The Fell Street bike lane lie

Like the SF Chronicle, the SF Examiner misleads readers with its biased reporting on City Hall's illegal, opportunistic rush to implement anti-car projects in the city.

The Examiner on the new bike lane on Fell Street next to the Panhandle:

Panhandle pathways may soon be much more conducive to social distancing, thanks to a long-awaited temporary protected bike lane on Fell Street that’s been green-lit after being held up in the permitting process since May. The approximately one-mile bike lane will run directly alongside the Panhandle between Baker Street and Shrader Street. It will reduce the current number of car travel lanes from four to three by shifting the existing parking lane over to occupy the lane closest to the park.

Like the Chronicle reporter, the Examiner evidently didn't go out and actually look at the Panhandle. The length of the Panhandle, from Baker Street to Shrader Street, is nowhere near a mile; it's only seven blocks, at most between a quarter of a mile and a half mile.

The SFMTA calls the new bike lane a "Social Distancing and Safety Project":

This parking protected bikeway will be paint and safe-hit post construction only. Any construction related lane closures will have little to no effect on transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 

There's no regular Muni line on Fell Street, so of course there can be no impact on transit.

I cross the Panhandle on foot several times a week, and the only safety hazard there is faced by pedestrians from cyclists speeding on the path they have long shared with pedestrians.

SF Citizen illustrates the kind of accident caused by a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on the Panhandle path.

The idea that social distancing has been an issue in the area is bullshit, a lie by the city to justify this and many other anti-car projects in the city it's now implementing during the national emergency.

The new West-bound bike lane now provides a choice, and many cyclists are already ignoring the new lane and still using the path they share with pedestrians.

Why cyclists are ignoring the new lane is illustrated by the photo above: it's much narrower than the path shared with pedestrians, which means one slow cyclist will delay all those following, since there's not enough space for the speeding cyclists to easily pass slower cyclists.

Streetsblog inadvertently verifies that reality:

“Thank you @sfmta_muni for the new Panhandle-adjacent parking-protected bike lane! True litmus test: took my 2.5-yo and immediately she asked to go back to the “grassy park” path,” wrote transportation consultant Terra Curtis in a post on social media. “Infra redundancy is important for mobility resilience and expanding access for people of all ages.”

When cyclists like Curtis and her toddler use the new bike path, it will slow down speeders behind them who, when they understand the situation, will then routinely choose the shared path as they cross Baker Street to access the Panhandle.

The "infra redundancy" jargon implies that the new bike path should be used by children, the elderly and other slowpokes so they can stay out of the way of the speeders.

More from the Examiner:

Westbound riders will be protected by plastic posts dividing the bikeway from the street, and eastbound cyclists will continue to share paths within the park’s interior with pedestrians.

"Paths"? We're only talking about one shared path. Cyclists are not allowed on the path on the south side of the Panhandle.

Like the Chronicle and Streetsblog, the Examiner goes to the project's supporters for sound bites, like District 5 Supervisor Preston's office and the Bicycle Coalition. (During his two campaigns for supervisor, Preston spinelessly refused to even take a position on the Masonic Avenue bike project that runs through the middle of his district!)

Also like the Chronicle, Streetsblog cites a horrific accident where a motorist hit a pedestrian crossing the Panhandle. 

In spite of the city's usual safety lies, the new bike lane can't possibly prevent a similar accident.