Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    Well, er, drivers have to drive on crosswalks to cross them. As do cyclists. But no reasonable person interprets that as gneiss does – that bikes and cars can just regard crosswalks and sidewalks as part of their entitled domain.

    The irony is that the article that gneiss is referring to here focuses on abuse of bike lanes. And yet somehow he only sees the complaints that cyclists sometimes also abuse areas designated for the safety of others

  2.  

    Prinzrob

    The east side of Embarcadero is literally a bike/ped path, as designated by the city. If the city doesn’t want bicyclists to ride there then they can revoke that designation, but as of yet they have not done so. However, I admit that there should be much better signage and markings to indicate its usage, so that people can better expect mixed traffic along that corridor.

  3.  

    Prinzrob

    Heck, there isn’t even a law that restricts people from DRIVING in crosswalks, let along biking in them. If such a law existed then nobody would ever be able to make turns, as this requires always driving or biking over a crosswalk. Pedestrians do have the right of way in crosswalks, so drivers and bicyclists must yield, but that’s about it.

  4.  

    RichLL

    I’m not sure it is productive to endlessly parse statutory phrasing. It makes a lot more sense to adopt a common sense approach to who can go where.

    Bikes have priority in bike lanes. They have a right to use other parts of the road. They have no real valid claim to treat areas with pedestrian priority as their own.

    You cannot have it both way i.e. seek to banish cars from bike lanes while treating walkways with total entitled disdain.

    And regardless of any interpretation of the phrasing of the law, why would you be so eager to encroach on the space reserved for walkers? How does that aid the “liveability” of our streets? And can you not see how you harm your cause with such self-righteous aggressive posturing?

  5.  

    gneiss

    RichLL, it would have been easy for the city to include “crosswalks” in section 1007 if they considering it a danger to pedestrians. However, they did not. Therefore CVC 21650(g) applies.

    As to the question about “separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic” there are numerous places in the city where bike lane end on crosswalks or where multi-use paths use crosswalks. Given the fact that the Embarcadero sidewalk is legal for cyclist to ride on and that there is a designated bike lane on the other side of this road, to say that you must dismount and walk from the designated path to the bike lane is patently ridiculous.

  6.  

    RichLL

    A cyclist can certainly dismount and walk his or her bike along the sidewalk. But I don’t think that any reasonable person thinks it is OK for cyclists to treat the sidewalk as an extension of a designated bike path, whether at the Embarcadero or anywhere else.

    Similarly, while it is possible that the vehicle code was not precisely written to make it explicit that cycling is not allowed on a crosswalk, it is fairly obvious that the intent of the law is no more to allow cycling on a crosswalk than it is to allow cycling on a sidewalk. The clue is in the “walk” part if it is not obvious..

    Do you really and seriously have a problem with understanding the reasonable limits of where a road vehicle can go? And that the spirit of the law is to keep vehicles and pedestrians separate?

  7.  

    Melanie Curry

    Link to map above fixed. “Communities of Concern” include large percentages of low-income, disabled, senior, single-parent, rent-burdened, limited-English-proficient, zero-vehicle, and minority residents.
    Not a perfect measure, but a pretty solid attempt to identify those communities whose residents shoulder a higher burden of health issues and lack of access than other communities, so as to make sure they are not left behind when we make investments and improvements.

  8.  

    gneiss

    In the People Behaving Badly segment, Stanley Roberts still couldn’t resist taking pot shots at people riding bikes even though both of the behaviors he observed were legal on the Embarcadero.

    1. The cyclists are legally allowed to be on the sidewalk as the Embarcadero is a designated bike path, so if they jump off the road and onto the pavement to avoid a red light at the T-intersection, that’s legal.

    2. There is no law that restricts cyclists in the city from riding in crosswalks. The sidewalk riding restrictions do not apply on crosswalks.

  9.  

    Prinzrob

    AC Transit has the Easy Pass program for schools and companies, but nothing for individuals. As such if someone maxes out the $5 “day pass” rate each work day for a full month it will cost them around $100, or upwards of $1000 per year.

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    The only community of concern I see is the 4 foot circle around you – you have very deep concerns for quite a few topics

  11.  

    J

    I see. Thanks for the update. I’ll withhold judgement until I see the plans for the full expansion. I can say that it will need to be much bigger and denser than this to be successful, but hopefully that will be achieved through the larger rollout.

  12.  

    jd_x

    Anybody know what happened on Townsend just south of 5th St at around 6 pm Tuesday evening? Looked like a bicyclist hit by a motorist based on what I could glean from riding by. This street is such a cluster and yet all I ever see the cops doing is giving bicyclists tickets for rolling the stop sign at 5th while motorists do ridiculously dangerous things with impunity, from double-parking in the bike lane/bus stops/red zones to illegal U-turns to driving while talking on their cellphones.

  13.  

    RichLL

    Your link doesn’t work but that’s not even the point here. You responded to a comment here that the bike share locations appear to be in neighborhoods that are mostly white.

    And that may be true. Presumably the backers of this program have done some research about the demographics and economics of those who use bike share and those who do not, and designed the system accordingly. And any casual observer could tell you that most cyclists are white.

    There’s probably not a Brooks Bros or an Abercromblie and Fitch in West Oakland, nor many Afro hair stylists in Pacific Heights either.

    Everything doesn’t have to be everywhere, you know? And, again, you can’t get around Prop 209’s prohibition of race quotas by simply using thinly-veiled surrogates and euphemisms for race.

  14.  

    murphstahoe

    $60 per year. How much is an AC Transit pass per month?

  15.  

    Mike Jones

    Quite! There aren’t in this phase.

  16.  

    Mike Jones

    Meant it as a statement of reality to the existing bikeshare model, used in Paris, London, NYC and here. Not so much as a desire.

  17.  

    SF_Abe

    Better rip out all the stop signs, and don’t even THINK about letting the fire department anywhere near here

  18.  

    mx

    Oh come on. Bike share is convenient for short-medium trips within its service area (given the weight of the bikes, I wouldn’t really want to ride them that far) and it pairs well with transit. Yes, we should make sure the system is used by everyone who can benefit from it, including working with community groups to sign people up and offer discounts where possible, but there’s no reason to knock it.

  19.  

    jd_x

    Are you intentionally lying or just completely unaware of how the study worked? You can read the results yourself and see that they talked to the owners:
    http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/GearyCorridorBusRapidTransit/gcac/GCAC_Meeting_20_Presentation%20Merchant%20Survey%20Final.pdf

    Specifically, slide 2 states that:
    Door-to-door merchant outreach from Gough to 33rd Ave.
    • Outreach on weekdays and a Saturday in May
    • All businesses visited at least twice
    • Fact sheets distributed, owners/managers surveyed
    • Also visited Clement St. businesses

    And here is the data in particular I’m referencing:
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/08/arrival1.jpg

    There is always error in polls, but it’s irrational to ignore the evidence presented by this study that merchants (yes, the owners/managers) are not good at estimated how people arrive to their business.

  20.  

    Melanie Curry

    You should take a minute to look at the MTC definitions before jumping to conclusions about “race quotas.”

  21.  

    Marven Norman

    Or maybe the other way around.

  22.  

    Marven Norman

    Yet, even with all those barriers, low-income individuals still tend to do the most biking of all demographics. Something isn’t adding up here.

  23.  

    Marven Norman

    Ride your own bike.

  24.  

    Prinzrob

    Actually the full-price membership is likely going up by a lot, unfortunately. I’ve heard anywhere from $150-180 per year (around $12-15 per month). There may be opportunities for discounts off that price, employer subsidies, etc.

  25.  

    joechoj

    Full price is $88/yr, or $7.33/mo. So $5/mo is about 2/3 full price. Not bad.
    Loss-prevention seems like a tricky issue to work out. People paying by credit card would be foolish to try to steal a bike, since their credit card would be charged some penalty price. I wonder how it would work with other forms of payment.

  26.  

    Prinzrob

    The current plan is to offer a discount rate of $5/month for low income individuals, but that still comes out to $60 per year. There is some work being done to try to find additional subsidies to lower that cost further, as well as accept more forms of payment and at more locations, making the system accessible for more people.

  27.  

    RichLL

    Does the viability of this enterprise depend on perceptions of minimizing shrinkage?

  28.  

    RichLL

    So there are race quotas for bike share locations? Really?

    And because the voters of this state outlawed race quotas we can just do an end-run around that by instead calling them “communities of concern”?

  29.  

    joechoj

    Of course cost is a barrier to using the bike system, especially for low income folks. I know that devising some sort of discount system has been part of the plan for making the system accessible to low income users in the East Bay – but haven’t heard any details. Have you?

  30.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    He also raised a huge stink about Grand Ave. road diet.

  31.  

    Prinzrob

    Thanks for the update Melanie, and keep up the great work!

  32.  

    Melanie Curry

    Bay Area Bike Share has a goal of putting at least 20 percent of the stations in “communities of concern,” which are low-income communities or communities of color as defined by the MTC (http://gis.mtc.ca.gov/samples/Interactive_Maps/cocs.html). Of the 34 proposed stations for Phase 1, they say they’ve sited 16 of them within “communities of concern.”

  33.  

    Melanie Curry

    Thanks for the corrections, Kevin and Prinzrob. The website isn’t as clear about future phases as you are here.

  34.  

    Flatlander

    The theater owner would probably fight it. Remember when he raised a huge stink over (gasp!) extending parking meter hours?

  35.  

    lunartree

    > “For us it represents a gang color”

    Bus lanes are a gang color?… What is wrong with these people?!

  36.  

    Prinzrob

    Some of the biggest barriers to bicycling for low income individuals involve theft and repair issues, due to less access to bike shops. Bike share addresses both of these problems. Of course, then there still has to be bikes located at or near the destinations people want to visit, at a price point that they can afford, and with adequate infrastructure for safe bike trips.

  37.  

    Prinzrob

    I think the idea is that people can hop on a bike after they get off the bus, for that last mile trip to their destination. Of course, that also means another bike share station has to be at or near their location as well.

  38.  

    Prinzrob

    Those additional locations will likely be served in 2017 when phases 2 and 3 of the bike share roll out are implemented. This first phase in 2016 only accounts for 25% of the total bikes and stations to be installed.

  39.  

    Prinzrob

    Many more transit hubs, including Amtrak stations, will get bikes in phases 2 and 3 throughout 2017, when the remaining 75% of the bikes and stations will be installed.

  40.  

    Prinzrob

    The planned service area extends to West Oakland and Fruitvale. This phase 1 of the rollout includes only 25% of the bikes, and phases 2 and 3 will add additional bikes and stations throughout 2017 at more locations around the city.

  41.  

    Prinzrob

    Please see the additional comments on this article. This map only shows phase 1 (2016) including 25% of the bikes to be installed. The remaining 75% (phase 2 and 3) will be installed at additional locations throughout 2017.

  42.  

    murphstahoe

    How is the market of “people who don’t want to have their bike stolen” a niche market?

    I lock my bike up outside for hours with no worry with a simple u-lock – but I live in the cuts now. In 15 years in SF I had an extra beater bike at all times in the event I had to ride somewhere and lock up for an extensive period of time. And I still didn’t do that very often. And it was a hassle because I had to take my lights/bag/etc… off the bike. And I had one stolen.

    I still did it, but it added friction to the system where a certain percentage of the time I would MUNI or cab or (gasp) drive because of security hassle. Bike share removes that completely.

  43.  

    Prinzrob

    This map shows only phase 1, which is 25% of the total bikes and stations to be installed in the East Bay. The remaining 75% will be installed at additional locations throughout 2017.

  44.  

    Prinzrob

    Correct, the map that was recently released (phase 1) is only 25% of the total bikes and stations, to be installed in 2016. The remaining 75% (phases 2 and 3) will be installed throughout 2017, and are not indicated on this map.

  45.  

    Melanie Curry

    I suppose that depends on your definition of “close.” I think it’s a pretty long walk from the ferry to the Amtrak station (which is a whole ‘nother lost opportunity)

  46.  

    Kevin M

    The article isn’t accurate. From the website: “Below are the Proposed Expansion Sites for the first phase of Bay Area Bike Share’s expansion. These are just the beginning of what will be a two-year roll out that will grow bike share from 700 bikes to 7,000 bikes in the Bay Area. We have chosen to start in areas that are contiguous with existing stations or are in the downtown areas to be able to serve the maximum number of bike trips from day one and grow outward from there.”

    There are 1,300 bikes planned for the East Bay cities, but they won’t all fit into this first phase, so there will be far more than the 34 proposed stations by the time the full system is in place.

  47.  

    Mike Jones

    Good points, there are lots of niche markets. However, buses do have bike racks and in at least one “wonderful” European city so do taxis.

  48.  

    J

    Way worse than I expected. Low density of stations + low number of stations = a system only useful for a very small number of trips.

    Imagine a bus network with only 3 lines and 34 stops. Not super useful in an area of this size, so don’t expect much use.

  49.  

    murphstahoe

    “Amtrak stations are left out, though, and so is the West Oakland BART station.”

    If we are going to focus on transit hubs – note that there is a station at the Jack London Sq Ferry. Which is actually pretty close to Amtrak.

  50.  

    murphstahoe

    Buy a bike, and a super heavy very expensive lock, and don’t drink at your destination, because you can’t take a cab home.