Petition to Tom Nolan
Keep the loop! Preserve parking, biking, and hiking all the way 'round Twin Peaks!
I love San Francisco's Twin Peaks, and I love to bicycle all the way around the figure 8 loop up there, and take in the beautiful city and ocean views. Unfortunately, there’s a plan ("Twin Peaks Figure 8 Pilot Redesign") to change the traffic flow at the top of Twin Peaks in a way that: · would make it much more dangerous to bike, run, or walk around the entire figure 8 loop, · make it considerably more dangerous to drive over Twin Peaks, · eliminate all parking around the figure 8, · create bigger and more frequent traffic jams on Twin Peaks, · create big problems for tour bus operators, · and hamper emergency vehicle access to and over Twin Peaks. See the plan description here: http://sfrecpark.org/twin-peaks-figure-8-pilot-redesign/ The plan will make it more dangerous for drivers as well as cyclists, runners, and walkers, as drivers distracted by the view pass one another in opposite directions around the sharp, blind curve on the west side of the north peak. Imagine what it would be like to be walking or cycling there when a tour bus is passing you with a car coming in the opposite direction. Or what about when two tour buses are passing one another? It doesn’t sound pretty to me, and the probability of a head-on collision around that blind curve will go up a huge amount. Add to that motorists leaving their lane to dodge the rocks that regularly fall on the road at that curve and the frequent dense fog, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. The proposed redesign would also be a major problem for tour bus drivers because even now, traffic at the parking lot at the overlook frequently gets backed up to a stop. Without parking around the figure 8, that situation would be much worse, and the number of cars parking illegally in the tour bus spaces would increase substantially. Bus drivers that can now continue around the loop or sometimes even park along the figure 8 would be unable to do so. In fact, bus drivers would be completely stuck, because they are legally prohibited from going down the north side of the hill, and would not have enough room to turn their buses around to travel down to Portola. That means terrible traffic jams, tourists stuck in buses and possibly missing other activities or flights at the airport later in the day, etc. Also, many stuck cars will travel down the north road and turn around in resident’s driveways. The plan is a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist. Twin Peaks is one of the safest places to bicycle in San Francisco. To increase safety even further, the City could paint large one-way arrows in both traffic lanes to let drivers know that they can use both lanes to give cyclists and walkers even more room when they pass. They could paint clearly defined crosswalks to make it easier and safer for hikers on the trails to cross the road. And they could also paint a wide white line 4 – 6 feet away from the edge of the pavement all the way around the figure 8 loop to provide a marked area for walkers, runners, and hikers. If enough people who actually use Twin Peaks sign this petition, the SFMTA will change the plan, and preserve safe access for cycling, running, and hiking around the loop, and parking for visitors who want to enjoy a beautiful sunset on a warm weekend evening. I attended and testified at the most recent hearing before the SFMTA (San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority) on 3/4/16, and almost everyone who testified was opposed to this plan. I plan to testify again at the upcoming meeting on this proposal: SFMTA Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 1:00 pm (subject to change*) San Francisco City Hall, Room 400 email@example.com *To confirm: https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/twin-peaks-figure-8-redesign-project I sent an email opposed to this plan, and I hope you will too. Send your emails to: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, and firstname.lastname@example.org Thanks! Jeff San Francisco resident, homeowner, and voter. Suggested email: Hello. I’m writing to express my views on the proposed redesign for traffic flows on top of Twin Peaks. I cycle, run, or walk at the top of Twin Peaks, and I greatly value the ability to go all the way around the figure 8 with two lanes of traffic going in the same direction. Because there are two lanes of traffic in the same direction, and the traffic volume is usually low, it gives the cars plenty of room to easily pass bicycles, runners, and walkers. It’s actually one of the best, and safest, places to bicycle in San Francisco. Being able to do loops all the way around and take in the views on both sides of the peaks is a big plus. I’m concerned that the new head-on two-way traffic flow would make looping around the full figure 8 much more dangerous for cyclists, runners, walkers, and drivers. With two lanes of traffic going in opposite directions, conflicts with cars and tour buses attempting to stay in their single lane would make cycling or walking on that side far more dangerous. The probability of head-on collisions between cars and between cars and tour buses would also substantially increase. The current situation seems to be working fine for everyone. There are many bicyclists who do the whole loop. And most hikers and runners do the loop on the wide shoulder of the road. Another significant drawback to the proposed plan is that on weekends and at sunset there are many cars parked up there along the guard wall, and this plan would eliminate the available parking along the wall. It would be a significant loss to eliminate that option for the many, many people who go up there to enjoy the view. In summary, I strongly oppose the proposed redesign. It seems to be attempting to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist. Please don’t change the two lanes of traffic in a single direction looping around both peaks. Thank you.
Petition to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Keith Weaver, Scott E. Bennett
Save the historic Big White River Bridge!
What We're Trying To Do and Why: The Friends of the Historic White River Bridge at Clarendon is a 501(c)3 non-profit that came together in 2014 around the cause of saving the historic Big White River Bridge for two reasons: It is a national treasure (listed on the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior), a gorgeous landmark worthy of preservation (see video) It will play a vital role as part of a larger effort to develop outdoor and eco-tourism in the Arkansas Delta, a region that is simultaneously one of the most beautiful and the most poor in the United States. Specifically, our mission is to adapt the historic bridge for use by cyclists, hikers, pedestrians, and wildlife / bird watchers, so that it can serve as a vehicle for tourism-based economic development in the Arkansas Delta. If successful, the converted bridge will be one of the longest and most scenic pedestrian and cycling bridges in the United States, as well as one of the longest elevated bird viewing platforms in the world, complete with spectacular viewing afforded by the Mississippi Flyway of migratory birds which hourglasses to its narrowest point in this area. What We've Done So Far: With the Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department on the verge of letting bids to demolish the bridge (in fulfillment of an agreement made with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that enabled them to build the vehicle bridge that replaced the historic bridge), the Friends of the White River Bridge filed suit. What We're Asking: All we are asking is that these agencies conduct the proper studies and analyses to ascertain whether the destruction of this magnificent landmark serves a greater good or would be a tragic mistake based on outdated and/or incomplete information. [See "The Details" section at the very bottom if you want the full scoop] Specifically, we are petitioning the following agencies to take the following actions to ensure this vital decision is made with the best possible information in hand: ITEM 1: Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department (AHTD): Commit to the preservation of the entirety of the historic White River Bridge (per the provisions of USC Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 144(g) and the Arkansas Historic Bridge program) – including the still extant western and eastern approaches – should either of the following occur: AHTD is relieved of its obligation to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to demolish the bridge, OR... AHTD learns after conducting the proper study on the impact of the demolition of the bridge on bicycling that a sufficiently negative impact will result ITEM 2: Cache River National Wildlife Refuge / U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Commit to release AHTD of its obligation to the demolish the historic White River Bridge should either of the following occur: An updated hydrological study reveals that the demolition of the historic Bridge is not ecologically necessary, OR... It is determined by a proper study and analysis that the demolition and removal of the historic Bridge may negatively affect the threatened Rabbitsfoot mussel or its designated critical habitat Bottom Line: Given the tremendous enthusiasm for saving the historic bridge, the irreparable harm that would come from its destruction, the enormous potential upside to the region if the bridge is adapted as planned, and the lack of any urgent need to demolish the bridge, we ask that the relevant agencies simply take their time, conduct the proper studies with an open mind, and make every reasonable effort to accommodate those who wish to preserve this magnificent structure and enable it to enrich the lives of all who encounter it. ===========================================OPTIONAL READING: The Details: The basis of our case is built on three arguments, all of which have merit: Change of Circumstances: Hydrology – The argument for removing the bridge is primarily based on an outdated and obsolete hydrology study conducted in 2003. As part of construction on the new bridge, a lengthy berm (which was highlighted in the original study as the primary cause of water flow concerns) was removed. Our position is that the removal of the berm has created such a substantial change in water flows that a new hydrology study is required. If the problems that demolishing the bridge were intended to solve have already been solved, there's no reason to move forward. The U.S. Geological Survey, who did the original hydrology study, has indicated that a new study would make sense. Change of Circumstances: Endangered Species – The Rabbitsfoot mussel, which occupies the White River, was listed as a threatened species in 2013. In 2015, the area in the vicinity of the historic bridge was designated as critical habitat for the Rabbitsfoot mussel. When the plans were originally made to demolish the historic bridge after constructing the new one, these environmental issues were not considered. A quick subsequent study was done, but it is our contention that this study was inadequate. Violation of State Law: Impact on Bicycling Was Not Considered – Ten years ago when the Highway Department considered alternatives to tearing the bridge down, it never considered the impact on bicycles even though Arkansas law required it to do so. So not only should this obligation be fulfilled, but given the growth in bicycling regionally and nationally, revisiting this crucial obligation is simply the right thing to do.
Petition to Don Cooney, David Anderson, Jack Urban, Matt Milcarek, Shannon Sykes, Erin Knott, Bobby Hopewell
KALAMAZOO AREA RESIDENTS:
Help Make Kalamazoo a More Bicycle-Friendly Community!
The Kalamazoo City Commission recently adopted a Complete Streets resolution and is considering a safe passing ordinance to help safeguard bicyclists.The League of Michigan Bicyclists (LMB) is currently working with the Legislature to enact a 5-foot safe passing standard. LMB is urging the City Commission to adopt an ordinance that is inline with statewide efforts and similar policies in surrounding communities that use 5-feet as the minimum standard.Over the last two years, Michigan has seen a startling increase in bicycle fatalities and injuries. In 2015 alone, bicycle fatalities rose 57% in our state. Michigan can and must do better at protecting vulnerable roadway users. The City of Kalamazoo is in a unique position to become a national leader by adopting a 5-foot passing ordinance.
Petition to Jerry Brown, California State House, California State Senate
Amend the California Vehicle Code to allow motorists to cross a double yellow center line to pass a bicyclist, when safe to do so, as several other states already allow.
matthewschange.org Matthew O’Neill, an experienced ultra-distance cyclist, was struck and killed by a teenage driver in Santa Maria, California on August 9, 2014. Matthew was riding legally and visibly on a straight section of a rural country road with double-yellow lines. The driver told police that he had seen the cyclist. Matthew was just about to be awarded his doctorate in Special Education, Disabilities, and Risk Studies, and his family and friends want to keep Matthew's legacy alive by helping to prevent this tragedy from happening to another cyclist. To celebrate the life and dedication of this amazing man, we ask that you sign our Change.org petition to amend the California Vehicle Code. Although the recent implementation of California's 3 Feet for Safety Act has clearly informed motorists of the need to leave sufficient space when passing cyclists, it still does not fully address the needs of cyclists nor of motorists when it comes to narrow two-lane roads with long sections of double-yellow lines. Currently it is not legal for faster motorists to pass slower cyclists over a double yellow line, even when safe to do so. The majority of roads in California, and almost all two-lane roads, have lanes that are 10’ to 12’ wide, too narrow for cyclists to safely share side-by-side with motor vehicles. Here's why: A bicycle is a two wheeled articulated vehicle that remains upright by balance. A cyclist is approximately 2' wide, and requires at minimum 12" on either side for balance and minor obstacle avoidance. Assume a 4' minimum operating space for a bicyclist, the operating width used by the AASHTO design manual and the guidelines set forth by the Federal Highway Administration. If you add the 4' operating space for a cyclist to the 3' required for minimum legal safe passing clearance and 8.5' (*excluding* mirrors) maximum vehicle width in California you come up with 15.5'. Most lanes in California are 10 to 12 feet wide and require moving into the next lane to safely pass a cyclist safely and legally. Therefore, 10’ and 12’ lanes not safely sharable side-by-side as show in this outstanding infographic by Keri Caffrey of iamtraffic.org. Most rural roads have lanes 12’ or narrower and many miles of double yellow. It is unreasonable to assume that motor vehicle traffic will slow to the speed of cyclists until there is either a passing lane or a turnout. Faster vehicles will either pass unsafely and illegally (too closely) or just illegally (by crossing, at least partially, a double yellow). Many states already have sensible laws that allow motorists to cross double yellows to pass a slow moving vehicle such as a cyclist or farm equipment. For example, here is Ohio's statute: §4511.31. Hazardous zones (A) The department of transportation may determine those portions of any state highway where overtaking and passing other traffic or driving to the left of the center or center line of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may, by appropriate signs or markings on the highway, indicate the beginning and end of such zones. (B) Division (A) of this section does not apply whenall of the following apply: (1) The slower vehicle is proceeding at less than half the speed of the speed limit applicable to that location. (2) The faster vehicle is capable of overtaking and passing the slower vehicle without exceeding the speed limit. (3) There is sufficient clear sight distance to the left of the center or center line of the roadway to meet the overtaking and passing provisions of section 4511.29 of the Revised Code, considering the speed of the slower vehicle. ---Comment: Section 4511.31(B) should help reduce tension between cyclists and faster drivers. Now, they can pass in "no passing" zones IF passing is safe.--- This is how it looks to pass a cyclist safely, changing lanes to pass. - infographic by Keri Caffrey of iamtraffic.org By allowing faster traffic to pass slower cyclists when safe to do so, drivers of motor vehicles would not be forced to make the decision they now need to make in California: either endanger a cyclist's life and break a law, break a different law, or wait an unreasonable amount of time behind a cyclist until a passing lane or turnout is reached. The three foot law needs to be amended to meet the needs of safety and efficiency for all road users. Please help us honor Matthew and sign our Change.org petition to amend the California Vehicle Code.