing my own vehicles'.
eGerd – TBot here. In addition to highlighting convenience, Mr. Zografos is also highlighting efficiency. Two factors of great importance to those who live in the area and must deal with conditions 24/7. I see you’re still belittling those who don’t agree with you and I must say that all it does is turn people off to your message. Did you miss the recent presidential campaign where a message of bullying and name-calling fell on deaf ears? At this point, not too many people care about being called Hitler or Nazi or racist or xenophobe or garbage or deplorable. Do you think calling people greedy or corrupt with no evidence will convince people to join your “side”?
Your playbook, along with the Dem playbook, has become overused to the point of diminishing returns, if any returns at all and instead are turning people off. We’re in the Golden Age of America now. BTW, have you seen how many streets in San Mateo, or any city, have dedicated bike lanes compared to not? And I’m still not seeing any cyclist carrying 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water.
TBot - Could you please remind me, who used "Low Energy Jeb", "Mini Mike Bloomberg", " Low IQ War Hawk" , "Leakin' James Comey", "Liddle' Bob Corker", "Lyin' Ted", "Little Marco", "Ditzy DeVos", "Birdbrain"? Were all these Republicans insulated by the "Marxists", the "Socialists" or the "Comrades"?
I notice when you run out of arguments you try to dig into national discussions. But that is just classic culture wars. Every time the administration changes they will now rename "Mount McKinley" or "Fort Bragg" or "Hoover Dam" back and forth. That's all boring stuff. Though I'm looking forward to see if "New Amsterdam" comes with more bike lanes.
All Politics are Local.
Back to 'evidence', which isn't really needed since this isn't a court of law. So let's look at indicia and find out if this CEO really understands 'efficiency'.
Because if this was all about expertise and efficiency, we must ask these follow-up questions:
- Wouldn't a real transportation expert have to know: Streets are made for Transportation?
- Wouldn't an expert therefore also know that car storage is creating congestion? Congestion is prove of inefficiency.
- Why would a real expert in transportation matters attack Active Transportation? The most efficient form of transportation in a 1-3 mile radius.
- Why would a real subject-matter expert attack Public Transportation? The most efficient form of transportation for commuting to SF or SJ.
- Would therefore a real transportation expert attack "Vision Zero", "Complete Streets", "Transportation Equity", how about "Safe-Routes-To-School"?
Efficiency in Transportation is all about the combination of public, active, freight and private vehicular transportation. That can also include "Parking", but does NOT include "private car storage" - there everyone needs to take care of their own stuff. And while you might disagree with these concepts, his customers certainly demand this kind of knowledge. If not, they move on to another company with professionals that understand transportation as a more holistic concept.
A new car costs on average $50,000, an average used car costs $30,000, the yearly average full coverage insurance is at $2,500. People will have a harder and harder time to afford driving for every mile. Transportation cost will go up, prices will go higher. Cities MUST provide people better, safer, healthier options so residents can safe transportation expense and spend instead on local, small businesses.
And who would oppose allowing people to make safer, healthier choices? Mostly people that make money from fossil fuel or automobile transportation. Either directly (corruption) or indirectly (campaign financing). Just as an example the Belmont council member Tom McCune was famously supported by the oil industry. Oil money also went to Supervisors Lisa Gauthier and Ray Mueller.
https://www.kqed.org/news/12010828/oil-industry-spends-thousands-on-local-bay-area-election-in-city-with-no-refineries
eGerd - TBot here. I notice when you can’t answer questions you go off on tangents that don’t address the most important issues at hand – efficiency and convenience. Instead you focus on what you consider efficient but conveniently ignore the train-to-nowhere boondoggle, mass transportation currently operating at 50% with 100% expense, the final mile, and many other examples with your version of “efficient.” Happy Daytona 500 day! Who’ll get bragging rights this year? Toyota? Ford? Chevy?
That being said, separate bicycle lanes may be appropriate if they were designed as part of a master plan but in trying to re-master an existing plan, all it does is waste time and money. As I always say, if you don’t like the decisions that are being made by our so-called leaders, elect new leaders. BTW, I appreciate the list of nicknames. We can’t forget Crooked Joe, Lyin’ Hillary, Crazy Kamala, and Tampon Tim.
Choice is great and choice makes thinks efficient and cheaper. And the efficiency is determined by distance, choice, transportation mode.
For commuting:
- under 1 mile: walking (transportation and exercise)
- 1-3 miles: regular bicycle in flat area is fine (transportation and exercise)
- 1-10 miles: Pedal electric bicycle (pedelec) (transportation and exercise)
- 1-30 miles: automobile (transportation and podcasts), but need extra time to exercise.
- after that a solid train, high speed rail, etc. (transportation and working)
[ of course all these numbers can vary depending on the actual setup of a city ]
Nobody commutes on a daily basis to LA by car - people usually take the plane.
All these modes of transportation can be made useful, convenient and efficient.
The fact that "Active Transportation" also provides the daily recommended activity level makes walking and biking way more efficient than driving.
There is a whole wiki page of nicknames the king of nicknames used :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump
Or as they say "the nickname fish stinks from the head."
eGerd – Tbot here… We’ve gone over this before… You’ve restricted your “efficiency” to a daily commute whereas I’m talking about convenience and efficiency for daily life. You say nobody commutes on a daily basis to LA by car and they take a plane. Yes, because it’s most convenient and efficient. It’s not like there’s high speed rail to get there from here. (And it’s likely that will never happen in our lifetime.) BTW, ICYMI, Chevy has bragging rights as the winner in the Daytona 500.
As for nicknames, thanks for the link. You say “the nickname fish stinks from the head” so does that mean the folks who nicknamed everyone listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_with_nicknames are nickname fish that stink from the head? Perhaps you’re not of the opinion that nicknames are a form of endearment, which is why I refer to you as eGerd. Also nicknames are better when they’re indicative of the person they’re describing, such as the ones Trump has assigned, as detailed in your linked Wiki page.
Alright, fair enough, we don't have to talk commute anymore.
How about this situation. I want to go to a game of the SF Giants or SF 49ers.
- Car: sitting in traffic, waiting to get into the parking lot, paying $40 or more for parking, waiting another 1h after the game to get out again.
- Train: both stadiums are reachable with $10-$20 from various locations using Caltrain, Muni, VTA, etc. There might be some waiting for the next empty train.
- Bicycle: roll right up to the stadium. Maybe a donation for the bike valet. No sitting in traffic before or after, done.
A very simple and cheap network of bike lanes throughout the city (like SF is building right now) and biking becomes automatically the most convenient form of transportation for a majority of people.
It's the healthiest, the most equitable, often the fastest, congestion free, and most affordable form of transportation. What is more convenient than NOT sitting in traffic, NOT searching for parking, NOT sitting in the very polluted inside of a car (you didn't think about that part).
They only have one major side effect - fewer people driving means driving and finding parking becomes more convenient for the people that absolutely need to drive (e.g. mail, package deliver, cargo, Emergency Responders, garbage trucks, contractors, etc.). Some would say that is another very convenient thing bike lanes can do.
eGerd – TBot here. If you’re going to cherry-pick a situation… Imagine you need to stock up groceries for your family. In addition to food, you need a case of sports drinks/water.
- Car: drive to Costco from whatever distance, park for free, buy your groceries (all on the list), pack them in your car, and drive home.
- Train: walk to train station, take train to somewhere near Costco, walk to Costco, buy a few bags of groceries and possible sports drinks/water if you tote a wheeled carrier. Walk back to train station, take train, walk home. Rinse and repeat until you have all the groceries you wanted.
- Bicycle: bike to Costco, park for free, buy a subset of groceries and likely no sports drinks/water during this trip, bike home. Rinse and repeat until you can buy all the groceries you wanted. Although the case of sports drink/water may be dangerous to bike home.
Driving is the most convenient and most efficient form of transportation. A side effect (and a good one…), with all that time saved they can go biking or walking or spend family time instead of spending hours to buy groceries, while potentially still missing out on the case of sports drinks/water.
Btw. Humboldt residents do like the bike lanes and anyone disliking them is allowed to own and operate one car for their daily trip to Costco and Ikea. That however doesn't explain the other three cars to get to Starbucks or the gym.
But suddenly we have the solution for all of this: DIVERSITY and Choice in our Transportation Options
- driving lanes for those who find that most convenient and with too much money to spend
- bike lanes for those who find that most convenient and as the best affordable, high-density mode of transportation
- sidewalks for those who find that most convenient while e.g. walking with their dog
- bus lanes for large streets so public transit isn't stuck in the "convenience congestion" of private vehicles.
These are all great examples of ways to separate transportation modes.
But never, ever is replacing "private car storage" with transportation lanes regarded a "injustice for these poor people owning 3 and more cars". If you need more cars, make sure you have a way to store it. That is not the government's job - that is the worst form of car-socialism.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.