Over four-fifths of likely voters (83 percent) believe that bicycling is good for San Francisco, and that bicycling in the city should be comfortable and attractive to everyone from small children to seniors.

  • For the first time, a majority of San Franciscans (51 percent) report biking occasionally, and 31 percent report riding regularly, meaning a few times a month or more.
  • A supermajority of San Franciscans (72 percent) support restricting private autos on Market Street.
  • Most San Franciscans (56 percent) support dramatically increasing City spending on bike infrastructure from around 0.5 percent to eight percent of the City’s transportation budget.
  • Two-thirds of San Franciscans (66 percent) support building a network of cross-town bike lanes connecting every neighborhood in San Francisco, even at the expense of travel lanes and parking spots.
  • Twice as many San Francisco voters are are likely to ride a bike on unprotected bike lanes (57 percent) than on streets without bike lanes (28 percent). Likely riders jump up to 65 percent on physically protected bike lanes.
  • Most voters (54 percent) would like to bike more frequently than they do presently.
  • With so many people reporting that biking is good for our city, and expressing the desire for better infrastructure and incorporating biking more into their lives, it is no surprise that a supermajority (68 percent) believe that City leaders are not doing enough to encourage biking.

The poll was conducted by David Binder Research, surveying 402 likely voters by cell phone and land line between Saturday, Aug. 20 and Tuesday, Aug. 23, and was commissioned by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. The margin of error is 4.9 percent. Findings include: …
PT: As a past NPA City Councillor, I continue to be amazed that the party has not tried to reposition itself on cycling issues, still aligning itself with whatever group is currently pissed off and dog-whistling to voters that cycling will not be a priority.
That’s most evident with the Park Board on which the NPA holds a majority.  Some of the most controversial projects fall in their jurisdiction – notably Kits Park.  But their indifference extends to other parks that are on the cycling network or are major destinations – especially Jericho and Stanley Parks.  There has been no upgrading of the cycling infrastructure in years – and no indication that there will be any time soon.
The most egregious example: Second Beach in Stanley Park, a major junction for the thousands of cyclists and pedestrians who are deliberately placed in conflict:

The worst case is  the point where the yellow line switches from being a centre line for cyclists to a separation indicator for peds and bikes, without any clear indication of what’s happening.  It’s been this way for years – and apparently no one at Parks cares very much.
And then, of course, there’s this at the entrance to Jericho:
The Park Board couldn’t make a stronger statement, could it?
Ask a representative about their approach, and you’ll here about studies and plans and consultations.  But it’s also clear that there will be no political leadership, and that there is unlikely to be any action, much less a major commitment of resources, any time soon.
Which is odd.  Given the explosive growth in active transportation and the clear benefits, politicians today generally want to align themselves with this movement.  But more than, why would the Park Board continue to maintain an unacceptable status quo as the quality of infrastructure is upgraded all around them?  Their failure to address deficiencies and outstanding conflicts will only become more apparent – and annoying.
Sure, it won’t be easy to deal with unhappy constituents who see paving parkland as an unacceptable and unnecessary intrusion (regardless of the success of the Seaside route through English Bay and the False Creek parks).  But the NPA prides itself on the party that can get things done, and do it in a more balanced way than Vision.
And yet their indifference on this file only illustrates the opposite.


  1. Thank goodness our park board is interested in protecting our green space and taking a measured view. We have the cities ATAC still passing motions to pave Kits Beach Park when there is safe cycling all around the park, so I trust the Park Board will not do that now that it is not controlled by Vision. So yeah, the park board made a strong statement. Good for them.

    1. While the route around the park is fine for experienced cyclists, most parents would not let their younger children ride their even escorted, so it is not all ages and abilities and not as safe as the park route would be. Many don’t consider it safe and won’t use i. If the around the park route is going to be the approved route, then it needs to be protected and buffered, which means that residents are going to have to give up some of their parking or the streets are going to have to become one way.

      1. The route along the streets next to the park would be good if the parked cars are removed and the bike lane protected.

        1. There is just no need to remove the cars. It is really safe to cycle there. I have stopped and asked bikers there and I have never found one who felt it was unsafe in any way. This is just baffling to me that anyone thinks there is an issue to the extent that there is such a great deal of lobbying to fix what is clearly not broken.

        2. Robotboy44, the seaside is an all ages and abilities route. It may be safe for you to take the road, but would you take your 6 year old on it? Many parents take their 6 year olds on the Seaside and to have a gap where they have to go on the road and share it with cars makes no sense.
          The current route directing cyclists to ride through a parking lot also makes no sense.

        3. I disagree Robotboy44. It hasn’t been a good place to bike for decades. The shared path was too narrow even back then now with a higher population it’s time to upgrade it. As to just how is a matter of debate (as we see). Personally I don’t care where the cycle route is located as long as it’s continuous, connects with the pool and the neighbouring cycle routes and that it meet AAA standards.

        4. This is a fundamental difference of opinion between cyclists like myself and many others I know, and advocates who want an absolute bubble of safety in order to protect oft mentioned six year old who would be too afraid to cycle on any road. How did I ever manage to grow up and learn to cycle without a huge network of AAA cycle routes?
          At Kits Beach, you don’t even need to go on the road. There are paths there, some of which are a little narrow, but people use them without issue as long as cyclists take due care, which I suspect a six year old would. The small section right at the beach might require getting off your bike. Is that such a hardship? I don’t think so.
          The problem is that there seems little empathy for other park users in this discussion. It just has to be “perfect” or AAA for cyclists or the route is somehow invalid or a failure of planning. It’s not. It’s a joy to ride right now and by doing nothing, we do not impact the enjoyment of many others at the beach who are not on a bike.
          Interesting also how the young and the elderly are often used as key factors when promoting wide, paved, AAA routes, but not when you want to take away parking spaces for those very same people who may not be able to get to the beach any other way.

        5. Robotboy44 said “Interesting also how the young and the elderly are often used as key factors when promoting wide, paved, AAA routes, but not when you want to take away parking spaces for those very same people who may not be able to get to the beach any other way.”
          We are not trying to take parking away from seniors. They is pay parking beside the beach. Any road parking that would be removed is restricted parking that only permit holders can use during peak periods.
          He also claims the path is good as is. Much of the south side Seaside is getting upgraded due to very high volumes and narrow widths. It makes no sense to have a pinch point through this already narrower than most, that is only going to get worse.

        6. robotboy44 said:
          >How did I ever manage to grow up and learn to cycle without a huge network of AAA >cycle routes?
          Motor traffic has changed in the past twenty years. The vehicles are bigger, have more powerful engines, can accelerate more quickly and there are more of them now. A shared street twenty years ago might have been okay for kids to cycle on is now not.
          The call for separation and traffic calming is a valid response to this situation.

        7. robotboy, the people who bike on the street next to Kits Park now are obviously more or less ok with it. The point is to make the route safe and attractive enough for the people who currently weave their way through everybody walking on the park path. And for the people who avoid biking in the area because the park path is usually too busy to get through and riding on the street along the parked cars is not particularly nice or safe.

  2. Some sections of Market Street (a six lane arterial) that are closer to downtown are now very clearly colour coded. Two centre lanes are painted red and reserved for transit and taxis, the two middle lanes on each side are regular asphalt for single lane car traffic in each direction, and the curb lanes on each side are painted green for bicycles. Quite a change from 6 lanes of cars.

  3. For the most part, my main transportation has been by bicycle including when I worked at Georgetown University in Washington DC. On my bicycle, I could arrive at work in less time than if I drove or took public transportation. Bicycle lanes would have been nice but very few towns have them. And yes, you can ride to work in a dress. Wisconsin hill was hell to climb, but after a couple of weeks I was able to ride all the way up it. I would suggest that bike paths be constructed along all major roadways in every town so bikers can commute safely, and then give everyone who commutes to work by bicycle a tax break or some other incentive. After all, they are doing a lot to preserve our atmosphere at their own risk. Enlarge the argument. Saving the atmosphere is more important than a little green space, but with good bike lanes and bike commuters, both would be protected.

    1. Why give bikes a tax break when they are using the same roads? And you are even suggesting that more investment be paid for to support biking. The problem with putting bike routes on every major road is that it impacts congestion for cars and that is bad for the environment and economy because we need roads to deliver stuff, like even bikes to bike stores.
      In Vancouver, we have numerous beautiful residential roads mere feet from main roads, so why would a cyclist want to ride on a busy road when there are much safer and more pleasant options right there? Furthermore, if there was to be a special lane on a main road, wouldn’t it be better to give that to busses?
      Please don’t forget that about 95% of commuters do not cycle to work as well. While increasing cycling numbers is a very positive thing to look to do, the reality is that far greater numbers do not cycle, so we have to keep that in mind when we consider infrastructure changes to our roads.

      1. Cycling does very little damage to roads as cars do. Most cyclist use the safest routes they can find. Bikes emit no carbon, take up almost no room to park compared to automobiles and buses. Further, they improve health through daily exercise.
        So most people do drive automobiles. My argument was to change that. Any relatively healthy person can ride 6-7 miles in less than 30 minutes and waste no time parking while also doing absolutely nothing other than breathing that may or may not in some small proportion add to global warning, something cars definitely do. You too could ride a bike and perhaps enjoy the stimulation of dodging cars on major stretches that make no room for bikes. By the way, a bike trail need be only one foot wide as long as automobiles respect them.
        I never prevented a car from parking where ever its driver chose to put it. Obviously, you have never attempted commuting by bicycle to work. You should try it. You might find it is just the right form of transportation for you, at least for distances under ten miles. Think of it, you can cycle in your work clothes. I all most always wore dresses and rode my bike to work with only an occasional catching in the chain. You can use the most unused side roads, and when traffic is snarled, you can simply bike around the traffic. While biking your vehicle won’t spew carbon into the air or contribute to our oil shortage or global warning, and if you live in a densely populated city, you never have to fight over parking spaces or pay to park near your work place which can cost upwards of $300.00 depending on what garage you choose to use.
        Now, what virtues do commuters in cars have to offer in the way that bikes do?
        So in reality most people within even two miles from their places of employment could walk.
        The idea of my post was that biking is better for everyone capable of peddling one while cars are bad for nature and all human beings. While the majority of people drive cars when they could walk or bike, they should be discouraged from doing so. If you don’t want to reward cyclists, then create a tax directed at those who unnecessarily stink up our world, crowd roadsides with automobiles and who cause far more accidental deaths by poor driving. Cyclists are usually the victim of automobile accidents rather than the offender who is driving an automobile. Some of the most common and unreported automobile caused accidents occur when car drivers force cyclist off the roads they are entitled to use with the same rights as automobiles.
        Unless you live in a hilly area, you don’t need an expensive 10 speed bike. Get a bike appropriate for your local terrain and try using it to commute. It could even change your life.
        Yes, I would like to make you into a bike convert. The more the healthier. Best wishes and may your car disappoint you when you realize how much better bicycles really are.

        1. This all sounds really great, until you go and apply reality to this plan. While cycling to work is a great thing to do if you want to, the fact is, by far, most people do not wish to do that and they will not. You have to deal with that reality. So many bike routes are virtually empty a whole lot of of the time. Lovely on a summer weekend, but go to PGR on a sunny October morning and there use is really limited. If it’s raining, even less. There is some kind of conspiracy to make the numbers look like they are going up and up, and they are, but up from very little to a bit more is still very much a minority and that is just not going to change in a city with a lot of rain.
          Really great that people do bike and I agree that more should and it’s healthy and all that, but again, that old reality. And by the way, you seem to suggest I don’t bike. I do. I am a casual, but almost every day cyclist. I love to bike and I love the quiet residential streets which are so easy and safe to ride on. I rarely feel the need to use a specific bike route, but I’m not saying they are not useful, just not the vital network we need, as advocates insist.
          PGR is a good example. I even read someone said that they went to the Folk Festival on bike via PGR and “how would I have got there without that bike route?”. I also cycled there, but via 3rd, the designated bike route. It was pretty, quiet and so nice and safe. Why the perception that there was no other east west way to get to Jericho beach??

          1. I’m sorry if I implied that you didn’t bike. I didn’t consider whether you did or didn’t but that more people should. Bikes are a viable mode of transit. I rarely used bike routes because so few existed and in DC I was faster than cars because a large part of my route was through quiet residential streets. Perhaps, you are right that most American’s won’t ever even consider biking to work as many European as well as third world countries do where gas is extremely expensive. When visiting Holland, even soldiers were riding bikes in formation which probably would make them good targets during war time, but still I encourage anyone within a reasonable distance from where they work to get peddling.

  4. On the Jericho entrance to Jericho
    “The Park Board couldn’t make a stronger statement, could it?”
    How politically biased this blog has became to the point of distorting the reality?
    Who is responsible for the missing link: the city or the VPB?
    Regarding Kits Beach Park. Colin and Anonymous are right: the solution is to have a protected bike lane o the street surrounding the park (Arbutus…)…
    almost everyone agree…except Hub, which has spoken against such obvious solution…See more about that here:
    I also remember Vision park commissioners were quick to call name on their opponents: thankfully, they have been thankfully wiped out of the board by the electors: it was amply deserved.
    …but again…we see Vision supporter hell bend at paving green space anywhere they can…
    I agree with robotboy44, it is very fortunate that the board is not controlled by Vision…and the lack of decent bike facility in Kitsilano, is the result of uncompromising attitude coming from Vision and Hub.

    In the meantime, the NPA controlled park board, agreed on the bike lane on the Stanley park causeway, and it seems they will also improve the facility on SE false creek…so thing get done…albeit with public consultation…

    1. I wasn’t suggesting that protected bike lanes are the answer. A safe route through the park makes the most sense, as the rest of the Seaside is through park areas. I suspect the local residents would never stand for removal of parking anyway, so it is really a non-starter.

      1. then you wrote:
        ” it needs to be protected and buffered, which means that residents are going to have to give up some of their parking or the streets are going to have to become one way”
        So you provide a more palatable alternative solution, pretty much like it:
        why speak in the name of the residents, instead to ask their opinion first?
        PS: The west side of Arbutus is “no overnight” parking: That means it is not used by residents, there is no retail too… so this free parking is mainly a nuisance generating traffic, which also impacts negatively the revenue of the VPB

    2. The Park Board agreed to the MoTI construction of the paths along the causeway, but pushed back on the width which resulted in fewer than the MoTI planned passing facilities, and we are now hearing reports of the dangers encountered on the southbound path.
      The Park Board is responsible for the Park Drive exit southbound, and has yet to fix this narrow road to alleviate the risks on the southbound causeway by diverting bike traffic.
      The Park Board has been asked to fix the southbound end of the separated paths which dump onto a busy Georgia street around a blind corner, with no physical separation. The solution is to have bikes exit onto Park Drive, entirely within the Park Board remit, and included in the approved 2012 Stanley Park Cycling Plan, but never implemented, despite the Park Board approving an implementation plan.
      It will be good to see the Park Board get this done. I hope your confidence isn’t misplaced.

    3. Who is responsible for the missing link: the city or the VPB?
      Who’s responsible for the construction and maintenance of trails and paths in Vancouver parks?
      There isn’t a missing link, btw. As the full picture shows:
      The separated bike land becomes a shared path once it enters the park. The “off-ramp” to nowhere is anticipating continuation of a separated path in the park at some time in the future. Which would be good as the current setup goes by the kiosk and is crowded. Nor do you want bicycles going through the busy parking lot.

      1. That gentle angle from the roadside path to the shared gravel path looks far more user-friendly than the sharp right angle turn on the dedicated path alignment.

      1. No, the separated path on the road goes to the path I showed on Google Maps. The there is an option to separate the paths in the future is up to the Parks Board.
        But the option is there.

      2. Yes, the temporary solution should have been to direct the bikes down the roadway and have them join the shared path in a less congested area past the concession building.

      3. First the alignment proposed at the public consultation was this one:
        Second the alignment approved by the city council was this one:
        the staff report (July 23rd council) specifically mentions:
        two-way separated bike lane would be built on the north side of Point Grey Road
        adjacent to new boulevard and the existing sidewalk.
        and while the city council referred to the VPB for implementation of the Kitsilano/Hadden section, it didn’t refer anything to the VPB concerning the Jericho section.
        Third, The city staff didn’t implemented what they have consulted on, and what has been approved by the city council…instead, they worked behind the curtain on an alternative involving the VPB but without any public input, The Vision controlled VPB initially approved this but later rescinded…So the city “bait and switch” didn’t work out as expected
        Bottom line, the city didn’t implement what has been approved by city Hall…and the VPB has nothing to do with that…Move on …why would like rewrite the history?

        1. So basically once again, a good design had to be modified, to the detriment of walking and cycling, so that a few people could park their cars. And it’s across the street from a big parking lot.

        2. Spartikus, the version you present is not the one City Hall has approved,
          here are the meeting minute:(which has been approved at the subsequent meeting)
          It reads:Approve the recommended design for the completion of the Seaside
          Greenway between Jericho Beach Park and Trafalgar Street, including
          making Point Grey Road west of Macdonald Street a local street, as
          described in the Administrative Report dated July 16, 2013, entitled
          “Active Transportation Corridor: Seaside Greenway Completion and York
          Bikeway (Phase 1 of Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation

          This report is this one
          …no trace of your design which has never been presented to the public, no request either of the city to the VPB in regard of a bike lane implementation in the Jericho park…

        3. “no request either of the city to the VPB in regard of a bike lane implementation in the Jericho park…”
          You should ask the City and the Park Board that question. As I recall, when the subsequent detailed design was being done on that western section, the question was where to end the protected bike lane. The City could have taken the bike lane to the end of the street, but some wanted the parking retained. The City could turn into the Park earlier, but wouldn’t agree to do that unless the Park Board agreed to connect that lane. It was delayed for some time while the discussion went on. The fact that they eventually ended the lane earlier and kept the parking suggests that agreement was reached. Now we wait for the associated bike lane to be built.

    4. I have absolutely no stake or interest in Vancouver political parties, but the Park Board’s lack of interest or initiative in cycling is fairly obvious in Stanley Park. The city signs the bike routes and directions to the edge of the park, and the Ministry picks it up along the causeway. In between the two jurisdictions the Park Board has refused for years to even put up a few simple signs to help people find their way through the maze of paths to the causeway and the North Shore.
      Some basic improvements such as painting lines and stencils would also be helpful. Stanley Park has more signage and consideration for 1990s rollerbladers than for people trying to find a reasonably safe bike route to the North Shore.

  5. Maybe a bit off topic but maybe somewhere here in the blog can answer this, does anyone know if the following will actually happen in the next 2 years, especially Granville and cambie bridges:
    This is from the COV website:
    What we propose investing for 2015-2018
    City of today (renewal): $110 million
    City of tomorrow (new): $40 million
    Walking and cycling
    Reconstruct approximately 6 kilometres of sidewalk
    Replacement of about 12 pedestrian-bike signals
    •2 kilometres of new sidewalk
    •260 new and upgraded curb ramps
    •12 new pedestrian-bike signals
    •Pedestrian safety and public realm improvements as part of Downtown Eastside, Marpole, Mount Pleasant, and West End community plans
    •Complete the Comox-Helmcken and Seaside (Point Grey Road) greenways
    •Upgrade the 10th Avenue, Adanac, and Ontario bikeways to all ages and abilities (AAA) guidelines
    •Upgrade and make facilities permanent on Burrard Bridge
    •Temporary improvements on Granville Street and Cambie Street bridges
    Note: Public realm enhancements can be achieved as part of new development

    1. I can’t comment on specifics such as number of curb cuts or km of new sidewalks (no info) but all those more major items are in the works, and have been discussed. The City would have to comment as to specific timelines.

  6. Cycled with my 10 year-old yesterday to Kits Pool – 11 km. We’ve been making that trip since he was 6. Used to take us over an hour. Google maps gives a cycle time of 51 min. Travel time during peak rush hour was 35 min – an average of 19 km/hr – and fun.
    Coming back was an extra 10 min – we walk the hills that are onerous. Taking the car is ostensibly quicker, but factor in parking and walking to the final destination and travel times are similar.
    Transit would have been an hour. The agony and the ecstasy.
    As an aside – there’s a universal opprobrium to “salmoning” – as there should be -when on bike lanes.
    But, growing up in the country, we were taught to walk facing traffic – the canard being, I suppose, that you could leap into a ditch if you saw a motorist veering toward you.
    Extrapolating this to cycling – not on bikeways, but on roads – I think it’s safer. The motorist doesn’t have to crane their neck to see if a bike is coming – and, given the speed of cyclists – they materialize in a second.
    Having been “doored”, that’s my #1 fear, esp. now that so many motorists sit with their engines running while on cellphones. In the blink of an eye, they’re jumping back into the flow, or flinging their doors open when they realize they have some other business to attend to.
    The odds of salmoning being understood and accepted, unfortunately, are nil.
    What I wish at least was understood and accepted is that motoring with a cellphone is like driving with open liquor and should be penalized as such. How many times do you see motorists pulling over suddenly to answer their phones; or sitting in no stop zones. All the time.
    Cellphones should, by law, be turned off while driving; preferably left in the trunk, so there’s no temptation. It will take quite a few deaths before this happens.

    1. There is a big difference between walking facing traffic and cyclists ‘salmoning’. Motorists expect pedestrians to be coming both ways, whereas they aren’t expecting cyclists in both directions, which is why there are some problems with two way separated bicycle facilities, but at least there motorists should expect them. Whereas salmoning cyclists create danger not only to themselves but to others, especially at intersections. When I cycle and I see an oncoming wrong way cyclist, I never know if they are going to go left or right and I have almost been hit by a few.

  7. Park Board does appear to be very cycling negative. Park Board did develop an amazing Stanley Park Cycling Plan in 2012:
    Unfortunately, only a very tiny portion of the plan has been implemented and there does not appear to be any sort of implementation plan. Many tourists look forward to cycling the Seaside Path around Stanley Park and beyond and I am sure that many are disappointed. The Seaside Greenway is being upgraded in areas where the city has jurisdiction, but in areas like Stanley Park, Kits Beach Park and other parks, there is no upgrading happening. One of the worst sections is through Kits Beach and Haddon Parks. Completion of the Seaside Greenway should be a high priority for the Park Board, but unfortunately, very little progress is being made.
    I was chatting to a person from Japan at the Pro Walk/Bike/Place conference and he mentioned that he thought the path was very narrow and dangerous. How many other visitors are similarly disillusioned? This could be a world class walking and cycling experience but now it is an embarrassment to the city.

    1. “One of the worst sections is through Kits Beach and Haddon Parks”. Astounding to me that cycling at Kits Beach could be expressed in this negative way, despite the fact that so many do cycle there and really enjoy it. I could even understand a comment suggesting it would be quite nice if there was a bigger, separated path, but “worst”?
      It’s safe, beautiful and the many people I have stopped and asked agree with me. When we were protesting the potential paving of the park area at Kits, I could not find one cyclist who could see the need or desire for it, and we asked a lot of them. Could it be that some bike advocates are disconnected from what the broader cycling community feel?

      1. I think the reason to have a separate cycling path from the current shared path is mostly for the benefit of people when they walk, for cycling on it it’s mostly just awkward as you try to find a way around people walking.
        Not being up to standard for the volumes that we now have might be was is meant by “worst sections”. I don’t know. Now that the rest has been upgraded it does stick out as inadequate.
        So, you were one of the people protesting? Do you feel that you were lied to?

Leave a Reply

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