Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Bicyclists’ lives matter.



    We need a new and better District Attorney. Anyone who runs against Gascon will have my full support.


    David Baker

    Very sad all around. Let’s get Vision Zero done.



    This is a beautiful idea – a different kind of green wave or, maybe, a green carpet for pedestrians, dog walkers, etc.


    Jamison Wieser

    SFMTA posted an online survey for those who could not attend last night’s 22-Fillmore rapid project open house:



    Dolores Park is being torn up. Does that work include the bulb out planned for
    the west side of the street? It doesn’t look like it based on this:



    Best solution yet



    Here is an urgent plea for help from the Marin Bike Coalition:

    SMART train is working (surprise!) to eliminate the multi-use path through Central San Rafael; not just eliminate or postpone it, but prevent it from ever happening

    Hopefully the Marin IJ and other news outlets jump on this story… I haven’t seen anything yet.



    While I agree that it is probable that the conceptual plans did not include actual engineering plans, I disagree on the second part of the comment about the school district (again you are likely correct and I not disagreeing that this is how it went down). The fact that the project was a school conversion makes this example all the more egregious. On top of that, across the street is a park, a very logical destination for children/familes before and after school.


    Chris J.

    I don’t think so. It needs to be someone with the power to make the decisions. If they don’t have the authority, then they can’t fairly be held responsible.



    Would this just be a point-person that ensures proper coordination of efforts? In tech bubble world, I could see this as a program manager that liaises with every department that touches a product to ensure no double work or overlooked items.



    Oakland streets are so gd wide.



    I agree with djconnel: no need for a traffic light here. The real problem is that Dolores is two lanes with a wasted island in the middle (and with a ridiculously high curve which is a great way to say “No pedestrians allowed. Reserved for motorists only so they don’t crash into each other while driving too fast and distracted”).

    A better solution here is to not only add bulb-outs but to make the road one lane in each direction and use the space created from the lanes to widen the island and add a path down the middle, like Commonwealth Ave in Boston (though of course Dolores wouldn’t be quite this wide):



    This is happening in Oakland right now too. Tons of new curb ramps are being installed in the downtown area this month, which could have easily been complimented by sidewalk bulb-outs on these overly wide and dangerous streets.



    Who is looking to ensure that the money is spent effectively? What parts of the process are designed to do that, and are they working?



    On safety of poured concrete sidewalks, isn’t “broom finishing” de rigeur, for antislip protection, and if it’s not being done, where is the process slipping up, as it were?
    (And if I was lucratively minded, I’d make nice slippery sidewalks then have my confederates slip on them…)



    Concrete work seems to be a major goldbricking area in the city. Handicap ramps especially are costing 4-5 figures for $100 in concrete.



    My immediate reactions to the increased commute times (can’t watch the video at work):
    - What data source are they using that is consistent and comparable over a period of a year and a half? A lot of transportation professionals would love to get their hands on such data.
    - Could this simply reflect larger numbers of people commuting to Silicon Valley from San Francisco?


    SF Guest

    Don’t be surprised to see a rehash of Props A and maybe even Wiener’s Prop B back in a few years. The government is very good at raising our taxes, but how they spend our money may not be so readily obvious.



    oooorrrr: “Upper Haight Car Owners Turn Panhandle into Permanent Parking Lot for the Needy” YEAH, SoOo AWESOME! Now I can make a L turn and cut off stuuupid bikez anywhere insted of like the 2 intersections now.. public space belongz to gas luvers!!!


    Thomas Rogers

    The 22-Fillmore open house was good last night. Designs are still conceptual at this point, but it all looked promising to me. A main question at this point is whether the transit-only lanes should be side-running or center-running. The latter could require more parking spaces to be removed, but offer benefits that I personally think would outweigh the parking loss. Consider filling out the survey if you use this corridor:


    Upright Biker

    We’re about to face this exact situation on Columbus Ave in North Beach, which is slated to be repaved within the year with few discernible changes to benefit pedestrians. All the various agencies seem to be able to do is to point the finger at the other guy while the date for laying asphalt keeps getting closer. Then, when that day finally arrives, they can all say “Whoops! Just didn’t have the time or the funding to do this the right way. Oh well, let’s just revisit it in another 25 years when we will have to pave again.”



    Lights may be necessary sometimes, but more often they’re lose-lose. They remove pedestrian right-of-way, encourage drivers to speed, all while resulting in lower travel times (because the waits are much longer than they are for stop signs) unless you can synchronize like the Valencia or Folsom green waves. The better approach is to slow the traffic down on Dolores: it’s an urban, residential street not an expressway.



    Saying it “sort of makes sense” is all too kind. Of course the ambulance services need rounded corners and wide lanes so they can speed to the aid of pedestrians hit crossing the street… I’m less kind: it’s zero-order analysis at best, no better than LOS.



    There are a number of corners in my neighborhood where the curbs and ramps have been reconstructed twice in the last ~10 years. (And I suspect it’s only a matter of time until they come back and add bulb-outs.) Meanwhile there are other corners which seem substandard. Clearly nobody is keeping track of this stuff.



    ::slow claps::



    The 6% of streets-60% of several/fatal injuries statistic is outrageous. Was ‘focus on the 5′ is in response to that statistic or did it come out as an implementation strategy in service to Vision Zero?

    Also, recent report out of NYC has shown that Vision Zero there, even with scrappy implementation, is a big success.


    Chris J.

    So long as no single person is responsible, I can see this happening again and again. Otherwise, each of the “several city department heads” can say it wasn’t their decision.


    Jacob Lynn

    But the fact that street construction work is siloed in several different agencies is a big part of the problem.


    Jym Dyer

    The gallery bike cars are 50/50 bikes and seating at this point. In theory that model is being phased out in favor of the Bombs, never mind their greater capacity.

    Our Bombs are leftover from Seattle’s Sounder and the new ones are leftovers from L.A.’s Metrolink. Neither was designed with Caltrain’s bike demands in mind, so we end up retrofitting them. I’m grateful, at least, that someone at Caltrain figured out that cutting a panel in two could expand parking from 16 bikes to 24:


    Jym Dyer

    A death on the BART tracks today held me up for an hour, others much longer. Four tracks systemwide isn’t needed, but strategically-placed third tracks here and there could make a world of difference.



    I’m guessing the bulb-out “plans” were merely conceptual, and did not include actually engineering drawings. Bulb-outs cannot just be plopped willy-nilly onto street corners. There is a fair amount of engineering that has to be done before installing a bulb-out — especially if there are drainage issues.

    Since this particular project was a school construction project, it is understandable the district did not want to take on a transportation design project, which is outside the scope of its responsibilities.


    Richard Mlynarik

    1. Buy American. Guarantees the least competition, the lowest quality, the highest prices, the most miserable rider-last priorities, and the most egregious level of hypocrisy (the USA invades counties which don’t “accept” its crap products) on the planet.

    2. Muni. So many vendors have been completely fucked by Muni and have worked out that it more pain than profit to deal with such a completely dysfunctional, incompetent, corrupt organization.

    If this were an open procurement for modern (ie long, articulated, 100% low-floor, non-USA) trams, one would expect four or more serious bids. Instead, we get whatever Muni’s revolving door staff and consultants rigged for Siemens.

    Enjoy your 25 year obsolete high floor “light” weight vehicles from the politically-juiced 100% locked-in “winner” of the Muni “competitive” “bidding” process, losers!


    David Baker

    It’s the emergency response vehicle lobby, in particular the Fire Department. From their singular viewpoint it sort of makes sense. However their concerns are addressable.



    Bold speeches, lots of talking, and the final product shows a lack of vision. Thank you to Tom Radulovich and to Aaron for pointing out the great discrepancy between official talk and the result of sizable and costly public works projects, specifically at a new school location – directly across the street from a major park! So much for vision zero.



    Add Fulton St. to that list too. I was shocked when they redid the street corners from about 2nd to 6th Aves a year or so ago, and didn’t add in any bulb-outs. That street is so dangerous, it was really pathetic that they didn’t go further to make it safer.



    I really wish they’d just install a damn stoplight at that intersection.



    That headline could easily read: “Upper Haight Car Owners Won’t Share Street With Neighbors”



    We really need to learn to separate our discussion about crashes from our discussion about fatalities.

    Crashes occur for many reasons, including people making mistakes, behaving foolishly, negligently, or maliciously, or because of poorly designed infrastructure.

    When fatalities happen it is almost always a result of speed, speed, and speed.

    If SF is serious about the Vision Zero initiative then a focus must be put on reducing speeds in the city, so that when inevitable crashes occur they are survivable. Reducing crashes is also an important goal, but secondary to speed.



    Cyclists just want to be safe, that’s all, and that means both cyclists and drivers sharing the road, just like Europe is capable of doing with having nowhere close to as many fatalities as the states do.

    Cyclists would not need to stop and yield to a car if that car isn’t trying to unsafely force themselves into their lane. Besides, it is easier to stop and go in a car, where all you’re doing is pressing a pedal, than it is to get your whole body and bike back up to speed with your leg muscles.

    And people on bikes that break the law is a separate issue from sharing the road. They can and are cited from breaking the laws that they must follow like motorists do. You cannot say that safe cyclists do not deserve to be safe because of careless cyclists who break the law.



    FYI- Here’s the slide with how people got to/from Caltrain according to 2010 & 2013 surveys. Trend is more walking, lot more biking, and fewer people parking or getting dropped off, shuttles and transit connections flat.,0,417



    I remind you the median income on Caltrain is $116,000. That’s the median, meaning 50% make more than that. Uber to my office is $6. Informal uber pools form daily to all over Silicon valley.


    Andy Chow

    The 5k is more like people getting dropped off by relatives. Uber like alternative taxi services are not affordable enough to ride everyday for a lot of folks.



    @thequin. The fenced off portion now has specific signage stating no
    bikes or pedestrians and signage saying trespassers will be prosecuted.
    Bike at your own risk.



    Guardino’s op-ed reiterates his myopia that focuses solely on builidng all these huge things that he can point at on a map at some meeting that he drove to.

    If Caltrain gets all kick-butty and can accommodate 120,000 people – how does Guardino expect they will all get to the station? Who cares! Reference: BART station at the flea market.

    I’m shocked Caltrain has managed to get to the point where they have 60k riders without completely blowing up their last mile possibilities. They probably got an extra 5k thanks to Uber. Planning for this stuff is trailing. Fortunately it won’t take as much time to sort some of that stuff out, and there is some TOD going on, but we’ve probably reached peak on board bike capacity.



    The proposal for the current loop alignment is over 15 years old and would have been built sooner but for the funding. ( )
    Sure, the neighborhood has changed since the T-Third originally went in, but this has been the plan since the beginning.

    I too think it makes more sense to push down to 25th to give my Dogpatch stop service, but I’ve had quite a while to do something about it.

    I’ve also seen neighbors complaining about how stupid it is for the MTA to put the train loop right where there’s a pre-school. In a building that is ~ 3 years old. I recon that was a stupid place to put a pre-school–where are the double-parking parents supposed to be double-parking?


    Chairman Meow

    This is a half-measure at best. The gallery bike cars need to be converted to full bike cars to double capacity. The bombardier bike cars need to be completely redesigned. Bicycle accommodation seems to be an afterthought on the newer equipment, which is backwards thinking when you consider the “last mile” dilemma of public transit into the unwalkable suburban sprawl cities.



    Does anyone know if the new fencing now prevent bikes on the closed section of highway 1? It was a really enjoyable climb with no cars when it was just closed off with cones and the barricade.



    From the T-3rd story: “According to SFMTA, the costs of siting the loop at the MME would be three to four times the current project budget of $6.26 million, principally because such an extension would necessitate the purchase of three two-car trains, at a cost of roughly $20 million.”

    WeHaveNoMoneyForSixCarsOhLookWeJustBought40Cars… AlsoTurningBackTrainsBeforeTheyReachPoorNeighborhoodsHelpsPoorPeople.

    I don’t think CEQA should be used to sue over projects like this. I think there ought to be some better law to file suit against projects this stupid.



    “According to Lee’s office, the first batch of 175 light-rail vehicles have been purchased from Siemens for about $648 million and that the additional 40 light-rail vehicles are expected to cost about $210 million.”


    Why are we paying so much more for this batch?