Log in

Forgot password?

Search the site...


What's next

San Francisco eyes all-gender diaper stations

San Francisco is trying to make it easier for parents to find a public restroom with a changing diaper...

Alameda Creek remains could be missing teen

A female body found along Alameda Creek this evening may be that of 18-year-old Jayda Jenkins, who went missing...

Jayda Jenkins’ body recovered near Ala­meda Creek

The Alameda County Sheriff's Office confirmed this morning that a body found Thursday evening along Alameda Creek is a...

Post a comment


  1. Can somebody explain to me just how a protected bikelane would result in the loss of parking spaces? If they put the bikelane up against the curb, wouldn’t they just move the line of parked cars out 4 or so feet and still have about the same number of parking spaces (maybe losing one at the corner to accommodate streetcar turns)? Am I not getting something?

    And then, when there is a double-parker – which I think is the major cause of the bike incidents – he will just be blocking other cars, not causing bikes to have to cross the tracks. OHHHH! THAT’S gotta be it: they don’t want cars blocking cars. Am I right?

    • There’s currently not an actual bike lane on this block — just one lane of all-vehicle traffic each way, plus a row of parking each way. Adding a bike lane will necessitate removing something else — either a lane of traffic, or a row of parking. So a protected bike lane would require taking out the parking on the opposite side of the street, unless a lane of traffic was instead removed and the street was made one-way. I agree with you, though, that it seems much more palatable for motor vehicle drivers to block bicycle lanes rather than blocking lanes that other motor vehicles use.

      • I beg to differ: I ride that street very often – in fact, just yesterday. While it is true that there is not a painted bike lane (it is an official bike route, though) there is room for a line of parked cars, a bicycle lane, and if a car drives with his right-side wheels between the tracks (which is what they always do when they are passing a cyclist, and there is plenty of room for this) room for a vehicle – on either side of the street. So if the parked cars were 4 feet out, there would be room for a bike lane by the curb, and still room for a driving lane.

        • A protected bike lane would need to include a buffer so cyclists don’t get doored by passenger doors. I’m pretty sure if you crunch the numbers for 2 full travel lanes, 2 full parking lanes, a bike lane, and a buffer zone, and compare the total to the state mandated minimum widths for all of those pieces, there just isn’t enough room.

        • You might be right: I was not taking a buffer-zone into consideration. But I would be willing to forgo a buffer zone if necessary; the one in GGPark is barely wide enough to afford protection anyway as I have many times found out, and as 17th is now, we must ride in the death/door zone anyway. And every car has a driver, but many (if not most) cars don’t have passengers, so our odds are better on the right side of a car. I personally don’t have any difficulty hopping tracks, but I do worry about so many others who go down hard.

    • If you put in a protected bikeway here and allowed parking between it and the roadway, the parked cars would sit on top of the tracks, thereby not allowing any F-line cars to pass. Actually, it would completely block the travel lane too so nothing would be able to pass. Basically, the street is too narrow for a parking protected bikeway – it would have to be just a protected bikeway, similar to what is on Fell and Oak between Baker and Scott.

    • Also, 4′ of space between parked cars and a sidewalk is far too narrow for a bikeway. It would need to be much, which would put the parked cars on the tracks. To compare, the bikeway on JFK is 6′ wide with some sections of buffer that are 3′ wide for opened car doors. What you are proposing is less than half as wide as that!