Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    SFnative74

    “Finally, there is no law which says that cyclists must stay in the designated bike lanes.”

    Actually, there is. It is CA Vehicle Code 21208: “Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
    (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
    pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
    overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
    (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
    private road or driveway.
    (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
    (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
    (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.”

  2.  

    SFnative74

    If it’s the same sign I am thinking of, it only goes on when a person rides into the tunnel. Otherwise the sign is blank, so it’s not inviting people into the tunnel. Do you prefer there to be no warning to drivers that there is a person on a bike in the tunnel?

  3.  

    Gezellig

    Yeah, look at all that space devoted to those selfish bicyclists! When will *drivers* finally get a break? Restore Balance!

    http://o.onionstatic.com/images/16/16352/original/700.jpg?4001

    What a selfish biker! I’ll respect bicyclists once they finally…stop biking and drive everywhere like me.

    The intersection is actually in British Columbia so I’m not sure how patriotic she’s really being, though she is obeying BC’s victim-shamey modeshare-killing all-ages mandatory helmet law!

    Even better about that intersection is that, incredibly, it’s an intersection of two official bike routes, which you can see in the StreetView image where both street signs are listed with bike symbols indicating their supposed bike-route status (though clearly they’re BRINOs…Bike Routes In Name Only):

    http://goo.gl/maps/SnFxP

    After that piddling little bike lane before the intersection you can see the meek crossbike through the intersection finally just gives up and drops you off…on a sidewalk, giving any even basic pretenses at bike infrastructure.

    Sadly, this is a connecting portion between two major portions of a regional bikeway.

    http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/out-burnaby-way/

  4.  

    gneiss

    The fact that the two people on bikes caught up with you at the light shows how ludicrous your decision to pass them was in the first place. There is no place in the city on our non-arterial streets like 17th where you will make substantially better time than someone riding a bike, because of other vehicles in your way and traffic control devices.

    Next time you encounter slower moving bicyclists in the street, try this experiment – don’t pass them. I think you’ll be surprised at how little time you actually save by passing bicyclists on those types of streets.

    Finally, there is no law which says that cyclists must stay in the designated bike lanes. And surprisingly, there are laws regarding how cars are expected to enter the bike lanes (i.e. no double parking, no passing on the right, etc). But, how often do you this *those* laws obeyed?

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    Too much work. Throw your beer out the window at them

  6.  

    Lego

    The bars are too wide on that bike and she shouldn’t hold the grips so far to the edge. She’s also hazardously riding a half-inch to the left of center-lane. Taking up way too much space even in these traffic conditions. On the plus side her patriotic color scheme might boost the Mary Poppins effect.
    PS: The residual car-tire rubber in the left lane is not really solid proof that motorists never break the law and follow the lane designations. But let’s be clear it’s the cyclists that need to follow every law before being afforded more infrastructure

  7.  

    Gezellig

    “VTA is now pursuing a “phased station implementation”, first constructing BART stations only at Diridon and Downtown by 2025, and later adding the Alum Rock and Santa Clara stations.”

    Assuming this 2025 arrival of BART to Diridon, Caltrain will already be electrified (expected ETA: 2020) meaning more frequent metro-like service to Santa Clara will be possible.

    http://test.bayrailalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/CaltrainEMU2.jpg

    Once this happens it might become clear to people that extending BART to Santa Clara would be fairly redundant, anyway.

    Yes, there *is* something to be said about the psychologically convenient allure of being able to hop on a single system (ie, BART) to, say, the airport but if the transfers at Diridon are convenient, frequent and timed well I think people will catch on.

    Accordingly, I’ve often wondered if Caltrain could use the broad branding prestige that BART enjoys in the Bay Area and rebrand itself as BART: Bigger And Better (okay, maybe without that last part explicitly stated, haha). After all, BART’s already branding heavy-rail trains as eBART in the Delta region. Even though, say, Hayward to Santa Clara or Palo Alto to Fremont would still require one transfer at Diridon, BART’s map could show that psychologically all-important Full Loop Around the Bay instead of the thinly drawn afterthought reference to Caltrain the map currently gives:

    http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2008/02/big_bart_map.gif

    In addition, it would give every incentive to the agency to fully coordinate timed transfers, unify payment structure, etc. This would also benefit the sync-up with Millbrae and due to the increased convenience (and *perception* of increased convenience) likely encourage even more ridership on both ends.

  8.  

    IMGoph

    The location right next to 101 isn’t idiotic and doesn’t eliminate half of the walkshed. People would still be able to use the bridges on Santa Clara/Alum Rock and McKee to walk to the station from the east side of the highway.

    While a station without parking on a commercial corridor sounds ideal in theory, the fact is that the parking structure adjacent to the freeway is a necessity here. I lived in DC for 10 years, and I know what good rail transit and adjacent development looks like, and that’s just not quite possible here. The US101 freeway isn’t going away anytime soon, and BART is less of a transit system and more of a linear commuter service than WMATA is.

    There isn’t going to be a BART extension further south into Santa Clara county, and there aren’t going to be stubs going further east either. The fact is that, even with enhanced bus service (which there should be!), there are still going to be a lot of people who will drive to this point, and then use the train to get to points much further afield (SF, Oakland, etc.). Parking needs to be included, and keeping it as close to the freeway as possible makes sense.

    As a resident of 23rd Street, I don’t want to see the historic library at the end of our street ripped down for a parking structure (it’s not proposed, but it would be one of the only easy places to put one if the station ends up at 23rd). Keep the station and the parking on the brownfield at 28th.

  9.  

    Gezellig

    This is what happens when you design infrastructure that prioritizes one mode above all others–it actually leads to the demonization of perfectly normal practices such as riding side-by-side (whether by choice or necessity) simply because a very misguided traffic “guide” allows ridiculously narrow doorzone lanes:

    http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/burnaby-narrow-bike-lane-august-14-2011-p1260089.jpg
    Biking is virtually set up for failure and unintended consequences with “infrastructure” like this.

    http://bikinginla.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/6-AASHTO-says-but-dont-2.jpg

    Like this, too. This infrastructure begs for weaving in and out by people on bikes nervous about both doors and moving cars

    Let’s not blame people using coping strategies to put up with highly subpar infrastructure.

  10.  

    Lego

    I time that tunnel going eastbound. I wait on the east side of the intersection until the light turns red for the stream of monsters. Then I sprint up the moderate slope until I get to max speed on the down slope & I practically have the tunnel to myself all the way to Chinatown.
    Yes, yet another (unrecognized) compensation it takes just to ride a bike in this town – one has to create their own stoplight and scheme just to avert the threat of death.

  11.  

    SF Guest

    Send em to traffic school.

  12.  

    Bruce

    Not to mention the money saved from an overpass over 101 instead of a tunnel underneath.

  13.  

    J_blu

    This seems so short sighted! Diridon is walkable from Downtown; instead of removing that station keep Santa Clara / the link SJC. I understand the arena is a draw, but four blocks isn’t far to walk.

  14.  

    aslevin

    The decision about federal funding has been postponed, thanks to active community input. No application is going to be made by the end of the year, according to comments made by VTA board chair Ash Kalra. On December 11, the VTA board will get an update on the status of the project planning, but will not make a decision. Earlier, VTA staff had made the argument that they could decide which stations to submit for federal funding without board approval. It is not clear whether that will still be the case going forward.

  15.  

    Gezellig

    From the SF Weekly article, SFPD’s Survey Monkey on Pedestrian Safety:

    https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SFPDTrafficSafety

    It’s pretty quick–make sure to give your thoughts if you get the chance!

  16.  

    Wanderer

    Funding a station locally was possible in the era of redevelopment, but now that redevelopment has been ended, there’s no realistic way for a city to find tens of millions of dollars for a BART station.

  17.  

    danbrotherston

    Response should have been, no your car crashed into my fist! You should be thankful I’m not pressing charges.

  18.  

    murphstahoe

    So what do we do about bicyclists that won’t stay in a designated bike lane?

    Run them over?

  19.  

    danbrotherston

    What to do about cyclists who won’t stay in the designated bike lane? Uhh, nothing?

  20.  

    Lego

    Assault the weaver, but make sure you’ve disabled the phone of the other guy and anybody else around. If the police come, you’ll have to assault them too and flee to a city where there are very few cyclists, of which there are many in America. But then you’ll still have lots of motorists who block you with double-parking and just stopping without signaling in the middle of the lane and a plethora of other unexpected behaviors. But you won’t mind them because they are in cars.

  21.  

    Jarrett M

    Yeah, I have a feeling the station location was less an outcome of community participation or land use goals and more about making sure the massive BART parking garage was right next to the freeway onramp. The station box was never well positioned to serve the existing neighborhood commercial spine and heavily used local transit corridor on Santa Clara street.

    I know a lot of community members feel the proposed station relocation under Santa Clara at 23rd is a betrayal, but there are some real benefits with better transit connectivity to the 22/522/23 bus (and future BRT) which produce a combined headway of 5ish minutes and direct access to the existing commercial corridor. The redevelopment area behind 5 wounds would still be within the walkshed for the BART station, so there should still be interest from developers.

  22.  

    GBannis

    So what do we do about bicyclists that won’t stay in a designated bike lane? I was driving east on 17th Street and came up behind two bicyclists riding side by side. One was in the bike lane, the other was was weaving in and out unpredictably. When I was about to pass the weaver, I honked to let him know so he wouldn’t weave into me. When we all stopped at the traffic light, he decided to tell me that I was at fault because he has the right to bike in the road. I told him that I commuted daily by bicycle and was aware of his “right,” but that he would be safer by not blocking traffic when he didn’t have to.

  23.  

    Jake Wegmann

    File under “vehicular cycling is a joke.”

  24.  

    Bluehale

    To be fair the BART tunnel between Glen Park and 24th Mission isn’t flat (it climbs) making building a 30th street station much more expensive and difficult since you’d have to build a new section of tunnel and then a station. Of course BART could do it if there was the political will to do it which is short in both SF and BART.

  25.  

    uri

    why? I’m not super familiar with this project, but it seems like a great place to have it with the University, 49er and Earthquake stadiums, and Caltrain.

  26.  

    Jass

    The Alum Rock station was planned next to a highway? Thats idiotic, it eliminates half your walk shed

  27.  

    Jake Wegmann

    Let’s end federal subsidies for freeway construction. Then we can talk.

  28.  

    42apples

    I don’t think federal funds should be used for local projects. If that means lower taxes, so be it. Or more income redistribution. Why can’t the station be funded with development revenue?

    Federal money for projects comes with strings attached that may not be optimal for the situation. For example, CAHSR is hampered by onerous federal regulations (FRA regs, Buy American, etc) that would not be present for a private or state-funded system. VTA does not have a good track record considering how terribly awful light rail is.

  29.  

    murphstahoe

    So let’s see. San Jose should send funds to the feds, but should not get funds from the feds, those funds should go to non-economically beneficial projects elsewhere?

    Your argument only works in a world where there are no federal funds.

  30.  

    thielges

    Well of course the pedestrian was cited. He threw the first punch. Cars are people too.

  31.  

    Davide Vieira

    Stop by sometime when out riding your bike. The area is anchored by a landmark hundred-year-old Manueline Gothic Catholic church built by Portuguese immigrants with recycled timbers from the Portuguese Pavilion at the Panama-Pacific Exposition of 1915 in that now smaller city up north. The church is one of the most photographed, sketched, and painted buildings in San José. Southwest featured it in an ad. Even the non-religious can appreciate beautiful architecture, can’t they?

    Stop by sometime. Or visit it online at: http://www.fivewoundschurch.org

  32.  

    42apples

    If the stations are so economically beneficial, they shouldn’t need federal funds. San Jose has a median household income of $80,000, even more for surrounding cities. If they are not worth it, they shouldn’t need federal funds. I fail to see why this is so bad. Maybe VTA will be more frugal with its money.

  33.  

    Upright Biker

    And trying to imagine that a project called “Five Wounds” will be commercially successful defies the non-religious imagination.

  34.  

    Sam

    Ha, Five Wounds Urban Village featuring an entire 875 housing units! What a joke, can these projects. Build where people actually are

  35.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Here is another recent one in which the pedestrian was cited:

    12:33pm 2900 Blk Diamond Malicious Mischief
    A confrontation between a pedestrian and a vehicle owner resulted in an arrest. It started when a pedestrian, walking in the crosswalk toward the Glen Park BART station, said he was cut off by a vehicle making a left turn from Diamond onto Bosworth. As the vehicle passed, the pedestrian punched the left rear fender with his fist. Hearing the fist strike, the vehicle owner stopped his car and got out confronting the pedestrian saying, “you just damaged my car”. The pedestrian responded saying, “so what”, before entering the BART station. The confrontation continued inside the station with several punches being thrown between the combatants. Ingleside Officers Curry, Bernard, Lim, Uang, Baldovino, Hopkins, and Sgt. Walker responded to the call of a fight in the station. After separating and interviewing the combatants, the pedestrian was given a citation for malicious mischief and released. Report number: 140961984

  36.  

    Boo

    tiny dick syndrome is a menace

  37.  

    murphstahoe

    Cool story bro

  38.  

    Upright Biker

    What’s scariest is the signage that suggests that it’s somehow _more than OK_ for bikes to ride on the roadway.

    It’s not. Those signs have to go before someone gets killed.

  39.  

    Bruce

    There is no reason to build a station in Santa Clara. Period.

  40.  

    Gezellig

    Me too. That tunnel is *ridiculous*.

  41.  

    Upright Biker

    Ooof. I still get shivers from remembering my one horrifying experience riding on the roadway in the Broadway tunnel.

    I chose to spit on their windshield vs. keying when I caught up to them at Powell, as a malicious destruction of property conviction would likely be deleterious to my civic standing.

    I also now ride on the sidewalk through that passage.

  42.  

    Bruce

    I once nearly got run off the road there by some asshole in a BMW going about 50 MPH. Came within inches of me.

    Then there was the time when I took the lane in the Broadway Tunnel (eastbound/downhill) when a guy going about 60 MPH honked at me from behind and passed me with a 1-inch gap. I chased him down (he had to stop for the red at Powell) and got so angry I nearly keyed his car. Now I ride on the sidewalk.

  43.  

    p_chazz

    While not excusing the violent behavior, I observe that nobody likes to be told what to do, especially when the person doing the telling is not in a position of authority. I have been routinely cursed at, and in one occasion spat upon when I have politely told bicyclists that riding a bike on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk or taking a bike on the BART escalator is not allowed.

  44.  

    Upright Biker

    Happened to me on 2nd Street recently. Can’t wait for the semi-protected bike lane to go in there.

  45.  

    thielges

    I’m sure that the Alum Rock station will be built right after the planned 30th St. Glen Park infill station in SF is done.

  46.  

    shanand

    Looking at the newer BART extensions (Colma, Millbrae, Dublin/Plesanton), these are ridiculously over-engineered. Who holds BART accountable for these decisions, if not the County Funding agencies.

    But let’s face it. The Santa Clara VTA has never designed our built a thoughtful transit service. They build political compromises.

  47.  

    Charles Papanek

    Out of curiousity I tracked down renders for the 2 cut stations and you’re right on the money.

    http://fmgarchitects.com/wp/portfolio/bart-alum-rock-station
    http://www.brian-hong.com/SVRT-BART-to-San-Jose (scroll down a bit)

    The blurb for Alum Rock is just hilarious and renders look more like a museum than a BART station. Santa Clara isn’t as bad but still way overcooked.

  48.  

    MrEricSir

    The list of reasons San Jose sucks just keeps growing and growing.

  49.  

    The Overhead Wire

    Even cutting those stations doesn’t make up the difference. Also, I guarantee you they were over-engineered something aweful. More concrete caverns

  50.  

    AJ

    The fact that VTA can’t distinguish between Alum Rock (necessary) and Santa Clara (duplicative waste of money) is really concerning