Skip to content

Recent Comments



    What I said was that non-drivers have to pay less for roads than drivers, and so the latter are subsidizing the former.
    An analogy might help. I pay the same taxes as you for public schools but then I pay again for my kids to go to private school.

    This is not an analogy. You are paying for public schools that you don’t use, that’s a subsidy. If you pay for roads that you do use, but you pay less than the costs incurred by your use of said roads, you are being subsidized.
    Then again, you know that.



    “Ha, it’s only 2 blocks if you count Capp Street.”

    It’s a street, ain’t it? You have to cross it, dontcha?

    “You need to fix Muni first”

    That’s what these reds lanes are for, and they are working. Muni can’t be “fixed” without getting it out of the gridlock caused by you sitting alone in your car. It’s time for you to take responsibility, Rich, for the effect your choices have on the rest of us.



    ‘data is irrelevant’
    ‘drivers are paying more than non-drivers’

    so you say, data is irrelevant and drivers are paying more than non-drivers. you are a troll.



    You’re ignoring the external costs of personal auto use. (non-personal use has external costs too, but also has different benefits). A driver pays some extra tax/fees, but not as much as the costs; that means they’re being subsidized. Those costs include, for example, pollution, traffic delaying public transportation, traffic deaths and injuries, loss of public space (for parking) for other uses.



    You wrote it–what did you mean? what is the evidence you can cite to support it?



    Ha, it’s only 2 blocks if you count Capp Street. Throughout this thread and topic the convention has been adopted that a block is between the major N-S street e.g. SVN, Mission, Valencia etc., and not the little alleys and side-streets inbetween.
    As for improving Muni, I think I speak for most people in this city who drive (which is most people in this city) that we are not willing to give up our cars on the hope and promise that Muni will become a wonderful alternative if we do.
    You need to fix Muni first and then and only then we talk about fewer cars. The voters do not pre-pay for performance



    I didn’t say that “personal auto drivers mitigate for all of their costs”. And we’d have to first agree whether drivers should pay 100% of the costs of roads when non-drivers benefit from them as well.
    What I said was that non-drivers have to pay less for roads than drivers, and so the latter are subsidizing the former.
    An analogy might help. I pay the same taxes as you for public schools but then I pay again for my kids to go to private school. So I am paying more for education than those whose kids attend public school and those who don’t have kids at all, but who still benefit from an educated populace.
    Your argument seems to be that you’re not sick so you shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare



    Again, as stated, the claim I was responding to cited no data, so I didn’t either.
    In any event, data is irrelevant unless we first agree what we mean by “subsidizing”. In my sense it means that drivers are paying more than non-drivers. you might have a different view and therefore end up with a different conclusion



    The ultimate problem with charging and fees for on-street parking is EVERYONE ALREADY PAYS for it through a multitude of taxes.

    Only if they live in the city. Otherwise, commuters and tourists get charged the same as city residents.



    This is all lovely, but if there’s no plan to seriously increase transit to move all these people, all the self driving cars will clog this area and make it a sea of smog and people Not Going Anywhere. so long as the “cars always” crowd has screamers to show up at meetings, an MTA that rolls over for them, and a local media that’s sympathetic to them and to suburban prejudice against the City, this will be a lovely mess people will attribute to “bad planning” in 20 years….



    You wrote this specific claim: “The reality is that motorists are subsidizing everyone else”

    Do you have any citations for that assertion?



    “But the cost of that burden is mitigated for all by the fact that certain classes of people pay additional taxes, fees and costs to actually use those roads (drivers).”

    No one is claiming that maintenance of roads doesn’t benefit society. Roads are useful. A central purpose of this blog is to discuss how to best design, use and pay for it. You’re asserting that personal auto drivers mitigate for all their costs through additional taxes, fees and costs. I assert that it is widely accepted that you are wrong. Here’s one example:


    Jym Dyer

    Well, they did. Your Prop L went down in flames.



    It’s a two-block walk (not 1). That’s a fact.

    If we’re actually serious about speeding up the 14 and the 49 there are plenty of ways to do that without moving them away from the street they serve. We are not actually serious about speeding up those buses, though– we are serious about preserving private auto access to every inch of public space, no matter the effect it has on Muni.

    This notion that Muni can only be improved in some ways by reducing service in others is ludicrous– especially when motorists shriek and wail when they are asked to make even the smallest of sacrifices, and the city eventually backs down.



    You know, if you are going to play a race card you should at least first check that the debate is actually about race.

    In this case, it was not.



    Wrong, it was jd_x who made the claim without any evidence, so it is his job to prove that claim.

    Until then the default has to be that his claim is invalid. If you can demonstrate otherwise, and impeach my logic, then please do so, Otherwise we will assume that you cannot.



    You claim motorists subsidize everyone else.

    Prove it. With citations.



    Skeevy: Adjective – containing brown people



    One car J in 27 minutes. One car J in 28 minutes. One car J in 29 minutes


    Ted King

    Ah, the gentleman doesn’t have an AmEx phone with the NextBus app on it.



    Abe, I agree that’s ideal. But if I understand p_chazz’s idea correctly, then the suggestion to put the buses on SVN was to speed them up.

    So it’s at least possible that bus riders might prefer a faster journey and then a one (not 2) block walk to BART. Rather than a slower trip and a shorter walk at the end.

    On the few occasions that I have had the misfortune to take the 14 or 49, I was thrilled to get off. Personally I’d gladly trade a short walk for a few less minutes on them.



    Correct, I don’t understand. And the fact that someone claims that their opinion is a “widely accepted reality” and that “you don’t understand” does not in fact provide any factual, statistical, inferential or evidentiary basis for believing what you assert.

    Nor does glibly appending “QED” at the end

    The only “widely accepted reality” that I understand is that we all pay for the upkeep of roads via general taxation, for the very good reason that we all benefit from having an efficient working system of roads.

    But the cost of that burden is mitigated for all by the fact that certain classes of people pay additional taxes, fees and costs to actually use those roads (drivers).

    Now, I’m not complaining that cyclists get a good deal. Good luck to them. But when a cyclist argues that he is subsidizing a driver, that appears to be an illogical supposition.



    “And as a driver I do not see how I am “externalizing” any costs.”
    You make it very clear every day in your comments that you don’t understand this widely accepted reality.

    “The reality is that motorists are subsidizing everyone else..”
    And since you don’t understand, you declare the opposite to be reality. QED



    The Högertrafikomläggningen. An amazing word for “everyone stop driving on the left side of the road and let’s now all carefully start driving on the right please” (really it’s something like “right-side traffic reorganization” but still pretty amazing to fit all that in one word).



    Then, RichLL, let me speak to you in a way that I hope will be more familiar.

    Why not just make it so that you have to drive on the street for two blocks in order to get from 280 to 101? So that at no point can you go directly from one to the other? It might not be that difficult, but it’s a bone-headed way to build a transportation network.

    Muni should go directly to BART stations– not just get within two blocks. And it certainly shouldn’t become less connected for the convenience of people who choose to drive.



    That analysis ignores the issue of reliability – the J may be coming, it might not be. 24th/Mission will have a BART train every couple of minutes during the day.


    Ted King

    The leg from 30th to Duboce is somewhat slow, but the leg from Duboce to Embarcadero is underground and a lot faster. If one is headed for Van Ness or Civic Center it’s a wash – but going further East one gets a time savings.



    San Francisco is at a natural disadvantage for fast evacuation in the event of an earthquake. Surrounded by water on three sides and a mountain on the other leaves only a few fragile bottlenecks, many of which would be severed by the quake. Even the ferry docks are expected to be out of service. So plan to shelter in place for a few days after the Big One.



    Ha. But didn’t they do that at 2am? And banned driving for a few hours while they switched over/



    The real question is this – how far away from a bus stop should people have to be. If anything SF has far too many stops – often one on each block – and that slows down buses far more than a few cars.

    I’d argue that anyone can walk 2 blocks. And house and rental prices will adjust to the convenience of transit, such that if you are a little further away, you get a cheaper home.

    It all comes out in the wash.



    Maybe if the city had invested in proper parking infrastructure then you would not have to breathe in the fumes of cars circling for parking spaces?

    Every time your “solution” to yet another transport problem is “just take out the parking” maybe your brain should ask your lungs whether the matter has been fully thought through?

    In the Mission, it’s interesting. Valencia St. at night is a nightmare to park and yet Mission St is often easy. And free.

    Why? Partly because there is a decent chance your car will be broken into on Mission. But for whatever the reason, Mission ST. has easy parking. And yet you want me to drive to a skeevy lot blocks away and pay for the privilege?



    if I drive down Mission it’s usually because my destination is on Mission. Exactly the same reason that people who want buses and bike lanes on Mission cite. so that should not shock you.

    And as a driver I do not see how I am “externalizing” any costs. I pay a skank load of fees and costs even if I do not drive a single mile. and then chances are I need to pay for parking.

    You really want to talk about externalizing costs? How about Muni which has a farebox recovery rate of under 25%? Or cyclists who have zero costs over and above the cost of their bike?

    The reality is that motorists are subsidizing everyone else, but that truth sounds a tad too inconvenient for your narrative



    It’s a bit of a walk from 30th to 24th. Not easy for a mobility-impaired person. And, unless you have an $83 BART/MUNI pass on your Clipper Card, it would require paying two fares.



    I don’t object to them taking that option. I object to people spending time circling around the blocks looking for it when there are other options available. Not only is that wasteful of fuel, it also adds additional pollution to the atmosphere and clogs up the roads with motorists who aren’t actually going to their destination and are distracted trying to find a “free” spot.

    Part of the problem with the free/low cost vs. more expensive garage spaces is that people will make the calculation that it’s better to drive around a bunch looking for parking when instead they could just go into a garage and be done with it. If pricing on the streets was more reflective of the garages, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because people would just go to the closest spot, be it garage or street, and then pay for it.


    Michael Morris

    I feel like you could make the area around the freeway nicer without demolishing the freeway. They’d rather demolish the freeway and have a blank canvas instead of improving existing streets like 11th and 12th


    SF Guest

    It’s crystal clear you are not in favor of free or low-cost parking, but the fact remains it exists in the evenings and weekends.

    It’s one thing to take the position free or low-cost parking should not be encouraged and should be demoted, but how can you object to those who choose the option for free or low-cost parking since it’s available?


    SF Guest

    Moving the 14/49 lines to South Van Ness (except for the 14R) which is only one regular block away from the 12 Folsom undisputably creates an unnecessary gap of service for Guerrero and Valencia and defeats Muni’s objective to offer bus service to a larger scope.

    Quite frankly I fail to see or understand how moving the buses to South Van Ness would reduce or hinder travel time circling around looking for parking on Mission St.




    Doyle “Totally-Not-a-Freeway-Because-Its-Name-Ends-in-‘Drive’, Dummy” should absolutely be extended to the area. Some forward thinkers have actually proposed just the remedy we need:

    I even found a nice image of what the Progress could look like:

    And just so the dirty hippies quit their whining we could even name it 101…Drive. Or Central…Drive!



    The distances are similar, but walking from Mission to South Van Ness requires crossing at least one more intersection (not to mention the alleys between Mission & Capp and Capp & South Van Ness) than walking from 21st to 22nd.

    That could mean having to wait for a light to change and missing a bus (a common inconvenience) but it also means more chances to get hit by a car, which is a life-altering tragedy. It’s not simply about the increased distance someone will have to walk.

    The BART stations at 16th & 24th need to have good transit– not one block away, not two, but right there.


    Bob Gunderson

    The #1 priority of this project should be to to ensure Marin elderly people can drive a speeding combustible metal box thru our pedestrian rich city.



    Roger: how about updating the quote in the “Word on the Street” more frequently? (I don’t think it’s been updated since you took over!) Should be weekly or so ….



    One thing I absolutely cannot understand about the Mission St red lanes outrage: what are all these motorists doing driving down Mission?! I’m pretty sure most of them aren’t going anywhere in the Mission and are using to cut through from points south to get downtown. And in that case, take public transit or bike! And even if you’re going into the Mission, again: take public transit or bike! This part of the city has some of the best and most frequent public transit (Bart, J-Church (a little out of the way, depending on where you are coming from), and a bunch of bus lines) and yet these people absolutely insist on acting like it’s 1960 and our city streets should be for their dangerous and polluting 2-ton vehicles passing through. At what point do we just stop listening to this and say, “If you’re just telling us you want to drive and continue externalizing all costs, then just no. No, no, and no. We’re smarter than this now, and if you want to talk about driving, then you need to acknowledge the costs, including how it’s a zero sum game and your dangerous mode of transit takes away space from much safer and healthier modes.”



    There is no reason to circle looking for parking when there are four parking garages on or just off Mission Street between 16th Ave. and Cesar Chavez. The only reason why people “circle” is because they are looking for free or low cost parking.



    Sweden changing driving side. Obviously a failed experiment that should have been canned, right?



    Wikipedia says a “city block” varies between 600 and 900 feet.






    The 9 Potrero and 27 Bryant run parallel along adjacent N-S streets and nobody objects to that.

    But if we wanted a “2 block rule” then we could have buses running along Potrero, Harrison, South Van Ness and Valencia.

    If I wanted to get from Guerrero or Valencia downtown I would never walk to Mission to catch a bus. I’d either take BART or the J. So the 14 being a block further East wouldn’t make any difference.

    The cultural and socio-economic differences between people who are East and West of Valencia can be striking, and I suspect it informs their transportation choices.



    True, but it slows my commute quite a bit having to wait for an additional 2 stoplights and multiple stop signs – at least the lights are timed



    “While Well Intentioned…” is behind a paywall.



    I see. So moving the buses to South Van Ness would reduce your travel time circling around looking for a parking spot.