Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Jim Baross Jr

    Who exactly is confused and misleading others by calling these new facilities
    Protected Bike Lanes? Someone is apparently uninformed about the difference between a Bike Lane, Class II Bikeway buffered or not with paint on pavement, and a Separated Bikeway, Class IV Bikeway separated by some barrier from motor vehicle traffic. There is no such facility in California as a Protected Bike Lane.
    Why should you care? People bicycling are required to use Bike Lanes where they exist – though with some exceptions, see CVC 21208. These new to California and the USA types of bikeways, popularly known as Cycletracks but officially titled Separated Bikeways or Class IVs, are being tried out to provide more comfort and to encourage new riders, BUT we are not required to use these Separated Bike ways if we find the shared roadway to be better for our bicycling. Since we are required to use Bike Lanes and not required to use the Separated Bikeways, it’s going to be useful for people – motorists, bicyclists, and law enforcement – to understand the difference.

  2.  

    Chris J.

    So no, I don’t want to take my car with me to my destination but I do need to be able to park it close enough to be viable.

    Remind me again why you don’t have any problem with bicyclists walking an extra block, but for car drivers that’s a big problem for some reason?

  3.  

    RichLL

    My point was that you can’t just stop a car and walk a block in the same way that you can with a bike.

    So no, I don’t want to take my car with me to my destination but I do need to be able to park it close enough to be viable.

    Bikes don’t have the same issue, obviously.

  4.  

    RichLL

    Yes, bikes are typically parked OUTSIDE places of business and not inside them. The inside is for people not vehicles.

  5.  

    RichLL

    I might take transit if it was better, cheaper, safer, more comfortable or more convenient. The problem is that the only idea you have for making transit better is to make things worse for people with cars.

    More imagination and a win-win, perhaps?

  6.  

    RichLL

    Mode share under-states car ownership, because not every car owner drives every day. But car owners need a parking space whether they drive or not, so your modal share number doesn’t inform us meaningfully about the aggregate need for parking.

    My advice? If you really want to know how important parking is to a neighborhood, threaten to take it away and see what kind of response you get.

  7.  

    StanO5

    @Jef Poskanzer: Very nice ideas. I’m in favor of building more tubes. Yesterday. The reason BART is not a 24×7 system is because our parents were cheap. Let’s not make the same mistake again. Big city populations are going up. As they should.

  8.  

    Jef Poskanzer

    A second tube would be nice but it’s possible to greatly improve BART’s capacity much cheaper by building a second line on the SF side. The key point is that the tube’s usage is currently limited by loading/unloading time. The tube itself at peak times is running at about one-quarter theoretical maximum capacity based on emergency stopping time. Building a second downtown SF line, either under the current one or on Mission Street, would double tube usage. There are other factors too, such as signalling and number of available cars, but those are comparatively easy to address.

    The East Bay side is less of a constraint because it already has fan-out once you’re past the West Oakland station. If West Oakland dwell time is still a constraint it could be addressed trivially by having half the trains skip that station.

    Furthermore, a second tube would require a second SF line too, or be useless. Since we have to build the second SF line anyway, let’s do that first and then pause and see if we still need another tube.

  9.  

    Alex

    I can’t wait for this to be built and hopefully it will be built within our lifetimes. This could revolutionize public transit in the Bay Area and especially with San Francisco because they can become a part of the larger overall rail network.

  10.  

    SFnative74

    In addition to Valencia and Folsom, the Mission has Harrison, and Potrero – 4 north-south streets with bike lanes. Shotwell is a great street to ride too, and Capp isn’t bad either. So, 6 north-south streets that are good options for bikes. Valencia is a double-parking slalom course but at least the traffic moves pretty slow there with the traffic lights.

  11.  

    crazyvag

    While there are many good routing options on the SF side (Mission Bay, under 3rd St, Geary), on the Oakland side, things are less obvious.

    One area that hasn’t gotten much attention is improving the I-80 corridor. If you’re an I80 commuter, your best bet is to switch to BART at El Cerrito Del Norte. If you compare straight transit time, BART takes 31 mins to Embarcadero while driving with no traffic takes 16 mins. BART already has a 15 minute disadvantage which grows by another 10 mins if you factor in exiting I80 and parking. For BART to be competitive on time, traffic must slow drivers down by at least 20 mins over a 14 mile segment.

    I’d claim that 2nd BART tube, should be matched up to a second line roughly paralleling I-80, but one that skips the “Berkeley Detour” and “Oakland Wye”, but instead hits Emeryville Amtrak before heading under the bay.

    Getting travel time comparable to driving (say avg of ~40mph) is one reason for Caltrain Baby Bullet’s success.

  12.  

    Dexter Wong

    Why even bother with transit in the first place if you’re going to drive? Why complain about it if you’re not going to use it? Like the banker you disdain mixing with the common man.

  13.  

    Bob Gunderson

    I love you too Sebra!

  14.  

    sojourner_7

    Yawn. Second tube dreamed about forever… but the Bay Area can’t seem to manage existing transit, it’s a huge financial black hole. If MTC and Heminger are remotely involved, avoid it like the plague. Current power brokers in the Bay Area need to be kept far away from this type mega-project.

  15.  

    Rachel H

    BTW, the “white paper from SPUR” link appears to be incorrect. Was this the intended link? http://www.spur.org/publications/white-paper/2016-02-10/designing-bay-areas-second-transbay-rail-crossing

  16.  

    Rachel H

    Roger and JGEL — Thank you for reporting on this important event. I noticed that there were several more panelists this time than at SPUR’s February presentation, which indicates increased institutional support. As a region we need a second crossing, we need connectivity with state rail systems, and we need guidance on how to get there. I appreciate SPUR and Ratna Amin’s leadership on this important issue.

  17.  

    murphstahoe

    You can raise taxes – but if it’s for a specific use you need 2/3rd to pass.

  18.  

    Rob

    “I see the problem here. Do you believe that the 75% of SF voters who have a car would vote to have nowhere to park their cars?”

    Perhaps they would be able to vote if they weren’t circling around for a parking space.

  19.  

    Flatlander

    You keep trotting out that figure about vehicle occupancy by household, then continually misinterpret it. A lot of people live with housemates in San Francisco. I for one would be considered part of a one-vehicle household even though I don’t own one because one of my housemates does.

    Then there are numerous one-vehicle families where it does not make sense to interpret the numbers as “75 percent of SF voters”

  20.  

    murphstahoe

    If we paint it half red and half blue, maybe all the gang bangers will leave

  21.  

    murphstahoe

    “You can take a bike with you, but not a car.”

    I tried to take my bike into Tacolicious and they said no. So I rode down a block to the bike rack, locked up my bike to the bike rack, and walked a block to Tacolicious

  22.  

    jonobate

    Private vehicle mode share is at 48% in San Francisco (source: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/02/03/new-data-shows-most-trips-in-sf-are-made-without-a-private-automobile/ ). Add to that the fact that the Mission certainly has a lower private vehicle mode share than the citywide average, and it’s highly plausible that 63% of people in the Mission would support removing parking from one side of the street in order to speed up the buses.

  23.  

    RichLL

    It’s called “driving”.

    Or sometimes riding a bike or walking

  24.  

    RichLL

    So your premise here is that the kind of people who show up for public meetings are representative of the much larger number of people who do not?

    I see the problem here. Do you believe that the 75% of SF voters who have a car would vote to have nowhere to park their cars?

  25.  

    Ted King

    Add the 12 Folsom-Pacific to the omerta pile. On Monday evening (18 April), there was a service gap from about 1720 to 1825 southbound to 24th+Mission. The NextMuni box in the shelter at Sixth+Harrison kept on showing junk ETAs. The #12 that finally showed up was a stealth bus – no ETA for it.

    1) The #12 runs at twenty minute intervals supposedly. So the service gap above implies three (3 !) missed runs.

    2) When are the bozos at SFMuni / NextMuni going to use the shelter boxes to advise people to use parallel service (the Bryant St. bus was running and it would have connected to a second seat at 24th Street) for these blot gaps ? They occur on the Level-20 (a lot !) and Level-12 (rare, but I’ve seen one on the #28) routes and it shows how rigid the dispatchers are by the absence of a fill-in bus at the thirty (30) minute mark.

  26.  

    Prinzrob

    I’ve had good experiences so far with the uphill bike lane there, but yes I raised those exact concerns about the downhill lane when this project was brought to the Oakland bike/ped committee several years ago. I felt an uphill buffered bike lane and downhill shared lane was the best configuration (though in more congested/urban environments I typically oppose sharrows). Staff decided to implement the lane anyway, citing that they thought most experienced bicyclists would be moving fast and riding outside of the bike lane there regardless, but slower cyclists and kids would likely still need a bike lane.

    As for the street sweeping, that’s another good issue to report via SeeClickFix along with photos. Some other community members have had luck getting Grizzly Peak Blvd swept more regularly, so there’s probably a similar opportunity for upper Broadway.

  27.  

    Mark

    Can only imagine all the fun we will experience when the TP Tunnel shuts down for 23 weekends later this year to replace rails…followed by the L-Taraval surface rail replacement project. My, my, my. BTW-after 6+ months of evening closures of the MUNI underground the new displays still aren’t functional nor do I have cell phone service.

  28.  

    Dexter Wong

    How do they get around in the areas of the city not served by some form of rail? Just treat them as “forbidden territory?”

  29.  

    Prinzrob

    I know the spot you are talking about, southbound Telegraph just before 41st Street. I will try making a report myself on my way home tonight.

  30.  

    Kristof Didrickson

    they do! they’re busy hoovering up all that broken glass and industrial detritus in e oakland…

  31.  

    David

    It’s about time! Telegraph has been a dangerous sea of line-less pavement for months. If one did see the very thin white lines that had been sketched out, they would have most likely been killed by cars that just drove down the street whichever way they wanted anyway.

  32.  

    David

    The Mission is not bike friendly. The bike lanes on Valencia are full of double-parked cars. Anecdote: Last time I biked down Valencia I nearly got hit by an Uber driver who decided to drop off someone right in front of me.

    If one could reasonably bike down Valencia without fear of getting hit by a car or stuck behind one parked in the bike lane, then I would agree that the Mission is bike friendly. But for now I don’t, so she raises a valid concern.

    P.S. Folsom is several blocks to the east of Mission, so I don’t think that counts as an alternative.

  33.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    I don’t recall the exact location. I will have to scout it out on my way home. I barely survived, and that was after barely surviving the new bike lane on Broadway.

  34.  

    Prinzrob

    Have you reported those via http://www.SeeClickFix.com yet? The city is very responsive to pavement issues reported there, I’ve had hundreds of potholes addressed this way, often just within days of reporting them.

  35.  

    eean

    When there’s a vote for a bond it is a vote to both issue a bond and also a property tax to pay for the bond. It’s a tax hike. It’s an important tool that local governments have to raise funds.

    I’m not even sure it’s possible to raise a new property tax and use that money directly. California, eh?

  36.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Fixing roads is pretty clearly an operating expense. If you can’t pay for the repairs out of your steady-state tax receipts, what makes you think you can instead pay the principle and interest on a bond for the repairs? It only makes sense if you think that road repairs are behind schedule, that you _could_ pay the repairs in a steady state if they were not behind schedule, and that you have no other _capital_ expenditures (schools etc) you’d rather use the cheap money to build.

  37.  

    jonobate

    My “personal bias” (more accurately, personal opinion) is shared by the 63% of people at the community outreach events who voted for the option that would remove half of the parking from Mission St. Only 13% voted for what was actually implemented.

    https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2016/14_mission_outreach_survey_boards_updated.pdf

  38.  

    eean

    good luck getting 66% of Contra Costa county to vote for a gas tax. Hell I doubt Alameda would. We can’t have nice things like that.

  39.  

    eean

    I wouldn’t call fixing a road an ‘operating expense’. I mean it will be fixed for the duration of the bond.

  40.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    They don’t need a bond, they need someone to issue an enormous fine to the utility company that dug the holes and filled them two feet deep with tar.

    Edited to add: and bonds to pay operating expenses are a terrible idea.

  41.  

    Scott Mace

    How about instead of floating bonds, a Bay Area-wide tax on driving or gasoline or both? And tie it to the weight of the vehicle using the streets.

  42.  

    eean

    They are putting up a major bond in November to do road work. Vote for it!

  43.  

    Chris J.

    This comment doesn’t make any sense. Why would someone want to take their car “with them”? And it’s just as easy to walk a block after parking a car as it is to walk a block with a bike (even easier actually, because they wouldn’t have the bike to deal with).

    This isn’t really about drivers walking versus bicyclists walking though. Bicyclists can and will still legally bike on Mission. For bicyclists it’s about safety. From the original quote in the piece:

    she also complained about the lack of bike lanes. “It’s not safe,”

  44.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    We also have a new bike lane striped on Broadway between Caldecott Field and College Prep. The lane was created by painting the gutter, which is 2 inches deep in gravel and broken glass. Do you know if the city plans to ever sweep that? Does the city of Oakland even own a street sweeper?

  45.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Seriously. On Telegraph between 40th and 51st at this very moment there are two giant sinkholes big enough to destroy a bicycle, dismount a motorcyclist, or bend a car’s wheel. I thought the city would have learned more from having to pay out millions in claims from recent road injury lawsuits.

  46.  

    mx

    Caltrain’s woes got a link, but we’re not going to mention the N’s meltdown yesterday during the morning commute? I’m all for promoting transit, but we have to acknowledge when our transit systems fail (all too frequently around here) and hold the responsible agencies accountable.

  47.  

    Scott Mace

    Meanwhile, there will be no photo opp today for the thousands or millions of potholes and crumbling blocks of pavement in Oakland streets.

  48.  

    Mike Jones

    Telegraph is already much nicer to walk along, with traffic following sedately in a single line (northbound only yesterday).

  49.  

    Prinzrob

    So exciting, I can’t wait until it’s done! The protected bikeway segment is from 20th to 29th Streets, by the way, not 21st to 27th. Buffered, non-protected bike lanes are also being implemented south of there from 20th to 16th, and additional bikeway are coming soon to Clay Street to complete a connection between Telegraph and Jack London Square.

  50.  

    Bob Gunderson

    I love you too, Sebra!