Today’s Headlines

  • Planners to Review over 2500 Subway Map Submissions (KQED)
  • More Drivers Needed for Historic Streetcars (SFExam)
  • A Look Back and Forward at Folsom Street Changes (SFExaminer)
  • Grant to Strengthen Neighborhoods (Hoodline)
  • A Growing Plaza By Transbay (SFChron)
  • East Span of Bay Bridge to get a Mini-Me? (Curbed)
  • BART Could Face Additional Fines for 2013 Worker Safety Lapses (EastBayTimes)
  • San Mateo County Approves More Housing (DailyJournal)
  • Something is Seriously Wrong with Driver Licensing Standards (KRON4)
  • Commentary: RiseSF and the Future of Housing and Transit in San Francisco (SFExaminer)
  • Commentary: VTA Sales Tax Focused on Filling Pot Holes (EastBayTimes)
  • Commentary: SMART Train Needs Smarter Bike Parking (MarinIJ)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA
Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • murphstahoe
  • joechoj

    Perhaps the Mini Bay Bridge can be a more reasonable way to get bikes on/off the western span of the Bay Bridge bike path, rather than the crazy corkscrews.

  • p_chazz

    What about this do you not like? It’s to make cars slow down.

  • murphstahoe

    It’s a pretty ironic solution to make the cars slow down so that they don’t hit bikes by installing obstacles that are known to make cyclists crash.

    In this section it’s a particularly odd choice because this is a commute route – people ride here frequently before sunrise or after sunset, as such they won’t see things like speed bumps until late, and JFK is a downslope where cyclists can be going ~20 MPH (5 MPH below the speed limit, but fast enough to be jarring when you hit a pavement discontinuity).

  • mx

    It seems pretty hard to believe that Golden Gate Park of all places can’t support a really high quality dedicated bikeway. A bikeway isn’t the solution to all problems (still have a potential for conflict at crossings, and excessive vehicle speed is still a danger to everyone), but if we can’t have one in the park, where can we have one?

  • RichLL

    Would you accept speed bumps on the Panhandle mixed-use path as a quid pro quo for what you want in GGP?

  • Donovan Lacy

    There is already an existing pedestrIan only path on the south side of the panhandle. It seems like it would be a lot easier to make the path on the north side of the path a bicycle only path and move forward with the protected bike path through GGP. Another alternative might be to close off GGP to thru traffic.

  • RichLL

    Walkers should have access to all part of the Panhandle because it is a park. The concession made here is to make one path open to cyclists, but with the condition that they follow the clear and very large “SLOW” signs.

    Typically those signs are ignored. Are you suggesting we reward such bad, inconsiderate behavior by creating a freeway in the park for bikes?

    If you want to go fast, use Fell or Oak. The park is for walkers, children, seniors, people with dogs and those who wish an escape from fast traffic.

  • RichLL

    If bike commuters use that route twice a day, as you claim, then they will be well aware of any hazards like speed bumps.

    Then again, if you are arguing to leave things as they are, then you’ll get no objection from me.

  • Donovan Lacy

    That sounds a lot like the argument to eliminate cars in GGP. Given that automobiles have shown an inability to follow the numerois 25mph signs, I assume that you are good with banning them from the park. We certainly wouldn’t want to reward their bad behavior by creating a freeway in the park for cars.

    The park is a place to go to escape from fast traffic. If you want to drive fast automobiles should go around the park.

  • the_greasybear

    Sure, we could arbitrarily introduce further impediments to the flow of bicycle traffic on the Panhandle multi-use path, because this Internet troll RichLL seeks as always to stigmatize and disadvantage bicycling in San Francisco.

    However, it would be more beneficial for our shared government to instead look at the data, and from that data learn what our top safety priorities should be. The data shows speeding motorists kill and maim a sufficient number of San Franciscans to justify impeding their speed generally, and on Golden Gate Park’s roadways specifically given the most recent carnage.

    We have no similar mortality data justifying the introduction of further impediments to the speed of bicycle traffic on the Panhandle multi-use path. That’s just troll-talk.

  • RichLL

    I can see why you’d regard that analogy as convenient, if it were valid. However there is a clear difference. The vehicular rights of way through GGP have been present since before anyone can recall. Whereas the special provision for cyclists to not be barred from one path in the Panhandle is a relatively recent concession, predicated upon cyclists’ good behavior.

    You might also be aware that the main north-south route through GGP is part of State-designated Highway One, meaning that the city has a very limited ability to change that.

    But let me ask – do you object to obeying the “SLOW” signs in the Panhandle?

  • RichLL

    You may make that claim but my fellow residents who ambulate in the Panhandle have very similar complaints about cyclists speeding on the mixed-use path to those I hear from cyclists make about vehicular traffic.

    As such, I would have thought that cyclists would be more sensitive to more vulnerable path users, given that usually it is cyclists who are deemed vulnerable.

    Are you asserting that you want an absolute right to speed where there are children, seniors and dogs seeking recreation? And that the clear “SLOW” signs somehow don’t apply to you?

  • Alicia

    What speed do you think constitutes “obeying the SLOW signs”? A “SLOW” sign isn’t clear like an ___ mph sign is. I am not an especially fast rider, and I almost always ride under 15mph… but there are still people (pedestrians, skateboarders, other bikers) who perceive me as going too fast.

  • RichLL

    It’s a fair question – what does “SLOW” mean? Leaving discretion to cyclists there always leaves open the possibility of subjectivity, and the opportunity for a cyclist to claim that 15 or 20 is “slow” because, flat out, they could maybe do 25 there.

    Turn the question around. If it were vehicular traffic that was being told to go “SLOW” in an area where there are a lot of cyclists, how would you interpret that?

    Ultimately if you are being perceived by ordinary park users as going too fast, then you probably are. Personally I’d posit 15 as an absolute limit, and 10 would be better. The cyclists there who are clearly going as fast as they can are not following the spirit of that sign.

  • Alicia

    Ultimately if you are being perceived by ordinary park users as going too fast, then you probably are

    1) I (along with other bicyclists) am an “ordinary” user of the parks I have in mind. We are probably at least a quarter of the people who are out on the paths, and we donate a lot of the money that goes to the upkeep of the facilities. I’m not sure what the breakdown of users is in the Panhandle, but there are probably large numbers of bikers, and I would be surprised if they aren’t ordinary users there as well. 2) If someone is not paying attention, they can be startled and irritated at someone who rides past at just 5mph. I’m not so much concerned about “perception” as I am with defined standards. (e.g. a defined limit of 15 or 20 mph).

  • RichLL

    I’d define “park user” as someone on foot (walking, jogging, out with their dog). A special exception has been made to allow vehicles (bikes) on one path in the park, on the understanding that they accept and respect that as a privilege not to be abused.

    When you’ve got people out with kids, dogs etc then the burden on the traffic to ride considerately and defensively is a clear condition. Put another way, if I am walking in the park, it isn’t my job to “pay attention” to traffic. The traffic should be paying attention to me.

    The point being that if you regard that mixed-use path as it if were a regular bike lane, or even as a highway, then you will bring yourself into conflict with those who are there only to recreate and enjoy the park.

  • Alicia

    I’d define “park user” as someone on foot (walking, jogging, out with their dog).

    Of course, you would. It’s self-serving to you to do so. Problem is, lots of bikers use park paths for getting from point A to point B because local governments aren’t putting enough investment in protected bike lanes to provide safe alternatives. San Francisco is better than most cities, but even so, they aren’t that great. Complaining about bikers (or skateboarders, et cetera) who are too fast for your liking is not going to change a thing. You want them out of the parks, be pragmatic about it and start backing realistic alternatives.

  • RichLL

    Alicia, now you are changing the subject. The purpose of parks is recreation and not transport. Cyclists are given a special concession to “commute” through a park because the alternative (putting bike lanes further west along Fell and Oak) would cause severe cascading congestion problems for regular traffic.

    And nobody is saying you can’t ride your bike in the Panhandle. Indeed, if your purpose is purely recreational, that’s fine. But if you want to continue enjoying the privilege of riding your bike through a park, then at least slow down, and respect and give priority to slower moving people trying to relax and enjoy some peace and quiet.