Skip to content

Recent Comments



    SFMTA is really just a city department, no different in principle from departments of health, housing, parks, planning and so on. As such I would not say that SFMTA exists to side-line the supervisors – after all the supervisors have to approve their budget.

    SFMTA may be incompetent and I happen to think that they are. But the concept is not flawed – every city has bureaucrats running things like transit. The only real alternative is privatization and, even then, the political interference doesn’t go away.


    Bob Gunderson

    Yes! Let’s scrap this decade long plan and start a new decade long plan!



    Tangential at first glance, yet another article that goes out of its way to paint cyclists with a bad brush despite the absence of untoward behavior.



    But BART doesn’t cover all of mission. There are only two stations in the Mission and correct me if i’m wrong but BART is already at capacity! Same goes for the J line which is a few blocks down. Some people have to sit on the 14 or 49 line for about an hour just to go from Geneva to First street. That’s ridiculous when compared to BART which only take 20 min, max. For short trips yes, the bus line is important, however, for longer trips a train would be preferred.



    Nope. Moving the buses is what will inconvenience bus riders.

    Most of the people who visit Mission Street get there without a car. On what planet does diverting those people make it easier for them?

    Divert private autos to South Van Ness (or literally ANY other street) and leave The 14 and 49 where they do the most good– on Mission, connecting directly with BART. (With the space recovered from auto lanes and auto parking we can even add good bike lanes.)

    “And nobody will get hit by a car is they walk carefully.”

    Hey, look– another objectively false (and eloquent to boot) RichLL statement! People, even the ones who walk carefully (whatever that means) are hit by cars. It happens three times a day just here in SF.

    So let’s tally this up: one untruth about the number of blocks you propose to divert people, and a whopper about how people don’t get hit by car drivers unless they have it coming. Have you said anything accurate here? I guess you spelled Capp Street correctly…



    As a (former) frequent visitor to the Mission area, I find the current layout… WEIRD, and its intended use… indeed as Campos said: looks better on paper.

    SFMTA has an impossible job: no matter what it does, somebody will complain. There is no pleasing everyone.

    As many have pointed out, Mission is NOT enough to run buses two-wide. IMHO, there are two potential solutions:

    1) Just make Mission “bus only” except for trucks making 1 block delivery

    2) Split the red lanes onto TWO adjacent streets, maybe Valencia, one northbound , the other south bound.



    “People are losing their homes, jobs, and lives.”

    This is even more true in low-income neighborhoods that aren’t non-gentrifying. These red lanes have the greatest benefit for those who are dependent on transit i.e. the working poor. Why do you want to force poor people to sit in traffic?


    Bob Gunderson

    So true! David Campos was right. “the changes look better on paper than in practice.”



    Subways are far too expensive to stop every block or two, like Muni does. Undergrounding Muni beneath Mission would require digging below the existing BART subway, making it even more expensive. I’m not sure I see a huge benefit to that over, say, giving Muni the middle lane aboveground and installing boarding islands.



    Yup, you’re right, p chazz..I mean that the southbound 49 would turn left onto 16th st from Mission and right onto SVN while the northbound 49 would turn left off 16th and right onto Mission. Ya know, I’m really surprised Muni didn’t do this route configuration back in the 80s..That would’ve saved decades worth of traffic jams in the Inner Mission..

    Yea, either of our ideas would work, whether the 49 would turn onto 16th or just take SVN straight from Market, it’d save thousands of people money and time. It’d be great if Muni saw this and actually put it into use because this is one of the few extensions where barely any construction would be needed in order to implement it. Though that’s obviously asking for a helluva lot..

    I’m glad we think alike with this idea that utilizes nothing but common(though more like uncommon these days) sense.


    Chris J.

    Did they just say this so people who aren’t familiar with the area will get mad? It doesn’t make any sense. Take the bike lanes and then you only need to go over one street to get to your destination

    The same can be said for cars. They can drive one block over on South Van Ness, and yet they’re still complaining. That bike lane comment was inserted after similar complaints from car drivers, probably to show that car drivers aren’t the only ones inconvenienced.

    The worst outcome would be to roll things back by caving in to the complaints of car drivers alone.


    sebra leaves

    Andy is right. The streets are too narrow for this treatment. Slower small buses and jitneys, are a better fit on Mission Street. The faster buses and vehicle routes should be on Van Ness and Guerrero. Bikes have Valencia.


    sebra leaves

    The Mission is in a crisis. People are losing their homes, jobs, and lives. Walking, sitting or standing may considered “lingering”. The red lanes are an insulting intrusion into our lives.


    Andy Chow

    The center lane busway wouldn’t work because there would be no room for limited stop buses to pass local buses. The corridor is long enough to warrant two-tier service.

    Bike and bus wouldn’t be a preferable mix anyway (essentially they will be leap frogging each other). That’s why bike lanes were installed on Valencia and bus service was removed on that street.

    I think what has been the most problematic is the required turns at streets like 16th and 24th, which are already too busy to begin with. But if you force turn at streets like 23rd, then minor street would suddenly get more traffic.



    BART is using Muni’s right of way to do so also. That’s why you can use your Muni pass on BART. When BART was created it precluded Muni from keeping the old Interurban, or provide its own subway service….



    Yes, but BART isn’t part of the Muni system and has only a limited number of stops inside SF. It’s mostly designed to bring in commuters from the East Bay to downtown SF. Muni has a different role.



    Umm… they built a subway under Mission way way back in the 60s-70s. It’s called BART.



    “That said, Trevino bikes to work and she also complained about the lack of bike lanes. “It’s not safe,” she said, opining that the bus lanes made it even worse for cycling. “I’m afraid I’ll get hit by a bus.”

    Huh? There are bike lanes on Valencia and Folsom; the two paralleling streets. Did they just say this so people who aren’t familiar with the area will get mad? It doesn’t make any sense. Take the bike lanes and then you only need to go over one street to get to your destination. It’s like a super bike friendly area. How can you bike to work and not know about the bike lanes?



    The voters did decide. First of all when they put “Transit First” into the City Charter in the first place. And more recently in November 2014 when Measure L, which sought to restore car-centric planning and parking policies, was defeated 63%-37%.



    You continually refuse to cite any evidence and ignore any evidence provided to you.



    Crossing Capp Street is trivial. Non-issue, and certainly not worth inconveniencing tens of thousands of bus riders and drivers

    And nobody will get hit by a car is they walk carefully.

    Sorry, I’m not buying it – the buses should be on SVN



    Then lets the voters decide, including the 3/4 of them who own at least one car

    “Transit First” and “Vision Zero” are just slogans. People like the sound of them, and vote for them, but that doesn’t mean they want ever more screwing around with cars



    No evidence has been cited either way. We haven’t even agreed on what assumptions might underlie that “evidence”



    Like I said, it really depends on the assumptions made.

    I understand the issue very clearly. Your assumptions are flawed and unrealistic



    The red carpet lanes haven’t really eliminated loading zones, but they’ve made it more difficult for delivery drivers to treat the entire street as a loading zone. We all know every business has a right to receive deliveries from an 18-wheeler right in front 24/7. How dare anybody suggest you can’t just stop in the middle of the street whenever you want?



    And if you would care to look a little earlier in this very thread, you will see why I make the distinction. Allow me to copy+paste for the short-term-impaired:

    “The distances are similar, but walking from Mission to South Van Ness requires crossing at least one more intersection (not to mention the alleys between Mission & Capp and Capp & South. That could mean having to wait for a light to change and missing a bus (a common inconvenience) but it also means more chances to get hit by a car, which is a life-altering tragedy. It’s not simply about the increased distance someone will have to walk.”

    We have to consider more than just distance when creating a transportation *network*



    “BART only has six stations in the city”

    I too feel much better now that the City has expelled Glen Park and Balboa Park.



    ” It’s incredibly confusing to motorists”

    That’s not saying a lot. Other things that confuse motorists…

    Speed limit signs.
    Stop on red before right turn.
    Parking regulations.



    Red bus lanes 6 figures. Additional subway lanes – 8 figures.

    You aren’t the first to try to beat back incremental progress by demanding revolutionary progress or nothing. Revolutionary progress that we know cannot be funded.



    you give him too little credit. He knows exactly what crap he’s throwing at the wall to see what sticks



    His record-breaking cave-in to a handful of whiny merchants at the expense of thousands of transit riders is just another example of why Campos lost his race for the state legislature.



    Yes, planning a subway under Mission is a real winning idea, except it’s not going to happen in our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, and probably never.



    I am very well aware that thousands of people take transit every day. I was once a MUNI rider until I moved to the east coast. Yes, subways are stupidly expensive, but BART only has six stations in the city and of those six only two are actually in the mission, 16th and 24th. On top of that BART is already at capacity and can’t fit any more people and the same goes for the J line during rush hour. Imagine in the future when more people move into the city. Do you think someone who live’s in the outer mission would want to sit in a hour plus bus ride traveling at 20 mph that’s overly crowded? Or would they rather be in a train that offers a smooth ride and would only take 20 min max? San Franciscans deserve better than busses. 65,000 use the 14 and 49 line, what number will that be in 10 years? Busses can only carry so many people and San Francisco only has so much space to store all those extra busses.



    say give it a little more time, for those who drive, learn how to
    adjust to the changes and use other streets instead, if it’s getting in
    your nerves, you have options you know, just plan it out! -_-



    The entire reason SFMTA was created in the first place was to prevent supervisors from meddling with Muni — if Campos gets his way, we can safely say that SFMTA was a failed experiment.



    ‘no one wants to ride a smelly bus’

    you never ride public transit, do you? So a bus has windows and a subway does not. If someone farts on the bus, open the window, on the subway, you’re stuck with it.



    65,000 riders ride buses down Mission already, not to mention the thousands more who ride BART underneath it. Plenty of people also ride light rail just a couple blocks away on Church. Calling buses smelly and the alarmist “where will all the cars go?” talk isn’t going to help. I can assure you that subways can be smelly too.

    Now, you are right that aspects of the project were poorly planned. It’s incredibly confusing to motorists, and we want drivers looking out for the people around them, not trying to navigate a system of traffic controls unlike those on virtually any other street in the country. It puts more pedestrians in conflict with turning traffic. That’s all mentioned in the article above, and there are ways the design can be improved to help.

    You’re also not wrong that we should do better than buses. There are a lot of proposals in the works for everything from real bus rapid transit (at least until opposition by business owners waters it down to the point where it isn’t BRT anymore) to more subways. Subways are incredibly expensive to build. The amount of money spent on this project wouldn’t buy you a 25 foot tunnel.

    But an awful lot of people are riding transit in San Francisco every single day, and your comment seems to assume we don’t exist.



    Business owners love to plead poverty, but good luck getting em to open the books and prove it.


    Dexter Wong

    There is already a subway under Mission Street and it belongs to BART. Muni would have to dig another tunnel under that to do you suggest. The purpose of the 14 line is to provide rides both short and long along Mission Street. As for smelly buses, most 14 buses are trolley coaches which do not smell.



    As much as I love what MUNI is trying to do, this red bus only lane was poorly planned. San Francisco streets are too crowded and removing a lane of traffic will not make things better. Personally MUNI could have made a greater impact allocating the money to planning a subway that runs down Mission and potentially beyond. Many people in San Francisco and the Bay Area still get around via car and increasing traffic will keep people away. On top of that, no one wants to ride a smelly bus, even if they are new. But if there was a subway option I am sure more people would be willing to leave their cars in the garage and take a trip that will possibly take half the time the bus would, even if the entire stretch of Mission had bus only lanes. San Francisco is becoming a major city and when planning for the future we have to take into consideration the thousand plus people moving into the city. Busses just won’t cut it anymore.



    San Francisco population density: 17,000 sq mi
    Manhattan population density: 72,000 sq mi

    For San Francisco to become Manhattan it would first have to become Queens, then the Bronx, followed by Brooklyn, then finally our evil plan to transform San Francisco into Manhattan can come to fruition.

    Tl;dr: You have no idea what you’re talking about.



    Great minds think alike, Kieran! I take it that you mean the southbound 49 would turn left from Mission to 16th then right on SVN, while the northbound 49 would turn left from SVN onto 16th and then right on Mission? I see your point about serving the 16th BART Station, but the turns would slow it down. That’s why I favor having the route stay on South Van Ness all the way from Market to Cesar Chavez. But I think either approach would be an improvement. I also like your idea of having stops every two blocks.



    I have had this idea for years and it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone else suggest it…Put the 49 Van Ness-Mission bus onto South Van Ness!! That’d easily make things more efficient for the 14 local bus that stays on Mission…Here’s how I’d re-route the 49 through the Inner Mission-Both inbound and outbound 49s would turn off Mission at 16th st, stopping at the 16th st BART station. From there, they’d take South Van Ness. The southbound 49s going to CCSF would take South Van Ness until 26th st, then taking 26th st to Mission, while the northbound 49s headed to Aquatic Park would turn right onto 25th st from Mission and left onto South Van Ness, followed by turning left onto 16th st again before turning back onto Mission st and heading north.

    The 49 would stop every 2 blocks on South Van Ness- So for a northbound 49, it would stop at 24th and SVN to drop riders off a block away from the 24th st BART station, then at 22nd, 20th, 18th and 16th sts. That would make the 49 much faster going through the Inner Mission. All Muni needs to do is make more bus shelters, do community outreach, post a route change and there ya go-much faster 49 service. Also putting the 14 R onto SVN is a good idea, while the 14 local can stay on Mission. The 14 R could share the stops I listed above with the 49. Mission st through the Inner Mission is way too narrow and crowded for 3 bus lines which all use 60 foot buses to efficiently traverse.



    better. I was thinking of saying “Pizza” just to start a war



    I’d say Mexican food (there are places in NYC that actually advertise a “San Franciscio-style burrito.” Those places lie), but well said.



    It happened to me three or four times.

    My skin starts to crawl every time still.



    Actually, the SFPark program was designed to manage parking demand so that there would always be 10% of spaces available on any given block. Prices were adjusted for time of high demand as well, particularly in the area around AT&T Park where during game days, parking demand is quite high.

    The owners of parking garages are asking market rate for their garages. One only has to walk around the area in SOMA during game days to see how much demand for parking there is, and how garages adjust their prices to compensate for that demand.



    Do we live in San Francisco and not Manhattan for a reason and don’t want the former to turn into the latter?

    Yes – but that’s because we have better Sushi and I don’t think more housing is going to screw that up.



    San Francisco is long past the point of win-wins. We need to choose our priorities (and we have – Transit First, Vision Zero) and act accordingly.


    SF Guest

    You write you don’t object to motorists who opt for free or low-cost parking if it’s readily available; you only object to those looking for free or low-cost parking when they can pay for parking at a garage instead of circling the blocks.

    Your stance is street parking rates should be more in line with private garage rates. Since SFMTA parking fees cannot automatically increase which includes charging for evenings and weekends while there are private garages charging $5/hour perhaps it should be the owners of the private garages who should reexamine their fee structure if their garages remain 1/4 full.

    In either case it does no good to hold motorists in contempt for making money-saving choices while making the personal choice to drive a private vehicle.