-
-
-
Follow Streetsblog
Recently Posted Jobs
- Community Organizer (Bilingual), 5 days ago
- Program Director, 2 weeks ago
- New York City Bike Ambassadors, 3 weeks ago
- Outreach Ambassadors, 3 weeks ago
- Executive Director, 3 weeks ago
Word On The Street
“People should be able to travel whichever street is more convenient and expect to find a safe and comfortable bikeway.”
– Walk Eagle Rock In response to "Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?"
-
-
Recent Comments
Hot Topics
EYES ON THE STREET
Contribute to Streetsblog San Francisco
Email tips@sf.streetsblog.org or send them anonymously. Tag your photos, links, and videos with "streetsblog".
Calendar
- Thursday, June 20
- 6:30 pmSFBC Golden Wheel Awards
- Friday, June 21
- Saturday, June 22
- 12:00 pmBicycle Music Festival
- 6:00 pmSan Jose Ladies Ride
- Monday, June 24
- Tuesday, June 25
- Thursday, June 20
Archived Articles
Categories
Blogroll
Copyright Notice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
-
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
MissionANDMarket
This is a really good point. Currently people bike down both Market and Mission and for different reasons. Cycletracks on both!
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Valencian
Let’s cut back sidewalks on our transit spine. Let’s cut down every existing tree and relocate every streetlight and street furnishing onto narrowed sidewalks without even examining any alternatives. Pedestrians and transit riders – who needs them? Mid-Market will never have a lot of pedestrians and businesses that use the sidewalks, so let’s just cut those sidewalks back now.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Jim
Somewhat off the main topic, but I wonder if there has been any new discussion in regards to tearing down the rest of the Central Freeway. There aren’t as many parcels that can be developed, but a road diet or an improved implementation of Octavia on 13th/Division can allow for some development.
in response to SPUR Urges City to Reap the Benefits of Removing Highway 280
Peter Smith
the lengths we’ll go to to prevent people from getting around by bike…
in response to East Palo Alto Considers Options for Bike/Ped Bridge Over Highway 101
Anonymous
I think cycle tracks on either Market or Mission would better than no cycle tracks on either. If the road widths and bus/streetcar needs mean the costs pencil out better for MIssion Street cycle tracks, that’s fine… though I’d expect the big buses that take Marriott hotel conventioneers around town to stay off of Mission Street.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Peter Smith
the “instead of” language applied to bikes has always been bs.
if folks want to talk about only allowing cars on certain streets, that’s fine, but limiting walking and biking to certain routes is insane.
bikes need to be allowed on 101, 280, 80, 19th, etc. if bikes can’t co-exist on these routes with cars/trucks/buses/motorcycles, then the cars/trucks/buses/motorcycles need to go.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
I’m saying that as a pretty confident bike rider, I feel pretty intimidated traveling down Mission at Duboce with the speeds and volume of car traffic brought by the ramps, as well as the diminished visibility and sound caused by the freeway overhead (I had to take this route two weeks ago). I’m just pointing out that it’s not exactly as if taking that route avoids interactions with freeway traffic.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Jamison Wieser
So you think its more dangerous to bike under an overpass, than crossing directly through the path of freeway traffic?
I suggest you think on that a little harder.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
THANK you! Why are we letting this get framed as *either* Market *or* Mission? The arguments I’ve seen demonstrate that *both* streets are prime candidates for protected cycletracks.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
Whaa? The grating and the tracks are all in the middle of the street. There is very little conflict between bikes and the tracks/grating with Market’s current configuration, and Protected cycle tracks will only improve conditions. Anyone who bikes down Market knows this.
The only times a cyclist crosses streetcar tracks is at 11th Street or is they’re trying to turn left (which AFAIK is not allowed). The only time I ever hit the cheesegraters was when construction closed the right lane.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
jwb
Where on Market can anyone turn left?
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Walk Eagle Rock
I assume SF wants “20% of all trips by 2020,” right? Well, then it will be necessary to have high quality bikeways on BOTH Market and Mission. People should be able to travel whichever street is more convenient and expect to find a safe and comfortable bikeway. Regardless of the decision made, I hope that the cycle tracks are made wide enough to accommodate high volumes of bike traffic. Some rightly criticize poorly made cycle tracks as being too confining, a result from making the facility too narrow. Based on what I’ve seen firsthand on Market, and anticipating that bicycle traffic will only increase, it seems to make sense that any future cycle tracks be made at least 7ft wide
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
Here’s a sample configuration from city planners: http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/config1.jpg
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
Here’s a sample configuration from city planners: http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/config1.jpg
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Andy Chow
How are you going to get around the BART entrances and curbside bus stops?
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
WilliamH'Ford IV LLC
“Instead of talking about riding on Mission, how about cyclists try it
out! I ride Mission daily from Nopa and while there are more private
cars, I find it to be a much more relaxing ride than Market. Signals are
timed well if you ride at a decent clip and the transit only lanes are
generally empty as is since Muni doesn’t fit in the 10′ lanes.”
Exactly what I was going to type. Mission is by no means 8 to 80 ready, but if you are riding with the intent to move, Mission from South Van Ness north is a better experience hands down.
A word of caution be ready for cabs to be a bit more aggressive in the blocks they share the bus lane (if you aren’t moving at the pace of traffic), and be ready for a few (southbound) BMWs and MBs to brush you with their mirrors as they claim ownership of the bus lanes (and vacant on street parking spots) as high speed block long turning lanes for their under ground parking garages, or to make various right turns to head westward.
All in all, still safer feeling and more enjoyable than an over crowded Market st. If you can ride with traffic (22-27 mph) ride down the middle of the bus lane, cars will go around in the other lane and one can enjoy riding and being passed (infrequently at that pace) at a safe distance. If you are regularly passed by a lot of cyclists when you travel down Market of Valencia, or just don’t go at a clip ever don’t bother with Mission st.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Mario Tanev
You may be right but one other reason to demolish the freeway would be that coexistence of a high speed train AND a freeway in the same place would preclude trenching (because it would make the freeway unstable), which means 16th St will need to be brought underground, making the neighborhood separation even greater. So, status quo is not possible unless HSR is cancelled.
in response to Today's Headlines
justin
Based on the abysmal behavior of most bicyclists toward pedestrians/crosswalks and MUNI on Market now, I doubt many would care where they are supposed to ride and continue on Market (I bike down Market every day). As with the rest of the city, transit speed should be top priority, then safety and comfort of pedestrians, followed by bikes — on Market, this means fully separating bikes and MUNI, which the original Market St plan does. Plowing through crosswalks full of people on your bike just to wait for the red light on the other side is not a very good sell for better bike infrastructure, though.
I understand how space-wise it may make more sense to move bikes to Mission, but is certainly not the most natural or desirable route.
As for the glacial speed of MUNI on Market, it’s mostly caused by having to stop at every red light, often for multiple cycles due to cars that routinely block intersections. Better Market Street won’t help that at all if SFPD and DPT refuse to keep intersections clear.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
The average person hopping on a bike wouldn’t necessarily figure out they have to go out of their way for a protected bike lane, nor should they have to in a bike-friendly city.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
With raised, protected bike lanes, you should no longer have to share the road with rails, streetcars and buses. The idea is to change those conditions.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Aaron Bialick
@b4a512fc81fb65a5d5acec1c26264e9b:disqus With raised, protected bike lanes, you theoretically wouldn’t have to be riding over grates anymore. And if you’re making perpendicular left turns, you should be crossing the tracks at a right angle. How are left turns any easier on Mission, which people would have to make more often to reach destinations on Market?
Also, taking 14th to Mission avoids Market and Octavia, but it passes by ramps underneath the Central Freeway, which seems far scarier to me.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
MissionOverMarket
I think moving muni buses to Market and making Mission the primary bikeway is a great idea! As a cyclist I don’t want to ride alongside the buses- they are really loud and really smelly. I also don’t wish to deal with the pedestrians crossing the bike lane to get to the bus stops. A major complaint I hear in NYC is that the pedestrians are the major issue in blocking bike lanes- not the cars. As long as they upgrade mission with wider green bikeways, time the stops, add wayfinding and signage to direct cyclists to key destination points and bart stops, and add better lighting for night time riding, I don’t see what the problem is. I feel uneasy from the mob mentality I am sensing from Market street bike lane backers and the bike coalition. Why not take a moment to consider all options.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Zkunst
Instead of talking about riding on Mission, how about cyclists try it out! I ride Mission daily from Nopa and while there are more private cars, I find it to be a much more relaxing ride than Market. Signals are timed well if you ride at a decent clip and the transit only lanes are generally empty as is since Muni doesn’t fit in the 10′ lanes. Its relatively peaceful from 6th to the Embarcadero though it is a bit more tense to the west.
Looking out the real design challenges would be traveling eastbound and the intersections of New Montgomery, 2nd and Beale, which are heavily utilized right turns that any cycle track would have to cross. Regarding transit capacity on Market, imagine if there were fewer cyclists squeezing in front of Muni. Average speeds for buses in curb lane lines are already dismal due to cyclists sliding to the front at lights and preventing buses from changing lanes for curb stops. Remove cyclists and in theory buses can achieve higher average speeds. If both lanes can be effectively utilized through less bike traffic, removal of private auto and enforcement of delivery trucks blocking lanes we could see a real boost in transit efficiency along Market.
Regardless for those instantly opposed, give it a try. I’ve shaved ~5 minutes from my daily commute and no longer have to worry about squeezing between buses, streetcars and pedestrians. Yes you may have to cross back over Market but besides 3rd and New Montgomery, most streets have excess capacity for additional bicycle facilities.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
RichardC
The article’s argument dismissing the survey results is counter-intuitive. If, as you argue, the people being surveyed today are braver than those we’re designing for, wouldn’t you assume that more timid new riders would be MORE willing to go out of their way to reach a protected cycletrack, not less?
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
The trouble, as I see it, is that the streets connecting Market to Mission are widely spaced and often one-way, while the streets to the north of Market are more frequent. Putting the bikeway on Mission would make it complicated for people heading south from the north side of Market– half the time you’d end up on Market St. with no connection southward, so you’d end up traveling on Market anyway.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Mario Tanev
Left turns can be achieved in 2 phases and this is common in Denmark/Netherlands. After all that’s the only 8-80 solution anyway – not everyone would be willing to merge in traffic, be it with rails or without.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
charanga
This is a complex issue. Another facet is that although their locations have not yet been finalized, it is likely that a few of the new bike share stations will be on Market Street because of colocation with Bart stations. Having great bicycle infrastructure next to prominent bike sharing will better integrate this new part of our overall mobility system. I wonder if for cycling Market is a good street for visitors who would benefit from safer lanes, while Mission is a better street for locals who want to get where they are going more quickly and easily. Of course, safety is important for both.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
CrankyOldGuy
As a thought experiment, imagine that the only traffic allowed on
Market are bicycles. Is Market Street now a good place to ride?
The answer is NO because it still has NASTY street car tracks,
treacherous skin-shedding grating, and MUNI boarding bubbles that
prevent free lateral movement. None of those things are bike friendly.
I think the best solution would be to abandon Market Street to MUNI,
cabs, and even private automobiles. As it stands today, without any
bike improvements, Mission Street is still a friendlier ride than Market.
Imagine, then, a shielded bike lane down the middle of Mission Street
(cars already can’t make left turns at most intersections). That’s the
way to get downtown…
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Andy Chow
I have doubts whether a separated bikeway will work on Market considering the BART/Muni entrances and curbside bus stops. It works better as shared lanes but the streetcar tracks and metal grates are problems.
Bikeway on Mission doesn’t mean no bike on Market. I think the issue is more about politics (some bike advocates don’t want to be considered second class compared to transit).
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
We can’t get everything on street. If Mission Street gets dedicated cycle tracks, and pedestrians and transit get to Market Street, that sounds great to me. Having been “railed” more than once on Market, I don’t feel a great need to keep biking next to streetcars and huge buses on Market. I’d happily take my cycling to Market.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Jamison Weser
I for one prefer not to have to make left turns across streetcar tracks and over metal grates that leave a distinct hexagonal pattern of bruises if you get caught in the streetcar tracks or to be safe switching over to pedestrian mode to use the crosswalk to pass perpendicular.
Mission Street is even more direct than market if your destination is in SOMA, and directly connects to the future Transbay Terminal busses along with Caltrain and HSR. If your destination is north of Market, making the turn on Mission means crossing the Market Street streetcar tracks at right angles.
Mission also provides a better connection to Valencia and for anyone coming through the Wiggle, Sanchez to 14th (eastbound) and 15th (westbound) bypasses the Market and Octavia freeway offramp entirely.
In a very confusing twist, I see the relationship between Market & Mission akin to Mission & Valencia. Through the Mission District, Mission Street is the main corridor, but Valencia makes a better bike corridor.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
my gosh these options are all so round-about. given that pedestrians are more sensitive to travel distances than other modes, shouldn’t the bridges be as direct as possible?
in response to East Palo Alto Considers Options for Bike/Ped Bridge Over Highway 101
Todd Edelman
Yes, it is a bad idea. Regarding “… just about anyone…” — I assume this means that the old skool and dangerous bike boxes and silly left-turn painted islands will be left out of the final “Cycle Track” preference design.
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
of course it would be preferable to have the dedicated cycle track on market street, but what does that mean for transit and pedestrians? presumably the idea would never have been brought up if there wasn’t some conflict. if it’s not possible to have separated cycle tracks at BART stations, then maybe it makes sense to put wide, separated cycle tracks on mission and do as best we can on market?
in response to Bikeway on Mission Instead of Market: Does Anybody Think It's a Good Idea?
Anonymous
Alignments that are shoehorned in the frontage road right-of-way like alignment 2 create really bad crossings on frontage roads that get high-speed traffic, especially during rush hour when drivers use them to avoid freeway traffic.
The Borregas ones are so bad I wrote a “Bike Lane FAIL” story on it with photos that illustrate the hazards: http://ladyfleur.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/bike-lane-fail-hack-of-a-bike-bridge-in-sunnyvale/
in response to East Palo Alto Considers Options for Bike/Ped Bridge Over Highway 101
Anonymous
Not sure what “all things being equal” means since that’s not the case and a big part of the problem.
I’m under no illusion that SF is going to stop or even should stop the development, I just think a lot of things are getting steam rolled and even more things are getting thrown up at too high a price (figuratively). I agree tho that housing is better than a highway, but “housing” is not one thing just like transportation or food are not one type of good. It’s the type of housing that concerns me, all Spur seems to care about is that it’s dense, but there’s a lot more to livability than that.
Part of it is just the aesthetics, too much shit that costs too much and I’m still convinced no one wants to really live it. I mean, how long did it take to fill 1 rincon hill if it’s even full now? Even the ad for the new rincon hill tower or the terrible video for NeMa is incredibly elitist, that’s not what san francisco needs more of even if people do need places to live.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I very much doubt the housing built on that land would pay for the infrastructural changes proposed. There is a lot of land in SE San Francisco that can be redeveloped, a lot of housing too that can be built without these 37 acres of SF’s 30,080 acres. Governor Brown abolished Redevlopment agencies statewide, because they took public funds needed for poor and middle class people’s services — police, fire, schools, health, transit — and funneled them toward economic development that ended up benefitting wealthy investors. He pointed out how much more our tax dollars could do for us, if we applied it to our needs, not some abstract gdp growth overall. To me, this orchestration of support for the 280 tear down stinks. I am disappointed that streetsblog is not more cautious about supporting it. I suggest everyone take a step back before playing the role of mayor lee’s rodeo clowns.
in response to Today's Headlines
Brad
Hopefully it won’t dump out into an unsafe street crossing condition like the one in Menlo Park does.
in response to East Palo Alto Considers Options for Bike/Ped Bridge Over Highway 101
Andy Chow
Caltrain does not own the railyard but has a permanent easement to operate trains on that land. Caltrain basically owns it if it runs trains on it, but will not own it if it means developing it. Why is the city suddenly got so enthusiastic about developing the yard despite the fact that Caltrain and TJPA have reservations about it?
in response to SPUR Urges City to Reap the Benefits of Removing Highway 280
murphstahoe
All things being equal, more supply is better than less supply of a coveted good that has low externalities. Housing in SF has lower externalities than housing in Contra Costa County.
I am under no illusion that SF can build its way to lower prices. I would be a hypocrite if I said that – because I am a firm believer that we can’t build (freeways) our way out of traffic congestion or build (parking garages) our way out of parking issues. If we build more supply, that depresses prices only to the point where the marginal occupant who was leaving SF now decides to stay.
To me one thing is clear – housing is a much better use for that space than the current usage.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I agree with your sentiment voltairesmistress, there are definitely a lot of well-connected people salivating over the potential money to be made. As someone who lives off of 6th street though, it will be a personal benefit to not have the offramp spewing speeding traffic into my neighborhood. I think a boulevard will be calmer and will lower overall car use in the area. It isn’t the only way, but it would make it easier to access the dogpatch, mission Bay, Portrero, etc. with fewer elevated freeways cutting things up and the speeding traffic they dump into the city.
In one way, many parts of the city may end up subsidizing this so that the development is concentrated in the NE part of the city, with very little planned for elsewhere.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
I know it’s “supply and demand” but housing is such a complex and regulated market that increasing supply is hardly a real solution to bringing down the prices, especially when everything being built is being built with a plan to rent at or above current market rates and not with the expectation that the market will go down. Obviously you can increase the number of wealthy people living (or owning, not necessarily living there full time) in San Francisco through development but I don’t understand how you can bring down rental prices without the current development bubble getting popped. Even then, there are a lot of empty/underutilized properties landowners are sitting on until they think it’s worth making enough money off of rather than lowering prices.
So I would suggest that your “solution” to the problem is actually the problem itself since a lot of the demand for property is being fueled by speculation.
in response to Today's Headlines
murphstahoe
Rents in Noe Valley for a 1 BR condo – $2600/month.
I have a hard time being anti-development when I read that stat.
As for scarce public money… presuming that large chunks of land would become new housing, in addition to producing new housing for people to live in, it would be housing that would be sold to the residents or landlords at prevailing market rate, meaning that SF would be collecting property taxes at full value. And this is the best sort of tax – a tax that the payer is voluntarily entering into a personal agreement to pay.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
It does not. Is there anywhere the economic information is publicly available?
in response to New Stats on the Health and Business Benefits of Sunday Streets
Andy Chow
Even if the freeway stays, there’s still development potential in the yard area. I think some in the city hall is getting greedier by trying to remove the freeway so there would be slightly more street-level developments. The most expensive part is not the removal of the freeway, but the putting trains underground along the entire stretch. It could set back Caltrain electrification and downtown extension for many years.
I look at it is how much more money to put trains underground and how much more revenue would be generated by more street level developments because of removal of freeway and putting trains underground. I don’t think it will pencil out.
in response to Today's Headlines
mikesonn
That KTVU story is just video and words put together in random order with no point. How is that journalism?
in response to Today's Headlines
Roy Crisman
Bicyclists. He’s just talking about damage from taxi-bicycle collisions, they’ve already moved on from the dooring-mirrors subject by that point. The implication is that the bicyclists were at fault and caused the damage.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
In the KTVU story on Mission St bike lanes, is the taxi driver who says his company “lets them go” after they “damage his taxis” talking about bicyclists or passengers who open doors in the path of bikes? It’s at the 1:48 mark.
in response to Today's Headlines
Anonymous
Does anyone else here suspect that the 280 tear down is just the latest ploy to direct scarce public money to redevelopment, instead of to real services and reform of public transportation and education? So many ways to invest in muni, Bart, Caltrain, parks, bike lanes, schools, and yet we are told that a broad, busy surface level road will heal the ills created by the 280 skyway; that somehow we can’t knit together mission bay, dog patch, and south of market by any other means. How about providing numerous walkways, bike paths and greenery to bridge over rail yard and under the very high freeway? I think we are being played here – by the mayor, eager developers, SPUR, and naive non-profit advocates.
in response to Today's Headlines
Andy Chow
While I do question the judgement to stop the trains, I heard that person was on an street overpass so jumping on to the track is a possibility.
I think the trains should be proceeded to Bayshore (where people can walk to the T or other bus lines to downtown). With Caltrain, most of the delays are about an hour long or less before single tracking or full opening. If conductors are telling riders to get off the train and look for alternatives (like taking another train going back, etc), it would only further delay riders because of confusing instruction. Because Caltrain takes a while to turn back a train, dumping riders mid line and turning the train around has not been very effective. Usually by the time it is done at least one of the tracks will reopen.
Caltrain should use its PA system to better give an estimate of delay.
Turning back trains should be done if Caltrain can turn back trains as quick as BART or if the delay is expected to take many hours (like having to repair tracks, etc).
in response to Today's Headlines