Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Hope to meet many of you at the social – Rich



    Couple really obvious things here that I don’t even understand why we have to debate:

    1) Cars should not be allowed to pass *through* GGP for any reason (except Crossover Dr/Park Presidio/19th). This should be the *one* place people can go to get away from the destruction, pollution, and noise of cars that utterly dominate the entire city. And if any personal automobiles are allowed (and of course a (much more frequent) shuttle bus would need to be able to operate, as well as emergency and Rec & Parks vehicles), it should be a loop, the only way to prevent through-traffic. And the road must be narrowed (why are roads in GGP absolutely enormously wide?) and have protected bicycle lanes as well as raised crosswalks. Why is this not obvious? It’s a park, a place for recreating and relaxing, a place that, by definition, is not designed for getting from one destination to the other but for experiencing the space. So allowing motorists to go fast should *never* be an option.

    2) If we are going to allow personal cars on a loop, then parking must not be free. Everything must be metered at rates that are competitive and guarantee 10% (or whatever) spaces are free, a la SFPark. It’s an utter joke how much of the park, especially near 9th & Lincoln and the museums is completely clogged with free parking. You want to risk other people’s safety and clean air and peace with a motor vehicle, you can at least pay for that privilege.

    3) It’s crazy how many places bicycles are banned (via paint on the asphalt). There needs to be some infrastructure for bicycle paths that run parallel to pedestrian paths (as they should be separated … multi-use paths are never a good idea). For example, there is no reason Middle Drive W can’t be converted to a bicycle path. It’s way too wide right now and completely crumbling. Just tear at all the paved surfaces and replace them with a narrow one in the middle while planting plants/trees on the edges where the road used to be. The path can still be wide enough to accommodate the occasional Rec & Parks or emergency vehicles, but it’s absurd how wide it is right now:


    Karen Lynn Allen

    I’m a fan of speed humps, not speed bumps. Sure a raised crosswalk is better, and if we’re willing to install them midblock every residential block, they’d work great. However, drivers in San Francisco routinely reach 40 mph on 25 mph residential streets between stop signs, and speed humps mid-block are the only thing I’ve seen that slows them down.

    As to Golden Gate Park, the city should get far more serious about the health impacts (cancer, asthma, etc.) of car exhaust and how much car noise and car vibrations restrict enjoyment of the park by those not in vehicles. Cut through traffic should be significantly reduced by making the park a one-way loop, access to the park from Arguello and 5th Ave should be eliminated, and all curb parking east of Crossover drive should be metered.



    Series of car crashes in SF leaves one dead, five injured

    The number of hit-and-runs is out of control.



    Agreed. Sometimes there are long stretches of road in GGP with no crosswalks though … but no reason the place where they want to put a speed bump couldn’t be turned into a raised crosswalk! God knows the park could use way more crosswalks.



    Yes they are, to a certain degree. Since the late 1990s, SF voters have passed several ballot measures to get the DTX built and running to the financial district. Alas, it still ain’t happening. We can advocate for and vote in favor of transit projects all we want, but the higher ups have to be on board, secure the funding and get them built. They simply do not care.

    After 16 years in SF, I’ve given up and accepted the fact that trains will not reach downtown for the foreseeable future. Travel by transit from the Sunset/Richmond will continue to suck for me and countless others. Bay Area road congestion will only get worse.





    If the residents really have “given up” and are “numb” and therefore are not advocating and voting for major investments in transit then perhaps that is a proximate cause of this failure.

    Aren’t the failures and the apathy co-dependent?



    For anyone who missed the meeting but wants to make safety suggestions, one can click on the highlighted in blue “open house” phrase in the article’s first paragraph and be on the Park and Rec’s web page for this road safety project. From there, click on the link to who is in charge of the project and write him a quick note with your suggestions.



    Thanks! I’ll do a recon trip soon to try it out.



    You can find info on SFO bike parking here:

    I’ve only tried the parking in the domestic terminal parking by valet and felt it was a safe location because the 24 hour valet office is right there. It is a little hard to locate, so plan for an extra 5-10 minutes the first time you try.

    Here’s a map of bike routes in/out of SFO which also marks the bike parking locations: The map glosses over the biggest challenge when biking to SFO: crossing over Hwy-101. Be careful!



    Clearly the city just needs to assess a huge per vehicle fee in one shot, taking a dollar instead of 10 nickles and 5 dimes



    RE: World’s Most Expensive Bus Terminal

    Well, there you have it. No one should be surprised. It’s just a clear illustration of the political disinterest in making San Francisco, and the greater Bay Area, a transit-rich area. Lee couldn’t care less about transit riders (remember his response to the transit challenge a while back?). SPUR is basically useless when it comes to actual results. Residents are numb from all the failed promises and political shenanigans, at their expense. Actually, most have simply given up.



    It’s my understanding that once Sunday parking fees ended, the lost revenue would be made up by raising Muni fares. That decision angered a lot of folks because our Transit First City was giving into cars at the expense of transit riders.


    Jamison Wieser

    I wish City leaders would reconsider ticketing illegal parking and charging for legal parking on Sundays before even thinking about cutting education funding.

    The quick history: Several years ago, Mayor Ed Lee pushed for an end to parking enforcement and metering on Sundays a break from being “nickeled and dimed”, even though it put a new $9-10 million/year hole in the SFMTA budget. Sunday metering and enforcement had only started a few years before, and the extra $9 million/year was a solid boost to the SFMTA budget along with a host of other benefits direct and indirect.

    Reinstitution enforcing and/or charging for parking on Sundays has been put on the table in the years since, but always been dropped along the way in the budget process.



    So a meeting “dominated” by safety advocates is a good thing while a building “packed” with senior citizens is a bad thing? Is that it?


    Frank Kotter

    Someone has this track on repeat: phase of constructive community involvement well attended with good discussion to elevate safety and livability issues in a given area of the city. From these sessions plans are made which inevitably involve reducing the square footage of asphalt available to the private automobile and speed reductions. These plans are presented to the public and at the next venue to take public comments the hall is packed with retirees who feel the government has conspired, in secret, with hippies to take the American Dream away from them. They are louder, more passionate and demand the plans be scrapped. A compromise is reached which involves some paint on roads.



    I’m not in complete disagreement. However, BART knew from the beginning that it made a mistake with the wye configuration between San Bruno, SFO and Millbrae. Millbrae was advertised as a major intermodal station that was supposed to generate huge ridership, but it fell flat. Part of that problem was that BART kept switching up how it was running trains to SFO and Millbrae. The SFO-Millbrae shuttle was abandoned soon after the extension opened. The seamless Caltrain-BART transfer never materialized. NB Caltrain riders realized it was easier/cheaper to stay on Caltrain than transfer to BART. The SFO BART surcharge also doesn’t help attract riders.

    It looks like BART ridership in general has declined. Part of the decline can be attributed to ride hailing services like Uber/Lyft, but there are other factors involved.


    Frank Kotter

    This X 1000. Speed bumps are penalizing and rightly viewed in a negative – confrontational, if necessary, light.

    Raised crosswalks are positive, a reward, a support. From a point of argumentation, they are a much greater tool.



    Down with speed bumps, up with raised crosswalks.

    Raised crosswalks should be the standard design on not just all intersections with alleyways, but all minor streets across the city. If it’s not a thru-way designed to shuttle traffic/bikes/transit at high speeds, then we should be prioritizing walking over all other modes at our intersections.



    And from the candor and tone of your comments here, what a satisfied, happy bike/transit folk you must be!


    Christopher Childs

    I think some people driving might like that idea (up until their brilliant idea to speed is slowed down by everyone else trying to join in on the fun), but that’s beside the point. :)

    I agree that higher speed bicycle through traffic is better served by moving the it out of the Panhandle. I think the real meaning of what I was saying was obscured. My observation was that all of that traffic is racing the initial green wave on a very narrow, crowded path, and there may actually already be a better way: just ride on Oak from Kezar!


    Mark Richardson

    Quite likely because the law was different where they were from. As I explained to some bicycle rights advocate in Los Angeles who was whining about an out-of-State driver who violated a green lane to turn right, only 12 States actually have green lanes for bicycles, and of those 12 States, in 9 of them, they only have green lanes in one city, whereas tourists can fly non-stop to LAX from over 100 cities in multiple countries, with the residents of more than 90 of those cities having never seen a green bicycle lane prior to their arrival in Los Angeles.

    What would help greatly would be requiring all US States bicycle laws to adhere-to Federal UVC, which is quite different from local bicycle laws in several States including California.


    Mark Richardson

    And an 18-wheeler is legal at 72-feet for a single trailer and at up to 105 feet for Rocky Mtn. double-sets.


    Mark Richardson

    If powered vehicles must get off the road to make them safe for bicyclists who all too often ignore traffic laws my more than 30 years of experience in wholesale fresh food supply chain, warehousing, and distribution says that urban grocery stores will rapidly run out of food.


    Mark Richardson

    The US is not Europe, and if you like Europe so much why not move there? Now in London, England bicyclists are instructed to stay back from large trucks and buses and avoid riding on the blind side of such vehicles in order to avoid situations with high levels of risk where the driver often can not see you.

    Here in Colorado our law says that bikes are allowed to run red lights and stop signs as long as they yield to traffic with the legal right-of-way as well as pedestrians, but this law has resulted in a huge amount of confusion and repeated accidents where bike riders run over pedestrians or get t-boned by cars, trucks and buses that had the legal right of way.


    Mark Richardson

    Just keep in-mind that in-order for an 18-wheel truck to make a right turn at most intersections, the driver must swing left far away from the bike lane, which obstructs rearward vision in the passenger-side mirror as the cab swings left and the nose of the trailer swings out to the right, and then the driver must swing hard back to the right, in order for the trailer to clear the curb.

    Moreover, after the truck tractor begins to turn to the right of the trailer, all the driver can see in his passenger-side mirror is the right side of the trailer.

    At that point any bicyclist on the truck’s right side is completely blind to the driver, so you are taking a reckless chance ignoring the truck’s right turn signal and trying to pass on the truck’s right when it is turning right.



    OK, great, if you’re saying that bike and transit folks have won all the battles. got what they wanted and everything is resolved, then nobody is happier than I am.



    I live within a few blocks of BART and take it to SFO from time to time, but BART’s schedule and other factors (e.g. carrying luggage) makes it an option I’ll only use for some of my trips. If there’s heavy traffic, then BART is a great choice, but if there’s not (and I can always find check online first), BART takes significantly longer. It’s cheaper, but the extra $10-15 for a Lyft ride pales in comparison to the cost of my trip. Plus, if I’m on a business trip, I’m not paying for it.

    My biggest complaint is the long headways off-peak and on weekends. Miss that train and you’re sitting there waiting for longer than it would have taken to drive to the airport in the first place. Leave early enough to ensure you won’t miss it, and the trip now takes even longer. Even though I’m quite close to BART, choosing transit for this trip can easily double my travel time except when there’s heavy traffic. And I’m an ideal rider in walking distance who rarely takes big suitcases; anyone living further away is going to have an even worse time of it.



    Amazing, where can you leave your bike at SFO? Is it safe to leave it for a weekend trip?



    Nash and Leister are not activists.
    Everything? Measures B, C1, KK, M and RR are more than could’ve been hoped for.


    Jeffrey Baker

    True, but still not enough. Sidewalks should be designed so that two people walking side-by-side can pass two other people walking in the other direction. That’s just a minimum for human dignity. If shared, there should be that much room, plus enough room for bicyclists travelling in both directions. Architects aren’t oblivious to this; there are lots of papers about how much space is needed. But we continue to make spaces that are expected to be heavily used and are still only 12-16 feet wide.



    You’re effectively arguing that cars should go 40 on Masonic because that can get you through a wave of green from Geary to Haight, but I don’t think you really want that.

    There is a huge SLOW sign on the north Panhandle mixed-use path. If cyclists do not obey that do you think they should lose their privileges?



    Unless you want to concrete over the grass in the Panhandle that will always be the case. Pedestrians and park users cannot reasonably be told to not use a recreational path so the solution has to be that bikes go elsewhere



    Well, SF airport is mostly geared towards SF, not surprisingly. There are two other major airports close by for people flying out of the south or east bays.

    And if you live in the middle of nowhere then you will probably take a shuttle, cab or Uber to the airport and arrive by road anyway.

    Currently SJC is the biggest pig to get to without a car – a shuttle bus from Santa Clara CalTain station so, again, you are shlepping those bags.



    Doesn’t change my point which was that the idea that the voters will mindlessly support every initiative that activists dream up is seriously misguided.

    If you were correct you would already have everything that you want and you clearly do not.



    There’s a lot more space and visibility on the SF-O Bay Bridge trail than on the mixed-use panhandle path.



    No, it’s not a joy unless you are close to a BART station. How’d you like to drag your luggage on a crowded Muni train to Civic Center and transfer. Worse yet, carry your luggage on a Muni bus. As others have pointed, unless you live within spitting distance of BART it becomes a hassle.

    I’ve used BART to travel from my downtown SF office (1 block to BART) to SFO. Sure, it was a breeze to get to the United terminal. But, for a regional connector it fails, especially if you’re coming from Millbrae. Depending on the time of day you will have to transfer at San Bruno to an SFO bound train. If you’re already commuting on Caltrain this just adds to the stress of getting to the airport.

    Rather than the convoluted mess of days/times which line goes directly to SFO, the system should have been a straight shot to Millbrae, with two BART lines terminating there, and having AirTrain extended to Millbrae. Complicating travel via public transit only provokes people to find alternate means of getting to the airport. It also illustrates the problems and lack of communication among the Bay Area transit agencies.



    You never said that.
    None of these measures are for “transit first” or “vision zero”, whatever axe you have to grind against those concepts.


    Christopher Childs

    Wow, for once we all agree. Those bikes in the Panhandle are a menace and I’ve had altercations there with cyclists who feel entitled to speed there regardless of the people out enjoying the park.

    Not to excuse rude behavior: The light timing at Masonic is a little bit unfortunate for the path speed limit. At 15mph, you usually will get stopped there because of other traffic; sometimes, you’ll make it. Meanwhile, a car going 25mph won’t get stopped until Octavia.

    25mph is easy to do on that section of Oak — should I just ride the green wave instead of futzing with the path?



    I never said voters never approve transit measures. What I said is that they will generally approve the fuzzy ones like “transit first” and “vision zero”, but are more reluctant to approve changes that will directly affect their ability to get around or park at their destination



    No, what I said is that a bike is a vehicle, i.e. a wheeled device designed to travel at a speed greater than people walking.

    I agree with the other people here who want bike lanes on Fell/Oak and out of the Panhandle where they clearly cause problems, which you allude to in your top post.



    I asked Caltrain about moving the clipper readers nearer to the BART turnstiles so I wouldn’t have to run down the platform and back to make the transfer. They said it was “impossible due to an electrical issue”.

    I understand they ran the wiring to the wrong place and it might be painful to fix, but I just have to laugh at the user interface factors design that went into the conscious decision to place those readers at the worst possible place.

    And really, when you add up the time lost for the amount of connections missed due to this screwup, fixing the problem is actually a no-brainer. But Caltrain doesn’t get a refund for all that time saved, so it doesn’t happen.



    Clipper customer service is generally forgiving about refunding for forgotten tag-offs. I space out at least once a year. Just call and explain what happened.

    Still it ought to be trivial for Clipper to infer a Caltrain tag-off when you tag-in through the BART turnstile. Or better yet, just a properly merged multi-carrier zone based single transit zone.



    Milbrae Caltrain to BART transfer is a disaster. The Caltrain clipper machines are seemingly (or maybe it’s an ADA thing?) positioned as far away from the doors as possible. The doors line up with the BART fare gates.

    A busy train platform is not the place you want to force people to sprint back and forth unnecessarily, and yet that’s the reality.

    It only took missing one BART train on a cold, damp, windy Millbrae evening to convince me to sprint through the crowds at max speed.

    The only real alternative is being willing to eat a (for me) $8 penalty for not tagging off Caltrain.





    No if, the VOTERS have spoken:
    Measure B.
    Measure C1.
    Measure KK.
    Measure M.
    Measure RR.



    BART-> SFO works fine if the other end of your connection is near a BART station north of SFO and you’re traveling during working hours on a weekday. At other hours it gets a little less convenient due to the extra fliparound at Milbrae.

    Where the connection fails is for passengers who need to transfer at Milbrae, notably those coming from the south via Caltrain. Those passengers are better off taking a taxi from Milbrae to SFO. Sometimes even walking from the San Bruno Caltrain to SFO Skytrain is faster than waiting for the 2-seat BART transfer. Yes, walking can be faster than a billion dollar BART connection.

    When I travel out of SFO solo these days, I just bring my bike and ride from Milbrae or San Bruno to SFO. Free attended bike parking in the central garage!



    It seems like we don’t agree after all. You seem to be under the misconception that a bike is a car, or that its appropriate to put people cycling on a street mixed with a high volume of auto traffic.


    Jeffrey Baker

    And yet we continue to build such paths, including the new on one the Bay Bridge and the proposed connection from Brooklyn Basin to the Lake Merritt area.