Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Even the section with a vertical curb? That looks very similar – if not exactly the same – as raised bikeways I’ve seen in CPH. You seem to dislike CPH but it’s mode share is undeniably high and riding experience undeniably fantastic. In the NL, it’s common to have unprotected painted bike lanes on some fairly busy streets. Is that best practice? Should the city do that here?



    Btw if you’re curious about the many relative fails of Copenhagen’s infrastructure and its unfortunate effects, this is a good summary:

    I’m frankly not sure why exactly Copenhagen is so often hailed as a model, except for perhaps good marketing on its part. As Hembrow points out, compared to the NL Denmark has much lower levels of bike modeshare and both real and subjective safety suffer unnecessarily, as well.

    This might seem like splitting hairs but since we’re largely starting from scratch in the US why copy a proven–at best–second-best model? It’s not like Danish infrastructure is cheaper or easier or anything. In fact, they keep on putting expensive lipstick on a pig, in many instances:

    As Hembrow points out:

    “Much the same situation as before, but with added flashing lights ? If the existing situation was good enough then the lights would not have been tried. This is a story of failure, not of success. Instead of this band-aid measure, why didn’t they simply copy a much superior and more convenient design of junction ?”



    The problem is primarily this….bad raised bikeways are bad.

    So build good ones.

    This SF example is not designed to anything remotely close to best practices.



    It’s just interesting to hear so much on streetsblog by commenters about how great the Netherlands or Copenhagen are, yet when the same facility type is used here, it’s beaten down as a bad idea.

    See above comments re: Copenhagen vs. Netherlands.

    1) Copenhagen generally does not adhere to best practices (and has the lower modeshare and higher injuries to show for it, relative to the Netherlands)

    2) This design in SF is not even up to Copenhagen’s subpar standards.



    It’s just interesting to hear so much on streetsblog by commenters about how great the Netherlands or Copenhagen are, yet when the same facility type is used here, it’s beaten down as a bad idea. Maybe the problem has to do more with enforcement and education. Maybe there is a learning curve associated with new designs.



    “If the separation had been soft hit post, I don’t think they would have intentionally driven over them and stopped with the left side of the truck pushing the posts down onto the ground.”

    Do you ride down Market St much? Trucks drive over and park on top of the posts all the time.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    Never underestimate stupidity. It is a powerful force that unfortunately inflicts every one of us at some point in our lives.



    ICYMI, there’s a breathtaking bit of ignorance of the CVC from the Mountain View Police department regarding the use of self driving cars on roadways where the speed limit is greater than 25 mph. At present, Google’s smaller self driving cars have a maximum speed of 25 mph (it was clocked going 24 mph), yet are legal street vehicles on roads such as Camino Alto where the speed limit is 35 mph.

    Apparently, in the afternoon on November 12th, a member of the traffic detail pulled over a self-driving car on a 6-lane stretch of Camino Alto for “impeding traffic”, because he noticed that cars were “stacking up” behind it. He then proceeded to give the vehicle a “warning” rather than citation for CVC 22400(a) given that the vehicle was causing a backup, but that there was “confusion” over the law.

    However, there was absolutely not reason for the officer to give this vehicle a warning for two reasons: 1) You cannot reasonably give an impending citation (or warning) to a vehicle on a multi-lane roadway given that traffic behind the offending vehicle can easily move around it, and 2) a full reading of CVC 22400(a) says the following: 22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

    You cannot read the first part of the law and then willfully ignore the second as if it has no priority over the first. And in this case, the vehicle was complying with the law that restricted it from traveling faster than 25 mph. If the police department had a beef, it could not be with the Google car, but with the provisions of the law that restrict those vehicles from travelling faster than 25 mph. This is nothing more than harassment or grandstanding on the part of the MVPD in this case, and I hope that Google takes this up with the local DA to stop it from happening again.


    david vartanoff

    The correct headline should be “trespasser failing to notice train while walking ton tracks dies”. The Amtrak train was where it belonged; the trespasser wasn’t.






    Very easily. The two trucks in the photos below probably thought they hadn’t don’t anything wrong by driving over the curb and stopping in the bike lane.

    If the seperation had been soft hit post, I don’t think they would have intentionally driven over them and stopped with the left side of the truck pushing the posts down onto the ground. That’s a clear visual indicator that you’re not where you are supposed to be.

    Solid barriers are the best solution, of course, but short of that I’ll take a three foot plastic post over a three inch concrete curb for bike lane seperation.



    Well, Denmark’s not usually the world best-practice. Notice the same problem with the delivery truck in the background easily parked over the raised bike lane below in Copenhagen (you may need to embiggen the pic to see it clearly):

    Too many raised bike lanes look like that in Denmark and shouldn’t be copied. I almost never saw infrastructure like that while living in the Netherlands–the Dutch seem to employ almost any strategy to avoid the above, in order of priority:

    1) narrowing car lanes (the Copenhagen ones above could be narrowed–notice how wide the lane is compared to the truck in the background) to create the space for a small physical barrier between the car lane and raised bikeway.

    2) reducing car lanes (even if this means it’s only a 1-way 1-lane road for cars that remains) to create the space for physical bike lane barriers.

    3) if absolutely none of these options are possible (rare), going with an on-road bike lane for a stretch until there’s space again–the bike lane below is striped as dotted which means at that point it’s optional (bikes may move into the car lane if necessary. Then again, it’s a sufficiently narrow and traffic-calmed car lane in the first place):

    Also whenever possible, the Netherlands provides for a visual difference (pavement type and color) in addition to the physical barrier:

    Yet more factors that help?

    –> more loading zones in commercial areas

    –> restrictions on times during the day when loading zones may be used

    –> actual, serious enforcement compared to SF



    How can a driver drive over a curb without realizing they are somewhere they probably don’t belong?



    Is it worth the cost then? If drivers blow off posts and raised bikeways, why spend the money on raised bikeways?



    Trucks do the same thing on other parts of Market where there are posts. It happened all the time here with the convenience store with the posts too.



    But raised cycletracks in the Netherlands and Denmark don’t have posts. Aren’t those the world class examples, or is Vancouver the world class example?



    As imperfect as they are thick straws do at least strongly discourage parking in the bike lane.

    Of course the real solution is some kind of actual physical barrier, as seen from this example in Vancouver:


    Martin Atkins

    On the plus side, I passed by here this morning and there was a Lays-branded delivery truck parked in the roadway next to the bike lane, with an orange cone at its rear corner to alert other motorists that it was parked, and the bike lane wide open.

    On the other hand, this parked truck was forcing other traffic into the lane where the streetcars and the buses from Haight run, creating a small amount of congestion and delay for public transit… but certainly not a great deal, since this was after rush hour (about 10:30 I think).


    Ziggy Tomcich

    I prefer protected bike lanes to actually be protected with curbs, jersey walls, bollards, trees, parked cars, and anything that physically separates and protects us from vehicles. Adding 3″ of extra pavement that cars can still drive over doesn’t offer any protection. Not even a week and there’s already photos circulating of a Fedex truck blocking the bike lane. When bike lanes become loading zones and express lanes for motorcycles and luxury car owners, it totally defeats the purpose of them in the first place.


    Martin Atkins

    I fear that permitting the temporary removal of the overhead wires on Market St would start discussions about either reducing their presence or removing them entirely in the long run, by the vocal minority that focuses more on their impact on the streetscape and views of the Ferry Building than on the practical benefits of electric buses.

    San Francisco has a lot of great transport infrastructure compared to most cities, but most of it is there just because it “always has been” as far as current constituencies are concerned. It is unlikely that any new trolley bus lines would be approved for development today, and so we should at least fight for what we already have.



    Yes. It’s easier to drive over a slightly raised curb than it is to drive over soft hit posts. Some drivers might not even realize they had done anything wrong by putting a wheel over the curb.

    Of course, hard physical barriers would be better than either soft hit posts or slightly raised curbs.



    Why can’t we have both?



    So you prefer the design on Market St that uses thick straws to protect cyclists?





    Rogue Cyclist

    I agree. I bet all those new lanes on Hwy 4 will jam up again soon after. It’s called induced demand.





    Darksoul SF

    Take down the overhead wires to ensure safety for festival.



    It would be great if Streetsblog regulars could take a few minutes to fill out the SFMTA survey on illegal median parking in the Mission. The three broad options on the table are to start enforcing the existing parking laws, legalize and regulate median parking, or do nothing. Personally I would like to see them enforce the existing parking laws, and I certainly hope they get the message that the status quo is not an option.


    Discussion document:



    So eBART is happening as a part of doubling the number of freeway lanes in that stretch.

    This sounds like a great use of tax dollars! I bet ridership will be huge! After all your other option is to drive real fast on brand new uncongested pavement, and who wants to do that?!



    Only the first “Marina Drunk Driver” story is worth reading, the text of the last 3 looks identical and report on the style and color of her shoes, but skip the accessories: the alcohol monitoring bracelet she’s required to wear.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    Let’s face it, the real reason why we’re not getting any protected bike lanes and instead getting these half-ass measures is because a few whining complainers at the SFFD didn’t want to see any changes to our streets. So the SFMTA was ordered to water down their protected bike lanes to remove any physical protection. The problem with this practice is most people are going to see these bicycle improvements as a useless waste of money, instead of improvements that might will give them the freedom to bike safely without fearing for their lives.



    I also filled out the survey and commented similarly to Gezellig.



    I’m not surprised to see double-parked vehicles in that bike lane. All of the intended safety benefits of our bicycle infrastructure so easily disappear under motorists’ tires.



    From East Bay Bike email: “Telegraph Avenue Gets Protected Bike Lanes this Month…White markings are in for the new curbside protected bike lanes on Telegraph Ave and permanent striping and green paint is on its way.”



    Filled it out and reported the following problems:

    –> too narrow

    –> visually ambiguous

    –> no real physical barrier encourages illegal parking (as I saw–see post above)

    Also put in a plug for Dutch Bike Infra Bible CROW:

    …I mean–why not. They should be following best-practice gidelines, not this subpar stuff.



    Yep, that’s two separate delivery trucks at the same time on the same block blocking the lane.

    How ironic for Heineken to tout its “Brewed in Holland” accolades when such an activity would never fly in the Netherlands.

    Sadly, a meter maid went by and did nothing. Calls to SFMTA also got no response (maybe due to the holiday? Their office a couple blocks away was also closed).

    Already reported it to the SFMTA online here:



    This is what I saw when I went about an hour ago (2:30p):



    If you use it, there’s a survey you can fill out to provide feedback to SFMTA:

    Perhaps you can fill it out?


    Jamison Wieser

    I walked by looking for them, and had to double back. I didn’t even notice them, on either block, because I was keeping my out for bike lanes: solid green or at least stenciled with some kind of marking.

    Going from the markings, the green bike lanes coming down Market end where the raised “bike lanes” begin. The yellow half-dome tactile plating installed on the curb where the raised roadway started immediately where the bike lane comes to and end makes it look like a special ADA loading zone.


    Jeffrey Baker

    I know it is Streetsblog house style to say “driver kills”, but an eyewitness account of the scene of the motorcycle fatality on Saratoga describes the event as a motorcyclist running a red light and broadsiding the SUV.



    The raised bike lane is too narrow. Before, when the lane was green paint and separated by soft-hit posts from motor traffic, people would usually ride through that stretch double file. In my experience, nowadays people won’t ride near the new ‘curb’ (perhaps in fear they will fall off the raised lane and into car traffic). That means people are now riding through that stretch single file, reducing capacity and creating something of a bottleneck. It takes slightly longer to traverse that stretch of Market, and I don’t see any improvement to make up for the inconvenience.

    On a minor note, the lane is also very bumpy and because it is made of the same material as the rest of the roadway, it doesn’t look like bicycle infrastructure. If I were a tourist driving a car there, I don’t know if I’d recognize that I shouldn’t park in that lane.


    Andy Chow

    A little tough considering that other regions with multiple bus agencies (like Los Angeles, Seattle, etc) have duplicating route numbers, but in Seattle they do reserve sets of number for regional routes so there’s no duplication at where services intersect.

    I prefer a route numbering system that has structure and can provide some clues to what kind of service it is as well as relationship with other routes. Cities that have a grid system often have one set of number for north-south and another for east-west. SamTrans numbering scheme is more detailed with area served and rail connections. Line 110 for example operates in Daly City area and connects to BART (1xx route), and like 280 operates in East Palo Alto and connects to Caltrain (2xx route)

    However some agencies have a messy numbering scheme, like the one in San Diego. A community for example would have a two digit route and a 9xx route that provide similar service.

    AC Transit numbering system is somewhere in between. But with older system, some of the routes have been using the same number for 3 to 4 decades largely unchanged, such as 40, 51, 54, 57, 88, F, and O. So considering the legacy I am not sure whether it is a good idea to renumbering all the routes to something like 101, 102, 103, which is rather cold.

    Under the plan, line 1 would be split into 3 segments. The northern part, I think, can keep the 1, the central segment can use number 80, which was the route number used before line 1 along International. The southern portion can use 81, which was used along the same corridor in earlier days.



    I hope so. It would be nice if bus route numbers were co-ordinated throughout the region. One way to do it would be to assign a block of 100 numbers to each bus agency, e.g Muni gets 0-99, AC Transit gets 100-199, VTA 200-299, SamTrans 300-399 etc.

    Under such a scheme, Transbay bus routes should probably be given numbers, with letters reserved for Muni and VTA light rail routes. Use of Rapid ‘R’ and Express ‘X’ suffixes should also be standardized.



    What you are describing is still a cut in service, and one that involves more time and complexity (and expense for riders who pay in cash) for Longfellow/Santa Fe neighbors compared to the existing service.

    Right now I can go 2 blocks and hop on the F Line at Market Street to take a bus straight into SF 24/7. Three different BART stations are a mile from where I live, which doesn’t seem far but can be for someone who doesn’t/can’t drive and has limited mobility.

    With the proposed change I can take the new J line into SF during commute hours on weekdays only, but the rest of the time I will have to take either (between 6am-10pm) the 88 then transfer over to the NL at W Grand/Market (not the safest place to wait for a bus) or (between 10pm-6am) walk over a half mile late at night to Telegraph to catch the 800 all-nighter bus (not the safest option either, and much less direct than the existing F Line). All of these options will involve more time and complexity than the existing service for me and other Longfellow/Santa Fe neighbors. As far as I know no increase in all-nighter service is being proposed to make up for it being cut from the transbay lines which are now proposed to stop running at midnight.

    I also wonder if AC Transit has taken into account the extra waiting time and uncertainty related to the new F Line’s crossing the train tracks at surface level on 65th Street as opposed to going over them via the 40th Street bridge. Regular backups occur at the 65th Street location, and while solo drivers can opt for the Powell Street overpass instead a bus driver won’t be able to use that alternative when long freight trains are going through.


    Andy Chow

    I think the route numbers are there for planning and discussion purposes. Once it is approved an actual number would be assigned.


    Andy Chow

    You got to look at the totality of things. In the area, AC Transit also proposes to boost frequency of line 88, which also serves downtown Berkeley, and extend line 57 to Emeryville. Peak Transbay service will still be available along the 88 route in the area. There’s really no major impact for local travel. Lines 57 and 88 will connect with the realigned F along with BART.



    If the new J Line was 24/7 and not just during weekday commute hours as proposed, if it ran to Downtown Berkeley and not just N Berkeley BART as proposed, and if it still served the 40th Street transit hub instead of taking a shortcut via W MacArthur as proposed then it indeed would not be a service cut. New transbay bus service on the Alcatraz corridor via the proposed F Line route is great, but not at the expense of existing service on the Market/40th corridor.



    Forum set for $13 million plan to ease traffic on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard:



    Is this really a cut? The F is the AC Transit route I use the most often, and I’ve often bemoaned the fact that it loops around the south of Emeryville rather than heading directly to Ashby and Downtown Berkeley. The new route is more direct, and the former service area is covered by the J. This combined with the increase to 20 min headway leads me to think that this is a positive change.

    I’m not impressed with the new route numbering for the other lines, though. Not every line needs a letter in front of it! Save the letters for the Transbay and Rapid routes, and keep the regular buses with numbers only.



    Even more on the proposed AC Transit transbay service cuts in N Oakland and Emeryville: