Reader Rico T. was in Golden Gate Park on Monday morning and snapped a pic of this mis-parking by several cars on JFK Drive. Based on the new bike lanes, cars are no longer supposed to park against the curb, but rather in the lane to LEFT of where you see the bikers in the photo, creating an isolated lane for bikers along the curb.
The new lanes were a hot topic of discussion here on the blog back in January, with readers and even regular bicyclists commenting that the lanes are detrimental to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
This photo illustrates one of the biggest issues with the new configuration – drive awareness and education. Most visitors to Golden Gate Park are transient – they are tourists or just passing through. So expecting them to understand the new configuration is asking a lot since they don’t encounter it regularly.
In this instance, one driver likely parked against the curb, and the other cars followed suit. Which in reality, they would have to, otherwise bikers would be blocked altogether or pushed out into the car lane.
And really, bikers lucked out on Monday, considering the big puddles they got to bypass because the cars took over their lane. 😉
We know some people like these new lanes, but most don’t. So what will be done about it? The Richmond District Democratic Club held a public forum about it, but no one at the SFMTA or SF Bike Coalition seems to want to admit that this was a bad idea and should be changed back to what it was.
It’s been 9 months; clearly these lanes are not working. Is anyone going to step up?
Sarah B.
A survey of park users showed very strong support for the lanes. It also showed safety was measurably improved. So what is the basis for saying they are not working and not popular?
Bicyclist are just a pain in the ass and think they’re always right no matter what. Most never abide by street signs or traffic rules as they should.
Completely idiotic design. Only SF could come up with this. But, an easy fix- just install some of those flexible cones between bikes and parking lane. They are used all over the place to separate traffic lanes. Not a big deal, just costs extra.
Does GGP have some sort of exemption from the CVC? Otherwise is there proper signage/instruction for the transient visitors? Here in CA we’ve trained the drivers as below, how would they know otherwise (ground level signage is clearly not enough).
Per the SFMTA – 12. Parallel parking. California law requires that the two right wheels of a vehicle be parked no more than 18 inches away from the curb. The only exceptions are (1) one way streets, where the left two wheels must be parallel to and within 18 inches from the left-hand curb, or (2) places officially designated with signs or pavement markings for angle or perpendicular parking.
from – http://www.sfmta.com/cms/penf/indxpkenf.htm
Curb Parking – 22502. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there are adjacent curbs shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels of the vehicle parallel with and within 18 inches of the right-hand curb, except that a motorcycle shall be parked with at least one wheel or fender touching the right-hand curb. Where no curbs or barriers bound a two-way roadway, right-hand parallel parking is required unless otherwise indicated.
from – https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22502.htm
I’ve been on this soapbox before– just plain stupid. How can they be safer? Now you have people from the passenger side of a car having to cross where there is bike traffic. You have now put the people on that side of the car between the “bullet and the target”– where before they simply were at the curb. Just common sense says that this can’t be safer.
This article concludes that the system is not working to improve safety, but provides no data to support that conclusion. Just because some drivers can’t figure out the new parking rules is not a reason to abandon the idea, at least not yet. From what I can tell, most people can figure it out. Let’s give this a couple years to see if we can reach a conclusion on whether it improves safety.
Put aside the benefits of protecting bicycles from car traffic. The number one way the new configuration has improved safety is by calming vehicle traffic. Going back to the old configuration would require widening the perceived width of the roadway again, which would have a cost in safety.
One more thing…a lot of commenters appear to reference their “common sense” or “gut instinct” for how to optimize safety, whereas these issues have been pretty extensively studied. SFMTA is implementing designs because studies prove they work to improve safety.
Seconding what Ed (#6) and David (#1) said!
Just remove the parking entirely already.
Jonathan – before, cyclists were out in the door zone of cars. Now they are not. I suppose only the safety of car passengers counts.
And besides, all I hear when we try to put in bike lanes is that nobody ever uses them, nobody rides bikes. If so, then those car passengers have nothing to worry about, n’est pas?
I’m wondering if something like color coding would help. I know at first glance it’s confusing right now, but I like the idea and think it should be given a solid, multi-year chance. I don’t pretend to have any insight into the data, but would a very clear visual differentiation be of any help? For instance, making the bike lane yellow (for example)?
I’m also into the idea of flexible cones/plastic poles to separate the lanes.
The reason these illegally parked cars were photographed is due to the extreme rarity of people parking like this.
Complain all you want, but as an older, slower bicyclist who rides this road four times a day (my only transportation), these lanes work. People seem quite able to follow the rules, to obey signs – even non-English-speaking tourists – and move out of the way quickly when they see me coming.
The roads are safer for me now. Go ahead and get angry, but not every bicyclist is a self-absorbed hipster waiting to run you down and not every driver is an idiot when it comes to a new way of parking.
The signage is still pretty poor. There must be some international symbols for parking allowed and no parking that they could paint in the respective areas. Additionally, I think having the bike lanes green actually helps.
My 8 yr-old is much more comfortable riding in the bike lane than riding in traffic on the west side of the cross-over.
Flexible cones don’t work since they would be in the way when the road is closed to cars on Sundays and Saturdays.
SFMTA and SFBC are ruining the city roads for both cars and cyclists! Short-sighted plans, ugly designs, and poor implementation. Add that to the fact they are removing hundreds of parking spaces across the city and you have the makings of a civic disaster.
http://www.sfenuf.org/
I agree with j__ above. I’ve noticed quite a few places in and around town where the traffic arrangement actually makes sense, but extremely poor (or badly placed) signage.
Case in point–it was a good idea to put a lighted traffic sign at Point Lobos and El Camino Del Mar (just above the Sutro parking lot) noting that Great Highway may be closed at a certain time…but it was a poor idea to put it directly behind the traffic light at that corner, where one distracts the other. Same with the many traffic signs that are all but hidden by overgrowth (or better yet–other traffic signs directly in front of it). And how many accidents did we see on the S-curve on the Bay Bridge before they added all the “SLOW DOWN FOR THE LOVE OF PIE” approach signage?
My point being…I don’t mind the new configuration, but there’s really not many signs at all saying how it’s supposed to work. Without the signs, all people see is two empty bordered lanes with a striped one between them, and the occasional bike-rider icon sign or painted in the inner lane. More, or at least clearer, signage would be a big help.
As for a color-coding system, here’s how well that worked out:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/26/threat.level.system.change/index.html
David Marcus, you keep referencing studies of improved traffic safety despite the clear and widespread contentiousness. Do you have any sources for this information?
As a bicyclist and driver, I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but (anecdotally) I have had pedestrians wander obliviously into the bike lane in front of me on multiple occasions, and also encountered several drivers hanging out with the passenger door open for no apparent reason. Families getting their kids out of the car for a day at the park also have high potential for clogging up the bike lane on the right side. No way is perfect, btu I’d hope the differentness of this approach might make people more aware (even if that’s not necessarily borne out in my experience).
I feel really bad for all the car drivers. I really do. The world is built with them in mind, at every instance, yet they still can’t seem to get it together.
In other news, wouldn’t be grand if Golden Gate Park was closed to cars at all times? Imagine having to experience the park by walking through it, and not by pressing your nose against your windshield? You might enjoy life a little more.
@Josh, here are a few studies that are relevant.
First, the SFMTA study showing the new configuration has calmed both vehicle and bicycle speeds.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bproj/documents/JFKPreliminaryEvaluation.pdf
Also, here’s a Harvard study on the safety of cycle tracks, the big picture being the risk of injury was 28% less and the bike traffic 2.5 times greater than for a reference street without a cycle track.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full.pdf?sid=fb590a0e-1cb4-40bd-a0ba-9f376f2ad85d
I’ll be sure to snap a photo of it working correctly when I bike by there this afternoon — will your blog publish that photo, too?
Can’t the parking lane just say “PARK HERE”?
@mcas – Probably not, but you’re welcome to start a blog and publish it there.
I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend this horrible design. I’ve witnessed two instances of cars side-swiping parked cars because the driving lane is so close to the parking lane. I witness cars parking incorrectly on a daily basis. I witness shaking heads, confusion and bikes being funneled into a chute that offers no opportunity for escape while people unload their trunks into the bike lane or loiter unknowingly. I ride every day and this is always the most counterintuitive, confusing part of the ride. It’s a study in bureaucratic ineffectiveness. I don’t care what the SFMTA studies say. My own two eyes know it’s a crock. Change it back. It doesn’t work and it’s dangerous. It divides the road and sidewalk into eight sections with moving, non-moving and pedestrian segments stumbling awkwardly and inexplicably on top of one another. The design is contrary to our cultural norm of traffic flow and has no place in a venue that invites drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who are visiting temporarily.
The current design blows. Period.
David Marcus (#1), the survey was done by the same department that implemented the change. Taking it seriously is as absurd as believing GOP polls before the last presidential elections.
David Marcus (#7), do you really think narrow roadway is safer than a wide one? If drivers can’t see pedestrians, if there is no space to open a car door – how is that safer?
Matt (#19), imagine having to rely on cars to get around. Imagine having a couple of small kids, or an elderly parent, or being disabled yourself.
Yes, the park would be more aesthetically pleasing without cars, but not all of us would be there to appreciate it.
I agree with John! The bicyclists never abide by the rules! I’m sick and tired of rude bicyclists on the road! Make them register and pay the taxes on all the bicycle lanes that the motorist are paying for with the extra taxes we pay at the pump!
Rustie – apparently you were cool with cars side swiping cyclists before hand?
And Debbie Garabato has finally taken this to the rightful end by satisfying “Murph’s law” that any blog post with the word “bicycle” in it must end with the registering and taxing of cyclists.
Debbie, I am not allowed to ride my bike on Doyle Drive. I will be awaiting the refund of my income, sales, and property taxes that went to pay for it. I’ll donate that money to bike lane construction. Thanks.
@David Marcus:
These studies show very little towards the complaints of the system.
The first argues that speeds are reduced. This is clear, certain and undebatable. However, most would argue that the speeds are reduced along the new system due to a mix of confusion and congestion. Cars in the center lanes are driving slower because there is a more narrow route, and if any car wants to enter or exit a parking space the entire lane of cars must stop. Cyclists on the outsides are riding slower as they have no viable path of exit should something block their way. Whereas an opened door previously meant a check over the shoulder and a shift to the left for a passing cyclist, it now means slowing to a near stop as there is nowhere but curb further to the right.
The second study discusses cycle tracks, specifically those in the Netherlands. I’m not sure if you’ve been to the Netherlands, but their cycle tracks are in no way comparable to what’s been implemented in GGP. Their cycle tracks are more paths, akin to miniature roads, physically separate from any roads with cars on them, and have ample room for exit should any obstruction come on the path. As something well and apart from the ‘corridor of death’ often described in SF, the findings really do not represent our situation.
Overall, you have established lessened speeds, which while they may be correlated with lower incidence of injuries, are also viably due to a greater (perceived) risk.
Good for you John! It sounds like you are one of the few that are responsible riders. But, do you honestly think it is fair that the bikers get a free ride?
Murphy – Yes. Since it was the same system as 99.9% of the roadways in our country it was a danger, yes, but a more predictable danger. Now there’s a 2 mile stretch in a park that randomly plays by its own rules which confuses everyone and benefits no one.
I’m not crazy about the new design, but I understand the lesser of evils balancing act that is going on. I agree that the signage is sorely lacking (just a picture-sign with car-exiting pedestrian-bike would do). Also, amending the civil code would also make sense.
As far as the ability of outsiders to adjust, at least we’re not like D.C. and have streets that switch one-way directions!
And while we’re on the topic of safety and understandable rules, how many local drivers/pedestrians/bicyclists follow traffic and parking rules that are there for their and others’ protection?
Classic anti-cyclist axe-grinding. Where are your statistics about “most people” not liking these bike lanes? As a cyclist and a driver, I think they’re fantastic. Really, what we need is for the SFMTA to begin to aggressively ticket people who park in bike lanes. They’ll figure it out really quickly when there’s a couple hundred dollars on the line.
Rustie said it best, “a chute that offers no opportunity for escape…” I still ride in traffic because of this and slow riders. I am not riding through the park for a leisurely time gazing at the conservatory of flowers, I am either commuting or getting exercise and either way riding FAST. These segmented lanes are designed for tourists, not residents.
@ NJ, as was said above, most park visitors parking cars are TOURISTS or people who live outside the city! They will not have an opportunity to “learn better” unless they come back to visit.
think u said the “fairy door” was the most popular post, but I coulda swore it was this issue that triggered the mountain of comments. and rightly so, this is serious.
Re. Debbie Garabato #30: Before assuming that anyone is getting a free ride, do we know where the funding came from for the bike lane project? This is not meant to be a snarky question, just an honest one.
I’ve said it before – as a cyclist I hate them. Even if there weren’t any cars around the lanes have been migrated over to the water overflow area (shown in the pic above). So for a good chunk of the year the effective space of the bike lane has been reduced and you still have to watch for cars/peds that aren’t used to the design.
Are there signs that indicate “no parking in bike lane”? It might make sense to say on the road, “bike only” and mark the parking zones with text instead of just lines. Especially in this area when the lines are not much different from the “no parking zone” that precedes it.
The paving and maitinence of the roads in general. Which the bike lanes are on. No roads no bikes.
I was there two weeks ago and while trying to get my child out of his car seat on the passenger side was yelled at by several bikers. It was either get him out on that side or get him out in traffic. This is horrible. How are drivers supposed to unload when they’re flanked by bikes and cars? At least when you park at the curb you can use the lawn or sidewalk to unload. Say all you want about cars vs bikers but I think it puts everyone in harms way. I’d rather have no cars parking then this design.
In support of Debbie:
While it’s a very challenging and contentious issue to tax cyclists, it is well established that most major funding for roadways comes from taxes levied on drivers through gasoline costs. This is to the degree that some states that have had an overwhelming transition to high-MPG vehicles have seen a major hit to their road maintenance budgets and have proposed taxes against drivers of hybrid vehicles in a per-mile-traveled method.
This entire premise has it’s own series of debates, but the fact stands that roads in general are there and maintained largely because they are funded by the taxes of those who buy gas, and not by cyclists. However, I cannot say if this applies to park land or not, perhaps someone more informed can weigh in on that relevance.
@fiddles – The fairy door post had the most views of any story on the blog, ever. As for comments, there are a few in the top ranks. This topic definitely always inspires spirited discussion 🙂
Sarah B.
your poor poor drivers, with your one-ton-plus vehicles destroying the roads are surely oppressed when you are asked to bear the entire burden of paying for those roads.
Josh says – “it is well established that most major funding for roadways comes from taxes levied on drivers through gasoline costs”
The only thing well established about that theory is that it is false. The most prominent relevant example is the $248M streets bond that was just passed in San Francisco. All of that money will go to our streets in one form or another. ZERO dollars of the bond repayment will come from gasoline taxes, DMV registration, parking meters, parking tickets, or any other vehicle specific fee. 100% of that money will be repaid from monies entering the City’s general fund – from property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, and fees.
To cite the other example referred to above, Doyle Drive was primarily funded by the pork barrel coming from Washington. Pork barrel money from DC does not come from the transportation fund (a.k.a. gas taxes).
Josh continues – “This is to the degree that some states that have had an overwhelming transition to high-MPG vehicles have seen a major hit to their road maintenance budgets”
Increase mileage is only a small part of the problem. The simple fact that Americans are driving fewer miles per capity has had a larger effect than the increase in mileage. But the overwhelming reason that road maintainance budgets have had a “hit” is that the gas tax is a per gallon flat excise tax – X number of cents per gallon, and has stayed the same for decades. As such, the gas tax does not rise with inflation, but road construction does rise with inflation, and even if gas usage grows (such that the overall budget grows) that also means that road usage grows just as fast. In California this is somewhat modulo the recent gas tax swap but suffice to say, we collect fewer inflation adjusted dollars than we used to and the response has not been to tax drivers more, it has been to subsidize drivers with even more funds from the general fund than ever before (and it was a lot before – only state and federal roads are even paid for with gas taxes, not local roads).
Thank you to Josh and John Murphy for your answers, that’s what I wanted to find out in my original question #36. Further, there is not always a clear-cut division between car owners and bike owners. I have a car and a bicycle (I’m guessing lots of people have both), so I am a cyclist who pays gasoline taxes, DMV registration, etc.
Debbie is mistaken and John is correct. Gas taxes contribute to state and federal highways (around 50% of costs) but not local roads. Those are funded thru sales & property taxes, which everyone pays. Even bicyclists 😉
Also, I love the new bike lanes, and I wish more tickets were issued to those who park illegally.
For the bikers complaining about pedestrians getting out of cars, just learn about yielding to pedestrians and slowing down.
@Ray legally it is incumbent on drivers, as they attempt to exit their vehicles, to yield to bicyclists.
The solution is obvious to me, put the bicycles in the middle and insert pylons separating them from cars. Any cars turning left will have to cross over the bicycle lanes, thus requiring bicycles to pay attention to the people walking in the crosswalks. Cyclists wishing to never use brakes have every Sunday and Holiday to do so. Give us walkers a chance.
4thGenRichmond – haha. Maybe they should just turn JFK Drive into a lazy river and call it a day.
That would actually be pretty awesome.
Jack P, that is the case when opening doors and initial exit. However, once they are out of the car and say gathering items or a child, the approaching bike needs to yield to/avoid what is now a pedestrian. The same is true of cars on the left-hand side.
I call first dibs on tubing down JFK!
@Administrator: Sent you a photo on Twitter. Really dishonest to just snap a photo the one time and call it a failure. I’d be happy to meet you in front of the Conservatory any day, any time and take a walk with you to see how its working. I’ll bring a 6-pack and we can sit if you’d like. Email me. I live nearby.
4thGenRichmond:
I can’t quite tell if you’re being sarcastic, but I like the idea. Here is a rendering someone made of the concept:
Image
Why is money vehicle owners pay to register their car going to bike lanes in the first place? If SF really wants to make money (and be fair) they would require bicycalists to register their bike with the city. Bikes use the road and cause wear and tear too. So why don’t they chip in and just like motorcycles, register their moving vehicles? They want the same, if not more rights than cars, but just freeload off the system and not pay up. Here’s an idea, BAN bikes from using the roads altogether! At this point I just see them as Human Pigeions.
Alai – Thanks for posting the rendering. I figured 4thGen was being sarcastic but this is interesting.
The rendering makes more sense to me than the current situation on JFK, which is just humor in motion. It not only divides and segments our modes of transportation on the road, it does so online too. It’s all out war for mobility superiority in here with some taxation thrown in for good measure. Hoorah!
In my opinion, if bikes want the same rights as vehicles they should obey the same laws and pitch in for services they require like bike lanes. They should also be considered vehicles and not be forced to ride in a crazy no man’s land in between parked cars, a curb, tourists exiting tour buses, daddies unloading car seats and cars sideswiping parked cars because they’re forced to drive closer to them than in any other normal driving situation, except maybe the parking lot at Best Buy. The problem is compounded on weekends and holidays when there are even many more visitors, most of whom are not familiar with their surroundings, much less a nouveau sidewalk-grass-curb-bike lane-parking-traffic scenario. It’s ridiculous and it’s only a matter of time before it goes back to normal – the norm we are all comfortable with which actually works pretty well. Slower traffic keep right. You see it on city sidewalks, bike lanes and highways alike. It works. Not perfectly every single time but it works better than this ridiculous experiment currently taking place on JFK. Let’s cut our losses, call it a good try and move forward. Or just put in the lazy river.
mcas – Administrator posted a picture from a reader of an event that actually happened, laid out the facts in a pretty unbiased fashion and then stated her opinion followed by an open forum for comments. That’s dishonest? Nah.
Rob S, you don’t read very well.
Let’s just remove those useless bike lanes already and have the cars park at an angle. There is just not enough parking there. Have you people seen how crowded it gets there for cars?
I don’t know how we train tourists. But I do have an idea to help train locals, which would have additional benefits.
The idea: Mark parking space boundaries for ALL parking spots in the city, including non-metered spaces in residential areas.
I live just a short distance off Geary in an area without parking meters. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen curbs that can normally hold 2 or 3 cars be reduced by 1 spot simply because somebody had no idea where they SHOULD park. Parking has been unbearable since 2 gas stations were converted to condos, required to build insufficient parking.
As people come to expect that all parking spaces are marked, they’ll look for marked spaces in GG Park, instead of parking in the bike lane.
Added bonus: For single spots between driveways, label them with how many inches long they are. Eventually people will learn how long their cars are, and look for spots that they can actually fit in.
I was surprised to find out that bikes are allowed on the paths on either side of JFK, predating the current lanes. If the current lanes are removed, perhaps there should be some signs directing bikes to those paths?
Rob S.: What makes you think vehicle registration fees are going to bike lanes anyway? Here’s a quote:
“A San Francisco Vehicle Registration Fee, Measure AA was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in San Francisco.[1] It was approved.
Under the terms of Measure AA, San Francisco voters will have to pay $10 more every year to register their vehicles than they currently do. A simple majority vote was required for passage.
It is anticipated that the new tax on cars will bring in about $5 million more each year to San Francisco’s coffers. The money from the tax will be dedicated to pay for street repair, pedestrian safety and transit reliability improvement projects. These costs are currently paid out of the city’s general operating fund.
$5 million a year hardly covers auto-related costs, let alone bikes.
Jon: while they’re at it, maybe they could mark the sidewalks for no parking…
I think a lot of people can benefit from attitude adjustments. First, not all bikers are law breakers, nor are all saints. Not all car drivers are saints, nor law breakers. Most bikers and most car drivers, from what I see, break laws here and there. So let’s focus on finding methods that help encourage all of us to be safer.
In an urban environment, we often can’t go as fast as we’d like, because faster travel equates to more and worse accidents. We often have an option to slow down, but we don’t consider that acceptable. Let’s consider slowing down or stopping as OK at times.
Please, enough of “cars v. bikes”. I use both methods of transport. Lots of us do. If a few more people used both, fewer would see things with this false dichotomy.
RE “no room to unload from the passenger side of cars”: I don’t get it. The system is set-up so that all parking has a buffer between the parking area and the bike lane. I think it’s 3 feet minimum. Is this space too small (I’m not being sarcastic)?
RE “deathtrap for bikes between curbs and parked cars”. Not in my book. I feel much safer between a buffer zone and a still curb, than between a parked car and a moving car that is often traveling 25 – 35 mph. In standard configurations, the cyclist has to create the buffer zone between himself and the parked cars without the help of painted curbs. The parked cars present the hazard of “dooring”, opening a door into a cyclist.
Ignorance of the law or how things work is no defense. Tow these cars. Solution to this issue has now been found.
ron… spot on!
By the same logic:
… because my jerk neighbors feel it’s their right to block the sidewalk with their car every other day that the “clearly the sidewalks aren’t working”?
… because obnoxious drivers try to squeeze through intersections in heavy traffic and end up blocking the intersection, causing gridlock, that the traffic lights and roadway design “clearly aren’t working?”
.. because drivers run red-lights every five minutes on Fulton Street (and every other major street in the City) that the traffic lights “clearly aren’t working”?
What a completely thoughtless and nonsenical line of thinking. Good think the big thinkers at Richmondblog aren’t in charge of anything meaningful!
I’ve been riding through the park every day on my way to and from work for the last 7 years and feel much safer with this design. For the most part people park correctly.
And, yes, the bikes vs cars thing is so annoying. Get over yourselves and start sharing and playing nice.
Simpleton – I’m curious if you’ve ever ridden a bike or unloaded a car in the new system during a crowded day in the park? Sorry about your jerk neighbors, by the way. Mine suck too.
This article fails to address the real problem–Golden Gate is a park, not a parking lot. The roads shouldn’t be taken up by parked cars, but available for recreation by people. Please save the pro-car arguments for the Richmond Review and let this be a place for innovative ideas to improve our neighborhood and the unique intersection of urban space and natural areas that we are so fortunate to live in.
Ron and Paul C have hit on the solution in 63 and 64. I live adjacent to this section of the park and this is the first time I have seen cars parked in this manner.
The bike lane is working fine. It’s these driver’s ability to read road markings that isn’t working. Nothing a little driver education in the form of tickets and towing wouldn’t fix.
Ella, roads, by their nature are for vehicles, which also include parking. Additionally, a portion of JFK drive is closed on the weekends.
Dan, a lot of the people parking incorrectly are likely from out of town. They certainly should be ticketed, however, I don’t think this will be much of a teaching moment since these people may only be here for a one-time visit.
Additional signage or markings should be added. If you look at what is the parking zone, it looks a lot like a standard driving lane. There is no designation that says park here. The set up on JFK is rather unique when compared to other areas with bike lanes. For example, on nearby Cabrillo, the bike lane is between traffic and curb parking.
Debbie (#30) – cyclists DON’T get a free ride. Saying that they do just perpetuates one of the biggest fallacies out there, and it really needs to stop.
First of all, many cyclists are also drivers. Therefore, many of us are paying the gas tax, too.
Second, even the ones that don’t drive (and thus don’t directly pay the gas tax .. note some still will indirectly!) aren’t really getting much of a free ride because I’m pretty sure that the way Federal and California fuel taxes are allocated results in not-very-much-of-it being used for city street projects such as these. They pay for a lot of US-101 construction, though!
And ron (#63) – spot on. Although, with my cyclist hat (helmet? 🙂 on, I have to admit that I don’t particularly like these new lanes at all. That said, I don’t often ride through the park during the day … usually very early in the morning, where I often encounter runners, of all things, using them. WHAT IS IT WITH THESE SELF-ENTITLED RUNNERS, ANYWAY??? (Note: previous sentence is a joke.) As a result, I usually just take the car traffic lane. Not a big deal usually since there are almost never cars when I ride through the park. On the occasion where I do ride through the park during the day, again I usually end up taking the car traffic lane because the bike traffic in the bike lane moves to slow for my taste. Again, not a big deal, as I am quite comfortable mixing with the car traffic and can ride at car traffic speed (assuming they’re following the speed limit, that is :-).
@Rustie:
Yes, I ride on JFK of the park every day, twice a day, seven days a week. It works great and I feel much safer, especially when I’m riding with my toddler on my bike. People are so freaked out by new things. Chill out.
@Rustie:
Yes, I ride on JFK in the park every day, twice a day, seven days a week. It works great and I feel much safer, especially when I’m riding with my toddler on my bike. People are so freaked out by new things. Chill out.
Simpleton – I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree since my only response is confusion as to how you could find the current situation to be safer (it’s not). I ride with my kid in the park as well and have had a couple close calls with confused drivers and pedestrians. I never have that problem on JFK below Crossover since that stretch works just like the rest of modern roadways in our country.
Also, the current design has been in place for nine months so I don’t think it’s a matter of being freaked out by new things. Unless you’re one of the thousands of first time visitors to the park experiencing this breakthrough parking scheme without proper signage.
Good luck out there.
Sorry Jason #73 you are getting a free ride. Only my opinion. From bike lanes on city streets, to numerous traffic violations, that aren’t ticketed. If we share the road we need bicyclists to obey the laws. The four way stop by the falls is an excellent example. It’s very dangerous for bicyclists. I live a block from the park and I just walk over because it is easier than dealing with the traffic. My ideal situation for everyone would be to only allow cars after dark and save the park for bicyclists and pedestrians. Only my opinion:)
Debbie (#77) – Well, I guess I don’t think much of your opinion, then.
Neither does reality (Debbie #77)
That’s okay Jason. Have a nice day.
Hello.. I’m the one who took the picture on Monday while walking on JFK. Thanks Sara for posting it & writing the article!
I’m mostly a driver, and bicycle every now-and-then. I’m impartial and think it’s only fair that the roadway should work for everyone’s use, safety & enjoyment.
Whether the new configuration is working or not, it’s still confusing to a lot of people. I’ve driven, bicycled & walked the JFK.. and although I could understand why they configured the road this way (the cheapest way), it still doesn’t set well with me. If they were to add more signs and/or markings on the pavement, it should lower the confusion, but it will still continue to feel and look, unnatural and unbalanced. Personally speaking, I don’t like.
If you think of the “DeYoung Museum” in Golden Gate Park, and “LucasFilms” building in the Persidio, they were both designed to have a natural feel to the surroundings and not to be an eye sore. As a SF Native, I’m proud of the city & it’s planners, who listened to the community and built these buildings that everyone can be proud of. — As far as this new configured roadway, I’m not proud of it, not one bit.
So after some brainstorming, I came up with these suggestions to put a fix to JFK and making a better configured and natural looking & feel roadway for everyone (all parties) to benefit. Perhaps, one to be admired and to be proud of! 🙂
* Pls read entirely, because further reading may enlighten you on something you may not totally agree with.
1. Go back to the original configuration, but only allow parking on 1 side of the road (the south side) at it’s most narrow points.
2. Shift the road to the non-parking street side and widen the lanes to allow more space for cars & bicyclist to maneuver. Plus, it will allow more dry pavement for bicyclists to maneuver around puddle’s. – I like the 3-ft buffer space idea. Perhaps adding a buffer zone in-between the car & bicycle lane.
3. Add street sign to put emphasis on driver’s and bicyclist to use their designated lanes. But also note, the road is also shared for bicyclist to use the car lane while passing up other cyclists or objects on road. Please share the road. – This may not be needed if there is a buffer zone. But, having a sign that say’s “Share the Road” is always nice! 🙂
4. Add speed bumps to slow down drivers/traffic.
5. Add on the parking side of the street: Use crosswalks to cross road (add picture)
6. Add more crosswalks. Or add 1-2 extra large crosswalks, something like in front of the Ferry Building. Well, maybe not that large. 🙂
The biggest & most dramatic change of the road.
7. Since the road only has 1 parking side, to reduce drivers tempted to make a u-turn in the middle of the street. Enlarge 2 or 3 intersections by chopping some of the corners of the street intersection and make a truly effective slow & enjoyable turn-around. — If you leave the intersections as is, making u-turns can be dangerous.
8. Extra, perhaps include several extra spaces for food/fruit stand vendors to park. Add seating for bicyclist, tourists, the community to congregate & enjoy a brief stop.
9. Add road signs (along the route before the turnarounds) for cars to use turn-arounds for u-turns. If driver’s know there is a turn-aroud ahead, they will be more relieved by knowing they can turn-around (make a u-turn up ahead).
10. Add double-fine area signs, for people not using turn-arounds.
11. Add 1 or 2 along JFK, Enter & Exit roads /w a small island in-between, for passenger unloading & loading near the Conservatory of Flowers (or thereabouts) and the opposite end of JFK.
Most Importantly:
* Let the community (drivers, bicyclist & pedestrians) help plan & physically build these turn-arounds.
* To bring down cost and to commemorate the collaboration between all parties. Let the turnaround be installed as a symbolism of the unity & future cooperation between all parties, and the progress we have made up till now.
* Install info boards dedicated to the “Park Rules of the Roads” and history of the collaboration/unity between all parties to make the roads more safer & enjoyable for everyone. This can be installed at both ends of JFK and at the turnarounds.
The above are merely suggestions & bonuses, based on existing road configurations that seems to work & feel natural & not be an eye-sore, if implemented effectively.
This is just my 2 cents! Ummm.. okay, maybe a nickel! 🙂
p.s. There is no easy solution. However, if we all brainstorm together by sharing our ideas that can benefit everyone and not leave any out in the cold, I’m a believer we can make this work!
If you’re parking a car and can’t figure this out, you’re an idiot. There. I said it.
Brent you are really on to sonething aside from one minor issue – most of your roadway ideas would be illegal in California (and the in intersection idea would be illegal anywhere except maybe Kandahar). There is a way to do a u-turn in an intersection called a “roundabout
Speed bumps? If you miss that in a car you bash your car. On a bike you go to the hospital. Speed bumps on a bike route? Masochism. And no you can’t just put them in the car lanes.
The only good answer is no cars. There is a huge parking garage. Run a shuttle. Done.
“Most visitors to Golden Gate Park are transient…”
aint that the truth
@John, Speed bumps? Yeah, good point.. scratch the speed bumps. But adding a few more crosswalks should aid in slowing down traffic. They will be especially be needed, as I suggested, if parking is allowed only on 1 side. (As I mentioned in comment #81, parking on 1 side & shifting the road to the non-parking side, should allow more space to widen the car & bicycle lanes to maneuver.)
Yeah, I meant to say roundabouts.
As far as no cars. Well, that’s just like saying no bicyclists.. and I wouldn’t be for that either. No one wants to be cut off (eliminated from using the road). Just because there’s a parking garage close by, that doesn’t justify having an entire road closed off to cars. Wheareas bicyclist only require/use a small portion of the road, that would be wasted space.
What about people who picnic along JFK? Not to mention people with disabilities? You’ll be cutting them off to, or making it more of a hassle if they have no car to park along the road. No one wants to lug around picnic supplies & stuff on a shuttle. And people with disabilities, well, your just making things even more difficult for them.
Maybe you can get people use to the idea of parking their car & having to either walk or take a shuttle to be dropped off somewhere along JFK drive. That doesn’t mean they’re gonna like it! But, if your still set on the topic of relocating cars from driving on JFK. It should just be as easy to suggest relocating the bicycle traffic/lane to use Fulton Street. It’s not gonna happen.
20 percent of Yosemite visitors think there should be a concession stand on top of half dome.
Debbie (#77) implicitly concedes being wrong about road costs and cyclists’ “free ride”, just changed the subject to a free ride for not having to follow the road rules. Progress!
Lordy, it is just not the complex… my goodness. It might be best to just close the park to cars altogether. Works perfectly on Sunday!
Why not eliminate ALL parking on both sides of JFK and put in some parking lots in a couple of the meadows or knock down some of those clumps of trees? There’s a lot of “wild” area in GGP that just attracks vagrants and trouble makers. Let’s eliminate some of that “wild” areas and increase the utilization of entire park.
John Murphy – haha! classic.
Cyclists in Golden Gate Park want to be treated like motorists, until there’s a stop sign. Then all of a sudden, they’re pedestrians.
Somehow on Sunday large numbers of people are able to access the museums and music concourse. JFK should not be used as a parking lot. Autos have many places to be. They do not need to be stored in this very special place; Golden Gate Park is for actual living human beings, not for machinery.
I know an elderly woman who is 90-something years old. Almost every day her daughter (who is not a spring chicken either) picks her up and drives to the park. If you eliminate the parking in the park, it will be off-limits to them.
The garage is not free (as far as I know they are on a tight budget), it would fill up quickly, and in any case it’s far from the parts of the park they usually go to. Shuttle from the garage? It’s not so easy to board a bus when you are 90. Or when you have a stroller with 2 kids. And it would make the trip prohibitively long for them.
Public transit is not an option: that would mean walking a couple of blocks, waiting, boarding, unboarding, waiting for another bus, boarding, unboarding, and again it would limit them to one part of the park. (btw, please don’t bother with the usual mantra “we just need to improve public transit”: a system that would comfortably take her from her doorsteps to whatever part of the park she wants to go is impossible).
So if you want to argue that the park should be closed for the cars, would you please tell me how these ladies can make it there without their car?
Or just admit that you don’t care about tens of thousands of residents (elderly, disabled, families with kids) who won’t be able to get to the park as often as they do now, if at all.
Wheelchairs can be pushed by the able-bodied for the benefit of those who are not able to walk. Many “elderly, disabled and kids” can and do walk. Muni does a fine job of accessing the park. Kids and strollers do take Muni. Try the 44bus for example, Disabled and seniors have priority seating. There are places to store a auto in GGP, other than in front of the Conservatory of Flowers. If there was no “free parking” would cars no longer “park” in the Park? There is a shuttle bus that operates in the park.
Rico (#83): Thanks for your thoughtful post. Agree or disagree with some of the suggestions–you’ve demonstrated how to express ideas without snark or my-way-or-the-highway attitude. I have driven, bicycled, and walked through the park regularly for about 25 years. Aesthetically, I dislike the multidirectional lines. When I bike, I end up sharing the lane with cars more often than not because what is supposed to be the bike lane is blocked (by cars, pedestrians, slower ‘cyclists). I do like that the narrower lanes slow drivers down–a very good thing!). Pedestrians need to look carefully before walking from behind or on the other side of parked cars (drivers/cyclists can’t always see them, at least initially). Anyway, this blog discussion is a good thing. Does anyone know if The Powers That Be have any serious intention to review the lane configurations, or is it a done deal, for all extent and purposes?
…My comment above referred to Rico’s suggestions in #81.
Thanks Renee (#95) for you acknowledging my posts (#81, #85), as well as adding your own thoughtful comments and feedback. You made some good valid points!
I’ve never been fond of 1-sided thinking or for people who think they know what is best. Unless their best idea benefits everyone (not just in their best interest), knowing that some people will not get 100% of what they want but close to it, then they may just come up with the best idea yet! 🙂
My suggestions, whether people agree or disagree, are merely suggestions after some brainstorming. Whether the current road configuration is working or not, Many people don’t like it. Let me rephrase that, there’s a large enough % of people who don’t like the current configuration.
Progress is not just about a certain percentage of people deciding what they think is best. Real progress is about leaving no stone unturned and coming up with new creative ideas that would benefit everyone’s interest.
So, to cut this shorter, because I know some people will think I’m dragging on.. blah, blah, blah. 🙂
Here’s another/different suggestion!
What about creating a roadway that separates the motorist & the cyclist on the north side of the road. Like what has been proven to be effective on Mason Street along Chrissy Fields. It’s a raised road like a side walk but wider /w 2 way traffic for cyclist and separate pedestrian lane. It’s also effective in keeping the road looking open & pleasantly inviting for everyone as well. A more natural feel.
I understand that pedestrians may get in the way of bicyclist, they often do with the current configuration when coming in/out of their cars already, even with the 3ft buffer. Perhaps limiting these pedestrian/bicyclist encounters by creating several bench out crops for pedestrians & bicyclist who stop. Having this road side, closed to no parking would dramatically lower the bicycle lanes being blocked as well.
I also understand the need for bicyclist needing another lane to pass up other slower cyclist. In this case, much like the Chrissy Fields bike lanes, they use the opposite lane to pass. The point is, bicyclist (just like motorist) are more understanding & can relate to the same usage of the road by the same vehicle type, to pass.
Effective signage both on poles & pavement markings is key! More than normal signs are needed not just for the locals, but for the tourists as well. As I recall from the last time I was in Seattle at Green Lake Park. They have a sidewalk for bicyclist & pedestrians with separate lanes. It seems to work most of the time, because they have good signage.
That is all! 🙂
p.s. Can I still get my roundabout, 1 will do?? That will be the best roundabout ever! To commemorating the progress this city has made up till now, with the collaborative efforts between the motorist & bicyclist communities, in making this a more bike friendly community. 🙂
p.s.s. Here’s another food for thought! Based on my suggestion above (#97), with allowing parking only on 1 side of the road, you will not need these 3ft buffer zones that separates parked cars & the bicycle lane like on the current configuration. So, since 1 parking side is eliminated and the 3ft buffer zones are gone, the suggested bike lanes can be much much wider than your standard narrow bike lanes. 🙂
To add. Also, if you have raised bike lanes that are super wide, and have good effective signage. This should lower the blocking of pedestrians, because people’s instinct (whether a local or a tourist) would tell them this is not a place to stand. Much like, everyone naturally know’s that they shouldn’t be standing in the middle of the street.
Now, can someone please hire me to be on the city/urban planning committee! 🙂
Just to add one more vote to the “it’s a stupid idea” side of the ballot. It’s farcical sometimes watching people try to park. This isn’t very well thought out, and it’s maddening trying to understand what all the stripes mean. I feel particularly sorry for the tourists trying to figure out the system.
And to add a point not too far off topic, when did we stop using reflective paint on traffic lanes? It’s virtually impossible to see the paint when it’s dark and rainy.
This mess in the park is just one instance of many traffic decisions implemented recently around the city.
I had a friend whose dad was a traffic engineer. He said Rule #1 was taking away as much decision from the driver as possible. Lane markings, traffic signals and patterns ought to be as obvious as possible so that the driver can focus on driving.
Now for the gratuitous jab:
When I first saw the new lanes, I thought a bunch of gorillas had escaped from the zoo, stayed up all night doing meth, and got a hold of some traffic paint.
As a daily bike commuter through GGP, I have to say that the old JFK configuration was the safest part of my daily commute. Why did SFBC have to mess with it? I would prefer that it revert back to old configuration, and SFBC should focus on those streets that really are a danger to cyclists. JFK Drive is not one of them.
I had a friend whose dad was a traffic engineer. He said Rule #1 was taking away as much decision from the driver as possible. Lane markings, traffic signals and patterns ought to be as obvious as possible so that the driver can focus on driving.
That is an incredibly pernicious philosophy where “traffic safety” has been reduced to the issue of how to allow cars to move as fast as possible through the city, with as little attention as possible required from the driver. They imagine the worst possible driver, and then try to design the street to make it easy for that driver. The theory is that if you make it easy for bad drivers, it’ll be incredibly easy for good drivers, and everyone will be safe. In practice, everyone finds it so easy and boring that they relax and don’t bother focusing on driving at all– with disastrous results.
Streets should not be built to encourage lazy and distracted driving. They should be built to require continuous attention.
“Overall, local and regional governments are estimated to spend $300 – 500 annually per
automobile in general taxes on local roads and traffic services, averaging more than 6¢
per mile driven on local roads(Litman 2009; SSTI 2011). Only 0.7¢ of this is paid
through vehicle user charges, meaning that driving is subsidized through general taxes by about 5.6¢ per mile on local roads. Automobiles also impose other external costs,
including parking subsidies, congestion and crash risk imposed on other road users, and environmental damages. Pedestrians and cyclists tend to impose lower costs than motor vehicles and bear an excessive share of motor vehicle external costs, particularly crash risk and pollution exposure.” From the report published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute titled “Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways” March 2013 http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
Please let’s put to rest the idea that roads are only for motorized vehicles. Roadways are a public space that we all need to learn how to share. Roads were not built only for cars. In fact, bicyclists were a loud voice among the advocates that called for the repaving of Market Street in 1896.
http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1461-San-Franciscos-first-bike-protest.html
Just curious, for the bikers if a passenger door suddenly opens in front of you where would you go.? In to the door or spawled out in the sidewalk?
There is a buffer zone, moot point.
As someone who rides regularly on my own and is generally comfortable riding in traffic, I was initially averse to the change on JFK. I certainly appreciate improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure but didn’t immediately see the benefit from making parking protected bike lanes. I work for the YBike program for the Presidio Y, and regularly lead rides with youth around the city, teaching youth not just how to ride a bike but what the rules of the road are (and why they exist).
I changed my mind after leading youth on bikes down the new lanes on JFK. We didn’t have nearly the concern about car-dooring; with a buffer, passengers could open their doors. When we saw people preparing to cross the path, we slowed down and waited. While I don’t expect all interactions between different road users to always be so positive, it was far easier to make eye-contact and communicate when we didn’t have to also be concerned with being honked at or squeezed by other cars, which was often the case in the old configuration. It was a lot less stressful, and made it easier for us to enjoy the ride.
These type of lanes aren’t meant for the “road warriors” who are comfortable with, or even enjoy riding in traffic. Our streets should feel safe, inviting for a variety of modes and road users; not just those who are O.K. with braving the status quo. Individuals and families who want to ride their bike shouldn’t have to go through a “braving urban traffic” rite of passage. If you are comfortable riding in traffic, like riding fast, and find yourself incensed at people biking slower than you’d like, you’re welcome to ride with vehicular traffic; we have to share the road with different people, not just different modes.
When I’ve driven down the new design in JFK I’ve definitely found myself driving slower – which is definitely a good thing. The creator of Golden Gate Park, William H. Hall, intentionally designed the roads and pathways in GGP to be curved and winding, in part to discourage horse-and-buggy drivers from speeding (the speed limit for GGP for horses and buggies in the 1880’s was 10mph).
While improved signage for drivers and other tweaks could likely ameliorate some of the issues brought up, ultimately the individuals who parked incorrectly in the picture listed were outliers, that being part of the reason the photo was taken (e.g. they stood out). I will say that poor drainage in the cycle track is something that needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later.
I can understand concerns from drivers having to wait for traffic to pass to safely exit. That being said, in the previous setup drivers still had to look and wait for cyclists riding in the door-zone, so the former configuration wasn’t without concern for drivers entering/exiting their cars. Ultimately, we have a limited amount of space on our public roads and have to prioritize what uses we want to support and emphasize; all setups will have trade-offs.
Furthermore, widening the roadway to try and fit everything, especially in a park, is not a wise course of action. After all, the public space in Golden Gate Park was intended to be, and still is, a recreational area for people; not a speedway, nor a storage space for vehicles.
Thank you Winston Parsons. I couldn’t have said it better. I hope it is read by many.
The other day I saw two drivers trying to figure out how they were supposed to fit down the bike lane!
Moving parking to center is another option. This would probably require installation of some sort of median. But at least it would align the traffic lanes according to vehicle speed.
The current arrangement seems to increase risk to pedestrians of being struck by autos or bikes.