Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Not with Photoshop around, no.



    I’m not following every inch of this latest thread, but Grant Av. in North Beach is one-way with two lanes of parking. I don’t appreciate it, but until proven mistaken, I probably agree with your statement:

    “A lot of the NIMBYs are fine with or even support traffic calming on
    their blocks–they just want to keep all the parking spaces”



    Re: SFFD then do whatever width is acceptable with the same one-way + both-sides parking setup on Precita and South Park. It’s not an unprecedented setup in SF.

    As you can see on the second rendering with over 11 feet for the travel lane it’s doable.

    Re: buses, what buses use 17th (in between Church and Kansas–as I mentioned earlier this is the stretch I was talking about) as a pass-through and on which blocks? And even if they do, there aren’t any stops on 17th so they absolutely can’t be rerouted? These are not world-ending insurmountable problems.



    No way the Fire Dept would accept a 9’6″ wide space (for good reason). Trucks couldn’t make it down the street either if anyone parks less than perfectly. And buses do use 17th to get to other routes. Also, the buffer between parking and the bikeway must be 4 feet minimum. The answer isn’t always as simple as it may seem.



    Yes, and many are alone in their cars and taking up the amount of lane space of the true side-by-siders. Indeed, the bias of motorists is so thorough that it should come as no surprise. But it never hurts to revisit and re-express it since bias-blindness abounds



    I was thinking the same thing… I’ve only ridden through the tunnel a few times, but never had any problems with drivers (yet). Most cars happily pass in the left lane with plenty of room, as they should. It’s not hard to drive safely around cyclists, and won’t add more than a second or two of extra time onto your commute, if that. Just slow down and wait until it’s safe to go around, no big deal. I don’t get why so many drivers can’t do it properly without bitching and moaning.



    How about the redone 11.5′? City car lanes don’t get much wider than that. Plus, these setups aren’t unknown in SF. The streets around South Park and Precita Park have dual-side parking on their one-way streets, for example:

    I think there’s a lot more emotion-based outcry over loss of parking spaces than narrowing of travel lanes, which can even be seen as a benefit since a lot of the NIMBYs are fine with or even support traffic calming on their blocks–they just want to keep all the parking spaces.



    Cyclists like the ones you speak of are the vast minority. You just don’t notice the other 99% of us when we’re respecting laws, or safely rolling stop signs while not getting in anyone’s way at all.



    There’s more than just Caltrain connecting Diridon and Santa Clara stations. The VTA 522 Rapid connects them with an 18 minute ride at an economical price. During peak times/directions, the Capitol Corridor and ACE trains also make that run in about 12 minutes.



    I like the idea. My concern (well, the concern of the parking-first crowd) would be that 9.5 feet with cars on both sides was not enough room to maneuver into a parallel parking space.



    Where are you getting four blocks? The distance between Diridon and the downtown San Jose station is about 3/4 of a mile.

    Beside that, Diridon is the major transit hub, not Santa Clara: Caltrain (all trains), Amtrak Capitol Corridor & Coast Starlight, ACE Train, Hwy 17 & Monterey buses, plus a slew of VTA local buses. The Santa Clara to Diridon segment is redundant with Caltrain plus VTA’s #1 bus route.

    As for the SJC connection bus, it would be better served from Diridon instead of the lower-service Santa Clara Caltrain station regardless.



    How so? This kind of setup is not unique or exotic in the world and it works elsewhere.

    Moving cars have to wait for the parallel parkers to finish (and parallel parkers should wait for traffic to be clear).

    But if you think about it this is already the case on 17th–since there is currently only one 9′ travel lane in each direction anyone parallel parking already blocks through traffic in that lane till they’re done. Through cars already can’t pass as it is (unless they go into the oncoming travel lane, which really shouldn’t be happening anyway).

    So, yes, it would continue to cause delays for through car traffic while people parked, but the question is are our neighborhood streets like 17th for throughput of cars or for living in?

    Btw, if the 9.5′ width I proposed is really not enough, make it 11.5′ (the max Streetmix will let you do without telling you it’s probably too wide):

    5.25b+11p+11.5c+11p+5.25b = 44

    There are lots of ways to rethink our streets :)



    Folsom Street bike lane took months. Please consider more carefully your strong ‘trust me’ assertions. Aggressive ignorance may be popular in this country*, but I gave it up a long time ago after conversing/sparring with people who wiped the floor with me. Please display some curiosity and discover why Folsom took such a short amount of time and what you can do to reduce the obstacles to versioning our infrastructure. For example there’s a community-engagement meeting tonight on Embarcadero plans. Nihilists welcome. Thanks

    *excepting that American who wisely advised “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”



    Good idea in theory, but the travel lane isn’t wide enough for a car to parallel park in this scenario.



    Transit ridership is up, but by the time Caltrain ridership levels demand 19 trains per hour, we’ll have a whole different set of issues to deal with.



    and if you get to Diridon you can hop onto Caltrain and get to SCU. Or if you are coming from SF, you just take Caltrain in the first place.

    “Oh, but not very many trains stop at Santa Clara!!!’ you say?

    It would probably be cheaper to run special 2 car EMUs from Diridon to Santa Clara that meet the BART train as a shuttle for the next 100 years, than it would be to build the extension to SCU. And frankly, we have no idea what the Caltrain schedule will be like when a BART station in Santa Clara would open in what, 2030?



    Cool story bro



    You mentioned 17th has car lanes 9′ feet + parking lanes 8′ wide. Assuming 5′ bike lanes that’s:

    5b+8p+9c+9c+8p+5b = 44′

    In the above retrofit I turned 17th into a one-way street for cars, removed a car travel lane, kept both parking lanes (to avoid parking wars–NIMBYs often seem more concerned about losing a parking lane rather than a travel lane). So that’s

    6.25b+11p+9.5c+11p+6.25b = 44′

    This setup could work great on the entire 1.5 mile stretch of 17th in the Mission (between Church and Kansas) which has no transit running on it so no Muni considerations needed.

    “That’s all great, but you can’t use that CVC section to justify riding side by side if it results in one of the riders being outside the bike lane.”

    For passing you can! And as far as I know there is no defined max window of time for how long max you’re allowed to overtake someone.

    Clearly, the poor condition of much of these infrastructure treatments means leaving the bike lane is a frequent occurrence and even the police seem to recognize this. With the huge exceptions in CVC21208 it’s my understanding it’s really hard to enforce. In fact, it’d probably be easier to enforce the rules against blocking bike lanes but SFPD is rarely known to do that, either. So they seem to accept that leaving the bike lane early and often for whatever reason is a thing.



    “It’s a narrow road so there’s no room for a parking protected cycletrack unless you remove parking on one side of the street for the whole length of the bikeway, then you could have a parking protected bikeway on one side of the street. Sure, that’s possible, but is it a tradeoff worth making on the street?”

    I think many would think so! But, there are also many other pragmatically compromisey alternatives, such as this (you can click to embiggen the image for detail):



    What is amazingly hypocritical yet somehow completely overlooked by motorists is the fact that ALL motorists by definition are riding side-by-side. The bias of motorists is so thorough that they don’t even realize this. Why is it okay for cars to be designed so passengers sit side-by-side yet if bicyclists do this, it is somehow some abhorrent, disrespectful behavior?


    Dave Moore

    You have a valid point about part of the city, although I find it hard to see that to be true about much of SOMA (long blocks, wide streets). It’s clearly the case in downtown. The neighborhoods are a bit varied, probably because they came to be at various stages of automobile use. But you’re right that I’m mistaken to think of all of the city as having been designed that way initially. Certainly the bulk of street design and modification for the last many decades has been done with automobiles in mind (and I’m not saying the status quo wins, just that it is).



    Quite a few people here would argue with the statement “The roads *were* designed for cars.” I’ll grant you most of the Richmond, Sunset and Parkside. The rest of San Francisco (the portions that don’t look like suburbia) were designed for transit and pedestrians. They were paved for the convenience of bicyclists (wheelmen).

    Actually, you could also argue that even the wide roads in the west weren’t designed for cars as much as they were designed to be fire breaks.



    Yup. “Bad” LOS is no longer a valid metric to kill a project under CEQA, Caltrans now accepts formerly “exotic” treatments (such as bike-specific traffic signals) which required costly “experimentation” phases, separated infra is now kosher, etc.



    Plus on the state level changes to CEQA and other shifts away from previous auto-dominated engineering are already well under way which makes all kinds of future and current street improvements potentially cheaper, faster, and easier.



    I wonder how close to 19 Caltrain will get during that post-electrification pre-HSR-blended service window of 6+ years.

    Also, won’t the existence of CAHSR actually siphon off at least a percentage of Caltrain’s Baby Bullet ridership? If so, it’d presumably free up Caltrain to offer at least a little more Local and Limited trains–which would themselves be faster than their current counterparts due to electrification.



    Yes, infrastructure change can be a long game. But we’re already benefiting from some changes first dreamed up years ago. And I’m glad people didn’t just give up then saying “but this’ll take long to get built. So hard. I quit.”

    Just like that old saying “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best is now.”

    Btw, with the injunction on new bike infra long since lifted as well as the death of LOS, the average gestation->construction time of some of these projects will probably decrease. Though the frustration with the oft-glacial pace is understandable and is one I and many here share, no doubt. Yet defeatist fatalism is hardly the answer, either.


    Dave Moore

    So then today this happens:

    I was at Folsom & 4th, stopped at the all ped green / all traffic red light, watching the typical swarm of pedestrians and red light running cyclists duck out of each other’s way.

    Then a motorcycle to my right goes straight through it at about 5-10mph.

    I catch up to him at the next light and ask him if he realizes what he did. He says “the walk was on” as the light changes and I figure he means he was fooled into thinking the light had changed and made a mistake going through it.

    Then I see him again at the next light and he says “it’s all walk. No cars can go”

    I tell him, “that means you too”.
    And he says “it’s the only one I do it at”.

    I take this to mean he does it every day, and figures that because no cars can go that he’s safe and it’s ok to go through the pedestrian crossing.

    It certainly doesn’t make it ok, but I wonder if he would do it if the bikes weren’t already ignoring the red. In any case it was about the biggest d*ck move I’ve seen in a while as it wasn’t just a spur of the moment thing.


    Marvin Papas

    Nihlism……oooo what a word, did you learn that in college, Lebowski?

    Trust me creating net new infastructure in SF takes YEARS unless its to be developed private real-estate bought at a premium.



    Yes, extending a tunnel and building a portal don’t come cheap. Not to mention the station itself.



    Without sharing space with HSR, Caltrain can operate as much as 19 trains per hour with proper signaling and proper rolling stock .

    All these measures are trains per direction.,


    david vartanoff

    Actually it is bOGUS Eapid Transit. Which is to say that by watering it down but not cutting the cost more money may be transferred to the vendors and consultants which is clearly the priority of public spending.


    Mario Tanev

    Motorists don’t lose. The people throughput will be same or improved, with some of them (those on BRT) experiencing world-class service. Unless you consider motorists who have switched to BRT for its faster service losers.


    Mario Tanev

    BRT is a good catchy eye-opener that a bus doesn’t have to get shitty treatment. But certainly if BRT takes 20 years for 2 lines, even in watered-down form then I worry that tying improvements to BRT is the wrong approach.

    Transit only lanes, traffic priority and so on can apply to many lines, currently not classified as BRT: 14, 30, 5, 22. Why wait until they are classified as BRT?

    Further our LRT has poorer treatment than BRT because of mixing with traffic. All LRT lines could gradually get the BRT treatment.



    I time the signals, make sure my back light is on, take the lane, and pedal like hell. It’s definitely not something I expect everyone to do or be able to do, but it’s worked for me. I’ve also done this going west, which is a slight uphill and even more gnarly. No incidences there either but not fun. People on bikes need their own space in the tunnel, and a 3′ wide sidewalk shared with pedestrians is not that space.



    Nihilism doesn’t sound like a winning strategy.

    In contrast changing infrastructure for the better actually produces positive results by reducing collisions:



    That’s all great, but you can’t use that CVC section to justify riding side by side if it results in one of the riders being outside the bike lane. I prefer to ride side by side with people I am with, but the point here is that you need to be in a bike lane and can exit for specific reasons, one of which is not so you can ride side by side to chat. As for 17th St itself, the car lanes are 9′ wide while the parking lanes are 8′. It’s a narrow road so there’s no room for a parking protected cycletrack unless you remove parking on one side of the street for the whole length of the bikeway, then you could have a parking protected bikeway on one side of the street. Sure, that’s possible, but is it a tradeoff worth making on the street? Or maybe there should be no bike lane on the street at all – maybe just a bike boulevard.



    U-turns are definitely not allowed anywhere on Market east of Van Ness. But even drivers turning right from 9th are legally required to turn on 6th.



    7 per hour isn’t too bad–in fact that would seem to be slightly above the current 6 per hour max that appear to operate during peak hours–of which about 3 per hour stop in Santa Clara. 3 per hour (avg. headway = 20 mins) is about what BART has in many stations currently.

    Also, I’m curious–isn’t CAHSR projected to not begin blended SF-SJ service until at least 2026? That’d be a minimum of 6 full years of post-electrification where Caltrain would presumably have it “all to itself.” Or would it still be bound to the 7/hour max even with no CAHSR trains during that window due to construction/upgrade issues? I don’t really follow Caltrain upgrades in detail so I’d be interested in finding out.



    But that frequency is is not what gezellig was alluding to.

    Under blender Caltrain/high-speed operation, there will be space for 6 high-speed trains per hour, and 7 Caltrain train per hour (maximum).



    Since the Van Ness BRT project has been watered down to the point where it no longer meets the definition of Bus Rapid Transit, I’m going to assume the “R” now stands for “Regular.”



    And the resulting shattered glass will contribute to one BIG reason cyclists “weave in and out” of the bike lane.

    If you ever see me “weaving” it’s because the bike lanes are often littered with hazards, and broken glass is chief among them. Drivers aren’t at an angle/perspective where they can see these hazards, and too many leap to the conclusion that cyclists are just randomly being jerks for no reason.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Yeah that’s a great point. There didn’t seem to be a related feature request in Google’s internal bug tracker so I filed one. Cheers.



    At peak rush, Caltrain already runs at higher frequencies than the BART spur lines.


    Idrather Bebikin

    I don’t think it’s done out of incompetence AJ. I’m convinced it’s because they don’t want to be honest with the public about how much it costs to be near SCU. Because almost everyone will say “Hell, NO!”

    So to hide this fact they decided to group it with the Alum Rock @ 28th St location – effectively “throwing under the bus” the community that was worked for over 25 years to land BART right there.



    It is impossible to increase frequencies between Milbrae and San Jose on Caltrain to BART levels because that will be a shared sector between CAHSR (high speed rail) and Caltrain (the so-called “blended sector”). Because of the speed differential and very different stop pattern, this considerably reduces total capacity of the rail tracks all the way to San Jose.


    Idrather Bebikin

    The grouping of the 28th St location and Santa Clara near SCU into Phase III is done on purpose IMHO.

    VTA BART SV needs to be honest with separating ALL of the costs of both stations and how much the cost is for the long stretch all the way to Santa Clara.

    IF the VTA BART SV is honest about this, people will be amazed at how HUGE the cost is between Diridon Station and Santa Clara.


    Idrather Bebikin

    Catchy one liner “Upright Biker” but way off the mark in every which way. Religious or not it is the cultural center and heartbeat of the area.


    Idrather Bebikin

    The 875 units can be increased drastically as can the office units if density and height is targeted differently.


    Idrather Bebikin

    Adina –

    Nothing has really changed from VTA. They have not told the public when these three public outreach meetings are at Mexican Heritage Plaza, Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara. These three meetings should have been “baked in” and created during this process 4-6 months ago.

    The community should have been informed of ANY materially significant changes when they were happening, not 4-6 months later. Not after they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

    I would “not” trust VTA Senior Management on BART. We need a strong ongoing push every day/week until the Dec. 11th Meeting.And beyond! The new words coming from VTA General Manager are more PR spin than anything else. This is not comforting at all.

    As someone that uses VTA extensively, they have a great new marketing push overall. Their operational excellence of getting trains and buses onto their schedule at the major transit points and time stops is still “hit and miss.”

    It doesn’t matter how well you make VTA look online, if the service stinks people who don’t need to use it will stop using it!


    Mario Tanev

    One thing missing in Google Maps is knowledge of whether a location has any parking. There is no parking on Market St, so it doesn’t make sense to propose ending one’s trip there (unless one is in a Taxi).