Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Yes, but journalists have an obligation to report the news in a fair and unbiased manner, something that is often not done in so-called “advocacy journalism.”






    If Caltrain had just thrown down and built a larger, real space there that could accommodate a real bike shop – le sigh. I’m thinking an entire first floor for valet and a second level for a Valencia Cyclery level store with a cafe overlooking the train lines selling good draft beer. Then instead of subsidizing it Caltrain would make money off their real estate.



    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal construct, i.e., you must be treated as innocent by the legal system until you’re found guilty by trial or by plea bargain. I don’t believe that same statute extends to the arena of public opinion.



    “The best way to use the words ‘allege’, ‘alleged’ and ‘allegedly’ is not to use them at all. Instead, have your scripts reveal who is making the claim by using phrases such as ‘police say’…”

    So, in light of that….

    “The SFPD says it has arrested one of the bike thieves…” –Aaron

    “The SFPD arrested one of the bike thieves…” –no one

    But please, do keep Living Your Best Life, making the absolute best use of your time tilting at all those Very Important windmills, Don p_chazz-e.



    So dark! So dingy!–5d17959-wingsdomain-art-and-photography.jpg

    And look how commerce is just wilting in such an oppressive environment!×375.jpg

    And it all has to do with the lack of public morals-enhancing automobile traffic on that one block. What a hellhole! That’s why thousands of tourists and shoppers and locals alike refuse to go by there every day. They’re probably taking a picture of how hellish the whole scene is on a block without cars:×920.jpg

    Restore Balance–bring back the cars!


    Greg Costikyan

    Well,under Warm Planet, a kind of user-hostile bike shop. Not sorry to see them go.





    It’s not that I dislike bicyclists, it’s that I value the civil rights of the accused and that I don’t uncritically believe police statements.



    Wow, the SFPD did something for a change.



    I looked up “allegedly” in a usage dictionary and you are correct. Thanks you for clarifying, Aaron although I do think that it would have been clearer to have said “the police claimed…” instead.


    Jeffrey Baker

    That site is fundamentally wasteful. Start with the fact that they have 12 tracks for a terminal handling at most five trains per hour. They’ve got maintenance of way equipment laying around all over the place, cars under repair, yards of junk, and just flat out empty ground. I’m sure nobody would say they ran out of space to hold a few more bikes there.


    Jeffrey Baker

    The bike station downtown Berkeley is an invaluable resource to people like me. Every day there are at least ten cargo bikes parked in there, typically outfitted for hauling kids. I can’t take my huge bike on BART so without that facility I would be forced to drive my children to school and then park to take BART. Considering the almost negligible space occupied by the bike station, compared with adjacent parking garages, BART bike stations are a very positive use of space.



    fortunately this “parking lot” is also a full service bike shop



    That’s what you focus on, of all things? Your dislike of people who bike is worthy of a parody Twitter account.


    Aaron Bialick

    The language attributes the actions to what the police say, implying it’s not a conviction or fact. Adding “allegedly” would be redundant.



    We can’t have valuable real estate taken up by parking!



    Until the suspect is convicted of the crime, the story should read that he ALLEGEDLY assaulted six people. I don’t care how sure the police are that they have the right person, in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Streetsblog is rushing to judgment.



    BART is moving ahead on plans for additional Bike Stations at many stops all around the system, with the end goal of having one at every single station. Perhaps Caltrain should consider a similar approach.



    The bike parking there is just not all that big. This is probably not the only bike parking facility near a rail station in the Bay Area that could use an upgrade, it may just be the most urgent.

    There is tons of extra space at the 4th/King site.



    I think some of these downtown developments should look into this technology:

    It’s not the cheapest (although no doubt costs are much higher here than they are in Japan) but it’s a very effective use of space where space is at a premium, and making it automated eliminates staffing costs.


    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Hope this isn’t a bunch of hot air. The SFMTA is a profound failure and we pay the employees $600 million annually to sit by and watch dozens of people killed on our streets every year instead of bringing us safe streets.



    Last night’s Caltrain meltdown was punctuated with a little inadvertent humor. The message boards at Mt.View posted the text “284 386 288 trains have been delayed”. The automatic text-to-speech translation then read this as “two hundred eighty-four MILLION three hundred eighty-six THOUSAND two hundred eighty-eight trains have been delayed”. Wow, looks like I’ll be biking home for the next few thousand years. :-)

    And that bike vs. deer collision: Ooof ! Both parties must have some aching bruises to nurse. I barely missed hitting a buck by six feet while descending Mt. Hamilton Rd. It was scary. Full grown bucks are heavy.



    Despite leadership from SFMTA and DPW, the main thing missing here is support from the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. Let’s not forget that every time SFMTA presents multi-modal safer street design to a community that involves the loss of some on-street parking spaces, a subset of merchants or residents howl to their local politicians about how the changes are going to “kill” their business or take away “their” parking spaces. After that happens, we end up with watered down designs that negate many of the safety aspects of the original proposal.

    This process has nothing to do with SFMTA and DPW and everything to do with leadership from our elected representatives who, with the exception of Scott Wiener, have not used their bully pulpit to explain more thoroughly why we need Vision Zero designs implemented to more humanize our streetscapes in order to save lives.

    Finally, can we at last get rid of the idiotic center medians that are always showing up in the redesigns of our major streets? They do nothing to enhance the safety of the pedestrian and bicycling environment and they take away valuable space that could have been used for widening sidewalks or adding bike lanes. I absolutely despise the statements from SFMTA and DPW that they have “no room” to add bike lanes after they’ve designed a center median into the roadway.



    Just curious, do you recall if the P.A. system announced 2-car trains as “three car.”



    That’s neat I suppose but you’re privileged in having nearly all but 2 of the routes traveling through your tunnel. The problem is fundamental: Muni Metro is nothing more than a bus on rails. It’s not a real subway or metro. It barely goes faster than the Nx. For you, having empty trains frequently is good because you get the entire Market Street Subway.

    Having 1-2-car trains come frequently is like the 38 Geary line, but in rail form. The reason BART (and I know its a tad unfair a comparison but its right there) works well with its crowding is that the trains are long, not necessarily frequent. Empty trains may be fun but they’re wasteful if small amounts of people are riding them, rather than simply getting everyone the first time around in one train.

    It’s like a flooding ship, and higher frequency of the same 2-car/1-car system is like taking a little bucket and tossing out a lot of water. Introducing longer trains and improved surface stations with less “optional stops”, is like taking a giant bucket, getting all the water, and not having to worry about flooding for a while.



    That’s the problem: minor stops (or optional stops) need to be eliminated on all routes. No “stop requested” stops. In the East Bay, people aren’t whining because BART isn’t at every corner, they walk to the station. Secondly, there needs to be lights at every intersection where a train is to stop that alerts cars a train is approaching, thus they should stop. This allows for higher speeds on street level.

    Frankly, Muni can muster 4-car trains, they did it with the Boeing during Market Street Re-routes on the K-Line and it worked fine. All I’m asking for is 3-car N-Judahs that turn back at Sunset. 2-car L’s. And 4-cars during delay periods.
    The only trains that should be 1-car is K/T and J. Everything else, 2 or 3 during peak hours. Limited. Double berthing is not going to accomplish that. And when in the world do we care that Muni Metro drops people off in the middle of the intersection? They already do that. The surface stops are designed for old streetcars, why are we limiting ourselves to past infrastructure “nothings”, like a little cement in the middle of the road.

    God, all that really matters is that at the start of next year, that BART report will come out determining how to construct at 2nd Transbay tube/Geary line and an express line down the Avenues to Lake Merced. If that report comes back positive, we’ll only have to deal with this anachronism of a streetcar system for a few more decades.



    Seems like having an outsider come in an shake things up is a good thing.



    In 1873, the cable car was invented on a roadway on one of San Francisco’s steepest hills. In 2014, 141 years later, a nearly half-billion dollar cable car system that travels on a flat, grade-separated set of tracks breaks down twice in its first three weeks of service. Progress?


    SF Guest

    I do not defend double parking violations; however, do you realize they are not easy to enforce unless a PCO encounters it? By the time you call it in there’s a good chance they will have left by then. Sidewalk parking and 72-hour violations (both of which I have called in and was successful) are much easier to enforce since the period of violation in many cases is long enough to call in and take action. Again I do not condone or defend any parking violations.



    Which makes one laugh that it would appear that meter violations and street sweeping violations are enforced aggressively, but the parking violations that have a safety component – double parking and sidewalk parking – are not.


    Moby D

    I’d rather they test and get it right vs just rolling it out and hoping.

    I’d agree just more two car trains would help a lot. But of course that means more money and higher costs.


    SF Guest

    SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said that “parking control officers are more focused on keeping traffic moving and keeping people safe.”

    Several motorists received tickets that day. Back in the DPT days their No. 1 priority was always keeping traffic moving and keeping people safe. I agree enforcement of parking is and should be secondary to safety and not because it benefits me as a driver.



    I never understood why heavy rains means people don’t need to pay to park. If anything, motorists should be paying more because they are clogging streets which make it more difficult for water to flow, emergency vehicles to respond to any incidents, utility company trucks to access power lines/downed trees, and free parking encourage more driving which is the last thing we need in severe weather. And like @murphstahoe:disqus said, if they don’t have the resources to enforce it, fine, but no need to make announcements about it.

    The car-centric insanity of our government never ceases to trouble me.


    david vartanoff

    About transit on Potrero Hill, the old #53 Southern Heights “Community Service” did much of that, but was axed in one of the Muni belt tightenings.



    No kidding. If you are in a resource crunch and can’t enforce parking violations aggressively, well that’s just like any other day isn’t it? All that announcing a “policy” did was encourage blowback, and act as an encouragement to drive on a day people should probably been discouraged from driving.



    Yeah, I took BART Sunday night from the East Bay to SF and there were regular announcements at MacArthur station that the OAC was out of service.


    Scott Mace

    It IS a big deal when trucks block the bike lane. A matter of degrees though. In the current four-lane, no bike lane configuration, bicyclists can move over to the left travel lane to continue past the delivery truck, and underfunded education programs such as Cycling Savvy can successfully teach them to do this with assertiveness and safety. A blocked bus, on the other hand, inconveniences all the people on that bus. Either way, there is typically under-policing of those delivery trucks blocking traffic, which is also a big part of the problem.


    Josh Berkus

    I’d settle for consistently using two-car trains. MUNI is still running an awful lot of one-car trains, even during rush hour.



    I’d be shocked if they pulled this off. Currently, the trains are basically unscheduled and all get siphoned into the Market St tunnel in a seemingly random order. Suddenly, they are going to be so finely orchestrated that two can arrive at once? Inconceivable.


    Mario Tanev

    I still don’t understand why the SFMTA advertised lack of enforcement on storm Thursday. It was stupid and unnecessary. Now they are getting well deserved flack for it.


    Mario Tanev

    I landed OAK last night (Sunday) at 8 pm and we were told the connector is out of service, that there is no shuttle, and to catch bus 73 instead. So, not just Friday.



    Only the underground stations are really designed for 3- and 4- car trains. Many of those surface stops just aren’t long enough. Besides, I’d rather have more frequent service, even if we have to pay for more drivers.



    And what about when delivery trucks block the single remaining lane?

    This is apparently a problem. But when delivery trucks block the bike lane – no big deal, amirite?



    Call it BART if you must, but please don’t use the orphan technology of BART (Indian broad gauge, nonstandard everything). There are standards for subways, and BART doesn’t follow them, instead having opted to reinvent the wheel. This multiplies the expenses massively.



    Sure, Geary subway, great, but does it have to be Indian broad gauge with nonstandard clearances? BART is orphan technology and as a result everything costs 10 times what it would with standard train subway technology.


    Scott Mace

    I was one of those who spoke in opposition. There was no binding language from council that bus service on Telegraph will not be degraded — only a pledge to work with AC Transit. It should have been made a precondition. And what about when delivery trucks block the single remaining lane? Buses will have to weave into and out of the middle left turn lane to avoid them. Finally, right and left hooks by motor vehicles may be increased, as bicyclists hidden by parked cars until the last minute suddenly become visible to turning drivers at intersections. P.S. I am a lifelong bicyclist, longtime activist, and I do not own a car.



    I’m not sure, that particular study may include both. I’m not sure if NYCDOT has specifically studied conventional -> parking-protected vs. nothing -> parking protected, but a number of these recent implementations have been from both scenarios. Some visual examples here:

    In addition, though “buffered” conventional lanes are typically considered “better” than other conventional bike lanes, as an early adopter of those implementations NYC has been steadily replacing them with parking-protected ones. Currently, NYCDOT is taking out the existing buffered lanes on at least 4 roads:

    And if you look into the reports the reasons why consistently include mentions of increased safety and modeshare vs. the conventional lanes they replaced.



    “In a parking-protected scenario, how does a delivery truck unload? In a lane of traffic.”

    “it’s only studying protected lanes in general (which I am not opposed to at all), and I believe none of those in the study are of the type in Golden Gate Park where cyclists must ride in a corridor shared with passengers entering, exiting, and unloading automobiles.”

    Many of NYC’s cycletracks are parking-protected, so those are seemingly inherently included in the study. Also, NYCDOT reports frequently mention delivery zones, such as in the project plan overview to upgrade the conventional “buffered” bike lanes on Hudson to parking-protected lanes:

    Also, btw, judging by the renderings the parking-protected stretches of Telegraph will be to a higher standard than the GGP implementations.


    Dark Soul

    along with these project the “Slicing Seats to increase maximum population in their Muni Trains, while it cause safety issues