Room 109 at City College’s Mission Campus was tense Monday night, as an estimated 400 people* crowded in to trade opinions about the proposed Valencia Bikeway Improvements Project.
The gathering was divided into two camps — bike-use advocates in favor of the city’s plans to extend protected cycling lanes at the expense of on-street parking, and small business owners opposing some of those plans. At a rough glance, there seemed to be more of the former.
But while everyone wanted to have his or her say, that wouldn’t happen on this night: The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, whose meeting this was, took only written comments.
There was, in fact, no central meeting.
Thus, conversations more typically conducted at San Francisco meetings via microphones, speakers’ lists, and listening panels of elected or appointed officials were instead held, somewhat uncomfortably, face-to-face in small groups.
“This isn’t a hearing,” grumbled one attendee. Almost everyone in the room appeared to be under strain; heated discussions cropped up often, but without excessive incivility.
In the center of the room were two long tables, each with a detailed map of Valencia Street. Stacks of sticky notes sat ready for people to add their comments and suggestions, which they did. “More protected bike lanes this way,” read one with an arrow. “Finish please ASAP!!!” read another, indicating the intersection at 19th and Valencia.
Around the room’s perimeter, easels held charts and graphs explaining — in great detail — various elements of the planned improvements. They included protected bike lanes, parking and loading changes, left-turn restrictions, 12-Folsom/commuter shuttle stop changes, and pedestrian safety improvements.
The SFMTA also provided a table and chairs for those who wanted to write longer comments, and they saw heavy use.
Holding a sign reading “Valencia Street can be safer without abandoning our businesses,” Bertha Butler sat with a group from St. Mark’s Institutional Baptist Church at Valencia and 19th. “They’re trying to take away our parking,” she said. “We’re old! We can’t do all that walking.”
Chris Sanders and John Davidson, however, wore the yellow t-shirts seen on many at this night’s open house-style event, reading, “Protected Bike Lanes Save Lives.”
“I lived in New York [in 2007] when they added bike lanes on Ninth Street,” Sanders said. “No one used to use that street, and now everybody does. People complained, but business was up.”
Davidson said he had been hit by a car while cycling on Valencia Street, and was extremely concerned about safety. In addition, he thought business owners might consider a slightly different angle than the common idea that cars equal shoppers. “When I go shopping, I go on my bike, “ he said. “If there’s bike access, it makes it easier for me to shop.”
Responding to concerns that bike traffic-heavy districts might not support nightlife, both men described recent entertainment outings on their bikes. “I’ve gone to comedy shows late at night,” Davidson said, while Sanders pointed out that the Alamo Drafthouse theater on Mission has bike parking inside, which makes it especially easy to bike to the movies.
SFMTA officials collected the opposing viewpoints written down tonight and will, in the not-too-distant future, move forward with a plan that pleases some of the event-goers, but not all of them. Or, perhaps, pleases none.
“All comments will be reviewed by project staff and will be entered into the public record,” read written materials disseminated Monday night. “Comments will be considered when a determination is made whether to implement the change. After the hearing, proposals can be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.”
All of that may come as soon as spring.
We have more than 4,000 regular readers – 3,500 read for free. That will kill us. Step up and donate today.
*This is the SFMTA’s own estimate; our initial guess was far lower. But we see no reason the MTA isn’t more accurate.
Agree with John, but then again I’ve been biking in SF long before we had so many bike lanes and am accustomed to co-existing with others. I though folks might be interested in Matier’s article in the Chron today about the demographics of bike lane users.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/One-place-where-white-men-still-reign-supreme-15084274.php
When it comes to exclusivity, one would be hard-pressed to beat San Francisco’s bike lanes, where most regular riders are male, affluent, white “bike bros,” with 1 in 4 making $250,000 or more a year, according to the most recent U.S. census data.
(And yes, I commute to and from work by bike every day. It’s a privilege to be able to do so, and I do not think myself better than any car driver for being able to get around by bike.)
You are better. You aren’t polluting as much.
Hi Heather,
I’ve been riding almost daily in SF since the late 90s, but I still think improving safety for cyclists is a good thing. What do you think will help grow the diversity of cyclists in the City? I know that the cycling population used to be HELLA MORE white, young, and dudely than it is now. I noticed a lot more diversity in the cyclist population after they started opening up JFK on the weekends. Do you think it’s possible that the decisions to make cycling safer and more accessible could actually help to address the diversity problem among cyclists?
Hi Rod,
The “When it comes to exclusivity” is a quote from the article, not a statement from me. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
I think improving safety for cyclists is a good thing, to a point. Cyclist needs must be balanced with the needs of others.
The more the bike coalition wants and gets the more they want growing up in the mission we would ride up and down Valencia st and back then there were less safe guards and we seldom had an accidents and these bicyclists are lying when they say it won’t affect businesses in that area and this is the continual strangulation of San Francisco and not mention the hindering of emergency services and they are always the first to cry when an ambulance doesn’t arrive in time.
Those of you who are trying to put Valencia cyclery out of business by boycotting them should be ashamed of yourselves. This establishment has been in business probably longer than most of you have been alive. None of the business merchants on Valencia are anti-bike or anti-safety they just want to have a say in the project ok
Actually I bike down Valencia often and don’t feel the need for protected bike lanes. The timing of the lights means that bikes and cars go about the same pace. So if you are a patient and defensive rider, there aren’t that many conflicts with cars, even those turning right in front of you. I think the loss of parking will make it even harder for businesses to survive, and they are what make Valencia feel thriving.
I ride down Valencia every day and every day there is an Uber or Lyft driver in the bicycle lane. I got doored by an Uber passenger not that long ago.
It seems to me, most drivers can get past a bicycle without needing a painted line or concrete barrier to guide them. It’s the other three and a half to four percent.
One driver in 40,000 is aiming his car at you with the intent to mow you down.
Anyone in favor of safer bicycle infrastructure should stop buying their bikes from Valencia Cyclery and find someplace else for pizza and beer other than Pi Bar on Valencia.
Those business owners prioritize cars and parking over bicycling safety. Disappointing, but there are plenty of places to buy bikes and lots of places with good beer and (ok) pizza.
If SFMTA is going to take away parking, they should balance it with improved bus service. Biking is great but it’s not accessible to many. How about a public transit system that actually serves our needs?
Exactly. Who needs small locally owned community serving businesses when you can just deploy cancel culture against anyone who does not agree with the urbanist livability project and go online and order stuff to be delivered to our homes, because delivery services and TNCs use magic carpets to get around town, nary an internal combustion cylinder involved.
There are plenty of alternate great bicycle shops, fine ale houses, and excellent (not just ok) pizza places within an easy biking distance of Valencia Cyclery and Pi Bar.
But kudos to you getting your rocks off getting to type “cancel culture” – do use a tissue cleaning up.
If you don’t feel safe bicycling on Valencia as is, then you might be too timid to cycle in the City.
These parking separated bicycle lanes are the latest fashion trend among the cyclist contingent of the urbanist livability cohort.
When will making the SFPD enforce the vehicle code to punish miscreant motorists come into fashion with this crowd?
Most bicycle trips occur on street segments that are off-network. Apparently safety only matters in marquee projects with ribbon cuttings and such.
The urbanist livability crowd has made a mess of SF’s streets, increasing the population by 20% while letting transit decay, and assenting to 45,000 TNCs which further endanger cyclists and snarl transit.
Cycling has become more treacherous over the past decade than it was before there was any bicycle infrastructure, even with these projects.
That is an indication that urban planning supported by the livability urbanists has failed because it was housing at all costs and not comprehensive. Comprehensive planning and sticking to it COSTS money. The Planning Department and MTA are here to MAKE money.