A new San Francisco biking-network proposal encountered fierce opposition Monday night at a community open house in North Beach, with many fearing it could become the next Valencia Street.
“Again, no decisions have been made,” presenter Christine Osorio, the Municipal Transportation Agency’s project manager of the Biking and Rolling Plan, kept reassuring the audience during a 20-minute presentation. Not only that, the project is not going to touch areas of great concern to the locals: Columbus Avenue and Polk Street.
“There are also some complex merchant corridors that we are not going to be able to figure out through this plan in this neighborhood,” she said.
It was standing-room-only in the Joe DiMaggio Playground community room, where about 60 audience members, including about a third from the North Beach neighborhood, inundated Osorio with a slew of skeptical questions about the as-yet-undefined bike lanes.
The SFMTA offered three scenarios with specific street plans aimed at building a safer and more connected citywide biking network. Each had some trade-offs for the community to choose or mix with other ideas.
- Scenario A: Highly protected and separated bike lanes that will include a lot of parking removal; in District 3, the network would be built on Broadway, North Point, Post, Battery and Sansome streets.
- Scenario B: Less parking removal, bike lanes would be painted, and heavy traffic calming, including speed limits of 25 miles per hour, would be enforced. This would affect Larkin, Pacific, Jefferson, and Jackson streets, as well as a few streets around Columbus Avenue.
- Scenario C: No new bike lanes, but heavy traffic-calming zones with speed limits kept to 15 miles per hour in areas around schools. This would mean less citywide connectivity, but also less parking removal.
The three scenarios were developed after more than 100 community discussions across the city over the past 18 months, according to the SFMTA.
The North Beach open house was one of 11 community meetings the transit agency will have over the next two months in each supervisorial district. People are welcome to comment on any neighborhoods.
The SFMTA is hoping to have a specific bike lane plan in the fall. Final approval will come after the SFMTA board vote early next year. When the plan is fully implemented, six to 10 percent of San Francisco streets are expected to have bike facilities. At present, 3 percent of San Francisco’s streets have separated bike lanes.
The north star of the project, expected to be achieved in five years, is to have every San Franciscan within a quarter-mile of a “high quality biking and rolling facility,” according to the SFMTA.
Attacks came from all directions. “Just giving us choices on what we’re supposed to do with Columbus Avenue … is unfair,” said one participant concerned about bike lanes on that street. Osorio reiterated that there are no Columbus Avenue bike lanes in the three proposed scenarios.
Josephine, a retired school teacher who lives in North Beach, said “I’m a big walker. I’m really disappointed by the title. Walk is not included.”
The plan talks about the dangers of driving, but “never talked about educating the rollers and the cyclists; they need to pay attention to laws, too,” said Sammy Zoeller.
It’s “ridiculous” that “you are gonna change everything,” said one audience member.
“Where does the money come from?” asked another.
“You’re a brave soul. You didn’t get the easiest win tonight,” Jay Farber, a North Beach resident, later told Osorio. The meeting — as well as the hodgepodge of grievances — “went as expected,” said the latter.
She might have been prepared by the fallout surrounding the center Valencia bike lane, which was controversial from its outset and was blamed, after its 2023 launch, by small businesses for driving down income.
No matter that data showed that the bike lane wasn’t the reason for slow business, and small businesses actually did better than owners stated. The opposition only grew and, after firmly standing by the center-running bike lane for months, in June the SFMTA opted to move the Valencia route curbside.
Regardless of its actual impact on small businesses, the Valencia center bike lane played a central role in Monday night’s civil, but confrontational, discussions.
“Respect should be done to businesses first, which wasn’t done, apparently, on Valencia Street,” said Marc Bruno, vice president of the District 3 Democratic Club.
Otherwise, it’s best just to “maintain the status quo,” he said. “People, including me — I admit I’m this way — feel like if something works, don’t fix it, don’t break it. We feel North Beach works very well.”
“When the SFMTA came to us for community input,” said Daniel Macchiarini, owner of Macchiarini Creative Design on Grant Avenue in North Beach, “We said, ‘What are you going to do to Columbus Avenue? Are you gonna make it like you did in the Mission? No, thank you. We need our businesses here, vital.’”
“And they actually listened to us,” he said.
“I think it’s legitimate for merchants to have concerns about what happens on their street,” said Viktoriya Wise, SFMTAs’s director of streets.
In addition to the subject matter of the meeting, some participants were disappointed at the structure of the meeting itself, which was co-hosted by North Beach Neighbors. “This is an event that was planned with one neighborhood group to the exclusion of all others with a political motivation in mind,” said Greg Giachino, vice president of Telegraph Hill Dwellers.
Supporters of the Biking and Rolling Plan, though modest in number, did present at the event. “The fear of loss is a lot more motivating than other options,” said Russian Hill resident Danny W., who believes the city should be generally car-free.
Maya Chaffee, an advocate for bikes and public transportation, said people used the Valencia center bike lane as an excuse for a lane that kills business “when, really, it’s not.”
District 3 supervisor candidates seized the opportunity to engage with constituents, with four of six attending, including Danny Sauter, former president of North Beach Neighbors, and Eduard Navarro. Both Sharon Lai, a former SFMTA board member, and Moe Jamil mentioned the need for a holistic transportation planning approach. Lai wanted to see meetings co-hosted with other neighborhood groups, otherwise it’s “potentially siloing and alienating other groups.”
Formerly known as the Active Communities Plan, the Biking and Rolling Plan partners with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and aims to accommodate new residents who would move into the 82,000 new housing units required by the state by 2031. There simply won’t be enough room for all of them to drive, the SFMTA figures.
Meanwhile, the agency found out in a self-sponsored 2023 survey that 29 percent of San Franciscans ride a bike, scooter or other micromobility device weekly, and 80 percent are interested in biking and alternatives. The current biking network has gaps with a mere eight percent of them being protected or separated lanes, according to the SFMTA.
Are we going to let the public decide how to build bridges? Airplanes? Why are we letting people whose goal is to maximize the number of parking spots water down safe infrastructure? The fact we don’t have a connected network of protected bike lanes across the city yet is criminal.
Tumlin himself has come out acknowledging that they’re experimenting on Valencia.
Are we traveling on experimental bridges or in experimental planes? Thought so.
Re: parking. It should be patently clear there is no need for six wheeler truck loading zones that occupy three parking spots every frigging block.
You don’t like all the slow streets and bike lanes?.
Ah yes, design by committee and unfettered public input, this should work out well. This process has never led to any Frankenstein-like designs plagued by concessions that leaves everybody a worse off. Just like the…uh….Valencia St. bike lane. Way to go SFMTA. And just for the record, I support just about all the bike lane upgrades the city has been doing, with the exception of Valencia st of course.
Listening to the public is good.* Giving a veto to people who view their cars as an extension of their bodies, and feel personally attacked by any change that could possibly make it the slightest bit less convenient to drive and park, is not.
*It would’ve improved Valencia! When given the option in a 2019 survey, we overwhelmingly said we wanted side-running protected bike lanes, not the center bikeway.
These are working neighborhood commercial districts that require car access. The urbanist tool of sidewalk widening foreclosed options for delivery vehicles to park in the center lane and consumed enough street width to forcelose the options on separated bike lanes.
I was cycling down Valencia between 14/Duboce a few weeks ago. A family was chatting on the sidewalk by the Greek Orthodox Church. A toddler was swinging around the parking meter, coming close to veering into the bike lane as I approached. Fortunately an adult grabber her to prevent a tragedy. Imagine how curb adjacent bike lanes would function during drinking hours, with peds stepping in and out of a working bike lane.
Simplicity is the key to street safety, not over-engineering. Intuitive street design, unlike the death chute, lowers the gradient to all street users making safe choices.
Urbanists have done enough damage to Valencia by trying to impose their narrow vision of vibrant. Normal human beings would take a moment in humility to assess this failure. Instead, urbanists are doubling down on their hubris, their war on cars, projecting their prejudices onto their neighbors. And that is not very vibrant at all.
“The death chute” – clever. Yes, that’s exactly what it feels like. It’s really a problem that SFMTA are seen as the subject matter experts yet they clearly are making stuff up as they go. Every “solution” they come up with involves so much paint, signage, traffic lights, bollards, random islands, and other junk that if feels like there’s some kind of kick back going on for the purchase and installation of it all. Everything become so cluttered and confusing. This center bike lane debacle was such a poison pill for bike lanes, and that SFBC went along with it speaks to the lack of intelligence in their leadership.
They “went along with it” because they had to fight with small business owners and perpetually aggrieved motorists who believe that unlimited free parking is somehow a constitutional right, and would rather see residents maimed and killed on a regular basis than ever see a single parking spot removed in the name of safety. These compromises are invariably the result of that sort of thing.
I have never seen a city allow a bike lane / parklet combination on a street that had this adverse of an effect. My mind is kind of blown, especially in that firetrucks cannot make 90 degree turns onto/off of Valencia St without using the bike lane area. This should have NEVER been allowed.
“Respect should be done to businesses first”
Business first, cars second, safety last.
More than a decade of Vision Zero interventions have failed to move the needle on pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths. The rebuttable presumption is that more of the same will see similar outcomes.
Sounds like a winning motto: “If at first you don’t succeed, give up.”
The City’s motto 100%
Reading the headline of this article makes me ask is it time to admit that cycling on Valencia is a lost cause ? There is no GOOD solution to safe bike lanes on Valencia.
When we we all (I am a bike rider) accept that we need to look at something like South Van Ness as a safe cycling through way – and quit trying to make Valencia a safe place to ride?
exactly what SFMTA wants you to think.
The previous configuration of bike lanes and 13mph green wave was just fine. Revert to that, get the SFPD and SFMTA to enforce the bike lane and figure out how to accommodate delivery vehicle parking on the numbered streets and we’ll be good.
Catering to the perpetually hysterical single issue zealots fixated on their nemisis the car who fear urban cycling without guard rails is the losing proposition.
The bike lane placing cyclists in between traffic on one side and parking cars with drivers opening their doors to block the lanes on the other side while trying to ride up a hill or speeding down one apparently was not fine. Anyway, why are we still debating Valencia street instead of discussing the new issue of north beach and a bicycling network being a lot more useful than scattered paths?
Can someone please explain why bikers want to bike on Valencia, or any other busy working places in the city with heavy traffic and businesses deliveries? Is it to commute? or is it because they feel entitled to enjoy their own little weekend’s pleasure that brings zero economic value? If it is for pleasure then I am wondering why don’t they go bike around Crissy field or even on JF Kennedy drive that they already took over? Finally, why do they even complain about cycling safety while they bike on pavements, crosswalks, near-missing pedestrians, going through red-lights, zigzagging in and out of their bike lanes relying on car drivers to go out of their way to avoid killing them?
Complaining about cyclists “zigzagging in and out of their bike lanes relying on car drivers to go out of their way to avoid killing them” is hilarious. You mean zigzagging in and out on Valencia like they were _forced_ to in the previous iteration of that street, because cars were constantly illegally parking in the bike lane all day?
And yes, we commute to work, we run errands, and some of us are bringing kids to school or other activities. Sorry, deal.
On top of that, they carry their kids to school biking on dangerous areas? That’s the worse I have heard. I really think biking should be banned until we deal with conscious, civilized, and disciplined bikers. They should learn the code of the road before cycling, like everyone else.
To the extent biking in cities is dangerous, it is for one, and only one, reason: the sociopathy and negligence of drivers. Ban cars, if anything.
so frustrating – people react to the Valencia St. bike lane in exactly the same manner as Midwesterners reacting to a new round-a-bout
Well, roundabouts – the original idea from the UK is to smooth traffic flow. As an example, they got plenty of bypass lanes for (their) left turns. Out here in CA, I’ve seen this only once up in Meyers WB US 50, at the intersection with route 89. Other than that, they’re seemingly implementing roundabouts simply to try aggravate drivers it seems.
This is the best way to start out letting the upper class tell the town how to not serve people who don’t drive everywhere.
Please…the Bicycle coalition controls the city. The rest of us are at their mercy
Because of the fascist Bicycle Coalition, 3 percent of San Francisco’s streets have separated bike lanes. That’s outrageous! What’s next? 4%?? 5%?? We should be able to selfishly drive our large gas guzzling cars without having to care about other people or the environment. The Bicycle Coalition must be stopped before they force us all to make biking easier and safer in this city! *(sarcasm)*
all
cyclists
are
bullies.
if parking is a concern along with increased bicycling infrastructure, is there any way we can see about converting some of the vacant office space buildings into something resembling the automated parking lots that are found in some big cities in japan? probably could only work with some buildings that are able to hold a lot of weight but could it be easier to convert office buildings into parking lots with reinforced structures instead of converting into housing with all the building requirements that come with such conversions? I’m sure people with more knowledge of buildings and conversions could shoot down this idea easily but just trying to think out of the box to improve biking options with more people expected to live here and some still needing to have access to cars (elderly, disabled, customers, etc.)
underground automated parking structures are pretty normal in europe. dig a wide vertical shaft, then install a vending-machine-like device that delivers cars from the surface to parking spaces underground – just drive up, exit, and pay.
North Beach is a pretty scary place to bike, so I welcome any improvements. I hope in a later phase they’ll do something with Columbus Ave, too. Biking on Columbus is pretty essential: not only is it the main street of the neighborhood and the most direct route downtown, it’s also flat, whereas zigzagging around it would involve lots of steep hills.
North Beach is a nightmare for bikes. Absolutely anything would be an improvement. As it is, I’ll head up there once or twice a year to meet someone and then immediately regret biking.
@steve.gifford – I generally go all the way out to Embarcadero and then filter into North Beach from there. Which is absurd.
Yes, there are hills in North Beach, and the damn street network follows the 90 degree grid nonetheless. The one street that does not follow the grid and have a hill is the main thoroughfare through the neighborhood that will never be redesigned to exile cars and favor bicycles nor should it.
Look at mission street its a foolish rule that forced us to turn on army street, no other city in bay area has a foolish rule,made to discourage cruising, ask the businesses, that remain, about foolish rules ,how it affected there bottom line ,the mayor is foolish with the design s to change traffic flow!
I do not believe any statistics the MTA offers that 29% of SF bikes.The MTA I believe is deceptive, and manipulates their surveys and public comments to their own agenda. The just implemented an insane neighborhoodways project on Kirkham and Ortega. The sidewalks are wide enough for people,strollers and wheelchair use.The bike lanes are not used very much.I live here.They make anti car designs without informing the people in the district. I received a postcard about this month’s ago and replied.My email was there.They did not contact anyone I know.Perhaps they only contacted the bike coalition and those who favored their ideas.Our lovely Engardio does not ever inform the residents of any meetings affecting the district. NOT EVER.He has plenty of energy to host Easter on the Great Highway where the sand dunes were being destroyed by people sliding down and climbing up them.The bike coalition has half the members it used to have.Do not forget they get your tax money to support their agenda that you may not agree on.The public was lied to about the bike usage on the Great Highway during the last proposal to close Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway access to seniors,disabled and extended families not able to bike or take public transportation. Do not let public comments sway you.The members of the bike coalition do not have anyone’s interests in mind but their own.
“anti car” is a bit of a stretch. The fact that they need to consider private motor vehicles at all is only a result of 100 years of lobbying. What has been sucking the life out of US cities? What ever happened to “vision zero”? All these engineers at SFMTA have zero knowledge or interest in protecting pedestrian lives.
29% ride a bike? That is odd, considering I generally only count around 7 bikes a day when I am out and most of those are in the Mission. I regularly count bikes and buses when I go out. There are not many of either. A lot more cars. People are driving.
7? you need to get out more! esp during commute times….
The SFMTA should go with Scenario C. They continue to show that they do not understand how to build proper bicycle infrastructure.
Scenario B is a boondoggle that will make no one happy because most of the bicycle stuff is just paint. Paint is not infrastructure and it will never get people to switch from cars or walking to cycling because painted lanes are unsafe lanes. Any plan that is paint only is a non-starter and a waste of money. Class 2 bike lanes (the type of lane represented in Yellow on Scenario B) should be done away with for planning purposes. They offer the illusion of safety and will never make cycling safe and therefore will never see the modal share numbers that transportation agencies want to see. You might as well just throw sharrows down, or even better nothing, because that’s what has honestly been provided. The illusion of safety is not safety.
Scenario A makes more sense if you’re serious about transferring modal share (the type of transportation that people use: cycling, driving, transit, walking) from driving to cycling but it is still very inadequate. Post Street and Columbus Street need fully protected bike lanes from beginning to end with fully protected intersections if you want to get people out of their cars and onto a bike.
Until the SFMTA (and the state of California) learns how to build bike lanes correctly, they should stick with things that benefit the most people and in this case that would be Scenario C. Low car speeds protect all users of a street; whether they are walking, riding a bike, or driving a car. Speed kills and injures everyone, especially children.
If you are too scared to ride with traffic, then urban cycling is just not for you.
Cycling in SF might be scary at times, but it is not particularly dangerous.
Our city is not your play date.
So cycling isn’t particularly dangerous yet you continue with your hyperbolic characterization of the Valencia St bike lanes as the “death chute.” Which is it?
And was the Valencia center lane the creation of these mysterious “urbanists” who are ruining the city with their desire for wide sidewalks and their random projections of prejudice? Do you read what you’ve written before you hit the Post button?
We need bicycle infrastructure that gets everyone on bikes. One shouldn’t need decades of urban biking experience to ride in the City. We know bike lanes are an inconvenience for you Marc – maybe you could just ride in the car lane and leave the bike lanes for those that want them.
Sold my car live off my ebike in hilly sf
https://www.facebook.com/Calibiker/videos/1257072831474949/?app=fbl
It’s not just bike lanes. The agency has p.ssed away any remaining goodwill at a fundamental level. Just a few weeks back, across town, people got on their feet to push back on SFMTA machinations out at West Portal.
One of the mayoral debate candidates said of SFMTA: “They don’t do things with the community. They do things **to** the community. Well said. The North Beach residents should be very concerned.
Can you please share his/her name? This candidate has my vote! We need to stop and reverse this clownish war against cars, reopen Valencia, Market Street, and take back of all those moronic bike lanes for parking and driving.
Nice to know that SFMTA would protect cyclists from heavier, faster motorized vehicles by making space for heavier, faster motorized vehicles in separated bike lanes.
These e-bikes and scooters often go in speeds in excess of 35mph. While it is safer for bicyclists to ride contraflow in parking separated bike lanes, the added speed of the motorized scooters and e-bikes riding contraflow raises the risk into the deadly.
SF should lower speed limits citywide and make it known that those lower speed limits will be vigorously enforced, along with parking violations in bicycle lanes.
false equivalency: Even though ebikes can be dangerous, they are orders of magnitude safer than cars. Not only do they weigh 1/20th or less, their frontal area is 1/10th, and they can’t go as fast. Plus there are no self-driving bikes.
Typical nonsense – there are no scooters going 35 mph in the bike lane. As for e-bikes, bike lanes in CA may only be used by Class 1 and 2 bikes, which don’t engage the motor going over 20 mph. Some other e-bikes do indeed go faster, but they are already forbidden from use in bike lanes under state law, and whether that should be better enforced or not, the SFMTA is not “making space” for them.
You quote the law, but not the truth. All ebike use bike lanes, and if you pedal, look out!
Keep the Great Highway open, and slow streets were already created for bicycles.
Keep it open to pedestrians and bikes. It’s an absolute absurdity that a back-room deal with Breed got it re-opened to cars. Where are you driving to on it? It costs millions to keep sweeping and maintaining that private porkbelly speedway for Seacliff and Outer Richmond billionairs. I’m sick of all the whining from private automobile owners while they go around killing innocent pedestrians and saying they didn’t see them. Get out of your car.
Fascinating to read these comments. I guess I am encouraged by how hotly debated this is because folks seem to be invested in their community.
I love the idea of a bicyclist cabal that runs the city. If anyone knows of a city like that, let me know! I’d love to move there.
Amsterdam, Prague, Paris…please, go.
On a overcast day, both pedestrians like it.
Nature already made its call on the Great Highway – it’ll be permanently buried in sand and unsuitable for cars in a few years no matter what. Give it up.
Sand drifts would mean bikes too. Sand is Enemy #1 for cyclists (leaves are second – thankfully we don’t have that much in SF))
Then dont sweep it when you ban cars