Skip to content

Recent Comments



    There’s going to be a point where bicyclists are going to have to own up to the situation

    The situation that people in SF use bicycles, you mean? What’s supposed to be wrong with that?

    I’m not calling for anyone to be shunted aside

    It’s getting chaotic.
    What’s the “chaos”, exactly? They’re getting where they need to go in an efficient manner.



    The normal speed limit in the city is 25. The majority of bikers aren’t capable of going faster than that.



    You keep trying to pinpoint streets, and you’re flat our wrong.
    Market street looks like a bicycle race during rush hour.

    I’m not speaking about any single block in the Lower Haight… it’s a whole stretch. I’m not calling for anyone to be shunted aside, war ever are you talking about? I’m pointing out the increase in bicycle usage hasn’t been a graceful merger. It’s getting chaotic. Denials are silly.

    There’s going to be a point where bicyclists are going to have to own up to the situation, and stop blaming the cars, or people who don’t live life and pedal like they do. Getting touchy because I’m pointing out a truth of what it’s like outside of your bicyclist bubble hurts, I guess? It’s not hyperbole.



    Is the actual text of the proposed measure available anywhere? I realize it may change of course, but the devil is in the details with something like this.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    A great step in the right direction, but if the BOS doesn’t actually have sway over SFPD priorities, that would imply only Mayor Lee does?



    Is there precedent for the state to authorize pilot programs? I agree a true legal solution rests with the state but with the entrenched California car culture (even something as trivial as the 3-foot passing rule was vetoed twice by Brown) the only way this will happen is either if a majority of other states do it first or if San Francisco can establish an example that this policy works. And as Sanford points out there is already police discretion, and therefore bias, unfairness, and racism, in the enforcement of law — this changes little.



    This law makes no sense. The “lowest law enforcement priority” kludge (taken from our city’s marijuana policy, where getting actual change from the state and federal legislature is impossible) just creates uncertainly and ambiguity. It leaves the door open for officers to cite people anyway and provides little clarity to all road users as to what to expect at stop sign controlled intersections.

    And if you want to look to our marijuana policy for guidance of how the “lowest law enforcement priority” turns out, check out SF Weekly’s May report, in which we find major racial disparities in who gets cited.

    The right way forward would be to get the state legislature to authorize a pilot program whereby San Francisco could write its own ordinance. In the meantime, this just creates chaos.


    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    This is great news. The Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee that advises the Board of Supervisors on pedestrian safety matters has unanimously endorsed this ordinance which should carry heavy weight with the Supervisors who haven’t weighed in.

    The Bicycle Advisory Committee will be considering a similar resolution next Monday.



    The law makes sense and I’m glad there is support for passing it, but what people need to realize – especially people on bikes – is that you have to yield to whoever has the right of way! This law doesn’t condone blowing through stops or signals, which needs happens too often and needs to stop. Even if it is just 5% of bike riders who blow through stops, it is way too much. Drivers aren’t off the hook either…too many roll through stops at high speeds, run red lights, and don’t yield to pedestrians.



    Ah, makes sense. Yes, I am going into SF/FiDi and surprised how often my 4 bus ends up tailing another 4 bus through SF. The spacing is awful and can imagine that wrecks havoc as they send the buses on the reverse commute. I also see the buses bunched up on the GGB northbound when I bike to work.

    And speaking of routes, I’ve always wondered why GGT buses take Beach through Fisherman’s Wharf. Why not just run them down Bay or at least North Point?



    You don’t read what you write do you, “Nothing worse than trying to cross a street and 48 bicycles comes flying towards you, ignoring traffic laws.” On Market Street you have stoplights with lots of cross traffic. Show me one video of 48 cyclists “flying” towards you as they approach a crosswalk at a red light. That’s pure hyperbole. Where’s the data showing that people riding bikes are causing injuries at a higher rate than motorists?

    As for your comment about “lower Haight driver getting pinned” I suspect that you mean on Steiner between Waller and Duboce, which is also another block where you might see a number of cyclists. Let me remind you that people riding bicycles on these streets are legally allowed full use of the lanes here as they are too narrow to safely share both car and bicycle traffic in the same lane. They are part of traffic, not something that can be shunted aside. If a car driver cannot pass or navigate safely on these blocks, then they need to wait behind the bicycle riders.

    Again, this is a driver issue, not a bicycle issue. The street is perfectly suited for the amount of bicycle traffic Too many car drivers use Sanchez and Steiner as part of a cut through to avoid going onto Divisidero or Fillmore. If the drivers weren’t so impatient or avoided these blocks altogether then there wouldn’t be a problem. It’s one of the reasons the city is considering modifying the intersections in this area to reduce the number of motorists who use it as an alternative north-south route through the city.



    Real time tracking seems like a no brainer, but at least during the commute hours, the buses seem to come regularly.

    You must be commuting *in* to SF then 😉

    For the so-called “reverse” commute into Marin in the morning (which is always surprisingly full, even for the non-touristy lines such as the 70) it’s usually horrendously off.

    10-15 minutes late is the norm, 20-30 is all too common.

    The problem is traffic in the FiDi/SoMa often significantly delays routes such as the 4, 92, 101, 10 or 70 as they attempt to leave SF. I actually don’t mind deviations from the official schedule as long as I can track them ahead of time. My bus is 16 minutes late? Perfect! I’ll stay at home sipping my coffee for 11 more minutes before needing to head out.

    This is much more painful when the buses only come once an hour.

    Oh, believe me. I know 😀

    The only way my GGT commute is really even viable in the first place is by always taking my bike along. Even though one of the GGT lines stops in front of my office, its punctuality is highly unreliable. By bringing a bike I can catch several of the lines out of SF (whichever shows up first—as it may be the last GGT bus for another 35+ minutes…you never know) and then bike the rest of the way once in Marin.

    Thanks for the bike locker tips, but yeah, I’d also need them on a daily basis and in different locations. Bikelink would be great for this.

    In general, I’d add too many stops as well, which really slows the trip down. And I’d love, love, love to see dedicated HOV/transit lanes added to the Presidio Parkway, er, Doyle Drive.

    And 101 in Marin!



    Thanks for sharing the survey! In all my years (mostly on the ferry), I’ve never seen one person conducting their annual survey (think they always skip the outside seating, where ironically many cyclists sit).

    Real time tracking seems like a no brainer, but at least during the commute hours, the buses seem to come regularly. This is much more painful when the buses only come once an hour.

    Speaking of off-peak hours, that to me is one of the most painful parts… commute hours are great, but trying to find a way home after 8p during the week is awful.

    Love the bike lockers idea… they have them at Manaznita Park & Ride in Tam Valley, but they are only available on a monthly basis. I need them on a daily basis as I only take the bus 1-2 days/week. Here is the list of Park & Ride locations with bike lockers:

    Here is the bike locker application:

    And a little more info on bike lockers:

    In general, I’d add too many stops as well, which really slows the trip down. And I’d love, love, love to see dedicated HOV/transit lanes added to the Presidio Parkway, er, Doyle Drive.



    I have to disagree. I’ve sat in parked cars along various points of Lower Haight below Divis, on various occasions, and watched the driver I was with get pinned in by the rush of bicycle traffic. They get dangerously close to traffic, and parked cars.

    48 bicycles is putting it mildly if we’re talking about Market Street rush hour. Is there a speed limit the bikes are observing?



    With Bobby G as Editor we could *finally* get back to the real issues and start looking toward the future:


    A “public” “transit” network to be the envy of the world! (Don’t worry, it’s public–and green!–because every resident will get a brand new self-driving Pious…er…Prius. In green).

    A little *too* forward-thinking and progressive? Maybe. But SF deserves no less. And far less expensive than all that $$$ we currently spend on wasteful ped/bike infrastructure.


    Everyone can finally commune with nature at Golden Gate Park(ing) in their green Prious!


    We can for once address our shameful lack of in-bus-stop and in-crosswalk parking spaces for our dear, progressive mayor, forcing him to use Muni at least once an election cycle:×920.jpg

    Does he really deserve this? :/


    Michael Morris

    That quote from McEachern is really refreshing, glad he’s in charge of my district



    Thanks for the update!

    Now if we could only get them to implement realtime tracking. I’ve contacted them multiple times about that.

    It’s dumbfounding that realtime tracking–which has been available for Muni since *2004*–is still not a reality for GGT in 2015.



    From: contact []

    Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:44 PM

    To: John Murphy; contact

    Subject: RE: Golden Gate Transit Piner Depot – bike parking

    Hello Mr. Murphy,

    you for your interest in installing bike lockers at our Piner bus yard.
    Thanks, too, for providing the link to the grant program. I have
    contacted the BAAQMD and have been told the current program is over,
    but another grant program will start in September or October of this

    am working with our Bus Division to ensure that we have space available
    and electricity for lockers at this location. We also need to identify a
    source of funding for ongoing annual maintenance fees. If they
    give the go ahead, we will likely be able to move forward with
    installing lockers once the grant funding becomes available.

    Again, thank you for the information. I hope we are able to move forward with this project quickly!


    Melanie Sanborn

    Marketing & Communications Specialist



    There is only one block on Haight Street where you find people riding bicycles during rush hour, and that’s the block between Scott and Pierce. And frankly it has plenty of carrying capacity for all the bicycle riders who transit through that stretch. However, for car drivers, particularly those who travel on Scott Street, the intersection does back up. That’s not a bike problem, however, but a car problem. And that problem would exist regardless of whether bicycle riders did or did not ride here.

    The issue is that Divisidero also backs up. And people frequently use Scott Street as a ‘cut through’ to avoid it, which causes congestion on Scott as well as Divisidero. Again, not a bike problem – but a car problem.

    Your comment about “48 bicycles coming flying towards you” is pure hyperbole. Let’s try and stick to some facts rather than use that sort of inflammatory language.



    Arguing the merits of being hit by 48 bicycles instead of one car is…. kinda bonkers.

    Facts are stubborn things for you, aren’t they?

    Just agree pedestrians have the right of way, and the goal is…not to hit them, okay?

    Of course, that’s the goal. But discouraging bikes in favor of cars won’t help that goal at all. It can only hurt that goal.

    Why does someone have to die for it to matter?

    That was an example. I did not mean to imply injuries don’t matter. I do however hold that feelings of people who hate bicyclists and don’t really care about the facts of traffic safety should be deemed irrelevant.

    It’s not an opinion to state that city infrastructure for cars must remain so.

    Yes, it is.

    Ever heard of EMT…or the Fire Department?

    Fire trucks and private cars are two different things. You can accommodate emergency services while not designing 100% of the roads for private car drivers.



    OKay, this is silly. Arguing the merits of being hit by 48 bicycles instead of one car is…. kinda bonkers. Just agree pedestrians have the right of way, and the goal is…not to hit them, okay? Wait, wait, let’s not even take it there. Why does someone have to die for it to matter? How about we just agree, bicyclists must obey traffic laws, and pedestrians shouldn’t be intimidated by any on coming traffic, and cut out the self righteousness.

    It’s not an opinion to state that city infrastructure for cars must remain so. Ever heard of EMT…or the Fire Department?



    Sorry, but the priority of streets built for cars must be for
    the cars.

    Opinion, not fact.

    Not everyone can physically pedal (and I mean this literally).

    And not everyone is capable of driving a car.

    Nothing worse than trying to cross a street and 48 bicycles comes flying towards you, ignoring traffic laws.

    One car ignoring traffic laws and flying at you is a lot worse (more dangerous) than 48 bicyclists doing so. Car drivers kill several pedestrians in SF every year. It’s been two years since a bicyclist has killed someone in San Francisco. Nationwide, over 30,000 people are killed by cars every yuear, but you can count the number of people killed by bicyclists on one hand.



    Are you in SF itself? Go visit the stretch between 18th and Van Ness.

    Market Street doesn’t have room for a second bike lane.

    I’ll agree that adding bike lanes to side streets might help, but many are too narrow to accommodate that. Take the Lower Haight at rush hour. It’s a wide enough street until you add the chaos of the bikes.

    Sorry, but the priority of streets built for cars must be for the cars. Not everyone can physically pedal (and I mean this literally).

    Bike Lans should be raised so they’re at a different level from cars/buses, and separated from pedestrians, who always have right of way. Nothing worse than trying to cross a street and 48 bicycles comes flying towards you, ignoring traffic laws.



    But but but what about induced demand? This is some 1950s style thinking right here. If we add additional bike lanes, more people might ride bikes. Then we’ll need more space at both ends to store all the bicycles, which just sit parked 95% of every day anyway. 😉



    No room.
    Yes, there is room for another bike lane, by reducing the amount of lanes for cars. People getting around by bike is a lot more space-efficient than people getting around by cars.

    the bikes will only increase.
    That makes for cleaner air, less traffic noise, and less wear and tear on the roads. If bikes increase, good!

    Market St. should raise it’s bike lane, in my opinion.

    I agree, grade-separate bike lanes are nice. How high should they raise it?



    No room. Cars are already sandwiched in, and the bikes will only increase.

    Market St. should raise it’s bike lane, in my opinion.



    Great to see the improvement! Hopefully the SFPD will continue in that direction and get to 50%.

    It’s like triage in the emergency room. When you have limited resources, you treat the worst problems first and put off the annoying but minor papercuts to later. We’re talking about serious injuries and death caused by traffic crashes so the analogy is pretty apt. Unless they SFPD has all the resources in the world for traffic enforcement, they should focus on those violations that cause the most health and safety problems.



    Got tapped to fill out a Golden Gate Transit customer survey on my morning commute today:

    Raised my top three concerns:

    –> Realtime tracking still not available
    –> Lack of secure bike parking (e.g. Bikelink) at stops forces people to board with bikes, often filling up bike racks
    –> Lack of dedicated HOV lanes on 101

    You can also fill out the survey online:

    The survey is for all users, so even if you rarely or never ride GGT it’s worth filling it out (tell them why you so rarely use GGT!).



    I don’t see anything in the article saying what the five are, so I searched around and found this:
    speeding, running red lights, running stop signs, violating pedestrians’
    right-of-way in crosswalks, or failing to yield to pedestrians while



    IF the bike lanes on those streets are crowded, maybe the city should widen the bike lanes or add additional ones.



    It’s true. Drivers are more careless.

    (And sure there are always one or two problem areas where a stop sign or a timed light would help)



    The streets were deigned for cars, let’s not get carried away here.

    Most of the city wasn’t built up prior to automobiles becoming commonplace. Not sure where you get this idea that all these homes winding around hills were accessible by citizens skipping around.

    The problem is when they redesign the same streets, based on imagination and maps of neighborhoods they know only on paper, while lacking the grace and expertise of real city planners.

    Maybe your post was satire?


    Eric Doherty

    It is the front hubs (and probably the axle) that would need to be changed. Not just the wheel. This is not a small job. But still worth considering, especially when ordering new buses as this likely only the first of a series of BRT lines.


    Chris J.


    Alexander Vucelic

    You are most correct.

    The streets were designed decades before cars came on the scene to kill and maim.

    The best solution in dense cities ( ie SF ) is to open the streets to those users which the streets for designed for – people. Most streets in SF should be opened for use by people.

    Killer Cars should be relegated to limited zones inside SF with carefully controled via infrastructure improvements (10′ lanes, speed bumps, corner bump out, lavish use of 2 minute red lights, eliminating all street parking, etc. etc) .

    certainly 50% of SF streets could be opened for human use with 18 months.

    you are completely correct – the streets were ‘already designed’ before cars



    I did the same thing today and a driver behind tailgated me. Cyclists ignore stop signs in Vancouver. It was wet and when I braked hard, my bike tipped upwards. Fortunately, he gave me more space on the next block. I thought putting out foot down would be better because bikes don’t have brake lights.


    Andy Chow

    You seem to make the “human error” similar to errors in baseball, where someone is supposed to catch the ball but didn’t. The roads are built in a way that accounts those errors. That’s why the lanes must be wider than vehicles (rather than exact width) and that traffic lights are timed that when one light goes red the other light is not instantly turn to green. But then most instance people are not wild animals.

    The issue is that some people are making poor decisions due to laziness or not knowing the danger. In some environments we may decide that it is okay that people can cross the streets wherever they want and that cars have to slow down to accommodate them. On the other hand railings are place so that people know that it is not permitted to cross and that it would be a hassle to leap over the railing.

    For rail crossings, improved grade crossing designs force people to turn to see oncoming trains, and that they cannot go around the gate or somehow miss the warning. Does it prevent every instances of trespassing? No, but is it effective in preventing deaths due to people believing that it is safe to cross but actually isn’t? Yes.



    Prove it. 80-90% of car drivers speed and this is the main cause of fatalities. Add in all the illegal lane changes made without a signal, the texting and talking on cell phones and the double parking and I am pretty sure you are talking 99% of all car drivers breaking the law routinely.



    If 99% of the drivers on the road didn’t break the law on a regular basis like they/we do (speeding, rolling through stop signs, running red lights, not yielding to pedestrians, not signaling, and on and on and on), there wouldn’t be a need for all these changes.



    The streets are already designed. What are you going to do, put speed bumps and rounded corners on every block? The implementation has been heavy handed. Cars shouldn’t be forced to merge into oncoming traffic, in lanes Muni use, simply to round a corner.



    Valencia, Folsom, 17th Street. Pretty much my whole morning commute route has crowded bike lanes.



    Car drivers don’t drive the speed limit anyway, what good would lowering the speed limits do. Speed cameras might actually help though.



    You can’t arbitrarily lower the speed limit, which creates to a speed trap. A roadway designed for lower speeds is necessary to actually get lower speeds. Better lighting is a good idea.



    Adjusting the speed limit is a better step than placing islands, and barriers which create additional obstacles.

    Raising the luminance of our street lamps would also help.



    As a normal average person, streetsblog continues to blow my mind and challenge me to think out of the box. Thank you for doing such a great job.


    Andy Chow

    Indeed SamTrans 122 continues to provide direct service Lake Merced Hills and Stonestown/SFSU. There are a couple of issues:

    SamTrans has a closed door policy in SF, which SF bound buses do not pick up inside SF border, and southbound buses do not drop off in SF. This policy is listed for downtown SF routes like 292, 397, and KX. Not sure whether this is true for 122. But if it is the case that policy should be changed for line 122 because of limited Muni service in the area. (Not necessary for 292 since Muni provides more frequent service along the route).

    Riders have to pay a separate fare or carry a separate pass for SamTrans. This is a problem for any areas close to the transit agency boundaries. Ideally Clipper should have the ability to program for inter-agency or inter-route transfers specific to a route. But in reality this is a very costly proposition. An alternative to that is to allow free boardings on the northbound 122 in SF.

    BART connection should be a plus for rides to and from downtown, but that station is outside the SF city limit and the “A” Fast Pass does not apply. On the other hand with regular BART fares, the transfer to Muni is free at this station.


    Darksoul SF

    “Lake Merced Residents Say Muni’s Reroute of 18 and 57 Lines Won’t Serve Them Well”. Yes they will with multiple connections and if you want go somewhere beside SF take the 57-Parkmerced or SamTrams122. They can take the SamTrans 122 if they want goto S.F State or Stonestown Faster. . Check the route changes



    Aaron, Thank you for your consistently good reporting and research. I came to rely on your stories to keep me informed of the most important city transportation news. I appreciate, too, how you moderated the site, keeping it lively, but not a servant to those who troll public forums. I will miss you. Good luck with your next endeavors.



    If this serves as Aaron’s farewell announcement, I’d like to send my hearty thanks for a job well done of building a community and providing a valuable service of disseminating news about livable streets. Let us know what’s next, and congratulations on the coming transition!


    Bob Gunderson

    I’ll take it!