Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    davistrain

    Regarding “Integrate Housing and Transit” (from the Examiner): One of the commenters on that op-ed item, who goes by the name “ww” recommended filling a vacant warehouse with bunk beds, which certainly would provide minimal shelter, but in an environment that made me think of World War II Army barracks. It seems to me that the typical American would have to be in dire straits before bunking down in one of these abodes. Apparently “ww” looks upon “privacy” as an optional extra,

  2.  

    Corvus Corax

    Don’t feed the troll.

  3.  

    RichLL

    So why would you explicitly want to constrict capacity unless you were on some kind of war on moving around?

  4.  

    RichLL

    Your desire to suppress opinions that you personally disagree with you is deeply disturbing, and probably explains why you will personally never have much decision-making power or ability.

  5.  

    RichLL

    So why do you keep responding to me then?

    And why does a different opinion scare you so much?

  6.  

    murphstahoe

    true this, but if nobody will play with him, he would likely be out of that section shortly.

  7.  

    Rob

    that is good advice but it doesn’t filter in the http://sf.streetsblog.org/comments section. I miss newsgroups, slrn and score files.

  8.  

    murphstahoe

    If he who would not be named is not banned yet, he won’t be. Just block him and let him wither.

  9.  

    murphstahoe

    The roadway widened to 8 lanes because of the toll collection time. No toll collection, no need to widen the roadway. They should narrow it when they put the gantry in – QED

  10.  

    RichLL

    OK, so you cannot answer the question posed, and instead thought you’d be insulting?

    And why this obsession with banning people who ask difficult questions?

  11.  

    RichLL

    Presumably if you could refute my logic then you would? Rather than, say, throwing out cheap snide innuendo?

    But hey, let’s hear your idea. How do we protect cyclists from turning traffic? This should be good.

  12.  

    Rob

    mostly just ban you and your trolling. how about you watch the video about what a protected intersection is before you make your next post as from this one it is obvious you are clueless.

  13.  

    twinpeaks_sf

    Traffic engineering 101 by RichLL.

  14.  

    RichLL

    “It’s kind of odd, however, that SFMTA’s design doesn’t protect cyclists going north-south.”

    Well, that’s much harder to do unless you want to ban right turns (and left turns coming the other ways). If you really want to “protect” cyclists going straight from traffic turning right, then you need to position the bike lane to the left of the right-turning traffic. but even then they have to cross left-turning traffic from the other directions.

    Be honest, you just want to ban traffic don’t you?

  15.  

    RichLL

    I’m sure gneiss does not literally think we should leave this rusting structure in situ as some bizarre kind of traffic-calming device. But it is classic streetsblog thinking to want to place obstructions and obstacles in the way of traffic making reasonable progress.

    farazs makes a good point that there are more lanes at the plaza. And removing the toll booths will presumably create even more. But gneiss’s argument seems to be predicated on the idea that people need to start slowing down 2 miles from Doyle Drive, and that makes no sense to me.

    50 is fine on the bridge and if we need a 35 limit on the southern approach then so be it. That can be achieved with lights, signs and enforcement – same as everywhere else – as you suggest.

  16.  

    RichLL

    The explicit intent of metering lights is not to increase speed. However, a higher average speed would be an indicator that they are working.

    The purpose of them is twofold – to increase capacity/throughput and to allow safer merging (I’ve only ever seen metering lights in merge situations).

    Of course, for a constant number of lanes, capacity is proportional to average vehicle speed. But I don’t think it’s accurate to describe metering as existing for speed. There again, I’m not convinced they work at all, and am perfectly happy to make an un-managed, un-metered merge.

  17.  

    ItsEasyBeingGreen

    It’s cheaper than concrete. If it’s got plastic delineators I wouldn’t sell it short, I doubt people are doing to be roaring over it in their cars, if they were they could jump a curb as well.

    That said I’m not sure why they didn’t continue a protected bikeway through the intersection on San Bruno, even if it goes unprotected before and after.

  18.  

    Maurice

    This is a good– albeit small– development. It’s 2016, we should be installing dozens of these each year as we repave streets and install curb cuts.

    This is the critical missing piece to making the promised protected bike lanes on 7th and 8th– only 9 MONTHS AWAY— from making SOMA a genuinely safe place to bike.

    But SF needs to be installing dozens of these now.

  19.  

    Bruce

    I believe the technical term is “cop-out”.

  20.  

    alberto rossi

    Did the Dutch invent the painted safety zone?

  21.  

    DrunkEngineer

    This is not a protected intersection in either direction. A “painted safety zone” — what the hell is that?

  22.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Maybe we can figure out how to use them for euthanasia instead!

  23.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The speed limit on Doyle is a classic example of road engineering and policy done inconsistently. The design speed of Doyle is, conservatively, 250 MPH. The 35 MPH limit is a sad joke.

  24.  

    p_chazz

    Why would the Bridge District deliberately leave a hazardous barrier in place in order to reduce speed? Surely there are other, safer ways to accomplish this. Especially since the booths are an aging piece of infrastructure that no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended.

  25.  

    SF Guest

    Most people will agree the new gantry is a good thing since it will do away with the need for lane closures for maintenance.

    “It allows all the equipment to be above the roadway and access to maintenance above the roadway so you don’t need lane closures to do maintenance,” Mennucci said. “We think it’s good customer service not to close the lanes and it’s much safer.”

  26.  

    murphstahoe

    Metering lights are used to “meter” the amount of traffic on a freeway to eliminate congestion, thus keeping speeds higher.

  27.  

    SF Guest

    How are metering lights used to increase speeds?

  28.  

    farazs

    Correlation != causation.
    Often introducing efficiency in one aspect exposes an existing hazard in another. Not mentioned in that one stat you keep quoting is what was the historical rate of crashes as compared to the historical number of vehicles crossing the bridge. Other interesting things would be break down by lighting conditions and morning vs. evening (i.e. when the zipper lane configuration changes).

    It may very well be strictly enforcing a 35mph limit on the bridge as a whole may reduce the amount of cars crashing in to the toll plaza, but that may not be the best way of addressing the problem. A reductionist approach is misleading – there are multiple factors to consider.

  29.  

    gneiss

    The implication is not that the toll plaza is there to deliberately induce slower traffic. Rather that it is a hazard that drivers should recognize and adjust their speed for it, just like a curve on a winding road. The fact of the matter is that people are exceeding the design speed on the bridge now that a zippered lane exists, traveling at 50 mph rather than 35 mph, which is classic risk compensation behavior. This is making the roadway more dangerous, not the toll plaza, which was there before the rise of adverage speeds.

    The response from the bridge authority should be to come up with treatments to slow vehicles down as they cross over the bridge. The removal of the toll plaza will simply enable people to speed even more. This is particularly troubling when you consider that Doyle Drive has a 35 mph posted speed limit, so people should be slowing down as the cross the bridge, not speeding up.

  30.  

    gneiss

    Perhaps you didn’t read the article. Before the movable zipper lane was put in, the average speed on the bridge was 35 mph and there were only 10 crashes at the toll plaza. After the zippered lane was installed, average speed on the bridge increased to 50 mph and there were 84 crashes, some of which required lane closures for repair of the structure.

    If the increase in speed of cars on the bridge is in no way correlated with the number of crashes going up so dramatically, then what, pray tell is? Bear in mind, nothing else changed…

  31.  

    farazs

    Perhaps you didn’t read the article before commenting – it was specifically about drivers crashing in to the toll plaza. The problem here is not the average speed of vehicles across the span of the bridge going in either direction, but the speed when passing through toll booths in the southern end.

  32.  

    gneiss

    The average speed on the bridge has increased from 35 mph to 50 mph with the addition of the zippered lane (which is 5 mph over the speed limit on the bridge). The lane configuration at the toll plaza has nothing to do with this.

  33.  

    farazs

    Part of the problem is simply that lanes increase from 3 on the bridge to 8 for the toll both and then back to 3. This leads to people jockeying for the empty lane as they approach the toll booth. If toll is automated and no one has to stop anyway, then why not just have 3 or 4 lanes at the toll booth. That should slow things down and keep traffic in order.

  34.  

    murphstahoe

    You had me until metering lights. Metering lights are used to increase speeds, not lower them.

  35.  

    SF Guest

    You sound off as if the toll plaza was placed there to deliberately induce slower traffic when the main objective was to collect toll fees whereas induced slower traffic was the side effect and not the main objective. Removing the plaza is not carte blanche for speeding; it merely allows an unnecessary slowdown for antiquated cash payments. If speed is deemed unsafe that’s the purpose of having metering lights.

  36.  

    gneiss

    GGB Authority may spend money to remove toll plaza because drivers can’t be bothered to drive slowly enough to navigate safely through it. These are the unintended consequences of adding a zippered lane and removing cash tolling from the bridge. It’s simply enabling people to drive faster and more dangerously.

  37.  

    murphstahoe

    “allow” doesn’t mean that it will happen, it means it *can* happen.

    I could see the value in that the Auburn to Sac corridor on I-80 is a disaster due to the poor planning in the Roseville area which has become the definition of sprawl, but I don’t see 10 round trips to Auburn anytime soon.

    A double track from Oakland to San Jose would be great. Straightening the alignment would be better. But I’m not holding my breath that the Bay Area can pull this off in any meaningful timeframe :(

  38.  

    p_chazz

    Obviously you didn’t read the link: “The additional third track will allow Capitol Corridor to offer riders 10 round trips per day versus the one round trip currently offered. ” The stretch from Oakland to San Jose is covered in the Oakland to San Jose Double Track – Phase II Rail Project.

  39.  

    murphstahoe

    Cap Corridor runs one train a day past Sacramento, and there isn’t really demand for more, so that’s a pure win for UP. From Oakland to San Jose, better trackage would mean more passenger trains which is not to UP’s benefit.

  40.  

    p_chazz

    The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority and Union Pacific Railroad partner on a number of projects that will of mutual benefit. Like the Sacramento-Roseville third track: http://www.capitolcorridor.org/sac-roseville-third-track/

  41.  

    Alicia

    the hundreds of thousands of city residents who don’t have off-street parking

    Wait, what? How did you arrive at the notion that there are hundreds of thousands of city residents who have a car but not access to a garage or parking lot? Show your math.

  42.  

    Alicia

    Yes, if only balance, critical thought or broader perspectives could be censored or banned

    Which of those things are supposed to describe your comments?

  43.  

    Frank Kotter

    Does anyone know the rationale behind the cyclone fencing of CIA specs? Is it to keep cyclists in? Wolves out? Zombies in/out? Is this enormous expense necessary for cycling paths in LA either practically or regulatorily?

  44.  

    citrate reiterator

    You mean from around Glen Park to Colma? Yeah, I don’t really have any complaints there; I’ve always personally thought it was kind of interesting that elevated freeways seem to be so popular when elevated trains get so much pushback (even though they are cheaper than subways and have most of the same advantages). Adding more highway capacity has its own problems, e.g., increasing congestion in city centers, but that’s a separate discussion probably.

    The problem with letting a vocal minority of local residents have veto power over transit improvements is that essentially any improvement — even ones that don’t result in any net loss of parking or impact drivers at all — will have some voices who strongly oppose it. This is even true of subway construction, which of course, has potential to be much more disruptive during construction (street and sidewalk closures, etc). But interpreting those loud voices as basically representative of voters in a particular neighborhood, let alone the city, is also a fallacy.

    Also I specifically said the “rapid transit” network (i.e. the part that already provides headways below 10 minutes at peak hours), not the entire transit network. But even if you just concentrate on, say, putting a few of the highest ridership corridors underground (Geary, Mission St., Judah outside of the tunnels, Van Ness, and the above-ground segments of the L/K/M), what’s the earliest you could reasonably expect all those projects to be funded and completed? 2060, maybe, optimistically? The people who depend on those transit corridors need better options in the meantime.

  45.  

    citrate reiterator

    What do you mean by “should”? You’re obviously not *obligated* to, but if you don’t, you may have trouble hiring or retaining employees: your employees will tend to go to either other employers or to places where their living expenses are lower. The net result is that labor tends to cost more in areas with higher costs of living. “Should” doesn’t seem to really enter into it.

  46.  

    murphstahoe

    The problem – which you presumably know – is that the right of way that the Capitol Corridor runs on is owned by the freight line, (Union/Southern Pacific or whomever), and they aren’t invested in passenger rail.

    And speeding up that line isn’t trivial – what exactly do you do with a train line that runs down the middle of the street in Jack London Square? That goes through the marshes of Alviso? That has numerous sharp curves?

    Caltrain’s ridership grew in large part because of better service. Capitol Corridor’s has grown mostly because the alternative has become more miserable.

  47.  

    Donovan Lacy

    This should be an interesting pivot…

  48.  

    Flatlander

    Muni has had a operator shortage for years. There has been some progress, but I have never read anywhere other than your streetsblog posts that muni has far more qualified applicants than they have open transit operator positions. What is your source? And it better be good because it sounds like your entire argument hinges on this.

  49.  

    Donovan Lacy

    How can you argue for replacement cost and against Cost of Living adjustments when Cost of Living / CPI is a component of replacement cost?

    You are not interested in debating facts but rather your values.

    And what the heck does giving up parking have to do with people revolting? You cannot be serious.

  50.  

    Donovan Lacy

    My statement regarding winning or the losing the argument was presented in the context of your previous statement.

    I provided you with a host of citations that directly refuted your argument and you responded by stating that “in reality debates are settled by values, and facts are typically cherry-picked to support ones’ own personal biases.”

    I took this to mean that you were no longer interested in discussing facts, but rather were more interested in discussing values.

    If this is not the case, please help me understand what you meant.