20 percent by 2020 - Page 2

What would it really take to meet the city's ambitious cycling goal -- and do leaders have the political will to get there?

|
(52)
GUARDIAN ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN UELAND


CLOSING THE GAP

SFBC Executive Director Leah Shahum said that all the group's studies show safety concerns are by far the biggest barrier to getting more people on bikes. Most people are simply scared to share space with automobiles, so SFBC's top priority has been creating more bikes lanes, particularly lanes that are physically separated from traffic, known as cycletracks, like those on a portion of Market Street.

"We've seen it time and again, when you build, they will come," Shahum said. "People want to feel safe. They want dedicated space on the roadways."

SFBC's Connecting the City proposal calls for the creation of four crosstown colored cycletracks totaling 100 miles. Other bike activists emphasize the importance of projects that close key gaps in the current bike network, such as the dangerous section along Oak and Fell streets that separates the Panhandle from the Wiggle, scary spots that deter people from cycling.

That safety concern — and the possibilities for making cycling a more attractive option to more people — extends to neighborhood streets that don't have bike lanes, where Shahum said measures to slow down automobile traffic and increase motorist awareness of cyclists would help. "What we're talking about is a calmer, safer, greener, neighborhood-focused street," she said.

Bike advocates say the goal is to make cycling a safe and attractive option for those 8 to 80 years old, a goal that will require extensive new bike infrastructure — not just new bike lanes, but also more dedicated bike parking — as well as education programs for all road users.

"What I hope is on the drawing board is infrastructure that will make more people feel safe riding, particularly women," SFMTA board member Cheryl Brinkman, a regular cyclist, told us.

Shahum also praised the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's new Bike Plan, which seeks to double the percentage of passengers who bike to stations (from 4 percent now up to 8 percent in 10 years), saying Muni should also take steps to better accommodate cyclists. And she praised the city's bike-sharing program that will debut in August, making 1,000 bikes available to visitors.

But to realize the really big gains San Francisco would need to hit 20 percent by 2020 would take more than just steadily increasing the mileage of bike lanes, says Jason Henderson, a San Francisco State University geography professor who is writing a book on transportation politics. It would take a systemic, fundamental shift, one either deliberately chosen or forced on the city by dire circumstances.

"If gasoline goes to $10 per gallon, sure, we'll get to 20 percent just because of austerity," Henderson said. But unless energy prices experience that kind of sudden shock, which would idle cars and overwhelm public transit, thus forcing people onto bikes, getting to 20 percent would take smart planning and political will. In fact, it will require the city to stop catering to drivers and accommodating cars.

Henderson noted that bicycle mode share is as high as 10 percent in some eastern neighborhoods, such as the Mission District, Lower Haight, and in some neighborhoods near Civic Center. "In this part of the city, Muni is crowded and young people get tired of Muni being such a slow option," Henderson said. "If you live within a certain radius of downtown, it's easier to bike."

To build on that, he said the city needs to limit the number of parking spaces built in residential projects in the city core even more than it does now, as well as adding substantially more affordable units. "The most bikeable parts of the city have massive rent increases," he said. "We have to make sure affordable housing is wrapped around downtown."

Comments

If 80% of people aren't using bicycles, then of course there's not going to be a city-wide will to accomodate the 20% that are bicyclists. The policies are not in line with the actual desires of city residents.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:11 am

If 99.9999% of San Franciscans aren't you, then why should anyone care what you think?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 11:16 pm

Fantastic piece. These are exactly the sort of questions that need to be asked about the gap between eco-dreams and the hardnosed, nuts-and-bolts actions that need to be taken to actually implement them. I love the 20% by 2020 goal, not because I think it will actually be met, but because it exposes the ludicrously slow pace of progress that is occurring in San Francisco.

I actually think San Francisco is going to be bypassed by the likes of Chicago, New York, and DC and will be watching those cities and others set the standard for bike infrastructure in the US. Too many San Franciscans can't bring themselves to support the actual, real-life choices that need to be undertaken to make SF a city that can be mentioned in the same breath as Amsterdam or Copenhagen when it comes to bike-friendliness. This would require:

- Eliminating -- not reducing -- environmental review on bike infrastructure projects, so that never again will one embittered, pathetic crank like Rob Anderson unilaterally derail progress in an entire city of 800,000 for four years.

- GASP -- taking away some on-street parking spaces.

- GASP -- taking away road space from cars and reallocating it to people who choose to move about in a way that doesn't spew pollution and endanger others.

All of the elements are there -- Leah Shahum and the SFBC are passionate, sophisticated and savvy advocates. City staff are tremendously capable, intelligent people that any city anywhere in the world would kill to have.

Basically it comes down to whether the politicians are going to show some spine and take action, and more fundamentally, whether enough citizens of the City are going to push them to do so.

It's your move, San Francisco. Put up or shut up time. Either take action, or watch other places race past you in implementing the values that you claim are so precious.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Actually, they're values YOU claim are precious. The overwhelming majority of the city doesn't share your view.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:28 am

Well then the overwhelming majority of the city is a bunch of head-in-the-sand know-nothings. Just because the majority of the world thinks the world is flat doesn't make it so.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:42 am

that it really does matter what the majority would think.

Perhaps you'd prefer a dictatorship instead? Although only if you could be the dictator, no doubt.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

I'm a "pathetic crank"? Seems pathetic to me to insult someone anonymously.

Anon talks about "real life choices," but the reality City Hall is facing is that projects for specific streets will invite a negative reaction from the overwhelming majority of city residents who don't ride bikes. Jones mentions the proposed bike lanes on the Panhandle as a "significant bike safety advance," but there's no evidence of a lot of accidents to cyclists on the Panhandle.

This issue is not about money or a lack of political will in City Hall; it's really about space on city streets where cyclists are only 3.5% of commuters in SF. Making traffic worse for everyone else on city streets based on only the hope that people will abandon cars and start riding bikes is not politically sustainable, even here in Progressive Land. I suspect that City Hall understands that problem better than the bike zealots.

"Anderson unilaterally derailed progress in an entire city of 800,000 for four years."

The reality: City Hall knew rushing the Bicycle Plan through the process without any environmental review was illegal but did it anyway, even though we tried to warn both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors way back in 2005.

A mystery bike zealots in SF have never been able to explain: Why did two Superior Court judges rule in our favor on our litigation against the city? Why should a major project like the Bicycle Plan have no environmental review, when it takes away more than 2,000 street parking spaces and more than 50 traffic lanes to make bike lanes? Can anyone really think that will have no environmental impact?

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

It is discriminatory because it cannot be done by the very young, the very old and the disabled. So converting road space to the use of only bikes is unfair on the majority who do not bike and the minority that cannot

Second, it is the ultimate in private transit and so contrary to a transit-first city. Even a car can transport several people, and be shared communally, as in a taxi. But a bike is the ultimate in selfishness - only one person can use a bike. Even a car can pack more people into 20 feet of road space than a bike.

So, discriminatory and selfish and private. No wonder the bike nuts are such an ugly, angry mob.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

Are you joking? Driving is discriminatory because it cannot be done by the very young, the very old and the disabled. There are bicycles for the legless. There are electric assists for the out-of-shape and the elderly. Not to mention the poor. A larger portion of the population is capable of cycling (with some training) than driving a car.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 12:58 am

Try doing that on a bike. Cycling is elitist.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 5:57 am

I agree that biking isn't for everybody, but the real transportation problem in San Francisco is simple: too many cars. I've lived in the City for 60 years. 60 years ago the population was almost as great, but there was much less congestion. Today cars choke the streets, pollute the air, and block other, sane forms of transit. SF has room for 800,000 people. It doesn't have room for 800,000 cars or anything approaching that number. Eliminate the private autos and put people on public transit, bikes or feet and the City would be infinitely improved.

Maybe bike riders aren't a majority, but add them to the people who walk plus people who take Muni plus parents who want their children to be able to walk to and from school without getting run over, and you've got a majority.

Need I add that the typical American car puts something like 6 tons of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, into the air every year. I hope that those denying that cars are the problem aren't also denying that global warming is a problem. Our current auto-centric lifestyle is unsustainable and planet-destroying.

Posted by fairley7 on May. 22, 2012 @ 10:50 am

promote their own favorite form of transportation without being down on others, most notably cars.

If SF is really as tolerant and diverse as it likes to think it is, then why can't so many of the bike nuts accept that they have to share the road with other types of vehicle?

You can love bikes without hating cars. Try it.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 11:54 am

The reason cyclists lose support is that most people don't feel like cycling. It takes work to cycle. Try it sometime, especially up hill. But of course you think you're too good to ride a bicycle and you don't have the intelligence to do so. Too busy trolling. What a waste of life time. Cycling takes more than sitting on your obese ass and lightly pushing an accelerator or brake. Also while cycling one cannot do all the many things that motorists do in their vehicle while driving. Cycling requires both hands on the handlebars. Many motorists see their vehicle as an extension of their living room, kitchen, bathroom (teeth brushing and flossing) or office.

Cyclist shouldn't need to promote cycling. Basic intelligence should tell anyone with half-a-brain that cycling is the more intelligent form of transportation: better for one's health and the environment. This country is going in the opposite direction of healthy and you are part of that problem.

And the fact that you referred to "bike nuts" shows where you're coming from and how "intolerant" you are while you speak of "tolerance and diversity." Hypocrite.

It's mainly the vehicles that have trouble sharing the road (there's far more vehicles than cyclists, unfortunately). Because of motorists' hate for cyclists they don't feel that cyclists should be on the streets/roads and therefore don't feel they need to share the streets/road.

Why don't you learn something sometime? You're on the internet but you don't seem to do much with it other than troll. What a waste of time and one's life.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

understand anyone else's point of view?

Got it.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

demanded that we completely abandon our hard-fought-for environmental review process in CA to automatically approve their favored projects. Imagine if, for example, the petroleum industry demanded the right to drill wherever it owned mineral rights without subjecting itself to any land use or environmental scrutiny. The outcry would, justifiably, be enormous.

Which makes it doubly mind-boggling that Steven and the bike zealots here are demanding exactly that.

Posted by Troll II on May. 10, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

idea of the bloated sense of entitlement and self-absorption that they manifest. It's quite stunning how they see themselves as the our saviors, and routinely blame the rest of society for their isolation and self-proclaimed victimization.

They appear to regard riding a bike as a passport to nirvana, and that others should simply stand down and allow them to appropriate more and more of our precious transit corridors to feed their own frenzied egomania.

It's just a damn bike, you know? Get over yourselves. Why does one form of transport get such precious treatment? Especially when so few people actually cycle?

To make matters worse, two people have been killed by cyclists in the city in the last year. In both cases, they were riding too fast and blowing thru red lights - something that we all witness routinely.

Cyclists should be trained, tested, licensed, registered and insured. Then we'll talk about bike lanes.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

Developers are teaming up with the SFBC to abandon environmental review for both development and bike facilities projects.

The developers are making a token contribution to transportation infrastructure which might legally mitigate their impacts.

But absolving all future bike projects off of transit corridors from environmental review is troubling legally as well as for transit.

The Bike Plan EIR indicated that there would be three significant (> 6 min) delays of transit due to certain bike projects. One, Townsend was not on a transit corridor.

The EIR also indicated that there would be pages and pages and pages of delays that did not meet that six minute threshold of significance that ranged from tens of seconds to just under six minutes.

Added up, these "non-significant" impacts represent a significant slow down of transit which elicits mode shift away from transit and towards autos.

Cyclists, peds and motorists should be united in demanding more rapid and reliable transit as the lynchpin of transit first policies.

With the TEP pulling teeth to get minor increases in speed, the last thing we need to do is to allow discretionary projects to slow transit down further.

Once transit is rapid and reliable, an favorable alternative to private autos, then we can start to beat on motorists.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

Increasing biking does not decrease cars but it does decrease
the use of Public Transportation which is bad and good.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 7:19 am

The way to make cycling safer is to get people out of their cars. You don't get people out of their cars by making driving more difficult because there are more people with cars than cyclists and they hold the balance of political power. One quick ballot measure and we're hosed.

The way to get people out of their cars is to make Muni and regional transit competitive and attractive relative to private autos. That requires significant investment.

But that investment cannot be made so long as the transit agencies are not primarily geared to moving people, but are geared to moving money into the proper pockets.

So long as transit trip times are more than twice as long as private auto trip times, people are going to drive and resist anti-parking measures.

Most all bike trips will start and end off of the bike lane network. Nothing on the bike safety agenda addresses safety on 85% of our streets that have no special bike treatments.

The three bikeways proposed are boutique projects, exercises in photo op ribbon cutting, that do not address safety as pertains to most bike trips.

That safety comes in the form of well maintained roadways, of fewer cars on the roads/more people on transit and with enforcement by the SFPD of the real danger to peds and cyclists: rogue motorists who speed, make illegal turns and don't honor the law to give bicyclists the use of the full lane.

There is no political will to contest the SFPD's suburban enforcement priorities at the Board of Supervisors or at the SFBC. The preference is to roll over and play dead to allow the cops to enforce the laws against cyclists instead.

SO long as our advocates stand idly by when fines for bicycling on the sidewalk are doubled without demanding concessions to check the dangerous conditions that cause people to ride on the sidewalk on the first case, all it is going to take is one $100 ticket issued by a cop compensating for his own inadequacies by using ticketing to enforce respect for authority rather than promote safety for a tentative cyclist to revert to a motorist.

Converting the MTA from an ATM to a transit provision agency and converting the SFPD from a suburban pension accumulation operation into a street safety organization are the two tough nuts that the softies at the SFBC can't and won't even consider cracking.

Until then, it is all bicycle fashion shows and social gatherings, boutique bikeways and once a year bike to work days. For this, they get seats at the table, they get designated to hold stake by City Staff so long as they play ball.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:28 am

the anti-car crowd.

Seems progressives cannot function without having a convenient class to hate. I guess we should blame Marx for that type of thinking.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 10:39 am

Sorry- I drive all over the city and I see people in cars pulled over all the time, yet I never see someone on a bike being given a ticket.

Unfortunately as a couple of recent accidnets highlighted- it is the rare occasion that I see cyclists stopping at stop signs, waiting for the green light, signalling etc. It truly is the exception. While the other issues you cited are a valid, cyclist behavior also needs to be looked at and not ignored.

Posted by Dnative on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:21 am

that they appear to have so little respect for traffic rules, even to the point of regarding themselves as not really being liable to them at all.

If cyclists want equal rights and resources, then they must accept equally responsibilities too, including full accountibility for their behavior.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:37 am

Cops give plenty of bike tickets, only for defying cop authority, not to keep us safe.

All the cops want is to make it through another day to collect their 90% pensions and retire to their leafy suburbs.

They could care less about San Franciscans.

Most times the lights are red, there is cross traffic. Do you really think that most cyclists bike willingly into cross traffic? Do you really see cross traffic stopping all the time for red light running cyclists?

Posted by marcos on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:49 am

that cyclists don't ignore red lights and traffic signs? Or are you trying to say that if there is no traffic and the light is still red- happens all the time- then it is ok to go? Both are absurd on their face.

Posted by Dnative on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:59 am

"But even the most bike-friendly U.S. cities — including Portland, Ore., Davis, Chicago, and New York City — are still on training wheels compared to our European counterparts, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where around 30 percent of all vehicle trips are by bike. By comparison, even the best U.S. cities are still in the low single digits."

Actually, in Davis bike mode share is well into the double-digits and has been for many years. There are bikes and bike facilities everywhere, just as you might find in the aforementioned European cities. No need for "training wheels" in this "cow town" (ha). Maybe you SF provincials could learn something from us suburban/rural plebes?

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:45 am

You're right, Davis is about 15 percent mode share, and I apologize for the error in my story. I've now added a correction above.

Posted by steven on May. 09, 2012 @ 10:12 am

Thanks and apologies for the snarky tone. And thanks for writing this article.

The point remains that SF definitely has some work to do (and lots of potential) when it comes to bike mode share.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

Yeah, San Francisco should just cut its population by 92%, cut our population density by 80%, erect wind barriers at the Pacific Ocean and plane down the hills so that we're central valley flat, and we'll be just like Davis.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2012 @ 10:38 am

If anything, SF's high density should be more conducive to bicycling. And the cooling breezes off the Pacific are perfect for cycling without breaking a sweat. So not sure why you bring that up? Yes, Davis has flat terrain and that is a key factor, but in many other senses, Davis is worse for cycling. Much larger weather and temperature extremes (and yes it does get windy from time to time), lots of "suburb" style development, vehicles, etc. Yet *still* Davis has such a high bike mode share. There are lots of flat places in the Central Valley, and almost none are like Davis when it comes to biking. Surely there is something else at play, be it political will, good engineering and design, a more bike-friendly cultural attitude, etc. While the two cities are different, I'm sure there is something that Davis has done that SF could pick up on and use to boost its mode share.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Cycling is just great for people in the flatter areas of the city but not at all possible for many of us who live in the hills. The thing Davis, Copenhagen and Amsterdam have in common is they are each as flat as a pancake - San Francisco is not and never will be.

Posted by Troll II on May. 09, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

Hard to imagine anywhere more different than the cities of the American west,

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 10:40 am

But SF is much more like them than Davis.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 1:00 am

Amsterdam is nothing like SF. do we have canals and twisting 1,000 year old alleys?

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 5:58 am

Not to mention their stunning store-window displays

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 7:05 am

"It's prioritizing space for biking, walking, and transit over driving."

The Fell and Oak bike lane controversy has highlighted for me that San Francisco's DMV inhabits a splendid position at the end of the panhandle, almost as if it keeps the bike/ped friendly park from spreading further into the city center.

Start by moving the DMV to a less desirable location and put something useful to all people rather than just drivers in its place. That might help.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 10:57 am

The DMV lot is government owned land, right? I'd be all for extending the panhandle. Or at least annexing a bit of their parking lot.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2012 @ 11:42 am

Right, the position of the DMV is what causes people along the Wiggle to wig out at removing parking for bike facilities and what causes the SFBC to roll over and play dead when the cops go on enforcement rampages over technical violations of the law that put nobody at risk of injury.

If only that car centered facility were moved, we'd live in a bike paradise.

If only San Francisco were that leafy suburb where I grew up, everything would be wonderful.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

that space for parking for local residents to compensate them for the loss of usable road space taken by the bike lanes.

Win-win for everyone! Bikes and cars can live in perfect harmony.

But why is there a need for a bike lane on Fell but apparently not on Oak? Why can't the cyclists on Fell simply take whatever road those going along Oak take. Page or Haight, right?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

Which last I looked were helpful to everyone - not just drivers. The city cannot annex state land either.

What I really think would be helpful is if we were to start annexing privately owned land to create bicycle paths across the city - that would definitely ensure people would want to bike.

Posted by Troll II on May. 09, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

I want to rectify the use of the term "physical barrier" in the article. Having painted lanes on a street is utterly not safe nor is it a "physical barrier". I would visit when in Paris, some lanes at the level of the Tuilleries, or better yet in the 16th district to see what it means to have a physical barrier for bikes. In San Francisco there exist no physical barrier for bikers yet. Any car, truck, a bus, can and they do it all the time: et into your space. They just have to roll over painted "imaginary" barrier.
To those who speak of a backlash by automobile owners against bikers, I say let all of us bikers and transit riders buy cars and jam their streets. But they would love that actually, for they will be selling more of those cars. We just have to fight and keep going.

Posted by guest on May. 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am

can't get built without a huge controversy, because that would affect a alrge number of people. You're talking about taking out an entire traffic lane or parking lane. The result would be a nightmare for the same people who vote on these thigns, and SFMTA know that.

Also, in an emergency, that extra road width can be crucial. As someone who once had to swerve kerbside to avoid an oncoming out-of-control truck, I can tell you that lateral space literally saved my life.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 10, 2012 @ 10:43 am

The main reason why I don't ride my bicycle to work is the behavior of other cyclists. What would it take to get me to bike to work? Convincing a majority of my fellow cyclists to stop being complete douches.

Which means I'll be a weekend rider for the foreseeable future, or unless I move out of town.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

of cyclists, and registration of vehicles with an identifying plate.

Then we'll talk about equal "rights" for cyclists.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

I am done with people on bikes who ignore traffic signs and yet EXPECT respect when they endanger my life, theirs and whine about biking rights in the same breath. If you ride and you see other people riding like idiots, just know that they are ruining something that could be great in the entire Bay Area.

If people who ride want equal rights, how about ticketing?, fines for idiotic and dangerous behavior? Perhaps Bike organizations need to fund an SF Bike Police contingent if they are really serious about cleaning up the random and dangerous biking that I witness EVERY time I drive in the Bay Area.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

It's appropriate that the heads on the bikers that grace this cover story are bigger than their bodies.

Bike riders in the Bay Area lose my respect every day when they blow through stop signs, run into people and generally think that NONE of the normal traffic rules apply to them, for example letting someone walk across a crosswalk without having to dodge a bike. I've had friends knocked down by people on bikes in the city. And on a regular basis now, I have had to slam on my brakes to avoid people on bikes who ignore traffic signs. This is untenable and plain stupid.

You might say there are a few bad apples ruining it for the rest of the responsible bike riding folks, but there are so many in the barrel now that I have dropped my support for the bike movement in the Bay Area. Once a regular contributor and supporter of SF Bicycle Coalition and other groups, I send my money elsewhere.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

it must. all of the bikers i see seem so P.O.ed all the time. no way am i doing that.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

They're under a constant state of stress and so, perhaps naturally, they look for someone to blame for that. And what could be more convenient than, er, drivers and cars?

The problem is that their extreme emotions about this issue totally cloud their sense of reason, and all they can think of is ever banishing cars in their favour.

But in the end, cycling is an elitist form of private transit for, mostly, young affluent whites. I don't think I've ever seen an old, black woman on a bike in SF.

It's yuppiedom writ large and nasty.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

I sympathize with your ignorance. It must be difficult getting through life with your amount of ignorance (including your racism and ageism).

The eliti$t form of private transit for the yuppiedom is the $UV (street utility vehicle). The yuppie sheep drive black or silver colored SUVs usually from my observations. Where have you been not to know this? Don't you ever get out? Or are you too busy on here trolling?

Meanwhile, I've been hearing more and more clunky bikes on the streets lately (including my own). I have to ride in 2nd because the chain jumps in 1st and I don't have the $ to fix it. The same must be true for others based on the clunky bikes I'm hearing. Most cyclists are not wealthy or concerned about status and from what I'm hearing on the streets many don't have the $ to repair their bikes because of the dead economy.

Does trolling pay well for you?

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

Agreed. I got rid of my car after calculating it was costing me $200 a month in gas and insurance. Now I bike. Plus it'll stave off the health problems which is handy given I can only afford catastrophic health insurance on my piddly wages.

I don't understand where this elitist BS comes from, except for the spandex dudes that commute to Marin. Students ride bikes, gutter punks ride bikes, there are loads of people of color in Oakland riding bikes. If you don't see the same diversity here, its because SF has been gentrified to death.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2012 @ 7:56 pm

the slipping problem can likely be solved by adjusting the chain which operates it.

The Bike Hut on the Embarcadero near Pier 40 seems like a good place to get a bike repaired or maybe just cadge a few free tips on DIY.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 7:40 am