Skip to content

Recent Comments


    tommy t

    That doesn’t make sense. There is no room on the Dunbarton for new bus-only lanes, and Palo Alto would never allow the conversion of existing lanes. Never.



    “Were you just prove a point or something?”

    I was – as has been mentioned in this thread – trying to catch a bus…


    alberto rossi

    MonkeyParking will next expand to allow you to rent out your yard for parking, followed by renting out your sidewalk.



    Even it it is technically legal to bicycle on the US101 shoulder at the toll plaza, I can’t figure out why it would be allowed, nor why anyone would want to ride there. Were you just prove a point or something?


    Upright Biker

    What he said and edited to reflect as such. Being as it were. After a manner of speaking.




    I called 311 when Muni ran busses down Valencia on a Sunday. I could hear the eye rolling. Street layout (between 19th and 20th) was:

    1. Parking lane.
    2. Dooring lane.
    3. Too small for busses lane.
    4. Religious parking lane.
    5. Too small for busses lane.
    6. Dooring lane.
    7. Parking lane.

    Also of note, SFPark stopped doing price adjustments before parking on Valencia hit equilibrium, because they started the pricing so low.

    I’m for evening metering, Sunday metering, Sunday illegal parking enforcement, and SFPark. And I vote.


    Jym Dyer

    Regardless, I don’t see how anyone could support the police giving illegal orders. Sidewalks must be free of bikes, so cars can park on them (qua.Baker Street).



    I think 311 would be the place, but I’m sure they just file it away and shrug. Or getting your supervisor involved but I doubt even Wiener would want to tackle this.



    Is there somewhere we can go to complain about the whole double parking for religious reasons thing? It’s not only unfair, it’s a hazard for emergency vehicles.



    Wow, that Bold Italic article is basically click bait, but kind of interesting. Heated seats?


    Mario Tanev

    Regarding MonkeyParking. The city should prohibit owners from parking in front of their curb cut or leasing it. This is:
    1. Fair, because dedicated parking is expensive, so why is the city giving it for free for others to make profit?
    2. It will simplify the enforcement and get money for the city. The city can start citing ANYONE parked in front of a curb cut, without having to verify if it’s the owner or authorized. It’s a good way to make revenue.

    The city should also set up its own program like MonkeyParking to capitalize on curb cuts. It then in turn should start charging the home owner for curb cuts and refund them based on revenue from the program.



    SFPD are very biased against bicyclists and pedestrians who have been injured or killed by motorists. Several years ago, I was knocked down in the crosswalk by a little old man making a left turn from Valencia onto 18th St. He stopped briefly and drove off without offering assistance or giving me his contact info. I was not badly injured, so I continued on my way. The next day I went to Mission Station to report a hit and run and was told that since I did not file a complaint at the time, I could not do so. I didn’t believe them, so I went to the hit-and-run detail at 850 Bryant. They took the report, located the driver from the license plate number which I had copied down. The little old man had never had a moving violation in his life. He admitted that he hit me and drove off. SFPD told him to report it to his insurance company, and I received a settlement. I asked why they did not charge him and was told that since he had a clean record and reported it to his insurance company, they considered the matter closed.



    Automatically the fault of the person who strikes you…



    This is just awful and after the way the SFPD botched Amelia Le Moulac’s case, (on this same street no less) among others, gives the public little faith in their ability to carry out this investigation.

    Is David Campos’ office or the bike coalition working to find out what happened? In other districts the supervisor can be instrumental in putting pressure on the SFPD to actually do their job. In theory the mayor could as well, but we know that’s not the case with our current one.


    Upright Biker

    Plus, when you’re driving a car and someone strikes you from behind, it’s automatically your fault — “failing to keep an assured clear distance” is, I believe, the official wording.

    But if the same thing happens and you’re on a bicycle? “That’s what you get for riding a bicycle” seems to be the official point of view.



    Cops are pricks. That isn’t going to change, you just have to deal with that. It would be nice if they knew there was some consequence for lying.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    What’s the systematic solution to this city’s police department problem of letting drivers get away with murdering cyclists? What can we do to change this system because it’s obviously very very broken. Would a vulnerable victims law help? Our streets are never going to be safe when there’s no justice for drivers killing us. Something has to change.



    He probably thought I was going to ride the bridge. When he figured out he was wrong – he had as little concept of their being a bus stop (right at the toll plaza immediately at the entrance) as you – instead of apologizing he made up some story. When I called his bluff – and told him flat out there was no sign he claimed existed, he tripled down. He was embarassed to be caught being lazy and too proud to back down.

    That’s a culture problem.


    Dave Moore

    I saw your photos, but never having been at that spot it wasn’t clear to me exactly where it was. Your initial post just said “at the GG bridge”. As I said then I wasn’t sure what you meant. Even in your followup it wasn’t totally clear…I thought the bus stop was somewhere later on, not where you were stopped. I said all along that I didn’t get it. You had a lot of context I didn’t.

    Yes: cops should be better at their jobs, and not make stuff up. But from what you said it also seems possible that he was just mistaken and not lying.



    Do you not have a problem with a cop not knowing the law, so he just makes it up as he goes along?

    I am of the belief that not only was the cop making it up (I don’t quite think he was lying) – but that his theory on the legality of my presence at the spot I was – the GGT bus stop – was incorrect. I told you where the signage is and posted pictures. When someone refers to the “sidewalks” with respect to the GGB, that typiically means the sidewalks that cross the bridge, not the sidewalks to the bus stop. I hope that reduces your confusion.

    But that doesn’t matter to me – what matters is that the cop cares so little about his craft that he doesn’t care what the law is. That is what leads to things like SFPD not bothering to see if there is video evidence at the site of the Le Moullac death. It’s just flat out lazy.


    Dave Moore

    I’m sorry. I guess I’m lost. I honestly can’t figure out what you mean. You said you were pulled over “at the Golden Gate Bridge” on your bike and that the cop said to get on the sidewalk, which you said was illegal. Although their website says sidewalks are ok. Were you on the road? And you agree the website says the road is illegal for bikes, right? So is your problem is that the cop was right but made up the sign so he’s incompetent? Or is it that if there’s no sign it doesn’t matter what the official rules are?

    Seriously, I don’t understand the outrage. I must be missing something.



    QFT— murphstahoe (@murphstahoe) March 24, 2015



    @gln— murphstahoe (@murphstahoe) March 20, 2015




    How did you read that and go “Hmm. I bet that he was riding somewhere that maybe he’s not legally supposed to be” as opposed to “wow. that cop just lied to Murph, or was completely ignorant so he just made something up”.

    What I do know is that there is NO sign that says bicycles are prohibited, contrary to the statement of this incompetent SFPD officer. Then, just past the bus stop, there IS a sign that says bicycles prohibited.

    The only silver lining was that one thing that is definitely illegal is a u-turn once you’ve gotten as far as that cop did. He had to drive to Sausalito as penance for being a liar.


    Dave Moore

    I thought bicycles aren’t allowed on the bridge. Maybe you’re referring to some other area near the bridge where they are (it’s not clear from your post). Or maybe you’re just saying there’s no sign. Or maybe I’m wrong; I never looked before. But I see here:

    Other Exclusions: None of the following shall be permitted to enter upon the Bridge roadway and its approaches:

    Bicycles are only allowed on the sidewalks.



    I was pulled over by the SFPD at the Golden Gate Bridge. The officer barked at me to “GET ON THE SIDEWALK”. Since I am a white middle aged male on an expensive bike, I actually had the temerity to bark back at him “RIDING ON THE SIDEWALK IS ILLEGAL”.

    He told me “There is a sign saying BIKES PROHIBITED”. I asked him “WHERE?” He said “Back there!”.

    Suffice to say, there was no sign “Back there!” He was either
    A) Lying
    B) Making it up as he went along.

    I said “I don’t want to miss my bus so I won’t bother to make you walk back there so you can show me the sign that doesn’t exist”

    Where do they get these people?



    Somewhere, there is a “most successful SamTrans line”. Just because it is the “most successful X” does not imply that it is any good.

    I flew into LAX and took a cab.


    Andy Chow

    In Los Angeles, one of the most successful airport bus routes to LAX is the one from Union Station, where it is the hub for the region’s trains and buses but quite far from the airport. The bus runs every 30 minutes and charges $8 each way (with pass for employees). One could also reach the airport from Union Station via Metro Rail and a shuttle from the nearest Green Line stop to LAX. That costs $1.75 but requires multiple stops and transfers. The shuttle does run more frequently.



    This is a pattern in a lot of places, the police leak a conclusion that the cyclist was at fault while the blood is still wet and the newspapers report that.

    Only later the investigation shows otherwise and only Streetsblog reports that.



    Why are they comfortable releasing their conclusions but not the evidence they say they used to come to that conclusion? If “…the case is still open and active, we do not discuss open and active investigation matters,” then they shouldn’t be discussing their conclusions either. Unfortunately – and I know this from people who have had to work with the SFPD after they’ve been struck – the SFPD is TERRIBLE when it comes to writing accurate crash reports (or knowing the CVC), and they have been outright hostile to those who have been struck by cars.



    SFPD: bias, bias, bias.



    This is a great example of why I try to avoid sitting idly at red lights when there are no cars in sight. I don’t trust people to be looking for or see me, and I’m essentially in the very center of the street.



    This doesn’t add up at all. If he was struck from behind while running a red, wouldn’t that mean that the driver that hit him was running the red too?



    Ah, but this is suburbia/urban sprawl, and everyone drives huge SUVs, including the police. I don’t see them narrowing lanes any time soon.



    I live in Sunnyvale and agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The lanes on Lawrence are indeed labeled as bike lanes, but cars pass at 40-50MPH, and it’s a major alternate rush hour route for many cars with distracted drivers. Add to that a carpool lane on the right hand side that is also used by buses – it’s a disaster.



    as the crow flies it’s a lot closer. But shuttles have to drive. From Santa Clara you go around the airport on surface streets. From Diridon you take 87.

    Google maps says 9 minutes from Santa Clara, 13 minutes from Diridon. While this is in fact 50% faster, a train from pretty much anywhere to Diridon will save you a lot more than 4 minutes compared to a train to Santa Clara – and you have more than double the number of options.


    Amanda Clark

    Well, Santa Clara Caltrain *is* quite a bit closer than Diridon, but I still agree in general.



    “When all trains stopped in Santa Clara, Caltrain wasn’t running 5 trains per hour.”

    This isn’t relevant to the question “If we run a shuttle, where should it run from”. The answer to that question is “wherever the most trains stop that is closest to the airport”. When the shuttle started, the answer was Santa Clara. Now, the answer is Diridon.

    I occasionally take Caltrain down the peninsula, and if I get a late start and don’t have my bike, I take the 60 from Santa Clara to work. It runs on a published schedule. I would trade a published schedule for more frequent service in a heartbeat. Generally speaking I have to wait at least 15 minutes for the bus which runs every 30 minutes. For reference, it takes 10 minutes for me to just ride a bike to work from SC.


    Andy Chow

    When all trains stopped in Santa Clara, Caltrain wasn’t running 5 trains per hour.

    Airport workers, like everyone else, need dependable service, not necessarily be a very frequent one. Unlike Muni, which doesn’t operate on a published schedule unless for some of the neighborhood routes, VTA does. This plan provides direct service to downtown (where people who live or stay there don’t need to transfer at all) and improves transfer to other buses (eliminating double transfer for passengers from Santa Cruz, Monterey, Fremont, etc). More people live or stay in downtown than along the existing 10 line.

    I believe the staff is being careful not to completely yank the service on the 10, which provides a more convenient connection if traveling on the north of west side of the county. I also believe that the ridership numbers back their decision.



    Cargo Way has sensors embedded in the ground that work pretty well–basically looks like one of the in-ground parking detectors that were installed around town: a 3-inch diameter epoxy/rubber filled hole.

    “Work well” here means the bike signal shows up at the next opportunity and I am not hanging around waiting for 3 cycles of the light as I get my bike positioned correctly. “Works well” also means I KNOW I will have a red bike-light on every approach to the intersection (and the shitty chain-link fence divider blocks auto-bike visibility in both directions (unless someone’s stolen that section of chainlink again)).



    I’m dubious about this, myself, especially since I used to ride Cargo Way as part of a morning exercise loop both before and after the bikeway was put in. But maybe I’m not clear on the details for Polk.

    So if I’m a cyclist, I approach the intersection in the bikelane. What I fear will happen next: 90% of the time the special bikelane light is going to be red. It’s red when crossing traffic has right of way, but it’s also red whenever the north/southbound auto traffic has right of way. The only time I’m going to have a right of way to continue without stopping is when there was a cyclist ahead of me to set off the separate signal. Or, since I am comfortable with riding in traffic, I’ll move into the main traffic lane and ride through on the ‘regular’ green.

    End result: we install “beg buttons” in the street for cyclists which will have the effect of slowing down cyclists that follow the traffic signals and create another “we gave cyclists their own signal but they still ride through it” People Behaving Badly segment opportunity.

    Granted, the “beg button” detector on Cargo Way works surprisingly well (especially since you can see where it’s embedded right now) to trigger the special light cycle to start when the next opportunity comes along.


    Jym Dyer

    • This weekend I saw the SFPD pulling motorists over into this very spot to issue tickets, presumably for not making the turn off of Market. They were ticketing cars westbound, too, pulling them over into the “protected” bike lanes as well.

    They were still at it this morning, in the middle of heavy bike commute hours. I saw Sgt. Ernst himself at work. Expect the counts to be low today.



    Yes but an up to 30 minute wait time results in people choosing to drive.


    Andy Chow

    This new line could help change that since there will be a lot more direct transfers from more areas in Downtown San Jose.



    If the goal is to consolidate airport users to the Diridon connection that might be OK, but then the frequency from Diridon should be higher.



    Also, for people who work at the airport and whose commute includes a transfer – VTA may be underestimating the time-sensitivity of workers, including lower-income workers. Metro San Jose include Santa Clara has the highest car ownership rate in the country – 94%. 94% of households includes a lot of lower-income people who commute by car because transit is too slow to be practical.


    Andy Chow

    The OAC is charged accordingly $6 one way. A budget alternative is to go on the street level and take AC Transit paralleling the OAC.

    Even with BART to SFO you will see some backpackers taking the SamTrans 292 to Downtown SF.



    Like I said, favoritism all around.



    We need a time machine to go back in time so you can point this out to Steve Hemenger re: OAC