Skip to content

Recent Comments


    HMM burritos

    Nothing has changed except that there is more cars and more congestion.

    Is it even remotely possible that there is a direct correlation to the parking problem and congestion to the above mentioned freeway entrance. Definitely so.

    Wonder what the block looks like where Avalos lives?



    2-4 times? I call bs.



    I make the same commute and I’ve seen one bike on that lane in two months.

    I’ve actually seen more riders going North on the southbound side. I bike in the city all the time, but only an idiot would cycle up to that lane or carry a bike to access that bike lane.



    Note that the selected option avoids rebuilding any of the freeway bridges, which may explain the massive difference.

    The kiss-and-ride is just a filled retaining wall.



    Not an apt comparison. California has higher labor and construction costs than Texas.


    Jamison Wieser

    There is no fucking way that I’m going to give you that satisfaction of admitting the SFMTA ever makes a mistake because I never said they didn’t.

    Of course you’re just being contrary and don’t want the SFMTA to do anything to improve Muni service or quality of life. First you bitching about that boarding ramp being a monstrosity, then you don’t want it to be moved.

    Stop being so contrary about everything.


    alberto rossi

    Nice to hear I’m not the only one upset about this. There was a website featuring pnotos of sidewalk parking in the Excelsior that went viral a few years ago. A community meeting was held but then nothing ever happened.

    The ruptured tendons in my hands are testament to the poor sidewalk maintenance and the tripping hazard that creates.


    alberto rossi

    From the previous “Circulation Study”. It proposed about $200 million in changes, including $100 million for the kiss and ride and $70 million for the southbound offramp realignment. The remaining was for things like bus shelters, “wayfinding”, lighting, and the apparently now forgotten “eastside connector”.

    Apparently they’ve found a cheaper way to do the kiss and ride, but at the expense of the recently completeld westside connector.


    Mario Tanev

    The much maligned $1 per stop fee for shuttles, is going to be raised to $3.55 per stop:


    HMM burritos

    The real problem is Avalos. The worst district in SF. Cracked sidewalks. Vacant business’. Thousands of cars blocking sidewalks. Oil stained sidewalks. Graffiti that the city won’t paint over. Crime. Very dirty streets. Public transportation is poor. Sandoval was a better Supervisor and he was horrible. I have lived in the Excelsior my whole life and have never seen it so horrible. This is a poor decision to close an exit. It is misguided. Just enforce sidewalk parking and people will sell their cars and take public transportation. Drive down Geneva to Bayshore from Mission st and you will find at least 80-100 cars parked illegally as well as cracked oil stained sidewalks.



    It’s an area near transit where car drivers can drop off/pick up passengers.



    What the heck is a “Kiss and Ride???”



    I don’t see where the supposed “$100 million kiss-and-ride” figure is coming from. In the engineering report the “NB frontage road” is estimated to be about $10M.



    No, crossing in a place where crossing is allowed is not stretching the law. Compare that to writing a pedestrian who was involved in a collision with a motorcycle an invalid ticket for behavior that was not illegal. It’s not the pedestrian’s fault that the police (and others on this comment thread) don’t know what constitutes jaywalking.



    I would have rather seen the I-280 southbound off ramp hitting Ocean Ave removed permanently not realigned, it would be better and safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, Muni and mainstream traffic. Hopefully in the realigned configuration that is expected to have a traffic signal hopefully they will add a new crosswalk as well. Secondly at the Balboa Park BART Station I would like to see an extension of the pedestrian ramp connecting the station to Ocean Ave extended to connect to the other side of the Balboa Park BART Station on Geneva and the Muni bus and Light Rail Stops which could and would improve the pedestrian safety and experience for those needing to get to and from those areas and transit riders



    “People want things to be different, but they don’t want any change,” How can you expect things to be different if there is NO CHANGE to make that DIFFERENT vision, a reality for the better??? That’s not how you solve problems, that’s how you politicized them and kick the can down the road.



    I agree with you on this except for your claim of little demand for a kiss and ride area. I know people who use it almost everyday and I occasionally use it too. I have heard people complain that the kiss and ride area is not big enough because people keep parking there waiting for to pick up their passengers. I see this too when I go there, so I end up blocking the kiss and ride road to pick up my passenger. This may give the perception that it’s not being used.

    If there is no kiss and ride area, you can bet they will start using the Muni bus stops as the kiss and ride area. That would not be good.



    Great. Another person stereotyping all drivers are out to kill pedestrians. Ugh. Look who is talking about throwing a temper tantrum.

    Cheryl Brinkman is only saying that because she is on the losing end of this debate. There have been other “livelier” meetings just like this, but the only difference is that she was on the winning end of the debate.



    That’s really stretching the law.



    $100 million to build a totally new kiss-and-ride area is not pragmatic realism…that’s absurd.

    Anyway, the “ideal” being referred to here is not a theoretical forum pie-in-the-sky plan but the very plan SF Planning created:

    You’re giving SF too easy a pass on doing better.


    Jeffrey Baker

    A “decent” idea making some improvements does not necessarily rate the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars. Ask yourself if this is the best bang you could get for your millions.



    I’m not a huge fan of Avalos. But it’s discouraging to see comments here, where so many apparent pro-transit folks are willing to shit on a decent idea aiming to make a meaningful improvement.

    Too often, San Franciscans have such a strident view of the ideal that they reject the realistic. That prevents any real progress from happening… and that’s not ideal.



    Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it.



    No they shouldn’t.

    Again, what does that have to do with your inability to read the parking meter?



    Lol. Yeah, maybe they’re proposing to pave them in gold so as to “Restore Balance” in terms of cars always getting first-rate infra. ;)


    alberto rossi

    Dallas capped a longer and wider section of freeway for its new arts district for $100 million. Maybe the ramps are $450 million extra each?



    Agreed! The much-better Better Neighborhoods 2000 plan was also the first thing that popped in my mind. Look at what could be:

    You’re totally right that $2 billion for that is incredibly unlikely. For comparison, Los Angeles is moving forward with the *much* larger project (a *mile* of freeway deck!) of capping the 101 freeway through central Hollywood at a cost of $725 million:

    Besides the fact that it wouldn’t be $2bil wouldn’t there be *lots* of money made by selling off plots of land for residential/commercial development à la the BN2000 plan?

    Balboa Park Station is one I use nearly every day and I agree–even in its current pedestrian/bike/transit-hostile setup I also don’t see much kiss-and-ride going on. Multiple heavily used bus lines and two Muni Metro lines are definitely the primary way people get there. Lots of bikes, too, despite the questionable “infrastructure” (laughable sharrows at best) all around.

    There’s always going to be some kiss-and-ride/taxis going on at a station but…$100 million to build a *new* kiss-and-ride area? That’s in the grain of the old car-centric paradigm of BART as a place you drive to as opposed to being a transit system that directly serves vibrant local neighborhoods.

    In an area already mostly lacking in true public spaces (adjacent Balboa Park itself is setup more as a suburban recreational facility), this is pretty sad.


    alberto rossi

    I’m really sorry to see Avalos embrace this plan. The only part of it I agree with is making the southbound offramp onto Ocean safer for pedestrians. Even here the cost of doing so seems ridiculously overstated.

    Everything else is the plan will make things worse for pedestrians and bicyclists. The most wasteful part of the plan is $100 million for the new kiss and ride area. There’s simply very little demand for this. Hardly anyone is dropped off at the station now; almost all walk or take the bus. Moving the northbound on ramp from Geneva to Ocean will add congestion to San Jose as well as Ocean. It will make the pedestrian crossing here even more difficult than it is now and will be very detrimental to bicyclists.

    The intent of the new study seems to have been to drive a stake through the heart of the Better Neighborhoods 2000 plan. It proposed decking the freeway between Ocean and Geneva and building new single point freeway interchanges. Rather than consider this option, the new study dismissed it out of hand by saying it would cost $2 billion. Where this comically inflated number came from they do not even bother to say.



    Far more people in SF ride transit, walk or bike than drive cars. It’s been that way for a very long time. The playing field is being leveled now. Gradually and hopefully these cumulative changes will make “transit first” mean transit first.



    Police are still looking for the hit-run driver who struck a 53-year-old Oakland bicyclist on Broadway near Lake Temescal last month. 2010 black four-door Volkswagen Jetta, $5k reward, let’s get this sucker!

    Also from the article: “About 40 percent of accidents in Oakland are hit-and-run said Officer Greg Bellusa, lead investigator on the case.”

    Notwithstanding the oxymoron “hit-and-run accidents”, this is a shameful stat and something we need to deal with as a culture.




    San Jose Bike Party

    And some great news on the growth of cycling in San Jose..

    Head south on Sunday the 27th as History San presents ‘Silicon Valley Bikes – Passion, Innovation, and Politics since 1880′

    Kelly Park, San Jose, Sunday July 27, 2014 from 10am-4pm



    Nobody made that argument. YOU made the argument that they should be driving.





    This is a TERRIBLE idea and yet one more assault on the long term residents of San Francisco. Another corporate giveaway by Ed Lee. Giving away Public parking in overcrowded residential neighborhoods. Exempting carshare spaces from Street cleaning violations. This plan is fine for major boulevards and commercial areas. But NOT for residential areas.



    Your argument about signage at the meters is a red herring. All of these complaints are perfectly fixable, from making the signage better to addressing concerns about reading the pricing on the meter screen. And to think that this is just a plot by SFMTA to make your life harder is a conspiracy fantasy on the same order as silent black government helicopters coming to take your children away.

    However, the real reason why you don’t want meters is based on your mistaken belief that somehow the city is ‘soaking’ people who drive cars in favor of those who get around by other means, and that is simply hogwash. Almost all the money spent on upkeep and maintenance of our streets comes from property and sales taxes. To posit that car drivers pay anything close to ‘their share’ for maintenance is malarkey, particularly when you factor in cost of death, injury, and lung diseases that are directly caused by having so many motor vehicles running on our streets.

    For God sakes Sebra – please educate yourself. Read something for a change rather than simply spout off about all the indignities and injustice that you experience as a poor, victimized, car driver in a dense urban space. Realize that there are over 837,000 other San Franciscans trying to get places on the same road network you use, and then you might have a better sense of what direction the city should take to manage it’s roads.



    Unless that person is driving without a license every driver has to pass an eye exam or wear corrective lenses. @sebra leaves is correct that many meters are hard to read especially in the dark.

    For those who don’t drive you wouldn’t know the level of difficulty of reading a meter in the dark unless you tried. Suggesting a person who cannot easily read a meter has bad eyesight is very misleading.



    All the more reason to expand SFpark so you can check price information and availability before you start driving. The only problems I’ve had looking for car parking in this town have been trying to find a spot in an area where parking is free and therefore all the spaces were occupied. Reading meters has never been a problem for me and I don’t even have perfect vision.



    At some stage, obviously not, but I know legally blind people who can’t drive but can get around just fine on a bike. It’s all about awareness and reaction time, and rolling around at 25mph in an enclosed car where one’s senses are already dampened.

    Regardless, the simplest solution your argument would be improving the signage on the meters. I think we can all get behind that.


    sebra leaves

    Should people with poor eyesight be cycling?


    sebra leaves

    You guys can’t even agree on what is happening.


    sebra leaves

    The plastic on the smart meters is hard to see through am read for people with good eyesight. Many of the multiple meters are poorly lit at night. You don’t know how much the meters cost or what the time limits are until you park and get out to look.



    Thanx for straightening that out.



    People with bad eyesight shouldn’t be driving, no?



    Taking the complaint about “confusion” at the meters at face value, all a driver has to do is inspect the meter to determine whether or not he or she is obligated to feed it. The expectation that someone should know even before arriving at the parking space is a little pie-in-the-sky. Drivers should understand the concept of accountability — and illegible meters can be reported to SFMTA and their summonses, appealed.



    Do you know how fast you were going?

    No – I can’t read my speedometer.



    I transform into a tourist every time a petition is shoved into my face. “Sorry, not a San Fran resident!”

    (Calling it San Fran makes your claim more convincing)



    We’re interested in assisting with any campaign organized to oppose the Restore Balance measure. Does anyone know who might have already organized this?



    So people who can’t read a sign because their eyesight is so bad should be allowed to drive? How does rain or sun stop someone from being able to read a sign? That sounds like apocalyptic weather and you’d be better off staying inside on those kinds of days.



    That was Reiskins proposed compromise, and it was rejected by the SFMTA board.