Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I’m very familiar with the area you are talking about. Mariposa is the exit I use most often. That area will be majorly gridlocked when the Hospital and new housing is occupied. The facility I;m suggesting would be much farther south, possibly near Paul Ave. The objective is to capture traffic as far south as possible. For it to work the T-line would have to be significantly enhanced.



    So if an intersection has one of those permanent metal signs directing you to use the other crosswalk, is there technically still a crosswalk even though it’s blocked off?



    Most crossings are pretty bad, I used to use Great America and I understand it’s worse than it was 12 years ago. But there are now several grade separated paths, Steven’s Creek, San Tomas, Permanente Creek. The gap from Steven’s Creek to San Tomas is pretty long however, and none of the crossings in between are very attractive on a bike.



    Wow, VTA still trying to compete with the almighty car down in the South Bay–yeah, good luck with that.

    Let’s be real here–Is there any regional authority parallel to VTA that’s at least trying to improve cycling conditions down that way? I mean, talk about a no-brainer–A lot of young tech workers don’t even have their drivers’ licenses. This area is flat as the Netherlands, has great weather, and the gridded street plan means plenty of options for north-south commutes. And this could all be implemented for pennies on the dollar in a couple months’ time. But when I lived down there, crossing 101 was a terrifying nightmare for cyclists, so as far as I knew the only bike commuters were grizzled old take-no-prisoners spandex-clad types.



    The problem is that I’m not sure Caltrain or VTA would be responsive to the demands of corporate clients.

    For various political reasons, it is just too easy for the agencies to argue that “just because you are giving the money, doesn’t mean bringing your techies who earn $ 70K is a priority over salamanderized-crawling-slow routes to serve all senior and community centers in the county”



    Well, cool is in the eye of the beholder, so I won’t disagree. As for studies, there are a few but I can see how helmet pushers can dismiss them (I mean, who would fund an expensive study like this?) but how about anecdotally, no-one say in Amsterdam with thousands of cyclists, wears them, nor in much of the world. And when I lived in SF, 22-10 years ago, I never saw them.

    Helmets make cycling appear less safe that it is, which is why as one who wants more people to cycle, it is bad. I live in Brooklyn and there’s many less here than in the picture above.


    Andy Thornley

    Yup, this is a multiuse pathway, to be shared by people on foot and on bikes and in wheelchairs and walking dogs and pushing strollers. So yes, everyone will have to share and show respect and give way as appropriate. I think we’re up for the challenge, and I’m eager to see how it works when it’s being used by lots of people. No place here for pushy scorchers of any mode, slow down and enjoy the scene . . .



    Thank you, Ed. It seems that as long as the other Ed isn’t involved, we might get somewhere with these ad campaigns.



    Unless of course you mean that commuters should get off at Cesar Chavez… Wow, that’s already a big PITA and would seriously screw with already significant numbers of people trying to west into the Mission. To build a parking garage for commuters and try to improve the exits would be a project that would cost Billions. As murphstahoe says below – gigantic fail whale.



    I toured the new hospital last Friday and the guide/planner definitely did not refer to the car-free 4th St. extension as a “bikeway” — the above picture does not show that immediately to the left of the cyclist is a long, shaded bank of handicapped parking places and those people, plus those coming from the parking garage farther west will also be crossing this path.



    The only exit in the city before 280 touches down in SOMA is Mariposa St. And as you are probably aware, there is already a sea of parking in that area, with several recently built garages in the UCSF complex and the parking devoted to Giants games. Even with all that parking, hardly anyone gets off there, parks, and then rides the T-line. People still drive into the city.

    The next exit before that is on 101, and is at 3rd Street (429B). I don’t know how well you know that neighborhood, but it’s already well built up with homes and retail along 3rd Street, so putting a parking garage for commuters there would involve taking other people’s homes by eminent domain. I’d imagine you would think is bad since it doesn’t conform to your ideal of “organic” growth.

    In other words, try again. Your ideas don’t hold any water.



    Anyone know about SFPD ticketing drivers who travel on Market in front of Twitter instead of turning onto 10th street? I understand it’s against the law except for taxis and busses, but it isn’t one of the focus 5. And at Market and 9th street just a half block away, drivers consistently pull in front of pedestrians or block the crosswalk on Hayes/Larkin. I see SFPD pulling over cars at least once a week in the afternoon. Usually 2-3 motorcycles. Doesn’t seem like an effective use of their resources.





    I’d prefer we build housing for those ‘folks in Berkeley, Oakland, SF, etc…

    They may “prefer” Dublin but right now everyone else is subsidizing that decision.

    A great percentage of those folks would drive into SF if it weren’t for everyone else driving into SF, causing traffic to be too congested and increasing parking rates in SF to a rate that some choose BART from an economical standpoint. Without BART running to the sprawl, the economical standpoint would be a more rational choice of living situation.



    Yes, but why build it at MacArthur? This is a station in an urban place already which would have been better served by adding more comprehensive transit. I have no problem with having parking in places like Dublin or Walnut Creek where the suburban form is pretty much king, but there’s no reason to do this in Oakland. It’s as if SFMTA decided that instead of Wesfield Mall, we should have a big parking garage next to Powell Street BART stop, because, you know, people would want to drive to BART there.



    The section of Mariposa Street immediately south of here is being widened right now. Anyone know if bike accommodations are planned there?



    To provide that citation: most BART stations in SF have drive-alone rates of 1-2%, with the highest being Glen Park, at 10% (another 4% carpool). That is certainly not a large percentage. Muni stops tend to be even closer to people’s homes on average, so it’s unlikely many people drive to them, even compared to BART.




    They certainly don’t hurt and it is cool enough here that wearing them is not an inconvenience. If you have pointers to scientific studies that indicate that they are of no use in preventing head injuries, I would be interested in reading them.



    This is a good start.



    Yeah, but the article is anti-parking at Bart. I support parking at Bart in all ‘nother cities where I believe those drivers would otherwise drive into San Francisco. I want good transit like Bart expanded and used. Thank God, Bart understands that many riders start with a drive, even if that disturbs (un)Livable Cities agenda



    No, but it does a cameo in “Dances With Cars.”



    San Francisco is not transit rich? Please.

    And who cares how much money developers make or don’t make? If it’s good for the city and region, it’s good for the city and region.

    Moreover, you are making an egregious confusion of correlation and causation if you think that increasing the supply of housing increases its cost…it really is a textbook, Econ 101 case of an outward shift in the demand curve, resulting in both higher price and higher quantity provided


    Jym Dyer

    BART and AC Transit are funded from the same body, and they are the ones who are tasked with reducing car journeys by improving transit. I believe they could do a better job of that by not prioritizing infrastructure that induces car traffic.


    Jym Dyer

    Since you’re so very concerned about GHG, you surely know all about how cold starts are the most polluting part of the journey, including of course hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Reducing the VMT is a great goal, but so long as the cold starts are still occurring twice a day, they will remain an excessive source of GHGs — GHGs being forced on others as if by religious zealots.


    Jym Dyer

    I lived for years on Potrero Hill near the 18th Street freeway onramp/offramp. At no point did a desire for a nearby parking garage enter my mind. It is not even clear to me what such a garage would be used for. Nor is Dogpatch in need of additional parking structures.


    Jym Dyer

    Where in the City, exactly, is this chimerical “TOD movement” ruining anything?

    I am assuming that “the City” refers to San Francisco, since it’s the Yes on L people who are supposedly blessed with this clear understanding. This article is about a big parking garage next to a transit stop in a whole ‘nother city, which is of course the exact opposite of TOD.

    BART has never embraced TOD. Even when they hired Peter Calthorpe to design the Colma station back in the 1990s, they insisted the fully half the nearby area be devoted to a parking garage. Then they didn’t use his design anyway.



    No, but it’s clear in SF that the demand by the rich will continue to outstrip any amount of building that we can do. Thus building will not stabilize or lower prices or rents.
    Housing prices will continue to rise in spite of building not because of it. We are now a city for the rich and poor. The rich can afford housing, some of the poor are subsidized by the new developments through city mandates, but the middle class is being driven out. I guess I shouldn’t be complaining – I benefit from high prices and rents, but I miss my less fortunate friends that have been driven out.


    David D.

    Politicians like the mayor of Sunnyvale are the ones that make traffic worse, not the professionals at VTA. It is up to the cities in question to provide a strong framework for better land use–such as allowing a mix of housing near offices–to help alleviate traffic. Anything short of that is a blatant attempt to get the tax money generated by businesses while skipping out on the burden of resident services, all the while scapegoating VTA and others. All VTA is doing is making lemonade out of the lemons dealt to it by local jurisdictions.



    Spoken like a true evangelist. I am an urbanist, having lived in major cities all my life, but I see the “new urbanism” movement as destructive to truly livable cities. . Organic growth and change is natural and good. But the growth currently being pushed into SF’s small footprint far exceeds the resources of our infrastructure and is destroying our culture..”New Urbanism” calls for high density housing in transit rich areas. San Francisco is not transit rich. I lived
    in Manhattan for a while and did quite well without a car. When SF’s transit matches New York’s subways we will be ready for higher density. But new urbanism only needs the myth or promise of good transit to justify the push for high density. The developers get their profits, politicians get their contributions and citizens get the mess that is left. But growth greed is good for some but not for the middle class that is being priced out of the cities by this movement.



    Thanks for your concerns.



    I see. You are in cahoots with the Google Bus protestors parroting the party line that adding more housing will drive up housing prices. Noted.



    Just trying to discourage the Bob Gunderson’s of the world from raging against the machine.



    I used “developers” as a generalized term to include those that push for TOD in order to drive up prices and thus their profits (foreign investors, architects, developers, builders, realtors, politicians they fund). And while builders benefit from garage construction, TOD residential selling for over $1000 sq ft is way more attractive to them – except maybe in the Manhattan buildings where parking goes for a million dollars per space.


    SF Guest

    Do you seriously believe BART would give AC Transit the monies it would save not building a parking lot? Furthermore, do you seriously believe if AC Transit received more money they would expand their service?


    Andy Chow

    I made some suggestions including extending the line 323 to Mountain View Caltrain via the freeway. The ideas are here:



    Great pic indeed, except for the preponderance of helmets. What’s with you SF-ers? (spoken as an ex-San Franciscan cyclist). Helmets are of dubious utility, make you look dorky and makes cycling seem like a ‘special’ activity, which discourages occasional riders.

    Please note the millions of cyclists world-over who ride bare headed.


    Sean Hughes

    Mayor Lee Has Pitted Affordable Housing, Transportation Advocates Against Each Other
    In this article, the writer claims, “San Francisco needs more affordable housing”

    But if all we do is build affordable housing (lower class) and luxury condos (upper class), then there will be no housing for the middle class. The efforts to build more affordable housing are just creating a bigger divide between the rich and the poor.

    ie. Affordable housing does not mean affordable housing for the average person. It means you pretty much have to be making minimum wage or less.


    Nicasio Nakamine

    Mayor Lee should commit to riding Muni once a week. There is nothing like experiencing the frustrations of Muni first-hand.



    Presumably parking garages are not built by developers?



    Give AC transit all the money it would cost to build a parking garage and they could do so pretty serious service expansion.



    This would be a gigantic fail whale. By the time you exit, park, and get on the T in the middle of nowhere, you could be downtown already. Nobody would do it.

    There’s a reason people bike on freaking Cesar Chavez from Noe Valley to 22nd Street Caltrain, because the 48 is too slow. Your proposal looks great – to anyone who doesn’t actually use transit.


    SF Guest

    On the topic of improving transit connectivity to BART stations I suspect AC Transit would have to increase and expand service to local BART stations to get more commuters to not drive to BART which is something I don’t see AC Transit doing. I suspect it’s more practical to drive to an East Bay BART station due in part many of those cities are more freeway-friendly and more accessible than SF.


    Mario Tanev

    It’s amazing that that is news. The exception proves the rule. And the rule is that Lee never rides Muni.


    SF Guest

    I have no doubt ridership can be increased at other BART stations with reduced or no parking. What you imply is the current BART model of including parking is outdated and should be reversed. As previously mentioned what works for one station may not necessarily work for another.



    Poor kid.


    Bob Gunderson

    I’ll be more impressed if Mayor Lee takes the Geary 38 during rush hour carrying a bag of groceries and a small child



    What’s wrong with private buses? I guarantee you that there would be more people driving if corporations gave their money to the VTA instead of running private shuttles.


    Bob Gunderson

    Will riding down market street ever be on American Ninja Warrior?



    Developer are *not* behind the TOD movement. It’s simply people. People who are moving to denser places and demanding the kind of placemaking that doesn’t require suburban layouts and cars to get everywhere they want to. It’s no surprise why so many people are moving to San Francisco and other urban areas – it’s because they want to live in dense, vibrant communities, not suburban wastelands.



    Why not just improve transit connectivity to the BART stations? It’s significantly less expensive to improve transit than build new parking facilities in already built up areas like that around the MacArthur BART station. Then the land can be used for housing.

    And why do you conflate housing build at transit hubs as ‘stack and pack’? The idea that any home that isn’t a single family detached dwelling is somehow undesirable is a fallacy. The monotony of suburban development patterns in many of the east bay and peninsula communities are just as bad as any ‘stack and pack’ dystopian fantasy. The real key to any resilient development is to create a place where people are within easy distance to amenities and jobs with inviting public spaces to gather and enjoy themselves. And that doesn’t require any specific type of density.