Today’s Headlines

  • More on Yesterday’s Truck Crash That Killed Woman on Bike in SoMa (KTVU)
  • Bicycle Rider, Pedestrian Hospitalized in Crash on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park (CBS)
  • BART Train Mysteriously Dies in the Transbay Tube, Stranding Riders in the Dark (Appeal, KTVU)
  • Twitter-Happy SFPD Posts Pics of Repeat Bike Thieves — Is it a Lawsuit Risk? (SFBG)
  • SFMTA to Crack Down on Food Trucks That Violating Parking Regulations (CBS)
  • SFMTA Still Taking Public Comments on its TEP Environmental Impact Report (Curbed)
  • SF’s Street Lights Burning Out 442 Percent More Frequently Over Four Years (SF Examiner)
  • Following Cyclist Death, Napa Advocate Lays Down Some Truth on Anti-Bike Vitriol (NV Register)
  • Transportation Techies Mull Elon Musk’s Hyperloop on KQED Forum
  • Stanley Roberts Catches Bad Parental Driving Behavior on the First Day of School in San Jose
  • Menlo Park Residents Fight Mixed-Use Development on El Camino Real Parking Lots (PA Online)
  • Truck Driver Who Knocked Down Hayward Power Pole Gets Cited for Driving Off-Route (CoCo Times)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    RE: pedestrian-cyclists collision on JFK

    I would like to hear more details on what happened in this case. But a couple things that still need to be done to these bike lanes, and I don’t understand why the city won’t do them.

    First, paint the whole damn lane green and add signs alongside the road that say that there is a bike lane and pedestrians need to use the sidewalk (what the hell is up with people jogging or walking in the bike lanes? There is an huge sidewalk exactly for that use, so I cannot understand why they feel the need to walk in the designated bike space). This will help pedestrians (and motorists) understand that it is a bike lane and not just a place to amble about in.

    Second, ticket cars who park with their wheels over the white line. Why can’t motorists just stay in the lines? I love how motorists think its optional. Way too many cars are eeking into the buffer lane, and this only removes space for their passengers to get in and out of the car. Maybe the city has to end physical objects to get compliance, either those little 3 foot long curbs they use in normal parking spots to keep motorists from parking in too far or else soft-hit posts.

    Third, it’s a no-brainer that the city needs to ticket any cars that blatantly violate the bike lane. The other day, I watched a guy take his car and pull right over into the bike lane to let his passengers off, all *right* in front of a group of cyclists. With his car up against the curb completely blocking the bike lane, the driver actually got out of the car, left his door open and was talking to somebody else while all these cyclists were trying to get around this huge obstruction (the width of a car plus an open door). Unbelievable that people don’t have the wherewithal to see that this is a prick move. But in the meantime, that has to be a ticket to get motorists to start thinking about other road users besides themselves.

    Last, why can’t we just get the cars out of the park? Can’t we have *one* place where roads aren’t dominated by cars and pedestrians and cyclists are fighting over the scraps that remain?

  • mikesonn

    Car-free GGP! Car-free GGP!

  • Richard Mlynarik

    This will help pedestrians (and motorists) understand that it is a bike lane and not just a place to amble about in.

    Good luck with that. The Magic Cycletracks are pretty much ideally set up to be a good place to amble about in and mess around with the contents (human and otherwise) of cars. The short lines of sight just add to the magic ambulatory specialness of the setup. But sure, slap on some green paint! Parks need more greenery, after all.

  • Anonymous

    On the “Palo Alto NIMBY” headline. It’s in Menlo Park, not in Palo Alto. Also, the situation is a little more complicated. Stanford just agreed to help pay for a bicycle undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks, a key piece of infrastructure that will benefit the Stanford development tremendously by providing a key commute connection for cyclists, as well as a key connection for locals, especially kids, going to and from schools, parks, playing fields, and the civic center. Menlo Park’s Specific Plan approved last year had a glaring gap, in that it called for the crossing to be built but had no provisions to pay for it. Also, the development removed medical offices that generate the most vehicle traffic and take the least advantage of the location served by Caltrain and El Camino buses. The development still makes the city’s jobs-housing imbalance worse. People organizing and expressing concerns about the development have a mix of motives. Some want to make sure it makes the best use of the location to reduce vehicle trips. And some want to keep the existing “strip mall” style use pattern on El Camino. It’s not as simple as “NIMBYs fight development.”

  • My observations of the JFK parking protected lanes are that the parked cars, in general, park in the lines more correctly where traffic speeds are slow (near intersections, stop-signed-crosswalks) and, in general, push into the bike lane in those areas where traffic speeds are higher.

    My hypothesis: drivers of vehicles are scared of the motor traffic whizzing past them on the left and give themselves more buffer when they feel the need and are able to do so.