Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Ken Neville

    The driver is almost always to be blamed in the situations this article is discussing, having made an intentional decision to enter an intersection that cannot accommodate them.

  2.  

    Ken Neville

    Spend a few weeks on a bicycle next to these drivers and you’ll be reaching for something a little more substantial than an air horn to arm yourself with.

    Only in the rarest of circumstances does confronting the driver result in a positive outcome, regardless of the tone taken when confronting.

  3.  

    Dave Moore

    I said I’m amazed he’s amazed.

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    So you’re saying, it’s ok if scooters use the bike lanes?

    The bike lane is called a “BIKE LANE”. You might not like it, but it’s a fact.

  5.  

    SF Guest

    “It’s a mystery as to why the SFMTA and SFPD don’t routinely ticket drivers for blocking intersections, but the SFMTA is at last looking to launch an targeted enforcement campaign next month.”

    This reaffirms my belief the SFMTA is out of touch with the core values it had when it was known as the DPT and wasn’t revenue first. Back in the day DPT regularly had PCO’s direct traffic at busy intersections especially during commute hours and the holidays. With few exceptions that’s almost non-existent now.

    Safety first is a core value and that should include the PCO’s directing traffic at busy intersections the way they did it before.

    It’s all too transparent to have PCO’s merely stand at intersections without directing traffic waiting to issue citations when their primary job is to facilitate traffic at busy intersections.

    I have seen PCO’s direct traffic around accidents at least, but that doesn’t explain why they stopped this practice at busy intersections.

    If Supe. Kim would like to see the “same level of responsiveness around this important issue” then she would support my idea as well. With the passages of Props. A & B there’s no reason why the SFMTA can’t do its job it formerly did.

    [Ed Reiskin -- I hope you are reading this]

  6.  

    jd_x

    “The roads *were* designed for cars.”

    Yep, nobody disagrees with this. But that doesn’t mean it’s right, especially moving forward. Just because something isn’t the status quo doesn’t mean it is wrong.

    And cyclists are small percentage exactly *because* we designed our roads for cars at their (and pedestrians’ and public transit users’) expense. So it’s absurd to claim that this is a popularity contest when the current paradigm has tremendously biased the system to favor one mode.

    And let’s be clear: this isn’t about who is mad. This is about who is getting killed and injured and the incredible destruction being leveled on the environment of which excessive driving (which is what rush hour traffic in SOMA is) is one the largest contributors. Again, this cannot be a popularity contest (especially one rigged for one outcome) if we are ever going to get ourselves out f the hole we have dug by prioritizing the motor vehicle at the expense of all else.

  7.  

    Dave Moore

    While I can understand your frustration, I don’t get how “it’s amazing how bicycle lanes get absolutely no respect by anybody; it’s insane how they are considered just the bottom of the bucket, the users of the road who nobody designs for (except as an after-thought)”.

    The roads *were* designed for cars. You might not like it, but it’s a fact. Cyclists *are* a small percentage of road users. Again, you might not like it, but it’s a fact. You’re asking for space to be taken from the majority and given to the minority. You might find justifications:
    - cyclists have N% of trips but only M% of space
    - with more space there will be more cyclists
    - cyclists don’t pollute
    - cyclists take cars off the street

    I could argue with each of these, but it’s beside the point. You are asking people to give something up. You can be mad that they won’t, but amazed?

  8.  

    jd_x

    It’s not about the number of wheels, but whether you are self-powered or not.

    I gotta say, it’s pretty obnoxious when scooters take the bike lane. They spew their exhaust all over me and often come zipping up and by way too fast. it’s illegal for a reason. And it’s amazing how bicycle lanes get absolutely no respect by anybody; it’s insane how they are considered just the bottom of the bucket, the users of the road who nobody designs for (except as an after-thought, i.e. your traditional bike lane squeezed between parked cars and moving cars) and nobody cars about. This has got to change.

  9.  

    jd_x

    And it’s amazing that people put themselves through this every day. I’ll never understand it.

    Get out of the car, people. What does it take to realize that this mode of travel will never be efficient, safe, or relaxing in a dense urban environment like SF? If you live too far from work and/or for whatever legitimate reason you can’t take public transit, bike, or walk, then it’s time to consider a move, either your job or your home.

    I don’t know why people subject themselves to this nonsense, but that’s their business. However, subjecting everybody else to it, especially those trying to move through the city using public transit, bicycling, and walking, is unacceptable. I can’t wait until the paradigm shift comes where cities realize that we need to stop encouraging the private car as a form of transit.

  10.  

    jd_x

    Great idea, but wouldn’t it be susceptible to people manipulating videos?

  11.  

    jd_x

    Exactly my thought as I bicycle past them all (while having to be extra careful they don’t run me over in their inattention). It’s amazing to me that people put themselves through this day in and day out … and that’s not to mention the inconsiderate nature of shutting down streets, polluting the air, and just making the streets miserable for all others. It really is a sickening sign of an anachronistic mentality that just won’t die, even in the face of so much evidence that this method of transit is horribly inefficient, dangerous, and destructive to a city’s livability.

  12.  

    jd_x

    Yes, this is pathetic. And I don’t even care about 2030; we need to know what the plans are for the next *few* *years* first. It’s like they are distracting us from the fact that the system is being developed way too slowly and poorly given that SF is one of the top cities for bicycling (and wants to be way better in the near future).

  13.  

    davistrain

    The report on drive-thru prayer brought back memories of reading about the predecessor of the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County. Rev. Robert Schiller started conducting services for large numbers by renting a drive-in movie theater for Sunday mornings, inviting his congregation to worship in their cars.

  14.  

    CarsRuleBikesDrool

    well duh, yeah, of course! When ur thumpin’ along in ur whip (2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse FTW baby!), u best believ my convience comes first, crosswalk or not!

  15.  

    thielges

    >> Thur, Nov. 20th, 7 – 9 PM

    (forwarded from Larry Ames):

    Lincoln Ave, San Jose “Road Diet”

    meeting by Councilmember Oliverio and WGNA,

    at Willow Glen Elementary (Lincoln and Minnesota) (in the Cafeteria)

    [learn about tentative plans for a pilot program to improve
    Lincoln Ave. in Willow Glen by adding a central left-turn lane and bike
    lanes.

    One can imagine many questions:

    Will car traffic flow more smoothly with left-turns out of
    the way? Will pedestrians feel safer crossing the street? Will
    people enjoy visiting Lincoln Ave shops without driving so much? Will
    local streets be impacted by cut-through traffic? What section of Lincoln
    will be in the program, how long is the program, when and how will it be
    implemented, … “The Devil is in the Details”!]

  16.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Make sure to put all your griping and complaints into this comments box so you truly make a difference

  17.  

    SF_Abe

    “And prioritize [your own] safety over speed and convenience.”

    Fixed it for you

  18.  

    murphstahoe

    There is the opportunity cost of using that piece of sidewalk for a shelter that doesn’t give shelter….

  19.  

    Bruce

    That’s my point. The City isn’t paying for them, so we can’t really complain too much about them.

  20.  

    Jim

    Aside from the MTA/SFAC design competition, the city isn’t pay anything or much for the shelters. Maintenance and construction is all being paid for by Clear Channel. There was a clause in the advertisement contract that allowed Clear Channel to opt out of including solar panels due to financial or technology limitations.

  21.  

    Mario Tanev

    It’s not just bad weather though. If there are no rooftops, there is no shade, there are no good seating options. Just because San Francisco doesn’t get snow, it doesn’t mean that riders should be sold to advertisers for promotional schwag (which is really what these shelters are). The wave shelters as designed are not very useful, but still more useful than what’s being discussed for the BRT.

  22.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I’m so disappointed that for a flagship transit project that’s been 25 years in the making (part of the four-corridors projects approved 1989) the experience of waiting during bad weather will actually be worse.

  23.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Apologies, I wasn’t very clear. I really meant that if they aren’t going all the way with a custom design (which I’m completely with you on) why not just use the existing wavy roof design (like it or hate it) in a custom color?

  24.  

    Bruce

    I think a handful around the City do have solar panels. But you’re right, they were all supposed to have solar panels, and they are too tall to protect from the elements.

    But hey, you get what you pay for, right?

  25.  

    roymeo

    Weren’t the “wave” shelters also supposed to have solar panels (which would have been flat and unaesthetic, or contoured and prohibitively expensive)? Besides letting the rain/wind in, they always felt like a bait and switch to me.

  26.  

    roymeo

    If it’s another residence, he should list it on AirBnB or sublet it.

  27.  

    Bruce

    I mean that the light rail stations along the M and T lines have a more substantial feel to them, in part because they have a roof that covers the entire platform. Why shouldn’t that be the case along Van Ness?

  28.  

    p_chazz

    NYC is a much larger metropolis than SF. Also Citigroup spent $41 million over six years to sponsor Citi Bike. I don’t think SF has a comparable sponsor. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

  29.  

    Bruce

    You’re right, Aaron, I never would have guessed who hosted Winterfest.

  30.  

    thielges

    Does anyone know why the Arts Commission rejected the original shelters? The Arts Commission serves a purpose though it is odd that they can hold up a large transit project on aesthetic grounds.

  31.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Or what about simply a different color treatment like Market Street’s yellow ones?

  32.  

    Bruce

    Why didn’t they go with something like the Stonestown/SF State or T-Third station roofs? I thought the idea of BRT was to provide a light rail-quality experience, minus the rail.

  33.  

    grim

    As much as I abhor unnecessary urban noise. (Don’t get me started on “loud pipes”) perhaps if pedestrians armed themselves with air horns or megaphones and berated the offenders. Very similar to other drivers with their horns. I think a witty person on a megaphone could provide some good comic relief for everyone.

  34.  

    grim

    Could this be a privatly run website or app? Taking photos or video of illegal behavior of all sorts and posting it. If it was an app that accessed smartphone cameras directly then there would be less potental for abuse and the location, time and theroticly the I’d of the the user could all be recorded for future use. What sort of legal issues would this raise? Have I just given away a billion dollar idea. Damn. Not again.

  35.  

    Jamison Wieser

    A little more regarding those Van Ness BRT shelters. The included rending shows what the proposed Van Ness BRT “High-quality stations”, which – sigh – are literally the wavy-roofed shelters minus the roofs. Also minus the roof support where the NextMuni signs are normally mounted and they don’t show where the ticket vending machines would go.

    For the full presentation here is a link to August agenda and materials for the August SFMTA Advisory Council meeting. Much of the presentation regards accessibility, which – sigh – does not include level boarding. By making stations less accessible and slowing boarding for what could well be decades to come, the TA is minimizing capitol and maintenance costs. The new vehicles to be acquired for Van Ness BRT will all be low-floor though.

    http://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/citizens-advisory-council-meeting-august-7-2014

  36.  

    Bruce

    In fairness to Nevius (and the man he mentions in his article), it is silly that a single parking space should be taxed as a separate parcel, at the same rate as a much larger condominium. Certainly parking spaces should be taxed, but the law (which causes the parking space to be classified as this man’s “second home”) should be fixed so as not to be punitive to people in situations such as this.

  37.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Yeah, and I don’t even understand why it should. If they’re promising to double the number of bikes in New York, that’s already way more than 7000 bikes, isn’t it?

    7000 in 16 years is less than one new station per week.

  38.  

    roymeo

    Are you this nonchalant about all illegal behavior on the streets? No need for enforcement of any other code violation misbehavior, too?

    This has been going on since at least the 80′s, so doesn’t that break the statute of whingetations?

  39.  

    Mario Tanev

    Regarding Van Ness shelters.

    Are you kidding me? First, the wave shelters don’t protect very well from the elements. But how can it be acceptable to have no shelters whatsoever? How could SFMTA even agree to something like this? With the cowardice on Sunday meters, and such shenanigans, I do have to say that those who doubt SFMTA’s competence, focus on the ridership and good will have a point.

  40.  

    djconnel

    It’s funny how “unavoidable” behaviors suddenly decrease once consequences (like enforcement) become more severe. In this case, the most common “enforcement” is a sharp tap on the car by a passing pedestrian. That gets attention.

  41.  

    AJ

    So it’ll take Bay Area Bike Share 17 years to accomplish what NYC did in 2-3 years? Fail.

  42.  

    Jym Dyer

    This sounds like the very same unsupported assertion used by a failed Proposition’s campaign literature.

  43.  

    Dave Moore

    All vehicles are equal, but some vehicles are more equal than others.

  44.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Two wheels good, four wheels baaaaad.

  45.  

    sfwest101

    Ferraris Store has been gone Duh!

  46.  

    Dave Moore

    I thought we were talking about crosswalks. Presumably you’re not using the crosswalks like so many of your bicycle brethren :)

  47.  

    p_chazz

    No reason why the VC can’t be changed. Tell David Chiu to get right on it.

  48.  

    Dark Soul

    There no need for any enforcement regarding blocking ped crosswalk. Less space on road more crowding causing overall unsafe streets.

  49.  

    Guest

    SFMTA makes the Street more crowded mean more people going keep blocking and this time is not the driver to be blamed.

  50.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    I think what he’s saying is that cars turning right from one street to another can starve out the people who just want to go straight, depending on the signal timing. This frustrates the straight-going drivers and so they just jump out into the box to get their turn.