Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Gezellig

    Yup! Similarly GGT bus fares should be cheaper as all those riders are saving a lot of capacity for private cars:

    https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6440857817_a1f5423c45.jpg

    And despite the huge capacity advantages of a bus each rider still pays *more*. For example, the commute-hour 70 is on a daily basis close to or at its capacity of 40 riders across the bridge, and 3 bikes on front is common. Yet the minimum each rider pays is $4 each way ($5 cash or $4 w/ Clipper) for $8 minimum roundtrip every day. Of course many riders pay even more depending on their farezone.

    So, doing some rough math, a GGT vehicle that is only 40 feet long (barely twice the length of a full-size sedan) with up to 40 riders both ways and takes up to 40 individual cars off the bridge is “rewarded” for its effort by in effect having a $320 toll (40×8) or more.

    Pretty whack.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    It is fairly easy to read your original comment as a justification for the discrepancy of a toll vs. ferry cost.

    In my opinion the Ferry should be cheaper as ferry riders save us so much money on the back end – reduced wear on US 101, the bridge, Lombard, etc… Reducing congestion on those streets costing the local economy in lost worker productivity. Reducing the need for parking on the SF end, allowing us to use that land for far more useful and lucrative purposes. Etc…

  3.  

    phoca2004

    That KTVU segment repeats the disinforming phrase “pedestrian accidents” when in fact they are “drivers colliding with pedestrians”. Beyond that the emphasis on whether the fellow who died was in or out of the crosswalk is sickening. The language suggests victim blaming. Why does SF have so many suburban-mentality news outlets?

  4.  

    SF Guest

    CamBam415 stated: “but driving [from Larkspur to SF] only costs $5-$6?!” The thought must not have occurred to you if the bridge toll was lower the ferry prices would have to be more competitive as well.

    You’re very slick when it comes to twisting words around:

    “It is totally irrelevant to include a private vehicles charges (gas, insurance, etc.) in the calculation of how much the GGB Authority should be charging for car tolls.”

    The comparison made was not about how much the GGB Authority should charge for bridge tolls but how much it costs to drive from Larkspur to SF in a motor vehicle vs. taking a ferry.

  5.  

    gneiss

    It is totally irrelevant to include a private vehicles charges (gas, insurance, etc.) in the calculation of how much the GGB Authority should be charging for car tolls. Just because you aren’t riding a ferry doesn’t mean we need to subsidize your gas purchases. Again, read what the above comment is saying – ferry and bus fares have been increasing at rates far faster than bridge tolls in recent years. That’s the real inequality here.

  6.  

    gneiss

    Every few years, the GGB Authority trots out the idea that they should be charging people for walking and biking across the bridge to generate revenue as if this would somehow be a significant amount or be more ‘fair’ to other users of the bridge (i.e. car drivers). This is a crock. It would neither raise significant revenue, nor is it fair. The only reason they say this is to throw a bone to car drivers who feel like they are getting ‘soaked’ for more money whenever they raise the tolls.

    What they should do is change the conversation away from ‘revenue’ and towards ‘congestion’. What they should be managing with their tolls is congestion on the bridge. That’s why we have Golden Gate Transit, the ferries, and bicycle and walking access, and why they are all subsidized by bridge tolls. What they should really look at, is changing the toll structure so that they are charging more during morning commute times until they get congestion down to a more acceptable level. And on that metric, it makes absolutely no sense to charge bicyclists and walkers.

  7.  

    SF Guest

    Correction: Golden Gate Bridge toll = $7, $6 FasTrak. And when comparing a $7 bridge toll to a $13-$14 ferry ride from Larkspur that doesn’t include the motor vehicle’s gas or operating costs to get from Larkspur to SF.

  8.  

    94110

    “The intersection at 43rd has crosswalks but no signal. Police said it appeared Van Velzen was not in a crosswalk when he was hit”. Isn’t it San Francisco law that if there isn’t a signalized intersection and both ends of a stretch of road, it’s legal to cross anywhere?

    I’m a little confused by how this works. Someone posted a diagram previously but it didn’t include info on whether smaller streets, or three way intersections count.

  9.  

    CamBam415

    Full disclosure: I bike commute over the bridge regularly and don’t to see any fees charged.

    I think charging people to walk/bike on the bridge is a slippery slope. It might start with tourists, but spiral from there. We as a society should be encouraging green & healthy commute options, not discouraging them. I haven’t seen the 33 or so revenue proposals, but I really hope they plan to charge for parking in the bridge parking lots as 1) those lots are mess 2) it targets tourists and 3) it doesn’t open the door to charging for bike commuters. In general, I’d like to see increased bridge tolls for cars and put that towards better public transit infrastructure (tolls in NYC are significantly higher than here for example). By comparison, ferry prices have increased significantly faster than tolls for cars (ferry prices have more than doubled while car tolls have gone up $1-2 in the last 7-10 years)… and ferry passengers have to pay round trip while cars just pay for one direction! $13-$14 r/t from Larkspur BY ferry, but driving only costs $5-$6?!

    And before the bridge looks at raising revenue, I really wish the bridge district would re-examine their cost structure, particularly as it relates to management salaries (as they have rightfully started to target union employees benefits/pension plans already).

    As for capacity, 1) they don’t even open the west/bike side 24 hrs a day (wish they would) 2) access from the West side to Alexander Ave (not the GG Bridge district issue) is tough for the casual rider and 3) signage/striping has been somewhat effective on the east side of the bridge to separate pedestrians/bikes, I wonder if the west side could have something similar for directionality and/or where to stop for pictures (hint: use the bays/overlooks not the middle of the path!).

  10.  

    voltairesmistress

    Does anyone have thoughts about the renewed proposal to charge a fee to walk or bike on the Golden Gate Bridge? I have been against charging people who cross the bridge while commuting, but now I see how crowded it gets and am wondering if we need to manage that somehow. I question whether tourists would mind paying a dollar, but regular riders would end up with a real loss of income, and this seems counter to the whole spirit of biking to work.

  11.  

    Liz Brisson

    Sloat used to have streetcars on it http://www.outsidelands.org/sunset_streetcars.php

  12.  

    Flubert

    I think the problem would be if you decided to fight the ticket, because at that distance there would be reasonable doubt that the ID was correct. Tickets written like that are more likely to be waived if contested.

    In practice the general rule seems to be that if you move your vehicle before he writes the ticket, then you get away with it.

  13.  

    SF Guest

    In your case scenario the PCO didn’t have the option to write your VIN since you were leaving the scene; however, it’s my understanding standard protocol requires PCOs to write your VIN. I just received an expired meter ticket in Oakland at a site I never visited, and there’s no chance someone else used my vehicle that day so checking your VIN helps to avoid mistakes like this one.

  14.  

    Bruce

    I put together my own South SF station design in my free time: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z-YXd8hgR0hE.kkRVEfQe6wns. I’m pleased to see the city’s plans are almost identical to my vision.

  15.  

    Chris J.

    In the story about the Uber driver, the police say they couldn’t do anything because it was her word against the driver’s. Is this another difference between Uber and taxis? I seem to remember most (perhaps all?) taxis having video cameras pointed inside the car.

  16.  

    Bruce

    Most of the drivers in the PBB segment were turning off of Milton and then onto St. Mary’s. Circling for parking? Also, at least one of them was an Uber.

  17.  

    voltairesmistress

    Not true. I once got a ticket in the mail for being in a taxi only curb area picking up my wife from work, even though I drove away when I saw the PCO coming down the street about 30+ yards away. Sharp eyes, that one.

  18.  

    Joel

    A signal was recently installed at 47th Ave. Not sure if it’s working yet.

  19.  

    p_chazz

    Wow, I had no idea Sloat went back that far! I remember seeing it on a 1915 guide for PPIE visitors showing pleasant drives in San Francisco, so I figured Sloat was developed around that time, but it had already been in existence for 40-50 years. Thanks for the history lesson!

  20.  

    Bacon

    seriously why narrow the road if cars are moved to the curb edge bikes will still be 3 feet or less from cars… why does someone have to die to design the street in a safe manner for ALL? this happens way too frequently with proposed redesign. seems like a monthly occurence with adding lights or modifying roads due to fatalities.

  21.  

    shotwellian

    Sloat was originally called Ocean House Road and was the first road out to southwest SF, when the area had a race track and a scattering of roadhouses. Foundsf has some great photos (http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Lake_Merced_100_years_ago) one of which notes that what’s now Sloat was 60′ wide in 1872.

  22.  

    Easy

    Yup. We always make a trip to the beach on the way from the L to the zoo to avoid crossing Sloat. But it’s a pain to do that in both directions, and of course you should never have to do that.

  23.  

    Allen

    Hi todos, I am a U.S. American now living in quito for 1.5 years now. I would love to join in with a nice bicycling group to ride the city of Quito and who know where else. Ecuador is such a beautiful country

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    It sucks. I would spend 20 minutes convincing my wife we should take the 48 to the L to go to the zoo. No problem there. But crossing Sloat to the zoo with a toddler was flat out scary.

  25.  

    peternatural

    In the absence of cross traffic, the probabilities are rather high in both cases ;)

  26.  

    danbrotherston

    The owners of the slips should propose such a thing, instead of obstructing the current plan with no alternative. So often I see objections to a solution ignore the original problem. If they have a better solution, that’s excellent, if you wish to pretend that the original problem isn’t a problem or is less of a problem than is caused by the solution, you either need to justify that or you’re not worth listening to.

  27.  

    NoeValleyJim

    I recently read a UC Berkeley study that showed that cars are more likely to roll through stop signs than bicycles. Now I cannot find it. Can anyone here help point me to it?

  28.  

    p_chazz

    See emmceeski’s comment that is heartily endorsed by Upright Biker.

  29.  

    p_chazz

    Sloat was laid out at the beginning of the Automobile Age, as part of a system of scenic drives including Great Highway, Portola and Skyline Blvd. at a time when going for Sunday drives was the thing. I believe it was around the time of the Pan Pacific International Exhibition in 1915.

  30.  

    timsmith

    Is the ATCS system (running OS/2) finally being phased out? This has been discussed for years, but information online is contradictory about the current state of the project.

  31.  

    Bruce

    I’ve always wondered that. A mile or two east, Junipero Serra was originally planned to become the “Western Freeway” but I’m not aware of any plans for Sloat. Perhaps it was designed to whisk drivers to the planned freeway, much like Army’s widening?

  32.  

    Bruce

    Centuries hence our great-great-grandchildren will visit the War on Cars Memorial. Gazing with a heavy heart upon the wall enumerating the scores of the fallen brave Grand Cherokees and Miatas, they will think to themselves, “thank God those cars fought for my freedoms so that I didn’t have to.”

  33.  

    MrEricSir

    Why did they make Sloat so wide in the first place? Was it supposed to go somewhere besides the zoo?

  34.  

    tungwaiyip

    Are you kidding me? I thought OS/2 was end of life long time ago.

    I bet it cost less time and money to rebuild the software than to pay the contractors to maintain the dinosaur software.

  35.  

    Joel

    Maybe there are too many driveways on the north side of Sloat, but why-oh-why isn’t SPUR proposing the south side have a parking protected bike lane (or a two way protected cycle track?)

  36.  

    Bob Gunderson

    The war on cars continues! With… err…. cars.

  37.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Go on – what are the others?

  38.  

    SF Guest

    Removing 51 underused parking spots in SF that would help save 1000′s – where? where?

  39.  

    SF Guest

    To my knowledge it’s not possible for a PCO to write a parking ticket without standing up to check the vehicle ID No. It would also make it difficult to check for handicapped placards in use.

  40.  

    p_chazz

    Your logical fallacy is False Dilemma! Presenting only two possible outcomes when other possibilities exist!

  41.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Is The Safety of Thousands of People Every Day Worth Removing 51 Underused Parking Spots? Such a tough decision

  42.  

    Steve

    No. Traffic turning left from both directions on Haight onto Octavia simply have no room to turn. Often there is only room 1 or 2 cars from each side, so instead of sitting there forever, most people stick out into the intersection. This wasn’t a problem before, but now there is a bus trying to cross the intersection filled with cars.

  43.  

    roymeo

    That’s 4155531200,,,,,1,,7 if you’re ATDT.

  44.  

    Andy Chow

    I could say the same thing regarding the conversion process, your 2 low, 2 high door solution, etc.

    If you’re willing to go way out of your way to advocate a full height platform at every Caltrain station that is not wanted, you might as well challenge every operating assumption that you said is limiting capacity (but somehow same level height would resolve, while neglecting other aspects of operation that HSR and Caltrain may want dedicated platforms). That has to be done regardless whether there will be a common platform height or whether there will be dedicated platforms.

    I think there are opportunities to plan for a Transbay terminal that has very high capacity and a very compatible terminal (even if there’s no agreement on platform height).

    What is not a solution is something that would inflict unnecessary problems on peninsula communities. Keep the solutions for Transbay at Transbay.

  45.  

    Idrather Bebikin

    This is coming to the full San Jose City Council on Tues, Oct. 28th.

    Who will come to protest?

    Who will come to protest that Mayoral Candidate Sam Liccardo got all excited at the possibilities of SJ Police being able to stop people ONLY because they were biking on sidewalks. Then they could be asked questions.

    Does this scare the Hell out of anyone?
    Haven’t we learned anything about unreasonable and illegal PROFILING?!?

  46.  

    RoyTT

    SFGuest, I feel sure that a majority would prefer PCO’s managing traffic and improving throughput rather than handing out tickets for oftentimes spurious and technical parking infringements.

    But directing and controlling traffic doesn’t bring in revenue while issuing citations does. So don’t expect any change. I’ve seen no evidence that SFMTA will stop trying to be a profit center nor stop externalizing their costs onto citizens.

  47.  

    Lysander Spooner

    Buses are obsolete. Rail for long-haul and self-driving taxis for the last mile is the future.

  48.  

    Upright Biker

    That’s really the sensible compromise here. On either side of the stop sign and the crosswalk, put in a half-dozen 1-hour, permit-only spaces so boat owners can load and unload their gear — which is a legitimate need — and then they can go and park in the lot if they are there for the day.

    Those stretches of sidewalk are not really used anyway, as people walking and riding tend to veer towards the marina to avoid the sign post and the ramp.

    [edit] Although if my dreams were to really come true, what I’d love to see is the train tracks resurrected and have the trolleys come through the tunnel to Ft. Mason and then down into the Presidio!

  49.  

    emceeski

    I have a boat in the marina. I also walk and bike on that path.

    Why can’t we dig up the old train tracks and put a soft curb with parallel parking along the street? It would remove the car travel lane and make room for both cars and pedestrians.

  50.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    Remove all parking east of the median on Marina Blvd. Especially the large parking lot along the shoreline. The only vehicles that should be allowed to drive west of the northbound lanes of Marina Blvd are official government vehicles, and registered vehicles from Marina boat owners for purposes of loading and unloading only (with the hazard lights blinking). Otherwise, a complete ban on motor vehicles.