Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    Great, another 2 years. While I applaud this finally getting approved, the process for bicycle improvements in this city is horrible. Other cities around the country are able to design and build protected bike lanes in months, not decades. Copenhagen would still be the car-centric city it was in the 70’s if their planning process was as inefficient as San Francisco. Done is better than perfect! At the rate they’re going, San Francisco will finally get a useful network of complete and protected bike lanes connecting every neighborhood in the city right around the same time the world’s oil supplies run out!

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    gotta say that the approach in SoMa should always be to earnestly involve the neighbors

    This is the best approach *everywhere*

  3.  

    jamiewhitaker

    I am quite pleased with this much-improved for pedestrians and bicyclists plan – and gotta say that the approach in SoMa should always be to earnestly involve the neighbors from the start in order to get the best result that folks who have to live with it will support (mostly).

    The original plan was half-assed and, worse, the community outreach was performed by a condescending smartass from SFMTA coming to our neighborhood group and telling us what some folks had planned without involving the community that they were going to shove down our throats whether we liked it or not. Well, neighbors were not in the mood to be bullied in 2009.

    SoMa residents, in general, know transportation is a wreck in our part of town and not coordinated with Planning Department approvals for huge buildings at all, so it seems. There is the tricky problem of there being Rincon Hill and not much connectivity between South Beach and Rincon Hill from Beale over to 2nd, but hopefully folks figure things out … And hopefully CONGESTION PRICING sees the light of day downtown to throttle some of the traffic volumes heading to the Bay Bridge on weekday evenings at least.

  4.  

    David Baker

    i thought when the SF Bike Plan came out in the early millennium that bike lanes would be implemented soon after on Second. It’s taken a while longer, but the silver lining to the delay is the design got many times better. It’s likely that the construction schedule will slip a bit, but it’s really moving forward now and will be completed. That’s fantastic! Woo hoo!

  5.  

    ARRO

    The elephant in the room is what plans does SFMTA have to re-route traffic headed for I-80? It is mentioned de-emphasizing this route, but that does not magically make any existing traffic headed for I-80 disappear and simply pushes gridlock onto other streets unless there are plans to enhance flow for autos/taxis on other corridors.

  6.  

    gneiss

    Great. Another approved project that we can watch SFTMA and DPW delay indefinitely as they fail to get themselves organized to complete the work, just like the rebuilding on Masonic. Sometimes I think that the only reason why they approve these projects is so those departments can show they are making progress, when in fact, there is no political will to get them done.

  7.  

    twinpeaks_sf

    If the plans are to scale and the traffic lanes are 10-12′, the cycle track should be 6-7′ wide (perhaps varying at points).

  8.  

    MrEricSir

    The article mentions that VTA has wifi, but that’s only sort of true. Their wifi is so slow that by the time you get to your destination (roughly 4-5 hours given the speed of their trains) you’re lucky if you’ve downloaded a single email.

  9.  

    MrEricSir

    Sounds nice, but this should have been completed 15 years ago when the ballpark opened and all the new office space started popping up along 2nd and 3rd. Certainly someone should have seen this problem coming.

  10.  

    the_greasybear

    This redesign is worth the wait. So much better than the original plan.

  11.  

    BBnet3000

    How wide are the cycletracks? It seems quite an oversight to not have included that in the presentation.

  12.  

    Gezellig

    Called GGT customer service and asked about it and the operator said that just today she was told “they’re putting the finishing touches on it.” (realtime tracking).

    Of course, they told me essentially the same thing the last time I inquired about it in July 2014, so…we’ll see.

  13.  

    theqin

    Why can’t they offer wifi as a subscription service in order to increase their farebox recovery ratio? Saying that it’s too hard to do because of metal trains passing through tunnels is just an excuse, Amtrak doesn’t seem to have that problem and they offer free wifi on a number of their lines including the cascades and surfliner routes.

  14.  

    Dark Soul

    For SF Sunset Fire – 18-46th Avenue was disrupted as well….18 had some turning problems….

  15.  

    murphstahoe

    The most common recommendation for safer bicycling is “don’t crash”

  16.  

    Andy Chow

    SFMTA should clear parking on Fulton and Lincoln (facing the park) for large events. Give a few blocks as taxi stand, another few blocks for other charter/party buses/limos, and another few blocks for TNC and other pickup/drop offs (but no car allowed to wait, just like airports). This is a better use of space than all day free parking for some concert goers who arrive extra early.

  17.  

    jd_x

    Because data limits on phone plans, poor coverage (I use Sprint and get terribleor no data connection for about 1/2 of the Caltrain corridor), slower speeds, and higher power consumption.

  18.  

    jd_x

    And do we know the majority of bicycle crashes result in head injuries let alone ones that could have been prevented by a helmet (since a helmet doesn’t help you when a car runs over your head)?

    The point here is the bias against bicyclists where too many people reference the helmet issue without applying the same logic to driving or any other cause of head injures (which first and foremost includes walking). And that’s because they aren’t actually trying to be logical but are unconsciously or consciously avoiding the deeper issue that bicyclists and their unique needs as well as their safety are usually neglected by urban design, motorists, and the law. The helmet issue is nothing but a distraction and the inconsistency in which it is applied (only to bicyclists but to no other modes of transit) verifies a tremendous bias.

    But no, I’m not advocating for motorists to wear helmets, though I would do so before I would do so for bicyclists given that there are much more head injuries from car usage since it is an inherently much more dangerous activity given the mass, speed, and power invovled.

  19.  

    p_chazz

    Who needs wi-fi? Most people have Internet-enabled smartphones, which can be made into hot spots.

  20.  

    SF Guest

    Car accidents being the second leading cause of head injuries doesn’t necessarily mean the majority of car collisions result in head injuries or airbag deployment.

    Are you in favor of mandatory helmets for drivers? If so, why?

  21.  

    Prinzrob

    BAAQMD grants are available for BikeLink locker installations, with the latest yearly grant applications due soon: http://www.baaqmd.gov/grant-funding/public-agencies/bike-racks-and-lockers

    I’ve heard that this can be a time-consuming application process to deal with, but at least it’s there for anyone willing to take advantage of it.

  22.  

    jd_x

    For Caltrain, it would be great to see a company like — oh I don’t know: Google! — offer to pay for wi-fi. It would give them good PR since there is so much tension about their efforts via Google Buses to create a second tier of “public” transit beyond Caltrain. Seems like a no-brainer. Aren’t they already trying to roll-out free wi-fi in NYC?
    http://bgr.com/2015/06/26/new-york-free-google-wi-fi/

  23.  

    Prinzrob

    The proposal I would like to see for the Richmond-San Rafael bridge would keep the bike/ped path on the upper deck, but convert the shoulder on the lower deck into a bus-only lane which runs counter flow in the morning to serve the commute direction, and then eastward in the afternoon to serve the evening commute. No additional car lanes & therefore induced SOV traffic this way.

  24.  

    Gezellig

    I get that adding wifi to transit can be troublesome, which is why I’m consistently amazed at how Golden Gate Transit added it to all their buses yet still doesn’t have realtime tracking–which Muni and BART have had for years.

  25.  

    Gezellig

    Yeah! When I lived in the neitherhood between West Portal and Ingleside I’d often bike to that station, park it on the street and hope for the best.

  26.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    A West Portal bike station would be brilliant! It would really open up the possibilities for commuting for the whole West side!

  27.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    I don’t disagree, but the bus-stop is not the right place for it to happen. The city could stand to have many more loading zones for taxis and commercial deliveries so they don’t have to all double-park.

    Also, a huge festival like that should create a space for taxis and TNC cars to pick up/drop off.

  28.  

    SFnative74

    This is a great way to link bike trips and transit trips. I think something like this out in West Portal station could be great for people who want to get to the station quickly and take light rail downtown.

  29.  

    jd_x

    Except they’re not since the second leading cause of head injuries is car accidents:
    http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/BlueBook_factsheet-a.pdf

    It’s funny how when motorists get the whole helmet thing thrown at them they get as defense as bicyclists as to why they shouldn’t wear them and come up with all sorts of excuses.

    At the end of the day, as proven by northern European countries like Denmark and Copenhagen which have the highest percentage of bicyclists and the lowest head injuries from bicycling, bicycling is not a dangerous activity that warrants a helmet anymore than walking. What is dangerous, however, is forcing bicyclists to share the same space as 2-ton, 200 hp powered vehicles and expecting bicyclists to act cars even though they have nothing to do with them except that they both have wheels. Thus, if we really care about protecting bicyclists, we would be passionately arguing for separated infrastructure and laws and enforcement that acknowledges that a bicycle is not a car. Doing otherwise, as Jimbo has done, is a distraction and a cop-out from any real solution.

  30.  

    SF Guest

    Seat belt laws are sufficient for the majority of motor vehicle accidents.

  31.  

    SF Guest

    From the League of American Bicyclists: “The use of helmets is perhaps the most common recommendation for safer bicycling. The League has encouraged bicyclists to wear helmets for more than 25 years, and our affiliated clubs and advocacy groups typically require their use on organized rides. However, the League does not support mandatory helmet laws because of the many potential unintended consequences.”

  32.  

    Andy Chow

    Taxis pay taxes to the city and the city grants them permit to operate, so the city should accommodate them just as them accommodate themselves (Muni transit). The TNC cars, the main competitor to taxis, are more problematic. They double park and block lanes wherever they want waiting for their pick up.

  33.  

    pablo_skils

    Thank you for saying this. When I came here from England I couldn’t believe how constipated the streets are here. English roads have their own problems, but ridiculous over-use of stop signs isn’t one of them.

  34.  

    murphstahoe

    Not confused. Just trolling. The author could be pretty much anyone, the more messed up the sentence structure or argument, the better to get a response.

    Note how I played back to one of “Jimbo’s” tropes above, and he just went to the next troll without blinking. Responding is like responding to Eliza.

  35.  

    pablo_skils

    Dark Soul is of course incorrect. Refer to the Idaho case study. There was no reported increase in bicycle related accidents.

  36.  

    pablo_skils

    In practical terms, the correct answer is: It depends. If the cyclist actually is unsighted, then the safest procedure is to stop. Often when there is a bike lane and a car to the left at a crosswalk, the cyclist has a good view of the crosswalk and can safely proceed with caution through it without stopping.

    One thing you might not understand is the matter is more one of energy/fatigue than convenience. Motivating yourself from stopped takes a lot more effort than accelerating from 3-5 mph. This might sound trivial, but with experience you will learn it is not.

    To a lesser degree, there is also an issue of safety. Many newer cyclists wobble a little during the first few pedal strokes when moving from a stopped position. In a crowded street this increases the hazard for all users regardless of transport mode.

  37.  

    pablo_skils

    This man should be Mayor Avalos.

  38.  

    NoeValleyJim

    They can’t even construct a complete and correct sentence in the English language.

  39.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Why aren’t you in favor of mandatory helmet laws for motorists?

  40.  

    MrEricSir

    Even with the bike stations, there’s still an insane amount of wasted mezzanine space in all of SF’s BART and Muni Metro stations. I’ve always wondered how much the opportunity cost is of not leasing more space out to private vendors.

  41.  

    Gezellig

    Great! Looks like Bikelink updated their map of available locations, too (“G” for “garage” secure group parking now shown at both Embarcadero and Civic Center stations. “L” is individual lockers, “V” is a card vendor).

    Bikelink’s pretty awesome–I use it pretty often when it’s near where I’m going. Now…for the rest of the city.

  42.  

    BBnet3000

    I wish New York’s MTA could get a clue from these, especially at commuter rail stations and outlying subway stops. I suspect that it will be decades before they figure it out. Way to go Bay Area!

  43.  

    relentlesscactus

    God IS in charge.

  44.  

    relentlesscactus

    You cannot recall God.

  45.  

    relentlesscactus

    Thankfully, you can’t make your argument.

  46.  

    relentlesscactus

    Avalos, you are a God. May this spread throughout the land. There is nothing more ridiculous than a law that only a tiny fraction of people don’t openly ignore because they know it’s ridiculous. Laws such “bikes stopping at stop signs” trivialize important safety laws.

  47.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    People should probably just wear helmets at all times. When is it ever safer to not wear a helmet? HELMETS!

  48.  

    Rain__or__Shine

    You are confused. “Person of color” is a modern and PC term. Perhaps you are thinking of “colored people” or “coloreds.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

    http://n.pr/1K4M7c5

  49.  

    Jimbo

    Murph I am “people of color” as you put it. Not exactly a PC term, but white priviledge generally keeps people from thinking or caring about what they say. We are discriminated against and are stopped for every violation, much more than caucasians. I dont see why creating a law that would save cyclists lives should be stopped because of this. Otherwise we would have to cancel every type of law.

  50.  

    Prinzrob

    A Vallejo couple biking on the sidewalk was intentionally run over by a hit-run driver in a rental car who was later caught and arrested on suspicion of attempted murder:
    http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28660564/couple-riding-bikes-intentionally-hit-by-car-vallejo