Skip to content

Recent Comments


    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



    Those UC Berkeley findings are great takeaways. Bullet #4 in particular is a *very* interesting insight(!) – never seen that before.



    Is this ban in response to bikers’ rational reaction of opting not to ride on (what I can only imagine, given it being San Jose) highway-like streets? Would making this seemingly highly travelled bike route be safer be a more citizen-focused solution than outlawing this?

    And isn’t riding on the sidewalk already illegal (or at least frowned upon)? Also, is a law an outsized option for a civic infraction of this type?


    Thomas Rogers

    Something is afoot on this block- see pic from Friday 12/12/14. I don’t see anything in the Planning permit system (, but I may be missing something.


    Jamison Wieser

    Three-car shuttles were initiated last year as a pilot project (which means there should be a performance/evaluation report?) but shuttles were a tricky issue in the first place.

    Muni has very little tunnel capacity or trains to run shuttles without it taking away from other lines. As a Castro resident I really appreciate a nice empty inbound train in the morning, the tradeoff can be longer waits for more crowded trains in the avenues and that could just shift the problem to trains bunching on the surface. Add double-birthing and a three-car shuttle would block have of the second boarding space.

    New trains and the Central Subway will open up capacity in the Market Street Subway, but it also has to make sense to run shuttles instead of more/longer JKLMN trains.



    They ran them for awhile, and I rode it several times. Agency stopped for some reason. Anyone know why?



    Double-berthing doesn’t even matter, it’s not nearly as crucial as running 3-car or even 4-car trains. Muni said they initiated the program last year, so far I’ve only seen one video of a 3-car train. None at rush hour, or at any hour. What happened with that? The couplers still on the fritz? Oh well.



    SFMTA has a weird aversion to logical rail instillation, I don’t know what it is. They’re so uninterested in expanding the Muni Metro rail services to replace dense bus routes. Watch SFMTA propose Bus Rapid Transit, instead. “Bus to the Golden Gate Bridge! Hoorah!”

    Of course they stop at Chinatown, because it wasn’t about convenient rail service; do people really think the SFMTA is spending billions of dollars to alleviate the crowded 30 Stockton/45 Union buses that are only crowded for three stops to Chinatown? No, of course not. It’s a municipal apology for tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway of course, Muni doesn’t care about service.

    It’s so bad even BART is considering a Geary corridor since Muni can’t be bothered to do it.



    No, it shouldn’t. The proposal has it connecting to the Fremont line and then moving over to Alameda, then reconnecting to Daly City through Lake Merced. How to you plan on merging different gauges? The gauge issue is not a big deal, but if we change it, it will have to be the whole system, period. And while we’re at it, we might as well go from 3rd rail to overhead wiring to allow for increased speed.

    Gauge isn’t an issue, it’s obnoxious but it’s not a big deal, there’s no feasible way to have a set of trains running back and forth on its own line with a different gauge and a different set a trains. Can’t be done.


    Mario Tanev

    Wow! Not even shuttle service. AC Transit 73 as the backup option.



    Actually, if the street is configured properly, then there are loading zones on each block where delivery vehicles can pull into the parking protected area and unload their vehicles. From there, they can cross the bike lane with their goods without fear of getting run over by a car.

    With conventional bike lanes placed outside of parking, you have so many more dangerous movements (trucks & cars double parking, cars backing in to park, driver side doors opening) that it all but makes the bike lanes useless for riding in. Move those same lanes inside of parked cars and you remove all of those hazards.

    Your view has been discredited by years of studies and examples from northern European countries where parking protected lanes have increase mode share and safety for all roadway users. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.



    That study does not cover the parking-protected bike lanes in GGP, 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.

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



    Does that compare protected bike lanes with conventional bike lanes or with no bike lanes? I believe it is the latter



    They absolutely should use a dynamic model for monthly passes, capping monthly cash fares at the monthly pass price. I doubt such a move would cost more than a trivial amount in revenue (of course, Cubic would probably demand millions of dollars to implement it), but it would avoid the inconvenience of needing to purchase a monthly pass and the current dilemma of needing to decide in advance whether to buy one. It would be a great improvement for customer service.

    For instance, I bought a Muni pass in November, but didn’t buy one for December because I knew I’ll be out of town for part of the month. My Muni ridership varies depending on the weather, how often I feel like riding my bike instead, if I work from home, days out of town, etc… It would be far easier to just know I’m getting the best deal without having to try to predict these factors a month in advance.



    Shut down Powell, Stockton, and Market to private autos? A brilliant plan! Let’s take it further and ban cars from Grant, Kearney, Montgomery, and Sansome too! I hope nobody ever wants to go to a hotel, receive a package, or otherwise receive any of the services we rely on having streets for? Oh, but you’ll exempt buses, cable cars, trucks, hotel dropoffs, taxis (because they’ll do whatever they hell they want anyway, but forget about allowing Uber or Lyft), lost tourists following their GPS devices, city workers, and people who can’t quickly read a 1,000 word sign explaining the restrictions? If all those people are still on the street, what have you accomplished exactly?

    If you really want a street closed to traffic, then actually close it, disconnect it from the grid, and turn it into a pedestrian mall while figuring out actual alternatives to provide services to the buildings on that street. Painting the street all red and green and putting up a confusing mess of signs does absolutely nothing besides raise every type of road users’ blood pressures.

    I took my grandfather out to dinner in Union Square for his 90th birthday a few weeks ago. This would have been impossible if we took three bus lines like you seem to think everyone should be doing. I suppose I should have left him to eat slop in the nursing home instead. At least the streets would be nice and empty for you that way.


    SFAware Ness

    7 out of 10 people are on big pharma. We have tons of folks who HAVE to jaywalk to avoid many hazards…. sidewalks are packed with tables, waiters, baby strollers, skateboarders, newcomers RIDING BIKES, bike messengers, running valet parkers and more….

    Many people MUST walk out into the street and cross anywhere they can to avoid those hazards, plus when they say known troublemakers, drunken tourists, hyped up sports fans looking for a fight, teens in packs stealing cell phones or macing people… plus we have tons of elderly, disabled and others AS THE REALITY OF THE TRUE NATURE & CONDITION OF OUR PEOPLE.

    We did not have this level of conflict, stress, accidents and desperation & carelessness on our roads & sidewalks until all the gentrification, super packed, high number of amateur drivers, driving round and round and round IN A RUSH in the same residential & people packed areas, came into being which is a recipe for disaster…. .

    Local pedestrians, drives and cabbies did not constantly cut each other off, be in such a rush and honk at every little things and our sidewalks were not packed with moving objects, bikes, strollers and blocked up with lines of restaurant patrons, tables, chairs, etc, before…. no one had to try to change the behavior of the residents, the pedestrians or most of the drivers here… before Chase Bank drove down & out thousands of local businesses & triggerd the mass evictions of our people and created the mayhem we see before us.

    FOCUS on the ROOT CAUSE of why the drivers are angry and bikers are angry and how their behavior and sheer numbers alone ARE THE PROBLEM, not all the walking people who are always doing what they have always done… they look as best they can at the road or path in front and decide what & who they have TO AVOID to make it to their destination.

    In that way, they MUST often dart into the streets and jaywalk or excercise their little known RIGHT to CROSS from any point on a curb directly across a road to intersect and alley, whether its marked or not.



    Do you all get these tactics used to give outsiders more room, resources and local cash flows to operate in… to cause problem and then get paid to fix them…. ???



    At this point, how many millions of minutes of passengers delays have 30 Stockton riders endured during the construction detours? How many lifetimes will it take to pay those delays back by the Central Subway, which barely beat the time estimates for the BRT plan transit advocates pushed for in the first place?

    Not to mention the utter lies told by Central Subway proponents. Remember how they promised us the tunnel would be dug deep underground to minimize disruption? Well it is being dug deep underground to increase costs, but the disruption remains. Back in 2012, we heard things like: “There’s no vibration, no surface disruption,…you could be walking on top of it and not even feel it.” Now we have Stockton shut down for three+ years, businesses blocked off, a massive flood of water ruining merchandise, and popular Muni lines detouring through packed streets for years. It’s clear that they were lying through their teeth to sell this project.



    now the available space is narrower: the protected lanes on either side of the street force parked cars closer to the middle.

    I *dream* of roads as wide as the available space you have taking the lane on JFK.



    I remain incredulous as to how you’re unable to pass people there–something I (and by my own observation many others) do there all the time.

    If we’re going anecdotal, I’ve encountered far *fewer* such dooring/pedestrian entanglements there than before.

    Beyond anecdotal, though, the data on these implementations back this up. One of many:



    Asking for 8mph is not being ableist and exclusivist. That’s 2mph slower than average in cities with healthy cycling infrastructure. That’s a reasonable thing to consider when talking about the utility of a bike lane being built to encourage riding and provide an attractive alternative to other forms of commuting. It’s also not selfish or elitist to point out that what works for children in a park is not necessarily what works for commuters or other adult users of the road. You’re simply calling names.

    As a cyclist, I’ve seen and personally encountered more doorings and pedestrian entanglements due to what I pointed out above since the parking-protected lanes went in at GGP than before. That is all.



    Yeah! I pass slower people in those lanes all the time. It’s not hard. And just because I’m in a rush doesn’t mean I need to look down on an 8-year old for enjoying a leisurely ride.


    What, exactly, is the problem here?



    You might be surprised, but other cyclists, including those who commute seem perfectly capable of passing me and my daughter while we are traveling in the lane on GGP.

    In addition, yours is an incredibly dismissive attitude of what constitutes a ‘transportation cyclist’. I ride every work day to my office, often at speed, and frankly, I’d welcome the infrastructure that would keep me safer from cars, even if it meant I’d need to slow down and safely pass other people riding bikes. Not everyone thinks our streets should be a thrill ride each time they step out to go get a gallon of milk.



    I bike on the protected lanes in GGP all the time–that hasn’t been my experience at all. Compared to the obstacles I regularly face biking vehicularly or on conventional bike lanes elsewhere in the city it’s nothing. I’ve never once felt like it was slow or cumbersome, either.

    Your dismissiveness of the 8-to-80 crowd is also pretty ableist, selfish and exclusivist…biking shouldn’t just be for the most able, 20-30s, male road warriors.



    I’d rather contend with an occasional errant pedestrian than double-parked/randomly swerving/oblivious drivers of 2-ton speeding metal boxes.



    Yes, I like to ride at speed. Because I am commuting, I prefer to be riding somewhere between 8 and 20mph. That is impossible in those “protected” lanes. They open the door for unpredictable obstacles and impede a normal flow of traffic, further relegating bikes and cyclists to a “recreational” class of street user and not an actual part of the transportation infrastructure.

    It’s great that your eight year old is better protected from traffic in golden gate park, but when considering how to integrate bicyclists into a larger regional transit strategy, i feel that a model protecting children in a park where they are learning how to ride and pay attention to traffic is not an ideal way to do this.



    This is flat out wrong. The protected lanes in GGP have made riding there safer. My eight year old daughter cannot ride on the paint on road bike lanes that exist on Fell, but absolutely can ride in GGP on the protected lane. To say that the bike lanes are a “mess” is only because of your personal preference for riding in traffic at speed. Most people don’t want to do that, which is why we have less than 4% mode share of people riding for transportation.

    The protected lanes are absolutely a good solution and certainly not a half-way solution.


    Bill Sellin

    Me too; but Bike Lanes teach edge riding behavior – same guy would probably stand in the middle of the Bike Lane at a red light (if he stops at all) & not let cars turn right behind him…


    Bill Sellin

    Right Bike Lanes are far from ‘sacred’ – no magic (or holy) paint available. CVC says merge out of the Bike Lane when approaching a place where cars may be turning right – so move left & control the travel lane!


    Bill Sellin

    Law says 200 feet – dotted line warns bicyclists of turn coming up so they may merge out of bike lane & prompts drivers to do the right thing. You can merge into the bike lane at 199 feet across the solid white line but not 201 feet back, if you signal, merge without impeding a bicyclist & follow bicyclists to the corner at their speed, where they may or may not move left to allow you to turn (courtesy – not required) Some corners don’t have room between short blocks & driveways to dash out the full 200 feet. If in doubt, wait until the dashed portion.



    They have these “protected” lanes in Golden Gate Park and it made riding there worse. Now instead of dealing with traffic which at least is *supposed* to be paying attention to other traffic, cyclists must contend with pedestrians who definitely don’t, passengers entering and exiting vehicles who are not paying attention to bicycle traffic, people helping children in and out of cars, people loading and unloading things from their cars.

    Instead you get cyclists riding in traffic anyway, just to avoid the mess that the “protected” lane creates, and now the available space is narrower: the protected lanes on either side of the street force parked cars closer to the middle.

    They can’t remove parking spaces in exchange for a bike lane because of political pressure. This doesn’t mean the protected lanes are a good solution. They’re a halfway solution and worse than either dedicated lanes or shared traffic.



    Amid the bad news of roads flooded and BART stations being closed by yesterday’s heavy rain it is worth noting that Caltrain ran reliably all day.



    The point is also to make it worth a driver’s time to drive in crazy conditions. I’m no fan of Uber, but if you look at surge pricing from the perspective of Uber’s drivers, it makes more sense.