Skip to content

Recent Comments





    Yes! Parking accommodations for deliveries.
    Chinatown merchants vigorously promoted to rebuild the Embarcadero Freeway. Their credibility to do what is good for SF & themselves in regards to these issues should be questioned.


    Andy Chow

    On some parts of Stockton where the sidewalk is wider, merchants use the extra width to store some inventories, empty boxes, and garbage. I don’t think the merchants necessarily want wider sidewalks so that people can walk faster, and will probably use whatever extra space for themselves to effectively narrow the sidewalk.

    Completely eliminate the parking lane would be unwise because of the demand for day time deliveries.

    One measure that can improve transit performance is to use low floor buses. Unlike other cities that majority if not all of fleet low floor, all of the buses on Stockton are high floors (since Muni doesn’t have any low floor articulated bus or trolley bus). So the choices are either wait until these high floor buses are replaced (which would be a while for the trolley buses), or realign routes so that low floor buses can be served.



    If you can’t walk down the sidewalk and they are over-crowded with people then they are too narrow for the location by definition. Something is robbing that space from pedestrians. I’ll go look again today and report back, but the merchants take up a 2-5 feet with desired merchandise in ACTIVE USE. Parked car lanes take 8+ feet. Parked cars do relatively little for that area – a single parked car (or that space designed for a parked car) robs the space from hundreds of pedestrians/$hoppers per hour. I’ve lived in Chinatown for a quarter-century, it’s long past-due time to see space for a handful of parked cars to be given back to the very extreme demand of pedestrian traffic. If the sidewalks were wider (and parked cars OUT), more residents of North Beach could walk there too – Induced Demand. And that’s a good thing. If SF can’t make a pedestrian street out of those blocks of Chinatown. Where CAN they? It’s the lowest-hanging fruit. Super crowded, 17% car ownership, etc. In Europe that would have been pedestrianized decades ago. No brainer.


    Mario Tanev

    All-door boarding evaluation is ready:


    - It has decreased boarding times by 38%, and cut the variability of boarding times by a similar amount. The latter makes an impact on reliability – it reduces bunching/gaps and makes it more likely to make it through a transit priority signal.
    - It has increased Muni’s speed, despite overall increase in population, ridership and traffic. Previously, boarding accounted for a larger share of transit trip time, but now it’s mostly time between stops. What will help there is stop optimization, transit only lanes and transit priority.
    - It has decreased fare evasion (because of more fare inspectors and because managing to board without paying is not sufficient to continue to ride free). This all despite the very minimal (relative to industry standards) fare enforcement unit. Those who said that fare evasion will go through the roof were and are absolutely wrong.

    One thing they haven’t touched on is the impact on capacity. Muni is able to handle higher ridership with an ever decreasing fleet because riders don’t have to all cram at the front.

    So a clear, albeit modest win for riders and the agency. It was pushed hard by SFTRU, which also has also pushed hard for BRT, Muni Forward and the recent funding measures. To the cynics, you can see that hard work and dedication, bit by bit can show results. Make sure to support the work of SFTRU by becoming a member at



    Since almost every driver who parks their car in Chinatown has a disabled placard, I don’t see maintaining exclusive blue zone parking on Stockton being a viable solution. Perhaps convert some spots on side streets to blue zone (or pilot blue zone parking meters, should CA law ever change to allow for those).

    There are at least three parking garages and lots in Chinatown. Perhaps the Chinese Chamber of Commerce needs to expand the parking shuttle to weekdays.



    Muni couldn’t build a station and tunnel past North Beach because the federal funds for the CS did not cover those items. It’s much like what VTA is dealing with with the Alum Rock and Santa Clara BART stations.

    MTA is going to release their preliminary study of Phase 3 and 4 in December:





    There needs to be stop consolidation on Chestnut as well. There is absolutely no reason why the 30 or 30X need to stop every single block (except for Steiner eastbound) on the flat-as-a-pancake mile-long stretch from Van Ness to Broderick. The 45 and 41 stop at every other block along Union, even on the hilly part west of Steiner. If they removed half the stops on Chestnut for the 30 and 30X then they could extend the remaining ones to accommodate 90-foot articulated buses.


    Morgan Driver

    Almost every car parked on Stockton St. now has a disabled placard already.


    Andy Chow

    The only exception I would make is to allow auto pick up and drop offs along with disabled parking. If people don’t try to hunt for parking on this street the traffic should flow better.

    Sidewalk on Stockton is actually not that narrow, but a part of the space is used by merchants to put their merchandise. That’s what most grocery stores do.



    Yeah I don’t see how a lot of these changes make it off the drawing board. I mean Stanley Roberts had a segment a year or two back how the SFMTA doesn’t even ticket people in Chinatown. Even if most or all of these changes are implemented how much will it help? Stockton street in Chinatown is a major traffic clusterfuck anyway.

    Honestly a long term solution would be to extend the Central Subway to North Beach and perhaps the Marina in order to move 30/45 riders onto MUNI metro. But there’s no money for that and more importantly no political will. Hell for some reason MUNI couldn’t build a station in North Beach even though the tunnels end right there!

    Then again not much about Bay Area public transportation planning makes sense these days.



    What I’d also like to see are the crosswalks in every direction to allowing walking at the same time. Too many times I’ve been waiting to make a right turn and a stream of people are walking across the parallel crosswalk to the street and then the light changes and the same stream is now blocking a turn again.

    I’d prefer that all crosswalks function at the same time and people then would be able to walk across the intersection at a diagonal as well. It may not reduce the amount of box blocking but would certainly improve pedestrian flow as well as traffic flow.



    Agreed that there shouldn’t be any private parking on Stockton at all. It would make much more sense to eliminate the parking and widen the sidewalks, as it’s super crowded to walk during the day on Stockton in Chinatown.

    Does anyone know why the segment of Chestnut in the Marina isn’t having some of its stops consolidated? There’s no need for the bus to stop every block when it’s flat and the blocks are short.


    Upright Biker

    Ha. That really is where we’re at, isn’t it?

    The difference this time is that A and B won, and L lost big-time. As a resident of NB/Chinatown, I intend on using the ballot box as my primary weapon against the forces of watering-downedness.

    Honestly, should there be any private parking at all on Stockton? Seems to me it should be reserved for deliveries only, and those deliveries should be restricted to hours other than morning and evening rush hours.



    Begin the watering down process now


    Greg Costikyan

    Sounds like a no-brainer.



    Couldn’t they have lowered the parking lot?


    Andy Chow

    It is weird that they didn’t even bother with extending the platform canopy at Coliseum to connect with the OAC. Something along with lines of a fabric canopy should be sufficient.



    The irony is strong with this one



    I don’t recall having to cross 6 lanes of traffic when using the SFO AirTrain. Check back with me on a rainy day when I use BART to the Oakland airport – I might have some more comments after that.



    The reason was the parking lot underneath the station.



    I tried it out. It was weird. You cross about six lanes of traffic to get to the airport.

    Considering that even weirder is that you have to go down an escalator. There is no (obvious) reason the station couldn’t have been at ground level.

    This is at the same time the most advanced and professional project BART has ever done, and the most compromised and half baked.



    It gets you just as close as SFO AirTrain does (for the domestic terminals anyway). Nobody complains about that.

    It really is pretty close to the terminals. It’s just on the other side of the drop-off/pick-up loop right in front of Terminal 1.



    Best quote from “OAC Riders Weigh In” video at minute 1:50: “And then when you get to the airport, you just go down the escalator and walk across the street and you’re there, ready to go.” How does a $500 million line that is built for the exclusive purpose of taking people from BART to the airport not even make it to the f#*$%ing airport?


    Michael Smith

    The current SFMTA description of issues with NextBus predictions is far more accurate than the previous one from a couple of weeks ago. The new blog posting clearly indicates the many operational issues inherent with the system such as vehicles being taken out of service or simply not departing as scheduled that make generating accurate predictions in certain situations extremely difficult.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Shorter SFMTA explanation about why Nextmuni doesn’t work.

    “We suck at driving buses. Our slack-jawed, goldbricking operators can leave the terminal whenever they feel like it, and no computer program can cope with this mode of operation. This will never be fixed because our fundamentally corrupt organization exists to support itself and its future pension obligations. We don’t give two warm poops about riders.”


    Andy Chow

    If the parking demand is great (which I somewhat doubt), there can always be interchange improvements from 101 to the Berryessa station and putting more parking there. There shouldn’t be consideration for further extension at least until the Berryessa portion opens and depend on how commuters react.



    As a transit user, I’m less concerned about whether my trip is 20 minutes vs 18 or 19 minutes. I’m more concerned that I know my trip will consistently be a certain length so I can plan for it. When a trip can vary from 18 minutes to 40 minutes, it becomes very frustrating, which is why I usually walk or bike. I know how long those trips will be. I don’t see signals addressing that issue.



    Keep in mind that four bulb outs can cost more than one signal.


    Aaron Bialick

    Hi Christin,

    I apologize for the misunderstanding and changed the text to reflect this. The statement was that HAMA is “unequivocally opposed to this proposal,” and it was unclear to me which parts exactly, since the measures before the board included the bulb-outs but not the shelters/seating.

    P.S. Hope to attend another Shipwreck soon!



    Dark Soul

    Agreed with parts Stop Signs does not major delays compare to Traffic Lights. TSP or not the traffic lights are one that can cause harm to the streets and traffic jams. (Time to time lights simply break



    This isn’t right. I cross the street with great care and have done for years. I was taught to always look carefully even when I have the right of way because where I am from, I hardly ever had the advantage of cars stopping for me – my hometown was small and only had a couple of sporadic painted crossings, some of which drivers virtually never stopped at and most of the time it was not practical to walk halfway through town in the wrong direction to simply cross the road anyway, so I did cross at places where there were no official crossings (not jaywalking under my region’s law as I was far enough from an official crossing for that offence not to apply) and I learned where and when it was safe to do that and if conditions were unfavourable, I would wait or relocate myself.

    However since moving to the city, I have had a number of close calls, despite my level of care (which is much higher than others’). The idea that it is assumed that I am partially to blame for inattentiveness if I actually did get hit is ludicrous. I am not the one breaking the law (I don’t think that I have jaywalked once, technically, since moving – if I can wait, I wait, I’m really not so important that I can’t wait the less than 30s for the light to change. Now I won’t rule out jaywalking in the future – if there was an emergency for example -, but I’d do it safely, I know how). In fact, I go above and beyond the law to protect myself from unreasonable and dangerous people who are, for reasons passing understanding, permitted to operate vehicles in a way that is a menace.

    But yeah, assume I am a moron who walks around texting and walking into shit and that’s why I (hypothetically) got hit by a car. One of those close calls was really close you know. Woman just blew right through a stop sign and I was already in the road at a four way stop no traffic moving toward me when I started crossing (the vehicle in front of her was making a left and she obviously did not stop at the sign or look to see if anyone or anything was in the road, she just went as soon as that vehicle was out of her way). Seriously. I could have had serious injuries from that, or even died if I hadn’t heard it coming. What if I was hard of hearing, huh?


    Christin Evans

    Aaron, a customer just alerted me to this post which misrepresents my position and that position of the Haight Ashbury Merchants Association (HAMA).

    I’m referring to this sentence in particular,… “Christin Evans, owner of Booksmith and a board member of the Haight-Ashbury Merchants Association, said the organization “unequivocally” opposes the parking removals and the addition of transit shelters.”

    This is not accurate. HAMA has not taken a position on parking loss, as the merchants are divided on this topic. If there are improvements to the corridor that require loss of parking spots, there is some interest to give up a
    limited amount of parking for thoughtful designs to add pedestrian level
    lighting, permeable paving and greenery (as were supported by the over 200 community members who were involved in the public realm planning process an completed the planning department’s survey).

    What is accurate is that HAMA and the community have opposed the addition of the standard bus shelters with seating. The survey revealed a clear majority of community members who opposed adding seating of any kind to Haight street. If seating were added, the most popular option was planter edge ‘informal’ seating (photos were included in the survey), several other types of seating were shown in the survey and they were all rejected by survey respondents.

    Merchants who attended the meeting have been in discussions with SFMTA planners since about alternatives to the traditional bus shelters for the Haight as there have been numerous problems & complaints according to the police Captainon and the neighbors to the transit shelters in front of McDonald’s and at the intersection of Masonic & Haight.

    Frankly I was shocked to hear the SFMTA plan represented as an output of the public realm process. We started that process 3 years ago with Alexis Smith and the topic of bus shelters and transit bulb outs never appeared on the visual depictions shared by planning. I think this is a case where SFMTA planners showed up late to the party, didn’t listen to the input from the community being given, and layered their cookie cutter designs down on top of Haight street. You might say it’s been frustrating, in the least, that one city
    department is leading us through a process now over three years in the
    making, collecting community input, and then turning around with another
    department and riding roughshod over that input.

    Also I’ll add on a personal note that everyone who works at the Booksmith uses transit, walks or bikes to work. So we are in support of efforts to improve the bus times, but not at any cost.



    Speeding up transit is part of the “carrot” approach to encourage transit usage. The SFMTA is decried by some for an allegedly punitive (or “stick”) approach to transportation (ie. parking meter installation, high fines for parking violations). Now, the SFMTA is attempting to reward and encourage transit usage and, again, they’re met with opposition.

    With current transit ridership along this corridor, it seems unreasonable to expect that some of the buses should be diverted off Haight Street (this would result in reduced service for Haight Street). The MTA held hearings and encouraged public input. Questioning the merits of some of the proposed changes seems reasonable, but isn’t it now time to move forward for the sake of all current and future Muni riders?


    Leon Foonman

    If people would just paint their concreted-in front yards with green paint, like they do in the outer Sunset, then it would solve the problem. People can continue to hide in their Fabulously Remodeled Homes with Fully Developed, Un-permitted second units (AirBnB!). It will be great, with NO Zoning Laws to prevent multiple units and dozens of people crammed in to one home, we can have more cars, parked on the green concrete. When the dozens of people get in their cars to drive around other neighborhoods, then the rest of us can enjoy the beautiful green concrete and cemented in yards, without those dirty trees and other useless shrubs.
    Remember, every tree is just another Lost Parking Place that you could put your BMW in, the one you pay those 500 a month lease payments on.


    Leon Foonman

    You are an eeejit.



    When it comes to the bus shelters for the new Van Ness Ave BRT. Rather than that “wavy” design, which is being implemented as old bus shelters are being replaced, they should have a modern canopy design like many modern BRT systems. Picture the current design at the present day West Portal Muni Station, it’s a canopy design, why not take that idea and shrink so it will fit, and use that as a way to provide weather protection for passengers?? This is how it should be done, it would make the stops look sleek, clean and modern like the average modern BRT Stop/station.


    sebra leaves

    As a driver and pedestrian, I prefer stop signs. The flow of traffic is always smoother and everyone’s wait is shorter at stop signs than at traffic signals. There must be a contractor who wants to sell a lot of traffic signals because there is no reason to put them where they are not wanted. Supervisor Breed should stop the signals.



    Thank you, Michael Smith. Clearly 6 of the intersections may not warrant the expense of a stop light. as no time will be saved And thank youJerry Lee and Gwyneth Borden, for asking for a fuller review.



    Sure looks like a charmer with good potential


    Bob Gunderson

    Great to see the merchants taking a stand by putting their needs above the safety and wellbeing of the people who shop at their stores. Stay strong, merchants!


    Bob Gunderson

    there could be 4 parked cars there *tear


    Jamison Wieser

    Haight Street had already been identified as a high-capacity/high-frequency corridor and the trips are not only from the sunset to downtown. It also differs by time and day: work, coffee, dinner, and errands are likely not all at the same stop downtown.

    It’s those heavily walked businesses people are riding the bus to get to. For faster service there’s the 71L, still hitting key points in each neighborhood it passes through. Those often align with transfer points to other lines.



    The people trying to get across town quickly, and the people going through busy corridors for errands, entertainment, etc. shouldn’t be put all on the same bus on the same street.

    And it seems problematic to me to assume that speed is inherently equivalent to efficiency and benefit, when people move for a wide variety of reasons. Isn’t that the same logic that created “level of service?”



    Busy streets with pedestrians and businesses are the places where you see high transit ridership, as is the case for the 71. It’s important to speed up transit on those streets as doing so will benefit the most people.



    Let’s add “traffic sewer” to the list of overused phrases in San Francisco (vibrant is another of the worst). Use of these hate and advocacy terms polarize any discussion from the start and inhibit real discussion that could lead to understanding and compromise.



    Faster buses should run down faster corridors, not busy streets with pedestrians and businesses.

    And nobody those 18 seconds when they’re the ones running for the bus…



    An increase in Muni’s speed is welcome to all transit riders, especially residents of the Sunset district that rely on the 71 bus to get them downtown and elsewhere. And since we all contribute financially to Muni’s operation (and we all benefit from its utilization), it’s in our collective interest to have Muni’s buses operating quickly and efficiently on the streets of San Francisco.



    Objections to new transit shelters at Haight Street bus stops appear to not be grounded in reality. Our family regularly uses Haight Street stops (especially those at Stanyan – each of which has a shelter). Never have any of us observed any illegal or unsavory activity at one of these shelters. Needless to say, such activity may occur in fairly close proximity but this has nothing to do with a bus shelter. It’s the general location. Drug dealing and drinking both occur regularly along upper Haight Street and at the Stanyan Street entrance to Golden Gate Park but not at the transit shelters at Stanyan. Due to a few bad apples, must we really force disabled passengers and others to stand as they wait at upper Haight Muni stops that lack any seating? Should all transit riders be punished due to the actions of a few?