Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Jeffrey Baker

    That would only happen because the roads are _also_ underpriced.


    SF Guest

    Here’s the issue with overpricing — more commuters won’t take BART and will drive to work instead.



    I listened to it again, he did just say “after getting numerous complaints”. I thought I heard neighbors in there, maybe cause of the guy saying bicyclists never stop immediately after. So I recind “neighbor”.



    Right. Complains by motorists that people on bikes aren’t stopping at stop signs, like, you know, they have to. As if stopping at stop signs was divinely inspired on a set of stone tablets and culturally taboo. None of the comments by the police office in that video had anything to do with pedestrian issues. In most cases, the officer was admonishing cyclists for their *own* safety. Like somehow people who ride bikes aren’t already acutely aware of the vulnerability they face on city streets.

    The car traffic often backs up on this end of Arguello because of those stop signs and the volume of people trying to get to the bridge. I would bet dollars to donuts that the complaints are largely based on the anger motorists have over the fact that bicyclists slide by all those people stuck in traffic on this stretch rather than any perceived right of way violations that take place.



    Regarding the complaints about convention congestion downtown, as someone who occasionally visits SF, and sees hotel taxes added to the room rate at my temporary abode, I don’t blame the city government for its “the more the merrier” attitude toward conventions. Sock it to those out-of-towners, “Visitors aren’t voters” [in local elections].



    They did say they were there because of neighbor complaints. Not saying it’s effective policing and I’m not sure how dangerous those intersections actually are. Gotta start calling in the trucks parked in the bike-lane, the intersection always blocked, etc. I guess.


    Jeffrey Baker

    There’s also this gem

    “BART’s parking problem: Maddening search when lots are full”

    Article doesn’t mention underpricing as the root cause.



    Once again, SFPD gets it wrong on traffic enforcement. This time, focusing on the relatively quiet and safe end of Arguello Street and admonishing cyclist for not coming to full and complete stops at three of the most useless stop signs for cyclists in the city. I find it ironic that in this day and age of big data and fighting crime by reviewing statistical models of where and when criminal activity takes place that the police still handle traffic enforcement by responding to “complaints” rather than looking at safety data. These signs, more than most others in the city should be yield signs for cyclists given the relatively low volume of pedestrian traffic in the area.

    I feel quite sure that if this area wasn’t used as a cut through for car drivers getting to and from Golden Gate Bridge, there never would have been three stop signs within a block. Two of them are for T intersections (lets face it, the gated community is *not* part of the street grid) and the third is for the entrance to the Presidio golf course. All in an effort to slow down car drivers who would bomb down this hill if it wasn’t for the stop signs.

    If the police focused more on dangerous behavior and less on compliance, they could make a much bigger difference in safety on city streets and probably not engender such enmity and contempt from people who ride bicycles.


    Idrather Bebikin

    Raul makes some interesting points and I welcome his example!
    Sam once again criticizes Dave Cortese – repeating the fallacy that Dave is against those bike lanes. The fact that Sam thinks constructive criticism is a bad thing says more about Sam then it does about Dave.

    Dave’s comments made sense – make sure the bike lanes and the traffic lights and everything associated with that project (or any project by extension) should be executed properly so at least we’re not completely pissing off all of the motorists due to very long (multiple waits) at each traffic light.



    Total side note: I like that shade of green on Hedding (at least I think it’s green–I’m colorblind). It seems less common than the Kermit-the-Frog green which is a bit more vomitty.

    As with many a “buffered” lane, though, it’s not clear to my why it couldn’t just be a protected cycletrack. Took a look at Cyclelicious’s awesome photostream and found this one of Hedding:

    Is there any particular reason it couldn’t have been like this?

    (Rosemead Blvd in Temple City, CA)

    (Cully Blvd in Portland, OR)



    That’s a bold promise by Peralez. Little known fact: his campaign’s field director, Matt Savage, is recently moved to San Jose from Portland OR and really knows his stuff regarding transportation and planning issues.



    When I lived on a super steep and tall hill in the Ingleside area I definitely used that trick…bike downhill to my destination (this was great for getting to Balboa Park BART–over a mile away–in like 7 minutes), take the 29 home.

    Transit+bike is a beautiful thing!



    So, in San Francisco, all the buses are equipped with bike racks that hold two (and soon three) bikes. There have been times where I have to pick up my daughter in the Presidio and need to get to upper Haight. Taking the bus works out to be the best solution in those cases, as trying to use a trailer bike up the hills from the Presidio is a bear. There’s no reason why you couldn’t bike to school and then take the bus home.

    Also, if you’re getting sweaty riding downhill from the Sunset to SFSU, then you should re-assess how you ride. There’s no reason for hammering hard to get to school on a downhill. My daily ride in the morning is from upper Haight to 3rd and Townsend. By moderating my speed, I can easily show up at the office in dress clothes without working up a sweat.



    It seems you don’t know what fascism or anarchism actually means.



    Yeah, depending on where you live hills can definitely be an issue. Not everyone can or will bike them. But there are large swaths of SF that aren’t that hilly. These even includes many of the neighborhoods within a mile radius of SFSU where a lot of students live off-campus. For example, a lot of students who live off-campus live in the Ingleside area, through which Holloway is a key (and mostly flat) bike route (see attached image from Hillmapper).

    Yet the city squanders Holloway’s potential to be a truly great east-west bike route by using copouts such as sharrows (aka ignorrows), conventional Class II lanes (aka Second-Class lanes) + “buffered” bike lanes (aka Double Parking/Driving lanes). Paint is not infrastructure, and it’s not necessarily a pleasant or inviting experience to the many Interested but Concerned people who’d otherwise bike in SF.



    Peter has been robbing Paul for a long time. Now Paul wants it back and it’s theft. SMH.


    SF Guest

    I do not support Prop B since it raids $22M from vital city services.

    The Council of Community Housing Organizations explained, “Without a new revenue source to offset such an increase in MTA expenditures, the measure is tantamount to “stealing from Peter to pay [more] to Paul. Prop B was put on the ballot with little involvement of transportation advocates, transit users, or the city’s communities and neighborhoods. This is not how good policy should be developed.”



    Streetsblog very much advocates holistic improvements to how we live in our cities. Many of the posts are about transit and ped improvements. There’s very much an outcry here for better transit–it’s definitely a consistent theme.

    This particular post had to do with bikes, so naturally that’s what people are mainly talking about. However,
    even there you’ll notice how several people mentioned the necessity of bike improvements vis à vis transit ones (Martijn’s proposed protected bikeway from BART to SFSU, for example).

    I’m not sure why you’d take this as an interpretation that people here are saying we should have improved bike infrastructure to the exclusion of transit. I haven’t seen that anywhere.



    Yeah, I don’t get how the occasional comment on here seems to falsely pit bike vs. ped vs. transit improvements against each other…as if they were somehow mutually exclusive instead of hugely overlapping and interconnected needs. Or as if people who bike never walk or take transit, which is of course absurdly far from the truth.



    There is PLENTY of call to improve MUNI. There are two huge ballot measures in place to add massive chunks of funding to MUNI. There is a ballot measure that would be DETRIMENTAL to MUNI and the vast majority of commenters on this blog support A/B and are against L.

    This is an orthogonal problem to improving conditions for cycling. And I consider improving conditions for cycling to be very important because so many people are actively trying to hamstring improvements to MUNI – ironically while claiming that the problems with MUNI are the reason we need to have free parking, more parking garages, etc…



    The story about the Novato bike crash is an absolutely maddening failure at several levels of government. Failure by traffic engineers to protect the children who used that road around the horse stables. Failure by local politicians to prioritize safety on local roads. Failure by the police to properly investigate the crash (he was traveling 65 mph on a 45 mph limit road). Failure by the District Attorney prosecutors to more vigorously collect evidence and build a negligent manslaughter case against the driver.

    And since all parties settled without accepting liability, it is unlikely that anything will change on that stretch of roadway, despite the $1.12 million settlement. If I may editorialize here, any community where adults abdicate their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us in order to promote “convenience” has a serious sickness. The leaders in Novato should be ashamed of themselves.



    If you’re not a cop, you’re little people!



    why did you mention your fish aquarium?



    The infrastructure is fine. It’s the hills dammit! from where I live in the sunset i can safely get to SFSU in about 20 on a bike minutes because it’s mostly downhill. But going back home, it would take me 45 minutes because Its uphill. furthermore, If i bike to campus I get to class tired and sweaty. Even still, the 29 can get me to SFSU in roughly the same time as it would take me if I rode my bike, and it can get me home 20 minutes faster. Therefore, even though muni has it’s weaknesses, it’s better for me to take the 29 than it is to take my bike.



    How is that irony? The article mentions studies and efforts to improve transit to SF State, and says that despite unreliability, transit is highly used, and not just the M line, bus routes that serve the university are also heavily used. Where do you get the notion that there is no outcry or push to improve the M line? SFCTA is looking into long term improvements.

    As Henderson says “there’s got to be another way [to mitigate traffic impacts of the university and growth]. MUNI and BART are a huge part of that, but so is walking and biking, especially for students who live close to the university. I’m not sure where you found the irony in that or the dismissal of transit.



    Special privileges for special interests. Cops and Fire get to park for free, guaranteed wherever they work. They are exempt from the We Hate Cars laws in SF, just like the politicians who enact them.



    You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder given the theme of all your comments.

    All I said was that in addition to helping students have an easier time biking (my parenthetical phrase, in case you are reading-impaired), it’s ironic that there’s no outcry/push that Muni M line needs to work more effectively for the students trying to get to school (and that Muni has a whole needs to be brought to the level that would be expected for a world-class city, which hopefully is the standard that San Francisco aspires to).


    Tom H

    I’ve had periodic curiosity about these parked cars, but this answer is not very surprising. The Park Station bldg could be quite a lovely little building set in a nifty little location if fixed up well. If the PD or Rec/Park ever get the $$ to do capital improvements, then I hope that the City can make the station look a little more approachable and appealing. The chain link and barbed wire fence and parked cars make it look like an abandoned vehicle lot.


    Upright Biker

    In a similar vein, I’ve had a running conversation with Rec & Park about North Beach Pool employees who feel it is within their rights to park _on_ Joe DiMaggio Playground. It wasn’t until the death of that poor woman under the wheels of a Rec & Park vehicle last year that the edict finally came down that employees may not drive and park on/in the park itself. They still try it from time to time to see if anyone’s still looking. And they find out pretty quickly that people are.

    So, yes, they’re cops and they’ve got a hard job. Yes they all drive in from the suburbs because they can’t afford to live here, and parking is expensive. But no one is letting me park for free in the park near my work because I have a hard job and parking is expensive. And from a safety standpoint, there really should not be be frequent driving and parking in areas where pedestrians are not expecting to encounter them.



    If in a sincere manner you truly cannot envision bike lanes at any point on campus, there’s always SFSU’s own proposal I linked. That SFSU Master Plan proposal seems to find a way to incorporate lanes between buildings (some as close as–gasp–50 feet to each other…how *did* they pull it off such an imaginative design feat?!). But I suspect sincerity is not really your game.

    Purposely obtuse contrarianism is cuter on kids.



    So you say I gave a nonsensical reason. How would you incorporate a bike lane with the existing pedestrian paths on the SFSU campus? Is there any extra space on the paths?

    Your photo shows a bike lane that is not between any two buildings on campus. Look now who is not making any sense.



    They’re hypocrites who only work for themselves and the laws don’t apply to them unless they do something really egregious and obvious. Otherwise the skies the limit for them to do as they please. They are a very lazy group of police officers here in San Francisco and get away with a lot due to poor dispatch and management. I had a cop hassling me on my own leased rental due to a crazy roommate. He came in to sit in my kitchen after I moved in my fish aquarium. When I asked him why he had nothing better to do he responded “I have all the time in the world”.

    Well he lost his job when a neighbor reported his cruiser being on his property all of the time. They investigated and filed 8 misdemenors against him and there was an article in the paper that he was going to lose his job. These officers are poorly managed and get away with a lot of leisure time on the job.



    I am just happy Captain Greg Corrales is out the door.



    The Tenderloin SF cop shop is at 301 Eddy and as far as I can tell, it has little or no parking. So I think the cops just park where they can.



    I am sure the cops could park both their official vehicles and their private vehicles in the Kezar lot for free. But the Kezar lot is often full during the day with UCSF workers and others, so the lot would then have to turn away more paying customers if they let dozens of extra cop vehicles in there. And that would lead to a loss of revenue for Parks and Rec,

    I’d guess that instead Parks and Rec simply suggested setting aside that unused pathway instead for the cops, but it would have been better to formally designate it as a parking lot in that case.



    Thanks for the comments and background info!

    As someone who used to live in Ingleside not that far north of Brotherhood, man is it a huge barrier! A ped/bike bridge connecting the two parts of St. Charles would be a big help not only for SFSU but people living in the area.



    Oh nice, yes, let’s include that sneaky phrase ‘fit 20-somethings’ to remind the rest of us that we can’t bicycle unless we’re young and engaging in a thrill sport.

    I’ll phone up Europe now and tell them the news.



    How many articles should we show you where ENUF has said “Transit sucks on Potrero hill, so please do not charge for meters”.

    It is a very demoralizing way to promote driving.



    The novel notion of fixing MUNI is the catchphrase of all bike haters, because they know that fixing MUNI is such a heavy lift, that it allows them to demonize cyclists as being anti-transit without having to actually fix MUNI.



    The above comment is a great example of an excuse defending the status quo for nonsensical reasons. Yet when SFSU tries even half-heartedly it manages to find room:

    Again, this is the “we can’t have ____ in ____ because ____” thing…as if SF were the most unique city in the world whose design challenges had never ever been encountered by any other city.

    Next are you gonna say we can’t have bike infrastructure because….sourdough/Anchor Steam/ fog? (oh wait, someone already mentioned SFSU’s weather as a supposed reason…which is hilarious).

    You mention the Netherlands and people say “well that’s the Netherlands. They’re compact and dense.” You mention Davis and people say “well that’s Davis. They’re sprawling and have low density.” The excuses never end.

    Anyhoo, even in SFSU’s central core there’s plenty of room for adjacent bike lanes:

    SFSU’s Master Plan itself even acknowledges this. The following proposal replaces the current no-bikes-on-core campus with proposed key bike routes:

    There’s room.



    As a student who was part of this class and did a lot of research on Muni and the future improvements it will receive, the reason why cycling to campus is so important is because buses like the 28 and 29 will be running overt 100% capacity WITH all of the Transit Effectiveness Project improvements in 2030.

    Moving people off of public transit by encouraging them to cycle is not a suggestion we came up with: Its how big cities with congestion issues solve their transit problems. we took this idea from the SFMTA’s strategic bicycle plan which in turn took the idea from other european countries.


    Liz Brisson

    I had the pleasure of sitting on the review panel for Professor Henderson’s class’s final presentations. I think there are some fantastic ideas that were generated (some more feasible than others) and I organized a brownbag for SF city agency staff that has inspired some additional conversations. hp2ena’s comments regarding the 19th Avenue Transit Study ( ), which is now launched into its next phase of work as the 19th Avenue/M-Ocean View Project (see ), are accurate. As a part of that project, we would re-gain the right-of-way from on-street parking and the median light-rail to re-purpose for a separated bike path on west side of street, as well as wider sidewalks and a landscaped median. The M-Ocean View would be re-routed through Parkmerced with the SF State station at Holloway on the west side of street so SF State visitors would not need to cross 19th Avenue, removing this major conflict point. To get back to the east side of the street, we would build a bridge over Junipero Serra between Font and Randolph Street that would also accommodate pedestrian and cyclists providing connection between Parkmerced/SF State and OMI and Parkmerced/SF State and Daly City BART . We will be doing more design work this year before launching environmental review next year and will proactively seek more guidance from the walking and cycling communities (schedule for these activities to be announced soon-you can opt in to our email list from the SFMTA website page) about needs and desires to be folded into the design (I’m thinking walking and cycling tours would be a lot of fun!) There’s no need to pit the need to improve cycling access against transit access. They are both important and complementary. That said, the soonest we can get the 19th Ave/M-Ocean View project built is many years out, so its worth thinking about simpler and lower-cost solutions in the meantime. I remember several of us were very intrigued by the potential for an elegant and low-cost bridge that could be built across Brotherhood Way at St. Charles, and thought this could be a good Safe Routes to Transit grant application. This was a barrier that students in Professor Henderson’s class identified as a big one for campus access from Daly City BART. Anyone with specific questions about the 19th Avenue/M-Ocean View project is welcome to contact me directly at or 415.522.4838.



    Interesting article. Can you figure out why there are so many police cars parked right in the middle of the street on Eddy at Jones? I have yet to pass by there when there is not at least one police car blocking a full lane of traffic.



    Looks like the campus of UC Davis is much larger than SFSU. The buildings at SFSU are not too far apart and are connected with pathways for pedestrians.
    In the current layout there isn’t enough room to add bike lanes between buildings on the SFSU campus.



    They’re of course not mutually exclusive, though. Even if SFSU had a dedicated multimodal (BART/Muni/bus/…even HSR? :D) station on-campus it would still make a lot of sense to push to improve the on-campus and neighboring bike infrastructure.

    As it stands now probably the lowest-hanging fruit is giving the thousands of students who live within a mile or so of campus better biking options. A second would be something like a better set of bike options from Daly City BART to campus for all those East Bay commuters.



    This is indeed not the first time I came across this sort of “suggestion”: transit sucks and will not be fixed, please, y’all fit 20-somethings, start riding bikes to make more space on transit for others.

    It is a very demoralizing way to promote cycling.

    Moreover, the university has a lot of students who commute from East Bay, Marin county and elsewhere in the region.



    The “But we can’t have _____ in _____ because _____” excuses are always hilarious.

    Meanwhile, universities given to more extreme weather than SFSU practically celebrate it:

    Oh, because it’s *precisely* their infrastructure that makes it a no-brainer to bike around regardless of the weather.

    From the Sac Bee, “Rain and storm clouds didn’t deter these bicyclists from wearing their shorts at (sic) flip flops at the UC Davis campus in Davis, Calif., on Thursday, September 25, 2014.”


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Hilarious! At the University of Minnesota, 8500 kids bike to class each day. Luckily for Minnesotans they only have snow, not fog to contend with! And their temperatures only drop to 10 below zero, not a chilly 45 degrees! Weather is definitely what is stopping SF State students from biking.



    And funny enough, there happens to be just such a large university town in the Central Valley that gets far more extreme (much colder in winter, much hotter in summer) than SF ever sees + Tule fog + more precipitation and has one of the highest bike modeshares in North America:

    Davis in February fog. Looks like plenty of bikes still got out. They don’t exactly cancel class because it’s foggy.

    What’s the difference? Long-standing and pervasive commitment to infrastructure:

    early parking-protected cycletrack, 1960s, Davis

    Bikeway undercrossing I-80, Davis

    When you make biking around a no-brainer, people will even brave the elements because it’s still the best way to get around. This is true whether in Northern Europe or North America–but the infrastructure has to be there.



    Meanwhile, the horror of other universities in California that dared to build infrastructure for both people on bike and foot:


    UC Santa Barbara


    The horror!