Skip to content

Recent Comments



    This isn’t right. I cross the street with great care and have done for years. I was taught to always look carefully even when I have the right of way because where I am from, I hardly ever had the advantage of cars stopping for me – my hometown was small and only had a couple of sporadic painted crossings, some of which drivers virtually never stopped at and most of the time it was not practical to walk halfway through town in the wrong direction to simply cross the road anyway, so I did cross at places where there were no official crossings (not jaywalking under my region’s law as I was far enough from an official crossing for that offence not to apply) and I learned where and when it was safe to do that and if conditions were unfavourable, I would wait or relocate myself.

    However since moving to the city, I have had a number of close calls, despite my level of care (which is much higher than others’). The idea that it is assumed that I am partially to blame for inattentiveness if I actually did get hit is ludicrous. I am not the one breaking the law (I don’t think that I have jaywalked once, technically, since moving – if I can wait, I wait, I’m really not so important that I can’t wait the less than 30s for the light to change. Now I won’t rule out jaywalking in the future – if there was an emergency for example -, but I’d do it safely, I know how). In fact, I go above and beyond the law to protect myself from unreasonable and dangerous people who are, for reasons passing understanding, permitted to operate vehicles in a way that is a menace.

    But yeah, assume I am a moron who walks around texting and walking into shit and that’s why I (hypothetically) got hit by a car. One of those close calls was really close you know. Woman just blew right through a stop sign and I was already in the road at a four way stop no traffic moving toward me when I started crossing (the vehicle in front of her was making a left and she obviously did not stop at the sign or look to see if anyone or anything was in the road, she just went as soon as that vehicle was out of her way). Seriously. I could have had serious injuries from that, or even died if I hadn’t heard it coming. What if I was hard of hearing, huh?


    Christin Evans

    Aaron, a customer just alerted me to this post which misrepresents my position and that position of the Haight Ashbury Merchants Association (HAMA).

    I’m referring to this sentence in particular,… “Christin Evans, owner of Booksmith and a board member of the Haight-Ashbury Merchants Association, said the organization “unequivocally” opposes the parking removals and the addition of transit shelters.”

    This is not accurate. HAMA has not taken a position on parking loss, as the merchants are divided on this topic. If there are improvements to the corridor that require loss of parking spots, there is some interest to give up a
    limited amount of parking for thoughtful designs to add pedestrian level
    lighting, permeable paving and greenery (as were supported by the over 200 community members who were involved in the public realm planning process an completed the planning department’s survey).

    What is accurate is that HAMA and the community have opposed the addition of the standard bus shelters with seating. The survey revealed a clear majority of community members who opposed adding seating of any kind to Haight street. If seating were added, the most popular option was planter edge ‘informal’ seating (photos were included in the survey), several other types of seating were shown in the survey and they were all rejected by survey respondents.

    Merchants who attended the meeting have been in discussions with SFMTA planners since about alternatives to the traditional bus shelters for the Haight as there have been numerous problems & complaints according to the police Captainon and the neighbors to the transit shelters in front of McDonald’s and at the intersection of Masonic & Haight.

    Frankly I was shocked to hear the SFMTA plan represented as an output of the public realm process. We started that process 3 years ago with Alexis Smith and the topic of bus shelters and transit bulb outs never appeared on the visual depictions shared by planning. I think this is a case where SFMTA planners showed up late to the party, didn’t listen to the input from the community being given, and layered their cookie cutter designs down on top of Haight street. You might say it’s been frustrating, in the least, that one city
    department is leading us through a process now over three years in the
    making, collecting community input, and then turning around with another
    department and riding roughshod over that input.

    Also I’ll add on a personal note that everyone who works at the Booksmith uses transit, walks or bikes to work. So we are in support of efforts to improve the bus times, but not at any cost.



    Speeding up transit is part of the “carrot” approach to encourage transit usage. The SFMTA is decried by some for an allegedly punitive (or “stick”) approach to transportation (ie. parking meter installation, high fines for parking violations). Now, the SFMTA is attempting to reward and encourage transit usage and, again, they’re met with opposition.

    With current transit ridership along this corridor, it seems unreasonable to expect that some of the buses should be diverted off Haight Street (this would result in reduced service for Haight Street). The MTA held hearings and encouraged public input. Questioning the merits of some of the proposed changes seems reasonable, but isn’t it now time to move forward for the sake of all current and future Muni riders?


    Leon Foonman

    If people would just paint their concreted-in front yards with green paint, like they do in the outer Sunset, then it would solve the problem. People can continue to hide in their Fabulously Remodeled Homes with Fully Developed, Un-permitted second units (AirBnB!). It will be great, with NO Zoning Laws to prevent multiple units and dozens of people crammed in to one home, we can have more cars, parked on the green concrete. When the dozens of people get in their cars to drive around other neighborhoods, then the rest of us can enjoy the beautiful green concrete and cemented in yards, without those dirty trees and other useless shrubs.
    Remember, every tree is just another Lost Parking Place that you could put your BMW in, the one you pay those 500 a month lease payments on.


    Leon Foonman

    You are an eeejit.



    When it comes to the bus shelters for the new Van Ness Ave BRT. Rather than that “wavy” design, which is being implemented as old bus shelters are being replaced, they should have a modern canopy design like many modern BRT systems. Picture the current design at the present day West Portal Muni Station, it’s a canopy design, why not take that idea and shrink so it will fit, and use that as a way to provide weather protection for passengers?? This is how it should be done, it would make the stops look sleek, clean and modern like the average modern BRT Stop/station.


    sebra leaves

    As a driver and pedestrian, I prefer stop signs. The flow of traffic is always smoother and everyone’s wait is shorter at stop signs than at traffic signals. There must be a contractor who wants to sell a lot of traffic signals because there is no reason to put them where they are not wanted. Supervisor Breed should stop the signals.



    Thank you, Michael Smith. Clearly 6 of the intersections may not warrant the expense of a stop light. as no time will be saved And thank youJerry Lee and Gwyneth Borden, for asking for a fuller review.



    Does anyone know what happened to the proposed traffic bulbouts at Haight and Laguna? They’re not shown on this new schematic.

    I have no idea how anyone will be able to cross Haight at that intersection if they put in a two-way stop. And there are about to be hundreds of new housing units within three blocks of that intersection, including all the new units at 55 Laguna literally at that corner.



    Sure looks like a charmer with good potential


    Bob Gunderson

    Great to see the merchants taking a stand by putting their needs above the safety and wellbeing of the people who shop at their stores. Stay strong, merchants!


    Bob Gunderson

    there could be 4 parked cars there *tear


    Jamison Wieser

    Haight Street had already been identified as a high-capacity/high-frequency corridor and the trips are not only from the sunset to downtown. It also differs by time and day: work, coffee, dinner, and errands are likely not all at the same stop downtown.

    It’s those heavily walked businesses people are riding the bus to get to. For faster service there’s the 71L, still hitting key points in each neighborhood it passes through. Those often align with transfer points to other lines.



    The people trying to get across town quickly, and the people going through busy corridors for errands, entertainment, etc. shouldn’t be put all on the same bus on the same street.

    And it seems problematic to me to assume that speed is inherently equivalent to efficiency and benefit, when people move for a wide variety of reasons. Isn’t that the same logic that created “level of service?”



    Busy streets with pedestrians and businesses are the places where you see high transit ridership, as is the case for the 71. It’s important to speed up transit on those streets as doing so will benefit the most people.



    Let’s add “traffic sewer” to the list of overused phrases in San Francisco (vibrant is another of the worst). Use of these hate and advocacy terms polarize any discussion from the start and inhibit real discussion that could lead to understanding and compromise.



    Faster buses should run down faster corridors, not busy streets with pedestrians and businesses.

    And nobody those 18 seconds when they’re the ones running for the bus…



    An increase in Muni’s speed is welcome to all transit riders, especially residents of the Sunset district that rely on the 71 bus to get them downtown and elsewhere. And since we all contribute financially to Muni’s operation (and we all benefit from its utilization), it’s in our collective interest to have Muni’s buses operating quickly and efficiently on the streets of San Francisco.



    Objections to new transit shelters at Haight Street bus stops appear to not be grounded in reality. Our family regularly uses Haight Street stops (especially those at Stanyan – each of which has a shelter). Never have any of us observed any illegal or unsavory activity at one of these shelters. Needless to say, such activity may occur in fairly close proximity but this has nothing to do with a bus shelter. It’s the general location. Drug dealing and drinking both occur regularly along upper Haight Street and at the Stanyan Street entrance to Golden Gate Park but not at the transit shelters at Stanyan. Due to a few bad apples, must we really force disabled passengers and others to stand as they wait at upper Haight Muni stops that lack any seating? Should all transit riders be punished due to the actions of a few?



    Seriously, what’s with all this fetishization of speed? Walking is best and four-way stops work fine. They also encourage drivers to slow down and pay more attention to their surroundings.



    I agree 100%. On top of that, bulb outs, which would be the major safety improvement for pedestrians, can be installed without a traffic signal.



    Haight Street’s currently narrow sidewalks accommodate panhandlers and camping now. These things occur regardless of how wide a sidewalk is – if only it were that simple.



    Looks nice! Pedestrian-only alleys and streets seem like a no-brainer in terms of Vision Zero.


    Jeffrey Baker

    That’s great. I’d love to see this treatment applied to Ecker alley between Folsom and Clementina which was illegally demapped and privatized by a development company partially owned by Gavin Newsom. It’s part of the transbay district and Clementina is supposed to be a major pedestrian route under the plan.


    Michael Smith

    One other question to ask is how credible the stated data is on whether traffic signals are safer for pedestrians. Pedestrian advocates have long advocated for “traffic calming” measures, the antithesis of traffic signals. The vast majority of serious injuries and deaths occur at signalized intersections.I believe that the data SFMTA is using is predominately for intersections where stop signs were replaced by signals *due to safety issues*. For example, if there is a road with two lanes in each direction, such as 30th & Dolores, then a 4-way stop can indeed be problematic because drivers don’t always notice pedestrians crossing. One would expect that replacing a 4-way stop with a traffic signal for safety reasons, as was done at 30th & Dolores, would indeed improve safety. But this is not the situation along Haight and McAllister.

    It would therefore be very useful for the SFMTA to publish the details of the intersections that they are using data for and what the specific data is. That would help the powers that be make a more informed decision.


    Dark Soul

    To be clear, Which December?


    Jamison Wieser

    I appreciate how you keep using the same photo in each delay update. Soon you’ll be able to do this mad lib style: “Double birthing will he delayed [ number ] month(s). SFMTA’S [ choose John Haley or Paul Rose ] said this was due to [ reason ]. Once work on that project is completed, Muni will need an addition [ number ] month(s) for testing.”



    Haight and Clayton needs a traffic light, just like at Ashbury, because it is too hard for peds to cross safely, and takes forever in a car. A two way stop at Shrader would make it dangerous for peds to cross Haight street there. Bulb outs and bus shelters would be a great place to pan handle and camp out, and should be avoided



    Last night’s public meeting on the Lincoln Ave., San Jose road diet was encouraging. The city wants to prototype/mockup the new lane configuration first and then collect data on its effects. They’ll be measuring traffic counts on various streets before and after to see how much traffic diverts to neighborhood streets. The diet is to convert the current 4 lanes of traffic into a 3 lane config (1 each direction and a shared left turn lane in the middle) and possibly use the extra space to install bike lanes. In the current config lanes are narrow and parallel parking means that bicyclists need to take the lane. Parallel parkers and left turners block traffic.

    Most of the public speakers were in favor of the road diet including several business owners. Of course there were the usual naysayers predicting carmageddon though even most of them were willing to let objective data drive the decision.

    Next step is for a citizen working group to deliver recommendations to the city. Then another public meeting after the city digests all of the input and proposes a more detailed project.


    Andy Chow

    Off boarding ticketing…yes
    Signal priority…yes

    The only thing missing is level boarding, which frankly there are no good solutions for. I don’t know if you’ve visited any of the American BRT lines that have level boarding, but I recently rode on one. Unless you think Muni should have a dedicated fleet traveling only on a dedicated corridor, and take away space inside the bus to store bikes rather than exterior bike racks, there’s no need to have “level boarding” which isn’t much more beneficial (you will be wrong to assume that you’ll get a rail like or elevator like access if bus and platform are at the same height). Low floor buses only have a one step gap compared to the 3/4 step gap with most Muni buses.



    The PBB segment was filmed in Daly City, not Burlingame. The officer was from Burlingame, but the sting took place in and around Serramonte Mall.



    What?! Passing a cyclist to closely is a moving violation. Not riding in a bike lane is not. Illegal acts are against the law, something that some driver somewhere feels correctly or incorrectly is inconsiderate is not. Do you understand the difference between a dangerous illegal act, and a legal perfectly safe and acceptable and possibly justifiable act?



    Dedicated lanes are a step in the right direction, but there’s quite a bit more to BRT than that.


    Andy Chow

    How is it watered down when it has dedicated and separated center lanes?



    it’s all part of an effort to encourage more drivers to try transit–by giving them a familiar experience to gridlock



    My prediction for January: “Double berthing? What double berthing?”


    Nicasio Nakamine

    My prediction for December: “Double berthing has been delayed until January”


    Bob Gunderson

    I’ve given up on this one. At least the amount of stops will mimic stop and go car traffic



    No accountability. If no one holds you accountable, why not take your time? Then you know you have a job. And worse, the voters just gave them another 500 million to play with.



    Bob, I expected a heartfelt diatribe against the evils of replacing car lanes with transit, and instead I got a reasonable critique of the plan. I’m very disappointed in you. I thought you were the car whisperer!



    one thousand words



    I haven’t thought of this before (well who am I anyway?) but maybe there is not much reason for the Broadway tunnel to be 4 lanes to motor vehicles. They just scream through it and stop/bunch-up at the ends (mentioned before and I always see it, fwiw) going either way which equals no net increase in travel speed. True throughput data might indicate otherwise. Maybe there’s some lane width to spare? Just thinking out loud.


    Marvin Papas

    Don’t Bro me, Dude.



    Yup! Looks like just another normal storm grate:

    Unless you’re on a bike. And that grate takes up half or more of the bike lane.



    Yeah, I just wonder why the pilot couldn’t have been done on the non-Muni-boarding side of the street where the transit thing wouldn’t be an issue. Maybe also something to do with signaling?


    Bob Gunderson

    But at least they get paid like they do a phenomenal job!


    Bob Gunderson

    The Van Ness will probably take longer since they have to put in a bus stop every 5th of a mile. They might want to just call it BT



    Absolutely anything to change anything at Muni always takes much, much longer than initially predicted – Van Ness BRT, Geary BRT, TEP, and now this. Why is that? Should I just abandon my foolish dream that someday, somehow Muni will improve?



    Yes: in Soc Psych it’s called Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977)



    Not with Photoshop around, no.