Skip to content

Recent Comments



    ~6 months after the parking protected lanes went in I rode through several morning/evenings over a couple weeks and noticed that the cars tended to park more centered in their assigned area better around the intersections and other places where traffic generally moved slowly, and the parked cars were pushed into the passenger-side buffer on the areas where traffic moved faster.

    Drivers instinctively know that fast moving cars are dangerous–when they’re about to have to interact with them on foot.



    Livermore should get “BART,” based on the terms of the original BART agreement. But since the residents of Livermore do not want to align BART with the ACE station and locate the train downtown, I think it is prudent to hold the project until that happens. A station in the middle of the freeway median does not support our larger regional planning goals or needs.

    I would be in support of a “BART” extension to the Central Valley (San Joaquin County) not using BART technology. eBART, a bus or other cheaper tech could be used and operated by BART.



    Rob Anderson advised me to take the bus to work instead of riding my bike. I guess he wants us to abandon our cars and bikes and just start taking public transportation. I’m sure muni can handle it. Probably really would be pretty great with no cars. Now we just have to convince 60,000 people a day not to drive and to hop on the bus. Rob Anderson saving the planet.



    It’s been an ongoing issue since that bike lane was striped. Police have pulled me over several times for not riding in the bike lane in the situation you describe.

    When the bike lane was striped, a local TV station interviewed drivers who said they did not like the bike lane because they might get hit by a car when exiting their cars so they park in the buffer space. Strangely they no bicyclist were interviewed.

    SFMTA’s report after bike lane striping noted that bicycle speed decreased by something like 20%. I cannot find their report on their site anymore.



    BART needs t focus on new subways in San Francisco (Geary) and Oakland (Lakeshore) before worrying about low-ridership suburban expansion.



    Likewise, I’m sure.



    Re: Sunset unaffordability

    Add this neighborhood to the growing list. Heck, places in HP/Bayview are going for 800K+..this says it all.


    Frank Kotter

    The Twitter video (twitteo?, twideo?) is a perfect vantage point to show that even with this drastic narrowing the road here is STILL too wide.

    How do these massive paving projects ever get approved? How is it that politicians are forced to take heat for ‘wasting’ money on some road paint for bike lanes but millions paving over an iconic park is cool with everyone?

    I do not belong in this world, I feel.


    Michael Smith

    Bit of history. 16 years ago Dave Snyder was the instigator behind the current intersection design. He and I met with Parks & Rec (with a really good person who was subsequently pushed out). Dave pushed for a pretty radical solution. A bike lane in the middle of the street (epic battle that we won!) and reducing the entrance lane as much as possible to reduce speeding. We were told that if cars continued to speed that the intersection could be easily improved. Well, here we are 16 years later and the city never followed through, but the SFMTrA did!

    And anyone else remember the bike lane painted on Fell in 1999 by the Department of Traffic Corrections? Perhaps someone can post a picture. Took the city 15 years to put in an official bike lane after that. Yet somehow they managed to move quickly and cover up the renegade lane in just 3 days.




    For sure changing the status quo will be a struggle. But it is a worthy struggle. I’ve written with my input and encourage others to do the same:

    Dear Mr. Hoang – I read about San Mateo
    County’s 2015 Congestion Management Program and am concerned about the enduring impacts on the quality of life and business impacts of this plan. The automotive mode of transportation is inefficient, expensive, and dangerous. Building extra capacity will simply breed more demand and we’ll end up the same congestion problems passed on to future generations but at a larger scale. Why not instead invest in more efficient, less expensive, and safer modes of transportation? Those modes not only scale much better by
    using less space for transportation, but they also create a safer and more healthy community. I realize that this is a
    harder sell to your customers but hope you realize that it will create a better future for the county.



    LRVs don’t weave in and out of traffic lanes. They tend to stay on the rails.
    At least, we hope they do.



    Why are they estimating that only 7.5% of people will be using public transportation in 2040 when the current percentage is already 10% (see above); they should instead build on that 10% and design for more transit (as well as walking, biking, etc.). They seem to be designing for single-occupancy cars only (e.g. there are no transit-only lanes in that “after” picture of Woodside Road even though Samtrans and many commuter buses currently use Woodside Road).



    Jimbo, You are as predictable as you are tiresome.



    the SFMTRA doesn’t have the built in capitulation to nimbys that supervisors and the mayor do…


    City Resident

    Thank you to the SFMTrA for this Vision Zero project! I hope many more such projects will follow.



    Odds on them remaining in place for 72 hours???



    I was so excited when I saw these and wished they would have extended all the way down JFK. Lately people have been parking fully in the buffer “door zone” on JFK, basically removing that barrier for cyclists. We need truly protected bike lanes, or remove cars from JFK, considering it’s inside a park and all.



    El Camino needs BRT. Soon.



    So San Mateo just wants to perpetuate people’s destructive driving habits, even though most drivers would like to use an alternative if it was available and fast.
    The ironic part, (and a huge waste of taxpayer dollars) is that expanding highways just induces more driving, and in a short time they will have more lanes of congestion than they have now.
    How this is consistent with Plan Bay Area GHG-reduction targets? Idiots. Braindead suburban fools.



    Are you, specifically, willing to pay to put this transportation underground?



    The comments in the SFHate article about the BRT are hilarious. “War on Cars”, “Nightmare”, all the usual chicken little hyperbole. We should make a bingo card with them they’re so predictable.



    I’m paraphrasing a different, frequent commenter who victim blames about 100% of the time a person on a bike or a pedestrian is hit by a car. Regular readers know who I am lampooning.



    You’re not even trying anymore dude. Hang it up.



    the Van Ness BRT is a ridiculous waster of money, will increase congestion, pollution, rmove trees, and remove iconic street lights. Its a dissaster for the environment as well as for the feel of the city. oh and it saves 2 minutes for buses while increasing 10 mins for cars. id rather it take 2 minutes longer and have a nice view of trees and street lamps. all this new transport should be UNDERGROUND



    great news! now we jsut need to get them to do this all the way to SF.



    Hit at midnight, not found until 7am.
    This could’ve been me – I ride west over 880 in Hayward before sunrise.
    Beyond furious and shaken.

    None of the freeway overcrossings/undercrossings have bike lanes in Hayward, and there’s only a single ped bridge over 880. The Winton class III is a joke and is terrifying in the afternoon much less at night.



    Read my comments on the park bond at East Bay Times. I found their opinion ridiculous.



    You’re asking people to change, both their thinking and resulting behavior. In the city, we’re trying to get boarding islands installed at several stops on the L-Taraval line, but are facing a lot of opposition. Apparently, safety isn’t as important as a few coveted parking spots. We’re also trying to eliminate stops in order to bring travel into the 21st century, but are listening to whining and complaining about having to walk a couple hundred feet.

    As for San Mateo County, just look at El Camino which is an endless strip of low-rise buildings which is prime for smart development. But, people don’t like change.



    No different than Atlanta or Northern VA.



    Wow. The dead body was blamed for wearing black clothes, resulting in it not being discovered.



    Respectfully, its bang on target! You are parodying a something that did not happen, at least as far as this particular instance is concerned. Is it so difficult to admit that in this one collision scenario the typical windshield perspective did not come in to play? Or is it a compulsion to let off paranoid rants?


    Jeffrey Baker

    An infinite spreading plane of cars is the logical end state of San Mateo County planning.



    This is so obviously a broadside against the state laws that have been passed recently to address climate change that the State should sue San Maeo County over this plan, same as what they did with SANDAG–283772261.html



    Check your sarcasm meter… I think the calibration/sensitivity setting is off…


    Don't Ever Change Ever

    But I thought most trips were going to be made in self-flying helicopters by 2040.



    Hey, it’s no Perkins.



    “While the role of the roadway system is supporting all modes of travel,
    its role in accommodating individuals driving their own automobile is
    probably the most essential,”

    By continuing to pour billions into a single-mode system SM County guarantees that driving will continue to remain essential. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The only way to break out of the eternal cycle of auto-dependence is to make some difficult decisions that will initially be unpopular but eventually will pay off in a big way, improving the health, safety, productivity, and happiness of future residents.



    This proposal is a joke. Keep building those mega roads, SM County, so more people can sit in traffic.


    Rogue Cyclist



    “But we put it all in the bike master plan”
    -that you’re only going to implement “61%” of in 16 years
    -that you’re not going to fully fund
    -that you’re going to ignore given other priorities.

    “Sidewalks” are not an acceptable alternative for freeway overcrossings unless you clearly mark them for bike use.

    “Based on monitoring…these roadway segments have a peak-hour service level of ‘F'”

    So?! You could expand some of these by 3 lanes and it would still be F LOS.




    Ugh, more stroads that could ballooning. And that “suicide lane” for bicycles should be illegal, especially when one side is traffic getting on/off a freeway which means motorists are operating in a freeway mindset, i.e. driving fast. It’s unbelievable that some communities (ahem, suburbs) well into the 21st century still plan their cities like it’s 1975. The reason the non-driving stats are so low is exactly because these sorts of designs — which clearly put the car well above all other modes of transit, including eviscerating any nearby commercial buildings that face directly onto the street — vehemently preclude any mode of transit but the private car. It’s a sickening Catch 22 that only short-sighted, anachronistic communities like San Mateo County can come up with. And then mock the entire livable city movement by superficially appropriating phrases like “an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable transportation system”.



    So they’re basically going to demolish every structure in the county to make way for these mega roads. Got it.


    Jeffrey Baker

    I love this plan! Even the Denny’s gets bulldozed!



    “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has confirmed that his adviser Al Baldasaro, who once called for Hillary Clinton’s execution, is still part of the campaign… ‘Al has been so great,’ Trump said. ‘Where’s Al? Where’s my vet?’”



    you mean ‘can’t we just drone this guy ? ‘ Hillary



    As per my understanding ‘enforced by social norms’ is not ‘enforced’ – its voluntary compliance. For that matter no one ‘enforces’ that passengers be allowed to alight before those waiting at the platform can board. Similarly Caltrain requests passengers to avoid the bike-cars if they’re not travelling with bikes as a courtesy to bicyclists. If soft rules of conduct work so well most of the time, then why take a hard line, except for ideological reasons?

    The significant difference is that once its a hard rule and a grouch complains, the conductor has no option but to enforce (by eviction or threat of eviction), else the conductor faces the possibility of the grouch escalating to their supervisors. IMO, this is giving too much power to grouches for no good reason. Its a shared public space – people are within their rights to expect only a reasonable and low level of noise most of the time, but not to demand ‘quiet’.



    Slightly biased?
    Obviously the pedestrian played a minority card, race card, gender card, gay card or whatever and got the driver cited despite all the evidence to the contrary.



    RichLL “No, space for parking distorts the equation because it is immaterial to comparing the space available for motion. ” The irony hurts! Immaterial?!? Then that stationary parking lane can be converted into a bicycle lane for motion.



    It was 8 am. in the morning and the article makes no mention of whether visibility was a factor. So you can rant all you want, but as far as we know in this particular case there is no cause to suspect outrageous bias on the part of the authorities. The situation on the ground might have been different – if you were indeed present for the investigation and these issues were raised, then please enlighten the rest of us.

    OTOH, the news article itself is slightly biased, in that it notes repeatedly that the pedestrian was running across the cross-walk but only makes a passing reference to fact that the driver was found at fault and cited. Sneaky attempt to shift blame?



    “limited to” 110 mph…

    Train speed is a political question, not a technical one. I don’t think in heavily urbanized areas like South Bay you’ll ever top 75mph.