Polk Street Improvement Option 1
Having run head-on into a wall of seemingly unexpected opposition, the SFMTA has been forced to revisit their options for San Francisco’s Polk Street Improvement Project.
Opposing the Agency’s plan to remove up to 170 street parking spaces along Polk Street to make way for dedicated bike lanes, the Save Polk Street Coalition is pushing for a plan which would create corner bulb-outs to shorten crossing times, slow traffic by changing signals, and add “sharrows” to the roadway but wouldn’t result in any dedicated bikeway.
Polk%20Street%20Improvement%20Option%20A.gif
Roughly five percent of existing metered parking spaces would be removed in order to install red zones near intersections to improve driver visibility and pedestrian safety.
The second of two SFMTA sponsored “open houses” to discuss and debate the proposed plans for Polk Street will held this evening from 5pm to 8:30pm at 1300 Polk Street.
Polk Street Improvement Project [sfmta.com]
Polk Street Showdown: Bike Lanes Versus Parking & Local Opposition [SocketSite]
Polk Street Showdown: Directing The SFMTA To Revisit Their Plans [SocketSite]

430 thoughts on “Will Bikes Lanes Be A Casualty Of A Head-On Collision Over Polk?”
  1. If that happens, I will be spending my money somewhere else. Polk St will stay the poor man’s Valencia and it will be their own choice.

  2. I believe that the cross-section plan shown here is known as “option 1” which provides no dedicated space for cyclists on Polk. That configuration is only suitable for advanced urban cyclists and even so it far from optimal. You can see that it would not be possible for a bus to safely pass a cyclist for example.
    We need a plan that allows grannies to feel comfortable to cycle down Polk. Cycling provides too many benefits to limit its access to those with nerves of steel. Without that the majority will never feel comfortable with cycling for daily commutes and errands. We will be stuck forever in a vicious cycle of subsidizing the very source of the danger that prevents people from making choices that create a better street environment.

    1. “grannies to feel comfortable to cycle down Polk”
      Yes, yes, we should reconfigure the whole city of Saint Francis to make it “comfortable” for the one out of one thousand “grannies” who want to ride a bicycle. Our wonderful communitarian generosity is world famous.

      1. 1:1000? I think not. Have you ever visited a city where bicycling is prevalent ? There are lots of seniors on bikes there.

        Our current bike network requires that you be somewhat of a daredevil to get around which explains why the current demographic doesn’t include many grannies. Or even a broad spectrum of the population. Instead you get mostly men 20-50. It need not be that way.

  3. How about a third plan: leave everything as is.
    It works just fine.

    So did Polk before cars, as far as anyone was aware. Why ever change anything anywhere?

  4. Too bad there isn’t a neighborhood group doing everything in their power to help get this pushed through ( as opposed to squashing it ).
    I read countless articles that showcase plenty of reasons for why plans like this are important and economically vital for areas like Polk.
    One day… common sense may prevail.

  5. Since cyclists are allowed the full use of a traffic lane, let them do this on Polk St.
    Add some parklets. Yes.
    Add some trees. Yes.
    Add some bike lanes. NO.
    Listen to the merchants. Those metered parking spaces are important and should remain.
    And, don’t forget that Valencia St. also has metered parking. And it’s well used.

    1. I am certain you’re happy to have a bike riding in the middle of the lane at 10MPH. After all they’re allowed to do it, lol.

  6. muni is filthy, unreliable, and dangerous.
    spend the money on that.
    basic quality of life for all of us, not the biker elite.

  7. Listen to the merchants. That elevated freeway is important and should remain.
    Fixed that for you. Oh wait, we’re not talking about merchants being horrendously wrong about what’s in their best interests (Chinatown after ’89)?

  8. Hopefully the SFBC will take futurist’s idea to heart and make a regular occurrence of critical mass up and down Polk Street. Absolutely grind traffic to a halt. Make full use of the traffic lanes…indeed.

  9. Critical mass is an irritant, at most, causing a few traffic delays now and then. BFD.
    But they offer nothing in the way of constructive commentary in improving our city.
    @ anon: as for listening to the merchants: Your comparison (tired) of the old elevated freeway torn down along the Embarcadero with respect to removing much needed metered parking on Polk is a weak comparison.

  10. futurist, this is a very valid comparison. Or else please do substantiate your claim. Merchants said they would have to close shop. The were very vocal about their opinions. Less cars on the Embarcadero changed the city forever.
    I think it is very common for merchants to be afraid of any change. They live in the micro: every minute of the day they are present, have to care about all sorts of details. If they took a step back, they would see that having less cars in a neighborhood has ALWAYS bee beneficial to merchants.
    Another example of a winning design that put NO MERCHANT out of business: Broadway in NYC.

  11. Even in New York City, the fantasy that everything would just be better without cars was shown to be a COMPLETE failure.
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/murder_on_broadway_HrAAmNfUqmTwQVVYL5zW3L
    Enough with the comments about how Polk was better before cars. Did you ever see the pictures of all the horse urine and manure on the streets of the city in the 1800’s? There was a reason homes had “mud rooms” and it was not because they were cute additions to real estate flips.

  12. It’s not a “claim” lol, it’s my opinion. Bringing down the freeway along the Embarc was a great idea.
    And Chinatown still has metered parking.
    You’ll have to work harder at convincing the merchants of Polk to get rid of metered parking. And while you’re at it, make sure you apply your same reasoning to Valencia.
    And of course, Broadway in NYC is hardly a good comparison to our little Polk St. Much denser in NY and MUCH better public transit all over the place.

    1. Valencia is much wider. Apples and Oranges. With Polk, you have 6 current lanes:

      Sidewalk — Parked cars — Moving cars — Moving Cars — Parked Cars — Sidewalk

      Cars are occupying 66% of the way, 1/2 of it NOT for traffic. Plus a sizable proportion of the car traffic is actually looking for a space.

      On Valencia, you have:
      Sidewalk – parked cars – Bicycles – Moving Cars – Median (Cars) – Moving Cars – Bicycles – Parked Cars – Sidewalk

      Cars are using 5/9 = 55% of the space and it works fine

      But as I said, Apples and Oranges…

  13. I certainly would be more likely to go to Polk street and spend money if there was a good bike lane there.
    And yes, fixing muni is important, but we can get 10x the benefit for 10% of the price by improving bike lanes at the same time.

  14. @BigV, the elderly and disabled would have no choice BUT Muni if parking was removed. I really think the bike group needs to understand that not everyone is able to use a bike to get around.
    BTW- I love the pedestrian “bulb outs”!

  15. Have bike lanes on Valencia inhibited commerce on Valencia? The area appears hopping to me.
    Yes on bike lanes on Polk Street of course. There are acres of parking lots for SUVs down there. Colma/Daly City –the big box area — Polk St is not big box territory.

  16. “We need a plan that allows grannies to feel comfortable to cycle down Polk.”
    MOD: Yes, we should plan our transit so that we have a groundswell of San Francisco grannies riding down Polk St. Makes perfect sense.

  17. in reality most drivers need a lot more buffer space between the car and the bicycle to comfortable pass next to them. the northbound car in the pic is sooner or later going to hit the biker or run head on into the oncoming bus with the space given there.

  18. @futurist
    Merchants were wrong about the Embarcadero freeway removal, they were wrong about Sunday streets, and they are wrong about this. Studies have shown that drivers spend the least on a monthly basis when compared to those who arrive by bicycle, transit, or foot, except at supermarkets.
    The merchants are simply afraid of change, but generally don’t know how a change will affect them.
    Bulb outs are a great feature for pedestrian and auto safety.

  19. @ Invented: your logic is very strange and off base:
    Ok, so we get you’re a hater of SUV’s. thanks for sharing that.
    And this issue is NOT about big box stores, acres of parking, OR SUV’s. so why bring that into the mix?
    This is classic San Francisco wacko opinion-ating::hating on certain things/places because YOU don’t personally like them, and pretending that your dislike is relevant to the discussion.
    What’s your point?
    And, just to be clear, ONCE AGAIN: the bike lanes on Valencia did NOT remove 170 parking spaces.

  20. “the northbound car in the pic is sooner or later going to hit the biker or run head on into the oncoming bus with the space given there.”
    Or more likely some cyclists will feel intimidated sharing the lane with autos/buses and ride further to the right into the door zone. Eventually door zone cyclists get doored. Injuries can range from minor to severe or worse.
    ——————-
    Willow – A groundswell of grannies would be great though I wouldn’t count on it. But if you make the roads safe for the most fragile people, others will feel safer too.

  21. justin,
    And what’s their option today? Can you park riiiight in front of the store 100% of the time? Almost never. On the same side of the block? Maybe. Most of the time you’re 1 or 2 blocks away.
    In many cases, this will not change much for the elderly or the disabled.
    Just convert more metered parking on adjacent streets into handicapped parking if you are worried about the elderly and the disabled.
    But I think people simply hide behind granny so that they can keep THEIR own option to park on Polk.

  22. Sorry for the sarcasm but I think it’s farcical to use the granny card. I really feel like I’m in an episode of Portlandia… The majority of bike riders are not the elderly, disabled, poor or minorities. Lets keep it real.

  23. @lol
    “But I think people simply hide behind granny so that they can keep THEIR own option to park on Polk.”
    well said!

  24. “And, just to be clear, ONCE AGAIN: the bike lanes on Valencia did NOT remove 170 parking spaces.”
    How many did they remove? I assume when counting we should include the middle lane, because, while not legal, everyone used it and it was never enforced.

  25. Metered parking on commercial streets is frequently used by business owners and employees as parking during the day. I have personally seen owners and employees feeding meters all over San Francisco. (Union, Clement, Columbus, Polk and Chestnut) Some of the complaining business people are just objecting to losing their personal daily parking spaces.

  26. The majority of bike riders are not the elderly, disabled, poor or minorities
    You’d be surprised at the number of bikes you see at the back of some kitchen areas of restaurants.
    Bikes are often used by the working poor/minorities for their own transportation.

  27. Willow – The disabled are generally not a good fit for cycling though sometimes it works out fine. Minorities and in particular Hispanics are actually one of the biggest components of the cycling demographic though not so much in SF. I don’t know how to tell whether a cyclist is poor or not but would expect that the less money you have the more likely you are to seek cheaper options. You can’t get much cheaper than cycling.
    But the granny demographic is simply the extreme of the class of people who are discouraged to cycle. There are plenty of people who don’t ride a bike because they’re concerned about getting hurt, many of whom are very young and far from elderly. So think “timid cyclist” instead of granny (I am regretting using granny now :-). Why should timid people be excluded?
    The current cycling demographic is limited to people who are either willing to tough it out on the streets or who have no other good option. If we make our streets safer and more welcoming then we’ll see more diversity on bikes. Right now you need nerves of steel and a thick skin to bike in a legal and safe way.
    You don’t need to be psychic to know that improved streets will welcome a wider range of cyclists. Just look at cities that have improved cycling conditions. There they are, and without helmets to boot.

  28. There are far more people who are capable of biking than there are of the elderly and disabled who cannot bike. We should design for the majority — which means that most people are able-bodieded enough to be capable of biking, IF the environment is safe enough for them to choose that option.
    And the BEST way to “fix” muni would be to remove at least half of the stops, if not more. The buses should only stop every 3-4 blocks or so. This would drastically speed up muni and make it more competitive to driving. Of course, this change would help the majority of residents who are able bodied enough to walk a couple blocks. It would make it more difficult for the small minority of elderly and disabled — but to make the system work we need to cater to the majority.
    so, in summery — more bike lanes, fewer buss stops, and few parking spots, and you will see a much better transportation system.

  29. Have SFGov lead the way by giving up THEIR cars and parking first!
    http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2013/04/san-francisco-begins-enforce-government-vehicle-reduction-program-waiver-requests-coul
    It’s fascinating reading all the comments from people about how other people need to behave and travel the way commenters feel they should. “The elderly should ride bikes!” Disabled? Sometimes biking “works just fine” – what about someone without use of their legs? If you love biking, good or you, but requiring a whole city be rebuilt to fit your agenda is pure San Francisco foolishness.
    Why not ask the SFMTA why their staff uses over 535 non construction/service vehicles to get around the city? Also ask the SFMTA why they offer free parking to most management positions. Let them give up cars and start biking first!

  30. As an avid rider, walker, runner, driver and motorcyclist….even with bike lanes biking is incredibly dangerous. Yet so many people think it as safe as walking in a garden. The reality is that I almost get hit at least once per ride…and I have a lot more city road and mountain trail miles under my belt than the vast majority of people on bikes I see (most of which really have no business riding).
    The end result of more bike lanes will utimately result in more riders getting hurt or killed. It’s happened multiple near where I live, and on roads with bike lanes. Not cool to a see body bag on your way to work.

  31. @FedUp
    nobody is trying to force anybody to bike, what we would like is decent conditions for all modes of travel. Right now it is auto uber alles.

  32. Yes FedUp you twisted my comments into prescribing biking for everyone. That wasn’t my intent. It should be an option for anyone who wants to though. Currently there are a lot of people who would bike but don’t because they’re concerned about safety. See the post above from “anon at April 30, 2013 5:41 PM” for example.
    Speaking of which my experience is far from getting hit once every time I ride. You’re doing something wrong, anon. Best to take a class in urban cycling to figure out how you can improve your odds. I’ve never been hit by a car after many thousands of miles on city streets.

  33. @anon
    “even with bike lanes biking is incredibly dangerous”
    No, cycling is not incredibly dangerous. Depending on the exact statistic used it’s slightly safer, or slightly more dangerous than driving.
    “The end result of more bike lanes will utimately result in more riders getting hurt or killed.”
    While that may be technically true (assuming the langes lead to more cyclists) as more riders will ultimately result in more injuries, it is misleading. There is very strong evidence that the more riders there are the lower the chances are of injury or death, so the individual chances of getting hurt or killed will go down.
    When I used to bike commute I didn’t feel it was particularly dangerous. I certainly didn’t experience a near miss every time I rode. For the 2 years I bike commuted (only riding 1-2 days a week) I can only think of 2 or 3 time where I felt there was a close miss. I wasn’t injured a single time.

  34. I agree with FedUp and I agree with anon:
    @ FedUP:
    There is this underlying attitude and group-think among a certain class (generation) of bike riders who, thru their self-entitled holier than thou opinions is that biking is the ONLY way, the BEST way and the COOLEST way for ALL San Franciscans to get around. They really do believe that. Just walk on over to Valencia and you can smell it. It smacks of smoking too much Amsterdam pot and social culture. You like Amsterdam biking? then move there.
    @ anon: I would agree that cycling is inherently dangerous. It always will be. Doesn’t mean it’s not fun, healthy, clean and green. all of that, but it’s dangerous. period.

  35. BigV. “And yes, fixing muni is important, but we can get 10x the benefit for 10% of the price by improving bike lanes at the same time.”
    You must be joking. Less than 0.01% of people who live and/ or work in sf would use this bike lane . More than 50% use Muni. Every single penny should be spent on muni, with none on cycling. Cycling commuting will always be a small nber of people. It makes no sense to cater to this group. Muni muni muni!!

  36. I have been cycling for 20 years on the streets of San Francisco (and in San Diego and other places before that) and I have never been in a collision with an automobile. I know anecdotal evidence isn’t worth much, but I rarely even have near misses anymore, now that I am am a father and have adjusted my riding style to be safer. I always hate it when I have to swing out into traffic because some self-centered automobile driver has decided to use the bike lane as his personal double-parking space.
    It is pretty funny that the auto-centric folks have degenerated 100% into Straw Man debating. They aren’t even trying to talk about the issues anymore.
    @futurist I do like Amsterdam biking. And we am going to bring it here. Don’t believe me? Just watch, listen and learn. 20% by 2020 is official city policy now. We will get to 20%, probably not by 2020 but in your lifetime.
    Don’t like it? Then move to the suburbs.

  37. If that happens, I will be spending my money somewhere else. Polk St will stay the poor man’s Valencia and it will be their own choice.
    Posted by: lol at April 30, 2013 12:21 PM
    Gosh, all the people on Russian Hill and in Pacific Heights are going to miss you. If Polk St is the poor man’s Valencia, then more power to Valencia! lol and Valencia make a great combo. Let’s wish them all the best together.

  38. NoeValleyJim, our favorite car hater wrote:
    20% by 2020 is official city policy now. We will get to 20%, probably not by 2020 but in your lifetime. Don’t like it? Then move to the suburbs.
    What NVJ does not want to see is that the city is becoming more moderate, especially as all the new residential towers are filled up. City policy will change. In our lifetime we will have a normal, moderate, centrist government, of the Feinstein type. Many of the extreme ideas will pass, property rights will be respected, and San Francisco will not become Amsterdam west.

  39. RE: the safety issue. More bikes = more accidents. I had an interesting chat a few weeks ago with our police captain who told us that bike related accidents are skyrocketing and that any figures released by the bicycle coalition regarding accidents are complete fabrications and do not reflect the volume of calls received about cyclists.

  40. We will see conifer. What I see happening is that the extreme pro-car types are all Boomers, who won’t be in the saddle much longer. Younger people are much more environmentally aware and much more likely to support transit and bicycle friendly policies.
    “property rights”? You mean the right of car drivers to control city property and do what they wish with it? Don’t make me laugh.

  41. You know, I pay a tonne of taxes to this city (business and residential) and ride a bike. For huge money, I get crappy roads full of ruts and disappearing shoulders and the occasional ‘bike lane’ striped over the bodies of dead rats.
    This is about creating a threadbare fabric of streets for bicyclists to be able to get around without swinging doors or grazing auto traffic. The huge majority of streets will be left alone, and even with Polk, the side streets will remain one big parking lot, just like the merchants want.

  42. Apparently left out of the discussion is that Polk St is the only flat option for cyclists to cross the city from south to north.
    Cars have taken over Van Ness, Larkin & Hyde, Franklin & Gough. West and East of that are Pac Heights and Nob Hill/Russian Hill.
    This is much bigger than Polk Gulch (although as of my last visit, it’s a stagnant retail area without much obvious new investment, that could use an infusion of new customers).

  43. Yes, as NVJ points out, the bike haters tend to be the old guard, generally men in their 50s and 60s.
    Young and middle aged people are much more environmentally concerned as we will be the ones who will actually have to deal with the poor choices the boomers made collectively. Young people are not driving nearly as much as their parents were at the same age. Combine that with continuing increases in gas prices, and driving will continue to decline.
    As much as you old folks hate bikes and cyclists, they are here to stay, and in fact more are on the way.
    Even those of us younger folks who choose to drive rather than drive recognize the value of cycling and appreciate the efforts of those that do bike, and many of us will support biking improvements because we know it is for the best. Biking is better from an environmental, economic, and health perspective, while cars have been shown to have dire consequences from all 3 perspectives.
    Even though I don’t bike anymore, I support biking improvements and biking in general.

  44. let’s review –
    – only 15% of customers on the area of Polk arrive by car, 85% arrive by muni, bicycle or by foot.
    – By servicing the needs of the 85% or their customers better merchants are likely to increase their business and offset any ‘loss’ of the 15% of customers who arrive by car.
    – the maximum number of parking spots that might be removed is 170 out of a total of 2100 on street parking and 5100 on and off street parking withing a one block radius of the proposed area
    – an average of 2 collisions between cars and pedestrians and cyclists occur every month on this stretch of Polk
    – cycling in ALL cities is on the upswing for several demographic reasons including individuals with large loans or debt coming out of school postpone buying cars and homes while they service student/credit card debt.
    – separated bike lanes are good for cyclists AND drivers (including muni bus drivers) by preventing accidents and conflicts that allow traffic to continue to flow and keep down emergency calls due to collisions with moving cars or parked cars ‘dooring’ cyclists which cost money and slow traffic which impacts drivers more than cyclists when they occur.
    – Bike lanes make PEDESTRIANS safer too. In NYC, on streets with bike lanes, when controlling for other factors, the DOT found that serious crashes on streets with bike lanes were 40 percent less deadly than on other streets.
    so the merchants have a ‘common sense’ concern about reduced parking until you look at the data and realize that perception is not reality, bike lanes are good for cyclist, drivers, and pedestrians. By providing a safer environment for all everyone saves time and money.
    Finally, on the issue of increase accidents as the number of cyclist rise. This is true, to a point. Studies in other major cities show that as cycling rises so does accidents until you reach a certain critical mass of cyclists, no pun intended. After that point, drivers become far more aware of cyclists and adjust their driving and the number of accidents begins to fall
    NYC Cycling accident rate chart
    http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BikePedGraphNYC1.jpg
    NYC DOT 2000 Safety Study
    http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/08/17/action-plan-ups-nycs-commitment-to-ped-safety-but-is-nypd-on-board/

  45. @badlydrawnbear….your “facts” are straight from the bicycle coalition website press releases. They are disputed by the SFMTA’s own statistics as well as other survey information. Still, it is wonderful propoganda and presents the bike viewpoint without any deviation.

  46. @ NVJ: gosh, darn it! I always hate it when I’m nearly run down when I am in the crosswalk legally by some errant, self entitled, young, mostly white, male on a bike. such arrogance! such stupidity!
    Trouble is, you and lyqwyd seem to forget that those young white male cyclists will eventually (we hope) ALSO become 50 and 60 y/o humans and will (largely) be using their car. How radical is that?

  47. Trouble is, you and lyqwyd seem to forget that those young white male cyclists will eventually (we hope) ALSO become 50 and 60 y/o humans and will (largely) be using their car. How radical is that?
    Um, I’m fairly certain that they know that, and are saying that young folks these days are showing VERY different behavior young in life (with regard to driving), which will likely lead to VERY different behavior later in life (with regard to driving). How radical is that?
    Even though I make considerably more money in real terms than my parents did at my age (35), my wife and I have never even remotely considered owning more than one car. My parents never owned fewer than two, even before they had kids. You see this at population-wide scale as well – auto-ownership rates and driving rates down for 30 year olds, not only compared to 50 year olds currently, but also compared to how many vehicles/miles 50 year olds had/drove when they were 30. The trend is clearly down across the board.

  48. Futurist, whoa get a grip. Your endless anger spilleth.
    We don’t commute by bike to be cool. Biking is easy & really fast but our kids cannot bike to school anywhere in the City bc there is no infrastructure for 8 yr olds (or 80 yr olds) to cycle. The Coalition hasn’t scratched the surface of what will be taking place in the years to come. Polk Street is the tip of the iceberg.
    “here is this underlying attitude and group-think among a certain class (generation) of bike riders who, thru their self-entitled holier than thou opinions is that biking is the ONLY way, the BEST way and the COOLEST way for ALL San Franciscans to get around”
    Your big-car suburban lifestyle is noted; living blocks from J-Church and driving instead to Yerba Buena to see an exhibit at MOMA? Psst. The city is quickly moving away from a car-centric model.

  49. @Really?
    Were the numbers reported by a pedestrian/cycling focused website? Yes. Are they disputed by the SFMTA? Not that I see since the numbers cited were provided by the SFMTA or NYC DOT respectively.
    The 85/15 ratio is straight from SFMTA
    new survey data from the SF Municipal Transportation Agency shows that only about 15 percent of people get to Polk Street using an automobile, while the rest either come by foot, bike, or transit. Drivers also reported spending the least amount of money per week compared to those who came by other modes.
    The findings reaffirm those of a study on Columbus Avenue in 2008, conducted by the SF County Transportation Authority, which found that only 14 percent of people on that street arrived by car.

    here’s a link to the SFMTA survey.
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Polk-Interept-Survey-Findings.pdf
    The parking figures as well are from the SFMTA
    The SFMTA has actually refined its parking counts, and now reports a total of 5,100 parking spaces within a block of the project corridor — 800 more than previously known.
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/polk-parking.png
    The accident stats come directly from the SF police data.
    Crash statistics alone, however, make the need for safety improvements clear. Police data shows that between 2006 and 2011, 53 pedestrians and 69 bicycle riders were injured by drivers on Polk. That’s an average of about two people per month.
    And the NYC data is directly from the NYC Department of Transport, which I provided links to.
    The overall upswing in cycle is a national trend reported everywhere and the increased safety of separate bike lanes is also well documented effect.
    So I am not sure what numbers you think are in dispute since the numbers are from SFMTA themselves.

  50. “Trouble is, you and lyqwyd seem to forget that those young white male cyclists will eventually (we hope) ALSO become 50 and 60 y/o humans and will (largely) be using their car.”
    Hmmm… I’m not seeing that at all on the roads. During commute hours when I do most of my cycling I see an ever increasing number of gray beards on bikes.
    To be sure the demographics are skewed towards men but that is probably mostly due to the double standard that American society projects on genders.
    People who use cycling seriously as a way to get around early in life realize its benefits early on and are more likely to stick with it. Aging does affect a person’s physical abilities but certainly doesn’t prevent one from cycling as they get older.

  51. All the commenters above that are assuming that a human male’s quadriceps, hamstrings, gastrocnemiuses, etc. shrivel up and whither away at age fifty, relegating them (largely) to automobile transport, are making me laugh out loud.
    You don’t know any cyclists over the age of 50? Really?
    Although I haven’t reached that mark, I agree with Invented that I don’t commute by bike to be cool. I don’t have a fixie, I’m not a twenty-something and I don’t engage in the kind of anti-social cycling behavior that, for example, the movie Premium Rush seemed to valorize.

  52. I started full-time bike commuting at age 50 (after car commuting for the previous 17 years), and hope to bike commute until I retire! I see lots of other people in their 50s on bikes in SF. Two work colleagues (one male, one female) who are pushing 60 do a charity bike ride from SF to LA every year. It’s simply false that bike riders are all young men.

  53. I don’t think anyone said that ALL cyclists are men, but the majority are. Fact. Yea, some are women, girls, old men, old girls, blah blah blah. so what?
    And the only real anger I have, as others should, is directed at some of those (well, sometimes a lot) of cyclists fly thru the MARKED CROSSWALK when I or others are in it. Or fly thru the stop signs. Ever try driving north or south on Scott St. near Fell? Not one cyclists I have seen EVER stops at a stop sign or even bothers to slow down.
    When we start seeing a shift in just that kind of behavior, we might see more support for cyclists.
    But really, isn’t this discussion primarily centered around removing a LOT of parking spaces on Polk St. and how it will affect the merchants, and shouldn’t we be listening to their concerns and balancing out their needs with others?

  54. @futurist
    “Trouble is, you and lyqwyd seem to forget that those young white male cyclists will eventually (we hope) ALSO become 50 and 60 y/o humans and will (largely) be using their car. How radical is that?”
    What’s your obsession with race? Nobody mentioned “white” until you did. You consistently focus on young white males, and make many false statements about them, and cyclists in general. It’s no great surprise to see you doing it again.
    Just to make it abundantly clear to you, I was referring to all people not just white males. And the comparison was of young people of today to people of previous generations, but at the same age.
    The young people today (again, not just white males) are choosing alternatives to driving far more than people at the same points in their lives did in past generations.
    So a 30 year old today is less likely to own a car or drive than a baby boomer was when they were 30. Got it?

  55. @futurist
    “And the only real anger I have, as others should”
    Thanks for telling us what we should feel.
    “But really, isn’t this discussion primarily centered around removing a LOT of parking spaces on Polk St…”
    170 out of a total of 2100 on street parking and 5100 on and off street parking withing a one block radius of the proposed area.
    Doesn’t seem like a lot to me.
    “… and how it will affect the merchants, and shouldn’t we be listening to their concerns and balancing out their needs with others?”
    I’ve and others repeatedly shown you evidence pointing out that:
    1) The majority of shoppers do not arrive by car
    2) Drivers spend the least on a monthly basis
    3) Merchants have made similar claims in the past that have been absolutely false.
    Just because you ignore facts doesn’t make them go away.
    Now nobody here has said the merchants should simply be ignored, but they should also not have veto power over the project. The needs of all road users should be considered, not just drivers and merchants. Especially given that main issue for these changes are safety. I put health and safety of everybody over the financial benefits of a few merchants, especially when the claim that these changes will cause them financial harm is very questionable.

  56. Wow. The editor gets it right ” 170 street parking spaces along Polk Street “, why can’t you lyqwyd?
    Could we please stop including parking 8 blocks away? It is 170 spaces proposed for removal of ON STREET parking ON POLK STREET, which is 50% of the spaces on Polk Street. Stop pushing commercial parking into the residential neighborhood please.
    The same thing is proposed for Chestnut Street in the Marina. Chestnut operates just fine right now but the proposed removal of metered ON STREET parking and forcing business patrons to park in the residential part of the Marina will impact the rest of the neighborhood in very negative ways. Of course the next step will be parking meters from Chestnut all the way up to the waterfront.
    I thought I read that only 3% of the journeys in San Francisco were on bikes? How did the bike coalition get so much power in this city?

  57. Where did you get the 170 out of 2100 ON STREET parking? The SFMTA says 170 out of about 360 spaces I thought?

  58. Let’s look at this another way.
    Ignoring the fact that drivers spend the least, let’s assume the merchants are correct, the loss of the 170 parking spaces will cut their business from people arriving by car by 50%.
    Out of every 100 customers that is a loss of 7.5 customers.
    But if the improvements attract just 1% more pedestrians, cyclists, and transit that’s 8.5 more customers a net gain.
    Will the improvements attract 1% more? I honestly don’t know. I have never seen a study that quantifies the results of similar projects. However, I have never seen a project of this nature, improved sidewalks, bulb outs, more trees, and better access for cyclists not improve foot traffic.
    The Divisadero rehab might be the close enough comparison, although there was no bike lane added parklets have removed some spaces.
    Improved sidewalks, parklets, a green median, and transit bulb outs have transformed this corridor. New businesses are occupy empty store fronts, a long time liquor store is now a Bi-Rite, and homes and apartment building in the surrounding neighborhood are painting, rehabbing, and the whole neighborhood for blocks is generally improving.
    NoPa is busier then ever since focusing on making it more pedestrian and transit friendly despite that fact that it is a major commute corridor.
    Additionally, as many have pointed out the large number of parklets on the Valencia coridor, the resulted in the loss of about a dozen parking spots appears to have done nothing to hurt business. Valencia is busier then ever.
    Now are 2-12 parking spots the same as 170? No, but the net effect is likely to be positive considering the increase in foot traffic business will see from the other 85% of people who shop, and spend the most, in their stores.
    I respect the owners concerns but under examination of SFMTA studies their concerns don’t seem to hold much water.

  59. I heard the SFMTA say it was looking into removing 100% of the parking on Polk it was considering removing! ALL of the parking!!!

  60. @R
    No, the most bike friendly plan would remove 100% of parking from ONE SIDE of polk street and provide a protected bike lane, next to parked cars (similar to what has been done in GG Park, see the link to the graphic below). The total number of spots would be 170 out of an existing 320 directly on Polk, an existing 2100 spots of on street parking within a one block radius of Polk, and 5100 on and off street spots within a one block radius of Polk.
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/6172400271_5c52093ffe_b.jpg

  61. @all asking about 170
    320 spots on the affected parts of Polk St, but 2100 spots within 1 block. Total of 5000 or so when you include existing off street parking. It’s not a big deal to have to go 1 additional spot, so it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that there’s a ton of parking around the affected streets.
    These numbers are from the MTA study (see name link).
    If you went 2 blocks (still a perfectly reasonable distance to walk) that number would go way higher.
    At my old apartment I often had to park 4 blocks away. Inconvenient certainly, but it wasn’t the end of the world, and I certainly wouldn’t have traded other people’s limbs or lives for more convenient parking.
    @anon94123
    I don’t even know what you are talking about, I said 170 as well. And certainly never said 8 blocks, stop making stuff up.

  62. @badlydrawnbear
    Great point about NoPa. I live in the neighborhood and haven’t even noticed the lost parking, and am in favor of the plan on Masonic that will remove equivalent amount of spots. I haven’t noticed any negative impact because of the parking loss, but I’ve certainly noticed the improvements that have come to the neighborhood in exchange for those spots! And I look forward to the improved safety for all with the pending Masonic changes.

  63. And for like the thousandth time these improvements are not just for bikes.
    The bulb outs are for pedestrian safety, they require eliminations of parking spaces as well.
    Bike lanes remove conflicts between cars, meaning drivers can get to their destinations faster and with less interference with drivers, and drivers often (illegally) use bike lanes for double parking, meaning other drivers will be out of your way when they double park, which we all know happens all the time.
    So as has been mentioned numerous times these improvements are not just for the benefit of cyclists, but for all road users.

  64. Total bs that bike lanes remove conflicts from cars. More propaganda from the Bike Coalition. Bikes are allowed to use traffic lanes AND bike lanes. But cars dare not, even for a minute, encroach on a bike lane. How balanced.
    I’ve lived in San Francisco for ovew 34 years and until very recently, urban cycling was not even on the agenda, or talked about much. It was not trendy or cool, or hipsterish, in the late 70’s or early 80’s or early 90’s.
    Now it is. It’s the favored drug of the Bike Coalition, without regard for other ways of transport, or danger. There simply is no balance.
    Look at the incredible amount of ADDITIONAL congestion the new bike lanes will cause on Cesar Chavez leading to 101. And yet, very few cyclists will use that route. What a waste of money.
    Put in more trees, bulbouts, parklets, sidewalk greening, wider sidewalks, but let’s consider more carefully where bike lanes go and the negative impact they can cause.

  65. @futurist
    “Total bs that bike lanes remove conflicts from cars.”
    Nope, just simple truth. Most cyclists prefer to be in a lane when there is one. I don’t see too many cyclists in the auto full width lanes on Market St or Fell or Valencia these days, except when there’s a car parked in the bike lane.
    “But cars dare not, even for a minute, encroach on a bike lane”
    Total BS from you. The new bike lanes on 8th st far more frequently have cars driving in them than cyclists can be found on the auto lanes. The cars in the bike lane are almost always illegally trying to cut ahead of drivers following the law and staying in their designated space. When the cyclists are in the car lanes it’s almost always because they are legally turning left (the bike lane is on the right side).
    Yes, we know that there are more cyclists today than in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, that’s exactly why these improvements are needed. And for the 1001 time, these improvements
    Things change and the city needs to change as well, sorry if you don’t like it.
    Cesar Chaves street has no relevance to Polk St.
    Other than reiterating your hatred of cyclists and hipsters, was there any point to your post?

  66. “But cars dare not, even for a minute, encroach on a bike lane. How balanced.”
    Dude, time to brush up on the vehicle code. Cars are required to safely merge into the bike lane when making right turns. That’s what the dashed line on the outer edge of the bike lane means. The merge is required to avoid what is known as a “right hook” collision.
    As for bikes in the main lane goes: when there’s a bike lane present, cyclists are required to use it unless there’s a hazard in the bike lane or the cyclist needs to change lanes for a turning movement like making a left turn. In both cases cyclists must make a safe and legal lane change.
    I’m not saying that cyclists and motorists follow these rules to the letter, but those are the rules in the book. And there are cases where it may look like a cyclist is illegally riding outside of the bike lane when they are actually avoiding hazard.

  67. “Look at the incredible amount of ADDITIONAL congestion the new bike lanes will cause on Cesar Chavez leading to 101. And yet, very few cyclists will use that route. What a waste of money”
    Cesar Chavez to Third is a smart route right to the burgeoning residential and commercial areas –DogPatch, Mission Bay, India Basin, Pier 70, Hunter’s Point. We’re building basic infrastructure so we have transit options.
    They might be lightly travelled at first but watch what happens — those lanes are going to be hopping.
    All the more so when connected to a future cycling highway southward (linking us to S. San Franc, Burlingame, Brisbane and others).

  68. CC is already limited to 2 lanes each direction since they completed the sewer replacement, and I haven’t noticed any additional congestion… I don’t believe there are any plans to limit it further are there?

  69. “let’s review –
    – only 15% of customers on the area of Polk arrive by car, 85% arrive by muni, bicycle or by foot.
    – By servicing the needs of the 85% or their customers better merchants are likely to increase their business and offset any ‘loss’ of the 15% of customers who arrive by car.”
    Seriously, that is a weak statistic. Break out bike, walk and muni and u see that bike is less than 3%.
    This plan hurts muni, which most people use,
    By diverting money to a tiny fraction of commuters.
    I don’t see the young and old divide. I see practical vs dreamers. In 50 yrs, the number of bike commuters will still be

  70. Still be less than 10%. The money should all go to improving muni and creating an east to west BART. Think Geary

  71. Geary BART would be great. But if you reallocate the funds for this Polk project to GBART it would barely cover the cost of coffee and donuts. That’s just for the pre-groundbreaking teams.
    And how does a E-W project for regional travel solve a N-S local problem?

  72. Hi “Jill” are you more of the astro-turfing we have seen from “Save” Polk Street? Have you ever even posted on SocketSite before?
    I will remind you in 10 years of your bad prediction when we hit 10% of all trips.

  73. @ NVJ: she/he is entitled to an opinion here as much as anyone else, whether they post for the first time or not.
    I am pleased to see some of the more “balanced” plans for Polk being presented. They correctly take into account ALL types of users and residents of this fair city.
    As it should be.

  74. Your modified drawing is obviously unrealistic soccermom.
    There are no transvestite hookers in it.

  75. “And how does a E-W project for regional travel solve a N-S local problem?”
    I don’t see a north south problem near polk. that is a transit rich area

  76. ” i will remind you in 10 years of your bad prediction when we hit 10% of all trips.”
    Zero chance. That will never happen. It will never reach 5% if you actually include all transportation trips in the city

  77. I thought I read that only 3% of the journeys in San Francisco were on bikes? How did the bike coalition get so much power in this city?
    It is called Democracy. Obviously a majority of San Francisco voters are supportive of pro-environmental causes.

  78. “I thought I read that only 3% of the journeys in San Francisco were on bikes? How did the bike coalition get so much power in this city?”
    So lyqwyd doesn’t stroke out, I’ll say it. This isn’t about bicycles.
    It’s about pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety, and about improving the quality of life in the neighborhood and city. I haven’t ridden a bicycle in 20+ years, but I am 100% behind this. Who wouldn’t want safer streets, wider sidewalks to stroll on a Sunday morning after brunch, and less cars to trip over?
    And Jill, as more people bicycle, it reduces congestion and car traffic, which is one of MUNI’s biggest problems. So this will help MUNI.

  79. Cesar Chavez is not yet limited to 2 lanes in each direction. Perhaps lay off the psychedelics while motoring? Just a thought.

  80. No, it’s not called Democracy. It’s calling caving in to ultra bullying tactics and influence peddling by the bike nuts.
    And it’s about a number of our city leaders who only fall in line with the current, trend of the moment, without consideration for other points of view.
    And like R, I too am all for better pedestrian safety, more liveable streets, greener sidewalks, more trees, and a BALANCED approach to cycling that accurately reflects the REAL amount of cycling, not some far flung “projection” of the future.

  81. On a related note, looks like the city is revisiting Sunday metered parking again as the city’s churchs are complaining. I can see people in the Fillmore biking to service in their Sunday’s finest. LOL
    Should be interesting…Chicago reversed their decision on Sunday metered parking last week.

  82. futurist is talking about “ultra-bullying” regarding cyclists. He obviously has not see a room packed with “friends and family” from merchants that also happen to come from outside SF.
    The most ridiculous arguments are thrown by the old car monopoly. This shows desperation.
    What’s next? Death panels?

  83. Oh, I guess lol has never been in the middle of, or seen what has taken place downtown during Critical Mass. Attacking cars, spewing obscenities at drivers who HAPPEN to be leaving work caught in the middle of the boys tricyling party, giving them the finger..? No.
    Check it out sometime.
    And why would I, or others, be “desperate”? We ask for reasonable thinking and balance with regards to growth and change in our city, and I have indicated as such to our supervisors in various emails and phone calls.
    The public streets can be designed to accommodate all citizens, in a reasonable and balanced way.

  84. Then you were probably THAT guy sitting in his car not getting the memo 😉
    Critical Mass doesn’t represent all cyclists, only a fringe. It’s akin to say the Tea Party represents the GOP.
    Also: “reasonable and balanced” in futurist-speak means car-centric-status-quo. It’s not working.

  85. So now it’s critical mass that is causing the loss of parking spots on Polk St?
    In futurist’s world any bad behavior by even a single cyclist means no improvements for any reason that have any benefit for cyclists.
    Some hipster on a bike once offended him, now all cyclists must pay!

  86. Ya gotta love futurist’s tenacity. Even after his post at 1:27 PM yesterday where multiple people pointed out factual errors, he doesn’t acknowledge at all that he was wrong. He just shifts back into “drive” and continues forward in his cocoon of self righteous disinformation.
    I’m not a fan of Critical Mass but I do ride it every few years just to see what the hubbub is all about and learn whether the sorts of claims that people like futurist make are based on reality. My take based in several hours in the mass: towards the front, the rear, and the middle is quite a bit different. I’ve never seen so much as anyone flipping the bird. There’s a load of traffic violations though, notably running red lights. There instead of aggression I see massers blocking the opposing traffic, waving at the cars waiting, and saying “thank you”. Of course other traffic is inconvenienced. By my measurements (yes, I timed the intersection blockages) the inconvenience amounted to about a five minute wait give or take at each intersection.
    Of course there are well documented cases of hooliganism both on the part of the cyclists and motorists during critical mass. But they aren’t the norm. Smearing all bicyclists with the misdeeds of a very few troublemakers isn’t fair at all. It is like taking a single rape case and crying “Those (insert ethnic slur here) are going to rape all of our women. They need to be stopped!” A very 1870s attitude.

  87. indeed.
    lol at the Cesar Chavez comment which basically says “they will not be used because it’s a freaking highway today”.
    This amounts to saying that in the 1900s they should not pave any roads because there are not enough cars.
    futurist sound more like a passeiste.

  88. Ha Ha Ha.
    Well, actually I’m not.
    And who said that CM represents all cyclists. Certainly not me. But CM is a large vocal group within the SF Bike Coalition and bike centrics in general. The support the behavior of cyclists who love riding like banshees (no offense) thru stop signs and lights.
    And CM practically holds the SFMTA and some supes hostage in pushing their bike agenda. There really is no balance. But merchants on Polk are pushing back and the supes have an OBLIGATION to listen to their concerns. I trust they will develop a rational plan that makes Polk St a better place for everyone.
    And let’s not even get started on Lyft, Uber, blah blah.

  89. The SFMTA study about shoppers and such seems pretty weak. Sit back and ask yourself whom the more desirable customer is – a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or someone who traveled in their own car with a trunk, backseat, and other room to load all sorts of purchased goods and transport the stuff back home – wherever home may be?
    If street width is the problem with the current configuration, why not remove another travel lane, making Polk Street a one-way street (southbound?) to accommodate both street parking on both sides with removals for bulb outs and red curbs AND 2-way protected cycle tracks? I’m guessing this has not been considered because it would require moving the 19-Polk over to Larkin, but this seems worth that battle to me.

  90. Jamie – You really don’t need a car to shop. If that were the case then dense places like central London and Tokyo would be a retail wasteland which they definitely are not. The way it works is that people shop more frequently for fewer items as opposed to the American norm of driving the SUV to load up three weeks of provisions from CostCo. Both techniques result in similar amounts of economic activity, but the “load up the SUV” paradigm requires additional investment in parking.
    I like your Polk compromise proposal but agree that it was problem considered already and discarded.

  91. My guess is the SFMTA Livable Streets division and the SFMTA MUNI bus folks consider themselves two separate fiefdoms, and the two avoid collaboration at all costs. Even when it makes sense to maybe reduce Polk Street to a single one-way travel lane and leave the 19-Polk on Larkin instead of turning at Geary northbound. Sigh.

  92. sure, passeist.
    You did indeed point to the occasional perceived aggressiveness at Critical Mass to call all cycling advocates bullies. Then you double-down with the non-sensical CM practically holds the SFMTA and some supes hostage . Again confusing CM with the SFBC and other bike advocates.
    The SFMTA looks at things the following way, I think:
    SF population is growing. Some areas are densifying. We need to massively invest in public transportation and wherever possible enable alternatives to cars and MUNI.
    Say there’s a potential for 10% more trips overall in the next 5 years. If cycling absorbs 1/3 or 1/2 of these new trips (by both the conversion of current trips and absorption of some of the new traffic) then we’re buying a lot of time and at the same time we will not reach car traffic saturation.
    What people have been telling here for the 100th time: more cyclists means more fluid car traffic overall and lower car ownership (meaning better parking)! You should encourage it, not blindly oppose it.
    But after a certain age, our brains are not fit for change. Everything moves too fast and older people will just press on the PAUSE button.

  93. Worst comments on this thread: by MOD;
    “You don’t NEED a car to shop”
    “…driving the SUV to load up…”
    Thanks MOD, for once again:
    1. telling us how to live.
    2. using the tired “SUV” to add extra disdain, although meaningless, to the conversation.
    Lovely.

  94. Jamie is right. Read the study and see that 54% of the people were on Polk because they live or work nearby. It’s not surprising that people are found walking near their homes. Only 14% were on Polk for shopping.
    Plus the survey was done by stopping people on the street. Who has more time to stop and do a survey? Someone going for a stroll around their block or someone packing in many errands while their parking meter is running ?

  95. Watcher, then you might tell the people who did the survey how to do their jobs. Kinda like criticizing the thermometer.
    Or do you have any proof to substantiate your claim?

  96. “then you might tell the people who did the survey how to do their jobs. ”
    Doing the survey and interpreting the results are two vey different things….
    “Or do you have any proof to substantiate your claim?”
    Page 4 “Over half ofrespondents(54%)stated thatthey live or work nearby.”

  97. futurist – My statements aren’t telling anyone how to live, just describing facts. And ironically it is you who are telling people how to live through your denial of those facts.
    If you deny that you do not need a car to shop then you’re basically saying that you must use a car to shop. Now that is telling people how to live.
    Pure gold, keep it coming.

  98. Of course they live nearby.
    Who lives elsewhere in the city or outside the city and drives to Polk Street to go shopping?

  99. If anything, Polk Street merchants should BEG for neighbors to have a car-free lifestyle!
    If and were living on Polk and shopping for items big enough to have to need to park on Polk, I’d go to whatever big box in SOMA or Colma that is 30% cheaper. Same thing for food. Why bother with an underwhelming yet expensive food markets when you just have to cross VN for Whole Foods, or go to NB for TJ’s for cheaper stuff.
    {copy/paste your granny strawman’s argument here)

  100. You’re the one with the goofy strawman analogies. The Tea Party doesn’t represent the GOP disproportionately? Uh huh. And the futurist never said CM represents all cyclists. Clearly you’re a strident bike activist with an agenda. Fine. But calling others out for using strawman arguments while doing so is pathetic. In fact, let others talk sometimes.

  101. Anon,
    Not a strident bike activist. I am an occasional driver but I want cars to share the road. But archaic monopolies have a very long half-life. But half-life it is.
    Painting the other guy as an extremist is phase II in the “what to do when losing an argument” handbook. LOL.
    I’ll also just copy/paste futurist’s prose:
    futurist:
    It’s calling caving in to ultra bullying tactics and influence peddling by the bike nuts.
    My comment:
    futurist is talking about “ultra-bullying” regarding cyclists. He obviously has not see a room packed with “friends and family” from merchants that also happen to come from outside SF.
    futurist:
    Oh, I guess lol has never been in the middle of, or seen what has taken place downtown during Critical Mass. Attacking cars, spewing obscenities at drivers who HAPPEN to be leaving work caught in the middle of the boys tricyling party, giving them the finger..? No.
    What futurist is basically saying is that he bases his opinion on the most extreme of cyclists. They do NOT represent the immense majority of cyclists who just want their share of the road, and all these potential cyclists who fear cars when they see them speeding at 30MPH just 2 feet away from a bicycle.

  102. “Worst comments on this thread:”
    I think futurist must have forgotten that he has posted in this thread, obviously he takes the cake for the worst comment award.
    @Jamie
    Trunks are certainly not necessary for shopping, although they come in handy for groceries (which is probably why supermarkets are the exception to the rule, drivers spend more there). Personally I rarely drive to buy something bulky enough to require being put in a trunk, I just order online and have it delivered.
    Trunks are certainly not required for places like restaurants and bars. I suspect the vast majority of shops on Polk are not catering to the trunk filler crowd.
    I like your idea about turning Polk into a oneway street. I love the parts of Europe with narrow oneway streets with nice wide sidewalks. That’s probably the best idea I’ve heard for Polk so far!

  103. @ Anon: certainly if any of us post here, I suppose we have to (at least) read what others are saying. And either agree, disagree or challenge.
    That’s all fine with me. I have a thick skin and I think I’m pretty intelligent. And you and I each have our opinions as well.
    Others, as you pointed out,(lol) like to “adjust” other opinions: strawman crap, blah blah.
    I continue to use the words “balanced” and “reasonable”. Most others don’t. they still attempt, without success, to try and tell us how to live. They choose to use the words “suv” and now “trunk filler” without purpose.
    I’ve always supported urban cycling, law abiding cycling, greener streets, safe walking, etc. balanced with the needs of MANY San Franciscans who do rely on a car to do many (or some) tasks.
    That will remain so; it may adjust downward a little in the next decade or two, but it will and should always remain a valid choice.
    I look forward to a lively debate.

  104. @lol
    I may be misunderstanding, but I think Jamie was suggesting only a single lane for traffic, I believe the one-way proposal that was part of the MTA options kept 2 lanes, both going in the same direction, but I could be wrong.
    I like a single lane going in one direction. In that scenario I think the parking should be made angled and all on 1 side of the street (that way you keep the same amount of parking, but don’t have backups due to people parallel parking.
    Then there would be room for a bidirectional bike lane, and wider sidewalks.
    The downside of course is that you would have to move one or both directions of MUNI to a different street, which might be problematic.

  105. All good. I simply never see anybody else scrambling others around until they’re something totally different WHILE crying about strawman this strawman that. And it is silly to me. Oh well. Plus he posts much more than anybody else, seems like. Anyway who cares

  106. Anon,
    Why do you use “he” instead of “you”? Just own up to it.
    You’ll notice I post much more on a few issues like city cycling. I had my first bike when the Apollo program was still sending people on the moon, lol. In total I have commuted for 30 years on 3 continents and have a few scars to show for it. I am a driver too, and not a bike nut or an extremist. I think everyone should be allowed have the option to cycle.
    Painting others the color you want them to be is disingenuous.

  107. Uh, that didn’t make any sense. He? Meaning futurism? No. It is you or Milkshake of Deapair who run the board these days.

  108. “$510 million could but a LOT of busses!” SFWeekly
    A question about SFMTA policy…Why remove and propose more removal of on street parking throughout the city on one hand, and then claim that parking has become more limited and needs to be regulated and purchased through the SFMTA by additional meters being installed in many residential areas?
    Why did the SFMTA use over 510 MILLION dollars in funds that were set aside to be used to FIX MUNI to instead reduce traffic lanes and create “street calming” at the intersection of Dolores and Market?
    510 MILLION buys a lot of busses!
    My answer is these decisions have everything to do with increased revenue for the SFMTA, as well as keeping certain politically active groups happy, and little to do with making traffic flow smoother and MUNI run better.
    And finally, NOBODY has mentioned how much the Polk project would cost, and that is because NOBODY knows. I promise you relocation of curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, signals, lighting, sewers, pavements, etc. will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

  109. “Cesar Chavez is not yet limited to 2 lanes in each direction. Perhaps lay off the psychedelics while motoring? Just a thought.”
    Missed this before… but childish insults aside Anon, Cesar Chavez is in fact limited to two travel lanes each direction from Mission to Bayshore. it’s obviously had a such a huge affect you didnt even notice.

  110. “I promise you relocation of curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, signals, lighting, sewers, pavements, etc. will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
    I doubt that the cost will be that high or anywhere near 100s of millions even with the most ambitious option. These plans can be accomplished with minimal changes to utilities. The last time I looked at the budget for a bulb-out installation (the most expensive component of these plans) it was somewhere on the order of $50K. My info is over a decade old but I doubt costs have risen that much.

  111. @Milkshake, ask someone involved in construction, like me! You cannot relocate sidewalk widths without relocating the utilities (including lights and sewers) and ALSO relocating the grading of the road surface. This is EXPENSIVE Public Union labor. I noticed earlier people talking about a one way road with diagonal parking on one side, but that type of arrangement does not allow for ADA parking access. Each block would need spaces set aside for handicapped with another space adjacent being removed for access.
    Everyone acts like the bike path is as easy as painting a couple of lines, but that is not what was proposed.
    The 510 million for the reconstruction of the intersection of Market and Dolores comes from the SFMTA website, as well as SFWeekly and Metermadness.

  112. FedUp:
    I believe the correct amount is $510,000 not $510,000,000.
    “The arrangement calls for the developer to install the street upgrades in lieu of $510,000 in impact fees.”
    from
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/03/18/planning-commission-approves-ped-friendly-plan-for-market-and-dolores/
    “Area Plan Impact Fees can either be paid directly to the City or developers may request to provide in-kind infrastructure improvements. The Prado Group, developer of 2001 Market Street, is now seeking approval for a proposed In-Kind Agreement to provide “streetscape, pedestrian safety, and public space improvements” along Dolores and Market Streets in return for a waiver of $510,000 of their Market-Octavia Fees.”
    from
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2013/03/streetscape_safety_and_public_space_improvements_for_20.html

  113. “”lol at the Cesar Chavez comment which basically says “they will not be used because it’s a freaking highway today”.
    This amounts to saying that in the 1900s they should not pave any roads because there are not enough cars.””
    you must be joking. The difference from cars in the early 1900s to today is that it was new technology that has continued to improve over time and become moee affordable. THe same argument can be made for air travel. but it cannot be made for bike use increasing in the future. While there have been some advance in bike gearing, there is not a technologically advance here that is going to skyrocket the number of commuter cyclists.
    Regarding someones comment about who takes a survey.. my guess is more out of work people and people not in a hurry stop to take surveys.
    Street surveys are utterly unreliable as there is a selection bias. the kind of people of stop for surveys are not representative of Polk users, just representative of Polk users who stop to take surveys

  114. the whole project is a waste of money catering to the 0.01%. The elitist cyclists are trying to con us all. Use the money for muni where the majority of people can benefit. DOn’t just give it away to the rich, white , young and inshape. Give it to the people. SPending this money on cyclists is elitist and frankly fascist.

  115. I’m starting to like you Jill.:)
    And, yup, the cyclists are largely a bunch of white, well off, young males, with a LOUD voice and a bunch of no-backbone leaders in our city government, who love kissing their bike butts.
    @ MOD: at one time I actually thought you knew something about construction costs. Now we all know you are dealing with 10 yo data. thanks for sharing.
    A bulb-out for just ONE side of 4 corners cost between $50-100k each. they are great upgrades, for sure but very expensive.
    You might want to start looking at Means Construction Costs for public works projects, dated 2013. Just a thought.

  116. no, i’m not joking at all, just trying to figure out this claim.
    can anyone provide a link to the SFMTA diverting $510 million?
    the only ones I’ve found were just in comments on blogs

  117. FedUp – Are you sure a significant amount of utilities must be relocated? Why would a sewer need to be moved when a 6″ slab of concrete is layered on top with a couple of feet of soil inbetween?
    Access points need to be maintained though that’s not nearly as expensive as relocation. I’ve seen iron “collars” placed over manhole openings to extend their height to the new surface and similar stuff for electrical and plumbing vaults. Even surface gutters can be worked around by leaving them in-place and bridging them with a slab of steel or other material like they do for parklets.
    Sure, some stoplights and streetlights -might- need to move but that’s not a given considering we don’t even know the final plan.
    As for the bike lanes if you look at the plans more carefully you will see that some of the options do indeed implement lanes with just paint. Others call for a raised separator and of course that would cost more. We really don’t know yet.

  118. futurist – I wasn’t quoting the cost of a bulb-out by the 4-pack, I meant just one. It looks like my info actually is fairly accurate even considering the humble admission of how old my info was. So I’ll stand by my assertion that it is hard to believe this project would cost hundreds of millions.
    But thanks for the misdirected condescending insults anyways.

  119. Focus on the people…. Muni muni muni. We are the 99%. Don’t cater to the fascist elitist bicycle coalition. Us muni riders are the little people. We don’t have an elitist coalition. We are just plain normal folk who need public transport. Muni muni muni

  120. I am calling a Godwin on this thread. Jill lost, the good guys won and we can all call it a day.

  121. Lol at the Godwin call. But “the good guys” would do well to stay far, far away from cost of construction type language. Jokey stuff.

  122. “Who lives elsewhere in the city or outside the city and drives to Polk Street to go shopping?”
    More misinterpretation. It’s not that 54% of the people shopping live or work near Polk. It’s that for 54% of people on Polk the reason they were there was that they live or work nearby. Only 14% of people who answered the survey were there for shopping.
    ” Drivers spend the least on a monthly basis”
    Drivers actually reported spending the most amount of money during the trip they were interviewed ( $35.72 ). Bikers reported spending the least, less than half of the amount reported by drivers ( $15.13 )
    The weekly spending amounts in the survey were estimated by converting peoples verbal response to a question about how often they visited Polk to an arbitrary number of days per week ( A few times a month to .5 , A few times a week to 2, I live here to 7) then multiplying the arbitrary days per week by the “typical spending” the person reported.
    Weak data to base a conclusion off of.

  123. Watcher
    1 trip does not make a month. Bikers, pedestrians and transit users make more frequent trips, so while the individual purchase amounts on a single trip are smaller, the total over the month is greater.
    A smart merchant isn’t going to be concerned about one trip, they will be interested in the overall spending in the long term.
    It’s not a single survey, studies conducted in Toronto, Portland, and NYC all found the same conclusions.

  124. Jill fabricates numbers about how many people cycle, fabricates information about the demographics of cyclsits, and is for some reason quite concerned about the race of the fabricated demographics, disregards surveys because the conclusion doesn’t agree with her predetermined biases. She also ignores that much of these improvements are for non-cyclists.
    Futurist immediately chimes in on the same deceptions and expresses how he likes Jill.
    Well, at least futurist is consistent.
    Jill, according to SFMTA in 2011 3.5% of trips were bicycle, not 0.01%. If you think your number is more accurate, feel free to provide supporting evidence. Improvements can be made that improve MUNI & cyclists.

  125. This thread had veered into the absurd.. $510 million claims on one intersection, complete denial of the existence of two lanes on Cesar Chavez, and claims of fascism! Good times.

  126. @everybody talking about 510 million dollars and buses
    That number is completely wrong, and it’s about a development project on the corner of 2001 Market St at Dolores St. (see name link for more info)
    The actual number is $510,000 (five hundred and ten thousand dollars) and it’s intended to be used as money for street improvements at the site in lieu of development fees paid to the city. It has absolutely nothing to do with buses or Polk St. so can we put that to rest now?
    Additional note to bike haters: It would be nice if at least once you would use some accurate numbers to support your arguments.

  127. @FedUp
    “diagonal parking on one side, but that type of arrangement does not allow for ADA parking access…”
    yes it does, you just have to follow the guidelines for ensuring accessible spots.
    “Each block would need spaces set aside for handicapped with another space adjacent being removed for access.”
    OK, so create accessible spots, just another benefit to this approach, guaranteed spots for the disabled.
    “Everyone acts like the bike path is as easy as painting a couple of lines, but that is not what was proposed.”
    Since your entire argument seems to be based on your incorrect $510 million number, we can throw this statement out, but it’s also a false statement regardless of your incorrect number.
    We are not saying it’s just a matter painting some stripes, but it’s also not just a matter of a bike lane.
    The project is to rethink the entire street. Some of us just think that losing 170 parking spots out of the 5,000 or so within one block of the project is worth having much improved bike facilities, as well as pedestrian, bus improvements, and safety improvements.

  128. My apologies.
    “Just how much investment is needed? For Muni and other aspects of our current transportation system, we need $510 million per year for the next 20 years. However, our budget only covers half of these needs. If we continue underfunding the transportation network like this, it will not only fall further into disrepair” (Ed Reiskin writing in SFWeeklly)
    MeterMadness had posted this which caused my confusion. “If Muni needs $510 million a year, why did SFMTA just approve a trade of $510 million in developer transit fees for a $510 million dollar streetscape project? Who is setting the priorities? And how can anyone justify that kind of money for a single street corner? Where are the auditors?”
    I am not sure if MeterMadness is writing about over 500 million in total streetscape projects, or if like me, they were confused and beginning to think any wasteful amount could be spent in San Francisco when it comes to the SFMTA.
    MeterMadness had also provided this link:
    http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2008.0550U.pdf

  129. I know the stats say 3.5% which I’m pretty sure no one thinks is real. My comment about 0.01% was referring to the small percent of the “3.5%” that will actually use this particular proposed bike lane.
    And you know quite well that street surveys are not representative. It is a selection bias of people who have time to or are interested in taking a survey. Not to mention the way they are bending the data they do collect.
    And the cyclists are the elitist. This money should go towards the 99%, by putting it towards muni. If you want this to be for the greater good, lets just make it a dedicated bus street. I don’t want that, but catering to the cycling mafia should not happen

  130. Wow. There’s silly, and then there’s Jill.
    If cyclists are elitist, then the limo crowd who double parks in OUR bike lanes probably didn’t get the memo 😉
    And using the “99%” argument? Do you understand the irony of this nugget in a car-centric society? Probably not.
    Now I totally get why Jack left you.

  131. @Jill
    So your basic approach is to stand by your fabricated numbers and continue to disregard professional studies because you don’t like the conclusions. Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
    If the bike lanes can be disregarded because only 0.01% will use them (note: an entirely made up number), then the same can be said about the 170 parking spaces, which make up 0.04% of SF’s total parking spaces (note: a real number based on the MTA study from 2010 that counted 451,540 parking spaces in SF).
    But I’m sure you’ll come up with another reason to discount the real numbers and continue to use your pretend numbers.

  132. Hang in there Jill and offer your opinions. Some may agree, some may disagree, but it does make them stop and think…..and respond.
    Some attempt to shout some of US down, but it’s good to express alternate points of view.
    We are not all crazy tricycle boys and some girls. We love this city. We believe in responsible growth and change that serves ALL members of society.
    Take note that whenever someone wants you to “back up a claim”, ignore them if you want. they make up their own data as well.
    Don’t forget to be in touch with your supervisor and the mayor on the Polk St. issue and let them know your concerns. Make sure they understand that some of the more “moderate” proposals will serve the people well, NOT just the bike crowd.

  133. Nobody’s shouting you down, passeist. But you guys do not really make sense and have to resort to wild hyperboles to push your ideas around. Never a good sign.

  134. I am not sure who posted this earlier, but the comment that bike lanes are the latest planning fad strikes me as being correct. In the 70s the planning fad was street closures for pedestrian malls.
    Many people are not aware that State Street in Chicago used to be the most expensive per square foot heavily patronized retail street in North America until planners closed the street to auto traffic in the late 70s.
    Guess what? All of the stores and shoppers moved from State Street over to North Michigan Avenue. Planners have since reopened State Street to auto traffic so some of the life has come back. Think about this the next time the Bike Coalition tries yet again to close Market Street to auto traffic.
    I am still hoping the proposed Chestnut street bike path and removal of parking gets stopped as well.

  135. You are welcome to your opinion, but expect it to be challenged when it’s based on fantasy.
    If you are unwilling to provide real world evidence to support your opinion, or at least refute the contradicting evidence, don’t be surprised when you get classified with the type of folks believe that the world is flat, we never landed on the moon, or that evolution is fake.
    Oh, and thanks for the reminder about the supervisors and mayor! I’ll be sure to let them know where I stand on this debate

  136. Interesting that in futurist’s last post he acknowledges that he makes up stuff while accusing others of the same. Go team!

  137. @LCA
    I counter with the 3rd st Promenade in Santa Monica, first closed to driving in the 60s, and today a nationally recognized shopping destination.
    And of course conversation of closing streets is irrelevant to Polk, as well as cycling. Bikes don’t need the street the street to be closed to cars.
    Closing Market for private autos is mainly to benefit MUNI, as bikes already have quite nice lanes on Market, while auto traffic often slows MUNI down to a crawl.

  138. Good point, LeaveChestnutAlone.
    Not all conversions are welcome I think. And personally, Chesnut would not be on the top of my list.
    As far as Chestnut is concerned, the questions are:
    – Is there a nearby thoroughfare that can bring people in the neighborhood? The partial answer is yes: Bay and Lombard which act as Van Ness for Polk. People often take Bay/Lombard to get to the core of Chestnut faster. Lombard sucks when you are going East then turning left into the Marina though.
    – How is the local culture regarding bike transit? From my experience crossing Chestnut, I do not see many bikes commuting around there. And where would they come from? That would be the Marina and Cow Hollow. Plus Chestnut often feels like downtown Walnut Creek with chain stores and wealthy young families. The only bikes they probably know is stationary 😉
    If anything, I would suggest a bike path on the very wide section of Bay Street and maybe Greenwich (the connection to Polk St is not for the faint of heart though).
    On a side note, the current “less cars” plan on Market street seems to be fairly successful though, since the revival of Mid-Market appears to go faster than many expected. I think the renovation of Westfield helped a lot. And people can still flock through Mission street, 3rd, 5th, etc as well as Muni and Bart. It’s working for everyone.

  139. San Francisco has or is becoming hopelessly caught up in “fads” and “trends”. not surprising with our tech economy and workforce.
    And I said before that urban biking is largely a new “trend”. why it didn’t come to fruition in the 60’s thru the 90’s is good question. Why is it a trend now?
    Certainly the influence of those who have been to Amsterdam has had some impact. Funny how Americans love to copy Europe.
    Interesting points about State St. in chicago, and how they reversed some of the implementations allowing retail to once again become successful there. We need to learn from this.
    And yes, the Third St. Promenade in Santa Monica is a huge success. Been there many times and love it, but let’s be clear: it was NEVER a major, or important traffic route, and closing it to cars did not impact traffic at all. Let’s also be clear: Santa Monica built several very large parking garages just behind the major retail, and those garages are always well used and full. This is why it works. Many people DRIVE there, easily park and walk to the shopping areas.

  140. That’s not a fad, passeist. This is the result of the deep changes in SF these past 15-20 years. Successful educated people choose to move here from all over. They bring their expectations and experiences with them. Now that they are fully part of this city with growing families and community involvement, they want to cycle safely and they want bike lanes. And the city is listening.

  141. Time will tell whether it’s a fad or not. But you’ve got it precisely backward. The cycling initiative is a result of city policy stemming from the ultra-liberal BOS system.

  142. That’s a political statement that has no ground whatsoever with reality. Do you think the popularity of cycling is coming out of nowhere?

  143. hipsters on fixies is a fad, urban cycling is a trend which has been growing not just in SF, but across the nation, and the industrialized world, for decades.
    Polk is not a major traffic route either, and of course the whole street closure topic is pure strawman as nobody is suggesting that Polk should be closed to cars. Just the typical bike hater strategy of grabbing at every straw you can regardless of it’s relevance or basis in reality.
    And just so we are clear, Santa Monica is part of southern california one of the most car oriented areas in the country. During the height of auto dominance they had the balls to close the streets to cars, and it was a huge success. The garages were built because of the success of the closure, given that the majority of them were built well after the street was closed to cars.
    And even if it’s successful only because of the garages (which I’m in no way saying is true), it’s still a wildly successful street closure, which completely disproves your buddy LCA’s theory that street closures will destroy retail.
    In your fantasy world one failed street closure decades ago means no bike lanes anywhere regardless of whether a street closure is even on the table.

  144. lyqwyd
    “If the bike lanes can be disregarded because only 0.01% will use them (note: an entirely made up number), then the same can be said about the 170 parking spaces, which make up 0.04% of SF’s total parking spaces (note: a real number based on the MTA study from 2010 that counted 451,540 parking spaces in SF).
    But I’m sure you’ll come up with another reason to discount the real numbers and continue to use your pretend numbers.”
    you got the wrong lady. my fight is not pro-car. it is pr0-muni. i dont care about the parking spots, but the cost of a project catering to the very few who commute on bikes (elitist ) vs Muni (regular folk)is absolutely ridiculous.
    the money should go to the palce where it is needed most

  145. How is this project going to hurt MUNI? Having less cars parking means less cars blocking MUNI.
    Separating bike lanes means less conflicts between bikes and buses, meaning less slowdown for MUNI.
    If you base your opinion on false numbers and broken logic you will come to invalid conclusions.

  146. Adding bike ridership costs almost nothing.
    It’s the easiest bangs for the bucks. And it will absorb a sizable portion of future transit needs inside the city.

  147. “How is this project going to hurt MUNI? Having less cars parking means less cars blocking MUNI.”
    the money is being diverted to help the few elitist, instead of being invested in infrasture for the other 99%

  148. @R: I’m at in the gas station at bryant and cc right now, looking at the six lanes of traffic in front of me. And I assure you I am not tripping.

  149. Sure you’re not confusing a left turn lane for a travel lane? Do tell, since you’re there, how long do those six lanes continue for?

  150. Nonsense. There was an initiative began in the early to mid aughts to generate more cycling in this city. It is working, and it was top down, ‘Supes to Sfmta, Mirkarimi and co led, etc. funny. You talk A LOT for an obvious newbie to SF.

  151. @r,
    Sure you didn’t initially say “cc is 2 lanes now” and then revise it to “mission to bayshore” ? Cause you did.
    But yes, there it is a block and one lane is to 101 the other turnin into bernal. It’s a little longer than a block on the eastbound side, so 3 lanes there.
    Btw, I was just cracking a joke about the tripping thing. Sorry about that, I meant nothing by it except to say CC isn’t there yet(. Can’t wait for it to get there either.)

  152. Yes, I revised my statement to be more accurate, because it’s actually only three lanes from Bayshore to Evans then 4 from Evans to 3rd, then narrows after that.
    Of course it’s only 2 lanes going the other direction when it ducks up to Noe Valley.
    But for the stretch from Mission to Bayshore it’s 2 each way with some turn lanes. Which is the way it will remain according to the plans.

  153. Behind the 3rd street promenade both east and west sides on EVERY single block is an identical series of 7 level parking garages. Do a google earth if you don’t believe me. 3 rd street is a success because of the inclusion of parking in the plan. And I mean a LOT of parking. The equivalent of 5 Sutter/Stockton garages.

  154. @Former
    So what? Nobody is questioning whethere there are parking garages on 3rd St. Promenade.
    A claim was made that closing streets to cars kills the retail on those streets. I’ve proven the claim false.

  155. @Jill
    so now you are saying 99% of people ride muni, and the other 1% ride bikes? Or is it still 0.01% that ride bikes, meaning 0.99% drive or walk?
    However you interpret your numbers they are laughable.
    Not to mention that for the purpose of what you are ridiculously trying to argue it literally is the expense of painting some lines on the street. Which is all that a bike lane really is. Removing parking spaces certainly doesn’t require any money. Building bulb outs, bus stops and widening sidewalks does cost quite a bit of money, so even if your crazy numbers were real, the money is being spent on buses and pedestrian improvements.
    Even if you go with the plans that physically separate the bike lanes the expense is minor compared to the other improvements being proposed.

  156. WE are the 99% who ride MUNI.
    The cyclists will not overtake us. Hear us ROAR. give us our improvements.

  157. If our public transit system were as superb as the Paris Metro, or the London Tube, or the NY subway, I would not be driving my little German Suv as much.
    Oh, I wouldn’t give it up, but I would be using Muni much more.
    Spend a LOT more money on Muni: make it dependable, safe, clean and efficient. Spend less money (but some) on bike infrastructure.

  158. OK, jill’s lost it… no surprise there.
    @futurist
    Agree we should spend more on MUNI, but what’s the right amount to spend on bike infrastructure?

  159. futurist, we are already spending LESS money on bikes than Muni. We always have. Yet another case of the “I’ll make up facts that fit my case and run with them.”
    You can remove all funding for bike infrastructure and it will not fix Muni
    But if we fail to spend just the current token amount that we spend today, we’ll have a lot more Muni riders to take care of in the future.
    Bangs for the bucks…
    And thanks for letting us know you’re driving a Trabant.

  160. The reason why voters created the umbrella SFMTA agency was to FIX Muni, not punish drivers and reallocate funds to bike paths .

  161. I like transit too Jill, in fact I ride the J Church at least once a week and other buses quite frequently. I always ride Muni when it rains.
    What if the Polk Street redesign included two bus only lanes and two separated bicycle lanes with no automobile traffic and no parking (obviously). Do you think that this would be a good solution?
    Why or why not?

  162. @NoeValleyJim, since you are a car owner and user yourself, it is interesting that you propose these changes, especially since they are not near your neighborhood.
    Question for you…How would the stores be able to receive deliveries? What about fire trucks and ambulances?
    You yourself admitted you NEEDED a car to get around the city, so stop punishing people in another neighborhood you rarely visit to satisfy some feel good political theory.
    Why don’t YOU put the bike path on 24th instead and ban all the cars there and leave Polk Gulch alone.

  163. “What if the Polk Street redesign included two bus only lanes and two separated bicycle lanes with no automobile traffic and no parking (obviously). Do you think that this would be a good solution?
    Why or why not?”
    For me yes. That would be perfect. But doesn’t seem fair to business owners. Restaurants and bars will do well but others may suffer. But yes, muni pro cement should always take precedent imho

  164. I agree with you Jill, that public transit should take priority over all other users of the streets, excepting pedestrians who are sort of a special class in need of extra protection because of their exceptional vulnerability.
    anon, get an alias if you want to have a discussion with me. It it too hard to figure out which anon is which.

  165. I’ve still yet to year how the proposed bike lanes hurt muni. I don’t think cars need to be eliminated from Polk, although that would most definitely speed up muni dramatically.
    The cost of bike lanes is quite small when compared to muni’s budge. It would make almost no impact, but the lanes make a huge impact for cyclists (and have benefits for others as well).
    I do (sort of) understand why some drivers would balk at losing parking spaces, it makes things a tiny bit less convenient for them. To me it’s well worth the inconvenience to protect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists while improving muni service at the same time.
    Remember, the vast majority of the cost for this project is for safety improvements and improvements for muni. The bike lane costs are trivial.
    For anybody claiming that too much is being spent for cyclists, please say the current amount of spending and what would be the appropriate amount and why that is the right amount.

  166. zero is the right amount to spend on bike infrastructure. The money should ALL go to improving muni. Why divert money to cater to a handful of people when the 99% are taking muni?
    Bikes already have equal right to the road as cars, so the infrastructure is there. It’s called a road. If you are not feeling safe, then take muni and ride your bike in golden gate park on the weekend.

  167. Polk will never compete in terms of easy parking.
    There seems to be some contingent of people who seem to think that the key to prosperity would be to have easy and fast traffic, and plenty of parking for residents and customers.
    You know what happens once you get it? People say “great– now I can drive to the big box store and save money”. It was done again, and again, and again, all over the US, and it hollowed out cities.
    They’re sacrificing their very real advantages (local accessibility, convenience for non-drivers) in order to compete on a field where they have no hope of ever being competitive (easy and convenient parking). It’s sad. It’s as if Apple decided that they had to compete with junky $50 smartphones, and focused exclusively on making their own $50 iPhone, while sacrificing all the qualities that made people want them in the first place.

  168. Something about this discussion puzzled me so I read it again a few times and I realized that there are actually two futurists! There is good futurist, who is, at least outwardly, able to appear reasonable, able to argue logically and able to participate in a reasoned debate. Then there is bad futurist, who is histrionic, either does not know or more likely does not care what logical reasoning looks like, argues on the basis of emotions instead of facts and makes things up to support his case.
    Can you two start labeling yourselves gfuturist and bfuturist or at least A and B so I can keep you straight? That would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

  169. Since when is every Polk Street shopkeeper and SF resident an expert on urban planning and traffic safety? I say lets think long term and let SFMTA execute their well considered vision of a safer (for bikes AND pedestrians) and more bike friendly city by allowing this important corridor to be recreated as originally proposed. While I don’t entirely discount the public input and appreciate their concern and interest, I think it would be a shame to let the fears and misconceptions of the general public shape this type of planning, and possibly even ruin a rare opportunity.

  170. @brianSF – The SFMTA is run by a seven member board appointed by the mayor, not “experts on urban planning and traffic safety”.
    The SFMTA was constituted by a decision of the voters with the purpose of achieving two results:
    1.) Erase the MUNI deficit
    2.) Fix Muni
    Presently there is NO plan to Fix Muni and NO plan to fix the deficit.
    The “well considered plans” that the SFMTA is trying to NOW put in place throughout the city are caused by a couple of board members who are not interested in fixing MUNI or reducing the deficit but are active members of the San Francisco Bike Coalition. These members have voted millions of dollars in funding the Bike Coalition to act as “consultants” in assisting to create a new ‘bike plan” for the city. I am still waiting for them to explain why funds are better spent on the Central Subway, instead of fixing MUNI. The Central Subway is a perfect example of what happens when a political group makes transit planning decisions instead of “experts”. “Transit Experts” would be building a Geary or Van Ness subway instead, only AFTER fixing Muni and erasing the deficit.
    The financial punishment of drivers in the city, and then not using those funds to fix Muni are the cause of citizen outrage. The deficit is worse than ever. Voters have every right to express unhappiness to elected/appointed officials that they pay the salaries for as well as the interest on the deficits these elected officials have created.

  171. Amen to that. Very clear, but be prepared for name calling on this site for giving your honest opinion. I was personally called a train wreck for Similar opinions. I’m sick of city priorities being driven by special interest groups. We will never get a great long term vision if we can’t get away from the old boys network, which is showing its head here with the bike coalition.

  172. “let SFMTA execute their well considered vision of a safer (for bikes AND pedestrians)”
    Bus travel (i.e. Muni) is the safest option and biking the least safe.
    Many studies have shown that biking is *more* dangerous than driving.
    “. Fatal injury rates were highest for motorcyclists, pedestrians, and bicyclists….Nonfatal injury rates were highest for motorcyclists and bicyclists”
    And not only in America, but in more bike friendly european countries as well.
    “Elvik and Vaa were able to compare injury risks by mode of travel in six European countries. They calculated injury rates per kilometer traveled and found that, relative to car occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists were at increased risk and bus occupants were at decreased risk.”
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/2/212.full
    And this underestimates the risk because you need more trips (i.e. miles traveled) to accomplish the same errands on a bike. From the SFMTA study, bycylists needed 2.4 trips to accomplish what drivers did in one ( $35/trip vs $15/trip)

  173. When Elvik and Maa see a bus-pedestrian injury, they count it against the pedestrian because that’s who gets injured. You can’t conclude from that that buses are safe: any SF resident knows that Muni is only safe when you’re on it.
    From a public safety perspective, walking is better than transit because it is safer for other people too.

  174. “Many studies have shown that biking is *more* dangerous than driving.”
    Those would be the studies emphasizing at the effects of danger rather than the cause. The sort of study that will conclude that you’re safest in a vehicle that approximates an armored personnel carrier.

  175. Damn. I was hoping this would pass so all the idiot cyclists would stop using the sidewalks on Van Ness as their personal freeway.
    I will support the rights of cyclists when I stop getting the finger each time I ask a cyclist to not ride on the sidewalk.

  176. I cycle north on VN pretty often to connect to Polk Street, because there’s no better alternative. Franklin is a freeway with a steep hill, Larkin is roughly the same but then you have the Walking Dead randomly crossing and making things unpredictable from Golden Gate to O’Farrell
    Van Ness is a pretty scary ride for the unexperienced. I always ride on the road, but I understand why a rider would prefer to be on a sidewalk. I hug the parked cars and am on the lookout for dooring while climbing a fairly decent hill. It’s not for the faint of heart.
    Of course on the sidewalk they should absolutely WALK their bikes. It takes 3-4 minutes walking from McAllister to Ellis where you will safely connect to Polk, but somehow some cyclists consider walking a bike as a sign of defeat…

  177. @Watcher
    Many studies have also show biking to be safer than driving.
    Comparing injuries per distance traveled is the least relevant way of comparing the safety of different modes of travel.
    Injuries by time traveled, or trips taken are much more useful, which show cycling to be about at safe, or safer than driving.
    These studies also ignore the cause of injury, which is mainly private auto. It also ignores the health advantages of cycling, which since you are getting exercise mean you are much less likely to die of diseases such as diabetes and morbid obesity.
    So, to conclude, while buses are safer than bikes, they are also safer than cars. But it’s basically irrelevant to this conversation, as the Polk St. changes are designed to improve safety for all parties.

  178. “Larkin is roughly the same but then you have the Walking Dead randomly crossing and making things unpredictable from Golden Gate to O’Farrell”
    I see no problem with Larkin. the hills are minor and it is less commercial. Agree with Van Ness and Franklin not being viable.
    The walking dead shouldnt cause too much of an issue on a bike. They are dangerous for cars, but bikes travel slower and can stop much faster

  179. @FixMuniFirst
    Posting a bunch of conspiracy theories and putting quotes around nearly every other word doesn’t make a strong argument.
    I’m not clear on how any of your post is relevant to Polk St.

  180. The quotes were taken from previous post by @brianSF as the email states at the beginning that it is a response to @brianSF.
    I was correcting the mistaken belief that the SFMTA Board was staffed by qualified transit planners when it is in fact filled by political appointments from the Mayor. No conspiracy, just stating how the Board is organized.

  181. “Comparing injuries per distance traveled is the least relevant way of comparing the safety of different modes of travel.”
    “Bikers, pedestrians and transit users make more frequent trips, so while the individual purchase amounts on a single trip are smaller, the total over the month is greater.”
    This makes the effective injury rates for bikes *worse* because you need many trips (2.4 by the SFMTA study) to accomplish what a car can in one trip.
    “Injuries by time traveled, or trips taken are much more useful, which show cycling to be about at safe, or safer than driving.”
    The AJE study shows injuries by trip and shows biking has 2.3 times the fatal injury rate per trip vs driving.
    2.3 times the risk per trip and 2.4 trips to accomplish the same task gives you 5.5 times the effective fatality risk.
    “These studies also ignore the cause of injury, which is mainly private auto. ”
    Not true. If the other party were completely at fault you’d expect injuries to be evenly distributed between genders. (i.e. a drunk driver is no more likely to hit a man vs a women on a bike). But what you actually see is that the fatality rate for male bicyclists is 3.8 times that of female bicyclists. This strongly indicates that the injured party’s behavior has a strong impact on injury rates.

  182. spencer,
    The walking dead shouldnt cause too much of an issue on a bike. They are dangerous for cars, but bikes travel slower and can stop much faster
    My issue is more the unpredictability of cars due to the drunk/high/undead just crossing randomly.
    If you’re next to a car that has to do a split-second move, the driver will swerve into you without looking. It’s also very indirect: a car pushes another one into another lane and so on… You need nerves of steel on Larkin.

  183. @Watcher
    First, what’s the point? You responded to a comment about increasing safety by saying buses are safest, and bikes least safe, which is not even supported by the study you linked. The report shows motorcycles are about 20 times more dangerous and “Other Vehicles” (which includes large truck, motor home,
    taxi, limousine, hotel/airport shuttle) are slightly more dangerous than bicycles.
    Now, on to my rebuttal:
    I said the auto (vehicle) is the cause, rather than the driver(person), which would be fault. Much like a bullet causes death, but the shooter is at fault.
    The cause of the death is the auto because if the auto were changed to a bike or pedestrian the death is much less likely, regardless of who is at fault (driver or cyclist).
    Or put another way, if a pedestrian lies down in front of a car moving 1 mile per hour and dies, the cause is the car, the fault is the pedestrian.
    Cause and fault are 2 very different things. Cause is almost always the heavier or faster vehicle, while fault is generally in the realm of the operator.
    The fact that the rate is different between males & females does not mean cause (or even fault) is with the cyclist, especially given that the study you linked also found that “Males had significantly higher fatality rates than females for all modes of travel except motorcycle and bus, for which no significant differences were observed.” And the ratios were about the same as far as I could tell.
    Another thing, one study is not the end of the story, other studies have found different results:
    Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. performed a comparative analysis of fatality rates for a variety of activities per million hours spent performing a given activity. They concluded that the fatality rate for every million hours spent cycling is 0.26, compared to 0.47 per million driving hours.
    According to the US National Safety Council, for every million cyclists in the US, 16.5 die each year, whereas for every million motorists, 19.9 die each year.
    Here is a meta study that finds cycling to be significantly safer (about 30%) in comparison to other modes of travel:
    http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/12Cycle-Safety.pdf
    So it’s far from clear what mode is safer. Some reports say cars, some say bikes, some say it’s about the same. The only thing that’s certain is coming to any conclusion based on a single study is problematic at best.

  184. liquid, i have addressed this several times. THis plan hurts muni because money is diverted to help a handful of people (cycling commuters) at the expense of saving the Money for large muni projects, which help a lot more people. if Muni were near perfect and the city was flush with funds, i would be all for this.

  185. FixMuniFirst: “The financial punishment of drivers in the city, and then not using those funds to fix Muni are the cause of citizen outrage.”
    As a member of a three-person household in SF that currently has three cars, I have not experienced any evidence of being financially punished for driving in SF.

  186. @Jill
    If the bike lane speeds up muni then it helps muni, so you need to show how the bike lane hurts muni.
    Or you can demonstrate how spending the bike lane money on another project benefits muni more, but given that you don’t have the slightest clue as to how much money is being spent on the lanes, I don’t see you coming up with that any time soon.

  187. “You responded to a comment about increasing safety by saying buses are safest, and bikes least safe”
    Of the modes being discussed: bikes, cars and foot travel. Motorcycles are terribly dangerous because they combine the danger of cars (speed) and those of bikes (no body protection). I don’t know what motorhomes and large trucks have to do with the discussion.
    “”Males had significantly higher fatality rates than females for all modes of travel except motorcycle and bus, for which no significant differences were observed.”
    This is exactly what you’d expect because behavior influences your accident risk in most modes. A bus passenger is obviously not the at fault party and you do see equal fatalities for males and females in that mode. Motorcycles are so risky that there is a significant selection bias in people who chose that mode.
    “And the ratios were about the same as far as I could tell.”
    No. The M/F ratio for cars was 2, for bikes 3.8. If the problem was just cars “door-ing” cyclists you would see a more even distribution.
    “Here is a meta study that finds cycling to be significantly safer (about 30%) in comparison to other modes of travel:”
    The American Journal of Epidemiology is a peer reviewed medical journal. Your study is from a working group on cycling safety. The first line of your study is:
    “Bicycles are an essential part of the urban mobility mix. They use no fossil energy, deliver important health benefits, and improve the liveability of cities.”
    The bottom of the first page states:
    “Studies investigating the comparative risk of injury for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher risks per unit
    of exposure for cyclists: e.g. 7.5 times higher injury risks in Norway (Elvik, 2009) and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”
    And you need more trips (i.e. more “exposure”) to accomplish the same tasks cycling.
    This is about transit safety. All factor fatality is not relevant. If you want exercise you are safer driving to the gym/hiking trails.

  188. Liquid. No sense arguing with a brick wall. It’s very clear that if muni is priority then the money should be spent to help muni. I am not a city planner so don’t know which muni project to spend it on. There are a lot of upgrades needed. And I don’t know how much this bike lane boondoggle costs. But even if it is $5, that’s $5 that could go to muni. Even cleaning a bus is of greater good than this bike lane for a special interest group. City policy is being driven by special interests like the bike coalition and it is cronyism. Support the 99% and support muni projects. The elitist cycling 1% should not dictate policy

  189. Instead of using emotionally charged words like “elitist” and fabricated numbers like 99% vs. 1%, why not use real facts like those that can be found on page 3 of this document: http://sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/documents/1-29-13BikeStrategy.pdf There you will see that in 2012 the actual mode share of transit riders are 17% and cyclists are 3.5%.
    Another way of looking at it is that for every cyclist there’s five muni riders. If you allocate funds in proportion to mode split then the cycling community would be ecstatic to receive 20% of the funds that are currently being spent on traditional mass transit. That’s an enormous amount of cash.
    Muni should be funded well enough to provide good bus and streetcar service. But that’s no reason to underfund the significant and growing number of cyclists on the streets.

  190. I can understand how some of Jill’s opinions would and does infuriate a number of others here. But in large part I agree with her. And, of course, then I get vilified. So what, I don’t care.
    The cyclists, by and large, are an elite special interest group. They (somehow) wield a lot of power and influence over some of our city leaders. The SF Bike Coalition and CM can be real bullies, without consideration or a wider view of ALL citizens and other modes of transport here in SF.
    This discussion (heated argument) will likely not go away soon. There is and will be more backlash, I predict, against money for bike lanes while allowing Muni to continue to deteriorate. A quality public transit system that is VERY reliable, safe, clean, dependable and accesses MANY more neighborhoods is the way to get more drivers into public transit, reduce auto driving and make the streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
    I keep saying, we need a more balanced approach and at this point I don’t see that happening.

  191. I keep saying, we need a more balanced approach and at this point I don’t see that happening.
    You keep saying that, but also keep ignoring the fact that a “more balanced” approach would actually give MORE money and voice to cyclists, not less, since they’re actually one of the only modes that is dramatically increasing share (at the expense of driving and transit riding – walking is also increasing at the expense of those two).
    “More balanced” in your mind seems to be equivalent to “the way I like things”.

  192. If balance means spending according to mode share then I’m all for that. As it is now pedestrians and cyclists are getting short changed. Sure, it is a lot better than a decade ago but we still have a long way to go.

  193. The discussion is safety on Polk St., not what is the safest mode of transportation out of pesdestrians, busses, cars and bikes.
    You left out 2 modes more dangerous than cycling. I guarantee you that motorcycles, taxis, limos, and probably the occasional RV, can be found on Polk.
    “This is exactly what you’d expect because behavior influences your accident risk in most modes. A bus passenger is obviously not the at fault party and you do see equal fatalities for males and females in that mode. Motorcycles are so risky that there is a significant selection bias in people who chose that mode.”
    This is flawed logic. The ratio of fatalities does not assign fault. You could use the same logic to imply that busses (given the low rate of overall deaths) are almost never at fault, while motorcycles (given the high rate) are almost always at fault. The fault has nothing to do with the rate of death, it only speaks to the level of risk.
    Males also make up a larger percentage of the cycling population, by about 1.5-3 times depending on source, whereas the driving population is almost exactly equal between males and females. So the ratios are basically the same.
    You also ignore the fact that the pedestrian gender ratio is also quite large (about 3:1 male to female), even though the populations are almost equal.
    All the ratio tells us is that males are more likely to be killed doing things unless they are ridiculously safe, or ridiculously dangerous. It certainly says nothing about whether cyclists are more often at fault.
    Rather than trying to infer something from data that has very little relevance, you could review some of the studies that have actually gone over police reports. I would also advise more than just a single study.
    But as I already mentioned, cause is a much more important factor, and much easier to determine.
    I included information from 3 different studies. I linked to one study, which as I mentioned was a meta study (meaning a collection of other studies), which included peer reviewed studies. The point of referring to multiple studies is that different studies come up with different findings.
    More importantly though, I still ask what is the point of your post? What does it matter to the Polk St. safety discussion even if you are right and bikes are less safe?

  194. @futurist
    You aren’t a villain, you just bring nothing to the conversation.
    You make many unsupported and false claims about cyclists, and when they are shown by others to be obviously false, you simply pretend as if the entire conversation
    Repeated anecdotal stories about how afraid of cyclists you are, or how they are always giving you the finger.
    You are strangely obsessed with the fact that some cyclists are young white males.
    But you never provide anything to support your claims. When those claims are subsequently demolished you act as if the conversation never happens.
    You claim to want a balanced approach? You can’t even explain how it’s unbalanced right now, much less what “balanced” means.
    I may disagree with Watcher’s conclusions, but at least he can bring some information to support them. I can respect Watcher, even if I disagree.

  195. City policy is being driven by special interests like the bike coalition. this is the old boy network of cronyism.
    reminds me of those conniving southern politicians in the 60s

  196. “I can understand how some of Jill’s opinions would and does infuriate a number of others here. ”
    Futurist, most men don’t seem to like a woman having a different opinion from them and stating it strongly. And since most of these cyclists are men, they are especially bothered by my opinions.
    The fact is that all the money should go for muni improvements. They all know it. Cycling projects help their old boy crony club, and men don’t want to give up their special perks.
    Most of us can’t cycle down polk. we need muni. but they dont care.
    They try to make this a bike vs. car debate, but the real debate is about wasting money for a elite club of a few cyclists. they want to divert this money for their own personal preferences, not for the good of the city. typical chauvinist shit

  197. “I also understand that there is much work to do to achieve our charter-mandated performance goals. We are working hard to address the system’s critical issues: increasing efficiencies, replacing antiquated equipment, and ensuring buses and trains are on time. These issues result, in part, from underfunding Muni for decades…
    Just how much investment is needed? For Muni and other aspects of our current transportation system, we need $510 million per year for the next 20 years” (Edward Reisikin – SFMTA)
    Reisikin now gets what Jill is writing about. The backlash being felt by the SFMTA is not anti-bike, it is PRO MUNI, and people want Muni fixed.
    As mentioned earlier, after we get MUNI fixed, we can allow the SFMTA to worry about Parklets, Parkmobiles, Bike paths, bulb outs, etc.

  198. ok liquid: then if I bring nothing to the conversation, then stop wasting your time commenting on my opinions.
    And yes, Jill: I would agree. We need to fix Muni first, make it the BEST in the nation, find other sources for funding (some) cycling improvements, but not from ANY Muni funds.
    I do like your forward, sometimes very raw opinions. But many here don’t get or really believe that urban cycling in SF is largely a young white male boys club; they have gained a large voice by being loud and obnoxious and having a very very minor dent in auto traffic use.
    Most of them don’t get it and yea, it is a lot of male chauvinist shit.

  199. Sorry futurist, but it’s too much fun demolishing your posts. Your stuck with me.
    And don’t worry jill, we’re equal opportunity here. It’s not your gender that gets you so little respect, it’s your inability to support your claims with any data or facts.

  200. Jill,
    I’m a non-male, non-young, mostly white person who rides MUNI and rides a bike and walks and drives. (Not all at the same time.) All are good modes of transportation depending on where I’m going and when, but bike riding is by far the scariest. The more that SF accommodates the crazy cyclist lobby to make cycling safer, the more non-crazy cyclists like me will feel safe venturing out on the roads. I agree that MUNI should be improved, but I also want safer bike routes.

  201. Cycling in SF is dominated by young men because it is obviously dangerous and sometimes confrontational. If you want to fix cycling’s gender balance, all you have to do is make it safer.

  202. I am still laughing out loud at Jill’s incredibly idiotic sentence:
    special interests like the bike coalition. this is the old boy network of cronyism.
    Reminds me of those conniving southern politicians in the 60s

    ‘nuf said. LOL. Get your head checked.

  203. How would people like it if the San Francisco Auto Dealers Association were to get tax money to promote car usage, and then stack the SFMTA Board with it’s members who then turn around and vote to fund the S.F. Auto Dealers staff positions, office space and junkets and lobbying to come up with more car usage strategies and ways to punish bike riders?
    A little research will explain what Jill is writing about. There is a financial revolving door between the Bike Coalition and the SFMTA with members getting high salary jobs in the SFMTA and then proposing to fund various bike coalition research projects and events. It is all about the money. Do you think Bike to Work day is free? That “idea” gives the SFBC $50,000 in one day alone (for what?) District 5 Diary, MeterMadness and ENUF have even posted a speech given at by a SFBC member about how they were able to “rig the system” to obtain city and federal funds to then lobby their agenda and pay their own salaries.
    Those 6 month long bike trips around France and other parts of Europe do not come cheap! Go on their site to see pictures of them toasting their good fortune in the Netherlands, Heidelberg, France etc. as they take bike trips to “study” how to make San Francisco “better”. I am furious that someone from Central Florida can move to San Francisco and in 12 years time feel they know what is best for the city and take my tax money to then promote their own ideas, AND vacations!

  204. How would people like it if the San Francisco Auto Dealers Association were to get tax money to promote car usage, and then stack the SFMTA Board with it’s members who then turn around and vote to fund the S.F. Auto Dealers staff positions, office space and junkets and lobbying to come up with more car usage strategies and ways to punish bike riders?
    Um, this is exactly what happened for more than 50 years.

  205. Indeed. That was an epic and misguided rant. Someone needs to open a history book or something.
    For instance, streetcars were EVERYWHERE in San Francisco. There were 10 times more lines, criss-crossing the city. They were torn down to make way for cars. It was pushed down our throat by the car and oil lobby, and it happened in most American cities.
    San Francisco kept a skeleton network, but it is only a shadow of its former self.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
    “Several of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce”
    By that time of course all the dmage was done. Cars are now part of our DNA.

  206. “You left out 2 modes more dangerous than cycling”
    No one is trying to “mode shift” people into RV’s or motorcycles.
    “This is flawed logic. The ratio of fatalities does not assign fault. ”
    Who’s “at fault” legally is not the same as who influences their injury risk by their own behavior. Legally “at fault” has different criteria and enforcement styles in different jurisdictions.
    If the problem were just that cars randomly swerved into or “doored” bikers then you’d see equal incidence of this for males and females.
    “You could use the same logic to imply that busses (given the low rate of overall deaths) are almost never at fault, while motorcycles (given the high rate) are almost always at fault. ”
    Exactly. Bus *passengers* do almost never contribute to their injuries and you do see an equal M/F injury rate there.
    “Males also make up a larger percentage of the cycling population, by about 1.5-3 times depending on source, whereas the driving population is almost exactly equal between males and females. So the ratios are basically the same.”
    No. These are injury *rates* per trip (or per mile).
    “You also ignore the fact that the pedestrian gender ratio is also quite large (about 3:1 male to female), even though the populations are almost equal.”
    No. Many pedestrian accidents *are* influenced by pedestrian behavior (i.e. drunk, headphones, jaywalking,…) Who’s legally at fault in a collision between a drunk pedestrian and a car doing 1mph over the limit isn’t reflective of who’s behavior most strongly influences the injury rate. In many jurisdictions pedestrians and cyclists cannot or are not always tested for BAC after an accident.
    “But as I already mentioned, cause is a much more important factor, and much easier to determine.”
    No and No.
    The study you linked to has this:
    “Cyclists are probably at fault in less than half of all crashes. Cyclists were reported to be at fault in 60% of fatal crashes in Australia, and 40% in Spain. However, these percentages may
    exaggerate the role of cyclists, given that the cyclist is not available to give their point of view. In
    Denmark, where the operationalisation of fault is more objective (not having right of way) the percentage is lower (24%). In the UK, crashes are more often deemed to be the fault of the
    cyclist, whereas crashes in which the cyclist was killed or seriously injured are more often deemed to be the fault of the motorist (Knowles et al., 2009).”
    Wide range of numbers and criteria.
    “I linked to one study, which as I mentioned was a meta study (meaning a collection of other studies), which included peer reviewed studies. ”
    Yes, and that study said:
    “Studies investigating the comparative risk of injury for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher risks per unit
    of exposure for cyclists: e.g. 7.5 times higher injury risks in Norway (Elvik, 2009) and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”
    So even if SF becomes as bike friendly as the Netherlands people mode shifted into cycling will have a 5.5 times higher fatality risk per trip. And with 2.4 trips to do what they could do in 1 trip with a car that gives a 13.2 times higher fatality risk. Also an 18x injury risk.
    Painting a white line on the road might help a bit, but will nowhere near offset the 13.2x increase. (And the Netherlands probably already has bike lanes)
    “What does it matter to the Polk St. safety discussion even if you are right and bikes are less safe?”
    Mode shifting people into a 13x less safe transit mode does not increase public safety.

  207. That a lot of text. But that’s also a big strawman. And the reason is that you choose to look at the problem from a very narrow standpoint.
    The biggest killer in the country is heart disease. One of the major contributing factors is lack of exercise, caused in part by the generalized use of motorized individual transportation.
    Getting out of your car to commute by bike reduces your risk of heart disease, far outweighing the risk of fatality due to an accident.
    Following that logic, we should ban cars because promoting an unhealthy transit mode does not increase public health.

  208. ^ I forgot to add:
    See, I can also create a big strawman and make it say whatever I want if I narrow the scope to an area of my own choosing.
    I am in no way advocating forcing people from cars on bikes. But people should be given the alternative, just like they should have access to other healthy options in their lives.

  209. So bicycling exposes people to 13X harm? That seems way way off. Probably partially because of the assumption that cyclists take 2.4 more trips. I don’t feel at all as if I’m taking any more trips on a bike compared to driving. It seems to be a 1-1 tradeoff except for cases of extra large loads. I do most of my shopping on the way to and from work so it is possible that I’m even taking less trips on a bike since there’s no need to get off of the freeway and back on.
    Once when I needed to dispose of 1.5 tons of concrete fragments I entertained the thought (though not seriously) of hauling on a bike. That would have required several days of continuous effort but legs of steel would be the reward. Instead I overloaded my SUV and made three trips to the dump. See, cars are superior to bikes in some situations.
    So for all of those analyses of cycling risk, did the studies conclude the cause of the danger?

  210. And here are a few sources that point to the health benefit vs risk of cycling.
    http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html
    They’re all in the range of 13:1 and higher.
    Cyclists are not only removing car congestion, but they are lowering our health care costs.
    Watcher’s strawman gets thinner and thinner.

  211. @Watcher, most of what you wrote was either misinterpreting, or misunderstanding what I said. Re-read what I posted earlier.
    I will respond to one point:
    “Mode shifting people into a 13x less safe transit mode does not increase public safety.”
    I consider your assessment wrong for the reasons already pointed out above by myself and others.
    But even assuming it is correct mode shifting can and does increase safety, as cars are the cause of the lack of safety in cycling or being a pedestrian. Cars cause the deaths.
    Reduce the number of cars, or slow them down, and the other modes become vastly safer. It even becomes safer for cars!

  212. “The biggest killer in the country is heart disease. One of the major contributing factors is lack of exercise,”
    *That* is a strawman. Exercise reduces heart disease risk, not cycling specifically.
    So drive to work and then to the gym. Or use the time saved driving on an exercise bike. Bring a shake weight on Muni…
    “See, I can also create a big strawman”
    Yes.
    “I don’t feel at all as if I’m taking any more trips on a bike compared to driving.”
    Then you’re only at ~5.5x risk.
    Bike advocates were trumpeting the SFMTA study showing riders making multiple small trips. I don’t think it’s a very solid study, but I also doubt 1:1 trip parity is the norm.
    ” Cars cause the deaths.”
    You think cars randomly hit men at a rate 3.8x that of women?
    “So for all of those analyses of cycling risk, did the studies conclude the cause of the danger?”
    Put it this way. If all cyclists rode as safely as women then that would lower the fatality rate by 3.8x. No removal of parking, no bike lanes needed.
    “They’re all in the range of 13:1 and higher.”
    This is suspect. Total years of life lost for heart disease is about 5x traffic crashes. Even zeroing out all heart disease, which biking does not do, would not be worth a 5.5x increase in traffic fatalities. If biking cures cancer and heart disease, thats equaled at around 11x traffic fatalities.

  213. “So for all of those analyses of cycling risk, did the studies conclude the cause of the danger?”
    Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.
    A study conducted in 2000 by the Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands found that single bicycle accidents accounted for 47% of all bicycle accidents, collisions with obstacles and animals accounted for 12%, and collisions with other road users accounted for 40%, with the remaining 1% having unknown or unclassified cause.

  214. Watcher – Thanks for the well written response. I keep forgetting that the stats are an aggregation of everyone on the road: from safe cyclists and reckless idiots and everyone in between. The cyclists on this website seem to be in the former cautious category.
    The demographic of automobile drivers are similar. Most are cautious safe drivers but a few are borderline homicidal. The difference is that in a car you can cause an awful accident and walk away without a scratch. Kinda like what happened a couple of weeks ago when a car crashed into a house: http://www.mercurynews.com/los-gatos/ci_23099812/san-jose-vehicle-crashes-into-home-multiple-injuries There a woman was critically injured and her daughter buried in the rubble of a collapsed wall. This happened while they were inside their own house. Thanks to airbags and a steel cage, the driver of the car had received minor injuries. Try doing that on a bike!
    So that’s why the male/female injury ratios are so lopsided for bicyclists: they pay directly for their aggression. Motorists on the other hand are physically insulated from their bad behavior. Crumple zones and front air bags in particular will reduce the number of aggressive male drivers paying directly for their bad deeds. Read that story about the San Jose crash: Two guys racing at high speed, one crashed right through a house, seriously injuring someone. No-one in the car was seriously hurt.
    It would be nice if the police cracked down more on the reckless people on the road (both drivers and cyclists … and skateboarders too). That would do a lot to reduce the numbers of injuries all around.
    If you ride a bike it is in your best interest to ride safely. Unlike motorists who’s damage is often limited only to their vehicle.

  215. The diminished IQ of the majority of hipsters probably make the solo bike accident rate worse in SF

  216. “Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.”
    It should be pretty obvious that heavy, powerful, high speed vehicles are responsible for the majority of the mayhem on roads. For example fatal accidents are common on US interstate highways where no bikes or pedestrians are allowed. On the other hand it is very rare for a collision to result in a fatality on recreational trails where cars are not allowed. One place has only motorized vehicles, the other has none.
    Your breakdown of bike crashes neglects to consider severity of those single-bike crashes. The harm presented by a travel mode is the product of frequency times severity. Cyclists and pedestrians cause significantly less severe collisions compared to cars.

  217. “You think cars randomly hit men at a rate 3.8x that of women?”
    I’ve already debunked that ratio, the theory that the ratio has any bearing on fault, and explained that cause and fault are completely unrelated.
    “Put it this way. If all cyclists rode as safely as women then that would lower the fatality rate by 3.8x. No removal of parking, no bike lanes needed.”
    Given that I’ve already debunked the 3.8 number and any relevance it might have had, any conclusion derived from it is pre-debunked.
    “… 5.5x risk…”
    I will now also debunk that number.
    1) 2.3 x risk is from a single study, which is not the definitive number
    2) 2.4 x trips is from a completely different (not-peer reviewed) study focusing only on SF.
    3) Both studies have margins of error. Multiplying the numbers also multiplies the margin for error.
    4) Given that they are considering different populations in different situations, multiplying the numbers is entirely invalid.
    Your conclusions are invalid because they are based on invalid understandings of the meaning of the numbers, and how the they interact.

  218. “Your conclusions are invalid because they are based on invalid understandings of the meaning of the numbers, and how the they interact.”
    I would say the same about both sides of this argument. These studies are not well controlled in general. As a statistician, I find it wildly amusing to see everyone takes terrible run studies and make definitive conclusions about any of them. I could design a study and produce statistically valid results on either side of this equation. Everyone is biased . All the studies should just be taken with a grain of salt. Real statisticians and cientists are not busy finding out if cycling is safer that driving. They are working on something much more important. Anything from a special interest group (aka oil lobby, bicycle coalition, GM) should be taken with 10 pounds of salt

  219. Spencer – And that is why I mentioned the interstate vs. recreational trail comparison. No study needed, just common sense.
    Or we could just fall back on basic high school physics for a more objective guideline.

  220. “Well, if people can just make things up (“Cars cause the deaths.”) then I may as well quote Wikipedia.”
    Nothing made up there. According to the CDC cars are the number 1 cause of injury death.
    I’ve already explained how cars cause the death, regardless of fault. The CDC and many studies agree.
    I’ll reiterate: fault and cause are different. In an impact between a cyclists (or pedestrian) and driver the fault can be either party, while the cause is almost always the car.

  221. @Spencer
    Totally agree. I’ve been fairly consistent in saying that a single study cannot be used, particularly given that there are numerous ways of looking at the issue, and many other studies disagree.
    I’ve also been fairly consistent in saying it’s irrelevant as cars are the cause of the deaths (and injuries) in either case.

  222. Watcher’s strawman “bikes do not provide a healthier alternative to driving”
    The debate started with me quoting a link to several studies that showed that the health benefits of a cyclist was multiples of the risk to the same cyclist. The ration was 13:1 and higher.
    The response was:
    Total years of life lost for heart disease is about 5x traffic crashes. Even zeroing out all heart disease, which biking does not do, would not be worth a 5.5x increase in traffic fatalities. If biking cures cancer and heart disease, thats equaled at around 11x traffic fatalities.
    Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists. You’re confusing many different things here. But that’s the goal I guess.
    1 – Bikes cannot replace cars for long trips. The number of miles covered by a cyclist are much less than a driver. Plus someone who chose to be a cyclist for commuting could choose to drive or fly or ride a train for longer trips. His cycling activity would not multiply his personal chances of dying in a traffic accident by the number you are giving which is very debatable. But his physical activity will improve his cardio-vascular health. The studies I quoted give roughly a 50% reduction in mortality from heart disease.
    You might question the numbers because they do not fit your view, but they are what they are.

  223. Mod, totally agree. Bikes are for recreational use and should only be used for city commuting at the riders own peril. I cycle and this is my philosophy. Muni is best for within city traveling . Cars are best for kids, groceries and out of town trips. Taxis are best if its late at night and you are intoxicated. Boats are best for crossing the bay

  224. “It should be pretty obvious that heavy, powerful, high speed vehicles are responsible for the majority of the mayhem on roads.”
    “No study needed, just common sense.”
    Many people think that terrorism or school shootings are significant dangers because they are scary and get news coverage. Large freeway crashes get news coverage as well, but you need to consider that the large transit capacity of freeways means that many many people use them for every crash you see on the news.
    I know more drivers than cyclists and know of no-one with a serious injury (requiring hospitalization) due to a single car accident while sober. A good handful of people I know have landed in the hospital due to single vehicle bike accidents. And,if anything, accidents on the trail were worse than those on the road. (I mountain bike, but have no illusions as to its safety). Nearly everyone I know who has taken up motorcycle riding long term ends up in a serious accident. My common sense fits right in with the data.
    The reality is that the human body is fragile and you’re safer in a giant metal cage with airbags and antilock brakes (eventually to be radar assisted antilock brakes) because all these things protect you from impact trauma. Nothing personal to you cyclists.
    “These studies are not well controlled in general. As a statistician, I find it wildly amusing to see everyone takes terrible run studies and make definitive conclusions about any of them.”
    Grated, but firstly the burden of proof should be on the small minority wanting to make a change to the transit system.
    Secondly, pulling a bait and switch between traffic fatalities and all-factor fatalities is the source of friction here.
    Are there any peer reviewed studies that show lower accident risks per mile for bicycling vs passenger vehicles?

  225. Spencer – I wasn’t implying that bikes are for recreational use only. I was using that interstate/trail case to highlight the source of danger. But you probably knew that.
    Yes, street cyclists should be aware of the danger and take steps to stay safe. But we should also improve the safety of our streets. The proposed changes to Polk do just that.
    It is still hard to imagine that some people consider a small amount of street parking more important than safety.

  226. ” and many other studies disagree.”
    With so many studies disagreeing it should be easy for you to find a study showing that bike riding has a lower fatality per mile than a passenger vehicle.
    “Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists.”
    Because very few people cycle.
    All-factor fatality is moot because it’s easy enough to pick a safer mode of transit and exercise separately.

  227. All-factor fatality is moot because it’s easy enough to pick a safer mode of transit and exercise separately.
    In theory. Yet we have an obesity epidemic.
    People need to go places and need to exercise to be healthier. Cycling has the benefit to do both.
    Plus I usually go a few minutes faster door-to-door than Muni (with Muni being only 1 block away on both ends). Therefore it saves me time, and money. Plus If I need to go where Muni doesn’t, I can. Flexible, fast, healthy, and decently safe if you’re careful enough.

  228. @Watcher
    Cars cause about 35,000 to 40,000 deaths, and millions of injuries, a year, this is from the CDC.
    “you’re safer in a giant metal cage with airbags and antilock brakes… these things protect you from impact trauma”
    Yes, the impact trauma, caused most of the time, by a car. Either the driver runs into something, or is run into by another car in the vast majority of cases. It’s not like trees and houses are running into sitting cars.
    Cars are heavy, and move fast. Things that are heavy and move fast have a lot of kinetic energy. Things with a lot of kinetic energy cause lots of damage. Thus, cars cause lots of damage when they hit other objects. When those objects happen to be pedestrians, cyclists, or even other cars, this damage is often fatal.
    Even your own study shows that cars are involved in the the vast majority of fatalities and injuries.

  229. “Cars cause about 35,000 to 40,000 deaths, and millions of injuries, a year, this is from the CDC.”
    You and lol need to look up the concept of rates and ratios.
    Very few people are injured due to using a trebuchet to launch themselves to their destination. This is not because it is a safe mode of travel. This is because very few people chose to travel this way.

  230. but firstly the burden of proof should be on the small minority wanting to make a change to the transit system.
    It’s already well studied that cars cause deaths, to pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users.
    So making safety improvements is not just for cyclists.
    “Only very few of all traffic fatalities are from cyclists.”
    Because very few people cycle.

    Denmark had about 200 traffic fatalities total in 2011. Netherlands had around 650, which is about the same per capita. Adjusted for population, that’s the equivalent of about 11,000 deaths in the US. Less than a third of our current rate.
    So in countries where very many people bicycle, there are much fewer overall deaths, and cars still account for the majority of deaths. When you look at the history of deaths in those and similar countries, deaths are going up until they start protecting the vulnerable road users, and start going down dramatically after they start protecting. And the safety improvements impact all road users.
    So as I’ve consistently said, even if cycling (and being a pedestrian) is more dangerous, it’s irrelevant because cars are the cause.
    Safety improvements should be targeted at the cause, especially given that it has been proven effective many times in many countries.

  231. lyqwyd, indeed. Behavior changes once a certain number of cyclists are on the road. Bicycles in SF are numerous enough to have changed the way people approach bikes. Not every statistic is scalable, which is hinted by your Denmark/Netherlands numbers.
    One concrete example. When cycling up Mission in the SOMA section, I always hate to encounter a SamTrans bus.
    Their behavior is nigh and day compared with Muni, with SamTrans buses doing crazy stunts to pass me to be stopped at the red light, then pass me again. And again. They do not go faster, despite doing 35MPH+ when they have the occasion.
    Muni buses are usually content with my 20MPH pace and know the terrain much better, including what to expect from a cyclist.

  232. “Behavior changes once a certain number of cyclists are on the road”
    And yet even in the Netherlands. From a study picked by lyqwyd
    “Studies investigating the comparative risk of injury for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher risks per unit
    of exposure for cyclists: e.g. 7.5 times higher injury risks in Norway (Elvik, 2009) and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”
    “Safety improvements should be targeted at the cause, especially given that it has been proven effective many times in many countries.”
    Money should be spent either on moving people to a known safer form of transit (Muni). Or improving the most common heavily used mode of transit ( i.e.auto safety), a strategy which has been enormously effective (DUI awareness/enforcement, air bags, antilock brakes,..) and with upcoming vehicle automation technology will be even more effective in the future.

  233. Watcher,
    You can’t have it both ways.
    On one hand, you take pure numbers, deny they are not scalable, and give lessons on what should and should not be done.
    And then you pull a fast one: Or improving the most common heavily used mode of transit ( i.e.auto safety), a strategy which has been enormously effective
    This is contrary to what you’ve tried to demonstrate. You’re repeating again and again that bicycle is inherently unsafe and therefore no money should be spent to expand its usage.
    But auto safety PROVES that regulating, enforcing, educating are lowering fatality rates. And these improvements came because society was caught unprepared to driver behavior and the industry.
    Ergo, if you create a safer cycling environment, enforce traffic laws for bicycles and educate cyclists, you’ll lower fatality rates.
    Had you lived in 1910, you’d have made the case against automobiles which had an horrific track record. Why pave America for such an unsafe mode of transportation?

  234. “improving the most common heavily used mode of transit”
    That approach is already the standard in the U.S. Safety has improved far more in countries that focused on protecting the vulnerable from the cause of harm, than it has here in the U.S. where we already follow the approach you recommend. The approach of improving safety in cars, while showing some success, has failed when compared to the approach of reducing harm caused by cars, which has shown far more success.
    It’s obvious you prefer the status quo, but the status quo leaves us living in a country where traffic fatalities are 2-3 times what you find in countries that follow the approach I advocate.,

  235. “Had you lived in 1910, you’d have made the case against automobiles which had an horrific track record. Why pave America for such an unsafe mode of transportation?”
    Great analogy. Bicycles are the new cutting edge technology invented recently that will take the transportation world by storm.
    Bicycles have their place(in the park and suburbs), but the usage will always remain low. The influx of the car was a significanct technological advancement. Do you think the elitist at the San Francisco bicycle coalition are going to the be the next Henry Fords.

  236. I also find it interesting that Watcher tries to use Norway and the Netherlands as examples to support his arguments, when they are countries that have high cycling mode share, and/or target their safety efforts at protecting at risk modes such as cyclists and pedestrians (exactly the approach many of us are promoting), and have very low per capita traffic fatalities.
    In Norway 148 people were killed in traffic fatalities in 2012, almost 100% by cars.
    Here’s some data for year 2010 traffic deaths for the countries we’ve discuseed (source WHO)
    Country – as % of total deaths – per 100,000 population
    Norway – 0.79% – 5.16
    Denmark – 0.74% – 3.97
    Netherlands – 0.70% – 5.43
    USA – 2.17% – 13.88
    Watcher, if you want to use those countries as examples, then it also makes sense to use them as models.

  237. “I also find it interesting that Watcher tries to use Norway and the Netherlands as examples to support his arguments, ”
    I used the Netherlands quote because it’s from a paper *you* cited so it’s clear I’m not cherry picking studies.
    ( http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/12Cycle-Safety.pdf )
    And *you* cite the Netherlands as an example of a bike friendly country.
    And *you* called out that risk per exposure (time or trips) is the more useful number.
    “Injuries by time traveled, or trips taken are much more useful, which show cycling to be about at safe, or safer than driving.”
    *you* didn’t like the number that *you* called out from a paper *you* cited “and 5.5 times higher fatality risk for the Netherlands (CBS, 2008)”” so you tried to re-focus on all-factor mortality and now per-capita deaths.
    Furthermore, the (CBS 2008) citation isn’t specific enough to track down an exact paper. But looking at the CBS (Netherlands Statistical Agency) 2008 article page they have a small report on transit fatalities and even the per-capita fatality data contradicts your speculations.
    http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/verkeer-vervoer/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-030-pb.htm
    What is the “protection of vulnerable road users doing?
    “More road deaths aged between 20 and 30, increase among cyclists”
    All age Change in deaths 2002-2007
    Cars -37%
    Bikes -3.1%
    Walk -15.7%
    Is this because there are more people cycling?
    No. From the “Commuter cyclists prefer short distances” article on the same page
    “Cycling to work has not become more popular in recent years. ”
    Not definitive but consistent with the common sense notion that auto safety can and is progressing much faster than bike safety.

  238. Overall safety is what matters, as I’ve consistently focused on from the very beginning, well before you tried to derail the conversation into a comparison between cars and bikes, ignoring all other modes.
    Netherlands IS a bike friendly country, and it IS much safer than the USA, for all modes.
    Again: safety for all modes is what matters.
    “What is the “protection of vulnerable road users doing?”
    increasing safety for all modes.
    “contradicts your speculations.”
    What speculations and how are the contradicted?
    I have no problem with safety focused on vulnerable users protects that winds up protecting all users, in fact I think it’s great!
    “Is this because there are more people cycling?”
    No, it’s because less people are driving, and more people are driving safely. I’ll also point out that if less people drive, then less people will be injured driving, and conversely if more people cycle, then more people will be injured. At the same time, since there are less drivers, and less unsafe driving, all parties have a lower likelihood of injury. So again you fail to see the forest for the trees.

  239. “it’s because less people are driving”
    No. From the same CBS 2008 page.
    “More kilometres travelled by car. The distance travelled by car has continually increased.”
    More driving. 37% fewer car fatalities. 26% fewer all mode.

  240. “Not definitive but consistent with the common sense notion that auto safety can and is progressing much faster than bike safety.”
    To clarify it is the safety of the occupants of cars that has improved. No big surprise here as airbags, crumple zones, etc. continue to improve protection of people in cars.
    However the safety of people outside of cars is about the same or perhaps become a little worse due to digital distractions. Safety features like airbags and oversized vehicles also increase the feeling of invulnerability and enable drivers to take greater risks while maintaining the same level of personal safety.
    We also need improvements to benefit the safety of people outside of cars. The techniques are well understood and the only barriers to improve ped and bike safety are political. These Polk St. improvements are a good example of politics interfering with street safety.

  241. One more thing:
    “Not definitive but consistent with the common sense notion that auto safety can and is progressing much faster than bike safety.”
    Auto safety has many meanings, and many approaches. The differences is that here in the USA we focus on auto safety from a technical standpoint trying to improve safety for those inside cars. Things like airbags, seat belts, anti-lock breaks, etc., which are great.
    But in the safest countries they focus on overall safety, meaning they ensure that autos are safe for those inside the vehicle all those around them, including. The strategies they use are slowing cars down, separating cars from vulnerable users as much as possible, and shifting mode away from cars, since cars are almost always the cause of the danger for all. If you take a person out of a car and put them on a bus, train, foot, or bicycle, it increases safety for all.
    The second approach is proven more successful, and therefore should be the focus, but nobody here is saying we should forego the first approach. On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious value of the second approach, and say we should only pursue the less effective technical, car passenger focused, approach.

  242. It’s a complex issue. But the key is that people should be able to make choices in personal transportation. Right now cycling is more dangerous than driving in a Tahoe (by what proportion is debatable) and this is partly due to poor street design, in particular how other vehicles interact with bicycles.
    Better street design and dedicated bike lanes are needed where it makes sense.

  243. Watcher
    1) Kilometers traveled is not the same as the number of people traveling.
    2) Where did you get the quote:
    “More kilometres travelled by car. The distance travelled by car has continually increased.”
    I don’t see it on the page you linked to:
    http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/verkeer-vervoer/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-030-pb.htm
    nor on the associated PDF on that page, in fact I can’t even find the word kilometre in either.
    4) It was a hypothetical, I do not know that it’s because of less drivers, just like you don’t know it’s not because of more cyclists (not that I think it is due to that).
    Of course invalidating a hypothetical doesn’t change anything. The point is that just copying and pasting a number does not prove anything.
    So what if safety increased more for cars? Overall safety increased for all, which has consistently been my point.
    Again you focus on a number without looking at the overall importance of it, or even seeming to have a point by presenting it at all.

  244. I just went to the link you provided, no such statements found there.
    But it’s not important, because the statements themselves are not important.
    You can continue to quibble over the details, it doesn’t change the conclusions.
    Still waiting to hear your point.

  245. “I just went to the link you provided, no such statements found there.”
    The link shows all articles from 2008. Click the one from Jan 31.
    European dates swap the month and day.
    All the data, even that provided by you, has been inconsistent with your speculations.
    If you can’t even find a link on a page referenced by a paper *you* cited it’s very clear how much time and thought you’ve put into this issue.

  246. Here’s some food for thought relevant to the claim that protected bike lanes on Polk St. will have a negative effect on retail. New NYC study demonstrates the opposite: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/americabikes/pages/211/attachments/original/1351785187/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf?1351785187
    Now obviously this isn’t apples to apples but it does demonstrate that you can swap out auto capacity for bike capacity while increasing retail revenue.

  247. finally! why you didn’t just link to the article directly, I don’t know…
    still can’t supply a point to all this?
    Here’s my speculation, re-iterated numerous times:
    Safety measures targeted towards vulnerable parties are worthwhile. This is supported by all the data I’ve supplied, as well as the data you’ve supplied.
    You haven’t even tried to contest that theory, and just focused on details, which do nothing to change the conclusion.

  248. Nice MoD! More data supporting the basic premise, which is also relevant to the type of improvements they are suggesting on Polk St, and also helps to refute the unsupported claims of the merchants claiming these changes will hurt them.

  249. “still can’t supply a point to all this?”
    Mode shifting people into a far more dangerous mode of transit can make the population overall worse off even if you slightly decrease the risk of the more dangerous mode.
    No one definitively knows what exact level of risk reduction the proposed improvements will result in. But the NL data is a data point that even with high ~25% bike mode share and years of the improvements you propose biking could still be far more dangerous with a very low rate of further safety improvements.
    How effective these safety improvements will be also depends on how the behavior of the injured influences accident rates compared with the behavior of other traffic. The one NL study above listed 60% of bike accidents as single vehicle or collision with obstacle/animal. The M/F injury ratio is also consistent with injuries not being due to random causes.
    In “common sense” speak if people blow through stop signs in shared lanes, letting them blow through stop signs in a bike lane won’t help safety.
    “But the key is that people should be able to make choices in personal transportation. ”
    “These Polk St. improvements are a good example of politics interfering with street safety.”
    People should have a choice and should even be able to chose riskier modes. What makes this a political issue is the potential impacts on *other* people. (Merchants, Homeowners, Shoppers, Drivers, …)
    As a hypothetical, Motorcyclists knowingly choose a risky form of transportation. If we banned Muni, buses and trucks from city streets, Motorcyclist safety would improve by some, maybe small, amount. But this pushes people out of the safest mode of transit and makes the least safe one more attractive. Plus the lack of delivery trucks would impact even non-motorcyclists. So even though this would help safety in a myopic way , no one would seriously support this.

  250. all of this fighting over cars vs. bikes is a waste. the real question is
    “should we be diverting money from Muni improvements to pay for bicycle infrastructure for the few people who commute on bikes.”
    I think the answer is clearly no. Everything else is just a distraction.

  251. There you go again with your disinformation, Jill.
    1 – Muni improvement is NOT taking a back seat to bike infrastructure
    2 – Per new user, bike infrastructure costs way less than Muni.
    Say adding capacity for Muni costs X dollars per new user and adding capacity for cyclists costs Y dollars per new user.
    If X >> Y, then we should definitely spend some money on bike infrastructure.
    How much for the new Subway? How many potential users?
    My point is that it’s not Muni OR Bikes, it’s Muni AND Bikes, because each serves its own purpose. We’re getting new people. We need to plan for it.

  252. I would add that per Jill’s deeply flawed logic, we should give up all research on alternative energy, because people overwhelmingly use fossil fuel. A few extreme republicans and oil lobbyist are actually saying that, but they’re their own brand of short-sighted simpletons.

  253. Mode shifting people into a far more dangerous mode of transit can make the population overall worse off even if you slightly decrease the risk of the more dangerous mode.
    This is a strawman as has been pointed out repeatedly above, and is also invalid as:
    1) Nobody is talking about shifting all drivers from cars to bikes
    2) You keep ignoring that buses are far safer than cars
    3) The proposed changes are not about bikes only
    4) Cars are the cause of harm, thus cars of the cause of danger, so yes, mode shifting away from cars does in fact increase safety
    5) If you are talking about overall safety then you of course must include the external safety / life improvements, which you repeatedly try to ignore. Cycling and walking increase health, while driving reduces it.
    Your basic premise does not follow. If it was actually based on rational thought your only concern would be getting everybody on the bus.
    The conversation is not cars vs. bikes, it’s how to increase safety for all.
    There is strong evidence all over the world, that is now decades old showing that:
    1) Focusing on the most vulnerable users, AKA cyclists and pedestrians, results in changes that benefit all
    2) The types of changes that benefit the most vulnerable users are slowing cars, and separating them from the vulnerable users.
    These type of changes also tend reduce overall driving, and increase other modes
    All the evidence provided so far, even yours, supports the above.
    “Motorcyclists knowingly choose a risky form of transportation.”
    Does that mean that we should do nothing to make them safer?
    “If we banned Muni, buses…”
    Another strawman, nobody is suggesting that.
    In fact that whole last paragraph is a ridiculous strawman. Nobody has suggested anything remotely close to that! It has no relevance to our conversation.
    The real proposals for Polk St. are safety improvements for all users, and improvements that will certainly benefit muni. The reality is that if there is a significant mode shift due to these changes the majority of it will most likely be towards muni.

  254. “1) Nobody is talking about shifting all drivers from cars to bikes”
    Going partway in the wrong direction is still going in the wrong direction.
    “2) You keep ignoring that buses are far safer than cars”
    No. I’m all for Fixing Muni. Jill suggested that and all the bikers went after her.
    4&5) You’ve repeatedly stated things as facts without any proof. I debunked all your speculations and you respond with. “Sure thats the proof, whats the point?” I show you the point and you say “Sure that’s the point, where’s the proof?”
    You’re running in circles now.
    “There is strong evidence all over the world, that is now decades old showing that:”
    No. Read the above posts.
    “Another strawman, nobody is suggesting that.”
    No. It’s a hypothetical. Nobody is suggesting that because it’s a bad idea. A hypothetical that shows how making a small safety improvement in one mode isn’t always a good idea.

  255. “Going partway in the wrong direction…”
    That statement has no relevance to the quote above it, and you’ve entirely failed to show that protecting vulnerable users (pedestrians and cyclists) is the wrong direction.
    “I’m all for Fixing Muni”
    Interesting, you’ve said almost nothing about muni, and repeatedly ignore that the Polk improvements will also benefit muni.
    jill made up a bunch of garbage numbers that were quickly shown to be incorrect. I don’t know about the others, but I’m a driver, not a biker.
    It’s a fact that Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have dramatically lower traffic fatalities per capita than the US.
    It’s a fact that the countries with the highest bike mode share tend to have the lowest fatalities per capita.
    It’s a fact that the countries that focus on protecting the vulnerable users also have the lowest fatalities per capita.
    I, and others, have already shown that cars are the cause of the vast majorities of the deaths and injuries. This is supported by basic physics, and the reports of national health organizations all over the world.
    Reducing driving and protecting vulnerable users has been very effective in reducing deaths and injuries for road users all over the world, for decades. This is supported by the data that has been provided.
    Where have you debunked that? Nowhere. You have focused on a few leaves, and ignored the forest of data.
    “No. It’s a hypothetical. Nobody is suggesting that because it’s a bad idea.”
    That’s exactly what a straw man is, picking a hypothetical that is in no way realistic, and nobody is suggesting, and treating as if it’s relevant, and has an impact on the topic at hand.
    From wikipedia:
    To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
    Forcing everybody to travel by nuclear rocket is also a bad idea, and as relevant as your hypothetical. Basing any conclusion on that would also be a straw man.
    Your entire point is a straw man as nobody is suggesting making all drivers start riding bikes.

  256. You’re clearly bonking at this point.
    Yelling about “facts” and “all over the world” doesn’t make something true.
    Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling. I used fatalities above because they are much more consistently reported than non-fatal injuries. But anything would be better then continuing to circle the “proof” to “point” velodrome of speculation.

  257. “Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.”
    I wouldn’t dispute that cycling may be riskier compared to driving to the traveler simply because cyclists are more vulnerable. But driving definitely brings more danger to the street.
    I think that the difference of opinion here is due to whether you’re focused solely on the traveler or on the safety of everyone on the street as an aggregate.
    If you’re only looking out for Numero Uno then it is easy to draw the conclusion that being inside the biggest, heaviest steel box will protect your own personal hide. But if you look at the problem holistically then it is clear that favoring just about any mode other than driving will improve overall safety.
    The dilemma here is that maximally protecting yourself means increasing danger to other people. It is a personal decision whether to become part of the problem or part of the solution. Government entities should be on the side of the solution.

  258. I have to say Watcher’s links and statistics are very convincing. It never dawned on me till this discussion that my only injuries have been from biking, the worst being when I fell off my bike after losing my balance from hitting a “pot hole” in the road and broke ribs and an arm.
    I ski and surf but my only injuries have been on a bike.

  259. Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.
    Find me one study that shows that people substitute one mile of driving for one mile of cycling.
    When I started riding my bike to work, the first thing that I did was move closer to work. So 30 miles of roundtrip driving turned into 5 miles of roundtrip cycling. The reason I picked the neighborhood that I moved to? Good cycling infrastructure.
    @anonandon – lucky you. If we’re tossing about personal anecdotes – I’ve never been injured on a bike, but I’ve had a broken arm and separated shoulder skiing, a broken leg skiing (different time), and 14 stitches from being a passenger in a car accident. Not sure what that proves though, other than I should stop skiing now! 🙂

  260. Watcher won an argument? Where? All I see is trying and failing to bring the debate to a very postage-sized battleground and building strawman after strawman on that tiny spec of land of his dreams.
    Nothing of what he claims can be applied to the real world and the current evolution of cycling in SF. People are cycling more. The city needs to adjust just like it adjusted to the growth of automobile transportation 90 years ago.

  261. If anything, anonandon’s accident should push him to ask for better cycling conditions.
    The cause of his accident is probably not so much cycling in itself or the cyclist but the pothole. The same logic can be applied for separating bicycles from cars, and the actual debate of this thread (at least until Watcher transformed it into a virtual reality wetdream).

  262. Can I suggest a separate lane for us motorcyclists as well? There are more of us than cyclists and we are just as exposed.
    If only I could find a politically tied motorcycle coalition….why should bicyclists get more perks than motorcycle and scooter riders?
    Can I ride in the bike lanes?

  263. Yes, with ease. And yournotion that cycling’s increase in popularity has to do with mass enlightenment and not with calculated city policy is amusing to say the least.

  264. @Moto
    Personally I have no problem with motorcycles getting their own lane, or other safety improvements.
    But lets be realistic, motorcycles can already do everything a car can do and more. Freeway? Check. Carpool lane? Check. Split lanes? Check. Park on sidewalk? Check. Park for free between meter spots? Check. Accelerate faster? Check. Decelerate faster? Check. Go to the front of the light? Check.
    Not all are entirely legal, and bikes can do some of the same things, but I think you get the point.
    Aside from the safety issues, I think it would be great if people switched from cars to motorcycles. They are much more efficient. Not really sure what it has to do with this conversation though.

  265. There are more of us than cyclists and we are just as exposed.
    I don’t know about numbers, but you obviously wouldn’t take Polk Street to go North or South. VN gough or Franklin would work for you just fine.

  266. And yournotion that cycling’s increase in popularity has to do with mass enlightenment and not with calculated city policy is amusing to say the least.
    How does the rise in cycling rates across nearly every city in the country fit in with your conspiracy theory? Calculated city policy in every city and suburb in the country?

  267. “You’re clearly bonking at this point.”
    logical fallacy: ad hominem
    “Yelling about “facts” and “all over the world” doesn’t make something true.”
    I’ve not yelled, I’ve merely presented the data.
    Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, USA are countries all over the world.
    Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway have lower traffic fatality rates than the USA.
    Fact: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway have higher cycling mode share.
    Fact: Their safety improvements have been going on for decades.
    I pointed these out above. You putting quotes around the word fact does not invalidate them as facts. I can also add more countries if you would like.
    Find one peer reviewed study anywhere showing lower risk per mile for cycling.”
    Another straw man. I don’t need to provide a study showing lower risk per mile of cycling because:
    1) A single study, peer reviewed or not, proves nothing
    2) It’s not my claim that more miles of cycling lowers risk.
    My claim, as I’ve repeated over and over, is that focusing safety on protecting vulnerable users (pedestrians and cyclists) increases safety. There has been ample data provided to support this.
    What you seem to be unable to understand is that the places that do focus on protecting vulnerable users wind up with increased cycling. The increase cycling is not the cause of the safety, it is a result of the increased safety.
    Some of the measures that result in overall increased safety are cycling focused, such as separated bike lanes, others are not, such as bulb-outs, traffic circles, bus lanes, parking changes, etc.

  268. I still don’t get why cycling would get some sort of special benefits over motorcycling. Well, I do get it. It is not about logic. It is about lobbying.

  269. ^Most motorcycles are loud and obnoxious. Don’t want them near my open windows. Mopeds and scooters and other quiet motorized two wheel vehicles are fine.

  270. “How does the rise in cycling rates across nearly every city in the country fit in with your conspiracy theory? Calculated city policy in every city and suburb in the country? ”
    First, prove that. Then dispute that SF had an agenda. I doubt you can do either.

  271. “I still don’t get why cycling would get some sort of special benefits over motorcycling”
    All modes, including motorcycles, get special treatment in certain cases. It’s because there are differences in their needs, and operation.
    Motorcycles get to drive in the carpool lane with only one passenger, split lanes, and do many other things. Bikes get bike lanes, but don’t get to go on the freeway. Pedestrians get sidewalks. Airplanes and helicopters get airports and the sky. Trains get traintracks.
    Every mode gets some sort of special treatment, basically because every mode has a certain amount of difference.
    And I thought your whole thing about motorcycles was that you guys don’t whine… sounds like some whining going on right now.

  272. First, prove that. Then dispute that SF had an agenda. I doubt you can do either.
    Census data doesn’t lie. If you can’t use Google, that’s not my fault.
    And I never said that SF didn’t have an agenda. You, however, stated that the rise in cycling is entirely because of this agenda, which is patently absurd when you look at nationwide trends.

  273. Yeah, lobbyists are forcing people on their bikes. It’s a giant conspiracy to use less gas and live healthier lives. {pokes little finger} Muahahahahaha!
    Seriously? Big guys on bikes whining how they’re bullied by cyclists? German SUV drivers feeling threatened by the sight of bicycles?
    Maybe the growing influence of cyclists works the other way around, with people tired of the current monopoly and who want to use the streets with a tad bit more safety.
    In short: more users, more say.

  274. You say “conspiracy,” I said “calculated agenda.” Which it was, tacitly delineated in readable terms .. A legacy of Mirkarimi, et al, policy intended to increase SF cycling, and a successful one at that … But you bikey types change the words around of people youre talking to so you can laugh your little laughs. Verbal equivalent of flipping the bird while running the stop sign. Of course! So enlightened, your movement.

  275. Lyqwyd, like much of the data I’ve seen you misuse, those statistics are inapplicable. The point is SF, last eight years or so, clear top down bike-first policy…

  276. Heh. The population of the United States is up 50 percent since 1979. Stop abusing data, bikey wiki.

  277. Since I have no trouble finding that whole quote even without a link to the exact page, let’s take a look:
    “These surveys indicate that the total number of bike trips in the USA more than tripled between 1977 and 2009, while the bike share of total trips almost doubled, rising from 0.6% to 1.0%. The U.S. Census Bureau also surveys travel but only for the trip to work. It reports a roughly constant level of daily bike commuters over the period 1980 to 2000 and a slight fall in the bike share of work commuters from 0.5% to 0.4%. There appears to have been a turnaround since 2000, however, as the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey reports almost twice as many daily bike commuters in 2009 as in 2000 and an increase in bike mode share to 0.6%”
    “Census data doesn’t lie.”
    Census data says in 29 years bicycle commuter mode share increased by 0.1%. From 0.5% to 0.6%

  278. And insignificant. “Dur” ?
    But city policy is a conspiracy theory. Too funny.

  279. Census data lie all the time. It is constantly being corrected. And there are definitely more motorcycle commuters than cycling commuters . No one feels threatened by the cyclists. It’s about the least threatening group of wussies. The comments here are about why additional infrastructure is being built for the loud and politicall influential cycling lobby

  280. Census data says in 29 years bicycle commuter mode share increased by 0.1%. From 0.5% to 0.6%
    That’s looking at all places, not just urban places. Even so, it’s a 20% increase.

  281. @Watcher, you missed part, from 2000 to 2009 it went from 0.4 to 0.6, 50% increase in the most recent 9 years.
    Lies asked for data supporting anon’s statement. I supplied it. Nothing you’ve commented has disproven that.
    From 1977 to 2009 biking doubled or tripled, depending the metric. It doesn’t matter if during certain sub-periods the trend slowed or reversed, becuase the overall trend continues today, and even appears to be accelerating.
    As per the usual, you focus on irrelevant minutia, while missing the big picture.

  282. @Lies
    Mode share controls for population.
    SF has many agendas, usually because a certain subgroup of people advocates for the issues that are important to them. This is nothing new or unusual.
    It’s not as if the city decided to put in a bunch of bike lanes before anybody was cycling. The reality was that the city government was strongly against for many years. The current strong advocacy group exists, in large part, because the city was so much against urban cycling.
    Now the city works with the cyclists to address their needs, just like it works with many other groups, many of which are much stronger than the cycling organizations.

  283. So Moto, it shounds like you think your group should get even more preference than it already gets, and that only those who threaten others should get attention.
    You remind me of a certain South Park episode… in the words of Cartman:
    “Nobody is intimidated, actually. Everybody realizes that people who are so needy for attention, that need to dress and be as loud as possible, are you guys and 16 year old girls.”
    Not all motorcyclists are like that, but way too many are.

  284. As a motorcyclist myself I’d like to disown moto mayhem. He sounds like a whiner.
    We’ve got it pretty good, I got no complaints in the motorcycling rights department.

  285. Oh, people were cycling sure. but they specifically set out to get more people cycling via infrastructure change, and accomplished that. Not vice versa.

  286. I’m not complaining about how we have it. I just don’t get why cyclists are complaining. We all have the same rights on city streets. And cyclists are no more exposed than motorcycles. I’m with the group who thinks the money should be spent on MUNI

  287. I think all Moto was pointing out was that if motorcyclists could take advantage of SFMTA funds for political lobbying the way the bike coalition has they would have a stronger case since they are a larger percentage. The Bike Coalition got $50000 to promote Bike To Work day from our taxes, as well as $300000.00 to “study” and promote biking within the city . Add the various members who have been hired by the SFMTA, or are on both payrolls and we have a strangely powerful organization considering only 3.5% of the trips within the city are on bikes.

  288. @Lies,
    First, the auto lobby has done the same for decades.
    Second, nobody has said cyclists do not advocate for their own interests.
    Third, some cyclists do this, others do not. And some of the growth in cycling is completely unrelated to the advocacy groups.
    Finally, did you have a point?

  289. Fedup Thanks for summarizing my point. You made it much better.
    Too many tax payer dollars are going to cycling

  290. “I just don’t get why cyclists are complaining. We all have the same rights on city streets.”
    While it is true that we have almost the same rights on the streets in practice it doesn’t work out that way. In the past I’ve described several scenarios where cyclists and pedestrians are short changed on our streets. But if you really want to understand how it is to be treated as a second class citizen on the streets I’d suggest switching to cycling for a month or so and see for yourself. Please take care to educate yourself on the laws and best safe practices first, there are a lot of hazards out there and many are not obvious to the newbie. It is Bike To Work Day, what an auspicious day to start!
    I don’t want to make it sound like cycling relegates you to a grim and unappealing way to travel. There are many other positive aspects that offset the negatives. But it takes a lot of patience and experience to realize those benefits to their fullest. The learning curve is so steep and scares so apparent to beginners that it dissuades many from even trying seriously.
    “And cyclists are no more exposed than motorcycles.”
    I’d agree that motorcyclists and bicyclists are similarly vulnerable on the streets. But motorcyclists are less exposed since they can keep up with the prevailing traffic speed and avoid the wrath of impatient drivers in situations where you need to ride in the center of the lane for safety.
    Actually there’s your best way to quickly understand one of the reasons why cyclists want better infrastructure: find a street that is too narrow for bikes and cars to safely ride side by side (parts of Polk are like that) and ride it frequently. Be sure to ride far enough to the left to avoid the dangerous door zone adjacent to parallel parked cars. It is not for the faint hearted.

  291. @FedUp
    1) Nobody’s stopping motorcyclists from creating their own advocacy group.
    2) Motorcycling is already subsidized along with driving (not as much as driving, but still subsidized)
    3) SFMTA’s operating budget for 2013 is about $820 million. To reach 3.5% cyclists should have about $29 million spent solely for their benefit. And note that the operating budget is only a fraction of it’s total budget, things like the central subway don’t fall under the operating budget.
    4) Given that the last number you presented was wildly inaccurate, I’ll need to see references supporting your $50K & $300K numbers.

  292. The moto guy threw a bunch of straws into the debate and the denouncers of the Great Bicycle Conspiracy (TM) were very quick at grasping at them.
    If bikers want more rights, they can organize and lobby for them. Take a number and start your own thread.

  293. lyqwyd’s numbers have to be compared with the fact that cyclists in SF are roughly 20% of Muni’s ridership numbers.

  294. “”lyqwyd’s numbers have to be compared with the fact that cyclists in SF are roughly 20% of Muni’s ridership numbers.”
    Yes, cyclists use shared infrastructure. Which is why he’s wrong that 3.5% of MTA funds needs to be spent on *dedicated* bike infrastructure.
    Think on this hypothetical:
    Take all money from dedicated bike projects and put it towards Muni. By your own numbers 20% of this money serves cyclists even though they are only 3.5% of transit usage. So cyclists get overfunded by a factor of 5.7 and when it rains or cyclists get older or cycling falls out of favor (as it did nationally from 1980 to 2000) there is still Muni to fall back on.
    Anyone in the 96.5% have a problem with that?

  295. ^Um, you’re assuming that the 20% of Muni riders that are cyclists accounts for 100% of the 3.5%
    Where are you possibly getting that idea from?

  296. @Watcher
    1) We’re not even close to 3.5%
    2) Cyclists have been underfunded for years, so you would need to go beyond what would nominally be the fair proportion, for years, to actually approach fairness
    3) Many cyclists would be happy to not share infrastructure with cars, given the choice
    4) You folks trying to claim cyclists are getting more than their fair share provide absolutely nothing to support your argument. I provided data, feel free to provide better data or analysis to prove me wrong.
    Sure, it’s clear you want no money spent for the benefit of cyclists, we all get that. But you’ve gotten no closer to explaining why that would be fair, or why cyclists should not get a portion of spending equivalent to their share of the travel. Your straw man hypotheticals get you no closer.

  297. “^Um, you’re assuming that the 20% of Muni riders that are cyclists accounts for 100% of the 3.5%
    Where are you possibly getting that idea from?”
    Well, public transit mode share is 34%. 20% of that could cover most of the cyclists. Of course who knows where lol got the 20% number. Even the SFMTA mode survey was just a phone survey of 520 people with a +/- 4.3% confidence interval.
    So don’t hold too tightly onto the 3.5% number in the face of a +/- 4.3% margin of error.

  298. Transit mode share is 17%, not 34%. The 20% number comes from the fact that there are ~1/5 as many bike trips compared to transit trips. Please see my link above pointing to the SFMTA report containing those raw numbers.

  299. Watcher,
    nobody said that 20% of muni riders are cyclists. So your whole theory can be thrown out as it is based on your mistaken interpretation.

  300. 3.5% (bike) is 20% of 17% (transit) mode share from MoD’s earlier document:
    http://sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/documents/1-29-13BikeStrategy.pdf
    lol was saying bike mode share is 20% as big as transit mode share per the doc provided.
    Of course your theory is invalid for all the other reasons already provided, but given that it’s based on a mistake, it’s doubly invalidated.
    “Whatever lol meant, bicyclists do use shared infrastructure.”
    So what?
    Cars, motorcycles, buses, pedestrians all use shared infrastructure. It’s no reason to deny cyclists fair funding based on their share of utilization. Nor is it a reason to say they shouldn’t get dedicated infrastructure. Cars get freeways, buses get bus lanes, pedestrians get sidewalks, even though they also use shared infrastructure.

  301. Lyqwyd and MoD answered it best.
    I did carefully phrase my sentence, even changed it a few times because I knew a guy with an ax to grind would distort it and change to fit his own agenda.
    Let’s go back to that sentence:
    cyclists in SF are roughly 20% of Muni’s ridership numbers.
    And there we go, Watcher ran with the idea that I would say that cyclists were Muni riders.
    Watcher can’t even read properly. Or maybe it’s pure bias or hate or whatever his issue is. But he can’t question the logic, therefore he has to build YET ANOTHER STRAWMAN. He must be quite handy at this by now.
    I rest my case. Bikes have had the short end of the stick for a long time. Time to re-balance the place they have on the road.

  302. Watcher’s misreading of the day:
    By your own numbers 20% of this money serves cyclists even though they are only 3.5% of transit usage.
    Watcher,
    Wow. Freaking. Wow.
    And I thought you were a serious debater. You’re simply a more verbose version of futurist. You let your reptilian brain do the thinking for you and then you type and type and type. Tsk-tsk.

  303. “I rest my case. Bikes have had the short end of the stick for a long time. Time to re-balance the place they have on the road.”
    oh please. what a whiner! mommys treating little Timmy better than she treats me and I’m the sensitive one.
    the fact is ZERO money should be put on bike “infrastructure” (AKA roads) until MUNI is better. Its a waste of money to help the few. Most people would agree with this. there is just a faction of bike nazis on this thread that are trying their best to prove their point using invalid stats.
    you dont need stats or studies to say public transit is more important and until that is fixed , lay off the special treatment for the bikes. you have roads. use them.
    do you also want the taxpayers to pay for your hoohah cream?

  304. OK, now Godwin’s Law has officially visited this thread. Thanks Jill 🙂

  305. “Cars, motorcycles, buses, pedestrians all use shared … Cars get freeways, buses get bus lanes, pedestrians get sidewalks, even though they also use shared infrastructure.”
    And bikes get crosswalks (for the swing around traffic move), get to ignore stop signs, get to get away with it, and react with anger when questioned … oh, and get more and more taxpayer money.
    No.
    Enough. Bravo Polk merchants, bravo.
    Lol @ lol the “serious debater” getting crushed by watcher.

  306. Wow, I think this must be the longest thread of all time before Godwin’s law has been satisfied!
    It was invoked quite a while ago, but hadn’t actually yet been fulfilled.
    It’s also impressive how jill is able to invoke so many fallacies in so few words.
    One note to jill: you should look up the difference between a fact and an opinion.

  307. Lies said
    “blah blah blah… bikes… blah… get more and more taxpayer money.”
    Wake me up when get cyclists get 0.01% of the amount of taxpayer money that’s been spent on drivers… and I wont even ask you to factor in the money spent on wars to protect oil sources.

  308. Why don’t you provide the wiki definitions of “fact” and “opinion,” so that everyone will know?
    Please. You’re so transparent. But you’re part if an awesome movement though. Of scofflaw jerks.

  309. “Given that the last number you presented was wildly inaccurate, I’ll need to see references supporting your $50K & $300K numbers”
    This is my second attempt at posting references, the first time I posted the Bike Coalition expenditures statement for “Bike to Work Day” it got blocked by the “filter”.
    District 5 Diary has a story up right now about the 300K given to the Bike Coalition for “community outreach” as well as a complete breakdown of how the Bike Coalition spends the 50K a year it receives from City Hall. I would post links but the filter might block me again.
    I was wrong however in that the community outreach money originally was a grant from CALTRANS, but then added to by various city funds.

  310. Thanks for references FedUp, from your source:
    1) The $300K was given in 2008 or earlier.
    2) $250,000 was from CalTrans, not the city

  311. What made me “Fed Up” was the cost per hour charged to the city by Bike Coalition staff for “Bike to Work Day” which is only ONE DAY. I see no reason why $50,000 a year needs to be spent promoting and organizing this. (And yes- I wrote that $250K did come from Caltrans regarding “community outreach, but Meter Madness has an excellent post about all of the Federal dollars the bike coaltion gets as well to staff their many trips to international conferences to whine about cars).
    I think the bigger issue is not the money, but the revolving door of SFMTA staff positions being filled by former Bike Coaliton staff. How can we fix MUNI with people who only see bikes as the answer?
    How about fixing the MUNI station escalators instead?

  312. FedUp, you are welcome to your opinion, but your justifications for it are not rational, everything you’ve posted has been wrong to some degree or another.
    I refer you to my comment above on May 9, 2013 4:29 PM

  313. What is wrong? That they get $50K a year to promote bike to work day from our tax money? Are you aware of the video online linked from Meter Madness where the Bike Coalition head brags about joining the group because it was incredible how much tax money was available to fund the organization? That they received over 300K from Caltrans and SFGov to promote their own organization? That there is a revolving door between the two organizations in both funding and staffing. I only mispoke regarding that Caltrans was a source of one of their funded projects instead of the SFMTA, but I corrected (and apologized for this mistake) ONLINE before you ever “corrected” me.

  314. What’s more important in your personal cosmology, lol? having the last say in every message board thread you ever post in? Or flipping off motorists after you zip into crosswalks to skip red lights? Tough one huh.

  315. Nope. stopping at every red light and every stop sign.
    But I get it. You need to rationalize your hate by vilifying the other. Things are so much simpler that way.
    By the way, you missed the whole point of May 9, 2013 4:22 PM

  316. The May 2nd SFMTA presentation at the Board of Supervisors Meeting, followed by citizen comments perfectly illustrate this issue.
    http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=164&clip_id=17412
    Jumping around, the gentleman’s comment at 3:08:24 gets a huge audience reaction (“stop listening to the bike people ONLY”) and the final comments from the Board members should tell San Franciscans that the a new powerful coalition is forming that will make sure they have influence with the SFMTA equal to their size, and it is not the bike people, but Muni users, car owners and business owners. What was interesting is EVERYONE asked for MORE and better public transit, which tells me there is a common ground that SFMTA should be taking advantage of.
    Again and again, citizens got up to ask for MORE transit, better transit service, additional routes, safer trains and bus vehicles, cleaner stations, etc. My questions is why wasn’t the Bike Coalition sending speakers to this meeting to present their side? It was obvious from comments from the audience that the Bike Coalition needs to start some serious image rebuilding with the rest of the city. Their position may or may not be wrong, but how they worked with the SFMTA and not neighborhood groups and business owners to create a better dialogue has caused serious blowback to their cause. I see a need for safe bike passage routes in the city, and I think they could be part of the future, but as many speakers mentioned, they do not like being scolded and instructed by the Bike Coalition as to how they should live their lives in this city.

  317. I am not sure if the driving boom is over. But there are now different needs for different lifestyles. And the inner city people want alternatives and choice.

  318. who needs lanes when you ahve sidewalks… man, someone needs to do something about this stuff.
    Woman Seriously Injured By Sidewalk Biker
    “Sunday afternoon a woman in her 60s suffered a life-threatening head injury when a 21-year-old male cyclist struck her as she walked in a pedestrian lane (commonly referred to as “the sidewalk”) near Market and Stockton Streets.
    The victim was taken to S.F. General Hospital around 12:30 p.m. yesterday. Although early reports said the cyclist received a citation and was released at the scene, SFPD spokesman Officer Gordon Shyy said the investigation is ongoing.
    While there may be some legal gray areas for bicycle-based aggression such as (allegedly) trying to beat yellow lights, the San Francisco Transportation Code Sec. 7.2.12 is pretty clear that it is illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk if you’re over the age of 13. It’s also really f#$king annoying and you’re a grownup on a bicycle, so take a bicycle safety course and get back on the streets already.
    Also, anecdotal evidence shows many people riding bicycles on the sidewalk in San Francisco are also meth users. So there’s that.”

  319. And don’t forget the pedestrian (Dionette Cherney)who was killed crossing the street (Embarcadero) legally with green “walk” signal who was struck and killed by a bicyclist who ran their red light in 2011. At the time the cyclist was released without charges, but this may have changed later on. (Never heard about story again after initial fatality)

  320. I am also pi$$ed at cyclist taking the sidewalk for their personal bike path. I always feel I should kick the front tire by “accident” but I guess I’d be as stupid as the cyclist.
    In general do not forget the multiple accidents from these past few months. Truck vs pedestrian. Bus vs pedestrian. Car vs pedestrians. Garbage truck vs bike. Garbage truck vs pedestrians. Lost of gruesome stuff happens. Stay safe people.

  321. Almost 6 months late…the SFMTA finally has released the 2014 bike count. This year the report gives a huge amount of information on all modes of transit, and is far more comprehensive than past reports.

    Interesting to note this sentence …” 20,905 bicycles were counted in 2013 compared to 21,229 bicycles in 2014 at 49 overlapping locations (1% increase).”….

    1. Thanks for the link. Quick read through and it looks like the count was about the same as the year before. 1% is within the margin of error. Given the increase in overall population and jobs, this is actually a slight decline in mode share. Maybe we are in a plateau similar to what happened in Portland.

      Weather is a big variable affecting the count. You can see this in the automated bike counts graph, where the heavy rains last December suppressed cycling, and more generally counts are lower during rainy season than dry season.

      1. bike counts are down per capita as you say, despite the increase in bike lanes. and this is in spite of the fact that we had a record drought and very warm temperatures in 2014.

    2. It is interesting to see how ineffectual some of the new projects have been. For example there were only 173 bikes counted on Cesar Chavez (at Harrison) as compared to over 5,500 vehicles. Basically a huge number of people have been greatly inconvenienced by the resulting traffic jams for the benefit of very few.

      1. exactly. the mode share for biking decreased per capita despite a lot of new bike infrastructure. yet, the policy continues to support the 3.5% bike commuters vs. 96.5% who use other transport

      2. You neglect to mention that bicycle traffic doubled on Cesar Chavez. Admittedly from a low base, but the project has made biking on the street much more attractive.

      3. NoeNeighbor – Did you consider that Cesar Chavez traffic passes through an interchange with 101, a.k.a. The Hairball? Until that’s fixed it will limit the number of bicyclists who will use CC.

    3. I think you all are over-reacting. Bike Counts are taken for a few days at each location EACH YEAR, so there is going to be natural variability from year to year given weather and other variables. Also, the methodology of the bike count changed this year (from manual to video), so there may be small differences between them (apparently video is more accurate). Due to these factors, it’s kind of dumb to look at one year snapshots to say either “it’s all great” or “it’s all lousy”. Longer term time horizons (like 5-10 year trends) are much more important.

      1. @curmudgeon, during that same one year period, public transit use increased by a greater percentage according to this report. Last year, the report caused the Bike Coalition to go on a huge media blitz about how successful they were. This year, the Bike Coalition and Streetsblog crowd seem to have decided to pretend this report does not exist. The “longer term” horizon is showing increased traffic, and more crowded public transit. I have yet to see a crowded bike lane. but I sit on crowded Muni vehicles every day.

        1. bike lanes are very empty the vast majority of the time. makes it easy to zip through on a motorcycle though

        2. Bike lanes are “empty” because there is a huge amount of capacity in them. They are also cheap to implement (it’s just stripes on the pavement, unless they are part of a bigger street reconstruction like Cesar Chavez…and then they’re still just stripes on the pavement). Transit is a big big issue, but it really shouldn’t be seen in conflict with bikes….the city spends a miniscule amount on bikes compared to all the investments in transit. And I will be the first to agree with you that there needs to be much more spent on transit.

          1. i was always taught to save every penny for something. I bought a house by not eating out a lot or spending too much on rent, or investing in rare coin collections. Investing in bike lanes, as oppossed to saving that for bigger more transformative projects is like investing in rare coins instead of saving for a home

    4. It will be interesting to see how the Chronicle reports this; I bet they focus on the 200% increase since 2006 rather than the 1% year over year increase.

      It will also be interesting to see what happens when we have a normal rainy winter rather than the very dry ones of the past few years.

      1. So far nothing but silence from all of the various so called voices of transit knowledge websites. They are just going to ignore this report and resume their faith based theories on how biking is the answer to urban transportation. What I find especially annoying is that the bike advocacy groups have hijacked the dialogue that should have been about more and better public transportation.

        1. yes, the worst part is that they have taken attention away from public transit. Biking is such a tiny bit of the modeshare it should be mostly ignored and the money spent towards bigger projects with bigger impact. youre right that there is not enough pressure on public transit and the issue is that a small vocal minority (3.5% of commuters) of young white males has hijacked the agenda. SF MTA should be ashamed

  322. @Jake, I was wondering the same thing…”Given the increase in population and jobs” the negligible change in the bike count was surprising. Sooner or later the MTA may just have to start focusing their time and funds on more and better public transit, instead of parking removals and bike projects.

    1. the parking removeals and addition of bike lanes is having a net negative impact if mode share is not increasing, while at same time congestion increasing and fewer car lanes available

  323. @curmudgeon, the bike count is done in September. Last September SF had a half inch of rain. This report also has monthly numbers from the automated count for all of 2013 and 2014. They also show a tiny increase in bike riding in SF. There’s no reason to think this was a weather effect or a transient anomaly.

    The switch from manual to video-based count is more likely to cause an uptick in the count than down. That’s because a manual count is more likely to miss a passing bike, causing undercounting. Besides, we can intelligently combine and compare data sets from different measurement techniques even with different margins of error.

    FWIW, the trend in SF both year-to-year and decade-to-decade was already towards a gradual flattening in the growth of bike ridership. I’ve tried to point that out before on SS, but most people get all excited about one or two data points and miss the treeline for the trees.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the delay in releasing this report was to double or triple check the data and method to make sure they didn’t introduce some systemic error that depressed the count. That would have been prudent since they changed the method and they probably expected more than a 1% increase.

    The 2014 ACS commute data hasn’t been released and may not be until next winter. If it is consistent with the SF bike count in this report, then people should redraw their projections with a much lower growth than what lead SFMTA to aim for an 8-10% citywide commute mode share, which is still their official target for 2020, though it was never realistic.

    1. Jake, thoughtful comments. I think you are correct that there is a maximum bound on bike commuting, at least with our existing land uses, employment locations (and, yes, geography). So I’m not all that surprised by a flattening out, if that’s the case. And I don’t think it’s really an argument against continued bike investments, which are generally pretty cheap. What I’m really responding to is everyone jumping on one year of data to “prove” that bike investments are worthless. It is clear that there are many more people biking in SF than there were 10 years ago (me included, on occasion), and that a modest level of continuing investment to serve this market is justified.

      1. Curmudgeon, If the bike count numbers are low, we are told that is because the streets need to be safer with more new dedicated bike lanes. If the bike count numbers go higher we are told this is proof that cars are a thing of the past and we need to remove more traffic lanes for new bike paths. I AGREE, there does need to be some investment in bike lanes, BUT, the bike community’s voice should equal their mode share of total transportation journeys. (3.5%) Sometimes I catch the MTA hearings on cable and you need to watch how much of the dialogue is taken up with biking issues. You would think from watching the hearings that cyclists were at least 45% of mode share in this city, and that pedestrians and transit users were less than 10%. Drivers are discussed, but usually only as the enemy.

        1. yes, and since more cyclists are unemployed, they ahve a lot more time to attend these events

  324. When Senator Feinstein starts calling the mayor and MTA director about traffic, you know we are not alone in observing what is going on. This article finally mentions Uber and Lyft drivers bad behavior blocking bike and traffic lanes waiting for fares, but most importantly, it shows that “traffic calming ” plans are in the works for Pine, Bush, Geary, etc. BTW- this year’s bike count was the first bike count the MTA did not do a press release for, hoping that it would slip out without notice I guess?

  325. I would like to report some very bad bike behavior this AM. I took Page from Fillmore to Octavia to get on Freeway this AM. As i was stuck at buchanan stop sign due to traffic. I watched 13 bikes go through Octavia stop sign in a few minutes. 10/13 ran through without slowing despite it being a 4way stop and cars coming on Octavia through page stop sign. 1 of those had a toddler on back. Personally think his child should be taken away by child protective services. 2/13 slowed and rolled through stop sign. 1/13 came to a complete stop. There should be better enforcement there as someone is going to get killed.

    1. Were you riding your motorcycle through the bike lane at this time, as you sometimes brag of doing?

      1. no bike lane on page. actually, i was sitting behind the cars and not dangerously driving around the left of them like all the cyclists. It seems a little dangerous for them to pass on left into oncoming traffic and plow through 4 way stops when cars are sittting in all 4 directions. especially with the child on back. i would really like to have a nice conversation with that guy .

        by the way, i don’t drive my motorcycle through the bike lanes. I think about it everytime because they are almost always open as far as the eye can see. im being TIC everytime because the bike lanes building that is hurting other modes of transit for the precious 3.5% really pisses me off

        1. I would like to report some very bad car behavior this morning on my drive from SF to Palo Alto. More than 400 cars were speeding on 280, and I definitely saw 5-6 with kids in the cars. Note that there have been 14 fatalities on 280 in the last two years, with speed as a contributing factor in 12 of these. I should hope that moto also recommends child protective services take all of these kids immediately.

          1. you know that speeding on a highway in a car is nowhere near as dangerous as passing cars on the left and plowing through a busy 4 way stop in the city without slowing, with an exposed child on the back of the back. and there is no way to report this behavior because plates are not required on bikes. If this were my brother doing that, I would beat him senseless. since beating random people senseless would probably land me in jail, the person should at least be arrested and have their child taken away.

          2. Tell that to the 14 dead people in the last two years on 280. How many exposed cyclists on the back of bikes have there been in SF?

            You’re fooling yourself if you think that speeding doesn’t kill (repeatedly, every day, in the thousands).

          3. i never said speeding didn’t kill. but the behavior i mentioned is much more dangerous. there’s really no common sense argument against that. the sample size of motorists on 280 is large enough to come up with a statistic. IM hoping the number of idiots passing moving traffic on the left and plowing through a crowded 4 way intersection with a toddler on the back is so small that you cant do a statistical analysis. it would be more analgous to look at a motorcycle passing on the left into 2 way traffic and plowing through the same 4 way stop with a toddler on back. if that happened people would be up in arms

          4. anon, as I mentioned in the first post, in 12 of the 14 speed was listed as a contributing factor in the police report.

            moto, got it, you care about some random anecdotal issue much more than fixing the thousands of actual deaths occurring on our highways. Anyone who speeds with kids in the car should be jailed. Period.

          5. ” you care about some random anecdotal issue much more than fixing the thousands of actual deaths occurring on our highways”
            Looking at an absolute number of accidents related to some behavior without looking at the total number of people who engage in that behavior is pointless.
            More people die driving to work than jumping out of a plane without a parachute. But that doesn’t mean that driving to work is more dangerous than jumping out of a plane without a parachute.

          6. “anon”, isn’t cycling the most dangerous sport by a wide margin? I know it is the most dangerous form of transportation, but I was shocked to learn over 50% of cycling fatalities are solo falls. “Although a collision with an automobile is the greatest hazard cyclists face, there’s one reassuring bit of news: the fact is, it’s a relatively uncommon occurrence. Most bicycle accidents are in fact solo accidents involving a defect or some other hazard in the road or trail.”

          7. Cycling is very, very dangerous in the US, anon94123, thanks for proving my point. That’s why we need more bicycle infrastructure, to bring cyclist injuries down to European or Asian levels.

          8. @anon – exactly, we shouldn’t be focusing on extremely dangerous activity that very few people do, but should focus our energy on fixing the common occurrences that kill thousands and thousands each year. Think of it this way – moto often complains that we’re spending a few bucks on bicycle infrastructure rather than plowing all of that into transit improvements, even though the number is tiny. Shouldn’t we be plowing all death prevention measures into areas that we know people die and will continue to die?

          9. “Shouldn’t we be plowing all death prevention measures into areas that we know people die and will continue to die?” yes, we should be spending more on public health initiatives because the number of car related deaths in SF way way way less than those via disease. the point is that 2% of trips are by bike. it makes little sense to spend money on infrastucture to support that 2%, especially when most bike lanes are mostly empty most of the time

          10. the point is that bike deaths are a rounding error. car crashes on the other hand are the leading cause of accidental death in the US, with more than 1,000 in Northern California alone each year. why in the world are we wasting any time discussing a potential death from one cyclist acting stupid (and most likely to kill himself or a family member), instead of the thousands that will die at the hands of selfish motorists speeding each and every year – and most of the deaths will be to people in OTHER cars. as you say, focusing on 2% is meaningless, let’s focus on the big numbers.

            Lock up the speeders and take away their kids TODAY.

          11. Why stop at speeders? Shouldn’t parents who smoke, drink, are overweight, feed their kids transfats and sodas, vote republican, also be locked up?

          12. Probably at somewhere around the same rate as locking up the guy with a kid on his bike running through a stop sign, yes.

          13. yes, bike deaths are a rounding error, just like bike mode share in aggregate (2%), and bike commuters with kids blowing through 4 ways stops is hopefully only 1/1000th of the 2% who ride bikes in SF.

            the number of bike commuters is completely insignificant and the concerns should represent exactly 2% of airspace in transportation discussions.

          14. I could care less how much bikes are mentioned in discussions. What matters is how much of our infrastructure we allocate to bikes and that’s far below 2%. Kind of unfair, huh?

          15. Bikes have use of the surface streets which they share with many other kinds of vehicles. A more useful question would be under what conditions and how should we allocate to bikes exclusive roadways or portions of roadways? Kind of unfair and inaccurate not to count the shared roadways used by bikes when figuring how much infrastructure is used by bikes, huh? Not to mention the sideways routinely used illegally by many cyclists.

          16. i think near 100% is for bikes to use. you can use any street you want, and often use the sidewalks as well.

            same for motorcycles. but you dont hear me whining about special lanes for my motorcycle, although that would also clearly be safer.

          17. Jake – A shared road way is used by bikes and cars is not a 50/50 split. Structurally it needs to be a lot stronger to support multi-ton vehicles and therefore more expensive. In addition the width and lane count is driven by the size of cars, not bikes. So bikes can fit into a much skinnier and less expensive roadway. Also consider that many (most?) of our streets are too hostile for the broad demographic of people who could bike, but do not because they’re scared for their lives.

            If you want to compare dedicated facilities, look at publicly provided parking. There’s an enormous amount of real estate dedicated to storing cars. Then add to that government mandated parking minimums on private property.

          18. MOD, what about motorcycles? bicycles and motorcycles have similar widths are riders are equally open to the elements. Do you think we should have dedicated lanes or may share with cyclists?

          19. I don’t think that motorcycles need dedicated lanes since they have enough power to keep up with car traffic speeds. But those who exclusively ride motorcycles are subsidizing drivers in the same way that bicyclists are. They don’t need as much road or parking, yet pay for “free” public parking. Motorcyclists are also nearly as vulnerable as bicyclists and are at the wrong end of the danger externality that car drivers add to the street.

          20. i dont think its fair bicycles get their own lanes and not motorcycles. we are equally exposed to the horrors of car drivers (TIC) and we take up about the same amount of space. what does speed have to do with it. the cyclists in this city plow through at 20MPH and the cars at 30MPH. doesnt seem like that big of deal. maybe the bike/ motorcycle lanes can put in a 20MPH speeed limit. id be happy to abide by that. then those dedicated lanes could be even more efficient for multiple types of users, or does the bike coalition only want it for them. no sharing.

    2. I have also seen cyclists with small children riding on the back of their bikes roar through stop signs, and stop lights, and have wondered how they could be so cruel as to endanger their own child, as well as themselves? BTW- I really think this new 2014 MTA report is worthy of being highlighted as I have been reading comments for years by some people on this site making wild claims as to what the growth of the bike “mode” share was. The numbers speak for themselves. I thought it was interesting the Polk Street count declined.

  326. in addition to the new 2014 bike count, the SF MTA has now posted their travel decision market research survey. click name for link.

    although cycling makes up about 3% of commuting, it only makes up about 2% of total trips

    1. Thanks for the link. No great surprises. I had estimated around 2% bike mode share for all SF trips last year. The estimate for the various private vehicles for personal hire/rent (taxi, uber, car share, etc) is about the same number of trips as bike. The Census data implied that as well, but they don’t break it down in to this detail.

      This time they expanded the survey to include bay area residents that live outside of SF. The previous phone survey was limited to SF residents. Adding all those non-SF resident commuters and shoppers does give a better picture. They still don’t include the tourists (>10% of the people in SF) and most commercial vehicles. Imagine the downtown traffic without any of the delivery or construction trucks or Union Sq without tourists or Moscone without any conventions ever. The SFUSD bus fleet alone makes around 10k trips per school day.

    2. 2% of total trips are on bikes, and yet somehow the Bike Coalition has the loudest voice at City Hall, why? With over half of bike accidents being solo falls not involving motor vehicles, how would more dedicated bike lanes make it “safer”? I would rather see transit and pedestrian safety issues have a stronger voice instead, as well as drivers,

  327. what if the same proportion of motorists blew through all 4-way stops, every time, as cyclists do? what would that look like? the new Road Warrior movie?

    1. how about blowing through 4 ways stops full speed with a toddler sitting on the hood. that’s more similar to the situation with the child on the bike.

    2. What would it look like if all cyclists were flying down Polk at 20% over the speed limit while texting on their phone, as all drivers do, every time?

      1. when you do that petty internet tick for tack arguing thing that someone else made up in 1994 or whatever? it works better when the thing you say is a real thing. see, when the thing the other guy says is real, and the thing you say is a stretch? it makes you look like not only someone who can’t think for himself, and needs to use an overused technique, but it also makes you look like silly for using a fake example. so bad writing, twice.

        1. You’re claiming something absurd, that all bikes blow through 4 way stops. Many do, sure, just like many motorists exceed the speed limit by 20% while texting. Are you seriously going to dispute that?

          1. All cyclists in San Francisco blow through 4 way stops. Many motorists never text while driving. Yes, disputed, plus be real for five seconds, plus come up with your own material.

          2. LOL is right. Nothing there supports your weird claims of “all” or even a majority of people text while driving.

  328. The work of the Bike Coalition goes well beyond advocating for bike lanes. Among other efforts, the SFBC educates and encourages cyclists to ride safely, legally and politely; trains professional drivers (including SF taxi, Muni, and Recology drivers) to better share the road with all users; supports the city’s Vision Zero, encouraging safer conditions and behaviors for/by all road users; and advocates for equal enforcement by police with a focus on addressing the most dangerous behavior at the most dangerous locations.

    1. they pretty much only focus on the interests of cyclists and hide behind the ruse of helping pedestrians. Mostly they are taking away from the dicussion and attention on better public transport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *