Today’s Headlines

  • Better Market Street Planners Propose Option With Bikeway on Mission, Not Market (SFGate)
  • Supe Wiener’s Proposal to Allow Extra Parking for Car-Share Passes Land Use Committee (SF Exam)
  • Proposed Dogpatch Turnaround Would Allow More Downtown Frequency for Central Subway (SF Exam)
  • KALW Story on JFK Bike Lanes Strikes a Cord for Listeners Who Don’t Like Them
  • Stanley Roberts Films Drivers Cutting Though Parking Lots To Avoid Red Lights in South City
  • Private Shuttle Stop on Van Ness Ave. Approved at SFMTA Hearing (SFGate)
  • San Ramon School District Gets Creative Teaching Traffic Safety (Contra Costa)
  • Mercury News’ Roadshow Columnist Asks How We Can Alleviate Bay Area Traffic Congestion
  • Woman Killed, 3 Injured in Two-Car Crash on 36th and Foothill in Oakland (CBS)
  • Two Men Die in Pescadero Car Crash on Highway 1 (Contra Costa)
More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill
  • mikesonn

    “Extra parking for car-share” really means extra private-auto parking. Pretty much the exact opposite of what we need right now.

  • James Figone

    Bike lanes on Mission is a great idea. I never liked the idea of putting protected bike lanes on Market as there is simply not enough room to do a proper job.  Furthermore, Market has multiple intersections per block, tons of pedestrians and rail tracks making it a rather unpleasant place to ride.  If they can fix the connection between Mission and Valencia via Otis, that would also be a huge plus.

    Market should be for buses exclusively as it is backbone of the transit system.  We bike riders don’t like to admit it, but our presence on Market slows the buses down.  Drivers need continually watch for bicyclists darting around them or riding between the bus and the curb.  Get the bikes and cars off Market and make it exclusively for transit.  

    Yes, there are a lot of destinations on Market that we would like to bike to but riding down Mission and then cutting over to Market is a reasonable solution.

  • Mario Tanev

    I started reading the article about moving cyclists to Mission with skepticism, but the light timing issue changed my mind. Bicycle corridors should be timed for cyclists and transit corridors should be timed for transit with the requisite pre-emption. This probably can be achieved on the same street as well by having different light cycles for different lanes, but will make it more difficult for cross-traffic to cross. Maybe cross streets should be reduced.

    Ideally Market street will have cyclists, as well as pedestrians and transit, if automobiles are removed. There would be more “eyes on the street”, and if it is the grand boulevard that denies cyclists, I have the feeling it will discourage cycling. But from an engineering perspective, having cyclists and transit users on a different street makes sense. For that matter, it also makes sense to get rid of pedestrian crossings on Market street as well as to not impede transit flow, but that won’t happen, since that would defeat the purpose of the grand boulevard.

    I think the problem arises from the fact that surface Market street should really be oriented towards short-trip users who don’t so much care about speed. That’s why that subway exists to accomodate longer trips, yet so many Muni lines continue to travel all the way downtown on Market Street. I think that’s a fundamental flaw in the system. There should be one surface shuttle line with 2 minute frequency and all other lines should transfer from and to it (and to the subway). If that were the case, the lights could be timed for bicyclists, with transit vehicles able to extend the green light.

  • vcs

    Mission will always be the quicker street for any mode (bus, bike, car) due to the street grids intersecting at Market St and the pedestrian activity.  My worry is that moving the 14-Mission to Market St could significantly slow it down, without many reasonable ways to mitigate it. Hopefully this is studied thoroughly. 

    (And you’re correct about Market not being wide enough for completely protected bike lanes. The BART stairwells are too close to the curb.) 

  • vcs

    You are suggesting that Muni dump hundreds of thousands of people blocks away from their final destination, so that they can transfer onto the already over-crowded subway for a one or two stop ride.

  • the greasybear

    My bike commute to a north-of-Market job: a straight shot down Market Street and a quick jaunt north, all in a reliable 13 minutes. The timing–and more importantly, the reliability–of trips like that will be lost with a diversion southward, onto Mission, back northward on the nearst one-way street, and whatever correction is then necessary after finally getting across Market. More intersections, more complications, more exposure to motorized traffic: will that same trip be 25% longer? 50% longer? More dangerous?

    35% of cyclists surveyed in the SFMTA’s 2012 State of Cycling Report  report they choose bike commuting because it is “faster than alternatives.” What happens to our rate of cycling if we increase the length and time of bike commutes?  What happens to cycling, physically and psychologically, when the city declares “a Better Market Street” means no bikes? 

    When Boston set out to design a bicycle network, they asked “Where are the bicyclists riding already?” From there, they laid down infrastructure on routes cyclists were already certain to use, in essence providing an assist to a network that already existed. Cycle commuters have converged on Market Street for decades, long before there were even sharrows on the pavement, because it is the most direct, reliable and safe route to work. San Francisco should take the same approach Boston did, and preserve a safe space for cyclists on a “better Market Street.”

  • Als

    Let’s add getting the F line streetcars off Market as well to speed up the flow.   Turn the F around at the Ferry Building and let people make use of the underground and buses on Market Street.

  • Anonymous

    Yes to this many times over.