There are numerous public parks in SF already. Depending on what database you use there are 220 or 504. Typical of SF stats. Not really dependable. But, the park that is being proposed and not funded is next to one of the largest urban parks in the US., Golden Gate Park which is already blocked in part to cars. I am an older person with health issues and mobility issues. This idea of not being able to visit GG Park except with great difficulty is total nonsense. (I cleaned up my language here).
Your article reveals how the City is being told utter nonsense by the noisiest minority.
So True. The 8% Biker Minority has dominated the 30% Senior & Handicapped. And holds sway over the 500,000 registered cars and their drivers, with the full complicit assistance of the SFMTA.
Congratulations but you’re being disingenuous to readers who don’t know better. Over the past decade there has never been a significant stretch of road length or time when when the bike lane that wasn’t covered by sand. Maybe you a) got lucky and found a part that was clear b) measured immediately after the city actually cleared away the sand or c) cleared it yourself.
Per Tumlin, there will be no cost to maintaining the roadway if Prop k passes. That means the entire roadway will be eventually covered and unusable for bikes. Or is there a 7 foot shoulder and the city is too lazy to maintain it for bikers, so they are going to close the road to cars to give those lanes to bikes? Sounds pretty illogical
“plus up to 7.5-foot shoulders adjacent to each side of the roadway that accommodates bicyclists” screams “Tell me you haven’t been on Great Highway without telling me you haven’t been on the great Highway.”
Additionally, I have now emailed you a time-stamped photo of my notes when I measured the shoulders, walking path, and car lanes. (I can't post photos here). As documented by the photo that I emailed you, I took measurements on September 24, 2024 at 6:45 pm.
While I have mixed feelings on this issue, I believe it’s important for Lou to present information fairly and accurately. In his discussion of TGH, he appears to misrepresent the facts. If we expect one side to be accountable and avoid misleading or intellectually dishonest conversations, we should hold ourselves to the same standards.
If you are referring to me not having been on the UGH, I actually got down on my knees and measured the 7 foot shoulder, the two lanes of traffic, and the cement path to the east of UGH. I used to frequently bike UGH. Now, I have found that on the weekends, the bikers and pedestrians were too chaotic. Bikers love to ride north on the west lanes and south on the east lanes. Like JFK, I rarely use UGH now. Thanks for reading my article.
Thanks for the in-depth report. Just a note, there's a mistake in this paragraph: "Confirming there are also unexplained anomalies with Kittelson Consulting’s pedestrian count, note how on Thursday October 12, 2024..." Should be September 12.
See my timestamped September 24th notes when I measured 90 inches. Even a 3 foot shoulder (that you claim) is a better shoulder than many roads, and is not narrow enough to justify closing 4 lanes of cars.
There are numerous public parks in SF already. Depending on what database you use there are 220 or 504. Typical of SF stats. Not really dependable. But, the park that is being proposed and not funded is next to one of the largest urban parks in the US., Golden Gate Park which is already blocked in part to cars. I am an older person with health issues and mobility issues. This idea of not being able to visit GG Park except with great difficulty is total nonsense. (I cleaned up my language here).
Your article reveals how the City is being told utter nonsense by the noisiest minority.
So True. The 8% Biker Minority has dominated the 30% Senior & Handicapped. And holds sway over the 500,000 registered cars and their drivers, with the full complicit assistance of the SFMTA.
Well written article shows the lurking Big Money interests behind Prop K. Vote NO on K! Protect our Neighborhood! Keep the Great Highway OPEN!
Lou B. is on top of the facts and the bad guys are fuming!
San Francisco, defeat the money-loving, real estate greedy, backroom-deals-deceitful Prop. K.
Another phenomenal article Lou! Great details as usual. What a scam!
Congratulations but you’re being disingenuous to readers who don’t know better. Over the past decade there has never been a significant stretch of road length or time when when the bike lane that wasn’t covered by sand. Maybe you a) got lucky and found a part that was clear b) measured immediately after the city actually cleared away the sand or c) cleared it yourself.
Per Tumlin, there will be no cost to maintaining the roadway if Prop k passes. That means the entire roadway will be eventually covered and unusable for bikes. Or is there a 7 foot shoulder and the city is too lazy to maintain it for bikers, so they are going to close the road to cars to give those lanes to bikes? Sounds pretty illogical
“plus up to 7.5-foot shoulders adjacent to each side of the roadway that accommodates bicyclists” screams “Tell me you haven’t been on Great Highway without telling me you haven’t been on the great Highway.”
Additionally, I have now emailed you a time-stamped photo of my notes when I measured the shoulders, walking path, and car lanes. (I can't post photos here). As documented by the photo that I emailed you, I took measurements on September 24, 2024 at 6:45 pm.
Community note for readers: fake news. he has not emailed any pictures.
true, Substack bounced my email to you. However, my notes now timestamped notes now appear at the end of the article. Keep trying to refute the truth.
Why are you defending the bad guys? Are you one of them, YKYMF?
While I have mixed feelings on this issue, I believe it’s important for Lou to present information fairly and accurately. In his discussion of TGH, he appears to misrepresent the facts. If we expect one side to be accountable and avoid misleading or intellectually dishonest conversations, we should hold ourselves to the same standards.
My article was full of Tumlin's misrepresentations. What statement did I make that was not factual? Please articulate
If you are referring to me not having been on the UGH, I actually got down on my knees and measured the 7 foot shoulder, the two lanes of traffic, and the cement path to the east of UGH. I used to frequently bike UGH. Now, I have found that on the weekends, the bikers and pedestrians were too chaotic. Bikers love to ride north on the west lanes and south on the east lanes. Like JFK, I rarely use UGH now. Thanks for reading my article.
I knew there was more to the closing of the UPGH then a walk in a new park. I was already voting NO on K thank you for putting out this information.
Thanks for the in-depth report. Just a note, there's a mistake in this paragraph: "Confirming there are also unexplained anomalies with Kittelson Consulting’s pedestrian count, note how on Thursday October 12, 2024..." Should be September 12.
thanks I'll change... should have been 2023
tldr
The shoulders on each side of the upper GH aren't 7.5 feet wide, they're half that.
See my timestamped September 24th notes when I measured 90 inches. Even a 3 foot shoulder (that you claim) is a better shoulder than many roads, and is not narrow enough to justify closing 4 lanes of cars.