Skip to content

Recent Comments



    There have been lots of statements on here that it’s a ton. Plus it’s a valid observation. So that’s a lot of evidence according to you.



    Nope, you’re applying the exact same double standard. The only difference between us is that I get that and you are in denial.



    OK so your business case is based on “implication” and vague numeric terms like “ton”?

    And not a scrap or shred of evidence that the cost of running BART all night for partygoers and revellers could ever be cost-effective or justified?

    Some advice – don’t go on Shark’s Tank or The Apprentice. And don’t stand for public office – if you can’t even get a lousy parklet installed then you probably can’t convince us to invest millions for 24-hour BART.



    Sorry RichLL, you’re looking for an argument I’ve never made a single statement on. You may want to debate many things, but until you’re able to understand that someone who points out a double-standard you’re applying doesn’t thereby take the diametrically opposed position, you’re really just flailing.

    You can keep inventing imaginary positions for me to hold if you must. Be a dear and let me know where I stand on that Walmart thing, too.



    As stated – San Francisco is a night life town. By implication, the expansion is viable.



    Sorry, roymeo, but I’m still waiting for a better argument from you than that you’re backing big business over local residents because you don’t like cars.

    I don’t particularly like rose Pak but she’s right about Stockton Street. I don’t particularly like Campos but he’s right about Mission Street. Even stopped clocks are sometimes right.



    It’s also insane to overuse it. If you run a convenience store, do you stay open all night if only one customer comes in per hour? And he’s drunk, buys some gum, knocks over the produce and throws up on your floor?

    I want to see hard numbers and projections to demonstrate the viability of your expansion idea and “a ton” is as close as you have gotten to that.



    And no sane city designs a transit system around people who want to stay up drinking and clubbing all night.

    BART already exists – and was designed around commuters. It’s insane to under use that investment.



    Wow, a whole new thread there to try to justify yourself.

    I imagine in another 18 hours you’ll have turned this into “It is really very simple. I am partnering with Rose Pak to fight formula retail on Valencia street. You must be agitating to bring Walmart to Jack London Square.”



    A ton? Well, there’s a lot of smaller venues and clubs, I’d agree. But not many large venues – the Warfield is a decent size but otherwise you’re talking a few hundred or so? You tell me.

    And no sane city designs a transit system around people who want to stay up drinking and clubbing all night.

    But hey, if these venues want to pay for free all-night BART so their patrons and workers can get home without springing for a cab, then fine. Just not on my dime.

    Look, I’m a big fan of BART – easily the best transport system the Bay Area has, and with a decent farebox recovery ratio. But if we need a second tube it is for rush-hour capacity and not a few revellers and partiers in the dead of night.



    There are a ton of concert venues in SF, which by implication means that there are not “odd concerts” but many every evening.



    OK, so other than the odd concert, who? How many is “a ton”? How about some numbers? Would the ridership justify the added costs?

    I’m not saying there is zero demand – just not enough to justify the costs incurred. While being priced out of SF is a red herring there. That’s a housing issue. Subsidized transport has to be justified by demand and economics, and not just as a social engineering gesture.



    Other than partiers and clubbers, who wants to get from Market Street to Pleasanton at 3 in the morning?

    San Francisco has a ton of concert venues, and the headliners typically finish up after BART stops running. And the biggest argument is the employees of all those places where people party and club, who are being priced out of SF.


    Marven Norman

    I was thinking the exact same thing. A roundabout solution would likely have the exact same benefits and would fit within the area too.



    I suspect the massive bond issue is just to keep BART running and safe, and keeping the lights on.

    Are you sure the demand exists for 24 hour BART? Have you ever taken the last BART train out of SF at night? Is it packed with people? Or under-utilized?

    New York is a true 24-hour city. I’ve never thought of San Francisco in that way. Heck, most of the restaurants I like won’t serve after 9 pm. Other than partiers and clubbers, who wants to get from Market Street to Pleasanton at 3 in the morning? Could such a service be economically justified?

    Or if it’s just a shuttle between Montgomery and West Oakland, doesn’t a night bus work better? BART is most valuable when the roads and bridges are packed with traffic.



    While I’m no fan of cloverleaf interchanges, this project makes only slight safety improvements without providing any meaningful non-auto changes. Pedestrians and bicyclists will have to fight to cross even more lanes of traffic, and there is no way for pedestrians to cross El Camino Real. Also, there are no apparent design considerations that would speed buses through the area.

    A double roundabout would address capacity issues while making this area much more approachable for pedestrians and bicyclists, plus through delay for buses would likely be reduced. Shame on Caltrans and SMCTA for this antiquated redesign. It’s 2016, not 1996.


    SF Guest

    To categorize or label cars as a mode “that consistently kills and injures other people” is patently misleading since the majority of drivers have not killed or injured other people and is illustrative of an anti-car mentality.

    Whether you have data that drivers are not as critical to merchants’ sales is irrespective and secondary to the desires and preferences of its merchants since they are the ones who are in business to make a living. It’s up to you to persuade the merchant into your way of thinking, and if you fail to coerce the merchant into your way of thinking you are the one who failed and not the merchant.



    Yes. Multi-tasking skills enable one to be the kind of energetic, active and enthusiastic contributor that Streetsblog values, while causing very little downtime to my regular job.



    Do you have a day job? Or is commenting on sf area websites your full time gig?


    david vartanoff

    BART CAN run 24/7. This is not a technical issue; single tracking of the Transbay Tube could support trains every half hour between Montgomery and West Oakland. When the “we can’t do it” staffers give excuses, they need to be reminded the long list of portions of the NY, Chicago, and Philly systems that are two tracks just like BART and manage every night.
    BART is asking for a very large bond issue in November. As a condition of the bond issue, we should demand 24/7 service within 2 years and to continue until at least those bonds are paid off. 30 years IIRC, so the habit will be there and cutting back will be politically impossible.



    Still waiting for his subway plan to be revealed…chirp, chirp

    “So we need to keep a second Transbay tube on track, which will allow for
    24-hour BART. Of course, it’s not just about 24-hour capacity; it’s
    about redundancy. It’s about connecting Caltrain, the Capital Corridor,
    and getting HSR over to the East Bay and Sacramento.”

    (1) There are no formal plans for a second BART tube. BART has been floating the idea around for years, but when you’re dealing with an agency looking at 2050 goals, not 2020, then you can pretty much forget about it ever being built.
    (2) If you push for the DTX then Caltrain will be connected to BART/MUNI. Instead, it’s been labeled as an afterthought of the TTC project, not a priority.
    (3) Why don’t you (SW) lobby for HSR to run through the East Bay rather than the peninsula? Then run it under the bay in a new, combined BART/HSR tube.



    To his credit, Scott is the best informed supe on transpo issues. He’s always been a good friend to the SFBC. He’s smart and analytical, and refuses to join anyones’s “camp.” I don’t always agree with him, but I admire him.



    A good test of objectivity would be to look at someone’s posting pattern. If they take a balanced view, sometimes supporting cars, sometimes supporting transit, sometimes supporting cyclists etc. then one can reasonably infer objectivity. He looks at each situation uniquely and based on its merits. Their conclusion will reflect the facts and priorities of each case.

    At the opposite extreme you have the kind of person who has no need of facts because their mission is, say, a war on cars. Such people will advocate for removing parking not because it makes sense in that situation but rather because they always want to remove parking. Their ultimate ambition is not improved balance but the eradication of private vehicles.

    Your list of opinions preceded with the word “objectively” there, which in fact are not objective at all, indicates to the casual observer that you are in the latter biased category. That is a rebuttable presumption and, should you advocate for cars and drivers in at least some situations, then the presumption may be withdrawn.



    What makes you think you are “objective”? Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Objectively, 800,000 San Franciscans can’t drive everywhere without busting the transportation system. Objectively, cars are the only mode of transportation that consistently kills and injures other people. Objectively, drivers are not as critical to merchants’ bottom lines as they believe. You should just admit that you are a subjective ideologue and your opinion is that none of this should matter.


    citrate reiterator

    It’s a NIMBY dogwhistle. That way he can plausibly claim to be for things like improving transit or bike infrastructure — just not, you know, in his or his constituents’ backyards.



    Here’s hoping Streetsblog gives Kim the same fluffy courtesy (and perhaps asks about a vehicle license fee…)



    jd_x, it describes EVERYONE on this site who has any consistency in their comments!

    However the purpose of this site is not to make decisions about bike, bus or walk lanes that affect local residents. Rather it is a location for chat and debate on related topics and, as such, might reasonably be expected to attract those with strong, firm, consistent opinions.

    My activity here is intended to provide more breadth, balance and objectivity than was prevalent before.



    I make no apology for wanting to give small local merchants and business owners more say than large retail corporations like Macy’s who are in it only for the money and don’t care about local issues.

    Not for listening more to local residents and workers than to lobby groups, special interest groups and ideological activists who are not directly affected.



    “An activist is someone who shows up at every meeting regardless of the location, and makes the exact same point every time.”

    Oh my god, you just described your own activity on this website!



    <<fb. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il126r:….,……



    <<fb. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il126r:….,…….



    What I may desire has nothing to do with whom I’m willing to let speak, unlike you, who has actively voiced the opinion that some people are “activists” who don’t get a say.

    You do understand than any comment in response to you isn’t automatically an equal and opposite action, don’t you? Is this transference? You’ve had this problem before, thinking that pointing out that you were discarding one set of merchants for another meant I had voiced some opinion that the discarded set ought to take priority.

    Wait a minute. Is this a Markov random chain generator or just a simple Eliza program you’re generating posts with?



    I was talking about palo alto and you brought up SF so I guess you can not dispute my claim. nonetheless, why should I thank BART? It is subsidised and does not even come close to covering its expenses. locally, i do not want it because it lowers my property value. I thought you were arguing for the locals. In fact you said:

    You see local people who oppose your grand vision as “busybodies”. I see them as people wanting a say in their own back yard.

    now you are arguing for the commuters who would like to live in a walkable city, afford a home, and have a job.



    I have no reason to single out one particular town like you do. The bigger, more important point is to look at the ratio between workforce and residents across the Bay Area.

    So while it might be true that Palo Alto makes little effort to house all its workers, it is hardly unique in that. By far the biggest culprit in that regard is San Francisco. Solve that problem and the rest is trivial.

    On an average day 100,000 people commute OUT of the city and about 500,000 commute INTO the city. San Francisco’s massive failure to build homes for its workers is the elephant in the room. The South Bay may have that problem too, but the East Bay luckily houses far more workers than it needs, and bails out the entire SF peninsula.

    Thank BART every morning you wake up or you would not be able to afford a home in SF.



    You have not compared that to the percentage of inbound commuters to palo alto. It is your job to look up the facts and prove me wrong. You have not proved me wrong so I assume that since you can not put an argument together you need to go back to high school debate and learn how to debate.



    Yeah, Lisa linked the SFSB article in her candidacy website before she saw the way she was destroyed in the comments, just a few days later. Coincidence? I think not.

    Then she linked the Bay Reporter article where she tried to play her gay card having previously and proudly stated that she was “not gay”.

    Massive fail for the 3rd best Green Party candidate in the 2004 D5 supervisor election.



    Rob, if you want to talk about cities that do not build enough housing for the workers they need, then the number one culprit is San Francisco. There is a net inward daily commute of about 400,000 workers into the city.



    you are fractally wrong. look at palo alto, mountain view and menlo park and their abundance of jobs but lack of housing. you can fill in the blanks. you never stated where you live. how much do you get paid per post?



    Good riddance! SJWs need not apply! Maybe she read the comments in her Streetsblog interview!



    Yeah, because he didn’t get to be mayor by angering churchgoers.



    Since we’re on the subject, Engardio’s response ( is pretty weird too. He basically takes a “well I was just throwing an idea out there” approach to his article, which is one thing when you want to be a provocative opinion columnist and drum up some interest in the Examiner, but quite enough when you’re putting yourself out there as a future leader to help solve the city’s problems.

    And as a basic “don’t be stupid” test, an aspiring politician should know better. It’s a proposal that stirs up a ton of anger and trouble for very little gain.

    Also, what’s with his obsession with dividing the city into “westside” people and everyone else? I’ve lived here for decades and have never seen someone so insistent on dividing up the city like that.



    but he never cracked down on the Sunday church going illegal parkers lol!



    My concern with the sales tax, and a number of the revenue-related measures out of the 25 local measures on the ballot in November (an utterly absurd number) is that we’re locking so much of the budget down in voter-approved spending formulas. Funding for Muni, the homeless, the arts, parks, etc… are all great, but there’s a reason we have elected officials and a city budget process, and removing discretion from that process is dangerous. A recession sometime in the next 20 years is inevitable (some would argue far sooner); we shouldn’t be locking ourselves into budget priorities for decades to come.

    That said, basically the only thing Willie Brown did that I can get behind is that he cracked down on double parking. It is a safety issue for literally everyone who uses the roads. Step up enforcement, yes, but also communicate to people that it is unacceptable community behavior. Where necessary, rip out more parking spaces and convert them to loading zones (with enforcement to ensure they stay loading zones) to remove the “oh but there was no place else to stop” excuse for double parking.



    Chris is flipping foreclosed real estate in the suburbs. Fairfield, to be precise, if you need him.



    No, I merely think that local residents and workers should trump bussed-in activists and ideologues when it comes to considering changes to that community.

    If that means the change doesn’t happen then so be it. Communities are entitled to decide their own destiny. That is why we have local governments, local elections and (in this city) district elections and supervisors.



    My point was much simpler. I want to give weight to those who are affected by a change over those who seek to impose change on others. I want to emphasize ordinary local residents rather than out-of-area ideologues. I take more notice of real people than politicians and bureaucrats.

    You appear to want to railroad changes onto a community that doesn’t want them so that you can further your agenda.

    You see local people who oppose your grand vision as “busybodies”. I see them as people wanting a say in their own back yard.



    For example, he makes it too easy to demolish rent-controlled housing. It needs to be changed and the governor has indicated that he is open to negotiations on it. And so my perspective is: instead of a knee-jerk opposition reaction, let’s work with the governor and tell him what needs to be changed.

    Where’s Chris Daly when you need him?



    But you drone on and on about who should or shouldn’t speak at a meeting (or whose opinions should be dismissed) without proposing any way to do anything about it (because there likely isn’t any way to do anything about it. You drone on and on as if every person falls in one or another distinct camp, when you can’t even define the camps.



    The interview took place on Friday, 8/12/2016. Joe Engardio’s article was published on 8/14/2016.



    lame, neutered interview. expected better from streetsblog. should have asked him why he endorsed the anti-bike, anti-urban idiot joel engardio.