Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Guest – Cars on roads is the most inefficient ground transportation system ever devised, in terms of both energy and economics. So I guess you’re voting NO on L.

  2.  

    peternatural

    Yes! In the movie Ghostbusters, there’s that line where they tell the mayor, “You could save the lives of millions of registered voters.” This is similar: one ridiculously easy trick (charge for handicap spots the same as regular spots) would free up thousands of parking spots because of all the scammers dropping out of the game.

    Given how people lose their shit at the prospect of a single spot being taken away, you’d think that would be a big deal.

    Plus: taxpayers win ;)

  3.  

    shotwellian

    Her previous planning job was in Abu Dhabi, not exactly a city known for its progressive planning…

  4.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    The placement of the speed sign is good – it’s the hairiest place on the whole stretch of path as a crossroads with sports fields and some slight changes in sight lines. A bit of speed awareness can’t hurt in this spot.

    Going the speed that conditions allow is absolutely spot on. It’s so easy to slow down for just a few moments to pass and then accelerate again. Especially on a weekend joyride, it’s just not a big deal. A few seconds of courtesy on my multi-hour weekend jam isn’t going to make a lick of difference.

    Likewise, there’s no reason to limit your speed to 15 mph when nobody else is around. When the sun isn’t shining, the path is all but deserted.

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    If I am driving a car, and the speed limit is 35 MPH, and I get tagged on radar, I can fight the ticket if a speed survey hasn’t been used to find that the 85%ile speed limit on the roadway and used to set the speed limit.

    Are bike paths just “set the speed limit to whatever I think it should be and that’s the speed limit, and you can get a ticket.”? And the cops can use radar because it’s impossible for a car to pace a cyclist on a path?

    Roadways are subject to the basic speed law – where you can’t go faster than conditions allow. By this metric, if there is nobody around on the bike path, you should be able to go faster, and if there are pedestrians you should go slower. While this is subjective and the current environment screams to me “capricious enforcement”, it’s better in theory to focus on riders who are being imprudent, as opposed to simply “fast”. And all it requires from the rider is good judgement, not a bike computer.

    I agree 100% that putting the sign there (next to a speed limit sign) to point out to riders how fast they are going in a pedestrian heavy area is a useful tactic, in that it might get some riders to THINK. The MV bike path attracts a lot of new-ish riders whose fitness level often exceeds their judgement and skills (aerobars in a paceline on a bike path? Seriously?)

  6.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I ride the Mill Valley trail a lot, I trained for three AIDS/LifeCycle rides on it along with being a ride leader training others. I’m pretty sure I’ve spent a lot more time looking at my speedometer and how fast surrounding cyclists are going. I am certain I yell “slow down” more than other cyclists and it’s not even because people are purposefully speeding.

    Speedometers are not required or included with bikes. On a pedestrian trail with bikes and pedestrians all moving at different speeds (pedestrians also don’t come equipped with brake likes and don’t use hand signals when stopping or turning) and without speedometer it’s an entirely subjective guess as to how fast you are really were going.

    Keeping a steady cadence on bike pedals doesn’t equate to keeping a steady pace the way it does on the accelerator like holding a pedal down. A gusts of wind gust of wind can change your speed and being caught in a tailwind means the air around you itself is changing speed. Now we’re talking about an entirely Then it’s entirely a subjective guess in the General Relativity/Observer Effect way.

    None of that justifies breaking the law or that it’s entirely subjective – I really am sorry for the times I’ve accidentally gone a few miles over the speed limit though – what I’m trying to justify is the Mill Vally Police using the radar speed sign even if it’s only for education purposes.

    Basic bike computers are not very expensive either.

  7.  

    Prinzrob

    I’d say both Broadway and Telegraph are essential to the Oakland bike network, since they both connect to a significant number of distinct business and residential areas. The delayed but imminent Broadway bikeway plan is designed, funded, approved, and ready to go, whereas the Telegraph project is neither fully designed, funded, nor approved.

  8.  

    Gezellig

    Anecdotal, yes, but I bike the Mill Valley path every day and find these kinds of conflicts rare, personally. However, it is true that as its popularity has grown it’s at the point it could really benefit from some widening and/or paint demarcation kind of like this:

    http://www.albanystrollroll.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Midtown-Greenway-Three-Lanes-2.jpg
    (Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis)

  9.  

    Prinzrob

    Please keep in mind that my original comment stated that we should be holding drivers to a higher standard, not holding bicyclists to a lower one. I agree that lower speeds are a good idea for multi-use paths that get a lot of foot traffic like Mill Valley, the Embarcadero, the Panhandle, etc. When I ride Mill Valley I always try to take that section easy and don’t starting pushing it until I get into the hills and streets with fewer stops and cross traffic.

    It’s also good to note that none of these paths were designed to handle the amount of traffic they are seeing these days, which contributes to the conflicts. The Embarcadero cycletrack plans are a good way to separate bikes and peds, with only those riding super slowly taking to the sidewalk. I’ve seen some plans for the Mill Valley and Panhandle paths as well, but nothing that looks like it will be happening in the near term, unfortunately.

  10.  

    Erica_JS

    They could cut down instantly on 90% of the disabled parking fraud if it was no longer FREE. Being disabled doesn’t automatically make someone poor; if the city wants to help low-income drivers there are far more effective ways.

  11.  

    mcva

    I have no experience with the MV path, but to be fair I see a lot of cyclists going too fast in the Panhandle and, less often, on the Embarcadero. If bicyclists are riding on a mixed-use path along with pedestrians, they should cut down their speed significantly. We all want to go faster, but the most vulnerable users always need to be respected (just like automobile drivers should always respect bikes/pedestrians on streets).

    Not saying the police wouldn’t be better served by focusing their attention somewhere else, but I don’t think we should downplay the threat that speeding cyclists cause to pedestrians (especially little kids) on these sorts of paths.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    Hey. Someone was injured on the Mill Valley Bike Path. Nobody gets injured by speeding drivers.

    There is certainly some sketchy behavior on the bike path, but it has less to do with speeding on the bike path and more to do with riding in formation on a bike path. The guy in front might be going 25 MPH but he can see what’s coming up. The person sitting 10th wheel is trusting 9 people in front of him to have some very good perception and communication skills.

  13.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    That doesn’t make much sense since Broadway doesn’t get you anywhere (for example, it doesn’t get you to Berkeley). You get to the end of Broadway and you’re nowhere.

  14.  

    Oakland Logic

    The only thing I can think of is they want to turn Broadway into the biking path and Telegraph into the throughfare. One needs to be 4 lanes and discourage bikes to alleviate traffic issues and safety problems. The other should be super bike friendly. Pick one and go with it (seems Telegraph makes more sense, but what do i know)

  15.  

    EastBayer

    What a ridiculous misuse of police resources…

  16.  

    Prinzrob

    I wish we had as little sympathy for drivers going 2-8 mph over the limit as is displayed toward bicyclists in the Mill Valley People Behaving Badly segment posted here.

  17.  

    mcva

    Keeping my fingers crossed that the 3′ law results in a real difference out on the road, and not just in court proceedings after injuries occur.

    Next up should be a law requiring drivers to actually drive the speed limit.

  18.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    These are commercial properties valued on the basis of their forward revenue streams. You can bet your last dollar they are charging market rates to their tenants. This is one reason why taxing rent makes more sense than taking property value.

  19.  

    Crusselsprouts

    Right? For as progressive as I thought Oakland was, I’m surprised we’re having such a contentious debate about putting bike lanes on Telegraph.

    And, as a biker, the design with all those sharrows and semi-protected bike lanes, looks confusing. I’m sure I’d figure it out once on it…but why not just put a continuous bike lane down and call it a day?

  20.  

    JeffreyY

    Citymapper already works in SF: https://citymapper.com/sfbayarea/superrouter

  21.  

    aslevin

    on Caltrain this week saw a disguised stolen google bike – painted gray, except the google colors showed through on the basket and inside of the chain guard.

  22.  

    Nicholas Littlejohn

    Oakland has a really bad new car loving planner, the one who allowed cars in the pedestrian plaza despite community outrage. I’m thinking this has something to do with this dangerous decision.

    Perhaps they will get enough comments to change this or a new, progressive mayor will support doing the right thing here.

  23.  

    voltairesmistress

    Hi Aaron, it is “bellwether” — a tough word to spell. It comes from the practice of hanging a bell on a castrated male sheep, a “wether” so that the others would follow him and be more easily kept track of by the shepherd.

  24.  

    BBnet3000

    “developers complained that the skyrocketing value of real estate in downtown had increased the maximum project revenues in the district from $400 million to $1.4 billion.”

    Isn’t that the whole point of value capture? Anyway, the tax is taking .55% of the skyrocketing value, and the property owners are keeping the other 99.45%.

  25.  

    Mario Tanev

    So perhaps the problem is that it’s not a realized gain (kinda like what motivated Prop 13). Maybe the prolonging of the term to 37 years is supposed to account for that (7 more years to turn it into realized gain)?

  26.  

    Manhattanize SF

    What a weird design. This seems like a grand compromise that accommodates no one. What’s the AADT? Do you really need two lanes in each direction and a TWLT??

  27.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The issue appeared to be that properties they already own are 4x more valuable than expected. Which, seriously, cry me a river.

  28.  

    Mario Tanev

    Well, it might not be a big one, but it’s a compromise. Time is money (consider inflation) and it certainly more than paid for Willie Brown’s wages. But I don’t understand what issue the developers had with the previous agreement, so I can’t complain.

  29.  

    ClaireB

    This is so disappointing.

  30.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    At the spring meeting I attended, I specifically asked the guy (can’t remember his name) if all of the input and feedback the public was providing could just be thrown out by some bureaucrat, just like they did for Latham Square. I was vaguely assured that the plan was going to strongly reflect the views of the majority of attendees but here we are, with a final draft plan bearing no resemblance to the option preferred by the public.

    Sooooo many problems here.

    1: What’s going on at 56th street? They appear to have configured it so that eastbound CA24 cars have to turn across the bike lane on to the ramp, instead of merging with the bike lane and turning. Lots of people will die here.

    2: Getting rid of the crosswalk at 50th? Seriously? Have any of these jokers BEEN to Telegraph Alley lately? There are a thousand skinny-pantsed hipsters per hour crossing here, and they’ve moved it a block away. The only possible justification could be that it would interfere with the bus stop, but even that would be a weak excuse.

    3: At 52nd they’ve got it rigged so bikes have to dodge inside the bus island, but then merge left into traffic, and then around traffic, because many of those cars are going to be stopped/stuck waiting to turn on 52nd to get on the freeway.

    4: The bulbouts are not even bulbouts! They’re paint!

  31.  

    Gezellig

  32.  

    shotwellian

    This is not a BRT project. The east bay BRT project currently in the works is from downtown Oakland to San Leandro.

  33.  

    Caleb

    Where’s the bikeway? Moreover, where’s the busway? This is why BRT gets such a bad reputation, because the end implementation often gets watered down to oblivion.

    Why bother with a Telegraph redesign if everything is going to be thrown out? Let’s just call this project it what it really is: repaving with a light sprinkling of curb bulb-outs.

  34.  

    EastBayer

    BLOCK THE GOOGLE BIKES

  35.  

    Prinzrob

    Yes, it is a permanent pump/workstation, installed in front of Awaken Cafe by the Lake Merritt-Uptown Oakland Association just last week. We’re hoping to get some more installed on Telegraph soon as well.

  36.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Nice. Is that a permanently-installed bike pump? I just walked past there less than an hour ago and didn’t notice it.

  37.  

    Prinzrob

    I actually spotted this one just yesterday outside a cafe a Broadway and 15th Streets in Downtown Oakland (seen in the back of the photo).

  38.  

    Tempestguy

    Streetsblog regulars, if you’re tuning into this old post just now I guess you’ve noticed it’s been flooded with angry, indignant, full of RAGE CAPS BIKE-dependent, me-first types. No sense in going back and rebutting all the flat-out ridiculous, baseless criticism but I just want to remind everyone–really, everyone who has ever traveled on San Jose Ave!–to fill out this SFMTA survey today! Do not let the BIKES-first naysayers win this fight!

    There…fixed that for ‘ya….

    Hope you have a least a little bit of sense of humor :)…and I wanted to make sure that the other side of this coin also posts so we (commuters who simply cannot bike or use public transportation for legitimate reasons) have our chance to win this “fight” as you put it.

    I would also point out that very few posts use “RAGE CAPS” (as you put it) other than in precise spots to emphasize their points…that is how CAPS are supposed to be used. Note my use of the caps for just one word in my post above for an example ;) .

  39.  

    murphstahoe

    The bypass is going to kill Willits. It was created in another time,
    when the logging and rail drove the economy. With that not what it was,
    the drive through traffic keeps the retail in Willits alive.

    This isn’t necessarily favored by Willits, it’s the brainchild of Caltrans. A city with nothing but boarded up storefronts isn’t very livable. This already happened to Cloverdale when they put in the bypass there, the main strip in Cloverdale has never recovered and people there drive to Healdsburg and Windsor for services. Willits residents will be getting very familiar with Ukiah.

  40.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Re: gbikes. The main security feature is supposed to be that it’s an unbelievably bad bicycle. But people still take them, which should draw our pity rather than our ire. The furthest afield I have spotted one was at the west end of the bay bridge bike path.

  41.  

    Sprague

    Overall these proposed changes appear to be welcome news for Muni riders and pedestrians. It’s great if Muni service will be sped up and I almost always support bus stop consolidation. However, eliminating the bus stops at Haight and Cole (where important Muni routes intersect, ie. 33, 43, and 71 – in addition to the 37) appears to be a disservice to Muni riders. This is the most direct transfer point for inbound 43 riders wishing to transfer to the inbound 33 or outbound 71 (and vice versa). Eliminating this stop will result in riders missing transfers and incurring longer travel times (especially in light of often irregular/unreliable headways on these routes), resulting in actually slower Muni trips. Since Muni buses will continue to stop at this intersection (due to the all-way stop signs, which won’t be eliminated) there appears to be no good reason to eliminate the Muni bus stops here.

  42.  

    EastBayer

    Well, it doesn’t look so bad to me: http://goo.gl/maps/HGZBD

    Maybe narrowing the lanes to add a bike lane would help.

    I do suspect that the Willits economy gets a boost from people stopping on their way through.

  43.  

    gneiss

    How is this ‘bypass’ helping anything? Traffic going to Route 20 is still required to go through the center of town. By some estimates, 75% of the traffic backups in Willits are from local travel out to the coast and will continue even after construction is complete.

    Not to mention that there are no plans to make the current road in Willits any better. The 4 lane 40 mph road will still be there – just as unpleasant as before construction started.

  44.  

    Phil

    Actually, the bypass is for inter-regional traffic, for tourism, and for the 164,000 California residents who live in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties who must drive through Willits to get to services not available behind the “Redwood Curtain.”

  45.  

    murphstahoe

    It really sucks that saving lives requires “political savvy”

  46.  

    baklazhan

    People on the bridges may, of course, be using the city as a thoroughfare– for instance on their way to the peninsula.

  47.  

    42apples

    I don’t think that demand for housing in the Bay Area will wane much. Unlike Detroit, the weather here is amazing year-round, so unless all of California’s economy collapses, people will want to live here.

  48.  

    CamBam415

    Thanks p_chazz for answering my rhetorical question. Let me be less subtle. We should not be spending $210M on small town highway boondoggles when the state/Caltrans has more pressing transit needs. Seriously, Willits is 4,800 people. We can’t even keep what we have in working order, we shouldn’t be building more.

  49.  

    Upright Biker

    If Prop L passes,they can build a parking garage for all those motorists! Well, at least on the SF side. Sorry, Marin, you’ll have to pass your own Prop L.

  50.  

    Lee Ross

    Ed Lee. This Mayor is the absolute worst when it comes to supporting Cycling. I hope someone told Tom Maguire he will not be working for Mayor DeBlasio anymore. He will be working for a total HACK who rose through the political ranks of Dept. of Building Inspection (DBI) a local Agency well known for making sure the wheels of government churn slowly and inefficiently. San Francisco may have a Big City name. But it has a small town mentality. Good Luck!!