Skip to content

Recent Comments



    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.



    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.



    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.


    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.


    Upright Biker

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

    Now, where did we leave them?



    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.



    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.


    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.


    Jym Dyer

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


    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.)


    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.)


    Jym Dyer

    ✧ Don’t follow leaders / Watch the parking meters



    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.


    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.


    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.



    Q: Why does free parking encourage driving?
    A: All those people getting near the stores, then driving around in circles a bunch of times before leaving because there are no available parking spots.


    Jym Dyer

    @murphstahoe – I sure hope there’s another charity to help them fuel and maintain the car. And yet another charity to pay for insurance. My experience is that those costs are pretty steep, and insurance is usually the first thing thrown under the GBus.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – Next time I’m on Muni and I see someone with groceries, I’ll explain to them that what they’re doing is a non-starter. Because that’s the real crime.

    Oh, and this whole spiel about cars being eeeevil marginalizing advocacy? I do believe that was one of the bogus premises of Prop L, which went down in flames, in case you missed that part.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – I’m pretty sure an opinion expressed on the Internet isn’t “the real crime” by any stretch. I grew up blue collar and have had stretches of even lower income in my life, and know full well the burden of having a car in those conditions (hint: it wasn’t exactly top of the line) vs. the challenges of taking the bus.



    That would probably work.



    Is it just me or do the yellower areas on this map correspond to the best parts of the city? Next time someone asks me for advice on where to move to, I’m going to direct them here.


    Nathaniel Ford Redmond

    A weak politician is one that doesn’t come out against or for something that dramatically affects the city they live in.



    I sense that the L supporters will start backpedaling … er um “putting it in reverse”. Starting with the vague ballot title.


    Nathaniel Ford Redmond

    Sample ballots are not the best way to understand propositions, read the whole legal language of the proposition if you really want to be informed about it. For San Francisco it’s on the Department of Elections Website as well as the Legistar, a place you can see ALL legislation that is before the city and Board of Supervisors. Prop L was to change transit priorities for car drivers and against public transit and biking.


    Nathaniel Ford Redmond

    Just to be clear, opponents of Prop L didn’t want to “change” transportation priorities. The Transit First priority planning has been written into law by way of the Charter of San Francisco since 1974. Prop L aimed to remove that from the Charter.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Latest results from

    Total registered voters: 14539
    Total cast ballots: 5590
    Voter turn out: 38.45%
    Ballots cast on L: 5089
    For L: 2273 (40.6%)
    Against L: 2816 (50.4%)

    Pretty clearly against L. Low voter turnout is concerning, as it was across the city.



    Chinatown business leaders have historically been pro-car, they may have campaigned in favor of the measure.

    It’s nice to see that Bernal Heights, the neighborhood that the one of the guys behind Prop L used in an interview to claim that everyone he knew there needed to to drive to work, voted decisively against the measure.



    Absolutely. Anytime arguments are made on matters of this topic, we should lead with the results of Prop L.



    Rose Pak translated it for them.


    David Marcus

    Strangely, the results in Chinatown were the opposite of Clement Street.



    “Yup, more of the above please.” –SF

    Polk on a bad 1950s LOS-y trip:×471.jpg

    Polk after getting out of rehab:

    “Oh, hai, Prop L. We’ve seen both and we’re pretty sure we’re over partying like it’s 1959. Kthxbai” –SF



    In other words, if a VLF was on the ballot, it likely would have won, despite the bullshit from Ed Lee and his admiring buddy Randy Shaw. Hmm.


    Upright Biker

    Just as Prop L supporters put this on the ballot, hoping to use it as a cudgel to beat politicians into supporting their point of view, I think it is now entirely within our rights to do the same.



    It’s high time our political leaders stop trying to appease the noisy minority of car fanatics and really turn SF into a transit-first city. The voters have spoken loudly – 62% rejected this dumb car-first proposition, and the passage of A&B shows how strong the support for transit really is.



    The most surprising thing to me is the high support for L in Chinatown, the Tenderloin, and SoMa. As Aaron says, it may be that voters there hadn’t heard about it before and were confused by the vague language. In Chinatown’s case something may have been lost in translation too.


    Mario Tanev

    I am not saying that the right solution is to screw up BART elsewhere. But BART can provide a lot of capacity that Muni struggles with and making BART a reliable mode for in-city travel should be a priority. Perhaps the right solution is just to have more runs, or to perhaps have some short runs (Embarcadero to Daly City).


    Upright Biker

    And by a margin of nearly 2:1, they voted against your precious Prop L.

    OH, and there are tons of kids on the bus. Pick up a 30 Stockton headed towards Marina Middle School at about 8:45 in the morning and you’ll see so many kids it’ll warm your stone-cold heart.



    Thank you for acknowledging that there are cases when cars are needed over public transit. I happen to be a non-driver and non-bicyclist myself, so I get around by public transit and my own two feet. I find the Marie Antoinette-ish “let them take public transit” attitude of transit activists rather glib. They seem to think transit and bicycles are the be-all and end all of transportation needs.


    Upright Biker

    Well, interesting that we have heard from any of them, as they are most certainly reading these comments. Let’s see if this gets them out of the woodwork:

    A motorist walks into a bar. “Why the long face?” ask the bartender…

    Rob, Sebra? Care to finish the joke? It’s on you, you know.


    Upright Biker

    Yes, that pernicious Bike Lobby — all 94,572 of us, if the polls are to be believed. Of course, we’re so powerful we almost certainly rigged this election with our super secret stealth tactics: Truth and Reason.



    All good points. But I think even people who drive frequently in San Francisco realize that today’s congestion is not going to be solved by putting more cars on the road. Even without wishing to stop driving themselves, these drivers hope others will take transit, walk, or bike, so they support expanding alternatives to driving. It’s interesting, however, that even friends who prefer to drive, are starting to take the occasional transit/walk/Uber alternative, because those modes are improving, becoming faster, etc. So in the end, even drivers supporting transit become transit users themselves.



    There will always be cases where people will need cars over public trans, families in outlining areas are a good example of that and building good alternatives for those who don’t absolutely need a car is good for those who have no other choice. But there are plenty of lower income people who could save plenty of money if they were given the choice to take good public transit instead of driving but they aren’t given that choice because of our car based transport system and those who continue to argue for it. You can twist my words around any way you like to fit your agenda here of the “hard core activist type” chazz but nothing I’m saying is very outrageous or beyond the simple fact that public trans is cheap for the user and more convenient if widespread enough. Cars offer plenty of convenience but they are expensive to own and maintain and a good alternative for those with less money would be nice to offer. And if you actually took the time to read what I said rather than imposing your own bias first, you would have read that I never faulted that Charity for what they do, it’s clearly needed, but if we had a great public transit system then some of those people wouldn’t need the help.


    Jamison Wieser

    After all of Sebra Leaves comments about letting voters decide, maybe we should start a betting pool on why the election didn’t go her way.

    Low voter turn out? L wasn’t necessary because she already got free parking? Prop A & B was actually a vote against transit and for cars because… BIKE LOBBY! Maybe the electorate is suddenly just wrong and shouldn’t be trusted to vote on these things in the first place.



    Shopping for a family on public transit is a non starter, no matter how fast and reliable it is. Toting heavy packages on a bus is very awkward. The charity isn’t “forcing them into expensive cars”. It works with lower income families to get them into an affordable loans that help them build their credit. Advocates for bikes, peds and public transit need to lose the attitude that the private car is eeeevil. It only appeals to hard core activist types, and marginalizes the movement to everyone else.



    There’s likely some perception bias going on with the All-Cars-All-The-Time crowd. Since *they* and those in their circles can’t imagine wanting it any other way it’s easy to falsely conclude that’s how the majority feels.

    This perception bias is not unique to SF. For example, there are 1.5 million transit boardings *daily* in the city of LA:
    LA Metro Red Line

    These roughly 1.5 million transit boardings occur *every day* in a city of roughly 3.8 million people. ( And by the way that number only counts systemwide boardings within LA Metro, not other regional transit options such as Metrolink/Amtrak commuter-and-beyond rail.

    Yet it’s unquestioned conventional wisdom in some LA circles that “no one walks/takes transit in LA.” Since people in these circles tend to hang out with likeminded people, they see little reason to believe otherwise.

    Yet the numbers paint quite a different picture (anecdotally, almost every time I took the subway or bus while living in LA it was crowded–often standing-room only).

    Prop L supporters and their ilk (Save Polk, anyone?) may need to reevaluate their belief in this mystical Silent Majority of “Real” San Franciscans Who Drive Everywhere All The Time And Want To Continue Doing So.

    That’s just not…a thing.



    I know it won’t stop everyone who is anti bike/transit/ped, etc. but I do wonder how Save Polk, ENUFF, Rob Anderson, etc. are going to explain this to themselves or if they’ll take a little break from trying to stop every project.



    Ol’ Sweatpants had always dared Streetsblog commentators to put our agenda on the ballot, predicting we would lose. Yet it turns out the cars-first, cars-only contingent put *their* agenda on the ballot–and lost decisively.



    “When there are only two lines running, each at 20 minute frequency, they
    are not balanced properly. One gap is 5 minutes, the other one 15, or
    something like that.”

    I believe this is to facilitate timed transfers on the spur lines that aren’t getting direct service, for example if you are riding from Berkeley to SF, you have to transfer at Macarthur to a Pittsburgh Bay Point train, if the trains were spaced 10 minutes apart in SF, then anyone making those trips suffers a 10 minute transfer penalty.

    I argue that’s worse than the closeness of trains in SF given that BART generally runs on a schedule.



    BART expansion in San Francisco is key, but only really if it can loop back to the main line in some way. BART beyond Park Presidio may be a hard sell. It’s certainly something being considered – it’s an option in the online survey.



    Just because we build a world class transit system doesn’t mean a poor person has to take it. But without one they have no choice.