Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Uhmmm…how about adding transit to that solution? Without a robust transit investment, Alameda Landing is just another car-centric, suburban strip mall and low-rise tract housing development.

    Had BART invested its energy in building a new line to include Alameda (instead of its car-dependent commuter rail station extensions), the Alameda Landing development could have bee constructed with greater density (and height) next to mass transit. Alameda Island could also benefit from a light rail system that connects its major commercial centers with downtown Oakland and other BART stations.



    how are you subsidizing them? are you paying for their hospital stays?



    Market Street is only one of the many unsafe streets for cyclists of course (Divisadero! Geary! Masonic! ). I don’t bike (physical/medical issues) so I drive. I am so stressed by the roadways, people’s behaviors and general amount of traffic of all kinds on the streets. I pay close attention ,defer to bikes, pedestrians and skateboards, I’ve slowed it down and try very hard to be as safe as possible. I still worry. I applaud any effort to make things safer and every urgent, immediate steps the City can and should take!



    Interesting idea. I wonder how the costs compare between drawbridges and trams.

    It really just comes down to vertical clearance. If they chose to install a very tall drawbridge with 70′ of clearance at high tide, then it actually wouldn’t be a problem for the vast majority of vessels. It would still need to open for the very occasional working boat, dinner cruise ship, or Coast Guard clipper, but at least all but the very largest sailboats could fit under that. Unfortunately, 70′ is very high (imagine a 7 story building,) probably much more expensive, and would be quite lot of climbing, requiring huge ramps for bikes and wheelchairs.

    Unfortunately, any lower than that and this bridge would be perpetually opening and closing for all the countless sailboats that constantly traverse that part of the estuary and require 50′ or 60′ of clearance.



    The article did not say “caused by motorists”. It said “caused by traffic”. That would include injury accidents caused by buses, streetcars and bikes.



    So, one half of the new $1 Billion trauma center is devoted to taking care of the injuries caused by motorists. Isn’t this half a billion just another example of subsidizing automobile usage? Could that money have been better spent elsewhere?



    It often amounts to the same thing. Just this morning I saw a construction truck blocking the traffic lane, not the bike lane. Very thoughtful of him.

    Except of course the traffic stuck behind him all passed to the right, taking the bike lane to do so.

    As a cyclist, I’d rather deal with a stopped vehicle in the bike lane than deal with a moving vehicle.



    Maintaining road infrastructure is not a cost that is intrinsic to buses since roads are used by private automobiles, commercial vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, etc.


    SF Guest

    SFPD crackdown was broadcasted on Stanley Roberts segment People Behaving Badly on yesterday’s KRON 4 10 pm news, and reportedly inspired by numerous complaints. Many if not all of the rideshare drivers appeared clueless or ignorant of the law. These violations are so frequent a cop was shown thanking one of the few drivers who pulled over to a parking space to let his ride disembark.

    Tune in tonight at 10 pm if you want to see what drivers think.


    Jef Poskanzer


    Another reasonable alternative would be an aerial tramway like at Roosevelt Island in NYC.



    I think the statistics are actually under reported. I’ve been in two crashes as a cyclist. The first involved a motorcycle doing an illegal turn in front of me and I flipped over the back of his bike. No damage to me, but it was greater than 5 mph. In the second, I stopped at a 3 way stop sign, proceeded to make my left turn, and the car on my left didn’t bother to look right. He gunned the intersection after the most brief of stops and I ended up sliding over the hood of his car. I’m guessing he was going over 5 mph, not sure if I was. I had a cut on my finger and a slightly bent rim. If EMS or SFPD had been called, I’m guessing I would have qualified under this criteria.



    Google “wider freeways” and you’ll find study after study showing that making freeways bigger doesn’t reduce traffic. In many cases, it makes it worse.

    LA has realized that it needs to build more transit in addition to adding capacity on its roads. Sadly, the Bay Area hasn’t seen the light.



    If it were a dream, there probably would have been at least one mention of bike lanes in the segment. But this is reality, so it was only about blocking *real* lanes; you know, the ones for cars.



    It took the SFMTA four years to plan and build 0.5 blocks of raised bike lanes on Valencia Street. It too them 17 years to plan and build the 3 blocks of semi-protected bike lanes on Oak and Fell Streets. The Masonic project was fully funded in 2013 and we just this summer are breaking ground there. Is it any wonder why safety advocates are taking matters into their own hands?



    “SFPD Crack Down on Uber Blocking Traffic Lanes”

    Pinch me. Can this really be happening??



    I am a muni bus driver as well as a commuter cyclists. I drive and ride on Market st. When I drive, I let the cyclists stay ahead but I also get ahead when it is safe to do so. Often times I would see cyclists leave the dedicated bike lanes to pass up the traffic or they are riding on the center lanes even center division of South and North of Market. Lots of car drivers are on their phones and they do whatever they want on Market, illegal left turns, U-turn, blowing past red lights, stopping wherever they feel like. I also skateboarders who think they are just like the cyclist. The numerous jaywalkers who run or unsure when to run or walk. My bike commute segment of Market is between page and 11th and I get terrified.



    Agreed, Christopher. Part of the paradox I referred to is that the most “calmed” road in SF actually increases stress in drivers, elevating the risk for everyone.

    I never use Market. If I drive downtown I either use Mission or Bush. People driving down Market may well be tourists or folks from the suburbs.



    Sure it’s growing nationally, but from a tiny base. Your grandchildren will never see the day when more people commute by bike than by car.

    In fact there are now more cars on the road than ever before, not to mention the millions of new cars each year in China, India etc.



    Again you attribute to me all kinds of things I never said. I don’t know whether you, me or farazs are correct because we all have different data and sources.

    But even in your most favorable case, about 94% of people don’t use a bike daily in SF, and nationwide that rises to 99% or so.

    I never said it can’t change. But to change you need to work with those 94% and convince them. Not criticize them for being “wrong”



    The difference is that drivers do not deliberately set out to make life difficult for cyclists. Critical Mass has the specific intention of delaying and obstructing others



    Doubtful. You’d have to hire more people for Muni and the pay and benefits package for Muni workers is high relative to (often non-unionized) private sector equivalents.

    I’d argue we should do the exact opposite. Let private entities and enterprises operate wherever that is viable, and let Muni operate more as a subsidized service for routes that are necessary but where demand doesn’t justify a private operator.

    The model is Obamacare. Most people can afford to pay for healthcare, or at least for insurance through work, so the cost to the public is limited to the poor, the old and the uninsured.

    The trend for the last 40 years has been “privatize where you can and subsidize only those who need it”



    The timidity of the SFMTA is the problem. It’s time for them to develop a backbone.



    “According to some people”… who? SFParkRipOff? These some people are just wildly wrong.



    Dividing the farebox intake by the overall cost of operating the system (including the central dispatching office, bus base, etc.) is just meaningless gibberish. I don’t know why it’s so common.

    Public transportation has economies of scale. If Muni took over all the Chariot, Google Bus, etc. operations, they’d all cost less because they’d leverage economies of scale.



    On the other hand, according to some people, autonomous cars will cruise around with nobody in them looking for parking. So double the number of cars on the road per person for the autonomous cars — they’ll be WORSE than regular cars. :-(



    0. Public rail transit can simply carry far, far more people in 15 minutes than any private sytsem can.



    No, it’s not easier to change bus routes to meet demand. Look at the history.

    The cost of maintaining the road infrastructure for heavy buses with their high axle loads is monumental.



    Buses had higher operating and capital costs than rail systems (and they still do!), but at the time the bus capital costs were subsidized by the government in the form of “free” roads (and they still are!) while the rail systems were heavily taxed.



    Flagged and blocked.



    Leap violated federal law (the ADA). That’s why it was shut down. Dumbass bigots at Leap.



    Agree, but that is never an excuse for not seeing bicyclists and pedestrians. If you’re going to drive 2 tons of machinery with a couple hundred horsepower available at the twitch of a foot and all your senses dulled by the metal cage which surrounds you, then the responsibility is on you to slow way the hell down, always signal your turns (and if you’re about to miss a turn, you don’t suddenly jerk a turn but just have to deal with missing it and going around the block), turn off the music, and check your blind spots religiously. But god forbid we ask those driving such dangerous machinery to actually act like they are driving dangerous machinery. In an urban space that has some of the densest concentrations of public transit in the country, no less, which they could be using instead of driving.




    Christopher Childs

    Right, if you haven’t driven there before, and you’re used to roads that mostly just let you through, you’re in for a real treat. I didn’t show any sympathy in my original post for this fact, but the road is definitely hostile to anyone who doesn’t already know what they’re doing.

    Signs seem to be frequently placed in spots that will tell you only at the last minute that you’re going to screw up, and the way in which you’re going to do it is illegible.



    So sick of hearing this kind of news. Can’t this bicyclist sue the city for negligence? Is GJEL ( out there in the ether and maybe could comment on this? i think it’s going to take lawsuits to get the SFMTA to get off their ass and start providing truly safe bicycle infrastructure now, not in 2 or 3 years.

    A few easy fixes for Market until we get protected bicycle lanes (which you’re going to give us next year or so, right SFMTA?!?!). This literally could be implemented in at most months if the City really wants to prioritize the safety of bicyclists over the convenience of motorists.

    1) Buses must be forced to stay in the center/left lane (unless turning, of course) and board/de-board at the platforms. Buses crossing over to the curbside lane to board/de-board is ridiculously dangerous for bicyclists, especially since many MUNI bus drivers will blast pass bicyclists and then cut right directly in front of them to get to the curbside bus stop or to make a right turn rather than incurring a delay of 5 extra seconds by waiting behind bicyclists.

    2) SFPD: enforce moving violations that particularly endanger bicyclists (and pedestrians). This includes motorists not following the turn restrictions, violating the 3-foot law, right-hooking, making illegal U-turns, driving in the green protected bike lanes … in addition to the Focus on Five violations. This also includes MUNI bus drivers. Oh, and stop parking your damn cruisers in the bike lane. At least *try* to act like you aren’t ridiculously biased against bicyclists.

    3) SFMTA: enforce double-parking, especially in the bike lanes. Zero warnings: you see somebody there, start writing the ticket but get their license number first thing in case they drive off. If you just warn drivers for double-parking, even if they’re only there for 10 seconds, it will never stop. Only when drivers know that a PCO just needs get *sight* of them stopped in the bike lane and they will get a parking ticket, only then we will truly see behavior change.

    And you know what is a disgrace to your credibility, especially in light of your Vision Zero talk that isn’t backed up by action, this data (see image). How can you possible justify enforcing violations that have almost no bearing on road safety like street cleaning, meter compliance, neighborhood permits, etc at rates many times over those violations that actually create unsafe conditions like double-parking and parking in the bike lane? You need a Focus on Five like the SFPD that re-prioritizes how you enforce parking violations such that they have the most public safety benefit (and yes, there is just as much money in these violations as the others, so don’t worry: you will still get the revenue you want). How have you not figured out that you need to prioritize enforcement towards safety? How can you be so tone deaf? It gives zero confidence you actually understand Vision Zero.

    Also, tell and train your employees not to park in bike lanes. And if they still do, punish them sufficiently so that it provides sufficient motivation to not do it again. No exceptions.

    4) Where the curbside lane narrows near the center boarding platforms and hence cars, buses, delivery vehicles, and bicyclists (hey, who is the vulnerable one here even if they make vroom vroom noises with their mouth?) are squeezed together, add speed bumps that will bottom out a car but that are gradual enough to allow easy bicycling over. And put up huge signs and paint on the ground that tell drivers that they need to *yield* to bicyclists. None of this “share the road” crap: there’s no sharing when you have nothing to share since cars clearly dominate the road space; what needs to happen is that the motorists need to give way. If you really need to drive on Market, then you really need to yield to all other modes of transit.

    5) Why can’t we get a green wave for the traffic lights on Market? I expect there is some timing for the lights on roads that cross Market, but you know what: if you’re really “transit first”, that takes a back seat to prioritizing transit and bicyclists down Market. Of course, there is no evidence that you actually want to prioritize transit, bicycling, and walking over the automobile, but it’s high-time to start trying a little better otherwise, once again, your “transit first” slogan just makes you lose credibility.



    I believe anybody can make a legal right turn onto EB Market from 9th but you can only go as far (legally) as the mandatory right turn off Market at 6th. Or you can, of course, ignore the signs like many drivers do.

    I do see a lot of confused drivers in this area. Some blow past the signs because they don’t care, but a decent number seem to be unfamiliar with the area, utterly confused, stressed out, and are way too busy trying to figure out where they are, where they’re going, and what all the signs say rather than watching the road around them.

    I’d like to see a design that’s more intuitive, with barriers that stop people from doing things they aren’t supposed to do rather than relying on yet more signs.


    Christopher Childs

    A lot of this micromanagement relies on driver cooperation… In other words, people could start with reading and obeying the signs. The person driving probably should not have been in that spot. has a picture outlining legal movements on or across Market. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how you get from 8th to 7th eastbound like the accident picture shown above on anything but a truck, bus, taxi, or bike.



    All census questions about commute mode are from the American Community Survey, which uses sampling. They don’t ask about commute mode on the decennial Census. Every estimate of commute mode share is based on some kind of sampling, and there are ways to quantify the degree of sampling error. I provided information about the margin of error for the 2015 data precisely for this reason, but you’ve chosen to ignore that and just claim that census data “cannot be fully accurate” because it doesn’t meet your agenda tonight.

    Actually, the real margin of error is lower, but calculating it is a royal pain without statistical software I don’t have handy, so I used a simpler method that overstates the amount of sampling error.

    No, we’re not just going to use 6 year old data because it shows a lower number and makes you happier, especially when other measures show consistent year-over-year growth that make the 2015 ACS figure just as believable as that from other years.



    “and that might explain why it’s hard for your ideas to gain broader traction.”

    You are a dying breed. Bicycling is the fastest growing mode of transit in SF and the nation, so clearly it is in fact gaining broader traction.



    Latest bicycle count has it at 4.4% in 2014 ( and it’s almost certainly at 5% now in 2016 based on past growth rates, but use whatever outdated number from whatever date fits your end game trolling SF Streetsblog.

    And number of trips by bicycles in SF has grown 184% in the last decade, and the bicycle counter on Market St has shown a 25% increase from 2014 to 2015 (see same link as above). To keep talking about bicycling without acknowledging this incredible growth in the last decade — much more than any other transit mode — is disingenuous. Not to mention that the City has it as a stated goal to have 20% of trips by bicycle by 2020 ( … which it most certainly won’t reach, but the point is that it is expected to grow massively and to ignore this is, again, disingenuous.

    But you’re never wrong and you know everything and are perfectly rational and are just here to enlighten us all with why the status quo can’t be changed in any way to benefit bicyclists and bicycling is for a negligible minority who should be tyrannized by the majority because if bicyclists don’t reach whatever percent that is in your head that makes them worthy, well, then they can just live with being second-class road users who should be happy to get off their bike and walk around motorists illegally double-parking in the bike lane.


    Dexter Wong

    You’ve never walked far in your life? Are you a captive driver?



    And ain’t it interesting how upset motorists get when inconvenienced once a month by bicyclists in Critical Mass, yet somehow bicyclists are subject to the equivalent by motorists every single day on just about every bike lane in the city, yet some think it’s okay for motorists to be pissed at Critical Mass bicyclists but not okay for bicyclists to be pissed at motorists parking in the bike lane?



    The irony is that Market Street is the most calmed, policed and micro-managed road environment in the city. No road in SF has as many restrictions as Market Street. And there are physical barriers, paint indicators, soft posts, profuse signage, forced turns, banned turns and even special light sequences for bikes. All of which makes driving on Market Street a nightmare.

    And yet even with all of that, accidents still happen. The question therefore has to be raised. If all this road design does not prevent accidents, then what would?



    There is a fundamental difference between stopping and parking. In the former case the driver remains in the car with the engine running, in full control. “Parking” means the driver shuts the engine down and leaves the vehicle.

    And I never said “as long as I deem reasonable”. I said 60 seconds or less. Why do you lie?



    Yes, and only the ten-year census can be fully accurate. The annual ones are based on sparse sampling.

    Stuart has raised a reasonable doubt about the 2010 number, but he certainly has not proven that I am wrong, as he claimed. What he has done is indicate that there are a whole bunch of numbers and nobody knows what is correct.

    Until that is resolved, the 2010 is the only definitive number



    I pulled the 2015 data because I was curious. It turned out to be a royal pain because the Census Bureau doesn’t include bike as an option on the American FactFinder tool (how lame is that) and I had to jump through a bunch of hoops to extract it. I got 5% (90% CI +/- 0.9%) bicycle commuter modeshare for 2015 (that’s people who both live in the city and commuted to a job in the city, an estimated 19,000 people (+/- 3,300). It’s 5.5% if you exclude people who answered “worked at home,” 6% if you exclude “worked at home” and “walked,” and 4% if you count all working SF residents including those who commuted outside the city.

    So there’s an indication that it’s maintaining a similar growth rate as before, though it’s hard to get that much statistical significance out of the sample.


    Sean Hussey

    If the city is worried about getting sued for leaving in safety measures, then sue the city for taking them out.



    I hope the cyclist is ok.

    One quick note on the DPH statistics. The City’s EMS policy is that any auto-pedestrian accident >5 mph or where the patient is “thrown or run over” (also many motorcycle crashes and passengers/drivers in cars where there’s significant intrusion into the passenger compartment) should be transported to SF General as a trauma patient. Since those stats only include patients at SF General, while many of the common falls/cuts/etc… are handled at other hospitals, they may be a bit misleading as to what’s happening in the city as a whole.

    None of that, of course, is meant to say that what is happening is at all ok, that there aren’t way too many such injuries, that Market St. isn’t an unmitigated disaster for everyone regardless of mode, and that SFMTA has seemingly no interest in doing anything to really address the problem ever since they showed off their red and green thermoplastic at a NACTO conference and everyone came away thinking we were so forward-thinking.

    It should be abundantly clear by now that sporadically enforced turn restrictions and painted white lines are not a substitute for safe street designs and real protected bike lanes.



    Yes, I’ve tried walking that area too. It’s a complete joke. More of the same car-centric design you’d expect to find in the South Bay.



    Sorry BikeWalk Alameda, but there is simply *way* too much marine traffic, sailboat races, and so forth for a drawbridge to be practical at that location. Whoever did your feasibility studies really dropped the ball on this one.

    The drawbridges work fine on the east end where very few boats venture, but it would be a complete disaster to try cutting off Barn Hill Marina, Marina Village Yacht Harbor, Fortman Marina, Grand Marina, Alameda Marina, 5th Avenue Marina, Union Point Marina, Embarcadero Cove Marina, Oakland Marina, Brooklyn Basin, a few yacht clubs, Coast Guard Island, and the various other Port of Oakland facilities from the rest of the bay.



    I appreciate your cooperation in this little demonstration of why your claim that you “have no problem agreeing with others or acknowledging when [you] have been proven wrong” is meaningless. You decide what the standard is for when you’ve been proven wrong, and by an amazing coincidence, there’s always some reason that, according to you, you are actually right.

    Even if it’s as contrived as, say, suddenly deflecting to national numbers when discussing the accuracy of numbers you put forward for SF. Or as bizarre as redefining words to turn your own statements into meaningless tautologies (‘a law on the statute must be enforced because if it’s not enforced then it’s not a law on the statute’) to explain away obvious contradictions in your arguments.