Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    roymeo

    “Looking for riders?”

  2.  

    Brad Phillips

    Ron “lifelong Republican” Conway has created a PAC he and his buddies can shovel unlimited cash into to support the right wing leaning candidate in this race – that’s what Republicans do – he just dumped $27,500 to pay for polling for Ms. Christensen.
    As for this post its about a current candidate running for a seat on the BofS – it’s an inherently political article. Its timing and content is a swipe at Peskin. Fair enough, but one must look at the Republican backed opposition to get a full picture.

  3.  

    voltairesmistress

    Promising news! Thanks for reporting on this.

  4.  

    ARRO

    Obviously drivers will appear to ignore these SMART signs when no one knows what they mean….

  5.  

    Andy Chow

    These TNCs only flood the street with more cars looking for riders: more double parking, more stopping on crosswalk and transit stops.

    I am glad that SFMTA has the backbone to protect its services. I am disappointed that some groups, including Transform which I have long supported, is supporting the TNCs (I wonder how much these TNCs have donated to these groups). TNCs business strategy reward tech workers at the expense of transportation workers.

    I am fearful seeing a day where transit agencies cut service and tell riders to take TNCs, or lay off transit workers and tell them to get a car loan and drive for TNCs without bare bone benefits like payroll taxes and workers compensation.

  6.  

    Picky

    End of the day, I rather not be run over by either. So respect the STOP sign and do a complete stop as required by law. Or you can join us and walk instead.

  7.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Is there a reasonable belief that the so-called SMART sign on the freeway will have any benefit?

  8.  

    mx

    “SFMTA Files Legal Challenge Against Lyft Line and UberPOOL; Transit Advocates Defend Them”

    Who do I contact to complain about the use of scarce public transit funds being spent to fight these services (which are intended to reduce the number of cars on the street)?

  9.  

    Marian

    I am hopeful that all these changes to Masonic make it a safer street for everyone. I live on Masonic and I can see all the cars speeding, bike riders on the sidewalks and not slowing down for pedestrians, people jaywalking. It is a very expensive project and I still feel that it favors the bicycle community over all other users. But it will be worth it if it changes peoples habits to make their own rules of the road.

  10.  

    Upright Biker

    Do you know that for a fact or are you just regurgitating what you read on 48hills? I’d be very interested in an incident you witnessed directly or some form of citation apart from the public facts that Lee appointed Christensen and that Conway gave her campaign several hundred dollars that proves either of those assertions.

    By the way, we’re talking about transportation and designing livable cities here, if you didn’t get the gist of the post. The rest of that stuff belongs on SFGate.

  11.  

    lunartree

    Ran into a random lady on the street the other day that honestly didn’t understand how bulb outs could improve crosswalk safety. She was a very nice, friendly person who was open to the idea, but just didn’t see it. A lot of older people seem to just not understand why certain modern safety improvements are a big deal.

  12.  

    bobster1985

    The ARROGANCE of this one woman who thinks she knows better than all the people who have worked on this project for years. Take a hike, lady.

  13.  

    jd_x

    Sounds like car addiction and hence unable to see the world in any way but from behind the windshield. It is truly amazing how we as a society normalize car death and injury as just part of the “cost of doing business” as evidenced by the fact that her own sister was lost to such costs and she still doesn’t recognize the need to change how we design our city streets.

  14.  

    Flatlander

    Seems to be based on the misguided, but (if we’re being charitable) understandable belief that traffic congestion is dangerous.

  15.  

    thielges

    Yeah, this seems like a common anti-bike,ped strategy: fight green with green. It was the basis of that complete waste of time injunction against the SF bike plan. The plaintiff claimed that improving bike infrastructure would cause motorists to circle around longer looking for marking and thus create more pollution. It was a clever but disingenuous approach.

  16.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    “There have been some injuries and some fatalities [but] thousands of cars move safely and smoothly on a daily basis.”

    Wow, just wow. One of those fatalities happened to be her sister, too. Has she ever heard of Vision Zero?

  17.  

    murphstahoe

    I presume Ms Eroy is planning on tearing down her house to replace the trees removed to build it.

  18.  

    roymeo

    So the “Testosterone Crew” is still coming to Critical Mass?

    Nice to know some things stay the same.

  19.  

    gneiss

    The appeal was made in May and the hearing was yesterday. The claim by SFMTA is that they were not delayed by this appeal, but it certainly forced them to slow down their timeline for when the tree removal could take place and spend time evaluating the appeal.

  20.  

    p_chazz

    Separated at birth?

  21.  

    Gills

    Great that the project is moving forward, but by how many months did she slow it down? The entire neighborhood appeals process is broken.

  22.  

    dat

    Maybe she’s stopped taking a medication lately? Has a brain tumor? There could be several explanations for bizarre behaviour as she is displaying.

  23.  

    bike_engineer

    “it’s naive to think that the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project will improve safety” Is the classic horribly misinformed and obtuse San Francisco resident attitude. The whole reason for the project is to improve safety!!! Does this lady not believe in Traffic Engineering?

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    get a car, hippie

  25.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I am a big fan of trees. Big fan. I love old trees, I love large trees, I love tree canopies. I think San Francisco should have double the number of street trees it currently has. But let’s consider what’s been going on this summer in the United States. So far, 8 million acres of forest have burned in wildfires in the western United States, a year-to-date record. 8 million! Each acre holds approximately 700 trees. That means over 5 billion trees have burned in the US this year. 5 billion. And the fires are still burning.

    How does this relate to 49 trees on Masonic in San Francisco? We have no fires here, just drought. But the two are related. It’s pretty clear the fires in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska are much worse than usual due to human-caused climate change. And it is likely our current drought in California is linked to the same cause. (See: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate-change-092914.html)

    But what does the revamp of Masonic and the sacrifice of 49 tree have to do with climate change?

    Cars are the number one source of carbon emissions in California. California is the second largest total carbon emitter in the nation. The US is the second largest total carbon emitter in the world. We can’t get people out of their cars if the only way not to be killed or injured by cars is to be encased in one as much as possible. We must make our streets safe for bicycling and walking or we can’t hope to get people out of their cars for short trips. (Only 20% of all trips made are work commute trips.) The stress and unpleasantness of riding in car traffic is the number one reason more people do not ride bicycles in San Francisco. Separated bike lanes have reduced the stress and danger of biking in cities around the world. European cities with separated bike lanes have a fraction of bicyclist injuries and fatalities that we have in the US and have much higher rates of bicycling. (They also have less pollution and a healthier populace.)

    Trees are renewable. Yes, cutting them down does diminish the neighborhood and the community. But if we don’t do what’s necessary to stop emitting carbon, we are on schedule to kill off billions of people through disease and starvation and destroy hundreds of billions of trees through fires, drought and insect infestation. (Here in San Francisco, we are also on schedule to lose Crissy Field, the zoo, the airport, etc.) Yes, even though we live in one of the wealthiest, most privileged cities in the world, where fires and starvation are unlikely to touch us, we have an ethical obligation to think on a global scale. Yes, the imperative of climate change demands that some sacrifices (old big trees for small new ones) must be made. Yes, even though some people like trees far more than they like humans, anyone who is a friend of trees must also be a friend of redesigning our streets so that walking and biking are as pleasant and safe as possible, as quickly possible. For the trees of the world, if nothing else.

  26.  

    Fultonian

    Why are ‘the poor trees’ coming up so much lately? Why don’t these people care more about the humans dying on our streets?

  27.  

    StrixNoctis .

    Obviously the majority of people are biased against cyclists considering so often when motorists run down cyclists & pedestrians they’re just accepted as common occurrences and aren’t always newsworthy, but when a cyclist breaks a window, the cries for the blood of all cyclists’ in am act of vengeance is heard to the sound of war drums.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnClmU3FhBg

  28.  

    Andy Chow

    Transit should be an element for any plans to improve Hwy 101.

    http://www.bayrailalliance.org/101-transit-corridor

  29.  

    StrixNoctis .

    I’m not a fan of “out with the old, in with the new”, but considering we have way too many terrible drivers colliding with pedestrians, cyclists, fire hydrants, buildings, etc here in SF these days we might as well attempt to alter the landscape to attempt to put a dent in the bad driving problem. It’s not targeting the root of the problem, but it’s better than doing nothing at all.

  30.  

    murphstahoe

    But wait. I was told that due to the critical mass incident in the Marina, the cyclists were losing the PR battle and we would not get the improvements we want. How did the Board of Appeals not get the memo?

  31.  

    MrEricSir

    Funny how self-defense is only described as “violence” when the initial offense was committed with a car rather than a knife or gun.

  32.  

    NoeValleyJim

    I think we will end up with no endorsement.

  33.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Where online can we find out?

  34.  

    Andy Chow

    If the start up goal is to have 1 to 3 vehicles, especially if they are small, it is easier to run it in-house. Small vehicles are relatively inexpensive to own and operate, and once you own it you have total control of the cost and revenue structure. Once you know the market then you can contract out the service that you know will bring in the revenue and move your own vehicles to serve new markets.

    Once you have your own vehicles you will be considered an operator and comply with all the CPUC requirements. You will be free to contract with someone else for all excess needs.

    It just seems that there are a bunch of app-makers want to sell transportation but don’t want to be in the business of running transportation. There are also a bunch of us who own and run transportation that don’t have the know-how or resource to make apps.

  35.  

    BBnet3000

    Gotta love people talking about the souls of trees to defend the auto-dominated status quo. Talk about greenwashing. What a hypocrite.

  36.  

    mx

    Operating the service in-house is tough when you’re a small startup who wants to prove your concept. Contracting out the operation is a good way to get going at first and demonstrate to investors and the public that your idea has legs.

    It was never clear to me why the CPUC nixed Night School. Virtually everyone seems to have thought it was a worthwhile idea. It might not have worked out as a viable business, but that’s their risk to take. Meanwhile Night School contracted with a major, well-respected bus company (a school bus operator to boot, which ought to be more tightly regulated), but got totally screwed by CPUC.

  37.  

    Rain__or__Shine

    Yeah, good point. All you uppity cyclists need to know your place. Only the good little cyclists will be rewarded with basic rights to public roads.

  38.  

    Brad Phillips

    Yes, the Ed Lee and Ron “lifelong Republican” Conway puppet: Julie Christensen is the #1 choice of developers, real estate agents and tech CEOs so yeah thats the way to go!

  39.  

    p_chazz

    Bicyclists just don’t seem to realize they have serious problem with their “optics.” and the Critical Mass incident in the Marina last week which assuredly did not serve to make you any friends. Remember, people who do not ride a bike are still in the majority. Think of that before you ride on the sidewalk, in a crosswalk, or across a crosswalk on a red light to get closer to the intersection. People are watching. People are noticing.

  40.  

    Andy Chow

    I believe Leap owned the buses but may have been operated by another company (which is the same arrangements between public agencies like SamTrans and contract operator).

    If they had intended to operate it in-house, they should’ve fulfilled the CPUC requirements before starting operation, and should have no problem doing so. They should also get a TCP permit which allows them to be hired by someone else and get into party bus business.

    If they planned to use a contractor to operate it, it might have run into the same problem that Night School ran into, which also failed to get full approval from CPUC.

    I have a CPUC PSC and TCP permit so I know what the process is and what it takes. If some guy with a few thousand bucks can get the same permit to carry migrant workers across the state, why can’t a VC backed start up do the same?

  41.  

    Flatlander

    Indeed. I actually stopped reading after I saw that the author was Zelda Bronstein

  42.  

    baklazhan

    It sounds to me like Leap, at least, actually did have its own vehicles and drivers, no? If Leap didn’t own the buses, why were they auctioned off when it closed?

  43.  

    community advocate

    He isn’t even a lawyer!

  44.  

    Nicholas Littlejohn

    I would say because they aren’t HOV all day. Better to convert existing bandwidth to HOV/HOT.

  45.  

    jonobate

    Re: the MTC/ABAG fight… it’s important to note that 48 Hills is approaching the issue from an anti-growth perspective, and casts ABAG as the lesser of two evils because they (apparently) support ‘smart growth’ while the MTC (apparently) is in complete thrall to the building industry. I don’t think there is really an ideological divide between the two agencies; the points of disagreement are minor, and it’s more just a pissing contest over who gets to call the shots.

    The real problem is that MTC and ABAG are bodies whose decision makers are either unelected or directly appointed by individual cities or counties. A better approach would be an elected regional government, similar to the Greater London Authority. Under that regional government would be the MTC, ABAG, BATA, BACA, BAAQMD and all the other Bay Area ‘quangos'; and also a regional transit agency running BART, Caltrain, SMART, GGT. You could even make an argument for replacing the county-level governments with a Bay Area regional government, as the Bay Area is too big for counties to deal with issues such as transportation in isolation from each other.

  46.  

    gneiss

    It is clear from John Schambre’s statement that he is obviously has little interest in street safety, but a lot of vitriol to direct towards ‘cyclists’ as a group. Several of the point he mentions have more to do with streetscape redesigns rather than the safe operation of bicycles. The installation of bike lanes and removal of “precious” auto parking (kind of reminds me of General Jack Ripper) appears to disturbs him as much if not more than whether cyclists adhere to the traffic laws.

    After all, he would like people who ride bikes to need to get a “license” before they operate a bicycle, and wear “rider safety garments”. Maybe we should all be forced to wear vests that have a big “B” printed on them too. That way we can easily be identified from the general public, even when we’re not on our bicycles.

    Captain Sanford should realize that ‘complaints’ that he receives from him and his supporters are nothing more than the rants of some very biased people.

  47.  

    jonobate

    What a ridiculous way to solve that problem. Now it’s just a matter of time before someone driving over the median takes out a pedestrian waiting in the refuge.

    Why not replace the short sign with a taller, sturdier sign? Or maybe even a concrete planter? Something that will protect pedestrians rather than limit the damage to automobiles invading pedestrian space?

  48.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Why is this guy even hanging around? This is just like having Clinton and Bush running for President. We already suffered through Peskin. Give one of the other quarter-million eligible San Franciscans a shot at ruining the city for a change.

  49.  

    Paul Green

    Reasonable folks would agree with your assessment. Bike apologists would not.

  50.  

    94110

    Somehow I can’t get through reading anything about MTC/ABAG without losing interest. Pretty sure they are the best hope we have for a functional Bay Area, but it’s basically impossible to write an interesting article about what they do.

    Also, the Great Highway link is broken. Looks like the correct link is http://richmondsfblog.com/2015/09/02/sfmta-finally-changes-out-battered-median-on-great-highway/