Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Chris J.

    It surprised me to notice such a big difference, but riding on these blocks of Valencia was SO much more pleasant today — even with just a couple posts on some of the blocks.

    Most times it feels very demoralizing to ride on Valencia: so many drivers blithely parked in the bike lane as if it’s their personal parking / loading zone. Try to speak with any of these drivers to tell them they’re blocking a travel lane, and they look at you like you’re an alien.


    Frank Kotter

    Edit: *any* parking



    They probably notice, the outside of the car is fairly thin, but well attached. It acts like a speaker and transmits the noise into the car fairly well.

    With trucks, there’s less care given as the bumpers are usually a bit more robust than a typical car.



    Nice rendering, but good luck getting anyone to agree for the removal of all that parking.



    Do you think the driver you witnessed noticed anything?


    Jamison Wieser

    I love the dragon costume. I ride with an ugly doll on my helmet which is fun, but I hope also makes me more visible and too cute for anyone to get road rage-y on me. It seems to work because the only time drivers yell at me is to tell me they like my helmet animal.



    No, the posts are designed to give way upon impact and so there is no damage to a vehicle that drives through or over them. That’s why you see so many of them bent over or sheared off.

    Their function is symbolic, not physical. I saw a pick-up truck take three of them out a few weeks ago. I don’t think the driver even noticed.



    FWIW I was biking on Folsom and got distracted by a parking car crossing the bike lane and hit an official SFMTA post. It was startling, but it didn’t hurt nor did I crash. YMMV.



    Don’t be silly, car drivers don’t want to risk scratching their precious paint by hitting a safe hit post.



    All these “reminders” are not directed at cars, but at drivers. It’s the driver who directs the car to go or not go, and decides which way it should go.



    It’d be great to do more for Valencia and other areas around the city. In this instance let’s get rid of the median and let’s have parking protected bike lanes with passenger and truck loading zones (OR a two way cycletrack).

    But in general, it’s pretty sad our current state of reality is that we have lines, signs, barriers and MORE… Layer upon layer of reminders to do this or not do that and in most part it’s all directed towards CARS. Sadly so many people have forgotten about common sense and courtesy. And then we pile on the laws and fines and everything else that now has to be stated and reminded or else it doesn’t count, and somehow the city becomes at fault for the negligence of others. Perhaps we need to make people accountable for their driving. Whatever happened to the principle of do no harm to others.



    I’m happy to see someone defending bike lanes from dangerous car behaviors – it isn’t like these guys are making new bike lanes – they are just making the existing bike lanes more safe.. The biggest objection I hear to biking in San Francisco is safety. And friends have told me I’m crazy for commuting by bike. But if we make biking more safe we will have less congestion, cleaner air and more smiling citizens



    “80 percent of the time we don’t say where they are”.

    The more illegal posts that are added, the more the average driver will assume that any and every post is illegal, including the legal ones. The law of unintended consequences kicks in again – drivers will increasingly believe that any post is a fake, and will therefore feel free to drive right through them.

    Cone Head should be renamed Bone Head.

    “It’s worth noting again that the SFMTrA was formed after the deaths of Kate Slattery and Heather Miller.”

    Yeah, a few soft posts are really going to deter drunk driving and car thieves.

    SFSB should not be giving tacit support to SFMTrA’s illegal behavior.



    …apparently Caltran,Calsta,CATC and federal Dept of Transportation could solve inadequate transit grid lock. Never fails “Bay area always trying to avoid
    not expansion of REITS whom,persist [never miss getting approved] projects for
    urban growth regarding. Logistics yeah inept governor Brown wearing frown around town traffic is horrible ideal. Politicians eager to hear your inquires of
    resolutions since “geographical area of titans” deficient transit systems. Whom?
    CATC Eric Thronson,Susan Bransen,Mitchelle Weiss,David Van Dyhe,Rick Guevel and Kristina Assouri. CALSTA Chad Edison,Melissa Figueroa and Brian
    C.Annis,CalTran staff Malcolm Dougherty and (district 4) what tax payers endure,horrible long traffic ask Bijan Sartipi equivalent to Persia and London!
    Bay area 2nd tunnel inaccurate 6 is anticiapted, with usuage going nightmare!



    A1 is a county bond whereas KK is Oakland-specific (about $100M of the $600M total going to housing programs and projects).

    The city funding is important because a “local match” is often required in order to access regional, state, and federal funds, or at least to make grant applications more competitive. By having local KK funding available the city will be better situated to get a bigger piece of that pie.

    Here’s Oakland’s fact sheet on KK:

    And Alameda County’s on A1:

    I think the idea with KK is that both housing and transportation are related issues when it comes to displacement. By including both via one funding source projects can be evaluated as to how they address both goals simultaneously, for the biggest impact of livability.



    what a total waste of taxpayer money



    Wanna know what else would “significantly ease San Francisco gridlock”? More housing IN San Francisco so that fewer people would have to drive!



    “**CLOSURE NOTICE: Today throughout March 2018, during the
    weekdays of Monday through Friday, the bike path on the Bay Bridge may
    be closed. This is to ensure public safety during torch cutting and
    other old bay bridge demolition activities. Check Twitter
    (@BayBridgeInfo) for the latest information. ** (See Bridge Path Calendar)”

    Looks like they’re not the only one forgetting about pedestrians (and pedestrian infrastructure).



    A single book cherry-picked by someone with a biased agenda to push isn’t that persuasive. There, fixed it for you.

    Nothing you have said indicates that a city cannot require registration and licensing for bikes or horses.


    Randy Johnson

    Why does Measure KK include any money for “affordable housing”? This dilutes the measure, and it will likely be a turn off for voters who realize that “affordable housing” does little if anything to actually make a difference in housing prices for anyone. Plus Measure A1 deals with affordable housing too. Why would voters choose to tax themselves twice for the same thing?


    SF Guest

    Both you and @PaleoBruce are correct with your respective arguments. First @PaleoBruce is correct a licensed or unlicensed cyclist cannot be denied the right to use the road unless a designated road is off limits (banned) [e.g., Broadway Tunnel] for all cyclists. In addition you are correct any city has the power to initiate bicycle registration.

    With respect to gun laws that’s not a good analogy since the right to own a gun is revocable whereas the right to ride a bicycle on a public domain is irrevocable even if the cyclist is proven incompetent or injures someone.



    Both Muni and MUNI are acceptable…I wasn’t shouting and apologize if it came off that way.

    The BART extension to Livermore is a financial disaster in the planning, especially if a downtown station (with direct connection to ACE) is not selected over the

    580 median (several miles from downtown).

    And upzoning would most likely happen on Geary, like it did for Wilson Blvd in Arlington when Metro opened in the 70s. Let’s only hope the city and Geary merchants devise a formal plan, like Arlington did with the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor project.



    It’s very tiring trying to constantly overstate the obvious to people who just will never get it. But, many others do understand and are more vocal about it than the naysayers on this site and others. Meanwhile, enjoy plodding along Geary and other corridors.



    I find this article to be very informative, if people want to know what happened with the east span:



    The latest I heard was that fumes from the bridge work were considered toxic, and because people on the path are moving slower and more likely to hang out then their potential exposure is higher than folks driving on the bridge. I don’t know if I buy that, but it does make a little more sense than the risk of physical danger caused by construction debris.



    So a book written by an expert on the subject doesn’t carry weight, but your armchair reasoning picked out of thin air does carry weight. Nope.



    According to the bridge’s website it’s a bicycle and pedestrian path. How typical of Streetsblog to overlook peds.



    I think this discussion is an excellent chance to point out that the Bay Area has too many competing transit agencies that are missing crucial areas and connection points.

    First of all, we’re stuck with BART’s wide gauge system. It’s not going to go away. So, the bigger question is do we continue to invest in this system in the greater Bay Area, or work around it with other standard gauge rail systems? With the extension to SJ, it seems to me that the former should happen, but given that HSR plans to use the Caltrain ROW and Caltrain has a long-standing agreement to allow freight runs on its tracks, these present serious hurdles for Caltrain replacement with BART since both use standard gauge rail. However, there are dual-gauge systems in the world so it can be done.

    In addition to a ring around the bay, replacing Caltrain with BART could also bring additional lines to SF and the Bay Area. For example, using the Dumbarton Bridge to connect San Mateo County with the East Bay. BART could also use the now vacant 3rd track at SFO as a terminus for another line that runs to the South Bay. BART could run skip/stop lines during rush, like the Bay Bullet currently does. BART could run a line that follows Caltrain north of Millbrae into downtown SF and up Geary with connections at Bayshore (MUNI) and 4th/Townsend and additional stations in/around Candlestick Park, Potrero Hill/Dogpatch. El Camino Real, currently a strip mall for most of its length, could see some incredible transit-oriented development around the nearby stations.

    As for HSR, it we have a robust Bay Area transit network in place do we really need all the fanfare of HSR to downtown SF or can we call it a day at Diridon? With the proposed peninsula route, It’s not like the East Bay will see a HSR station.



    Hmm, Detroit versus Ann Arbor. Let’s see – could the difference maybe have something to do with this:

    Ann Arbor: 73% white, 14% Asian, 8% Black, 4% Hispanic

    Detroit: 10% white, 1% Asian, 83% Black, Hispanic 7%

    You can try and engage in all the social engineering that you want, but people know what they want, where they want to live, and what kind of neighborhood they desire.

    Politicians who ignore the voters and instead try and ram monolithic planning mandates onto them will find themselves out of office soon enough.



    Whether incorporated or not doesn’t change the formula, only who pays the bills. You probably missed all the constant stories about America’s crumbling infrastructure. The fact is we have more infrastructure now than we can pay for because current zoning laws spread people thinly across the landscape where it’s not economically feasible to provide roads and sewers

    for everyone; so the roads are potholed, bridges are crumbling and water mains leak as a routine part of our lives. We don’t generate enough revenue to pay for maintenance and repair, regardless of whether city or county pay for it.
    People like front yards, back yards and safe schools, but they also like to live near work, shopping, entertainment and cultural assets like parks, libraries and museums. Given the choice, most people would like to live in Mayberry, but you can’t build like that under most zoning laws.
    And no, Detroit isn’t my poster child, it’s yours. An entire city of low rise, low density sprawl, with urban freeways cutting through the center of the downtown area to reduce density and restrict the internal circulation of goods and services.
    Just west of that is Ann Arbor; a dense, compact urban center with plenty of closely set single family homes on the fringes, and the freeways run around the outside rather than through.
    And economically stable.



    No, I think your comparison is flawed. Most of what you call “sprawl” happens in unincorporated areas. And developers, investors, businesses and residents often prefer unincorporated areas because they have lower taxes and fewer regulations.

    Outside of cites, things like law enforcement are provided by the county, enabling taxes to be lower. It’s generally cities that pass parcel taxes, rent controls and building regs.

    Then there is the little matter of what people prefer – often that is front and back yards, good, safe schools, big box stores and convenience – all features of low-rise neighborhoods.

    And Detroit? Really? That’s your poster child for our future?



    I’m not comparing incorporated vs unincorporated, I’m comparing revenue vs liability. I speak from a Republican bias, quoting principles from a Republican who has worked in urban infrastructure and seen how it works.
    I’m glad the cities are all viable. Detroit will be even happier when you tell them how great they’re doing.



    Claude, comparing the tax revenues from incorporated and unincorporated parts of counties doesn’t strike me as a meaningful comparison.



    1) You should ask Caltrain. There is currently a free SJC shuttle from Santa Clara Caltrain station but not from Diridon. The same logic would apply – presumably they want to catch people who need to travel south to SJC as well.

    2) It’s my understanding that it has always been part of the long-term plan for BART for it to encircle the Bay. I’ve certainly seen maps indicating that intention.

    And BART from San Jose to Milbrae could also serve those same towns, or perhaps some different ones, or maybe the major tech centers there.

    Either way, Caltrain would not necessarily be decommissioned when BART is built out. It just becomes a possibility, especially if Caltrain is messing up HSR with which it will share tracks, thereby condemning HSR to be not very HS.


    Joe Brant

    1.) Why not have a shuttle bus from Diridon then? It will be a major rail hub and closer to downtown too.

    2.) Caltrain passes through the major Peninsula downtowns, which makes it more suitable for regional rail than any other corridor. Finally, after BART is extended there already will be a continuous ring of rail transit around the bay. Caltrain should be improved, not decommissioned.



    “Higher value citizens”? That sounds a little like social engineering to me.

    A lot of “sprawl” doesn’t happen in cities at all but rather in unincorporated areas. And those areas are often more attractive to developers, investors, businesses and residents because of lower taxes and fewer regulations.

    Yes, tax revenues will be lower in those areas but that is why they are more attractive. It’s cities that pass things like parcel taxes, building codes and rent controls. Places run at the County level experience less government meddling.

    And services are usually cheaper to run than in cities. Policing is done by the County Sheriffs, for instance. Cities are typically more extravagant, ambitious and bureaucratic with their services and so require higher taxes.

    There’s a reason why cities sometimes try and appropriate the surrounding unincorporated areas. They get extra taxes coming in but less demand for services there.

    Many people want a low-rise lifestyle where everything is convenient, there’s a front and back yard for the kids, good, safe schools and so on. And elected officials get re-elected by giving the people want they want.



    Without facts to back up your supposition, this is a misrepresentation. Cities are already viable. And the large areas outside of cities are also viable. Cities simply cannot and should not attempt to corporate all of the population. Indeed, many struggle now. We will grow new cities, and some non-urban areas are the seed-stock.



    It’s not a zero sum game. It’s a negative sum game.
    Sprawl suburbs with a low taxpayer density routinely return less than 50 cents of revenue on each dollar of maintenance and repair cost over the life cycle of the infrastructure. The growth of single use development adds an ever increasing burden of debt and deficit to the city’s budget.
    That’s why it is vital to improve the center city to attract higher value citizens into a denser core where the infrastructure can be paid for with lower taxes. Otherwise the city will never be economically viable.



    “I’m completely baffled by the Santa Clara BART extension which doubles the Caltrain line to San Jose. What’s the purpose of that?”

    Two reasons I would guess:

    1) Santa Clara has a free shuttle bus to SJC airport, so this would enable people in the East Bay to more easily get to SJC.

    2) An eventual extension of BART from Santa Clara to Milbrae would “complete the circle” of BART around the Bay, and perhaps enable CalTrain to be decommission thereby ensuring HSR has a dedicated right of way.



    Dan, I don’t think Jake was making a personal attack at all. He was simply advising me that your views, which come across as very alien to us here, can be explained by cultural factors. Canadians, like Europeans, are comfortable with a lot of top-down centralized government interventionism that is at odds with our very American values of freedom, liberty and independence.

    To the other, yes, you changed the subject, which was how we create a subway master plan and implement it. Claiming instead that we should abandon it and do something that isn’t on the table at all m and is missing the point. I saw nobody agreeing with you here.

    And “hundreds of cities” elsewhere on the planet have built underground subways as their main priority, because planners, transportation experts and the people at large all support that.



    That makes sense and is easy to implement without clogging bridge traffic. Just position a lateral string of CHPs across all lanes, turn the lights on, and slow to a stop until the detonation.


    Elias Zamaria

    Yes. I hate this.

    An example of this is the CPMC hospital campus under construction at Geary and Van Ness. The sidewalks all around it on Geary, Franklin, and Post are closed to pedestrians. It has been like this since 2015 (I think), and it is supposed to stay like this until 2020.

    Try walking from the northeast corner of Post and Franklin to the southeast corner of Geary and Franklin, and you’ll have to cross Franklin twice instead of zero times. Does anyone have any actual evidence that this detour, with the risk of being hit by turning cars, is any safer than walking directly?



    weren’t they running rolling stops for cars on the bridge when they were blasting the old bridge base ?



    It’s more your sanctimonious point of view, and that you are not locally a participant in these SF transit matters. Aggressive outsider input never plays well.



    “They don’t count”….”they don’t get a vote”…no, I’m saying they shouldn’t get 100% of the space. Stop playing victim.

    And no, I haven’t hijacked a conversation, this *is* the conversation. You’re just deflecting. The reason why we’re talking about it is because underground transit is fantastically expensive, what justifies this expense? The only reason it is considered in lower density areas is because politicians are terrified of the 45% of people only drive who refuse to give up an inch of road space, even though it is often the better choice.

    On the contrary, my initial post on the topic got plenty of support. More than you assertion did. And “support for my theories”…my “theories” are supported by the hundreds of cities worldwide that have done exactly what I’m suggesting, and have prospered from it. It isn’t a *theory* nor is it idiosyncratic.

    But you continue to ignore what I say and accuse me of being anti-car, so I’m sick of defending myself against your straw man attacks. You have an agenda, and you’re twisting reality to fit it, and it’s awfully tiresome.



    Personal attacks based on my homeland, good fucking job. I guess your position must be so pathetically weak as to have nothing to support it against a mere Canadian.


    Patrick Devine

    I’m really struggling with it. The Caltrain funds for grade separation would be great… but at the expense of more traffic on freeways/expressways? Also, I’m completely baffled by the Santa Clara BART extension which doubles the Caltrain line to San Jose. What’s the purpose of that?



    All the time, you find sidewalks closed off along construction sites, while letting automotive traffic go right by. If you ask public works why pedestrians should have to detour, they will say that it is too dangerous — even though it is just as dangerous for motorcycles and convertibles.


    Jeffrey Baker

    “Because there is no sidewalk or room to add one, those hardy souls who walk all the way to the end of the bridge won’t be able to go around the hill to get a view of the city.”

    I’m pretty sure that the lack of a sidewalk means you just walk in the road. That’s what the hardy souls will be doing.


    Joe Brant

    What are your opinions on Santa Clara Measure B?