A Year After Bike Injunction Lifting, SF Blazes Ahead With Improvements

Bicyclists now enjoy green protected bike lanes on parts of Market Street. Photo: Bryan Goebel

It was one year ago last Thursday that a San Francisco judge freed the city from its four-year-old bicycle injunction, and allowed the SFMTA to finally begin building out the long stalled Bike Plan. Since the chains were unlocked, the number of bicyclists on the streets has dramatically risen, thanks in no small part to the new infrastructure that has made cycling more inviting to people of all ages.

Granted, even though the number of bike commuters on Market Street looks like what you might see in some of the great European bicycling cities, we’ve still got a lot of catching up to do. But what has happened in the last year, after we were starved for so long, should be celebrated. Building out 14 miles of bike lanes since last August, and a total of 19 of the 34 miles in the Bike Plan — more than half — since the injunction was partially lifted in November 2009, was no miniscule feat.

Tack on the green protected bike lanes and green-backed sharrows on portions of Market Street, green bike lanes on a stretch of Fell Street, six green bike boxes (on Market and on Scott Street), a left-turn bike lane and signal timed for bicyclists on Scott Street, 14 bike corrals, 38 miles of sharrows, 500 bike racks totaling 1,000 spaces and you realize that San Francisco has accomplished a lot in a short time. No, it’s not as fast of a rate as New York City (250 miles of new bike lanes since 2006), but the SFMTA is rolling out bike projects at a much swifter pace than before the city was hit with the lawsuit.

“I’m very proud,” said Bridget Smith of the SFMTA’s Sustainable Streets Division, which was awarded the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Golden Wheel Award this year. “Folks here are feeling really good about the progress we’ve made. Our shops have been fantastic, and everybody has really chipped in. I think we’ve come a really long ways.”

“We commend the city for working hard to try to keep up with the growing demand for better bicycling by implementing more new bike lanes in a single year than ever before, while also upgrading some to even better, physically separated bikeways,” said SFBC Executive Director Leah Shahum. “Our city leaders recognize that a well-connected bikeway system between all our neighborhoods that is inviting for people ages 8 to 80 is the wave of the future.”

Families on bikes have become a much more common sight in the city. Photo: ##http://www.orangephotography.com/##Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography##

More Innovative Projects in the Works

The green protected bike lanes on Market Street are what San Francisco bicyclists should expect to become the norm, as the SFMTA considers folding the SFBC’s Connecting the City vision into its long-range plans. The agency’s bike planners have acknowledged that standard bicycle lanes that place people on bikes between auto traffic and the door zone are not the future.

“Today’s investment in Connecting the City with welcoming, family-friendly bikeways will have benefits to the health, affordability, local economy, and environmental well-being of San Francisco for decades to come,” Shahum said.

If San Francisco wants to meet its goal of making 20 percent of all trips by bicycle by 2020 it’ll need to elevate its game, and we’ve been told that discussions are taking place internally at the SFMTA, and other city departments, on just how to do it. Next month, a group of Dutch experts will arrive to review some specific projects and give the SFMTA’s planners design advice.

“The agency is giving a lot of consideration into the next generation of bike plans and what is best to guide the city into the next level,” said Smith. “We’re a gold level city for biking already, so how do we get to be platinum?”

The agency is currently planning other innovative projects, including protected cycletracks on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park, Fell and Oak streets and a two-way cycletrack on Cargo Way. It also has launched a trial to test three different street treatments aimed at preventing right-hook turns by drivers on 17th Street between Dolores and Valencia. The idea is to figure out which treatment is the most intuitive for drivers and bicyclists sharing the space.

“This particular experiment is something that nationally, we think is really significant,” Smith explained. “A lot of things that we’re doing have a lot of other cities sort of watching and learning from our approach, and then taking on some of our approaches since our guidelines and manuals haven’t caught up with the state of the practice.”

Here’s a list of the SFMTA’s accomplishments since the bike injunction was fully lifted last August:

  • Completed 17 projects adding bike lanes to 14 miles of streets. 19 miles (over 50 percent) of the bike lanes laid out in the Bike Plan have been implemented.
  • Installed about 2,800 shared roadway bike markings (sharrows) along 124 different street segments totaling about 38 miles.
  • Installed about 500 bike racks providing 1,000 bicycle parking spaces.
  • Installed eight on-street bike corrals to accommodate high bike parking demand in commercial areas. The City now has a total of 14 bike corrals, and plans to install 11 more by the end of 2011.

Implemented several innovative bikeway improvements, including:

  • Improvements to Market Street including five green bike boxes, green-backed sharrows and expanded green paint and safe-hit post buffers.
  • Bike lanes buffered with safe-hit posts on Alemany Boulevard, Division Street, Laguna Honda Boulevard and Portola Drive, with plans to add additional safe-hit post buffers to bike lanes on Monterey Boulevard San Jose Avenue in August.
  • Traffic signal changes at Fell and Scott streets to improve bicycle safety.
  • Green treatments along the Fell Street bicycle lane near the Divisadero ARCO station.
  • Testing of “door zone” treatments and “right-hook” treatments along 17th Street.

Other significant accomplishments during this period include:

  •  Announced a regional bike sharing program last fall and approved an interagency agreement in June supporting the scheduled project launch in spring 2012.
  • Implemented a policy change to allow folding bikes on Muni vehicles.
  • Completed conceptual design for the Masonic Avenue streetscape project.
  • Completed planning and design for a two-way cycle track on Cargo Way – this project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011 and will be San Francisco’s first two-way cycle track.
  • Continued planning, design and community outreach for parking-buffered cycle tracks on John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park. This project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011 and will be San Francisco’s first parking-buffered cycle track.
  •  Secured funding for planning and design of bikeway improvements along Fell and Oak Streets to improve this key connection along “The Wiggle” bike route.

Source: SFMTA

 

  • Can you tell more about the door zone and right hook treatments?

  • Can you tell more about the door zone and right hook treatments?

  • As I understand it Steve, the standard California treatment at intersections for right turns by drivers on streets with bike lanes is a dashed bike lane, or to drop the lane all together. SFMTA is trying both of those, and taking data, along with a sharrow treatment, to see which works best. I’ll try to get more info for ya.

  • leecommadennis

    these slashes in the bike lane discourage bicycling in the door zone:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/leecommadennis/6035821452/

  • This has been a year of great progress. I now have a choice of 3 (almost) complete bicycle routes from home to work and back. It makes me happy.

  • According to the city’s own numbers, it’s simply untrue that “Since the chains were unlocked, the number of bicyclists on the streets has dramatically risen, thanks in no small part to the new infrastructure that has made cycling more inviting to people of all ages.”
    http://128.121.89.101/cms/bhome/documents/City_of_San_Francisco_2010_Bicycle_Count_Report_edit12082010.pdf

    According to the 2010 count, there was only a 3% increase in cyclists. In fact the greatest percentage increase took place while the injunction was in place. Cycling as  PC fad may have peaked here in Progressive Land.

  • Jim

    Great, you are citing a one point in time count vs. another point in time count to summarize there isn’t growth.
    There certainly is, no thanks to you.  

  • Jim

    PS  I believe you are indirectly responsible for the injuries and deaths of some cyclists due to the legal shenanigans you put the city through.  Had we the infrastructure we now have in place 5 years ago, there is no doubt in my mind general awareness and safety would have improved.  
    If you have any conscience at all you’d feel great remorse over this fact alone.  

  • Jim: The article above isn’t referring to another count, since the city only does it once a year. The last two years showed little growth in the number of cyclists counted. The next count should tell us if that represents a trend.

    Following the most important environmental law is nothing but “legal shenanigans”? The city should have done the environmental review way back in 2005 when we tried to warn them that what they were doing was illegal. Instead City Hall—Dennis Herrera and the Board of Supervisors in particular—thought they could get away with flouting the law that everyone else is expected to follow. That behavior was oddly appropriate, since was similar to the bad behavior exhibited by so many of your bike comrades on city streets.

  • Jim

    The city should have done the impact report, but common sense would have told you any sort of footprint or impact of a bicyclist is minimal. 
    Do not lump me into a group of scofflaws.  People who ride bicycles are not my comrades; they are human beings, some of which lost their lives due to your crusade.  I do not have any solidarity with people trying to get to where they’re going.
    It was a question of what is right; your legal outrage outweighs your moral one, that much is irrefutable.  

  • Adam

    Why do you even care? Your weird

  • Adam

    What an inspiring year, and great write up!!

    Maybe Streetsblog can do an annual ‘state of the city’ or something like that, highlighting all the livability improvements made during the prior year (parklets, bicycling infrastructure, road diets etc..)

  • Adam

    Rob, why do you even care? Your weird

  • Adam

    Sorry mods, please delete dup comment

  • “The city should have done the impact report, but common sense would have told you any sort of footprint or impact of a bicyclist is minimal.”

    You admit the city should have done the environmental review, but somehow I’m the bad guy? In fact, as we predicted, the EIR on the Bicycle Plan reported that implementing the Plan will have “significant impacts”—that’s negative impacts, of course—on traffic and Muni on a number of streets.

    “It was a question of what is right; your legal outrage outweighs your moral one, that much is irrefutable.”
    All that’s “irrefutable” is the display of your ignorance. CEQA, the law the city deliberately violated, is a moral law, since it requires developers and/or jurisdictions to do an environmental study of any project that even might have a negative impact on our environment.

    On average there are only 1.8 fatalities a year to cyclists on city streets. Since you’re accusing me of being an accessory to murder, please provide some specifics on which fatality since the injunction in 2006 was due to the lack of cycling infrastructure. The deaths I’m familiar with from media accounts were all due to either drunk drivers or the negligent behavior of the cyclists themselves. 

  • Jim

    Tell 1.8 cyclists’ parents you are sorry, but you had to do you legal due process…just because.
    Tell hundreds of cyclists doored every year it’s their fault there wasn’t a protected bike lane because you needed to tell the city its legal responsibilities.  Oh, turns out there wasn’t any reason to not go ahead.    

    Keep telling yourself that as you try to convince yourself it’s all about the letter of the law, not the spirit.  

    Tell yourself you did it all in the name of justice so you can sleep at night.  

  • Jim

    A tourist died on Masonic; if there had been a protected, painted bike lane perhaps a drunken driver might have noticed it.  A guy died on 7th ave.; perhaps if there were a stenciled sharrow in the road the bus driver would’ve been more accommodating so he didn’t ride on the sidewalk and try to jump in front of the bus.
    You may cite all the statistics and moral laws you like, but your understanding of the dynamics of what happens on the street is nil.  

  • Everywhere in the world where bicyclists are given space, safety goes up, deaths go down, and more people bicycle. Less cars on the street mean less pollution and a healthier population.

    With 40 years of traffic engineering studies showing the positive effects of complete streets on cities, it blows my mind that you still somehow think you did the right thing.

    And the PC fad in progressive land comment? Give me a break. The price of gas is only gonna keep going up buddy. 

  • The two fatalities you refer to don’t help your cyclist-as-victim argument: the guy on Masonic was killed by a drunk driver late at night. Street design had nothing to do with it. The guy killed by the bus apparently was at fault, according to the stories in the media. You still need to cite the single death of a cyclist that can even remotely be attributed to the injunction.

    Jim, I’m trying to help you with your cognitive problems, but you have to work with me, which means actually reading what I write.

    How and exactly where will dooring be prevented? As long as you have parallel street parking you’re  going to have dooring, caused by careless drivers and careless cyclists.

    “Oh, turns out there wasn’t any reason to not go ahead[with the Bicycle Plan].”

    Wrong, Jim. There was the matter of the EIR on the Plan, which Judge Busch ordered the city to do, because he found that they were breaking the law. Like every other document on the issue, you haven’t read.    

  • Jim

    Rob, I’m trying to help you with your cognitive problems, but you have to understand what I write.  Work with me.  Really.  I don’t think you are trying very hard.

    You didn’t read or understand a thing I wrote, but I understand your words all too well.  You’re trying to be polemical w/o looking at who you are.  

    Your dooring and fatality comments reinforce what I said:  you have no idea of street dynamics.  I don’t know how you can’t recognize yourself for who you are:    blinkered, somewhat smart in a doctrinaire way, unfocussed on reality but specializing in a very tiny part of the world which you choose to have made your own, thereby affecting the health and lives of others.  All so some folks can save a minute two on their commutes in their cars.  

    As I said before and will say it again if necessary:  this isn’t a legal issue per se; it’s about your lack of common and moral sense.  Your parents didn’t raise you correctly, evidently.  

  • Jim:
    Another fact-free comment! Since this thread is supposedly about how many cyclists are on city streets, why don’t you comment on the latest SF bicycle count report?
    http://128.121.89.101/cms/bhome/documents/City_of_San_Francisco_2010_Bicycle_Count_Report_edit12082010.pdf

  • Jim

    Rob, another comment devoid of humanity.  “Here are some stats.  Look at them.  I am vindicated!  I don’t care who died – I win!”

  • So  your fuzzball argument is more humane because it’s fact-free? That tends to confirm my sense that the whole bike thing is about religion, not public policy. I just think it’s odd that you and your comrades completely ignore the fact-based reports that SF does every year about what’s really happening on city streets.

  • Jim

    My fuzzball argument is more humane because it doesn’t injure anyone, much less kill them.  I just think it’s odd you and your comra…I guess it’s just you, love numbers so much and love beating that dead horse so intently that it’s caused you tunnel vision.  Please see a doctor about that, or better yet a priest, monk or holy man.  
    You’re going to need all of them.  

  • How exactly does my argument “injure” anyone? I of course have done nothing that killed anyone. Convicting someone of murder or even accessory to murder requires a fact-based argument in our legal system, but you of course, with your superior humanity and your holy men, are above such considerations. I don’t have any particular affection for numbers, but when discussing public policy—especially traffic issues—they are essential to mere mortals like me.  

  • Jim

    Wow, your comprehension of anything but statistics or public policy is really low.  Cognitive dissonance, no doubt.  Facts, Legality, Morally Bankrupt:  Rob Anderson’s Life and Times.  Streaming on Netflix.  Starring a stiff.  
    I’m in the middle of the bell curve as far as “humanity”; for you one would need a few more pieces of paper to the left.  You are indeed in a class by yourself.
    BTW I’ve looked at the stat’s you cite; their counting methodology, as I mentioned earlier which you ignored, is a problem.  Coupled with your pre-determined interpretation of them it’s a complete mess.  It may make sense to you, but then again you don’t have much of that.  

  • Yes, of course the city’s count methodology has its limitations. I’m sure the MTA would appreciate your humane tips on making it better. Nevertheless those are the only numbers we have about how many people are riding bikes to work in SF. Your witless insults don’t help your argument, which, by the way, is what exactly? I did an analysis of this report way back in January, but the folks at Streetsblog didn’t do anything similar. Why is that? A possible answer: the report doesn’t validate the notion that riding a bike in SF is gaining much ground.
    http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2011/01/2010-bicycle-count-report-bike-use-is.html 

  • mikesonn

    Jim, while your efforts are valiant, I’d save your breath. Rob is fading fast so he’ll just start yelling louder. Some have asked him to post his latest appeal to his blog and he refuses, not to anyone’s surprise. If he was so certain of his standing, he’d be broadcasting it far and wide, but he has no ground on which to stand anymore.

    Also, he thinks commuting to work is the only time people travel from A to B. This is actually pretty interesting since he doesn’t work anymore so must not do any traveling worth counting.

    Rob is best left ignored. He lives for being the beacon on a hill to the mass of blind, sheep-like “progs” here in SF. You can argue, and point out what he’s done, but he’s so committed to his line of thought that to admit one error would bring his house of cards tumbling down.

  • Jim

    Your witless sarcasm does nothing to bolster your soul either.  If you don’t know my argument by now you are truly thick.  You did an analysis did you?  Hooray!  Alan Greenspan did some heavy duty analysis too…oops, bad example.
    It is impossible to count the number of cyclists on the road, but if one had any common sense, Rob, you can see it in certain neighborhoods.
    This is a big ask because you need:  a)  common sense and b)  eyes.
    MTA, Streetsblog listen up:  the megalomaniacal Rob Anderson has done an analysis!  
    Ok, aside from being soulless it’s about ego too.  

  • Jim

    Mike, I know he’s mentally unstable and has unlimited energy for blabbing incoherently but I have a proposal for Rob:
    Meet me on Valencia at 20th.  I’ll bring my car and a bike.  I’ll let you ride my bike; it’ll be my crappy one.  I’ll follow you but stay in the lane.  You can stay in the bike lane, if someone’s not double parked.  You’d better not come out of it though.  Let’s turn onto Division; there’s no bike lane there.  I will then drive how a lot of drivers do when a cyclist is in the way on that freeway on ramp.  You will be that cyclist.  Don’t worry, I won’t hurt you.  It’s merely play acting.  Really.  
    We’ll compare notes later, mkay?

  • Adam

    I’ll ask again Rob, why do you even care?

  • Jim

    Rob, I’m awaiting your response.  Walk a mile in my shoes, only this time by bicycle.  

  • Pretty silly stuff, Jim. Having failed to offer a serious argument, go for a cutesy stunt. Yes, I did an analysis if the city’s last bike count report, as did Rachel Gordon in the Chronicle. Where’s the analysis by you bike guys?

    “Some have asked him to post his latest appeal to his blog and he refuses, not to anyone’s surprise.”

    I didn’t write the appeal brief. It’s the opening brief, to which the city will respond. Why doesn’t the SFBC or the city just give you guys a copy? You’re interested in our brief, but you can’t do an analysis of the count report? Funny how none of you were interested in the earlier phase of the litigation—-or the EIR, for that matter.

    “It is impossible to count the number of cyclists on the road, but if one had any common sense, Rob, you can see it in certain neighborhoods.”

    Of course the count is difficult to do accurately, but it’s the only one we have. The city does it every year, with people at the same locations. And of course many in the bike community know exactly when it takes place—this month, in fact—so that the numbers are inflated. The report even cops to doing some over-counting—counting cyclists more than once!

    “Rob is best left ignored. He lives for being the beacon on a hill to the mass of blind, sheep-like ‘progs’ here in SF. You can argue, and point out what he’s done, but he’s so committed to his line of thought that to admit one error would bring his house of cards tumbling down.”

    Maybe Mike could provide a single example of one of my errors. I don’t claim to never make mistakes, but he’s unlikely to know the difference, since he’s not a very careful reader. I do a blog on these issues, to which Mike used to comment regularly. Apparently he got tired of embarrassing himself with dumb comments. You guys evidently don’t have anyone who can read documents and do an analysis. I’m not surprised, based on the comments on this thread.  

  • Jim

    Not even cutesy Rob – it’s reality.  You need to put your money where your mouth is.  
    Unfortunately, you probably can’t ride a bike.   
    If you had enough nerve to do so, you would talk me up on the offer as opposed to bringing lawsuits or waging a war of incontinent words.

    Face it – you are a child amongst men.  

  • Jim

    I forgot:  you know how I said you were semi-smart?  I take that back.  This stats albatross reveals how much of an old fool you are.

  • I’m going to kindly suggest that anyone who wants to continue this back and forth with Rob take it over to his blog. Thank you.

  • mikesonn

    Don’t kid yourself. I stopped commenting when I realized that you are sustained by attention. Which is why I told Jim to just walk away.

  • Jim

    Bryan, I understand you are the editor of a news organization but also of a blog.  You have allowed some of my and all of Rob’s out-of-bounds comments.  That’s to your credit.
    Question is:  what does it take to get banned from this site?  I would love to keep reading SBlog but, as many others do, simply do not to avoid the train wreck that is Rob.  
    There is a point at which one person’s presence obscures the message you are delivering.
    Thanks,
    Jim  

  • Adam

    Yeah, wasn’t his opinion with this matter shown to be baseless? His detraction’s would be welcome if they were based more in reality

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Kevin C

    Honestly I think people like Rob shows how easy it is to punch holes in the arguments against livable streets. I’m particularly impressed with Mario’s responses to Rob on the 8/16/11 headlines (link below).

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/08/15/todays-headlines-622/

    Mike is right, Rob is a troll that thrives on negative attention. It’s best to give a few well composed and calm replies for others to read, then walk away. Rob can’t even stay on the same thread of conversation because he’s debunked so quickly.

    Jim, I like a majority of your comments. It’s a constant task to talk to people around us about the cause of livable streets and I’ll be referring back to you arguments in the future against responses like “How did the bike injunction risk peoples lives and kill people?”. However, I think most people are easier to convince than Rob Anderson.

  • Prolix1001

    a bike lane in the street, which was entirely unnecessary, is NOT a
    useful addition to the community and serves only to irritate people who
    might otherwise be well-disposed to the idea of more bike lanes.

    Bikes Sale

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Judge Busch Could Block New Bike Lanes Through March 2010

|
Judge Busch could partially lift the injunction for now, allowing the city to paint sharrows but not bike lanes. Flickr photo: BikePortland.org The injunction that has hung like a pall over San Francisco’s efforts to improve bicycle infrastructure for the city’s growing number of bicyclists will remain for at least another ten days, and could […]

Market/Octavia Bike Lane Will Stay for Now

|
In a ruling cheered by bicycle advocates, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter J. Busch today rejected the MTA’s request to modify the bike injunction to allow the removal of the eastbound Market Street bike lane and concrete island at Octavia Boulevard, the city’s most dangerous intersection for bicyclists.  "The question that confronts me in […]