Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Andy Chow

    For that to happen a lot of things also need to happen, like extending Caltrain to Transbay and putting the Caltrain line in a tunnel. No one is sure which way how all of these would happen.



    “Roads are paid for largely by people buying gas” Source???? Because last time I checked, SF had to put a bond measure on the ballot to pay for road maintenance and repaving.

    I would agree that highways are funded by gas taxes, but not roads. Try again.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    It would be nice if they had signage that made this clear to the end user. It’s so frustrating to see a “Bike Lane End” sign with no clear idea on what we’re supposed to do. We need our bike infrastructure to connect to places and not just randomly appear and disappear every few blocks.



    I wonder when Diane Sullivan’s killer will be charged with a traffic violation.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Tearing down 280 would fix this right up, I reckon.



    Try this: don’t get in a car (or any motor vehicle) for four weeks. If, after that, you still think SF is biased against cars please do tell us all about it. If you’ve only seen the issue from one side you can’t possibly have an objective perspective.



    “I don’t condone SFPF ignoring cars running down cyclists or cyclists running down pedestrians. Both are bad.”

    And both are equally dangerous and happen in equal numbers.



    Because licensed and registered drivers behave politely and follow all the laws?



    It’s a stupid law



    What I often do is turn left on 2nd St and continue on the AT&T park’s promenade.



    I agree. The current bike lane on King is a trap. I end up biking on the side walk after the bike lane disappeared to avoid biking on a heavily traffic road. This is the right thing to do. We should direct bikes to Townsend St.


    Donovan Lacy

    The statistics you cited pertain to all roads. While the majority of funding for state highways may come from user fees, local and regional roads are primarily funded by the general fund, i.e. the taxes we all pay. These local roads are the ones virtually everyone in this forum is discussing.

    Check page 14
    Overall, local and regional governments are estimated to spend $300-500 annually per automobile in general taxes on local roads and traffic services, averaging more than 6¢ per mile driven on local roads (Litman 2009; SSTI 2011). Only 0.7¢ of this is paid through vehicle user charges, meaning that driving is subsidized through general taxes by about 5.6¢ per mile on local roads.

    To go back to your original statement, where you asked bicycle advocates to “start kicking into transportation infrastructure funding and you can join the conversation about how that money is spent.”. It is pretty clear that we are already kicking into to fund transportation infrastructure. I hope that this helps clarrify the misconceptions that you had regarding how our roads are paid for.



    If they are so interested in both moving traffic and keeping it safe for cycling, why not remove parking for cyclepaths?



    This is exactly why they shouldn’t do this. King is a natural route from the Embarcadero and all the signage in the world isn’t going to change that.



    Mr. Mayor and Chief of Police, please remove Capt Sanford; he is clearly a moron with bizarre priorities.



    Not me, but I pay property and sales taxes, which is where funding from local roads comes from. #ItWorksOut



    When will car drivers self police? Every day I see speeders and illegal parkers. Please tell these fools to obey the law.



    I pay far more in taxes than you do.



    Almost? That must have been terrifying for you.



    True, SF is skewed, but not in favor of bicyclists. If you were a citizen one of those over-educated countries you mentioned above, you would understand that SF is attempting to buck the US’ car obsession in order to slow the erosion – and lower the huge price tag – of public health. Your car habit is killing us and not only via crashes. A shockingly large swath of our population are cognitively delayed, prematurely demented, diabetic, decimated by a plethora of cardio-vascular diseases and cancer. The consequences of the unbridled hegemony of automobiles in US cities also means we’re: less productive, more alienated, plundering the planet to squeeze out fuel, and expend a huge percentage of our GDP on insane wars.
    So yeah, better to be that kinda skewed than totally screwed.



    Hours of immobility, sucking up exhaust, and competing against every other person using the road does things to a person’s upper level thinking.



    Add to that statistics based on data, actuarial facts.



    I think you responded to the wrong comment. I was quoting Abe Froman, the sausage king of Chicago.


    Andy Thornley

    DC mayor says “We won’t let DC become Amsterdam”
    Netherlands embassy says “You should be so lucky”



    Not one dime of Measure A – $500 million in bonds for street improvements – is coming from user fees.



    “tell that to chris bucherre or the family of the lady he killed”

    Oh blast. You have been just trying to figure out how long you can get us to answer you, by saying whatever random stuff comes from your keyboard. You know Bucchere killed a man, but you put lady just to extend the thread.



    selling your car, getting a bike, and riding it everywhere will make you physically stronger and build character. Go for it.



    They could easily afford convert one lane on that block of 3rd Street to southbound traffic. It would greatly improve circulation in the area, and improve access to the ballpark and China Basin for people on bikes.



    source: His ass.



    If SF is so biased against the car, why does everyone drive and only 3% cycle? If the bias you assert existed, those stats would be flipped on their head.



    This is so funny, with all the whining motorists do about parking tickets and SF using them as a cash cow and targeting them. If they would just self-police, they wouldn’t get parking tickets!


    David Marcus

    It’s a dangerous precedent to purposefully make a street more dangerous to discourage cycling. I’ve seen other cities employ the same logic to avoid putting bike infrastructure anywhere. “Biking is too dangerous in our town. If we don’t put bike lanes in, hopefully we can discourage this dangerous activity.” All streets should be safe for cycling and no street should be made purposefully dangerous, not even with these good intentions.


    Mark Rejhon

    Some good publicity occured this month (July) about SoBi Hamilton. I’m reposting a post I made in another comments board:

    Toronto old BIXI type system — 1000 bikes over 15 square kilometers, 5 years
    Hamilton new SoBi type system — 700 bikes over 45 square kilometers, 4 months

    Toronto, a rich city with rapidly improving bike infrastructure.
    Hamilton, a poorer city with bike-unfriendly roads.

    Which system has more users today?
    Surprising answer: Hamilton.

    SoBi Hamilton just launched this year. In just less than 6 months, Hamilton with over 5300 active users, out-bikeshared Toronto (with only 4000 active users) despite having operated for 5 years.

    The freedom from expensive docks allowed Hamilton to deploy 50% more docks than Toronto, and I signed up for the system only when I saw someone park an off-dock bike in front of my house. With freedom from docks, more bikes (from a smaller fleet) can be spread around, advertising themselves to a larger number of users over a larger area, accelerating signup process. Funding the the system more quickly.

    I have tried to google, but I could not find a single city running a SoBi system having financial problems with SoBi. Based on preliminary data I was able to find, the signup rate for SoBi type systems seems to be approximately 5x faster than the signup rate of a BIXI type system. I think it’s because of the ability to spread the SoBi bikes more thinly over a wider area without needing to use expensive docks. And the park-and-forget-anywhere convenience of 1-way bike trips now possible with SoBi. With more bike visiblity, more signups occur, since everybody is within walking distance of a SoBi bike, despite the area being 3x-5x bigger with the same number of bikes.

    I’m just a user. I have memberships in both BIXI and SoBi systems, and am personally impressed how much more cost-efficient SoBi is, as a local observer whose taxpayer money contributed to the creation of our local SoBi system — and thus I have a stake on wanting to see tax money spent efficiently….

    Also, rebalancing is mostly crowdsourced. You get a credit when bringing an off-dock bike back to a dock. The system is capable of being configured to reward people that bring bikes to unfavourable docks (e.g. uphill). Operating costs have sustained itself from membership costs already — no taxpayer input.


    Top Games

    Mario Games – play top free games. Like and share on facebook or g+.



    One problem with moving bikes from King to Townsend is that 3rd is one-way north of King, so if you’re going to or through Mission Bay, you have to go all the way to 4th & King where it feels like there’s no safe way across (cars changing lanes aggressively trying to get to 280). On King, you would merge to the left turn lane about where the bike lane disappeared, which, while it’s not the most safe-feeling thing, is not much worse than merging to a left turn lane anywhere else.


    Steep Ravine

    Please also ticket every single vehicle parked on the pedestrian walkways citywide. Vision Zero is going to require a lot of Zero Tolerance for all these dangerously self-absorbed people. Let the beatings continue until our community wakes up!



    Incorrect. The majority of infrastructure funding comes from taxes and bonds. Let’s put that ‘non-drivers don’t pay’ myth to rest finally.



    Yeah, like cities in countries with mroe [sic] educated citizens with a full command of facts and reason, who don’t have to cringe in fear as they use their streets, and who have a minute fraction of the traffic injuries we have? You mean that kind of city, Mumbo [sic]?



    ‘i never see anywhere near the amount of complete disregard for the law as a i see with cyclists.’ Have we got an optometrist for you, Jimbo. You may also want to consult an audiologist – or get out/off your motorized vehicles – as you seem not to hear the stream of shouted verbal abuse and aggressive honking totally law-abiding bicycle riders are subject to – especially if they do stop as required by law.



    Agreed. The eastbound bike lane is useful and not quite so scary as the westbound lane.



    Yes, via the Embarcadero promenade or Townsend to 2nd.



    Are you being rational again? You’re getting in the way of Abe grinding his axe!



    And buggy.



    Okay, I just read page 12. What part of this proves your point?

    “A typical motorist who drives 12,000 annual miles imposes $840 in roadway costs, pays $516 in roadway user fees and $224 in general taxes spent on roadways. Non-drivers tend to travel less, people who rely primarily on bicycling for transportation typically ride 3 to 6 miles per day or 1,000 to 2,000 annually. If their costs are an order of magnitude smaller than automobile travel (0.7¢ per mile), a typical cyclist imposes $7 to $14 in roadway costs, and pays $224 in general taxes toward roadways, a significant overpayment.
    Although motor vehicle user fees fund a major share of state highway expenses, local roads, the roads that pedestrians and cyclists use most, are mainly funded through general taxes that residents pay regardless of how they travel. General tax funds are also spent on various traffic services, such as policing, emergency services, and subsidized parking.”

    If a mugger steals my wallet with $100 in it but gives me back $40 before running off, I’ve still been mugged.



    Utterly innocent pedestrian v. vicious, entitled bicyclist tales have become an urban legend.



    cite your source, please.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    I’ve fallen into that trap before when I’m biking south along the Embarcadero and suddenly I’m merged into a traffic lane with trucks and cars gunning it to accelerate onto 280. It’s treacherous experience. The SFMTA should do everything it can to discourage people from biking along that dangerous section. They should make better signage funneling bikers from the bike lane right onto Townsend. Signage should include pointers to Caltrain station and AT&T park. That section of Soma is not easy to navigate on bike because of all of the piecemeal bicycle infrastructure.



    If they remove the bike lanes on King Street, can you still bicycle to AT&T Park?


    alberto rossi

    I read the final report:

    Park Merced is only paying for the surface extension in their development. The surface extension creates new problems that the subway then tries to fix, namely have to cross southbound traffic on 19th ave and longer run times associated with this and the longer route. Maybe the $70 million free money for the Park Merced extension isn’t such a great bargain if it creates problems that need $500 million to fix.

    The language in the report is vague and confusing, but it doesn’t sound like Stonestown has actually committed any funding. San Francisco State has committed a whopping $1.8 million.

    As Andy already noted, the subway starts south of St. Francis, so won’t help there or in West Portal.



    They better not be removing the eastbound bike lane as well. The eastbound bike lane is fine trafficwise (but obviously not 8-80 wise), whereas the westbound bike lane is not.