Today’s Headlines

  • Traffic Deaths Grim Numbers (SFChron)
  • A Toll for Lombard Street? (SFChron, SFExaminer)
  • Redfin Ranks SF Best Place to Live Car Free (Curbed)
  • Home SF Plan Proposes Development Flexibility (SFBay)
  • Development for Unused Balboa Reservoir (Socketsite)
  • Millbrae Weighs Development and HSR (DailyJournal)
  • More on Twin Peaks Tunnel Closures (Hoodline, SFBay)
  • More on Polk Street Bike Lane Plans (Hoodline)
  • More on Geary BRT Lawsuit (Hoodline)
  • Work Begins for Novato Bus Hub (MarinIJ)
  • Commentary: Geary BRT Lawsuit is a Bunch of Bull (SFExaminer)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA, national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • gneiss

    The continued insistence by “traffic experts” that driver behavior is responsible for the increase in deaths and serious injuries is both simplistic and insulting to people who are following these issues. The levels of both distracted and drunk driving have been relatively stable for a number of years. What has changed is that more people are driving more miles, which suggests that our streets and roads have always been dangerous. The reduction in the death toll after the 2008 recession had nothing to do with safety initiatives and everything to do with few drivers on the roads.

    Investing in better land use and more transit and active transportation option will do far more to lower the injury and death rates than any PSA campaign or laws to prevent distracted and drunk driving.

  • jonobate

    Why not just close that block of Lombard to private vehicles, residents excepted? Tourists can get there by cable car or tour bus and walk down the street on foot. No need for anyone who doesn’t live there to drive down that block.

  • bobfuss

    But how could you enforce such a ban on non-residents driving through there? Either you would need a permanent manned entrance gate, or some kind of barrier that can be activated by residents only.

    A sign saying “Residents Only” doesn’t work anywhere, let alone at a tourist attraction.

  • xplosneer

    “Previous efforts at reducing traffic, like preventing vehicles altogether, were considered a failure because they turned the road into even more of a party zone. And other ideas, like rerouting traffic or creating loading zones on nearby streets, were rejected by residents.”

    SMH, damned if you do damned if you don’t.

  • gneiss

    The residents on this street won’t be satisfied until there are armed guards and gates, paid for by city taxpayers, on a city owned public street to restrict car access so they can pull out of their driveways whenever they want to.

    The reason why they didn’t like having pedestrian access only, which was tested on weekends over the summer, was that they still couldn’t pull out of their driveways w/o experiencing a delay, and that people were walking down the street, so they couldn’t use the street for their cars as easily.

  • bobfuss

    You raise an interesting point. I can think of a couple of examples where non-residents have to pay to access local streets and roads, aside from toll roads, bridges and tunnels.

    One is the 17 mile drive through Monterrey peninsula. There is a charge to use that public highway, although there are also ways to avoid it if you know them.

    Again, Colonial Williamsburg ostensibly charges people to access its Main Street although, again if you know how, you can get around that and pay nothing.

    It almost seems as if in practice municipalities can gat away with this if the location is touristy enough, which Lombard Street surely is.