Skip to content

Recent Comments



    “Editorial: Support Prop C for More Exclusionary Housing” Roger I think you meant to say INCLUSIONARY housing which is what the article actually talks about or the editorial that is



    Can hardly wait for robots to replace Muni drivers who abandon their passengers to take breaks.



    Vacuums tend to be pretty quiet and they are using magnets as propulsion. Should be pretty quiet.



    If the infrastructure is better, and there are more riders, why do you feel less safe? Are you perhaps more safe but just more aware of the potential dangers than you were ten years ago? Or is there something else?

    I think this is the sort of question that the city needs to think about…



    And despite the increase in riders and bike lanes I feel less safe than I did ten years ago. I’ve stopped riding because the infrastructure just isn’t good enough. I don’t want to end up like these poor people.



    Beautiful story, thanks for covering this important & powerful event Roger!



    Presently, Vision Zero is mostly bureaucratic jawboning whereas, I think, there should be more of a focus on plain old traffic engineering. There is a study – done by the MTA – showing that while their 20-year redlight camera experiment hasn’t made a difference, the minor engineering improvements made at the camera enforced intersection have made a lot of difference.

    For those who would like to read that study, do a Google on (in quotation marks) “SFMTA Red Light Camera Annual Report 2014” and then
    click on the link to the highwayrobbery webpage, and then scroll down to Set #



    I never said they did have a constitutional duty to do so. I said that the department is biased. And that’s wrong in my books.


    Rogue Cyclist

    This neighborhood definitely needs some TLC. The removal of the mini-freeway and other improvements around the lake makes this more apparent. Right now, the most direct access to the lake from Laney College and OMCA is via an unsigned driveway from E 10th St. Homeless encampments along the channel and graffiti on the bridges are symptoms of the emptiness and lack of eyes on the street here. In fact, I was robbed while walking home from BART in the Kaiser parking lot. The area is just plain unsafe.



    Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you: ; and just because someone has a different vision from you doesn’t make him wrong.



    Telling inconvenient truths?



    That’s what the SFGate comments section is for.



    Suhr was doing a very poor job of adapting to the changing expectations from this city over how its streets should be used, i.e. not just for cars. Not to mention how bad street crime has gotten in this city on his watch, now the worst per capita in the nation ( Honestly, I think he has been pathetic as a leader. The police force and its ridiculous car-centric bias (as well as its even more ridiculous bias against minorities) comes from the top. Suhr has had yeas to fix it, if he really could and wanted to, and nothing has changed. So he needed to go. But now the question is: can we find somebody better? That’s what worries me most, that his replacement will be more of the same.



    Boy, that is “complex”. In order to provide balance when critiquing the specific actions of a specific police chief one must “spend an equal amount of time on the impact of crime”.
    The false dichotomy is built into your original post.



    No, you clearly missed the point. Its that Streetsbliog finds fit to doscuss the impact of policing on street life (a fair issue) but rarerely on the impact of criminals and crime on destroying communities and normal street life, particularly in liow-income neighborhhods…i know that most people here live in a worls of duality (cops bad/never good), but sometimes life requires complex analysis.



    Because if you don’t support Greg Suhr as the SF Chief of Police, you are therefore pro-criminal? What country are you from that critique is seen as an offense?



    Very interesting post. It would be good if you spend an equal amount of time on the impact of crime and criminals on streets and street life.



    Whatever became of Joshua Calder? Did he at least serve time in prison?



    [People climb Everest every year and we don’t go around claiming people
    calling “difficult” are overstating things given that people do in fact
    summit the mountain.]
    Huh? Since when was sensible commuting a simile for mountain climbing?



    I’m rather amused by the slogan “Make Transit Awesome”. Transit doesn’t have to be “awesome”–just make it frequent, reliable and comfortable.



    Realistically, chances are that the culture and the status quo at SFPD regardless of who is the police chief will remain unchanged period. Police officers will still blame bicyclists for collisions they are not at fault of, waste resources for bike enforcement that have no effectiveness in making streets safer as well as oppose any proposals such as the Bike Yield Law or the Idaho Stop Law. I am doubtful any reforms will occur unless I actually see it happen. Just being realistic and not trying to paint a gray gloomy picture, but don’t expect any huge changes soon, long term, meh, maybe.



    re: second tube.

    Misleading article that only provides mere speculation of a tube “in the far off future.” LA will have built hundreds of miles of mass transit before a single shovel of dirt is turned for a new BART tube.



    s/Rainbow Escalators/Extremely Delayed Rainbow Escalators/


    Ted King

    s/Castro Rainbow Elevators/Castro Stn. Rainbow Escalators/



    You should also check out the every-other-month Measure DD Coalition meetings ( and monthly Oakland Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission meetings ( for all the latest on the many infrastructure projects that are underway, up and coming, or planned for future phases. These meetings are also an opportunity to speak with staff working on the projects and provide direct input.

    With all of the bike/ped projects planned along the Lake Merritt Channel, as well as the Bay Trail gap closures along Embarcadero from Downtown Oakland to the Coliseum, conditions are going to change before too long in a way I don’t think many people yet appreciate. I foresee a future bike/ped highway connecting the planned Brooklyn Basin development and Lake Merritt, even though that pathway along Laney College is now quite sleepy and deserted.

    Speaking of the bike/ped commission, there is a meeting tonight at city hall (6-8pm) where the group will receive an update on four separate cycletrack projects the city is submitting for possible state ATP grant funding (14th St, W Grand Ave, Fruitvale Ave, and 66th Ave), including multiple protected intersections. See you there?



    I may not have been on any committees, but I am more in the know than your average SF citizen. Several transit enthusiasts have pressed for removing many of the surface lines from the Market St. tunnel, but I have never read any SFMTA proposal that calls for that change. 4-car trains could never fly in older stations, like FH and WP. The platforms would have to be extended to accommodate. Although putting the M underground at WP is a consideration, the station would have to be completely rebuilt to serve both the M and surface K and L lines.


    david vartanoff

    No battery backup???


    alberto rossi

    Probably someone like Jamison can speak more knowledgably about it, but isn’t that the long-range plan? J, K, L and the Ocean View leg of the M all evicted from the subway tunnel (extended to Park Merced), where only 3 and 4 car M and N trains would run?



    Thank you for this story. This campaign took a small army of volunteers, under the inspiring leadership of Ilyse Magy.

    Actually, I’m blushing. It’s nice to get credit for the volunteer hours I contribute to SFTR. I certainly pitched in with this campaign. But many other people were far more involved with the crowdfunding campaign than myself. As an org, we’ll have to make sure they get acknowledged, too!



    My comparison of types of rail transit feeds directly into my argument that there is demand for a BART-like system in most of the city rather than an outdated streetcar system that has proven that it cannot do the job adequately in either speed or capacity. I have no problem keeping the L local, but make it a feeder line to something more robust.



    I am not sure it is fair to compare the journey times of an underground train capable of 70 mph with a street-car that, for much of its journey, has to trundle along surface streets.

    And which has dozens of stops versus just the 6 intermediate stops that BART has from Daly City to Montgomery.



    How do you define “leadership” there? It sounds like what you mean by “leadership” would be Tang going against what the majority of her district constituents wants and instead imposing your preferred ideology?

    First and foremost Tang is an elected representative. That means she must faithfully represent and support the values of her local voters. It’s certainly not her job to ignore them when it doesn’t suit her or you.

    Isn’t your real problem here with the preferences of the people who live there, and not with Tang at all? What part of being a “leader” means not listening to what’s important to the voters who elected you, and who may vote you out next time if you ignore them?



    The interviewer is just as snarky as the commenters. Go worship your bicycle in privacy!



    If only there was some helpful indicator that a traffic signal was about to change from green to red. Perhaps the engineers in the audience could suggestion an idea, such as a special color between the phases to give motorists a helpful heads up, or perhaps even a means of “counting down” the time from green until red. Futuristic, yes, but think of all the lives it could save compared to the present state of chaos these so called “traffic control devices” impose!



    Why don’t people just go to Europe, watch and see how its done properly, then come back and make it happen???


    Not because the abundance of knowledge isn’t there, but because its the agenda here – whether overt or covert – that it doesn’t and never will happen.

    Until then, I don’t want to read or hear about anything. Yes, there’s going to be dozens, hundreds of martyrs and victims every year.

    There’s no mystery here. People need to wake up and understand that what’s going on here is a crime.


    Jamison Wieser

    SFMTA is now implementing signal priority city-wide under that Muni Forward banner (and a new contract) and seen good results. Last year the SFMTA reported cutting five minutes off the 14-Mission.



    Everyone always stops? You must be new in town.


    sebra leaves

    Stop signs are the safest because everyone always stops, unlike a light that could change at any time, you know what to do at a stop sign. You can anticipate everyone’s movement. I prefer stop signs on smaller slower streets.



    Signal priority has actually been implemented on the T recently according to Liz Brisson, a SFMTA transportation planner:



    Or, better yet, walk from errand to errand, if possible. Most businesses on Taraval are the type that welcome foot traffic. Unless you’re buying a ton of lumber from Great Wall or shipping 50 packages at the post office, most people I see on the street are either walking or using transit, including those lugging bags from Safeway on MUNI trains.

    The problem in SF is that people are spoiled. They either have to have a parking spot directly in front of their destination available at all times or a MUNI stop at the end of their block. It’s not so much a matter of inconvenience, but that of entitlement. The more the city concedes to every single person’s demand nothing will ever get accomplished.


    Jamison Wieser

    My hunch is the politicians are on pretty safe footing, unless the SFMTA has actually put in a boarding island already and Supervisor Tang takes a jackhammer to it.

    Having spent five years working on the TEP, I get a bit upset seeing something threatening to undo all that hard work. Which includes the community members who took the time to get involved with the TEP when these changes were first being planned. None of the arguments being made now are any different than we heard five-ten years ago when these changes were first being planned.



    That seems to be the case. I ride the L every day to work downtown and it’s always a crap shoot whether the commute will take 35 minutes or double that. A perfect illustration of the stupidity of SF transit planners and residents is the following: it takes 16 minutes to get from Daly City to Montgomery Station via BART, roughly 9 miles. The same distance on the L (let’s say from the Zoo) is at least triple that time. But, MUNI wants to improve speed (only) by 20% yet you hear whining from residents about the proposed improvements. You know what, SF? Keep your slow, antiquated system. You reap what you sow.



    Yeah, exactly. Obviously the timeline on the performance goals didn’t make it, but it’s because of meddling supervisors (and endless meetings) that we still haven’t implemented all the TEP proposals. And the ones that we did are now in danger of getting rolled back, all so a couple loud motorists and have “their” parking spots.



    She clearly hasn’t seen Wiener’s massive SF subway plan. Then again, neither have we.



    I live two blocks from Taraval. People who park usually park in one spot and call it a day. They don’t find a parking spot, hit up the post office, then drive to another parking spot, hang out in a cafe, etc. Or, like many drivers, they run their quick errands without feeding the meters. Hang out on 28th/Taraval and you’ll see it happen more often than not.

    I guess since she’s ridden MUNI for all those years that gives her an excuse not to participate in the 30-day challenge which really reveals a lot about her character. Rather than rise to the challenge and really connect with issues MUNI riders face she dismisses it and offers a lame excuse why.

    Signal priority? Hasn’t been implemented on the T line since it opened 10 years in spite of the promise so you can bet it won’t be happening on the L either.

    Consolidation of stops which would speed service is being held up by some seniors who don’t want to walk an extra block or two. Last time I checked, public transit wasn’t designed specifically for one demographic group. Typical SF “it’s all about me” mentality.



    Ah yes, the Prop E that set the 85% on-time standard for Muni to be met 12 years ago. We’re still at 60%, and it’s embarrassingly even worse, 53%, for the light rail and the historic streetcar category the L falls into. As a sidenote, I’d far rather scrap the “on-time” standard and focus on consistent and reliable headways instead, which is what actually matters to most riders.

    In any case, the idea that a supervisor should be sued for holding meetings with her constituents about changes the city is making in their neighborhood is preposterous.


    Jamison Wieser

    Like @MrEricSir:disqus stated, Prop E (1999) created the SFMTA. I think where he’s going with this is that voters also established performance goals for the Muni service along with the SFMTA.

    So if a Supervisor or Mayor puts up an obstacle to letting the SFMTA get on with its job, does that put them in questionable legal territory? Is that what you where trying to get at?



    Sigh… name reuse. Yet another failure when it comes to ballot props.

    No, I was referring to 1999’s prop E, the one that created SFMTA in the first place.


    david vartanoff

    “KT: Just relaying people’s concerns. It’s an artery for cars”
    No, Taraval is an artery for people no matter which way they choose to travel. Commercial areas grow up on transit routes because that is how many customers reach them.



    Which Prop E? If you mean last year’s public meeting initiative, it lost.