New JFK bike lanes are bad for everyone


Golden Gate Park visitors have had a couple months to get used to the confusing new lane configurations on JFK Drive – with bike lanes along the edges of the road and a row of parked cars in the middle – and I have yet to hear from anyone who likes this design. Nice try, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, but this design isn't working for any road users and should be scrapped.

The idea of using a row of parked cars to separate cyclists from motorists isn't inherently bad, and it has worked well in some European cities. But the way this is designed, passengers exiting vehicles must cross the bike lane to get to the sidewalk, creating a conflict that isn't good for either user. It was intended to create safer bikeways, but they actually feel more dangerous and uncertain now.

There are buffer zones where motorists aren't supposed to park, but on busy days they do anyway, with little to fear from parking control officers who rarely venture into the park, often crowding into the bike lane. The design also accentuates the visual blight of automobiles in this beautiful park, with more lanes of cars dominating the viewscape in many spots.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. After my cover story on urban cycling last week, I got a few notes critical of the new design, including an email from longtime local cyclist Thomas Kleinhenz, who wrote, “When the new Golden Gate Park bike lanes went in I scratched my head. Who dreamt this up. It helps no one. Cyclists now ride in a lane between the curb on the right and parked cars on the left. You have cyclists, roller-bladers, rental bikers, and children all stuck in the same lane with pedestrians trying to get to and from their cars.”

Kleinhenz cited state road design manuals discouraging this kind of design, claiming they may even be illegal. He continued, “When I've ridden it, I've had to dodge a child darting out from between the cars and a family of 5 who strolled across the bike lane confused about where to go. I've also been stuck behind Segways and rental bikers, forcing me and another rider to go out into the traffic lane just to top 5 mph. But of course the traffic lanes are now thinner to make room for the new bike lanes. So we're left with one non-functional, unsafe lane and another mildly functional unsafe lane. Meanwhile cars have less room to maneuver, and people getting out of their parked cars are forced to try to avoid traffic on one side and cyclists on the other. While cyclists who don't want to deal with the congestion in the bike lane now must be aware of having car doors opened into them in the now narrower traffic lane.”

His comments are typical of others that I've heard, including those from transportation engineers who are similarly baffled by the choices made here. The SFMTA deserves credit for trying something new, but I'll give them even more credit if they just call this one a mistake and start over. And that is a possibility.

“We're going to continue monitoring the JFK bikes lanes closely and we will consider potential adjustments to make them more intuitive and user-friendly,” SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose told us, adding that the agency will analyze changes in traffic speed and volumes for both cyclists and motorists and parking volume, as well as surveying people's perceptions of the project.

Hopefully some changes will be in the offing, but I think the project is an example of a bigger problem that I discussed in last week's article, and that is political and civic leaders going with the easy bicycle infrastructure projects so they can claim lots of new mileage rather than the more politically difficult projects we actually need.

Last year on Bike to Work Day, newly minted Mayor Ed Lee announced two bike projects: the JFK lanes and new cycletracks on the dangerous few blocks on Fell and Oak streets to connect the Panhandle with the Wiggle, which has long been a high priority for cyclists as it completes a popular east-west bike corridor. Well, the former project got done and the latter got delayed when neighbors complained about the lost parking spots.

Now, because the SFMTA tried to accommodate motorists with too many new parking spots in Golden Gate Park – despite previous promises to decrease street parking in the park in exchange for building a massive underground parking lot – we've ended up with a messy design that only exacerbates conflicts between motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. In their effort to please everyone, as is often the case, they have pleased nobody.


Ooh, no reflexive mention of the SFBC on this, even though the JFK Drive project is the heart of their "first ambitious goal:"

"We are working towards our first ambitious goal, to complete the heart of the Bay to Beach bikeway route by 2012 so that you can begin to enjoy the comfort, safety and freedom of Connecting the City's bikeways. The first project -- the city's first separated bikeway, on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park -- is already being built."

Posted by marcos on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:06 pm

Well, I think each one of your comments definitely has its own right and wrong. Bike and pedestrian lanes work very similarly with bike and car lanes. The faster-moving is not allowed on the slower-moving path and the faster-moving needs to avoid the slower-moving ones as much as possible. That is just how the traffic regulations work. The faster ones always have to look out for and give way to the slower ones. In this new design, I do agree the design is a little contradicting but what the authorities had in mind was for the cyclists to ride a little slower and look out for pedestrians coming out from and going into their cars, as simple as that. The same rules are common and apply to all states and countries.

Posted by Peter Mould on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:50 pm

Great article. This new design pleases nobody. The cars have fewer spaces and must try to parallel park while blocking traffic. Then try to unload the family and get to the curb safely without getting hit by a bike. The cyclists are jammed between the curb and the cars, sharing a lane with all kinds of 2 wheeled vehicles. And the faster cyclists are forced out into a much narrower traffic lane that they share with cars and have to try not to get "doored" by a parked car. It was so much more functional before.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

Same problem in the Panhandle which isn't even a bike lane, but a mixed-use path with old people, children dogs. Yet bikes treat it like a freeway.

Slow the freak down, asswipes.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

Peds have the whole south side panhandle path that cyclists can't use.

Why can't old people, children and dogs limit themselves to the south side panhandle bike path, the one that is specifically designated for their exclusive use?

Heading west is slightly uphill and into the wind, cyclists don't get going that fast.

Heading east, I just say fuck it and bike down Oak as fast as cars, one of the most exhilarating rides in the City.

Posted by marcos on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

Er, because it's a park not a freeway. And in parks people have priority over all forms of transport everywhere.

And it's not a bike path - it's just that bikes aren't banned there. But it's a mixed use path i.e. EVERYONE shares it.

But sure, take Oak, please.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

People do not have priority over cars on roads in city parks.

Oak and Fell are freeways, bicycles rarely go faster than 20 mph.

The north path IS a bike path, it IS designated as a Class I bike path by the City.

The south is a people path, it IS designated as a pedestrian walkway by the City.

Posted by marcos on May. 17, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

The north path is mixed-use and, on the principle both that it's a park and that faster traffic should always give way to slower traffic, bikes should defer to pedestrians. It's a recreational path and not a freeway for just one form of locomotion.

Slow down.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 10:16 am

Class I paths are by definition bike/ped paths.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 11:34 am

definition seems rather redundant in this case.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 11:52 am

My point is that peds can't be excluded, asshat.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

You would note that at Crissy Field in the Marina, there is a bike segment of the path that is designated with bicycles and a pedestrian segment of the path that is designated otherwise. Similarly at the Panhandle, there is a south path that is for pedestrians and a north path that is primarily for cyclists. Pedestrians should handle themselves accordingly on the north path just like cyclists avoid the south path.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 11:56 am

Pedestrians are allowed on either path. Bikes are only allowed on one of them. If the north lane were "bike only", your point would be valid. But it isn't, presumably because it is first and foremost a recreational area and not a freeway.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

That's why they have a special signal for the bike path, they have special striping that separates lanes for bicycles and that's why they have special pictures of bicycles on the pavement.

Keep it on the south side and conflicts are avoid, presto!

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

paths in the Panhandle.

Your idea of pedestrians being "separate but equal" so that you can ride at an extra 2mph doesn't seem reasonable.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

10mph is a reasonable speed to ride and under the right circumstances, a 10mph collision can kill a pedestrian.

Why, Plessy v. Ferguson, are you arguing that separate but equal is okay for cyclists, but not for cars or peds?

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

conditions at the time.

I wasn't arguing for "separate but equal" at all - I was arguing against it.

But consider this. Cars aren't allowed in bike lanes but bikes are allowed in car lanes.

Same for pedestrians who are allowed in bike paths while bikes are not allowed on pedestrian apths and sidewalks.

It's really quite simple.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

Nonsense. Peds are not allowed in the Marina bike path, there is a barrier, peds go on one side, bikes on the other. This is just like the panhandle, where there is a clearly marked path for bikes and clearly marked path for peds where bikes are excluded, as well as two sidewalks on Oak and Fell exclusively for peds.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

Arguing that that isn't so is a waste of time even for someone like you who evidently has a lot of time to waste.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

It is reckless for a pedestrian to proceed into the path when it is not safe to do so.

It is reckless for a dog walker to stretch their leash across the path.

It is reckless for people to leave personal property in the path.

The path is a major bicycle commute artery and that is a legitimate and encouraged use that has to be respected.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

... pretty well-formed opinions on these matters.

Marcos, this seems to be the first time I've noticed that you have made a comment that I find objectionable. You didn't mention that IT IS RECKLESS TO SPEED ON A BICYCLE IN A PATH INTENDED FOR MIXED USE.

The north path of the panhandle IS NOT a dedicated bicycle lane.

Christ! If it was up to me, bicyclists who wanted to poke along at 5mph would be welcome to ride on the sidewalk -- provided they yielded right of way to pedestrians. I see no problem with bicyclist maintaining momentum through stop signs as long as it doesn't create a right-of-way conundrum for drivers or present a hazard to pedestrians.

That said, if you want to speed on your bike (my road bike is capable of 30mph) then ride in the roadway with cars. You have that right. Do not ride through the park at breakneck speed ANYWHERE. I swear I wanted to kill the bastard I saw fly - FLY! WITH WHEELS OFF THE GROUND! - past an elderly lady near the waterfall.

If your point was that everyone should be courteous and respectful of others and the safety of others, then disregard this rant.


Posted by lillipublicans on May. 18, 2012 @ 10:49 pm

10mph is not speeding and 10mph can kill. On a mixed path, pedestrians are oblivious to cyclists at their peril.

What I find objectionable is the idea that anyone can conduct themselves in a shared space oblivious to others around them and the potential dangers that they pose.

The miniscule number of incidents where pedestrians are actually injured or killed by cyclists on sidewalks and shared paths like the panhandle speaks to the careful attention that cyclists pay to their surroundings. The miniscule number of incidents where cyclists hit and injure pedestrians in crosswalks, I believe it is has been three in the past, what 15, 20 years, speaks to the attention that cyclists pay to their surroundings.

Contrast this to the innumerable instances where cyclists cede right of way to reckless pedestrians. I chalked up five incidents yesterday where oblivious pedestrians would have been injured or killed had I not been paying attention because they were reckless. Most all of them involved jaywalking through stopped traffic when I was biking in a clear lane. On Montgomery, Sansome and Market 3 times did I have to take potentially evasive action to avoid hurting someone who was in the wrong.

I don't want to see license given to anyone, in this case pedestrians, to be oblivious to legal, non-reckless dangers that are attendant to sharing space in the City. Nobody should be hitting anyone but legally, the reckless party shoulders the burden of their conduct.

Posted by marcos on May. 19, 2012 @ 6:05 am

present. Yes, pedestrians should accord room to bicyclists as possible, but the bottom line is that bicycles moving at speed substantially higher than walking speed should yield right of way and/or slow down in the presence of pedestrians.

The park is primarily a park: a place to relax and "commune with nature."

If you want to get somewhere fast, then wear bright clothing, carry a whistle in your beak, and hump it up in high gear on the roadway proper.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 19, 2012 @ 11:43 am

The bike path in the Panhandle is *not* exclusive to bikes, asshat. It's just the part of the park where bikes are allowed, asshat. You sure think you're entitled, don't you? And for your reference I do ride a bike in the city. I follow the rules, and I share the road.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 7:53 am

What part of Class I bike way are you missing? There are stripes on the path way and arrows that indicate direction of travel.

Overweight Russian seniors marching seven abreast on that segment are NOT sharing the path.

Dog walkers whose leashes extend across the path way are NOT sharing the path.

Relative speeds make it such that there are few opportunities for conflict if everyone just restricts themselves to use the portion of path that they immediately need. The conflicts occur when pedestrians use the path as for reasons other than transportation.

Must there be hardpack underfoot for conversation? Must the dog leash extend across the path? Aren't there ways to have that conversation on the grass? Can't we restrict dog walkers from shitting their dogs adjacent to where bikes and peds travel?

There are thousands of miles of sidewalk in SF where bikes are prohibited. There is a parallel pedestrian path in the panhandle where bikes are prohibited. Fell street is a dangerous freeway.

All we've got is the north side bike path and now you want to take that from us.


Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 8:25 am

mixed use path in a city park just so you can go slightly faster?

And then you wonder why so many people resent cyclists' sense of entitlement and self-importance?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 10:17 am

RUSSIAN. Hmmm. When did it become okay to pick on a particular ethnic group?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 11:45 am

When they're white and move to the US to collect benefits without paying into the system, don't bother to learn English, and insist upon walking slowly many abreast on bike paths, that's when.

Before you whine, my great grandparents came to the US in the 1890s in the bottom of a ship from a place that was in between Poland and Russia, back before the words "social" and "services" were used in the same sentence in this country.

Within five years they learned English in night school after working how many hours per day. All Americans need to be functionally multilingual with English as one of those languages.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

for citizenship.

Russians are allowed to walk on all the Panhandle paths.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Of course there is no requirement English language proficiency for a Green card and there should not. The only requirement for Russians to move here is to be white and brain drain Russia.

That said, if you're going to move across the world to a new country, then the minimum of respect involves becoming fluent in the language of that country that spending money that we don't have, that one did not pay into, to provide for you.

That is nothing that my great grandparents did under much more difficult circumstances, namely the Lower East Side tenements during the "gilded age."

Respect also involves realizing that people traverse paths in two directions, and that walking slowly multiple people abreast on sidewalks or bike paths is disrespectful to other users of the shared public space.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

"When they're white and move to the US to collect benefits without paying into the system, don't bother to learn English,"

Consider what you would be perceived as, if you replace "Russian" with "Mexican". Would that be Ok? So why is it Ok to say these things about another ethnic group?

"Of course there is no requirement English language proficiency for a Green card and there should not. The only requirement for Russians to move here is to be white and brain drain Russia."

It's much more difficult than you think, Marcos. Especially if you're one of those Russian *seniors* you first disparaged. If they're a young Russian of the "brain drain" variety, they're virtually always going to learn English real quick, and within a few years of landing on US soil, most of them will be running circles around Americans in terms of their achievments, and tax contributions to the economy. If, OTOH, they're seniors, then it's damn near impossible for them to become permament residents unless they can prove they have family who will take on the full financial burden of their support. Many of them do subsequently find ways to get government benefits anyway, but remember they're only here because they have family who are paying big bucks into those benefits. Not a bad trade for this country overall.

You're a smart guy, marcos. Much smarter than most. But when you start spouting about things you know little about, you come off looking pretty ignorant.

As for the bike lanes on the panhandle... I think you two are just talking over each other. You're arguing what should be. Your opponent is arguing about what is. I just got a new, zippier bike, so I'm riding more these days. I agree, the design of that lane isn't the best. If the other one is pedestrians only, maybe this one should be bike only. But it's not. I don't get too worked up over the occasional pedestrian; even though they're obstructions, I realize they currently have right to be there so there's not much I can do. Not point in getting all bent out of shape about it.

Posted by Greg on May. 18, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Mexico is attached to the US. The US and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 that guarantees certain rights for either nationality living on either side of the border.

Most all Mexicans (and Latinos) who move here do not get any sort of special consideration to do so in order to brain drain the perceived economic competitors and to slightly bolster the white population to give racism a few more years of dominance.

Indeed, most Latinos from north of Panama move here because the US perpetrates economic and war crimes in their home countries in order to abscond with their raw materials and turn their countries into sweatshops.

They are simply fleeing the handiwork of our foreign policy and coming to take back some of what was stolen from their countries by force.

Contrast that with immigration from Asia that carries completely different connotations.

My view is that public policy in a democracy should be crafted to preserve the interests of the shareholders in the government, the citizens first, residents next and businesses and foreigners last.

The only reason why immigration is even on the radar politically in the US is because corporate interests really want labor certainty, not for any altruistic progressive purpose.

The contradiction, of course, is that even though the US standard of living was predicated upon all sorts of unspeakable horrors perpetrated on the global south, people move here from Asia to take advantage of the benefits of our social and economic culture without bringing up their end of the bargain and integrating into US culture.

One reason for that is that American and Latino culture have similar cultural and linguistic roots out of Europe. But even my great grandparents' generation was able to integrate linguistically and culturally 70 years before Jews were even considered white in the post WWII era.

One reason why the US was able to succeed to the extent that it did during the golden era of post WWII was because of a common language and culture. But with the neoconservative demolition of the social contract, the last thing that we need is for immigrant communities to resist linguistic integration and establish separatist clusters. That is about as dangerous as the neoconservative efforts to insinuate religion into the public sector.

I find it very interesting that the poverty nonprofits tried to insert the immigration issue into Occupy because my read is that the 99% would be more hard line on immigration than the 1% as it is in the best interests of the 99% to employ those already here than to accommodate newcomers.

And, of course, no immigration advocates ever mention the H1-B visa program that is designed by the National Science Foundation with the explicit purpose of driving down tech wages by inviting the entirety of the 5,000,000 members of the computer science graduating class of the university of Hyderabad to work in the US.

When the house is on fire, public policy should be directed to protecting those inside the house from immolation, putting out the fire and fireproofing the home, not inviting more people into a burning house.

Separation of church and state as well as linguistic commonality are the two pillars that have kept the US from descending into full blown civil war. Immigration is not a clear cut economic issue as it is portrayed. Not all immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do. There are legitimate economic and cultural concerns about how public policy run by the 1% impacts the future sustainability of the US. It is clear that the 1% have completely disinvested themselves from the future of the US national project. Thus all of their policies are suspect.

I know it sounds radical, but in a democracy, public policy should be crafted to benefit existing stakeholders, citizens, first, not corporations, not future immigrants. This is not an exercise in xenophobia, rather existing residents acting to promote their enlightened self interest. There are cases where immigration makes perfect sense and cases where it is a bad idea.

That said, overweight elderly Russian immigrants from the Moscow region need to not be walking twentyfour abreast through parks, on sidewalks and, most critically, on shared bike paths. Lithe Scandanavian Leningraders, on the other hand, can easily fit on the paths.

Posted by marcos on May. 19, 2012 @ 6:53 am

It's no surprise those whose own interests are inimical to the interests of the 99% seek to interject all manner of non-sequiturs into any discussion. Damn them (and their useful idiots).

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 19, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Bike riders in the City are 99% assholes!

Posted by Joe Smuchatelli on May. 20, 2012 @ 7:27 am

Wow, Marcos. Not only are you an entitled asshat, but you are also a racist asshat. But for this purpose, how about you just stick to the current issue. You know, the issue outlined in the article. Asshat.

And that whole "my grandparents were immigrants so I'm not a racist when I say racist things" is asshatish.

Posted by Guest on May. 21, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Old people can't use the south side because it is poorly maintained and therefore impossible for a person who uses a cane or is in a wheelchair.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 10:03 am

Good point. I run this route and have tripped a few times.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

I was there today and everyone was sharing well and playing nice.

Oh, and for bikes, as you enter, there's a big "go slowly" sign, just so you know.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

The "faster" cyclists used to be able to ride in the street in a lane between the parked cars and traffic. That lane now is gone.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

it's even more inappropriate when it is in a park, which should be for all to use, and not segregate users.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2012 @ 10:18 am

You honestly think that every cyclist in GGP should be moving at 8mph or less? Sure, there are some cyclists who ride too fast on paths that aren't designed for it, and as a cyclist (and a cyclist who likes to ride "fast"), I hate it too. That said, one of the best things about the way JFK was before these awful bike lanes was that it allowed faster cyclists, slower cyclists, cars, and pedestrians to coexist with relatively few places where the groups were brought into conflict. If I was on a training ride through the park, it was easy enough for me to pass the tourists in the very wide shoulder without having to negotiate the vehicle traffic. I also didn't have to worry about pedestrians, except at marked crosswalks. Now, I have to worry about pedestrians AND slower cyclists the entire length of the park, unless I want to ride in car traffic and risk doors and dickhead drivers.

If we want San Francisco to be a cycling friendly city, we need to come up with ways to accommodate cyclists who race and train, not just those who ride to Bi-Rite every couple of weeks. There's no reason we can't come up with solutions that work for everyone.

Posted by Jordan on May. 20, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

when riding on pedestrian-shared pathways where bicycles are allowed, and that they should yield and or slow when the presence of pedestrians calls for it; just like runners.

Pedestrians and runners should also keep to the right on these paths at all times unless passing slower traffic. I have no problem with people and children poking along on footpaths if they yield to pedestrians for that matter, if they yield.

Okay, admittedly this all requires people to be intelligent and obey simple rules that should be somewhat obvious.

Otherwise the park roadways should be striped in such a way as to allow bicyclists to either share the roadway by riding along the edges of it or take a lane as their wishes and best safety practices dictate.

I think we're basically in agreement with regard to that. No?

I'll add that under my scheme, only those who want to constantly ride at their best speed (which isn't good enough to keep up with traffic) don't fit in, and to be frank, as a sometimes frustrated driver and sometimes pedestrian harassed on the sidewalk, I'd rather these people take the bus more anyhow.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 20, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

They'll never be happy until they have the whole road to themselves. The self-absorbed sense of entitlement is stunning.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

The problem is that many of us didn't ask for this bike lane. The powers that be in the cycling community are not all that in tune with what actual cyclists need in the city, they are too caught up with the unrealistic goal of 8 to 80 over the entire city.

Posted by Logan the Huge on May. 17, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

and was stung by a bee. So I began thinking - wouldn't it REALLY be great if we had separate lanes AND they were enclosed, heated and air-conditioned too? I pay taxes - why should I be subjected to the vagaries of nature while motorists roar by - protected from things like stinging insects and burning sun? I feel like a second class citizen.

These new lanes in the park are the bicycle equivalent of sitting in the back of the bus or being a bicycle sharecropper. They're neither separate NOR equal in any way.

Posted by Troll II on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:19 pm

Who are these lanes supposed to help. Not the drivers, they now have fewer spaces and have to now try to parallel park while in traffic. No more buffer lane. The cyclists are jammed into a lane with cars on one side and a curb on the other. So there's no way to escape the many slow moving 2 wheeled vehicles you'll find in the lanes. Or try not to hit the people getting out of their cars and trying to get to the curb. The kids and the dogs are my favorite. Then the faster cyclists are forced out into the narrower and busier traffic lane and try not to get "doored" by the parked cars. It's a mess. The Bicycle Coalition never took into account the safety issues, only that it can say we're nearing our goal of a cross town bike lane.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

"I have yet to hear from anyone who likes this design. Nice try, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, but this design isn't working for any road users and should be scrapped."

You didn't ask me. Should we scrap the Bay Guardian then?

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

Nice try, but I think it is a mess. Way too confusing.

Posted by D. native on May. 17, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

Yet banned me from posting after I questioned their double standards of journalism. It's sad that they can't take criticism from someone who has put 300K miles on bike over the last 30+ years. Every cyclist in my office (more than 40% are daily cyclists in an office of 20 in the Presidio) absolutely hates these lanes. This is another of the SFBC's "make cyclists feel special" but sadly they are not actually safer projects. Similar are the new green blobs on Waller Street, not only do they inflame even more the residents who live around the wiggle, but wouldn't it have been great if instead of useless green rectangles the SFBC lobbied the city to have that section of Waller repaved, as it is a complete mess of potholes and utility trenches.

Also while we are at it, how about the burglaries targeting bicycles running rampant in the city. According to the Mission Station Investigator that responded to the one that stole four bikes from our well locked garage, two garages a day in the mission district are being burgled with only bicycles every day. There have been pictures/video of crimes in action, but as far as I have heard there have been no arrests. These people obviously have a way to turn the bikes immediately into money, this pipeline should be found, and the SFBC is the organization that should be pressuring the city and SFBC to put more resources on this.

Posted by Logan the Huge on May. 17, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

Streetsblog is the Soviet Central Russian Politburo of the livable streets movement: you WILL like the party line of livable streets and you WILL be banned for deviating, relegated to the Siberian work camps of the gulag archipelago.

Questioning the dominant paradigm is subversion which makes you worse than a motorist.

Posted by marcos on May. 18, 2012 @ 8:21 am