Eyes on the Street: What Do You Think of the New SFO Bike Lanes?

The new bike lane leading into San Francisco International Airport. Photos by John Murphy

New bike lanes were recently installed around San Francisco International Airport, and the reviews are coming in. Streetsblog San Francisco reader John Murphy, who was the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s 2010 Commuter of the Year, thinks there’s lots of room for improvement. He sent us this scolding review, along with the photos:

The new bike lane through here is completely asinine. As they started construction I thought it was decent, but as construction has progressed they keep producing new features which completely suck.

The lane starts just after you pass the United Airlines building heading SB. As you make the left hand bend to head straight south on McDonnell, there was a streetlight pole in the way of where they were building the bike lane. So they widened the road a little bit right where this pole is and send cyclists on a sharp right then left bend around this pole. At speed, this is extremely “annoying.” Attempts to bypass this feature by riding left are discouraged by soft-hit poles that start before the chicane.

The next challenge is set up by another set of soft-hit poles that force the cyclist to the right, where the lane abruptly joins a bus stop. Cars are forced left, except for the buses which basically pull right, into the bus stop. I sort of understand this treatment as it prevents the bus from driftng right though cyclists, but if the bus is already at the stop, you are sort of screwed here.

After this, the lane continues on McDonnell along the 101. McDonnell is separated from 101 by a jersey barrier/fence combo. In this spot the bike lane is unacceptably narrow, forcing cyclists to ride in a very tight spot against a barrier from which there is no escape. Previously, with no lane, cyclists would drift far enough to the left to allow some buffer from the wall in the event of something going on in the roadway.

Then things get ridiculous as you veer left a gain to go under the terminal. The unacceptably narrow bike lane continues – and in said “bike lane” are drainage grates which span the entire width of the bike lane. This continues as you enter the underpass of the terminal, and then as you go uphill out of the underpass, a set of soft hit barriers attempt to force the cyclist to the right, into a narrow crappy chute, in practice I just go to the left of the soft hit barriers.

The drainage grates in the bike lanes continue as you approach the left hand bend that takes you to Millbrae Ave. Here, the bike lane is still pinned against cement barriers. At this spot, the majority of cyclists veer into the left hand lane to continue straight onto Bayshore, but the bike lane sticks to the wall, counter-intuitive to where it should be placed, as a straight ahead lane and letting right turning cyclists take the right turn pocket.

We’ve sent Murphy’s comments to SFO for a response, and are waiting to hear back. What do you think? Have you ridden the new bike lanes at SFO?

Got an idea, or content to share for a story? Please send your text and photos to tips@sf.streetsblog.org and we’ll consider publishing them.

  • mikesonn

    Just started doing the SF2RWC ride. I’m passing through here just before 7 am so traffic is light and I just take the lane for most of SFO. Honestly, I’m not surprised by the grates and odd jogs in the lane, these are obviously not designed or implemented by anyone who has ever been on a bike. Kinda like how our new Muni bus shelters were designed by someone who has never waited for a bus.

  • David Goldsmith

    The configuration was better for cyclists before they put in the bike lanes. The merge into the bus stop after the soft poles is truly awful.

  • Stamatsps

    I just used these bike lanes for trip to SFO with a flight out and return three days later.  From the pictures above the only two I have problems with are number 2 and 3.  Overall, I feel the bike lanes to SFO are an improvement from the earlier configuration.  But the merging at the bus stop section is a real problem as shown above.  There are also a few sections of the return route that need work, but I don’t have details or pictures to share yet.

     The parking at the airport itself is well marked for Concourses A and G, but not for the parking ramp option.  I parked at the Concourse G location and easily registered my bike for a three day stay.  Everything was fine upon my return.

  • blizzzz

    I’m happy that someone or some agency is at least “trying” to do something positive to encourage bikers and bike safety. I do agree that this could have been planned much better and is not a win. I’ve ridden this stretch of road many times before and after the lanes and don’t really feel like there is much if any improvement. I’m probably being overly naive here, but I wish that areas really in need of a bike lane were addressed first. Is anyone looking at the entire route from SF to the Peninsula and targeting areas that could really use improvement. How about a clearly marked and defined bike route from SF2Peninsula? Longer term thinking today?

  • TedK

    I also ride through here several times a week and find the lanes to be mostly worse than the way it was before. Veering around the light pole and then being directed straight into a bus-stop is dangerous, and going down a steep hill and being directed basically directly into a soft-hit pole is also dangerous. Really almost none of the path is an improvement.

  • EL

    “As you make the left hand bend to head straight south on McDonnell, there was a streetlight pole in the way of where they were building the bike lane”

    And also an overhead sign foundation and guard rail too.  Maybe they can pave a little more so the chicane is more gentle.

    “I sort of understand this treatment as it prevents the bus from driftng right though cyclists, but if the bus is already at the stop, you are sort of screwed here.”

    Isn’t that the case with any bus that legally entitled to stop and block the bike lane to board passengers?

    “McDonnell is separated from 101 by a jersey barrier/fence combo. In this spot the bike lane is unacceptably narrow, forcing cyclists to ride in a very tight spot against a barrier from which there is no escape.”

    I personally would rather ride against a barrier to my right, than a row of parked cars and get doored.

  • theo c

    I am very grateful that SFO has made an effort to improve the safety of biking through the airport.  I am a regular commuter and bike through the airport daily Monday through Friday.  It is unfortunate that because of the implementation of the new bike lanes I now feel less safe riding through the airport.  The new bike lanes are too narrow and often have cyclist riding extremely close to obstacles like street lamp poles and concrete barriers.  Most of the bike lanes have cyclists riding over drainage grates and man holes which are very slippery in the morning due to fog and condensation.  Part of the redesign removed a second lane of traffic south bound which now forces cars to ride very close to the bike lane endangering cyclists as they ride southbound through the airport.  Just after the McDonnell underpass the bike lane parallels a right turn lane which leaves the cyclist open to right hooks where drives turn into ongoing cyclists as they make a right turn.  Finally the bike lane at the end of the airport does not allow safe travel for bike traffic continuing onto Bayshore Highway as it turns hard right to join Millbrae Ave.  These factories have made it less safe to bike through the airport.Many of these problems can be resolved by increasing the size the bike lane to give ample room from barriers and hazards.  I urge to please solve these problems immediately before a life threatening accident occurs. 

  • mikesonn

    The choice isn’t between a barrier and a row of parked cars.

  • Russ Vernick

    I too was encouraged by the effort they made.  As someone who rides past the airport 4 times a week, my family and I really appreciate that they are trying to make it easier and safer for all.  However, I was safer before the changes.

    I agree with much of what John Murphy stated.  Moreover, when it was two lanes in both directions, cars and trucks generally gave cyclists some of the right lane in addition to the shoulder.  Now that it’s one lane heading south, there is less usable road causing more contention, making it less safe.  Having buses and right turning traffic separate from the bike lane makes the subsequent merge much more severe while putting us deeper in the blind spot.  We might have been a little closer for longer before, but it was much easier to plan and react.

    Having to veer off to avoid the big pole on the north is scary for several reasons.  As noted, it’s a pretty dramatic shift and it’s anti-cambered.  I really don’t want to make zig during the rainy season.  So far, it’s been kept clean, which is impressive given how areas off the road like that tend to collect more sand, broken glass, etc..

    Finally, the physical dividers are hazardous and should be altered or removed.  When they were first installed at the South end of the airport, I didn’t see it until the rider in front of me moved to avoid them and I smacked into one.  What’s a driver sees from the lane is different that what a cyclist sees, and I saw it just a little late.  Fortunately, it broke away and I didn’t hit the tombstone base it’s mounted on or it would have sent me flying.  If there is a way to put them in the road so the base is as small or smaller than a lane dot, that might be okay, but the 3″x5″x3″ brick in the road is real trouble.  I understand that it will not deter cars as effectively, but having one fewer obstacle to contend with is a worthwhile trade-off from my point of view.

    Love, Love, Love! that SFO recognizes they are a major thoroughfare for cyclists.  The effort to make things better is terrific, and with some refinement could work very well.

  • Isn’t that the case with any bus that legally entitled to stop and block the bike lane to board passengers?

    –> In SF, if this happened, I would merge into the lane. In this case, that path is blocked by the soft hit poles.

    I personally would rather ride against a barrier to my right, than a row of parked cars and get doored.

    –> I don’t have a problem with a barrier there, I have ridden this stretch for years. The lane should just be wider.

    I should make it clear that I was real excited to see an effort being made at this location, but I think that with more outreach that some things which to me look like obvious mistakes, could have been avoided. San Carlos is installing some new infrastructure and is doing substantial outreach. I can find no evidence of any outreach on this project.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for posting these photos. I hope SFO can fix these problems. Does not look pretty.

  • Anonymous

    I had no idea people biked to the airport.  I guess it makes sense, especially if you work there — but as a passenger it would be awfully difficult to get my giant suitcase on a bike!

  • Masonic will be the death…

    Just rode these yesterday and I completely agree. Not only is the configuration pointless, but is detrimental to the planning and implementation of future lanes. These lanes as well as the Alemany, or permanently incomplete N bound San Jose lanes are establishing a dangerous precedent. No engineering or thought of actual safety/usability seems to have been considered. The only thought seems to be put in a lane fast and call it done, or as SFBC would say “connected”.

    While I applaud San Francisco Bike Coalition’s tireless advocacy, I cannot help but wonder if they haven’t lost something in the planning and design department. When they touted Alemany as a success, and their continued ignorance of incomplete lanes (ie N bound San Jose) got me thinking. Seeing this lane stripped and offered as an acceptable lane has me down right concerned. It does not surprise me that SFMTA would choose the most expedient route to completing a lane at the expense of usability and safety, but for the SFBC to do the same is inexcusable.

    Unusable lanes are deadly to the bike movement as they cannot be ridden, are a visible and easily touted example of wasted tax dollars, and the presence of an unusable (and thus unused) lane bolsters aggressive drivers to be that much more aggressive and assertive toward cyclists who choose not to use the unusable lane. All of which only bolster the anti bikers to push harder to stop any new bike infrastructure.

  • A lot of people bike there for work (one man who worked there was killed
    there a few years ago – coincidentally on Bike to Work day). But it is also a
    key North-South bike route, a great alternative to the traffic and lights on El
    Camino. While I was out taking photos I saw ~40 cyclists come through one way or
    the other in around 30 minutes.
     
    In the past couple of years, GPS users subscribed to Strava alone, have ridden North to South here over 4500 times combined.

  • Sprague

    I’ve only seen these new bike lanes through the window of a bus, and I thought it was great they were going in.  It just goes to show that such infrastructure really must be designed by people who actually (regularly) use it, too.  At least, in SF, the new head of the SFMTA is a regular transit rider and cyclist so SF’s improvements should reflect what’s really needed and most effective.  Thanks for reporting on this and sharing the photos.

  • My instinct is that this project was done under the radar from any of the local bike advocacy groups.

  • Jim

    The pictures and comments remind me of the Crap Cycling in Waltham blog.

    SFO have painted (sic) themselves into a corner:  by doing the job improperly the first time they’ll have to spend more money erasing and re-drawing a better plan, something any middle-aged life-long cyclist could have volunteered for and done a much better job.

    If the aiport says we don’t have the budget for a re-do then everyone loses.

    So incredibly, stupidly short sighted.  

  • Sprague

    You’re making some very valid points.  Since most bike infrastructure is on-street (inbetween the door zone and moving traffic), it isn’t going to be as well used as separated bike lanes/”cycletracks” would be.  Therefore, it may often appear empty and hence wasteful.  Whether it be upper Market Street, between Castro and Octavia, or 16th Street (east of 101) or numerous other streets, bike lanes could easily be placed to the right of on-street car parking… improving the roadway for all users.

  • Masonic will be the death…

    @twitter-14678929:disqus

    I really hope so. But I thought the same thing with Alemany, and San Jose only to see both referenced days later on the SFBC website as “connections”.

    I do not mean to pick on the SFBC. They are our city’s bicycle lobby, and really do a lot of good. I cannot however, shake the feeling that in the last year they have moved from design and implementation advocacy to a slightly less tangible form of general “feel good” ride a bike advocacy. The former takes real work effort and forethought. The latter sells itself with focus on the former.

    That issue aside if they were not aware of the SFO lane I hope they work to improve it quickly.

  • thielges

    I can’t comment about the current conditions.  I’m only familiar with the stretch of S.McDonnell from the terminal to Millbrae Ave.  That part was a breeze before and crossing over 101 on Millbrae Ave. was my biggest complaint.  Too bad that these “improvements” have degraded the situation.  I agree with Murph’s assertion that this probably was never reviewed by bicyclist advisers.  Too bad because there are probably at least a hundred cyclists in this area who know how to read street plans and would be willing to review them for free.

    But lets keep this in perspective.  Though bungled at least SFO is trying to accommodate cyclists.  I’ve biked into and out of about a dozen airports and SFO is probably the second most cyclist friendly airfield I’ve encountered (LAS Vegas is the best if you can believe that !)  I remember when SJC offered no legal or safe way to reach the terminal without being inside of a four wheeled vehicle.  Now you can legally cycle and walk to SJC but the conditions are still not as friendly as SFO.

    Also glad to hear that other travelers bike to airports.  This thread is a great reference for convincing airport officials that some flyers actually arrive by bike.  Usually they’re incredulous. 

  • Bart – you might try San Bruno Ave next time. There is a ped/bike path from what I understand. I have a friend who walks to the aiport via San Bruno Ave (it takes you to the airtrain at the Rental Car places). Millbrae Ave – is ugly. 
     

  • Bob Shanteau

    Someone needs to tell the engineers at SFO that California law requires them to comply with the bicycle provisions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: “Streets and Highways Code 891 All city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the
    development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel
    is permitted shall utilize all minimum safety design criteria and
    uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic
    control devices established pursuant to Sections 890.6 and 890.8.”

    For instance, Section 9C.04 of the CA MUTCD says, “Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement markers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane).”

    Also, do I understand correctly that the new bike lane is positioned to the right of a right turn lane? If so, that violates this standard in Section 9C.04 the CA MUTCD: “A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.”

  • Im looking at the first picture, reading this:

    ” and send
    cyclists on a sharp right then left bend around this pole. At speed,
    this is extremely “annoying.”

    And thinking…seriously?

    Thats a “sharp” bend? Thats “annoying”?

    Whining at its absolute worst.

  • According to Bryan SFO has my tome, and is preparing a response.

    Here are two images showing the two instances where the bike lane was positioned to the right of the right turn pocket.

    http://www.twitpic.com/68lvck

    http://www.twitpic.com/683ihv

    The barrier is the edge of the roadway, not sure if that constitutes “dilineating” the bike lane, any more than a curb would be.

    http://www.twitpic.com/683htn

  • Bob Shanteau

    Murph, both of your photos of bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes violate the CA MUTCD.

    The MUTCD is not referring to the K-rail on the right side of the bike lane in your photo. It is referring to delineating the bike lane itself. Thus installing cylindrical tubes between the bike lane and the travel lane is prohibited.

  • Try taking that bend at 25 MPH and get back to me.

  • how does that dovetail with soft hit poles delineating lanes like on Market or Division in San Francisco?

    http://www.sfbike.org/main/one-more-link-a-separated-bike-lane-improving-division-street/

  • Bob Shanteau

    The “separated bike lanes” in SF do not meet the standards of bike lanes in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the CA MUTCD. Since they are marked with double white lines, they are not part of the “roadway” and thus are actually bike paths (although they don’t meet the standards for bike paths, either).

    In general, SF has gone its own way with its “separated bike lanes”, ignoring both the Caltrans HDM and the CA MUTCD.

  • djconnel

    Calls for “outreach” to the cycling community are sort of silly if published guidelines were ignored.  The manual contains the results of outreach.  No need to reinvent these things from first principles time after time after time.  It’s really very simple.

  • Cor van de Water

    Depends on what you need to do there. Last time I biked to and from SFO was to get things straightened out with a ticket, so I was not flying, just wasting my time with the ticket desk that they refused to deal with over the phone. Taking my bike on Caltrain and riding Millbrae Ave and S McDonnell is the fastest way to get to the airport. Forget BART because they don’t even connect Caltrain to the Airport which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. How come I need to transfer on BART to go between Caltrain and SFO? Apparently they don’t like people to take Caltrain! But back OT: while riding McDonnell I was not aware it was new. It looked like an old infrastructure, from before there were rules how to put in bicycle lanes. Most bikers there probably are through-cyclists as the bike rack at the terminal entrance looked abandoned except a few skeletons of frames and front wheels still locked to the rack.
    BTW, not everyone travels with a giant suitcase. If I go on a trip for less than a week, I will try to have only carry-on so I can also take it on my bike and I have done that often. Bike and train are my favorite vehicles, including to reach the airport.

  • Anonymous

    A first-principles question: I get why the bike lane might exist to “Kiss-and-Fly” (where you can park a bike). I don’t get why it exists after that — you can catch the inter-terminal train from there to work airside, you could walk 1/8 mile to the other buildings, or if you work inside the SIDA you could ride groundside. Perhaps it should exist from the south, but that’s the wrong side of the street for these pictures.

  • Anonymous

    A lot of people work at the airport. These bike lanes are equally for employees, for passengers, and for pass-through traffic (who don’t want to detour across Highway 101 twice to get to their destination).

  • Anonymous

    Is there a link somewhere which shows where these lanes are on a map? I’m having a hard time seeing the big picture ….

  • Wetzels10

    You kind of sound like a whiny bitch

  • Anonymous

    McDonnell Rd from San Bruno to Millbrae Ave, SFO

  • I’ve been riding this section of McDonnell Road regularly.  It’s not solely (or primarily) important for passengers, or even airport employees.  It carries the Bay Trail past SFO (were the Bay Trail folks involved in the bike lane planning and design?) and it’s part of the main north-south bayshore routes between SF, the Peninsula, and points south for through touring cyclists.

    This *was* one of the best stretches of bicycle expressway on any major north-south Peninsula bike route. With 101 on one side and the airport on the other, there’s little cross traffic and few stops.  There’s relatively little traffic, and no parking (i.e. no door hazard).

    With two traffic lanes in each direction, this was a stretch with plenty of room for motor vehicles and bikes to *share* lanes without bikes slowing down cars and trucks, and without motor vehicles threatening bikes. Despite the high proportion truck traffic to the airport post office and the cargo terminals, I never felt unsafe, or hesitant to take a lane along the wall southbound. Those who rode this stretch regarded it as a wonderful secret, far superior as a bike route to anything past the airport on the west side of 101.

    When the bike lane striping started, I wanted to be pleased that road planners had recognized its importance as a major through bicycle route. But as the new bike lnaes took shape, it looked more and more like they were designed to get bikes out of the way of cars and trucks, rather than to benefit bikes.

    The worst feature of the new setup is the narrowness of the bike lane along the freeway barrier southbound.  Since it looks like bikes have their own dedicated lane, trucks don’t feel the need to pull over or slow down as they pass, they way they used to do when a bike was in the right lane. And since there is now a bike lane, cars and trucks are (understandably) upset if a bike continues to take the shared lane, which they didn’t before if a bike took one of the two former shared southbound lanes.

    The bike lanes to the right of right-turn lanes are also bad, although typical. as others have noted, most of the southbound bike traffic on McConnell continues either straight (south on Bayshore, for faster riders and commuters), or left into Bayshore Park and onto the Bay Trail (slower recreational riders, and again, where were the Bay Trail planners?), not right across 101 on Millbrae Ave. to Millbrae BART, etc.  There’s no sign for where the Bay Trail resumes form McConnell after the airport southbound, and neither a clear line a bike is expected to follow nor a properly placed curb cut for bike traffic continuing south onto the Bay Trail.

    I don’t know, or care, who was responsible for this mess. SFO (the airport administration has a history of disregard for integrated intermodal transport planning, as we saw with the saga of BART-to-SFO)? San Mateo County? Caltrans?  What matters is that it be fixed, sunk cost notwithstanding, and thta lessons be learned for the future.

  • Ashley_fouts

    Bike lanes like these are impossible for street cleaners to clean and result in more flats for cyclists in addition to being dangerous because of sharp corners and narrow lanes.  The soft hit pole division is not helpful.

  • Kent

    What a joke. As a true biker, I say “Take the Lane.”

  • Peter2code

    I have ridden as a through commuter twice a week over the past three weeks and I haven’t had any problems.  I will admit that I bypassed the chicane illustrated in the photo on half my rides because I was concerned about flats. 
    I am actually more concerned about the trip up Millbrae Ave to get to Sawyer Camp Trail. Until you get past El Camino it is not a fun share with the cars.  Once past that though it is a better trip south down the peninsula than along the bay. 

  • Tom

    Yes, I have ridden the new SFO bike lanes fine on the west side but terrible on the east side. Will not bike in the gutter.

    Tom

  • So Caltrain commuters from San Francisco can exist at San Bruno station, and get to the terminals on a bike lane- via San Bruno Ave.

  • Charles Schuler

    Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Airport’s attention.  The bike lanes located on North and South McDonnell Road were designed by the Airport’s Traffic Engineering section to meet the standards set forth in the Caltrans MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices).   In developing the design, the Airport traffic engineers consulted with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail project manager, as well as with the Airport’s cycling community.  The bike lanes were designed to take into consideration the safety impacts to cyclists in light of their proximity to Airport operations, including the Airport’s future runway safety expansion and roadway realignment on the south end, and rental car and cargo truck traffic volumes and speeds on the north end. Let me address your specific concerns: 1)      The Airport’s engineering will review the feasibility of relocating the street light poles in an effort to improve the overall alignment on the southbound lane of North McDonnell road.   2)      We were unable to relocate the southbound bus stop on North McDonnell. In order to keep the bus stop without disrupting the flow of traffic, the bike lane needed to end before reaching the bus stop allowing cyclist to continue riding following regular street riding rules. 3)      The delineators are a temporary measure to help motor vehicle drivers identify the new southbound  configuration.  Once the regular traffic learns the new roadway configuration, the plan is to remove the two delineators closest to the bike lane. We estimate that will happen in 4 to 6 weeks. Once removed, this will allow cyclists to pass a stopped bus on the left side when safe to do so. 4)      The Airport traffic engineers used the Caltrans MUTCD minimum width requirements for both the vehicle and the bicycle lanes adjacent to the 101 Caltrans barrier rail. However, the Airport traffic engineers will re-evaluate this location to see if any improvements can be made. 5)      The storm grates meet Caltrans Standards Plan for Bicycle Proof Grates, however the Airport traffic engineers will see if there are alternate grates that will address your concerns 6)      The Airport’s traffic engineers will reevaluate the Millbrae Ave. intersection to see if we can provide an additional bike lane to allow an easier transition onto Bayshore Blvd.

  • Anonymous

    Good stuff.

    John

  • mikesonn

    Awesome!

  • yoz

    Two days ago when I rode southbound past the airport, I was appalled to find a little freestanding stop sign at the light south of the airport before Millbrae Ave, standing right in the middle of the bike lane!

    I usually go past the airport but a few times I’ve biked there with my bags on my back. This attitude is much better than when I biked to Logan in Boston and got funny looks from the cops. Nonetheless there is a lot of room for improvement.

  • Anonymous

    I’m no highway expert, but a few minutes with Google and it’s not hard to find in chapter 1000 of the Ca Highway Design Manual:

    “As indicated, if no gutter exists, the minimum bike lane width shall be 4 feet. With a normal 2-foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 5 feet. The intent is to provide a minimum 4 feet wide bike lane, but with at least 3 feet between the traffic lane and the longitudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the gutter reduces the effective width of the bike lane for two reasons. First, the longitudinal joint may not always be smooth, and may be difficultto ride along. Secondly, the gutter does not provide a suitable surface for bicycle travel. Where gutters are wide (say, 4 feet), an additional 3 feet must be provided because bicyclists should not be expected to ride in the gutter. Wherever possible, the width of bike lanes should be increased 6 feet to 8 feet to provide for greater safety. Eight-foot bike lanes can also serve as emergency parking areas for disabled vehicles.”

    You hired PAID consultants?   The guidelines on Class II bikelanes are only a few pages, easily read in 5 minutes by anyone moderately fluent in English.

    Sorry — I am not impressed.

  • Bob Shanteau

    Charles Schuler wrote: “The Airport traffic engineers used the Caltrans MUTCD minimum width
    requirements for both the vehicle and the bicycle lanes adjacent to the
    101 Caltrans barrier rail.”

    Lane width standards are in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, not the CA MUTCD.

  • Jason T

    The pictured grate certainly does NOT meet those requirements. Perhaps other grates do, but not that one.

  • Edward Hasbrouck

    (1) You claim to have consulted “the Airport’s cycling community”. Who did you consult, and how did you advertise this consultation to actual users of the road in question?

    (2) You refer to keeping the bus stop “without disrupting the flow of traffic”. But this statement reflects a false assumption that bike traffic is not really “traffic”. in fact, bike traffic is part of a traffic mix that includes bike traffic, motorized traffic, and pedestrian traffic. When you felt you had to choose, you chose to disrupt the flow of bike traffic rather than the flow of motorized traffic. But as an agency of the City and County of SF, SFO is required to operate in accordance with the “transit-first” clause of the City and County Charter, which requires that priority be given to non-motorized traffic. What has SFO done to incorporate the “transit-first” mandate of the City and County Charter into its planning process and criteria?

  • From an email I was copied on. I have no details.

    “The SF Airport is having a meeting Dec 5th to discuss bike improvements on their roads. This is in response to the comments they received regarding the striping on McDonnell Road.”

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Detailed Polk Street Designs: Plans for Safe Bicycling Still “Lackluster”

|
The SFMTA and the Planning Department presented detailed plans for Polk Street at the project’s final open house meeting yesterday. The new aspects include specific locations of bulb-outs, dedicated bicycle signals, left turn prohibitions, loading zones, and new trees and landscaping. Plans to improve bicycle infrastructure are still composed of a mix of protected, buffered, […]

A Safer Masonic on the Way

|
Wednesday evening some 130 local residents and other interested parties dropped in at the San Francisco Day School to learn about the construction phase of SFMTAs Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project. To quote SFMTA’s own release about the project: With construction starting in June 2016, the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project is an effort to improve safety for […]