This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Streets Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

it should be noted:

a] vermont street between 20th and 22nd is the other street in sf that's like lombard, but never receives any tourists because it's somewhat off the beaten path. b] vermost is steeper than lombard, but i'm pretty sure that there are even steeper streets, e.g. 22nd street betweeen church and dolores, which has no switchbacks but is one-way downhill and has stairs in place of sidewalks. (on the other hand, i may be confusing degrees with slope percent. 22nd street is said to have a 31% slope while lombard is said in this article to have a 27 degree slope, which corresponds to a 51% slope -- tan(27 degrees) = 0.51. but the article writers may have it wrong, and lombard may have a 27% slope, not a 27 degree slope.

update: i think both may be correct. this page: [1] notes that said 22nd street stretch is indeed the steepest street at 31.5% (actually going from church to vicksburg, which is half-way to dolores; evidently the street gets a bit less steep after that), which is in fact tied with filbert between hyde and leavenworth (also 31.5%). after that is jones between union and filbert (29%), the steepest street you can drive up. evidently the lombard curves themselves aren't as steep as the non-curved streets previously mentioned, even if the hill itself is steeper. (and yes, there are hills even steeper, up to and including a sheer vertical cliff face, but they have only stairways on them, e.g. the bottom 100 steps of the filbert steps, which are some 330 or so all told. another interesting case is driving west on army street through noe valley; past sanchez the road turns sharply up, and your car staggers to the intersection with noe, and if you look around, you can see where the road continues -- 30 or 40 feet directly above you! (with a staircase "conveniently" connecting the two parts. too bad you can't throw your car over your back and just haul it up ...))

Benwing 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw on a blog recently (can't remember where) that the BYOBW race could not be held on Lombard Street in 2008 - I don't know why, or whether it's a permanent thing. 86.136.251.18 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I removed the entire trivia section, explaining why each entry doesn't belong in the edit comment. The fact that none of the entries were sourced, and likely never to become sourced, contributed to their demise. EAE ( Holla!) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I must support, however, the reappearance of the Cosby skit. It's worth seeing on its own, and it is inherently sourced, to the CD named. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason for building the street, the way it was needs to be sourced. The writer explains that the road was built in this way because, its 27% grade was too steep for vehicles to climb, and the 16% grade of the current make-up is more reasonable. However in the next sentence the writer states that Lombard St. is a One Way Street for eastbound, (downhill) traffic only. Knowing this is the case the reason explained for building the street makes no sence. So the reason it was built should be fact checked and sourced.-- Subman758 ( talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It's a single block of Lombard Street that was built this way, probably at a time when cars like Model T's didn't have the horsepower to ascend such a hill. Hence it's downhill-only, and a single lane. The rest of Lombard Street is normal 2-lane. Does that clarify? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It needs to say somthing about the other streets that also claim to have the crookedest street in the world, like Snake Alley in Burlington, Iowa. Or Vermont Street in San Francisco ( Hawkeyefan490 ( talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)) reply

I can not find any part of Lombard Street in either Bullitt (1968) or The Love Bug (1969). Not only does it not feature prominently. It is in neither movie. If I am wrong please cite the time it is shown from the beginning of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AjiSabaki ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

 Removed -- œ ^™ 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply

In the future, when you come across information in a Wikipedia article that you can not verify, in addition to mentioning it on the article's talk page (as you have correctly done) you also have the option of flagging the offending text with the {{ Verify source}} tag, or, if it's potentially harmful or controversial information, you can remove it entirely yourself, stating your reasoning in the edit summary. -- œ ^™ 04:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A number on a U.S. diamond warning sign usually indicates a recommended safe speed (but not necessarily a legal limit) in miles per hour. Hence the 5 on the pictured sign indicates a speed of 5 mph, not the number of switchbacks (there are eight). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.241 ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply

In this edit, I added information about the proposed bill AB-1605 that would create a reservation and toll system on the crooked section of Lombard Street. Considering this bill is proposed, I wonder: What do you think is the best way to write about legislation that has not yet been passed?

My instinct is/was to make clear mention of its "proposed" status and when that changes update the article accordingly. Please tell me if you think there is a better way... Stussll ( talk) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've made it much tighter; the paragraph didn't need the level of detail. "Pending" is how to refer to a bill that's in progress (as opposed to just being talked about.) --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jpgordon: Thank you for your reply and edits. You're right, we probably don't need the toll cost and operating hours ^ _ ^ With this in mind, it seems like there would be value in mentioning the name and the goal of the bill. Considering the edit you made, I assume you think otherwise...I wonder: why is that? I appreciate your thought. Stussll ( talk) 04:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, this suffers from various problems, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. You are literally adding stuff that happened or was reported on today. There is no way to tell whether this is something of lasting significance about Lombard Street, or not. The section starting, "If approved..." is a strong indicator of problems with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I would be inclined to remove almost all of it, until it's clear whether there is anything of lasting importance here. A brief mention might suffice, until then. Mathglot ( talk) 07:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Yup, all that. The bill itself isn't important; the law itself won't be particularly important; the effect will be important, and we'll know about that once the bill is implemented, which will not be even close to immediately. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I cut it back, but not sure if that goes far enough. Mathglot ( talk) 19:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not 100% sure it needs mentioning at all. The nut of the law is that SF is being allowed to create a toll road and to differentiate between residents and non-residents. State law forbids cities from doing either of those. But until something happens, it's all just permission to make proposals that might be implemented. One sentence should cover it: "To reduce congestion, SF is considering requiring reservations and fees." The current change is not quite correct; it says "Bills have been proposed", but (a) have "bills" (plural) been proposed, or just one? and (b) the bill is no longer in the "proposed" stage; it has passed in the legislature, and is awaiting Newsom's signature, which means it is properly referred to as "pending". A "proposed" bill would just be that, proposed; once the bill is presented, it is pending something, pending a committee hearing, pending a house vote, etc. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mathglot: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE...this is the first time I'm coming across these policies – thank you for sharing them and thank you for cleaning up the sentence further. "It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view." from WP:RECENTISM was especially resonant with me in this context.

With the above in mind, @ Jpgordon:, you raise a good question: Does the pending legislation warrant mentioning at all? While the language we use to describe the bill will depend on the outcome of the Governor's decision, IMO, the bill does warrant mentioning considering it directly relates to a core aspect of Lombard Street: tourism and the consequences of it (daily and yearly visitor volume is mentioned the first sentence of the article). With this in mind, "pending" seems like a more appropriate word to use to describe the status of the bill than "proposed" for the reasons you mentioned. These changes are reflected in this edit. Please let me know what you think and thanks y'all for being as thoughtful and thorough as you have with your explanations. This is the first time I'm editing an article of this kind. Stussll ( talk) 22:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I have to agree, that it is not worth mentioning at all. I didn't want to go from a long section to nothing in one bite, wanting to see how others reacted first, but that was my position from the outset, tbh. Now, if there has been constant complaining from neighborhood residents for years about the traffic, AND it has reached the level of being reported on over and over for a period of years in the SF Chronicle or wherever, then sure, mention *that*. But there's no need to mention the bill itself, in my opinion. I endorse Jpgordon's position on that.

Stussll, your comment is appreciated. There's a labyrinth of policies and guidelines out there, and they can be discovered over time, but sticking to the basics is a good starting point, and the other ones derive more or less naturally from that. If you think this is bad, just wait until people start yelling at you, for using a MOS:HYPHEN the wrong way . You're doing fine; keep up the good work! Mathglot ( talk) 22:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mathglot: Your thinking is clear and makes sense – thank you for explaining your position and leaving the space for us to have this conversation. Also, I appreciate your kind words – encouragement like this is helpful ^_^ See you around 👋 Stussll ( talk) 07:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Isn't it better to have a "popular culture" section in the article to mention the films, music videos, video games or books that feature this street? For example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Ant-Man and the Wasp. Aminabzz ( talk) 14:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply