Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Reminds me of how bad transit is to some places, even in Germany.

    For example, Berlin Schönefeld Airport. To get from the train station into the airport terminal you have to walk 500+ meters past all the parking lots.

    In Zurich, the train station is below the airport. You walk directly from the terminal, through the service/checkin mall, into the rail station.

    Hopefully the new Berlin airport will suck less.


    Andy Chow

    First, there’s plenty of transit to the stadium, and that more attendees should take advantage of these options. Even if they have to drive and park, just do it away from the venue and access via transit. Besides regular transit like VTA and Caltrain, there are at least 4 charter bus companies that provide service to the stadium from other parts of the Bay Area and beyond. Those services are generally not mentioned by the 49ers, City of Santa Clara, or VTA, but they provide additional access and capacity. Listing is here:

    When they plan for traffic to and from the stadium, they designated Tasman Drive as the access routes for some lots, which I think shouldn’t have been. I think Tasman Drive should be reserved for pedestrians, local non-game traffic, emergency vehicles, taxis, limos, buses, and along with light rail (there’s a street reserved for such vehicles at Candlestick). Because the light rail tracks are in the center, drivers accessing the lot may not have to cross the tracks on Tasman when coming to the lot before the game but must cross the tracks when exiting the game.

    Traffic flow to game:

    Traffic flow after game:

    Vehicles parked on lots south of Tasman should exit through Great America Parkway. This road is extra wide with 7 lanes of traffic. At the end of the event, they can make 3 of the northbound lanes to handle southbound traffic. Some of the traffic on Great America Parkway can be directed to turn left at Mission College Blvd and access 101 or 880 via Montague Expressway.

    There’s no need to slow down or reduce light rail service, because traffic can be diverted to not cross the tracks. By keeping the car traffic off Tasman, light rail, VTA bus (VTA uses buses to supplement light rail, and provide direct service to Mountain View Caltrain since there’s a single track section there reducing capacity), and charter buses can operate more reliably and be more effective in reducing traffic demand.



    Accountable to traffic laws and the unspoken rules of a civil society for starters. I never said that cars weren’t a greater hazard than bikes. Only that bikes too, in their own way contribute to a streetscape that is hostile to pedestrians, which is something Safe Streets SF is trying to combat.



    Aren’t _you_ changing the subject? The word bicycle/bike is not in the article. The piece is about pedestrian street safety. And the hospital/morgue statistics strongly point toward automobile/pedestrian interactions being the overwhelming cause. Please prioritize your concern to the most harmful factor first. Once your, and our collective, effort have reduced this grave problem, then we can focus on the next prominent cause. I’m working (with police, neighborhood associations) on reducing some pedestrian hazards in my neighborhood. Thank you for anything you can do to help anywhere you can. Cheers



    The new parking meters we are putting in your garage.



    It’s a surprise that cyclists don’t hit more pedestrians, given that the pedestrians in SF walk around like drunken sailors while trying to text on their cellphones as they blindly stumble off the curbs, jaywalking into the bike lanes.



    Accountable to what? You know we’re talking about Vision Zero here, right? If you bring up Chris Bucchere, you have totally proven my point about confirmation bias BTW. Maybe you really should read that link in Wikipedia.



    You violated the cardinal rule of Streetsblog: thou shalt not criticize bicycles or bicyclists.



    Bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, in crosswalks, making illegal left turns off Market, zooming across BART station plazas, etc., create a streetscape that is hostile to pedestrians. “But cars are so much more harmful than bikes!” You say. True, but that’s changing the subject. Bicyclists may cause less harm than cars, but that doesn’t reduce their accountability.


    sebra leaves

    Where is the money for the Ad program coming from? More millions out of the Muni budget? What is the line item for that expenditure?


    Bob Gunderson

    Sounds like a grade A Restore Transit Balance solution – just put cars in front of mass transit and everything will be AOK



    If only VTA put this much effort into the rest of their system, it’d be bearable to live in Santa Clara County without a car.



    Wow 94103er, way to even try to attempt to empathize with what a typical person thinks about in the city. This sort of response seems to confirm many people’s perceptions that cyclists are a-holes. It’s not helping the effort…



    they are on Valencia between Cesar Chavez and Mission – just one block though



    I don’t see any strong evidence one way or another from looking at the scientific literature. It does appear that they offer some kind of protection vs. head injury, which logically makes sense. It is hard to imagine that they make cycling less safe. If you are going to make that kind of counter-intuitive statement, I would ask you to back it up with more than just assertion.

    It is hotter in Brooklyn in the summer so it is more uncomfortable to wear a helmet, no wonder people wear them less. And bicycling in Amsterdam is far safer, with injury rates at about 20% of the rate in the United States.




    …or it gets the hose.



    Page 13 of the pdf does at least show bike-lane markings going to and from the path.

    Page 16 & 19 show some paint to say “Bikes in the middle, Peds on the side”.

    Page 35 shows the transition bike-lanes again and that the trees are dying.



    Page 38 shows some 14 foot outside lanes, at least. Maybe they’ll put the sharrows left of center there to match the current sharrow placement on Mariposa.

    Page 40, Existing Bicycle Network & Currently Proposed Changes to Mission Bay Plan, shows that Mariposa will be shared, too.



    I never said that motorists on Market are polite. They are just as rude and entitled as some cyclists and pedestrians.



    No need to be rude or defensive – I cycle to work every day and have for the last 10 years. I just hope that this campaign encourages people to show respect for people crossing the streets when it’s their turn.


    John Rogers

    I know what you’re saying, but Amsterdam (where I cycled with my three kids with no helmets and felt safe) is not Market St. Market street actually IS statistically dangerous. Even Amsterdamers might want to protect their heads in the traffic maelstrom that is Market below 8th St. , where there is no accommodation for people on bikes.


    Fay Nissenbaum

    Are separated cycle tracks planned anywhere in SF?



    Since the reporter for the Press Democrat was just kind of phoning it in last week, can anyone offer a reason why SMART probably (once again) isn’t getting that TIGER grant? For crying out loud, a freeway interchange in SoCal gets it but not this critical link? Outrageous.



    So really, you’re going to keep going with this–a giant park n’ ride garage *within* a city? I know I’m being rude, but that’s just about the dumbest idea ever.

    Since you’re so darn concerned about all of us ‘breathing GHGs’ (which, thanks to our physiology, would not actually happen, although there are non-GHG emissions that can be harmful), how about this crazy idea you’d never go for: Knock down 101 within the city. Plenty more land for people to live near the T, thereby ‘capturing traffic’ by allowing more people living far afield to move here. Plus, fewer GHGs!

    I know, I know, never gonna happen. But the point is, we’re trying to be a bit more Vancouver these days and you want us to look like Concord. Which do you think is better economics?


    Fay Nissenbaum

    Again, Vision Zero is touted as a be-all, end-all with no details, other than —shudder–trusting the MTA bureaucracy and police bureaucracy to allocate and manage. MTA paints the crosswalks – are they in the right place? Many place the vehicle stopline at building corner lines, which obstruct drivers vision such that they as a rule tend to roll up to the point where they can see around a corner – right in the sacrosanct crosswalk. So maybe the stop line should be divorced from the crossswalk. As one Ped Safety advocate said at City Hall and police commission meetings, why doesnt SFPD enforce the law requiring drivers to signal turns? The blinker is the only safety device on a vehicle that’s been there since the 1930s, and yet for some perverse reason, the scofflaw behavior gets no attention. Peds, cyclists, and even other drivers benefit from knowing which way the ‘other guy’ plans to go. Yet, SFPD patrol cars dont even follow this law. Why are these basics being avoided? SFPD and MTA and everyone else charged with ped safety needs to look at the safety problem from the persepctive of what the ped sees while walking (or rolling in the case of wheelchairs). Until this is done, all we get is the same old SFPD practice of issuing a bunch of citations in one place for a day or two and moving on. That aint changing any long existing problems! Advocates who have brought us this far, should not relinquish control to the City’s policy-blind departments. Amelie LeMouliac died one year ago. The mis-handled police investigation was downright incompetent yet aside from SFPD making admissions and promises of “new ideas”, all we’ve gotten is lip service more than sweeping improvements in policy and day-to-day practices. Dont trust the authorities. Watch and command them.



    When SF’s transit matches New York’s subways we will be ready for higher density.

    Ah yes, the old ‘let’s poison-pill the argument by drawing an impossible goal’ conclusion. Nope, try again. Use your Googles and read about Vancouver, Portland, and really any city in Europe that isn’t Berlin or London or Paris. I don’t think many other places have a subway network anywhere near as extensive as NYC (which, by the way? Is not that well-served by subways in a huge swath of the city).



    This might make a difference if SF drivers bothered stopping for people at marked crosswalks.



    Whoa, what a TBH moment for you. Some bare honesty there.

    Do you see anything in that ad that says “All intersections are crosswalks*. (*Only cars applicable)?”

    For that matter, will a bicyclist dog-legging around a pedestrian in a crosswalk cause imminent harm? How about a cyclist ‘parking’ (??? I think you mean ‘stopping at the light’) in a crosswalk? Nope. Though it is true *some* people are rude when going about said behavior, the answer is still ‘nope.’

    Sorry, but ‘Vision Zero’ is pertaining to pedestrian deaths, not the goal of zero people seeing bicyclists doing something outrage-worthy. Which, thanks to our good old friend Confirmation Bias, is pretty much impossible.


    Howard Lovecraft

    I am not certain of the veracity of your statement about the polite behavior of motorists on Market Street, but the poster on the bus could have easily included a cyclist in the cue of cars to extend the message that cyclists should behave responsibly as well.



    No, that is an exception (I think the CVC spells this out).



    I’m all for this but to be honest, I think cyclists are just as guilty here. I see them constantly failing to stop at a crosswalk and many insist on parking in the crosswalk and impeding the flow of pedestrians. Back in the olden days this was the only way to get in front of cars (so they see you) but now cars stop back from the intersection about 5 feet on market st.



    I’m very familiar with the area you are talking about. Mariposa is the exit I use most often. That area will be majorly gridlocked when the Hospital and new housing is occupied. The facility I;m suggesting would be much farther south, possibly near Paul Ave. The objective is to capture traffic as far south as possible. For it to work the T-line would have to be significantly enhanced.



    So if an intersection has one of those permanent metal signs directing you to use the other crosswalk, is there technically still a crosswalk even though it’s blocked off?



    Most crossings are pretty bad, I used to use Great America and I understand it’s worse than it was 12 years ago. But there are now several grade separated paths, Steven’s Creek, San Tomas, Permanente Creek. The gap from Steven’s Creek to San Tomas is pretty long however, and none of the crossings in between are very attractive on a bike.



    Wow, VTA still trying to compete with the almighty car down in the South Bay–yeah, good luck with that.

    Let’s be real here–Is there any regional authority parallel to VTA that’s at least trying to improve cycling conditions down that way? I mean, talk about a no-brainer–A lot of young tech workers don’t even have their drivers’ licenses. This area is flat as the Netherlands, has great weather, and the gridded street plan means plenty of options for north-south commutes. And this could all be implemented for pennies on the dollar in a couple months’ time. But when I lived down there, crossing 101 was a terrifying nightmare for cyclists, so as far as I knew the only bike commuters were grizzled old take-no-prisoners spandex-clad types.



    The problem is that I’m not sure Caltrain or VTA would be responsive to the demands of corporate clients.

    For various political reasons, it is just too easy for the agencies to argue that “just because you are giving the money, doesn’t mean bringing your techies who earn $ 70K is a priority over salamanderized-crawling-slow routes to serve all senior and community centers in the county”



    Well, cool is in the eye of the beholder, so I won’t disagree. As for studies, there are a few but I can see how helmet pushers can dismiss them (I mean, who would fund an expensive study like this?) but how about anecdotally, no-one say in Amsterdam with thousands of cyclists, wears them, nor in much of the world. And when I lived in SF, 22-10 years ago, I never saw them.

    Helmets make cycling appear less safe that it is, which is why as one who wants more people to cycle, it is bad. I live in Brooklyn and there’s many less here than in the picture above.


    Andy Thornley

    Yup, this is a multiuse pathway, to be shared by people on foot and on bikes and in wheelchairs and walking dogs and pushing strollers. So yes, everyone will have to share and show respect and give way as appropriate. I think we’re up for the challenge, and I’m eager to see how it works when it’s being used by lots of people. No place here for pushy scorchers of any mode, slow down and enjoy the scene . . .



    Thank you, Ed. It seems that as long as the other Ed isn’t involved, we might get somewhere with these ad campaigns.



    Unless of course you mean that commuters should get off at Cesar Chavez… Wow, that’s already a big PITA and would seriously screw with already significant numbers of people trying to west into the Mission. To build a parking garage for commuters and try to improve the exits would be a project that would cost Billions. As murphstahoe says below – gigantic fail whale.



    I toured the new hospital last Friday and the guide/planner definitely did not refer to the car-free 4th St. extension as a “bikeway” — the above picture does not show that immediately to the left of the cyclist is a long, shaded bank of handicapped parking places and those people, plus those coming from the parking garage farther west will also be crossing this path.



    The only exit in the city before 280 touches down in SOMA is Mariposa St. And as you are probably aware, there is already a sea of parking in that area, with several recently built garages in the UCSF complex and the parking devoted to Giants games. Even with all that parking, hardly anyone gets off there, parks, and then rides the T-line. People still drive into the city.

    The next exit before that is on 101, and is at 3rd Street (429B). I don’t know how well you know that neighborhood, but it’s already well built up with homes and retail along 3rd Street, so putting a parking garage for commuters there would involve taking other people’s homes by eminent domain. I’d imagine you would think is bad since it doesn’t conform to your ideal of “organic” growth.

    In other words, try again. Your ideas don’t hold any water.



    Anyone know about SFPD ticketing drivers who travel on Market in front of Twitter instead of turning onto 10th street? I understand it’s against the law except for taxis and busses, but it isn’t one of the focus 5. And at Market and 9th street just a half block away, drivers consistently pull in front of pedestrians or block the crosswalk on Hayes/Larkin. I see SFPD pulling over cars at least once a week in the afternoon. Usually 2-3 motorcycles. Doesn’t seem like an effective use of their resources.





    I’d prefer we build housing for those ‘folks in Berkeley, Oakland, SF, etc…

    They may “prefer” Dublin but right now everyone else is subsidizing that decision.

    A great percentage of those folks would drive into SF if it weren’t for everyone else driving into SF, causing traffic to be too congested and increasing parking rates in SF to a rate that some choose BART from an economical standpoint. Without BART running to the sprawl, the economical standpoint would be a more rational choice of living situation.



    Yes, but why build it at MacArthur? This is a station in an urban place already which would have been better served by adding more comprehensive transit. I have no problem with having parking in places like Dublin or Walnut Creek where the suburban form is pretty much king, but there’s no reason to do this in Oakland. It’s as if SFMTA decided that instead of Wesfield Mall, we should have a big parking garage next to Powell Street BART stop, because, you know, people would want to drive to BART there.



    The section of Mariposa Street immediately south of here is being widened right now. Anyone know if bike accommodations are planned there?



    To provide that citation: most BART stations in SF have drive-alone rates of 1-2%, with the highest being Glen Park, at 10% (another 4% carpool). That is certainly not a large percentage. Muni stops tend to be even closer to people’s homes on average, so it’s unlikely many people drive to them, even compared to BART.




    They certainly don’t hurt and it is cool enough here that wearing them is not an inconvenience. If you have pointers to scientific studies that indicate that they are of no use in preventing head injuries, I would be interested in reading them.



    This is a good start.