Skip to content

Recent Comments



    The only two headline news I can think of is that ABC7 News Report of SFMTA plans to construct a raised bike lane on two block of Market St on the existing protected bike lanes in downtown somewhere in the eastbound direction. Another article on the SF Examiner on a former state senator named John Burton who wrote a letter to supervisor john avalos on how his “bike yield law” is crazy, something like that. That’s all I can think of though…


    City Resident

    This is a great idea, especially if it is underground or on its own right-of-way for as long as possible. As Golden Gate Transit riders know, service along the 101 corridor in Marin is alright, but for riders to or from the Peninsula it is often an inconvenient trip on public transit. A T connection to the Golden Gate Bridge would be incredible, allowing for a direct Caltrain connection – making a public transit commute from the North Bay to the Peninsula and vice versa that much easier.



    No headlines today?


    Bob Gunderson

    Sounds more like a sequel to the Saw franchise!


    Marven Norman

    Yep, especially since Caltrans also claims that they want to triple biking by 2020. Here’s a great chance for them to put their foot down and do so. I’d get more involved, but I already have too much going on of my own here in the IE.


    Marven Norman

    Part of the highway*. The highway is the entire right-of-way for public travel, which will usually include sidewalks and of course the roadway, shoulders, etc.



    Under common law, a pedestrian walkway *is* a “highway”. It’ll be interesting to see what law they’re citing…



    This is the tack to take. If this abusive “funding for cars but not for people” tactic is actually illegal under state law, then you can force their hand.


    Darksoul SF

    Your claim and possibility others not my focus to harass or whatever you call it talking” trash to dead people “

    All i doing is freely responding to the article within the rules

    Do not twist it around.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    Free speech doesn’t give you the right to harass people or ridicule dead people. You are a despicable troll who’s account should be deleted.


    Jym Dyer

    Bob Gunderson must be very upset. I’m lighting a single (gasoline-powered) white candle for him. Stay strong, bro.


    Jym Dyer

    @NoeValleyJim – Yes, the Embarcadero is under Port Authority jurisdiction and the sidewalk there is a multi-use path (MUP). There’s another prominent example along Kezar Drive, indicated with brass bike stamps.


    Jym Dyer

    @Foginacan – Which bike advocates, specifically? I have never in my life heard a bike advocate support biking on the sidewalk, even where it’s legal. (It is legal in most of the world, most of the nation, and most California jurisdictions, the main exceptions being specified business districts. It is not legal in San Francisco and nobody claims that it is.)


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Ben Fried, please give us a new StreetsblogSF editor. Yes, do a big fund-raising campaign if you have to.


    Marven Norman

    Does this involve a state highway? Per SHC §887.8, Caltrans is required to provide bike improvements “parallel” anytime a state highway is improved. It might be worth a shot to see exactly how that could be applied in this case.



    Holly St. US101 overpass is hell. Used to bike over it every day. It is representative of the serious failure to appropriately design roadways to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Basically it is a death trap.
    I solved part of the problem by refusing to bike on the right side of the road, which is asking for death, instead biking along the far left side immediately adjacent to the median. Why they don’t put the bike lane there is beyond belief and indicative of idiocy at the highest levels of traffic planning (or should we say lack thereof).


    David Marcus

    I can barely stand so little new content on SF Streetsblog. Hope the new editor is hired soon. The City needs Streetsblog!


    Darksoul SF

    Currently the F-Market and the

    E Embarcadero
    and 39 Coit runs at that area.



    Fellow GGT rider here. This would be a great way to create a seamless transfer for GGT, rather than having all of its routes putter through the congested Financial District as some sort of strange (and redundant!) regional-turned-local service. As Jarrett Walker put it:

    “The logic of connections is the logic of good seams in general. They happen in places where it’s already logical for transit services to be discontinuous — either because of a natural boundary or because of a clear division of labor between regional and local service. Those “good fences”, once found, can make for happy neighboring transit authorities, which will find it easy to work together for the sake of the customer’s liberty.”

    At the very least, let’s get some transit-only lanes down Doyle Drive and truly incentivize transit for those coming from the North Bay.



    Haha yeah that’s my favorite!

    The “not a freeway because the name has ‘Drive’ in it” that has all the trappings of a freeway, no transit provisions whatsoever (not even an HOV lane), initially sets the speed limit at 35mph (yeah, right!) yet reminds drivers to “slow to 35” at a curve and then literally has “END FREEWAY” signs at the end of the Totally Not A Freeway:



    When we finally made it over, I saw the SB GGB traffic had two lanes with NB at four, which mystifies me,

    Sadly this is the new norm (at least for this quarter) which GGBHTD has been doing from 4-6p on weekdays.

    Due to this SB 101 regularly now backs up several miles before the bridge even with no incident.

    It’s gotten so bad I now take the 10 or 92 buses back home to SF rather than bother with the 101, 70 or 4. Normally the 10 or 92 are slower since they pick up locally through Sausalito, only joining up again with 101 *right* before the bridge. But that’s now a huge time saver because they sidestep all the backup a few miles before the bridge on SB 101.



    We just spent a billion dollars doubling the width of the freeway going from the bridge to the Marina. Let the tourists drive, I guess!



    We were stuck in traffic SB at Wolfback (just over the hill) and it was taking a minute or two at a time for each car to move out of the way of the fire trucks/ambulances. Took an extra hour to get from Shoreline to the Presidio, which was also backed up in every direction from people fleeing the backups.

    When we finally made it over, I saw the SB GGB traffic had two lanes with NB at four, which mystifies me, as I would think reversing that would have allowed traffic to flow a little in order to let emergency services up, even if it meant halting traffic at some point near Shoreline to prevent re-filling the space.



    Planet of the Apes Bikeway



    And for that matter, the Marina/Presidio/GG Bridge!

    As a daily GGT bus rider I feel the pain of bewildered tourists confused about how to get back to central SF from the bridge. They buy a multi-day transit pass, end up at the bridge, then when done see the prominent bus stop alongside 101:

    Well within SF city limits, mind you, a bus comes and then to an overwhelmingly nonnative-English-speaking crowd the driver quickly barks out:


    (“what? why? but we bought a bus pass for all buses in SF!” etc.).

    Meanwhile, this daily charade with 10-15 people needlessly delays the GGT commuters. It happens nearly every. day.

    As I pointed out here:

    The GG Bridge alone sees up to 10k people crossing it by foot every day, and a rail connection would probably encourage even more to venture out there. Even if “only” half took transit, with the roundtrip you could easily be seeing daily boardings in the teen-thousands just for the bridge alone. Compare this to the J-Church, whose entire line sees about 17k daily boardings *total*.

    From the perspective of thousands of daily tourists it’d be the Train To Basically Everywhere (GG Bridge/Presidio/Palace of Fine Arts/Fisherman’s Wharf/North Beach/Chinatown/Union Square/Ballpark). Not to mention pretty useful to all the people who live within the walkshed of such a line (especially the many residents of the Marina, northern Russian Hill/Wharf/North Beach who are currently relatively underserved by transit).

    Btw, another plus would be for SF Marin commuters. Imagine hopping on the express 101 bus (currently goes from San Rafael Transit Center to the bridge in about 30 minutes), making one well-timed transfer at the bridge to a train that would smoothly take you downtown.

    We really need to do better thinking regionally.



    The zipper truck thing happened on Wednesday, not yesterday.

    The next 101 stop is San Rafael. And all buses start in SF anyway



    I don’t think so. He posts the same comments on many other blogs which do not have a pro-cycling editorial position, so I don’t think he’s just doing this to troll us.



    Wow, the accident involved the zipper truck?! Or wait, that was a separate accident? The zipper truck wasn’t there when I passed by (not that I recall at least?) and it just looked like a burned out car (the flames were gone when I passed). SFGate was scant on the details (surprise), but seems like a Zipper Truck accident would be newsworthy?

    Well, hopefully you used your bike to catch the 101 bus north of the bridge? Ride to the Marin City stop, Manazanita Park & Ride, or one the Hwy 101 bus pad stops? It might even have been faster to ride to the San Rafael Transit Center, assuming GGT had buses to send north ? Hopefully GGT transit didn’t just strand/significantly delay the rest of the riders north of the bridge as a result of the accident?



    Wednesday night I was waiting for GGT at the bridge. We saw the sign flasing “CAUTION – ZIPPER TRUCK AHEAD”. The sign then changed to “CAUTION – ACCIDENT AHEAD”. There was a 3 car collision that also involved the zipper truck which ironically exists to prevent accidents.

    I had my bike but unfortunately was going a lot further than Mill Valley.


    Upright Biker

    Extend the Central Subway to the Wharf.



    Car fire on the GGB:

    NB car/bus traffic was closed entirely (some people were out of their cars wandering around on the bridge); SB traffic was a single lane and traffic backed up north of the E. Blithedale exit in MV. I peddled past the car fire at about 5:45p and things were a mess. Because of the traffic, several fire trucks couldn’t even reach the fire and were stuck in traffic (I saw at least 2 that were sitting in traffic on the bridge, there might have been a 3rd, but I don’t remember). It definitely was a good day to commute by bike!

    Bike commuting might be a little slower than cars on most days, but travel time by bike is very predictable, never any wildly delayed trips. I’ll trade a few minutes on my commute for a tight standard deviation on travel time!



    My take on DarkSoul is that it’s just someone having a bit of fun at our expense. See: Jimbo


    Alexander Vucelic

    they are scared of the future



    Don’t waste your time. Jimbo and Foginacan are living in denial of basic geometry and physics.



    @cjerdonek:disqus thanks for the info! @changetip:disqus



    while i’m not speaking of you personally, I’m going to use you in general to refer to the entire streetsblog community

    No, you don’t get to do that, because despite what you think, not everyone who comments on this blog thinks alike. You don’t get to win an argument with me by defeating a straw man argument of what you think the “Streetsblog community” thinks about an issue. If you’re going to hit the reply button under my comment, you better be addressing what I wrote.

    Do you actually think [he]’s actively gloating in the death of a cyclist because he hates cyclists and hopes they die?

    No, I think he’s convincing himself that victims of traffic collisions are always to blame for their fate, so that he doesn’t have to worry about safer streets. People like to believe what they want to be true rather than what is actually true.

    I’d bet dollars to donuts DS is a themselves a cyclist, and probably an extreme one at that, moreso even than streetsblog editors, in word and deed.

    His profile says he’s a bus driver. Given that he seems to have an good knowledge of Muni routes, that may well be true. There’s zero evidence that he’s a cyclist, and no reason for you to jump to that conclusion; but as I said above, people love to believe what they want to believe.

    But anyway, you advocate some activity was safe, and someone died doing it – examine your thinking.

    Show me where I – or anyone else – advocated that blasting through a stop sign without yielding was a safe thing to do.



    Sure, you are textually correct. I guess I would say, you aren’t reading between the obvious lines. This is a perfect example – while i’m not speaking of you personally, I’m going to use you in general to refer to the entire streetsblog community. You are being accused of abandoning your critical thinking facilities in the name of community allegiance at whatever cost.

    They way I read his comments, is that DS is telling you to examine your thinking, even if obtusely. Do you actually think [he]’s actively gloating in the death of a cyclist because he hates cyclists and hopes they die? I’d bet dollars to donuts DS is a themselves a cyclist, and probably an extreme one at that, moreso even than streetsblog editors, in word and deed. It seems less likely that he’s a stone-cold rando.

    But anyway, you advocate some activity was safe, and someone died doing it – examine your thinking. Imagine what you might think if someone who advocated gun ownership for home protection was then killed by an accidental discharge. There is no reason not to apply the same attitude reflexively to yourself. Instead, of course, the policy of Streetsblog is to double down: instead of lean back of hard data that might perhaps support an argument that the Idaho Stop is sensible (worse case scenario: on the whole, the benefit outweighs the miniscule costs), attack those who question it as inherently lesser humans less deserving of respect and consideration. Streetsbloggers wonder why there is “bikelash” – a simple look in the mirror will provide all the answers. Its a tactic of weakness that absolutely rings alarm bells with me (if you think you are right, you should not be afraid of data, rhetorical challenge, or anything else) and others, perhaps like DS. That he chooses to express himself differently doesn’t invalidate the point: Ideologically-based belief systems [ie, a site-orthodoxy, which is absolutely part of the streetsblog community] are antithetical to effective policy and positive outcomes.



    I often do disagree with the policy stance of Streetsblog, and I voice those disagreements in the comments.

    It’s fine to voice disagreements. The issue with ‘Darksoul’ is that he regularly engages in victim blaming, by claiming that a traffic collision happened differently to how all the reports said it occurred. For example, he will claim that a photo of a cyclist on the windshield of a car was staged, or that the tree hit the truck rather than the other way round.

    We know that determining what happened in a collision can be tricky, but when someone regularly denies facts that are generally agreed on by all parties involved, and when those distortions of the truth always place the blame on the victim, we can safely say that the person making those distortions is motivated by a desire to blame the victim rather than an honest desire to determine what actually happened. This behavior adds no value to the debate and should result in a ban.



    Does Mannix realize she just called an entire state and entire countries, such as the Netherlands, insane? Areas which have far, far safer streets than ours?


    Darksoul SF

    Chief Suhr says “Stop signs are pretty simple. They say ‘stop,’” … “They don’t say ‘yield,’ they don’t say ‘slow down.’” This is about Bike Yield Law or the “Safe” Idaho Stop



    There’s no law…

    But it reflects on the people involved. If Streetsblog were to ban him, it’d send a very clear message that participation is dependent on agreement with the site’s orthodoxy.

    They’ll come a day when you disagree with a policy stance here.


    Thomas Rogers

    As a member of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), I have to say- I’m flattered at the idea that we’re worthy of mayoral/SFPD arm-twisting! We’ve had trouble getting SFPD participation at our meetings recently, and the Mayor has never graced our hearing room. I’m pretty sure a majority of our membership would support this common-sense legislation regardless, but for the Mayor and Captain Mannix: it couldn’t have hurt to have given us your input earlier. Hope to see you at a future PSAC meeting, regardless!



    And this has what to do with Jane Kim or the issues on Townsend St.?



    Ah, the troll comes back to spout more gibberish. Got it.


    Darksoul SF

    Chief Suhr says “Stop signs are pretty simple. They say ‘stop,’” … “They don’t say ‘yield,’ they don’t say ‘slow down.’”



    I don’t read Darksoul’s comments.



    Now, why could it be that you’re commenting on murphstahoe’s grammar and ignoring Darksoul’s….. let me think….



    Should be “Every woman who rides HER bike..” or “All women who ride their bikes…”



    I biked over a thumb tack on the separated bike path on cargo way. I have a hard time understand who there is that hates bikes there, given that the bike path is separated from traffic via a fence, and also it is in the middle of an industrial district with very light traffic other than trucks. But actually the worst part is that I was biking with my daughter on my bike and it was 95 degrees outside.



    “We’re opposed to [the Bike Yield Law] because it’s insane,” Mannix told the Examiner. “Any more chaos on our streets is not a good idea.”

    Makes me think she doesn’t understand the Bike Yield Law and has not been on a bike in a very long time. She may not agree with it, but it’s hardly “insane”. She also mentions that only 1% of tickets go to cyclists, but doesn’t seem to realize that this isn’t about ticketing cyclists less, it’s about focusing on the behaviors that actually endanger people. Safely yielding does not endanger people. If it does, you’re doing it wrong and you should be ticketed.