Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I agree that public transit underground is ideal, but 1) per roymeo, that doesn’t mean the above-ground status quo is acceptable simply because our streets are utterly dominated by personal cars which undergrounding public transit does nothing to address, and 2) try getting people in this city to pony up for under-grounding public transit. For the latter issue, we’re stuck in a vicious cycle: not enough people take public transit because it doesn’t run frequently enough or fast enough or to places they need to go, yet to improve this requires more money but people won’t pony up because they don’t ride it because it doesn’t serve their needs. And on and on and on … To break this cycle, we need to start truly manifesting our transit first policy (e.g. “red carpet” lanes for MUNI as just one example) and letting motorists know that their needs are, in general, secondary to that of walking, bicycling, and public transit.



    Re: guy stealing bike with angle grinder in broad daylight on Valencia

    This is mind-blowing. I cannot believe people are either so oblivious or so afraid to acknowledge others that this was not instantly reported by everybody nearby the instant the sparks flew. Even if you’re not sure what is going on and, giving the person the benefit of the doubt (which I think many people do: maybe he’s a worker fixing the bike rack? Maybe it’s his bike? Sounds silly, but many people just assume people wouldn’t do something so flagrantly so there must be a legit reason.), just call and let the cops sort it out. If it turns out it’s legit, it’s no skin off your back. Given how bad crime has gotten in this city and how much more useless SFPD has become (e.g. executing crackdowns on bicyclists rolling stop signs instead of dealing with actual crime), we all need to be more pro-active and more interested in looking out for others.



    Is that because of what they put underground, or how they tried to do it and perhaps because few modern building projects seem as easy as they used to be?

    The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge is a mess, perhaps we should quit building bridges for cars?



    Aren’t some of these lanes previously transit-only lanes that have just been painted red?



    Can you show me where a congested city made improvements that removed congestion and even dealt with more traffic coming in??



    Taking out the red thermoplastic doesn’t change the lanes that were transit-only before. (At least I believe there were transit-only lanes in some places at least previously.)

    Nor does it change the number of buses running this street.

    Not sure what the added danger is here.



    I don’t think red thermoplastic is responsible for most of those woes. What if we have red bus-only lanes AND do something about housing…maybe build some condos on some misused lots?



    Sure. We’ll make every single change underground. No need to ever change anything above ground.



    all the streets are now supercongested because of teh city’s war on cars. meanwhile the number of cars in SF is increasing. the city cant stick its head in the sand and only support the people who dont drive, when the vast majority do drive



    can we please focus the city on subways and take more public transit underground. we can avoid these kind o planning clusterf*cks



    the demolition of the central freeway was a huge failure and has drastically increased congestion, pollution and made a freeway on the street level in hayes valley



    posting this for the third time in this conversation. have you read it yet? You make it about evidence when you make assertions –people want to see the evidence supporting your assertion. You never post any.



    Always comes back to car worship, doesn’t it? Guess what: a lot of people under the poverty line in SF take the bus.



    I guess you weren’t around for the disastrous Measure L, and the successful increases in Muni funding. Yet, no matter what voters say, motorists insist that they are the silent majority…



    Look if you are scared to cross a small street like Capp then you probably should not be out without your mom.

    SVN to Mission is a trivial walk and certainly less than a lot of interchanges at supposedly “networked” transit systems.

    And I never said a pedestrian who gets in an accident “had it coming”. Who is lying now?



    No, the voters decided on a cute slogan. They didn’t decide to make their lives hell so that a 3% modal share can sing Kumbayah while they ride to the promised land



    And I don’t see any evidence from you. And in any event this isn’t just about evidence even assuming that you had any. It’s about assumptions.



    Undergroung BARt and Muni co-exist under Market so we know it can be done. And in fact the Central Subway navigates that too.

    More generally transit should be underground as much as possible. Boston tried to put the cars underground instead and it has been a disaster



    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.