Skip to content

Recent Comments



    But I can’t use a bike lane if I don’t ride a bike.


    Jeffrey Baker

    The pedestrian signal at City Hall is an atrocity. This is not a pedestrian safety measure, it’s an inconvenience for pedestrians and a benefit for drivers, who no longer need to pay attention to the crosswalk. This is the completely wrong response to the pedestrian fatality.



    No, we all pay for the streets and we all get to use the streets.



    “The vast majority of funding for local street infrastructure, including bike lanes, comes from general taxes paid by everyone.” So people who don’t ride bikes pay for the infrastructure for those who do.

    This perception makes bicyclists seem like ingrates who want public funds lavished on their private cause. They would do well to support a surtax on bicycles and bicycle-related gear that would be used to support bicycle-related projects.



    I’m in the middle of $11,000 in dental work (all coming out of my own pocket) occasioned by a bicycle spill. Although I am a committed bicycle commuter, I am under no illusions: bicycling is dangerous and a net social loss. I strongly believe that we should ban bicycles on public roads, and get around by car, jitney, or bus — eventually driverless vehicles. Exercise in a gym – not in traffic.

    I’m OK with people not wearing helmets – but they must be responsible for their own medical expenses and lifetime care if they’re crippled. If they expect the rest of us to pay their bills, then a helmet law makes perfect sense.


    Upright Biker

    Well, you’ve kind of hit the nail right on the head, though you may not have noticed what Phil has probably noticed: Articles vilifying bicycle riders are red meat to the cars-first crowd, and they get lots of attention and comments.

    That’s why he’s taking up that side — like Fox News, he’s more interested in getting attention than in telling the truth.


    David Baker

    That “always been free” argument is a powerful one for the people who are used to the free perk, They manage to get really outraged at the injustice of it all, act very much like a lynch mob of bloodthirsty thugs. The SF PARK community meetings in the Mission were super ugly.



    I am always astonished by the sheer number of cars parked in front of any given house in California. Who are these people who need six or more cars?!



    Yes. This. This is what needs to be shared over and over.

    Opposition to helmet laws is based on real-life evidence (shown over and over again) that mandatory helmet laws make *biking less safe*.

    Mandatory helmet laws have proven to be terrible public health/safety policy, as you’re inviting people to 1) stop biking and 2) the few that remain biking to get injured at much higher rates.


    Chris Gillham

    Australia with its all age bike helmet laws provides an example of safety in numbers …

    New figures were released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing a further 16% decline in adult Australian cycling participation over the past two years, now lower than a decade ago when, in turn, it was far lower than pre law per capita. Last week a review of Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy showed a reduction in vehicle and pedestrian serious and critical injuries from 2001 to 2010, but a big increase in cycling casualties which have had by far the largest injury risk increase of all road users including motorcyclists. There are now less bike rides per day in Australia than pre law but about 40% more hospitalised cyclists per year. There are various causes of the bike helmet law failure in Australia but safety in numbers is one of them.

    A few weeks ago, World Transport Policy and Practice published the latest peer reviewed evidence of youth cyclist injury and participation trends in the USA since 1995, and the California establishment should read it ( before legislating to penalise regular recreational exercise. See for American cyclist injury and participation trends.


    David Marcus

    “There’s San Francisco and the rest of the world is just Daly City” -Jerry Garcia



    Interpreter, not translator.



    One thing about those neighborhoods is that they’re often quite densely populated. Though the city considers them “single-family” homes, many people rent out the in-law on the first floor, which depending on the house may itself have several people in addition to the handful of people living upstairs.

    I used to live in an in-law in nearby Ingleside (similar housing) where the first-floor in-law unit had two bedrooms: 1) mine and 2) another shared by two college kids. Add the 6 people living in the 3 bedrooms upstairs (a combo of couples and college kids) and we had 9 people living in what the SF County Assessor considers a “single-family” home (which in practice was 2 separate apartments with 2 separate kitchens and remodeled to have 4 bathrooms…clearly intended for renting a max number of people in there).

    This is very common. And a direct outcome of SF and other Bay Area communities’ refusal to build sufficient housing over the decades of any notable density.

    The problem happens when all 9 people or whatever living in each of these setups has a car. (I never quite got that. I had several housemates who only moved their cars for street cleaning and otherwise rarely used them since even in Ingleside transit options are plenty and it’s pretty walkable).


    Golden Gate Shark

    That photo is hilarious with all the cars parked all over the place looking like Belgrade. Daly city politicians should be ashamed of themselves pandering to a few residents at the cost of the whole city. Those houses all have other families living in their garages or a mountain of junk and costco hoarding so instead of actually just putting the car in the garage they want free parking on the street. What a joke. They probably have no trees on that street because they don’t want to lose their precious sidewalk parking. That block looks like my worst nightmare.



    Yeah and you barely even only get 2 if you block your driveway (a lot of people in Daly City and nearby Ingleside, where I used to live, do this).



    “I think there’s still plenty of truths from Matier regarding the bike lobby. Considering the amount of road space given to bike lanes over the years,”

    So…the 1.4% of all road space, you mean?

    “Bicycling constitutes 4% of the mode split but only 1.4 % of the roadway space is dedicated to bicycle lanes”

    (extra crazy given the city’s stated goal of 20% bike modeshare by 2020. If you build it, they will come. But ya gotta build it, first).

    More facts which Matier would do well to consider:

    “Parking lanes in San Francisco constitute 15 % of the paved roadway area, representing a real estate value of between $8 and $35 billion.

    Parking in San Francisco total 902 miles; 6 times the length of all the bike lanes (143).

    There are 36 lane miles of dedicated transit lanes vs 211 lanes miles of freeway lanes

    General tax revenues pay 75 % of roadway maintenance in San Francisco, not user fees.

    The federal gas tax, in inflation-adjusted dollars, is at its lowest point since 1983, when it was doubled under the Reagan administration.”

    But of course Matier doesn’t seem to be very interested in facts or the reality-based community.



    What makes you think anyone does?


    Golden Gate Shark

    Phil Matier is a fool trying to sensationalize something he doesn’t understand. Its unfortunate that anyone would listen to a word he has to say regarding this subject.


    Andy Chow

    I think there’s still plenty of truths from Matier regarding the bike lobby. Considering the amount of road space given to bike lanes over the years, I believe that plenty of bike lanes got designated mostly because of the desire by non-bike interests to reduce what is believed to be excess space for cars, rather than a true belief that there would be significant increase in bike usage.

    As for reduced transit ridership, most drops come from the bus systems that have seen severe cuts in the early 2000s after the dot-com busts and late 2000/early 2010 great recessions. Systems like SamTrans, VTA, AC Transit have far less service than they did. Part of the reason is that some funding got diverted to “marquee” projects that are expensive to operate (like BART extensions for example). Additional requirements (security, clean air, planning, training) also increased costs. In the old days, transit agencies are basically a bus company and buses are just simply vehicles. Nowadays buses are full of computers (GPS tracking, security, clean engines) and agencies have to have more staffing with advanced degrees that do not deal with operations or customer service but to do studies and analysis required by MTC and other entities.

    See this for list and map of SamTrans routes back in 1999:

    In the old days you could ride a bus from Half Moon Bay all the way to BART in Daly City or Colma, and plenty of express buses from areas like Foster City to San Francisco. Light rail in San Jose used to run every 10 minutes.

    Before gentrification, low income folks who used to live in the inner cities can depend on local transit to get to jobs in the area. Nowadays Facebookers and Googlers are moving in and transit is not planned in a way to support their commute, and they’re wealthy enough to buy their own cars and build garages for them.


    Elias Zamaria

    This sounds ridiculous. Any individual or family that would have trouble paying 11 cents per day shouldn’t own 3 cars.



    You seem to be missing the point that Flywheel (the app) is already used by most taxi companies in SF.



    How can I opt out of paying for bike lanes? Apparently there’s some sort of coupon that comes with every bike sold.



    Each house in that picture appears to have 2 spots MAX in front of it. Giving everyone 3 is blatantly stuffing the streets with cars even if you assume that we shouldn’t bother to put a price on storing your private properly on the public right of way.



    From my understanding of the intersection in question (where the southbound 280 off-ramp meets Ocean Avenue), there will be no crosswalk across Ocean Avenue (as seen in the rendering above – the first image of this article). In light of this, transit signal priority should be a real benefit to Muni if there’s a stoplight installed there.



    Good grief, third and fourth vehicles parking on the street?



    Wow, this looks great. And what a nice car-free way to visit one of the Bay Area’s best (summertime warm water) swimming beaches.



    what they should do is start ticketing all the cars blocking the sidewalk. make up the money for the subsidy that way



    I don’t understand why there is going to need to be a need for both systems. Why doesn’t the high speed train simply replace Caltrain?



    No. VTA’s plan for bus-only lanes is to remove travel lanes in the center of the road, not parking lanes on the edges. VTA’s dedicated lane option also offers cities the option of using the parking lane as a bike lane, which is what Sunnyvale is doing now with this stretch.



    It double counts my trike, although sometimes there are three riders on it so maybe it is undercounting it…



    I too pretty much agree that the new changes ‘discourages’ cars from stopping right over the sensors. Whenever I went to work, it feel like 3 times out of the week there was a taxi/ride share/delivery vehicle parked over the area preventing bikes from getting counted.

    Also it does a poor job of counting during ‘peak’ hours. A lot of people still ride out side of the bike lane because there’s already ‘too many’ bikes squeezed in the lane area.



    I live in San Mateo. SP still runs the trains at least one a night I hear.



    Uber = Uber app
    Lyft = Lyft app
    DeSoto = ? app
    Flywheel Taxi = Flywheel app
    The flywheel app could become a bigger competitor (licensed taxi companies as well) if other taxi companies followed suit and have more recognition that licensed taxis could be hailed by an app.



    I don’t get this whole “Flywheel Taxi” thing. Isn’t the point of the app that you can use it to hail any cab? And can’t you still hail Flywheel-branded cabs via the traditional hand-and-whistle method?



    VTA is the entire county, not just San Jose. Other than that, please stick to the conversation and not use this as a platform for your own ignorance.


    Bob Gunderson

    I don’t see the problem. Getting to the “Vision Zero” meeting was easy by car. 15 minutes vs. 60+ on Muni. Tons of free parking down there too! Sorry Muni suckers!


    Richard Mlynarik

    Here’s hoping?

    Hah. Improvements to
    service are explicitly OUT OF SCOPE. Don’t just take my word for it.

    Increases of payments to rent-seeking defense contractor Cubic, Inc, are very much on the table, and the sole thing that MTC is interested in abetting.

    Remember: the more “complex” the system “forced” upon the monopoly contractor, the more ridiculous the opportunities for change orders (and more change orders, and more more more more more change orders), push-back, monopolistic pricing, kick-backs, profit skimming, per-transaction skimming, and insane cost overruns are.

    Death really is too kind a fate for anybody
    involved in the approaching-a-billion-dollar fraud of
    TransLink(tm)(r)/Clipper(sm)(c) any time over the last two decades.

    Fun Fact: unindicted former mayor Willie Brown sits on Cubic’s “Advisory Board”



    Those might not be official bike lanes but instead shoulders. After stalling on the bike lane question the county decided to basically stripe the shoulders as close as possible to bike lanes without labeling them as such. The idea was if the county ever officially made them lanes then all that was left to do was to put in the “bike lane” stencil because the guide lines were already there.

    This was quite a while ago (10 years?) so things may have changed since.



    I can understand why supervisor Campos wants to put a moratorium to ban all market rate housing in the Mission, but I think doing this will only exacerbate the problem and possibly prove the opposite. I just don’t think it makes any sense at all especially in a time when we need to build MORE housing not less. The lack of housing construction, supply, and the crushing demand will only drive the cost of housing up.



    If people want to improve cycling safety it’s very simple, in addition to basic common sense, awareness, courtesy, personal responsibility of proper behavior and actions, proper etiquette and so forth, the other simple solution is to build out a network of protected bike lanes or paths where it makes sense and where it’s needed, that’s how to improve cycling safety. Helmet laws do nothing to improve cycling safety at all even though it’s recommended that one is worn.



    Pretty cool to see this and it looks beautifully done as well. Clearly there are somethings SFMTA can learn from and do better when it comes to the design and construction of protected bike lanes, especially the parking protected ones, that can be used to minimize confusion. Looks like it fits into the street perfectly and looks like it has potential, be great to keep the momentum going.



    I think this shows how well utilized Market St is when it comes to cycling and how slight improvements in cycling infrastructure can potentially attract more riders and the need to ever enhance cycling infrastructure so it can attract even more potential riders. As I said one way to possibly do that is to extend the existing protected bikeway on Market St all the way down to the Embarcadero.



    Is this going to make it harder to install the bus-only lanes now that we removed parking for a bike lane? I feel like both should be done at the same time.


    Fran Taylor

    Workers leaving after midnight would be arriving in late afternoon, so sure, the parking garage would be empty when they leave but not when they get there. I oppose more parking but believe we have to be aware of the needs of shift workers.



    Cool! I’ve often wondered if that counter weren’t a bit low.

    Last week while biking from Mid-Market to the Mission at commute hour (to head to the SFTRU PUBlic transit crawl, actually!) I had a positively We’re Getting There experience while in the turning bay to head towards Valencia, much in the grain of this:

    As I approached the turning bay to wait for the green bike light to southbound Valencia there were easily 20-30 people on bikes all patiently lined up, waiting for the dedicated bike signal to go. Then as the light turned everyone waited their turn and leisurely set about getting up to speed and moving ahead.

    It was honestly something I hadn’t experienced since the Netherlands.

    Someone get the Streetsfilms crew on this :)

    In recent months the sheer volume of people out on Market has made me question the official bike count on the sign as a bit low.

    So much for “people here will never get it/they’ll just disobey the rules anyway.” If you build it, they’ll come! (and most people will be pretty good about it).



    It also discouraged cars from parking there, which they frequently were, disabling the sensor. I find that the counter frequently undercounts clumps of bikes (which there frequently are since it is located right after an intersection)



    Why stop there? Lets have a fully integrated fare system. There’s no technical barrier. All it takes is N different agencies to decide how to divvy up the revenue.

    Ugh. Here’s hoping that Clipper 2.0 brings us more than just upgrading the tag-on kiosks to 1990s era color LCDs.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    While I applaud this improvement, I think it should be a requirement for every city official involved in planning bike lanes to actually test drive each new bike lane themselves. There are definitely some questionable bike lanes in the south bay. The Lawrence expressway is a perfectly good example of a WTF bike lane! Google map shows the lawrence expressway as a valid bike lane, and there were even signs saying there’s a bike lane. But this is a stunt for course for extreme cyclists, not a serious bike lane for anyone who values their lives! There is zero protection for cyclists and zero margin for error for motorists, and any impact between the two at those highway speed would be certain death any cyclist. The wind load alone from a passing truck could probably topple a cyclist! So please, Sunnyvale officials, be a good chef and taste your own dish before you serve it others! Thank you.



    And that’d be if you were only reducing *one* of the car lanes from 14′ to 11′! If you did it to all three car lanes you’d gain an extra 9′ for wider sidewalks + protected bike lanes + physical buffering.



    Yup. SB linked to an article a year and a half ago: