Speaking of Noe Valley, the letter to residents from the Planning Department’s Andres Power last week with respect to a proposed Noe Street Plaza:
Dear Noe Valleyans,
As we have mentioned previously, the intent of Pavement to Parks projects is to unite the community around trial public space improvements. The Noe Street Plaza has been quite a contentious proposal, much more so than any other Pavement to Parks project to date. Many in the community have advocated very strongly for a trial to proceed while many others feel uncomfortable with any type of trial street closure. There have been petitions for and petitions against the Noe Valley proposal. Both drives have secured hundreds of signatures.
We believed that with civil discourse and debate we could all eventually come together around a common proposal for Noe Valley. As most of you will probably agree, a consensus has been very difficult to attain.
While not an alternative to or part of Pavement to Parks, one of the ideas generated at an early community meeting – a public space at the Noe Valley Ministry parking lot – is now being discussed further and we are pleased to see this important conversation moving forward independent of Pavement to Parks.
We are excited to report that of all the different ideas talked about over the past few months, Parklets on 24th Street have gained the most support in Noe Valley (a survey at the June 30th workshop, for example, demonstrated 3 to 1 support for this proposal). Parklets do not affect traffic circulation and instead use two parking spaces to build out a deck for landscaping, tables and chairs, and other pedestrian elements (see sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org for images of Parklets in other parts of town). If all goes to plan, we would like to add two Parklets along 24th Street this Fall. We will be working with the merchant community to identify the most suitable locations but it is important to note that these spaces will be open and free to use by anyone. As in all Pavement to Parks projects, these Parklets will be trial and closely monitored for success. If they do not work out, they will be removed.
I would like to personally thank everyone for being so patient and for contributing to an important and productive community dialogue. As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
In other words, the Noe Street Plaza project is DOA and parklets are now the plan. At the same time, the Noe Valley open space initiative continues to move forward (as far as we know).
I was quite angry when I saw the video of the NIMBY shouting and disrupting the last community meeting. I was fuming at official’s respond that they need a consensus to go forward. Consensus from a mob that clearly to not want to listen from other people?? I was chilled to think this will set the precedent for the naysayers on how to conduct their “vocal” opposition.
Today I look back at the debacle and I see it more clearly. The sticking point is the closing of a traffic street. In the case of Castro or Potrero trial, the streets closed are clearly unnecessary tributary. Taking it off actually simplifier the road for drivers. In the case of Noe Valley it is a part of the regular grid. For follower of the park to pavement this is no big deal or at least doable. But to other people this maybe a unacceptable. We don’t have much precedent to draw a reference to. That’s why official emphasis for consensus.
The good thing is the parklet on 24th idea gets general acceptance. Its scale maybe much smaller than a street plaza. But to take things in perspective, a few years ago such idea could have provoked strong opposition. People may complain removing parking destroy business etc. So I do thing people’s idea have moved forward, albeit in a smaller step. Hopefully this is just the beginning and we will continue to see other experimentations and changes.
I loved how the above design still has a drawing for a stop sign that faces the plaza. I guess they were hoping that if someone horrible driver plows through the plaza that they will at least stop at the intersection?
There is a real issue here that both advocates and critics are missing. This proposal would simplify the street grid by removing a connection between two intersections. It is the interconnected street grid that makes older, denser cities safer: http://www.newurbannews.com/14.1/janfeb09key.html
They should go all the way into the alignment of the curb on 24th street. That will make things simple for some of the elderly who are sometimes on auto-pilot (proven by the Santa Monica incident from a few years ago).
The image doesn’t look like a very nice plaza, does it? For one thing, it’s right next to a busy street with moving traffic. It seems that the designers have never visited a real plaza.
One thing that would have made it better would have been to take over an intersection. Then, you could stop traffic for one block in each direction. That would have made a more pleasant space.
The 17th Street Plaza in the Castro is a godsend. Actually, I wish the entire section of the Castro from Market to 19th was a European style pedestrian plaza. We just don’t seem to get it here. Noe Valley should go for their plaza idea to provide more car free open space.
I’d love to see more streets closed to traffic and more intersections turned into plazas. At the same time, this would seem to go hand in hand with the creation of more public garages.
Is there a concern that these plazas could become homeless magnets, a la Civic Center plaza?
What is it about cars that have half the population of SF going to such lengths to try to remove? “European style pedestrian plazas” ARE “homeless magnets, a la Civic Center.” Cars are transportation vechicles that allow people freedom of mobility. IF someone in the Marina wants to shop at ECHO Furniture on 24th, they can sit on MUNI for 80 minutes, or drive their car in 10 and buy that side table, load it in the car, get some coffee, and drive back home.
“I wish the entire section of the Castro from Market to 19th was a European style pedestrian plaza”. Read “Delirious New York” by Rem Koolhaas and learn that urbanity is congestion. cars, people, noise, and crowds are part of city life. Quiet town squares without cars and dogs sleeping and children playing soccer in the center is called RURAL LIFE. I want Michigan Avenue which has crowds, cars, noise, street performers, squares and plazas all coexisting in high density. I think the car hatred of many is actually a hatred of city life. Bolinas and Point Reyes have plenty of homes for sale right now.
@LetThemPark:..actually, you bring up some very good points for conversation..and controversy. I tend to agree with you.
While I don’t think all plazas are homeless magnets, some are. some are not.
But you are right. Cars, vehicles are an essential component of urban living, and are much needed and used by many people. Try buying that table at Echo and then hauling it back on your bike. Just won’t work. And Citycarshares is not as convenient as some may lead us to believe.
Bikes have their place in the city, for SOME people. A lot of cyclists simply go too far by insisting we all live like them and ride a bike everywhere. Their creed: “Live like me, cause it’s best for you.”..
People forget that these wonderful European plazas we find in Italy or Spain or France were created hundreds of years ago, and were well integrated into the street patterns and circulation routes from their very beginning. They are also an essential part of European culture..we are not them.
Yes, some plazas could work here, in some locations, but not without careful study and analysis dealing with issues of car and bus routes, parking, delivery and, of course, cost. Those who advocate “closing streets” with just the sweep of their hand, really have no idea what it takes to really make that work.
We are not talking about forbidding cars in the whole of SF, not even NV, just to reclaim one tiny stretch of a block over thousands that SF has reserved to cars. A few pedestrian streets are badly needed in SF.
LOL, agreed that nobody is talking about banning vehicles, but banning cars from a couple of blocks does not create the urban utopia some would wish for. The problem in this city are the sidewalks not the cars. Most of the sidewalks on retail streets like 24th are too narrow, without proper planting, seating, and paving. Where are the planters with seasonal displays, the large shade trees, comfortable benches and cafe seating? If our pedestrian spaces had some of these urban features, hatred of cars would be the last thing on any pedestrian’s mind.
“Cars, vehicles are an essential component of urban living…”
[sarcasm] Yes, thanks for the reminder that cities did not exist before the advent of the automobile. Once Ford cranked up the assembly line, cities began to pop into existence. Never mind the conspiracy theories that there were beautiful, vibrant, interesting cities before the automobile hit the roads. Face it, cars have created everything that is good and wholesome in the world. And oh yeah, nobody shopped for furniture before the day of the automobile either. [/sarcasm]
There’s no dispute that cars make things easier for the driver. When you can switch 200 horses on and off with a key you’ve got an amazingly powerful resource at your fingertips. So the driver is happy, but what about the people outside of the metal cage ?
The problem isn’t use of cars but rather overuse. In a congested city we need to decide how to allocate space and cars consume a huge share these days. And then there are negative effects of noise, pollution, personal danger, etc. to consider. We Americans probably burn more fuel just dropping off videos than some developing nations use to run all of their farms.
Their (cyclists) creed: “Live like me, cause it’s best for you.”..’
I’ve talked with dozens of bicycling advocates and haven’t ever heard of this so called creed. Most cyclists I know are also part-time drivers. I’m sure you can find a neo-Luddite anarcho-cyclist who can spout some stupid ideas but talk to a few mainstream cyclists and you might find that they’re reasonable people who don’t want to force a lifestyle. Many cyclists would like the subsidies to be shifted though.
“Those who advocate “closing streets” with just the sweep of their hand, really have no idea what it takes to really make that work.”
And here we totally agree. Monkeying around with street circulation patterns requires careful design and engineering to avoid pitfalls. I just wish that similar care would be taken to design changes that negatively impact pedestrians (ex : crosswalk removals) and cyclists (ex: dedicated high-radius, high speed right turn exit lanes). Sadly however these “improvements” speed up traffic at the expense of other street users, often making streets so difficult or unsafe that people abandon low impact transportation and switch over to driving, even for short distances.
I think that a lot of people have hoodwinked themselves into feeling that they “need” to drive when the truth is that it is just plain easier to drive. And when cities subsidize such a rich automobile infrastructure driving seems a lot cheaper than it really is.
ok, milkshake: Thanks for the bit of sarcasm. Cute. So what?
I get that you perhaps don’t like cars..ah..I mean “metal cages”. ok, your choice.
But this is hardly a congested city. Maybe NY is..Maybe London is..But even in London, cars exist, alongside people, buses, vans, cabs, bikes, etc. Yes, London does charge a hefty fee to drive into the city center during certain hours. Works for them.
But I’ve been to London several times. It works. It’s a great city. It’s a great city to walk around in also. Cars, people and bikes all co-exist there. and they can do that too, here.
“People forget that these wonderful European plazas we find in Italy or Spain or France were created hundreds of years ago, and were well integrated into the street patterns and circulation routes from their very beginning. They are also an essential part of European culture..we are not them.”
Many plazas in Europe were constructed hundreds of years ago, but streets all over Europe have been pedestrianized in the last thirty years. Take a look at Jan Gehl’s series of books on urban placemaking. When they started to pedestrianize streets in Copenhagen, people said “But we’re not Italian; Italian’s sit in streets we don’t.” Guess what, they do now, even in winter.
London and New York don’t have to waste time, energy and money transcending Nat Ford.
@Jim^^
It would be nice to be Copenhagen or Rome, but if you were a retail owner on 24th, would you be ready to pedestrianize the street? Why go from one extreme (poor sidewalks with little space and comfort) to another ((no cars, bus, trolley, service or bike traffic)?
Our grid structure allows for redundancy. One block closed for traffic will not change much. Even 2-3 blocks wouldn’t be a big deal.
Even 2-3 blocks wouldn’t be a big deal.
Sorry man, but I’m pretty sure you don’t live or spend time in NV. It’s the Pleasanton of SF and people drive for everything.
@LetThemPark
“The problem in this city are the sidewalks not the cars. Most of the sidewalks on retail streets like 24th are too narrow, without proper planting, seating, and paving. Where are the planters with seasonal displays, the large shade trees, comfortable benches and cafe seating?”
I love your thinking — wider sidewalks on 24th Street would be great. Are you proposing to take out a lane of parking or a lane of traffic to make it happen?
“Cars, vehicles are an essential component of urban living”
You mean YOUR urban living. And that’s the sticking point. Motorists have to stop thinking they are automatically entitled to dominating the public realm. The windshield perspective is a biased one indeed. It is incredible what motorists get away with in this city, be it the sidewalk parking or parking in bike lanes or the speeding or the not letting through emergency vehicles or….
It’s okay. I agree with people like James Howard Kunstler who say that as cars become increasingly expensive and burdensome to own and operate, a lot of these parking and traffic wars will go away or at least there will be a dramatic shift toward transit and ped / bike.
I can’t wait for that moment. I do my part, so anything that makes owning and operating a car in San Francisco is OK with me, and I will vehemently support it. I know I’m not alone, and I think part of the aggression and frustration of motorists is that they just *know* in their bones that they are behind the curve and are clinging to a dying paradigm. Integral part of urban living… my ass. The days of the car dominating the streets are numbered. Ever heard of getting stuff delivered to your house? But of course NIMBYs everywhere in SF will cling to the steering wheel as if their lives depend on it.
Whenever I’m on my bike and a car honks at me (without reason I might add, as I’m a fair and attentive rider), I laugh. It’s just another frustrated, unhappy, lousy motorist who feels like they are not getting anywhere. I never feel that way on my bike. People call the fact that I bike commute every day a “heroic effort”. Strange, I feel the same way about them… driving a car every single day. I couldn’t do it if someone held a gun to my head.
“I love your thinking — wider sidewalks on 24th Street would be great. Are you proposing to take out a lane of parking or a lane of traffic to make it happen? ”
YES! Those who want others to be forced into their “car free” utopia are missing the point. The problem is not cars, but the way our streets are designed. Right now there is too much car space and not enough people space. Banning cars does not solve the poor sidewalk designs throughout the city. Why not more one way streets that would allow for wider pedestrian zones? They did this in parts of Portland, Santa Monica and neighborhoods of Chicago with great success.
Sorry man, but I’m pretty sure you don’t live or spend time in NV. It’s the Pleasanton of SF and people drive for everything.
I spend some time there pretty often and I used to call NV my home a few years back.
Sure there are cars and people are driving a lot, I agree. But there are alternative routes, it’s a grid! There are a few breaks in that grid of course, like dead-ends and one ways.
Removing a few blocks from automobile traffic would suck for parallel streets though. Living there, I learned to avoid 24th on WEs and use 23rd, 25th or Jersey. There’s the issue of parking as well. But this is Noe. Parking is always an issue around 24th.
@LetThemPark
“but if you were a retail owner on 24th, would you be ready to pedestrianize the street? ”
far more business owners on 24th were in favor of the plan than opposed to it.
“Right now there is too much car space and not enough people space”
That’s what the plan was correcting, taking away space from cars, and giving it back to people.
The problem I have with a lot of these comments is that they swing one way or the other. There is no discussion about “balance”. It’s not cars OR people. It’s about making both work in a more livable way.
I’m all for widening SOME of the sidewalks on 24th St. in Noe. Yes, create some permanent bulb-outs with landscaping and benches. Yes, remove SOME parking spots, but not ALL the parking. Some curbside parking is needed by some driver, and it does benefit the retail merchants.
Removing ALL of the parking would require it to be replaced with what? A parking garage? A lot? Not gonna work.
Balance is what the equation is all about. Extreme decisions in either direction will not work.
Nobody has suggested removing all the parking, the plan would have only removed 4 parking spaces.
Anybody who saw the video knows that the opposition was acting as doing a trial conversion from through street to cul-de-sac with a park would cause Armageddon.
The balance is currently so far out of whack in favor of cars over all else that many people seem to have convinced themselves that a very expensive luxury item is something that cannot be lived without, and somehow responsible for the very existence of urban living.
Cars certainly have their place, but they shouldn’t be given primacy over all other uses of public space, nor should they be subsidized to the huge extent that they are today.
noearch,
Agreed, we need balance. A bit more green, a bit less cars wouldn’t hurt anyone (it’s not like moving a car one block away will hurt us, nor would the extra walk). Everyone will gain including businesses. 24th could become all pedestrian for 2 or 3 blocks and that would be a big plus for commerce.
Heck, on some Saturday mornings you’d think 24th is a pedestrian area where cars are encroaching.
As long as parking and traffic are well thought of, I would favor having more pedestrian-friendly streets to the car-centric 20th century way of thinking.
lol:
yea, that’s what I just said..glad you agree.
I certainly agree that balance is needed, but nobody has suggested removing all the parking, the plan would have only removed 4 parking spaces, and I could be wrong, but I believe the parklets will remove the same number of spaces.
The balance is currently extremely out of whack, in favor of cars. Efforts like the park are an effort to bring a more equitable level of balance.
Cars certainly have their place, but they shouldn’t be given primacy over all other uses of public space, nor should they be subsidized to the huge extent that they are today.
sorry for the (sort of) double post, didn’t realize my first attempt went through, and I was trying to edit it to lighten the tone, oh well…
@lyqwyd:
I think your comments and mine are really about two different things. You still seem to be on the issue of the plaza at Noe st. My comments were exclusively about 24th st..and adding permanent bulb-outs at key locations..and removing some parking for the bulb-outs.
I do take exception to your previous comment about cars being an “expensive luxury item..that cannot be lived without.” Tell that to the young urban single mom with 3 kids, going to the grocery store. Tell that to the elderly couple with one person disabled who must rely on their 20 year old car to get to weekly appointments at the doctor.
There are many, many people who absolutely depend on their car (not an expensive luxury item) for their very existence in urban living. Try being a bit more compassionate, and open minded.
@noearch, widening all of the sidewalks could be done without removing all the parking. Here’s two ways off the top of my head: take half the parking (AKA one side of the street), or remove a lane of traffic, both of which would result in gaining 8-12 feet for sidewalk use.
regarding your taking exception, first, that’s why I intended to edit it out, as it’s not really relevant to this discussion, but since you chose to respond, I guess I’ll answer.
I do take exception to your previous comment about cars being an “expensive luxury item..that cannot be lived without.”
what exactly do you take exception with? At about $500 per month average car costs, they are clearly expensive. Considering tens of thousands of people in San Francisco without a car, it’s certainly not a necessity. If it’s not necessary, and it’s expensive, that meets my criteria for a luxury item.
Tell that to the young urban single mom with 3 kids, going to the grocery store. Tell that to the elderly couple with one person disabled who must rely on their 20 year old car to get to weekly appointments at the doctor.
If the single mom didn’t have to pay for a car, she could probably afford to live in a better neighborhood with a better school. If the elderly couple must rely on a 20 year old car, it must be quite a financial burden, or they would likely get a newer, more reliable car. Taking a cab once a week isn’t all that expensive, compared to the cost of car ownership.
What about the single mom with 3 kids that can’t afford a car? What about the elderly disabled person who has nobody to help them and is unable to drive? The focus on cars is actually MORE harmful to the most at risk portions of our population.
What about the people who have lost a loved one due to a car?
40,000 people are killed by cars every year in this country (that’s 1 million people dead in the last 25 years). I will also point that cars are the leading cause of death for children and young adults. People who live near freeways have significantly higher rates of respiratory illness, the list of harmful effects of autos goes on and on.
Well…….we’re definitely not on the same planet, lyqwyd.
Wow..amazing how you can spin your responses into far off notions of…r e a s o n. truly amazing. Love how you threw in the dead people statistic from car accidents too. brilliant.
and ONE MORE TIME, just for the record: I did not say removing ALL the parking..
you read much?
@noearch:
Yes, remove SOME parking spots, but not ALL the parking.
That was a quote from an earlier post of your, which implies that somebody else had suggested all parking be removed. That is what I was originally responding to.
Wow..amazing how you can spin your responses into far off notions of…r e a s o n.
What far off notions? I’m also not sure why your hypothetical anecdotal examples are any more valid than mine.
Love how you threw in the dead people statistic from car accidents too. brilliant.
What is wrong with using facts to support my arguments?
Well…….we’re definitely not on the same planet, lyqwyd.
you read much?
You can insult me all you want, that doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
“Taking a cab once a week isn’t all that expensive, compared to the cost of car ownership.”
Especially since many elderly and disabled people qualify for Paratransit service (a subsidized taxi service).
Once again noearch has not shown that anyone needs a car but rather that using a car often makes life easier. There’s nothing wrong with seeking an easier life though we need to keep in mind the costs involved, which most motorists are shielded from.
lyqwyd brings up the 40k annual traffic deaths as one of the often overlooked costs of an automobile based transport system. There’s no reason that many people need to lose their lives but we let the terror to proceed quietly because “vehicles are an essential component of urban living” and “There are many, many people who absolutely depend on their car”. If the threat were instead something less familiar, lets say Islamic radicals, killing even 1% of that number annually then Americans would be shocked and it would be all out war to protect us from further harm. Oh wait …
I am all for bigger sidewalks. The coffee shop scene in NV would greatly improve.
As far as removing parking, I am absolutely split. I am an avid cyclist as well as an occasional driver. I love the fact that I have the choice of owning a car and that SF is a relatively safe cycling city. I appreciate the pretty inexpensive residential permits or outright free parking. The luxury of parking in a busy street at $2 or $3 an hour makes perfect sense. In big European cities the options depend on the size of your wallet: either thick or very thick. And bicycle safety is often a flip of a coin.
Trouble is, mine are not anecdotes, but examples of real people who depend on their car for living. DEPEND.
Whether it makes life for them easier or not, quite frankly is none of your business,and it’s arrogant and pretentious for you to think that it is. thank god, or whoever you wanna thank, that we still live in a society that ALLOWS us that choice. Those of us who own and use our cars,like me..also sometimes walk to shop, and sometimes use public transit. Although with our unreliable Muni, not sure who really enjoys that.
There is no “terror” involved in traffic deaths. simple fact of life and that choice. Bringing in the “islamic radicals” to this discussion is…well…laughable. you lost me on that one.
Guess what? cars are not going away. bikes and walkers all have to co-exist.
@noearch,
You can ignore the facts all you want, that doesn’t make them go away. Nobody needs a car to live. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t even come close to suggesting that they are necessary. There are plenty of disabled people who take Muni everyday and don’t own a car, there are plenty of single mothers who take Muni every day and don’t own a car. There are many incidences of elderly being run down because they couldn’t cross the street in time, or the blocks were so long they crossed in the middle of the street. There are numerous incidences of people in wheelchairs being forced into the street because the sidewalks in in such poor condition they can’t use them, and are then hit by a car.
Cars are certainly convenient for some, but they are far from a necessity, and the many negative aspects are unfortunately hidden away and often ignored in our society.
I’m all for choice, I would love for it to be just as easy to live without a car as it is to live with one. I would love for car owners to pay the full cost of those cars, rather than hiding the costs away and making non-owners still pay into the auto way of life.
Who said cars are going away? Certainly not me, I just don’t think they should be given primacy over all else, and I don’t believe they should be heavily subsidized, especially given how harmful they are.
Simply, people who use cars value their time and are willing to pay for it…Agreed, it’s not a need, it’s a want. So what?
Try getting a cab in San Francisco? What a joke! How about waiting for the unreliable & unsafe Muni service that never shows up? Additionally, the idea of walking 25-30 minutes from my home to Noe Valley or any other neighborhood is just unappealing. I may want to go for a walk on occasion but it is not a practical option on a regular basis for many people. Riding a bike to dinner with friends in say SOMA…Sorry, doesn’t work. I support alternative transit options but they are often not a feasible alternative.
“people who use cars value their time and are willing to pay for it”
That implies that people who do not want to drive do not value their time, which I completely disagree with.
Personally I find my time spent in a car pretty much a waste, especially with the alternative of being able to read, work, or safely have a conversation while on a bus or train.
I value my time, which is exactly why I don’t want to have to drive. I don’t mind other people driving if they pay their fair share and do so in a safe and responsible manner, and don’t expect that others should be forced to drive, or be considered second class citizens if they choose not to.
I’ll agree that Muni is pretty crappy, and getting a cab can be a pain, but it doesn’t have to be that way, and probably wouldn’t be if the auto wasn’t given such priority.
This gets to be pretty hilarious! I love how people can find hidden meaning and implications in what some other person has said. Amazing..If some people find time in a car being a waste, then of course they shouldnt be in one.
But lots and lots and lots of us enjoy our cars. Ever been on an awesome road trip down the California coast all the way to San Diego?? Beautiful. Incredible.
Ever driven north up to Lassen National Park? Incredible, and a great way to see that part of our state.
Ever driven to Yosemite with your family for a week of camping? Beautiful, Awesome.
The experience was never a “waste of time”. The experience in our cars:
Priceless.
BTW: thanks Willow for your comments! much appreciated.
I concur with lyqwyd that driving does not necessarily save time though that assumes motorists are focused on the serious responsibility of piloting their cars and not attempting to multitask. My daily commute via bike+transit takes almost exactly the same time door-to-door compared to driving plus I can do a lot of things while riding transit like reading (or sleeping !) that can’t be done while driving. And the bike ride doubles as excercise, something that I’d want to find time for anyways.
Not everyone has a commute like that though it is worth considering that you can overlap your transit commute time with other activities. Many motorists might multitask though that is sort of cheating and certainly raises the risk of a collision.
And noearch, you keep reframing my response as expecting cars to go away. I don’t think that anyone on this now far off-topic thread has ever suggested that. But it is typical to discredit an opinion you disagree with by restating it as a ridiculous radical suggestion and then shooting that down.
You completely missed my point about terrorism. I never said that cars were terrorism, just that they do result in a large number of avoidable deaths. These deaths are not “a simple fact of life”. A violent avoidable death is still a tragedy no matter whether caused by terrorism or our complacent attitude toward transportation choices.
We’re spending billions upon billions of dollars to prevent terrorism yet we allow a 9/11’s worth of casualties to occur every month because it’s just “a simple fact of life”.
Imagine if you can how many lives could be saved if we redirected just part of the cash going towards the war on terrorism to instead fix the basic well understood safety and service problems with our transportation infrastructure.
But so long as people are willing to pull the wool over their own eyes and convince themselves that ubiquitous car usage is essential for living then the carnage will continue at its current rate. People are getting killed and maimed for no good reason. It is time to wake up and come to terms with reality and the true costs.
Just for the record :
– I own a car. Sometimes I even drive it. Why not ? My parking is “free” and owning a car enables access to a huge and highly valuable infrastructure that is also available for “free”. Subsidies influence behavior.
– I think that people should have the freedom to choose their transportation mode whether it be unicycle, skateboard, jet pack, bike, BMW, transit, halftrack, helicopter, car, Reeboks, whatever … so long as the costs incurred are fairly passed on to the beneficiary.
– as for the Noe Plaza, I’m somewhat indifferent. The only reason I got entangled here was to counter the claims that cars are required for everyday living. They are not and that meme is a rather insidious and dangerous one.
Are you saying that being in the car was the enjoyable part of all those experiences?
I’ve done most of those, and the driving wasn’t the enjoyable part. The California coast and Yosemite and certainly beautiful, but driving & roads is not what make any of them what they are. I’ll go so far as to say they were amazing even before cars existed!
When I was driving those journeys I didn’t get to enjoy much of the trip at all, since I was paying attention to the road, as any responsible driver would be doing, being a passenger was certainly more enjoyable, but I always found the most enjoyable parts to be when we stopped and got out of the car and truly got to enjoy the spectacle of nature.
And of course 99% or more of the time people spend in the car isn’t even remotely close to any of those examples, but is being stuck in traffic on their way to or from work, running errands etc.
And then there are the couter examples of all the unpleasant times one experiences due to cars, running out of gas, having the engine break down in the middle of the bridge, having the engine throw a rod in the car you just bought and realizing you will have to spend another $2,000 to get it fixed, parking tickets, coming to your car in the morning to find that somebody hit it in the night and didn’t leave a note…
Ultimately, if you enjoy spending time in your car, good for you, but don’t act like it’s a necessity or that one is odd for not feeling the same.
Not gonnna debate with lyqwyd, cause it’s like debating with a crazy person. Don’t be offended dude, but that’s it.
@milkshake: well, at least we agree that people should have a choice as to what kind of transportation they use..even a combination thereof.
For the record, I own a car also.. and use it a lot for work related meetings. I used to ride Muni downtown, until I got fed up with it: Late for work many days due to being stuck in the tunnel at Church, or sitting/standing next to someone who smelled, was drunk, or on speed, or screaming into their phone, or an obnoxious teenager (boys or girls) harassing people..Enough.
Now I drive downtown; it’s easy and quick and am happy to park in a garage for my meetings. I never get stuck in traffic and I’m never late. Again, my choice and it works for me. For others, they have their choices too, and I pray that they can survive Muni.
@noearch
Exactly what is it that makes you think i’m crazy? Considering. That you haven’t been able to support any of your arguments you don’t want to debate because your arguments don’t make any sense.
I <3 The Milkshake of Despair! Thanks for taking the time to comment.