From pmorton at lmi.net Sun Sep 20 15:15:08 2009 From: pmorton at lmi.net (Phil Morton) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:15:08 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] FW: Embarcadero Bike Station transitions to BikeLink access Message-ID: <704FF89D-8241-4B32-802E-280C6FA1961A@lmi.net> -----Original Message----- From: yohjoe at gmail.com [mailto:yohjoe at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gene Oh Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:02 PM To: David Swift Cc: info at sfbike.org Subject: Re: Embarcadero Bike Station transitions to BikeLink access hey david, thanks for your letter. it's concerned and active citizens like you that help acheive things for bike advocacy! i can assure you that the access coordinator at bart (laura) is also an ally and hard-working at improving cycling access to bart. it is indeed tough moving such a large outfit! i can assure you that myself, bikelink folks (elock), and our laura at bart have spent countless hours to make this work as well as it can. the unfortunate truth is that we had to cut costs and increase revenue to make this work - even with bart doling out many thousands of dollars in subsidy. bart isn't trying to operate bike stations in the black by any means, but their budget is limited and has the potential to be cut further each year. allow me to answer some of your concerns: 1 - (you'll spend over $120 annually) the average heavy user (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year) pays $60 annually (2000 hours x 3 cents). not too bad compared to other countries - brazil, european nations, japan. given that national funding to bart is drying up (even though more was promised!), we need to find ways to raise funds ourselves to create more stations = mass adoption. 2 - (can't get repairs anymore) we actually spent over $1000 to setup a repair station and even trained our staff on repairs, and had exactly $12 in sales for 2 months before we shelved the idea. still, we're looking into creating a vending system for most sought after parts like tubes as well as an emergency & scheduled repair system to supplement embarcadero. more info to come for sure! 3 - (bike held hostage if you go on vacation) if you coordinate with us about your vacations (once or twice a year) via email, i'll gladly ensure you can keep your bike there for a couple of weeks. but not having this policy of 10 day max means only a few users could clog up the spaces. 4 - (being charged for time not spent) on the contrary, we actually created a system so users pay as they go. regarding non-commute hours (8 pm - 8 am), it's only 1 cent an hour, so being charged for the 3 or so hours that bart is closed = 3 cents. 5 & 6 - (you have to carry extra card and reload) yes, you have to carry an extra card and manually re-load. this is a bummer. but we find that elock provides the best convenience for our clients - given it's the same technology with bike lockers and hopefully will be the same technology for translink (if it ever gets going). we can keep credit card info and automatically re-load, but thought most people would feel creepy about it. 7 - (no more security than before) definitely more security. definitely! with each member, a credit card & id is checked to ensure double security. and digital cameras provide live feed to bikelink headquarters, and any suspicious activity alerts both bikelink folks and us. presently, keys are handed out with no idea who has a key, who it is going in and out, etc. i hope you understand that ourselves, elock (makers of bikelink), and bart really are trying their best to create more bike stations that can be sustainable for the long-term. funding, though, is the tricky thing. and promised funds from the national and state level are seemingly taken away even after being promised. if you want to help solve this, please continue speaking out. sf bike coalition and east bay bike coalition are great groups to join - they keep us commuters informed about funding sources and promises reneged by politicians. thanks again, and i hope i answered your questions in a satisfactory manner. if not, feel free to reply and i'll be sure to help out as best i can. sincerely - gene oh alameda bicycle On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:08 AM, David Swift wrote: Hi Gene, So, the upshot of all the delay and such is that: 1) I am going to be charged around $25 more per year to park my bike (previously was $100, new charge will be about $125) 2) No services are going to be available at the Embarcadero, for instance tube purchases 3) If I leave on vacation for any length of time, I have to bring my bike home, otherwise it gets held hostage. 4) I am being charged for time that I do not have access to my bike, as that station is not open 24 hours a day 5) I have to carry an additional card to my BART card 6) I have to manually reload my card 7) No real improvements in security All of this, for no additional security, no decent place to change or wash up, and the same dust and dirt that coat my bike every day. While I see a small advantage to using the bike lockers, I see no advantage in this for bikestation users at the embarcadero station. This is certainly not the way to increase usage of bikes for those of us that travel from the East Bay into the City. I would find it hard to recommend this program to anyone. I see lots of hand-waving political advantage for BART, but they have really not solved any of the problems with that station. While I realize that most of this is probably not within your control, I hope the SF Bike Coalition has some good words for the BART drones. Sincerely, David Swift Alameda Bicycle - Gene Oh wrote: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Alameda Bicycle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alameda Bicycle Newsletter Newsletter Subtitle Month Year ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear David, Effective Monday, October 12, valet service will cease at Embarcadero Bike Station. Key entry will also cease on the Friday prior, October 9. We are transitioning Embarcadero Bike Station to a non-supervised access code station, utilizing BikeLinkT. This is the same system used for bike lockers at BART, ferry terminals, train stations, and many cities across the state. This will allow many of you the ability to use the station during non-supervised hours. NOTE: Existing BikeLinkT card holders will need to get an additional access code to use Embarcadero Bike Station. Effective immediately, you can purchase a BikeLinkT card w/access OR get an access code for existing BikeLinkT cards from the following locations: Embarcadero Bike Station until October 2 (M-F 7:30 am - 9:30 am & 3:30 pm - 7:30 pm) Fruitvale Bike Station (M-F 6:00 am - 8:00 pm) Berkeley Bike Station (M-F 7:00 am - 9:00 pm) Alameda Bicycle (M-S 10:00 am - 6:30 pm, Sun 12:00 pm - 5:00 pm). What are the costs? Parking costs only 3 cents per hour from 8 am - 8 pm, and only 1 cent per hour at all other times. The cost for a BikeLinkT card is $25 (including $5 charge for Access Code), with $20 pre-loaded on the card for use at Embarcadero and lockers throughout the state. See www.BikeLink.org for locations. What's the process for signing up? You need a valid driver's license or passport AND credit card or debit card with Visa / MC for payment. The reason for this is more security - we verify the mailing address of your card statements in addition to photo ID to ensure extra safety for Embarcadero Bike Station users. Simply stop by one of the above locations. A staff member will call the 24-hour BikeLinkT support line (888-540-0546) and will go step-by-step to register you. It's that simple, and access is immediate. Then place two stickers with numbers facing front and back on the top of your bike's seat tube. The seat tube is the part of the frame where your seat post goes into. If you use multiple bikes, simply call (888-540-0546) or email (support at BikeLink.org), and additional stickers will be provided to you. In the meantime, you can use attached hang tags at Embarcadero Bike Station and write in your BikeLinkT card numberonto your other bikes. How do I use the system? You must use your BikeLinkT card to check-in and check-out. Entering the cage without signing-in will throw off parking records and may result in a fine (see below). Place your BikeLinkT card in the reader - do not remove card until prompted to do so. Close the door behind you and do not allow access to anyone behind you - everyone must use their card. An alarm will sound and our staff will be notified if the door remains open longer than 10 seconds. You have ten minutes to remain in the station. We hope this provides ample time to lock and inspect your bike, report any issues, change clothes, etc. When can I begin using my BikeLinkT card? Immediately. However, and this is VERY IMPORTANT, you must check-in and check-out using your card. During the transition period, we will continue valet services. If you check-in during valet service without using your card (which will make your stay free), you must also check-out during valet service. Otherwise, when you check-out using the card, the system will think you are checking-in! Other questions Access hours: Embarcadero Bike Station is available whenever Embarcadero BART Station is open. Currently, the Station closes 2 am - 5 am. Add value to card: Call 888-540-0546, or go to www.BikeLink.org and click "add value to card". Lost card: Because the value is stored in the card, a lost card equals lost money. You will have to purchase a new card. Call the 888-540-0546 immediately to ensure the card no longer has access to Embarcadero Bike Station. Friends' access: We understand that once and a while you may have a friend or two who is not yet a card holder that needs to park their bike alongside yours. Limited access for up to two friends' bikes at a time will be allowed on a trial basis of 6 months. You as the card holder will need to call the 888-540-0546 for authorization and will be instructed on how to tag the bikes for temporary parking. You will not be charged extra for this, but are responsible for your friends' behavior. After the trial basis, we will consider making this a permanent benefit to users. Mis-use: The security and financial viability of Embarcadero Bike Station is dependent upon each person checking-in and checking-out upon entering the station. Therefore, please do your part and do not allow entry to others, even regular users. Our hotline is available to help those that have card errors or lost cards. To ensure that the rules are being followed by all, we will perform random, routine checks. Unauthorized bikes will be locked and bike owners will be charged a $25 site visit unlock fee. This applies to both non-members who park their bikes and members who "fee dodge" - slip in the cage without signing-in, then signing-in and out when they retrieve their bike. Long-term parking: Embarcadero Bike Station allows you to park your bicycle up to 10 days in a row. After that, your bicycle and card may be locked and you may be charged a $25 site visit unlock fee. Thank you all for your continued use and support of bicycle commuting. I am here to personally answer any questions you may have during and after the transition period. Sincerely, Gene Oh President, Alameda Bicycle 510-522-0070 x3 gene at alamedabicycle.com Forward email Safe Unsubscribe This email was sent to dswift at tdl.com by gene at alamedabicycle.com. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe T | Privacy Policy . Email Marketing by Alameda Bicycle | 1522 Park Street | Alameda | CA | 94501 -- Gene Oh, President Alameda Bicycle 510-522-0070 x3 (office) 510-205-3006 (mobile) gene at alamedabicycle.com _______________________________________________ Ebbc-Talk mailing list Ebbc-Talk at lists.ebbc.org http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org From pmorton at lmi.net Sun Sep 20 19:24:57 2009 From: pmorton at lmi.net (Phil Morton) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:24:57 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] BFBC Talk change of address Message-ID: <56ED3CEF-AF4B-4D34-BE66-C7B2B21DDCD8@lmi.net> As part of our housekeeping, I am deleting the bfbc-talk at bfbc2.org list. You are all subscribed to bfbc-talk at mailman.lmi.net. The bfbc-talk at bfbc2.org mail archives are available and I plan to add them to the archives at mailman.lmi.net -phil From siegel at preservenet.com Tue Sep 22 12:07:56 2009 From: siegel at preservenet.com (Charles Siegel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:07:56 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting In-Reply-To: <107466.58781.qm@web110406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I hope the reauthorization of TEA next year provides enough money for transit to support lots of light-rail projects. Light rail attracts more people than BRT, because the ride is more comfortable, with less noise and fewer vibrations. Yes, it is less cost-effective in terms of capital cost and in some cases in terms of operating cost, but it is higher quality ride, which is what we need to get more people to consider transit their best transportation option. I am hoping for enough federal money that we don't have to be so parsimonious in our transit spending as we are now. And I am sure that the people who oppose BRT on Telegraph because it is near BART will all support exclusive lanes on other streets that are not near BART, such as San Pablo. -----Original Message----- From: bfbc-talk-bounces at bfbc2.org [mailto:bfbc-talk-bounces at bfbc2.org]On Behalf Of Eric McCaughrin Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:15 AM To: ebbc-talk at lists.ebbc.org; bfbc-talk at bfbc2.org Subject: Re: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Jym Dyer wrote: > =v= BRT gained most of its ground during the last Presidential > Administration, which was basically working for the oil > industry and cut off rail funding, because rail consumes less oil. BRT funding comes mainly from RM2 (bridge toll), which is not controlled by the any Presidentail administration. Moreover, RM2 is being used to fund some rather wasteful rail projects. In terms of bus vs. rail operating costs, let's look at Muni: Operating expense per passenger mile Bus: $1.01 Light Rail: $1.16 Trolleybus: $1.24 Operating expense per vehicle revenue hour Bus: $145.44 Light Rail: $216.08 Trolleybus: $130.88 So while LRT might use less oil, that doesn't help AC Transit budget. And BRT can always electrify later, should trolleybus become economically viable. Oh, and there is extreme capital cost of LRT construction to consider (Muni and VTA LRT construction is more than $50m/mile). [In general, I would agree streetcar is best solution for the corridor -- if it were not for excessive regulation by CPUC and embarassing inexperience seen in all Bay Area rail projects.] _______________________________________________ Bfbc-talk mailing list Bfbc-talk at bfbc2.org https://mail63.csoft.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk From siegel at preservenet.com Tue Sep 22 13:45:13 2009 From: siegel at preservenet.com (Charles Siegel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:45:13 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting Message-ID: That is an important issue for BFBC and bicyclists to address during the EIR Process. The point of the EIR process is to identify impacts that need to be mitigated. We should be asking for mitigations of spill-over traffic on streets parallel streets that are used for bicycling. If AC Transit pays for traffic calming or barriers on these streets, they could be safer for bycycling than they are now. Of course, it will be easier to bike on Telegraph Ave. with BRT. Now, you have to play tag with the buses: I often pass a bus while it is at a stop, then it passes on its way to the next stop, and it cuts me off when it pulls into the next stop. This can happen over and over again. There will be no conflict once buses are in the center lane. Those are the issues we should be discussing on a bicycling list. It amazes me that people keep on repeating the same points that have been refuted over and over again, such as the claim that BRT is not needed because it is near BART, when studies have shown clearly that BRT and BART appeal to two different markets - shorter trips and longer trips. But that is not an issue for a bicycling list. Quoting Roger Marquis : > > Spending billions on a light rail line that's never farther than a > > mile from a BART station would be an even bigger waste of money than > > spending $325 million on BRT. > > This is just one of the many ill conceived aspects of BRT, most of which > are spelled out in detail in the EIR. When a agency ignores such basic > design principles, and dismisses its own EIR, you know the real issue isn't > transit. As per typical with an agency like AC Transit that has so little > public transparency, the real issue is money. There will be good money > made on BRT, at the expense of taxpayers, drivers, bus riders, and > bicyclists. > > Since this is a cycling list we should be aware of BRT's impact on > bicycling, and from that perspective BRT is as bad as it gets. If you > think many of our side streets host a lot of cut-through traffic now you > will be amazed at how little it seemed like in retrospect. Increased > traffic is just one of the negative impacts cyclists will have to deal with > should BRT be implemented. > > Roger Marquis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2868 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.lmi.net/pipermail/bfbc-talk/attachments/20090922/99d6f853/attachment.bin From dcampbel at lmi.net Tue Sep 22 14:26:53 2009 From: dcampbel at lmi.net (Dave Campbell) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:26:53 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Everyone, BFBC is reviewing the Staff Report on the LPA of Bus Rapid Transit and developing a list of issues, points, and concerns to share with staff in the upcoming weeks and at the Oct 17 public meeting. The staff report looks promising in many areas, but there are still concerns about making bike access and safety continuous along Telegraph and the entire BRT line. Please keep sharing your bicycle-related thoughts, ideas and concerns as we refine our priorities and prepare to discuss the project with city staff and staff at AC Transit staff. BRT is not a project of the bicycle coalition, but we intend to see that it is a bike-friendly project. And of course we support improved transit on Telegraph Avenue. Thanks. Dave Campbell President Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition 510-701-5971 BFBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit bicycle advocacy organization working to make Berkeley a more bikeable and more livable city. Your membership and support make us stronger and more effective. To join, go to our website at www.bfbc.org or stop by the Bikestation at downtown Berkeley BART to sign up. Thanks for your support! On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Charles Siegel wrote: That is an important issue for BFBC and bicyclists to address during the EIR Process. The point of the EIR process is to identify impacts that need to be mitigated. We should be asking for mitigations of spill-over traffic on streets parallel streets that are used for bicycling. If AC Transit pays for traffic calming or barriers on these streets, they could be safer for bycycling than they are now. Of course, it will be easier to bike on Telegraph Ave. with BRT. Now, you have to play tag with the buses: I often pass a bus while it is at a stop, then it passes on its way to the next stop, and it cuts me off when it pulls into the next stop. This can happen over and over again. There will be no conflict once buses are in the center lane. Those are the issues we should be discussing on a bicycling list. It amazes me that people keep on repeating the same points that have been refuted over and over again, such as the claim that BRT is not needed because it is near BART, when studies have shown clearly that BRT and BART appeal to two different markets - shorter trips and longer trips. But that is not an issue for a bicycling list. Quoting Roger Marquis : >> Spending billions on a light rail line that's never farther than a >> mile from a BART station would be an even bigger waste of money than >> spending $325 million on BRT. > > This is just one of the many ill conceived aspects of BRT, most of > which > are spelled out in detail in the EIR. When a agency ignores such > basic > design principles, and dismisses its own EIR, you know the real issue isn't > transit. As per typical with an agency like AC Transit that has so > little > public transparency, the real issue is money. There will be good > money > made on BRT, at the expense of taxpayers, drivers, bus riders, and > bicyclists. > > Since this is a cycling list we should be aware of BRT's impact on > bicycling, and from that perspective BRT is as bad as it gets. If you > think many of our side streets host a lot of cut-through traffic now > you > will be amazed at how little it seemed like in retrospect. Increased > traffic is just one of the negative impacts cyclists will have to deal with > should BRT be implemented. > > Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ Bfbc-talk mailing list Bfbc-talk at mailman.lmi.net http://mailman.lmi.net/mailman/listinfo/bfbc-talk From marquis at roble.com Tue Sep 22 14:32:19 2009 From: marquis at roble.com (Roger Marquis) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090922213219.B59512B210E@mx5.roble.com> > We should be asking for mitigations of spill-over traffic on > streets parallel streets that are used for bicycling. If AC > Transit pays for traffic calming or barriers on these streets, > they could be safer for bycycling than they are now. I suppose we could ask, but we all know the response would be 'there is a moratorium on traffic barriers in Berkeley'. > Of course, it will be easier to bike on Telegraph Ave. with BRT. Now, you > have to play tag with the buses: I often pass a bus while it is at a stop, > then it passes on its way to the next stop, and it cuts me off when it pulls > into the next stop. This assumes there will be at least as much room to cycle to the right of the (outside) auto lane as there is now. It is not an assumption that is supported in the EIR. Given the supersized busses AC Transit purchases, and the width of dedicated lanes plus passenger waiting/loading areas. Not sure what cyclist would give up roadway in exchange for avoiding being cut-off by the occasional aggressive bus driver (who, it should be noted, AC Transit does nothing to discipline, even when they hit cyclists and are successfully sued for damages). Perhaps we could also ask for Europan or Asian width busses and trollys. There too I think we know what the answer would be, and we know because the project is being driven not for transit, but for profit. > It amazes me that people keep on repeating the same points that have been > refuted over and over again, such as the claim that BRT is not needed > because it is near BART, when studies have shown clearly that BRT and BART > appeal to two different markets - shorter trips and longer trips. But that > is not an issue for a bicycling list. It amazes me that transit systems here compete, instead of complement, each other. In other first-world countries bus lines radiate out from train stops. Roger Marquis From siegel at preservenet.com Tue Sep 22 19:14:24 2009 From: siegel at preservenet.com (Charles Siegel) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:14:24 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] One More BRT Bike-Related Issue Message-ID: If the staff's LPA is adopted, we should make Dana two-way to make it good bike connection to campus. It is currently one of the most dangerous bike routes, because people bike against traffic (and the bike lane is on the left side of the street, a confusing location). Currently Telegraph is two lanes northbound and Dana is two lanes southbound, so there are an equal number of lanes each way on the two streets combined. With the staff's LPA, Telegraph will have one mixed traffic lane southbound. If Dana remains as is, the two streets combined would have three lanes southbound and none northbound. To get the number of northbound and southbound lanes closer to an equal balance, it would make sense to make Dana two-way, with the concomitant benefits for bikes. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1896 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.lmi.net/pipermail/bfbc-talk/attachments/20090922/1478efe0/attachment.bin From emccaughrin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 23 21:37:14 2009 From: emccaughrin at yahoo.com (Eric McCaughrin) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting Message-ID: <613103.56533.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Roger Marquis wrote: > > > Of course, it will be easier to bike on Telegraph Ave. > > with BRT.? Now, you have to play tag with the buses: > > This assumes there will be at least as much room to cycle > to the right of the (outside) auto lane as there is now.? > It is not an assumption that is supported in the EIR.? The EIR specifies Class II bike lanes almost along most of of Telegraph. That is significant improvement in bike space over what exists now. > Given the supersized busses AC Transit purchases, and the width of > dedicated lanes plus passenger waiting/loading areas.? Where platforms would be located, parking is also proposed to be removed. I don't see how that would result in reduction of available bike space. From marquis at roble.com Wed Sep 23 22:15:46 2009 From: marquis at roble.com (Roger Marquis) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting In-Reply-To: <613103.56533.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <613103.56533.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090924051546.41C2E2B2163@mx5.roble.com> >> This assumes there will be at least as much room to cycle to >> the right of the (outside) auto lane as there is now. It is not >> an assumption that is supported in the EIR. > > The EIR specifies Class II bike lanes almost along most of of > Telegraph. That is significant improvement in bike space over > what exists now. Most of Telegraph in Berkeley has bike lanes now. Given the need for turn lanes, generally at the same location as passenger boarding areas, it is unlikely that any Berkeley section of Telegraph would be get new bike lanes. Whether or not Oakland would implement bike lanes is anyone's guess. Since they have not to-date, and EIRs don't require them to, I'd be surprised if the did (along Telegraph, or any other section redeveloped by BRT). > Where platforms would be located, parking is also proposed to be > removed. I don't see how that would result in reduction of > available bike space. Let's hope you're right, but knowing there will be pedestrian groups clamoring for bulb-outs to get safely across the traffic lane/s, at every boarding area, I'd wager the chances of any net gain for cyclists are slim to none. Roger Marquis From siegel at preservenet.com Thu Sep 24 11:20:43 2009 From: siegel at preservenet.com (Charles Siegel) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:20:43 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting Message-ID: That's the big problem with Berkeley politics: meetings are always jammed up by all those blasted pedestrian activists demanding more bulb-outs. That's why we have such safe conditions for pedestrians here (eg, at University and Shattuck, where two people I know were hit by cars while crossing). If those imaginary pedestrian groups really existed, I think we would have already seen them at BRT meetings - not only clamoring for bulb-outs but also supporting BRT with dedicated lanes, since shifting from four traffic lanes to two will make it much easier and safer for pedestrians to cross Telegraph. Quoting Roger Marquis : > > Let's hope you're right, but knowing there will be pedestrian groups > clamoring for bulb-outs to get safely across the traffic lane/s, at every > boarding area, I'd wager the chances of any net gain for cyclists are slim > to none. > > Roger Marquis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2104 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.lmi.net/pipermail/bfbc-talk/attachments/20090924/93631a0e/attachment.bin From marquis at roble.com Thu Sep 24 13:10:27 2009 From: marquis at roble.com (Roger Marquis) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bfbc-talk] [Ebbc-Talk] Berkeley BRT Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090924201027.699352B208F@mx5.roble.com> > If those imaginary pedestrian groups really existed, I think we would have > already seen them at BRT meetings I don't know if you've used transit systems with mid-street boarding but it is a different dynamic than crossing an ordinary intersection, particularly on busy streets. It is more difficult for all traffic types, pedestrian, motorist and bicyclist. It's particularly difficult when motorists are unfamiliar with the layout and the laws. If AC Transit succeeds in creating BRT routes I think we will all be surprised by the backlash, from motorist and pedestrian groups. Roger Marquis From pmorton at lmi.net Mon Sep 28 00:32:20 2009 From: pmorton at lmi.net (Phil Morton) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:32:20 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] UK to add more bicycle parking at stations Message-ID: <794AAC6B-6A0A-430E-9A06-DBA25A4C914A@lmi.net> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6851682.ece From pmorton at lmi.net Tue Sep 29 08:08:40 2009 From: pmorton at lmi.net (Phil Morton) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:08:40 -0700 Subject: [Bfbc-talk] From Parade Magazine References: <20090929145118.GA30204@abriz.net> Message-ID: thanks to Mark Abrahams for posting this to Grizzly Peak Cyclists. Begin forwarded message: > From: Mark Abrahams > > PS. Mainstream media (Parade Magazine, that nationally-circulated > throwaway Sunday paper insert) recently wrote about bicycling as a > middle-America transportation mode: > > http://www.parade.com/news/2009/09/27-a-free-wheeling-city.html > > it always surprises and pleases me to see such coverage in our > car-loving media. > > Mark