Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Gezellig

    As someone who lived in Ingleside for a couple of years I agree. Sure, there will always be some use cases (such as, say, a less-abled person living on a big hill not directly served by a Muni bus line) where driving really makes a lot more sense. I’m not talking about that.

    Truth be told, car-centric infrastructure promotes a lot of laughably pointless driving. Once, while walking home from the 24 Hour Fitness on Ocean Ave–only about a half mile away–my neighbor stopped me and in amazement asked, “you WALK to the gym? Don’t you know the 24 here has parking?! I can give you a ride next time!”

    I hadn’t noticed before that exchange but then observed in subsequent weeks how my (very fully abled) neighbor would drive the same half-mile every day to…the gym of all places. Where he’d spend 30 minutes often doing only very light cardio, then drive home :p

    Countless of these ridiculous trips happen every day by people who do it just because the infrastructure encourages it, not because it particularly makes much sense.

    Meanwhile, the “best” bike improvements in the area are still just “buffers” (by nothing but paint…so, not actually buffered) and even sharrows on a Freeway In All But Name:

    https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2919/14193513839_c802ddf8cc_c.jpg

    Not 8-to-80

  2.  

    Alex

    Thanks for saying that. I agree with your other ideas and as a first step a group of citizens (myself included) in the Portola are working to secure funding for a study to address the Alemany Maze by reconnecting the neighborhoods around it with pedestrian & bike paths. I’ve also been thinking that the 101 right of way that rips through the city could be reimagined as a connector rather than a separator by adding walking paths/bike lanes along the side (fully seperated of course) and perhaps BRT lanes. It would link Vis Valley, Candlestick,Bayview, Portola, Silver Terrace, Bernal. Mission & Potrero directly with SOMA and Downtown by using speedy bus service and a flat and direct bike route/walking path, always seems like a waste that the flat and direct cut through by 101 was only used for cars.

  3.  

    murphstahoe

    The map has been misinterpreted as “these neighborhoods supported L” which is a falsehood and should be made clear.

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    Look, there is no way to get from Park Merced to the Golden Gate Park on transit reasonably. Ignore the fact that Park Merced is across the street from Lake Merced.

    The craziest thing about car culture in a world of congestion is that it’s opened up the possibility of getting to far flung places that are probably no more interesting that the places nearby, at the cost of hours of time, of money, and sanity.

    I’m not dismissing taking a trip to Yosemite, but I really find it odd the false economies of my neighbors in Healdsburg who make Costco runs to the southern edge of Santa Rosa, paying $15 in gas and 2 hours of their time to save maybe $20 on their groceries, much of which gets spoiled because they save money by buying in quantities they can’t cosume before it goes bad. How will I get to Costco indeed.

  5.  

    SF Guest

    Is there a difference between being less fervently against it vs. being more fervently against it? Isn’t it enough to say they did not support L?

  6.  

    jonobate

    Fair point. I didn’t mean to disrespect Portola. My brother-in-law lives there, and I like spending time in the neighborhood, but getting there is always unpleasant due to the hulking 101/280 interchange.

    I would love to see 280 removed all the way back to this interchange so that the two pairs of flyover ramps in the south side of the interchange could be removed. In the nearer term, HOT lanes on 101 would provide congestion free lanes for the 8X to use, which would greatly improve reliability.

  7.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Lots of people who currently think that they “need” their cars can actually do most or all of their trips some other way, and would be better off doing so. The current challenge for the movement is bringing them around. I am sure it can be done.

  8.  

    John Rogers

    I’d like to see a journalist dig into the Yes on L campaign. Everything I’ve heard from them points to a case of chronic Bikelash gone ballistic. The whole Sunday parking thing was a red herring. The level of cynical manipulation is stunning.

  9.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Sigh… now you’re just going to be insufferable: reason, truth, and now you’re probably going to start claiming you represent the majority view!

    A majority view based on nothing more than studies, surveys and a majority vote on just about every transit/bike ballot measure that’s been put up for a vote.

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    “Support for prop L” – make sure you look at that map. Only the darkest colored areas had a majority for L, and even those it was slimmer than the overall majority against

  11.  

    murphstahoe

    They did not support L. They were just less fervently against it.

    This thing went down 62-37

  12.  

    M.

    :-) Dearest Bobby G. We have quite a fun Twitter thing goin on.

    ‘are there any upcoming Folks for Polk activities going on?’ Check our Facebook page for events. It’s mostly quiet now as we wait as EIR hurdles are cleared, thence for the redesign to be presented to the MTA Board sometime Jan. or Feb. Meanwhile, we continue to attend meetings that matter, including with our sworn enemies (not fun but crucial to do). FFP is in the #VisionZero SF Coalition/Task Force and we encourage everyone to be involved w/ that – Tomorrow at 10 am is a Call to Action & Memorial http://on.fb.me/1xhwkxg and on 18 Nov. the Van Ness BRT will come before the MTA Board so we’re calling on as many as possible to be there as we expect kickback from the no-to-change types.

  13.  

    M.

    We’re scheduling with the lawyer. If you’d like in, contact at folks@folksforpolk.org

  14.  

    Gezellig

    I’ve wondered that exact same thing for awhile–now that even NACTO and Caltrans are on board with protected infra and LOS can’t torpedo projects anymore, at what point can the city be sued for negligence for *not* implementing these best (or better) practices when they’re clearly there?

    It seems increasingly there’d be a strong legal case for this. It’s absurd and, well, *negligent* that proven better, safer designs aren’t getting built due to capitulation to a selfish vocal minority.

  15.  

    M.

    As the usage of the 1CA line confirms. It may be more accurate to say that it’s as much a factor of generation and distance in time from time of immigration.

  16.  

    Gezellig

    Thanks! Feel free to use the text–I don’t own any of the images but can cite them:

    –> Video, Michael Andersen, People for Bikes

    –> Polk image 1, “Bob Gunderson” http://dearestdistrict5.blogspot.com/

    –> Polk image 2, SFMTA

    –> Graphic, Copenhagenize

    Also, are there any upcoming Folks for Polk activities going on? Great group!

  17.  

    hp2ena

    Same goes for biking, actually. Same perception: “no one bikes over here, we must own a car”. Simple way to disprove: build bike lanes to encourage more bike riders.

  18.  

    94103er

    Yep. And I hate to say it, but planning by committee really, really needs to stop. I know everyone would scream bloody murder at the ‘arrogant bureaucrats’ for actually following through on designs drawn up by the Planning Department, but seriously, when are we collectively going to wake up and realize how ugly neighborhoods affect all of us? Freeways and treeless barren stretches discourage pedestrians via noise, dirty air, and whipping winds, so fewer eyes on the street —> vandalism, crime, blight, economic malaise.

    Keeping housing prices low via civic neglect: An idea born in the 1950s. Time to move on.

  19.  

    hp2ena

    Now that I think of it, I don’t think the issue of Chinese Americans wanting to own cars is really cultural. I think it’s because when they moved here in recent years, they feel like they need to drive to get around because they feel Americans prioritize driving (and I will add that this is true, from family experience). This has been mostly true in the past half century, with car-oriented, non-pedestrian-friendly streets, and it’s especially perceived to be true as they continue to move into car-oriented, transit-poor (by this I mean in terms of passenger crowding, not frequency of buses) neighborhoods like the Portola and VIsitacion Valley. Simply increasing transit access (like frequency and reliability) and making it comfortable will destroy the cultural mentality that Chinese/Asian Americans want cars. In the end, everyone wants equitable access to transportation, but it’s possible that some groups don’t have access to adequate tools needed to advocate for these improvements. Aspiring to own a car isn’t necessarily rooted in culture, it’s part of the social construction of the mainstream.

  20.  

    Flubert

    Surely the support for Prop L derives from those parts of the city where cars are essential for mobility. That doesn’t necessarily dovetail with affluent conservative areas

    So for instance nobody would regard the far south of the city as conservative or affluent. After all, John Avalos is their Supervisor. But that area is very car-dependant and they are not going to vote to cut off their nose to spite their face.

    People who can easily walk to work should not be seen trying to lecture those who live further out and need their cars, at least with the present transit infrastructure.

    So I do not think the PR battle has been won outside of the central core of that map.

  21.  

    Flubert

    Death doesn’t prove recklessness but it may be indicative of the degree of recklessness.

    It’s also useful to be able to show to a jury that real harm was done. The jury might otherwise dismiss the incident as minor. Generally speaking, if a driver is reckless but no harm or damage occurs, then the criminal and civil liability is trivial.

  22.  

    M.

    no way. indefatigable, motivated, angry

  23.  

    M.

    Yes, we should lead with…leading.

  24.  

    M.

    We still have lots to do in terms of silo-breaking and achieving buy-in from EVERYONE that this matters. Best practice road design, education, and enforcement benefits us all. If crashes on Polk alone cost $18-28m/year, citywide it’s causing SF to hemorrhage money on both that micro level and the macro level in that no city can expect to remain world class without real world transpo choices. Just in case the abiding death, destruction, trauma, and fear aren’t costly enough.
    Someone who attended a ‘outer’ neighborhood Transpo ballot measure meeting told he couldn’t believe how homogenous the people were – unlike the people he associates with. He couldn’t believe he lives in the same city. #BustSilosChangeTheWorld

  25.  

    M.

    The Clement-to-Chinatown nexus results in the heaviest users of the 1 CA Muni line, a frequent, mostly reliable route with extended hours. Clement is very well served by transit with other lines as well.

  26.  

    M.

    No need to over-analyse. Many Chinese/Other Asian-Americans have said it’s also cultural. See above.

  27.  

    M.

    Voters were intentionally misled. It’s that simple and that pathetic.

  28.  

    M.

    See above comment re. legal liability.

  29.  

    M.

    Go for it. Recent consultation w/ a lawyer in this specialty reveals that the city does, in fact, have the case that it is in their duty of care, not to mention an issue of liability, for them to proceed as if people’s lives depend on it. And as if they can get sued if they don’t.

  30.  

    M.

    Haha – love this. Too funny. If, of course it wasn’t so sad – and difficult. May Folks For Polk use this?

  31.  

    M.

    Please correct the caption on the photo of the shopfront. The opposite is true. When the signs went up, we went door-to-door to see what happened. Most of the Polk merchants had either not been consulted re. posting the yellow signs or had been blatantly lied to about Prop L (both very typical MOs as we’ve seen before). When we explained the facts, almost all of the posters came down. The 2 or 3 that remained did so primarily because the owners/managers were unavailable to talk with.

    The fact that most of the signs were concentrated on Lower Polk tipped us off to the real agenda of the people distributing them (one of whom was Stephen Cornell, no longer owner of Brownie’s Hardware and never a resident of this area). We discovered that they did indeed conflate the Polk redesign with Prop L, telling merchants that unless it passed, all of the onstreet parking would be eliminated. It was a move to continue to sabotage the cycleways planned for Lower Polk. In addition to which, many of the merchants were marginal English speakers and were clearly intimidated and misunderstanding.

    As to Chinatown, car ownership is still part of the American dream for first-gen Chinese et al. but no doubt there was plenty of misinformation put out there about all of the issues at stake, as well. There goes the neighborhood – to the most organized/motivated.

  32.  

    94103er

    Hear hear! I continue to be amazed what an effective Berlin Wall we have created by letting 280 and 101 just stand there, decade after decade, and continue to do nothing at all about them.

  33.  

    Alex

    That’s the kind of arrogant comment that gets us no where and creates the “us” and “them” mentality that divides this city on issues such as this. I moved from Church and Market to Portola and we love our new hood because it’s sunnier, relaxing and we could actually afford a house with a view of downtown. If I were to change anything about where we live it is its connectivity to the rest of SF and repairing the separation created by 280/101 which interestingly enough is exactly where a major shift happens in voting on L.

  34.  

    Alex

    I live across the highway in the dark brown area of Portola where there are a lot of Chinese business owners, as a generalization they are very pro car and we had Yes on L posters up and down San Bruno Ave. To me it reflects the need for the city to better connect these outlying areas that have been cut off by the highway.

  35.  

    Alex

    We recently moved to the Portola District and a lot of neighbors that I spoke with were voting Yes on L because they feel very disconnected from the rest of the city and feel they need to rely on a car which I can understand despite being a biker and transit user myself. The city needs to do a lot to better connect its outlying areas with public transportation, pedestrian connections, bike lanes and reconnecting through physical and mental barriers such as 280/101 to increase the movement of people and decrease the car culture creating feeling of isolation. These outer neighborhoods are actually quite dense with connected houses that are often broken up into several apartments and the lack of parking is an ongoinig complaint that is creating many issues in the community and the only solution is to give residents good alternatives that reduce the need for a car or at the very least multiple cars as many of our neighbors have. I know from a friend in the Excelsior that they can’t get any trees planted on their street because neighbors want to be able to park their cars on the sidewalk and a tree would impede that which to me is the ultimate example of how badly the outter neighborhoods need to be addressed.

  36.  

    Alex

    And thanks Chazz for saying that and for the engaging debate :) . I understand your point and have seen that attitude myself. Believe it or not I’m actually am a bit of a car enthusiast, I belong to a club here in the Bay Area and own two myself. I commuted for 5 years by car and changed over to biking or public trans 2 years ago and despite the hiccups that sometimes occur with public trans my stress level has gone down and I’ve saved a lot of money on maintenance and gas. Having the choice to get around without a car is a real luxury in my mind, as much as I love cars, I know first hand that they are expensive and a headache and if you don’t love them or absolutely need one then I think you are probably better off without one but that’s a personal choice and I just want to allow everyone to have that choice, especially those who could use the savings.

  37.  

    murphstahoe

    Whether a victim dies from being hit by a reckless driver is a function of luck, the age and health of the victim, and timeliness of medical repsonse. The death does not prove recklessness.

  38.  

    p_chazz

    You probably won’t see people shopping for a family of four for a week carrying groceries on Muni. And if transit activists want to come across as shrill extremists, well good luck with that outside San Francisco and New York.

  39.  

    SF Guest

    I wasn’t aware Chinatown supported L but they still harbor deep wounds from ex-Mayor Agnos’ refusal to repair SR 480 Embarcadero Freeway after suffering a major decline in business when it closed. C-Town withdrew their support of Agnos and he lost his bid for re-election.

    Hopefully the Central Subway will ease their recovery.

  40.  

    Upright Biker

    Roger that, Comrade Dyer! Let’s unseal the attack plans!

    Now, where did we leave them?

  41.  

    NoeValleyJim

    This is a nice win, but we have a lot of work to do in The Excelsior, Ingleside and Bayview. We need their support for a super-majority.

    You can sort of see the old “Conservative C” in the map results, though L supporters couldn’t complete the encirclement.

    http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q488/kurykh/SFmoderatemap.png

  42.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Where are you finding this data? I would like to know what happened in SOMA and the TL. I am really surprised by the outcome on the map in that area.

  43.  

    Jym Dyer

    The stub of the freeway ended at Mission and the newspapers indulged in tabloidesque apocalyptic headlines to predict massive traffic jams. These did not materialized. Actually, it worked well and we never should have extended it back up to Market.

  44.  

    Jym Dyer

    @murphstahoe – 2014 Prop L, 2007 Prop H, 1999 Prop E.

  45.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Upright Biker – Who needs a cudgel when you’ve got All-Powerful Bike Lobby Special Interests, the insidious Order #5176 on our side, jackboots, and the bicycle fairy to grant wishes? (Or maybe I’ve just been reading too much Prop L and ENUF propaganda.)

  46.  

    Jym Dyer

    @jonobate – The yellower areas on the map are neighborhoods saved by the Freeway Revolt. You can see this pattern in cities nationwide, where the Revolt spread to.

    Of greater concern is that the darker areas are largely those that have had freeway infrastructure built atop them and are underserved by transit. It is imperative to improve transit there. (This was a point that Enrique Peñalosa made more than once on his last visit.)

  47.  

    Jym Dyer

    ✧ Don’t follow leaders / Watch the parking meters

  48.  

    dat

    So weird… the vitriolic-anti-bike-hatchet-site-blog is strangely silent on this topic. No doubt feverishly slaving away on a post that will show how the turnout was gamed by the all powerful Bike Lobby and working up the next frivolous lawsuit. That, or just more peeing into the wind.

  49.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Upright Biker – Well, it’s time to get the All-Powerful Agenda 21 War on Cars underway. Prop L was the only thing stopping us, you know. Time to build those bulbouts on Masonic, which are really only there to land our fleet of black helicopters.

  50.  

    Jym Dyer

    @the_greasybear – He seems to be immune to reality. I’ve pointed out to him before that 1999 Prop E qualifies as voter endorsement of transit-first, bikes and pedestrians included, but he’s argued that the bikes and pedestrians were snuck in (when in fact they were flogged endlessly by Prop E’s opponents).

    Later, 2007 Prop H was put on the ballot by a billionaire who paid signature-gatherers to lie (sound familiar?), in an attempt to scuttle 2007 Prop A’s loosening of parking minimums. Voters went Yes on A and No on H, sorry Don Fisher.

    So, rejection of 2014 Prop L is the third voter affirmation of transit first, not cars first.