Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    RoyTT

    I’m always suspicious of any story that is presented as being 100% good on one side and 100% evil on the other.

    It’s obvious here that both sides want this done but also that both sides need to feel good about it.

    If one side isn’t happy then isn’t the usual remedy to sit down and work it out?

  2.  

    RoyTT

    You should have read on. A cop or prosecutor can rely on a recording:

    “how far can prosecutorial inferences be relied upon in criminal court if there are no credible percipient witnesses or clear recordings”

    But if you’re assuming that I am a fan of red-light cameras, you are mistaken. I hear that even the Europeans are now rolling back on their evil step-brother – the speed cameras.

    That damn constitution again.

  3.  

    Jym Dyer

    ⦿ Did she bring us any spare parts for B.A.B.S.? We’re running kinda low.

  4.  

    Jym Dyer

    ☼ Prof. Jason’s article on Props A, B, and L is a must-read.

  5.  

    Jym Dyer

    ✧ Next up: “Be nice. Don’t be a jerk twice.”

  6.  

    Jym Dyer

    Kickstarter. You must’ve missed the tweet.

  7.  

    Jym Dyer

    It’s not just the Richmond, though. The de facto leader of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council is on an imperious crusade against the same thing.

  8.  

    murphstahoe

    I believe even that requires a cop to actually witness the infraction rather than just infer it.

    Which cop witnesses red light infractions caught by cameras?

  9.  

    shotwellian

    As far as I can tell, the developers have *no* even vaguely reasonable argument other than that they would prefer to pay less rather than more. I suppose they’re planning to charge rents in the new towers based on the going rates from 2007/8? This is simply an attempt to shake down the city for some $ with the threat of delaying the project.

    As both a progressive and an urbanist, I often find myself defending, in discussions with other progressives, arrangements that allow allow developers to make large profits while also providing housing, offices, and contributions to public projects like the Transbay Transit Center. At best, these can be win-win situations. In this case the developers threatening to sue are playing exactly into the role of “greedy developers” that at other times is a caricature.

    Great to see the BOS stand up to this, and not surprising that Ed Lee is apparently nowhere to be seen.

  10.  

    Boo

    good feedback. Another idea would be to remove parking around the intersection to increase visibility.

  11.  

    Mario Tanev

    This has been a very confusing story, and no media outlet, including Streetsblog has covered it with clarity.

    For example:
    1. Wasn’t this a deal done several years ago? If so, what’s the point of approving the original deal if it was approved some time ago?
    2. It’s still not clear what the best argument from the developers is. Maybe they are making out with more money than they thought, but they only want to pay a crisis-level tax. But surely THEY would not use that as the argument (“We were going to pay 1 dollar when we earn 10, but we instead earned 100 so we still want to pay 1 dollar”). They could not consider themselves victims if they make out with an equal percentage additional gain.
    3. Why is a lawsuit even an option? Lawsuits only make sense when there is an unclear statute up to interpretation. Is that the case?

    This whole thing smells of politics. Of course, I want transit to get as much money as possible. But I fear that something is fishy about this whole thing and it will somehow surprisingly result in lack of funds a few years from now to finish the job.

  12.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    There is no such thing as a blind crosswalk. You don’t drive through it until you have 100% verified that all pedestrians are on the sidewalk. End of discussion. If you failed this, you have violated the law. If you injure someone while violating this extremely simple rule, you are at a minimum guilty of felony assault.

  13.  

    RoyTT

    OK, fine, give him a ticket then, although I believe even that requires a cop to actually witness the infraction rather than just infer it.

    But that’s a long way from the original idea that the video evidence is sufficient for a successful criminal prosecution. I watched that video several times and it really only shows a truck turning right. I saw no impact although that might be in the redacted part. But given the angle of the camera it’s hard to see how jurors would not be required to make an inferential leap, and that typically goes beyond reasonable doubt.

    The broader question here, and how it relates to the Stockton incident, is how far can prosecutorial inferences be relied upon in criminal court if there are no credible percipient witnesses or clear recordings to indicate criminal intent?

  14.  

    SF Guest

    No since one never expects to be hit and killed by a bicyclist running a red light.

  15.  

    SF Guest

    If the suspect drove 20+ mph up the hill and the light was green it would be a “blind” turn since he couldn’t see any pedestrians at the intersection before he arrived. Even so this type of tragedy shouldn’t have happened, but it did due to apparent reckless driving. The fact that he was arrested for failing to yield to a pedestrian is incriminating unless there are other undisclosed circumstances.

    The fact there were other pedestrian fatalities at this intersection show a need to change this intersection to conform to the rest of Stockton’s nearby intersections which feature pedestrian-only crosswalks.

  16.  

    Jax

    I never said the word “equal”. Obviously a vehicle of any size would not be “equal” to a pedestrian or cyclist. However, the responsibility to do things like look both ways, signal when turning, stopping at yellow/red lights, paying attention when maneuvering through the city…that is responsibility we ALL share. If you don’t know how to share then you shouldn’t be on the road. That goes for Motorist, Bikers and Pedestrians. This is not a one sided issue. No one party is at more or less fault than the others. Playing the blame game will only hinder the progress of safety for everyone. The risk or injury and or death is greatly higher when on bike or foot, yes, but that is something I think every person understands. Was the driver at fault? Maybe he was. Should every driver be attacked as a result of his poor decisions and inability to drive a car…absolutely not.

  17.  

    NoeValleyJim

    SFPD is getting better. Admittedly it is up from a very low bar, where they used to refuse to cite any driver, but give credit where credit is due.

  18.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    Jailing someone for murder (gross incompetence and negligence resulting in death) is wholly justified. 99% of the time that a motor vehicle results in death, there is gross negligence on the part of the driver. Whether or not a pedestrian is jaywalking is irrelevant to the question of whether a driver has control of their vehicle.

  19.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    This is why everyone who gets into a collision with a pedestrian where the pedestrian is severely injured should receive a lifetime ban from driving.

  20.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    don’t like :(

  21.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Do you know of any transportation infrastructure project in California that suffers from a lack of ridership?

  22.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    it is not a “blind turn.” If Stockton were a one-way street headed south, then this could be conceivably a partially true statement. However, the driver is well over the crest of the hill and onto the flat before crossing the median line of Stockton Street (unless he made a totally illegal turn and cut off the northbound traffic lane of Stockton). Not only that, Sacramento is a one-way street, so there was no on-coming traffic to navigate during his left turn. This was in fact probably one of the easiest turns anywhere in the city. He deserves the death penalty, after paying the family a $1 million pain & suffering settlement.

  23.  

    NoeValleyJim

    I remember that horrible elevated freeway, with buses parked underneath it, that cut off San Francisco from the waterfront. You can’t seriously think that what we have now is anything but an improvement. No one I know who has been around long enough to remember the Embarcadero Freeway does not think that the waterfront is better now.

  24.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    “and used mainly in rural cities…” like Los Angeles, and almost everywhere else.

  25.  

    NoeValleyJim

    You do know that car drivers break the law more than cyclists, right? I am not interested in your demands for more infrastructure until you car drivers stop speeding and running stop signs.

    How hard is that?

  26.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    Oslo has also done it. And several other cities. There is no excuse for SF to have surface street speeds in excess of 20mph. Start building tunnels for speeds of up to 50mph.

  27.  

    Reynolds Cameron

    If you are unable to anticipate the unexpected, you are either driving too fast, or are inept and criminally negligent by stepping behind the wheel. It doesn’t matter what the color lights the signal showed. The fact remains that a driver failed to control his vehicle and as a result, a mother is dead.

  28.  

    Bruce

    Well done supes.

  29.  

    Idrather Bebikin

    Kudos to the Board of Supervisors!

  30.  

    Duane

    The above photos show the honest if unintentional results of “TRAFFIC CALMING”. With the current progressive head in the cloud dreamers who are running this city it will only get worse. Just remember all you so-called GREEN FOLKS….a car at idle releases the greatest amount of pollution. This TRAFFIC CALMING is creating an ECO-DISASTER.

  31.  

    Duane

    You people have your head in the clouds. Most of you are probably too young to remember just how functional those elevated freeways were. Be destroying them all that traffic is now on the streets. Also those elevated freeways connected to traffic arteries…Oak, Fell, Gough, Broadway. SF still has those arteries but they don’t connect to anything so you have gridlock especially along Market. And you guys are doing the best you can to destroy the few remaining arteries by stuffing more bike lanes onto streets that were designed as expressways. In the end your good intentions are kind of making a mess of everything.

  32.  

    hp2ena

    Private vehicles does not necessarily include delivery vehicles. In other words, delivery vehicles would continue to be allowed on Stockton, so long as they are not blocking the street.

    As for the Portsmouth Square Garage, I’m sure it can be easily reconfigured so it can be approached from the north. Actually, reconfiguring the garage would be beneficial, as this would emphasize any remaining traffic to come from the north side (either via the Broadway Tunnel or through the Financial District), alleviating congestion from the south. Then again, if this TDM is implemented, I’m sure there will be fewer people driving into Chinatown unless they really have to.

  33.  

    Duane

    For the most part I hate your blog….this however is a great idea. Powell is such a mess might as well go all the way with it and get rid of the cars. However….where you get a major F in your platform is you propose ideas but fail to suggest improvements for auto traffic flow. You live with this fixation on improved bus and bike flow and totally ignore the fact that there are still cars. SF needs a few more expressways….we have them….Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush to name a few….but you guys want it all. You want mess with the auto express ways and slow them down too. PS…..for all you who rejoice over the destruction of the elevated freeways…..did it ever once occur to you just how much auto traffic those freeways (which also connected to the expressways) held? For example…..look at the huge mess that happens every day in Hays Gulch. In the days pre-earthquake, that daily jam never happened and Hays Gulch had far far far fewer cars than it does now.

  34.  

    Duane

    Last time I checked there is a multi-use path up on the hill. PS….there is no point in changing lanes….lights are set for 35MPH.

  35.  

    Duane

    What are you talking about? It is a parking lot for people to access the beach. If you don’t like it….you could always move to Hawaii or Miami Beach or San Diego. We will not mind one bit. (PS….I wonder how you feel about the fake turf debate?)

  36.  

    Duane

    I just want to know how many minutes does it take for the SPUR designers to access the freeways in their neighborhoods? Next, how far away do they live from the area they hope to “improve”. Do any of them actually live in SF? Do any of them actually live in the Sunset District? Do us all a favor and take your “experience of the ocean” and go back to LA. Create your “experience” in Venice Beach or Santa Monica and leave our beach alone. It has been fine for hundreds of years and does not need you or your stupid plan. The most recent “improvement” plan destroyed the Cliff House. The plan before that destroyed Lands Ends. You guys can never make up your minds. You want eliminate parking downtown where it is needed and you want to build parking lots where plenty of parking already exists out along Ocean Beach. And all this talk about Access to Ocean Beach…..last I checked….there is always access and the beach is never full. This is not Miami or LA or San Diego…..and we

  37.  

    Duane

    THIS PLAN SUCKS. God help us there should be another disaster in SF. The streets now are such a mess from all this so called “calming” people would be hard pressed to get out of here in a disaster. All this calming is complete BS and it is actually make SF a far more dangerous place to drive as drivers now are either confused or fed up so they are ignoring tons of rules of the road. The “calming” will be getting people killed before too long.

  38.  

    Duane

    SF DPW needs to stop painting road strips while drunk and high. If I were to drive down a street and make the same movements as what is currently being painted on the streets but the strips were NOT there, I would be pulled over for either reckless driving.

  39.  

    murphstahoe

    Can we assume by your apologist nature here that the pedestrian killed by Chris Bucchere has nobody to blame but himself?

  40.  

    Andy Chow

    I don’t think the merchants would go along with that since many of them have daily deliveries. Making Kearny two ways create several issues: Unless 3rd Street is made two ways, traffic would have to divert to Sutter, Geary, or Market to get back to Stockton. With the current configuration of the parking garage at Portsmouth Square, northbound traffic from Kearny would have to cross the opposite traffic to access the garage. Making it less safe, and even less likely to get support from Chinatown.

    There should be a study of traffic impact and impact on pedestrian safety if the Stockton Tunnel is closed to automobiles. Other streets have more intersections and therefore more interactions between autos and pedestrians. Stockton avoids crossing major streets like California, Pine, and Bush. Fewer intersections, better safety.

  41.  

    MrEricSir

    Let’s send Willie Brown a bill for his share of this debacle.

  42.  

    hp2ena

    A closure of Stockton to private vehicles could be achieved. First, Chinatown stakeholders must work with the transit agency to develop a TDM plan to reduce automobile traffic. Some ideas: seeing many residents come to Chinatown from neighborhoods like the Sunset, and even the East Bay, Peninsula, and South Bays, transit access from these neighborhoods to Chinatown must be improved (direct routes or better-coordinated transfers, etc). Then, make Kearny two-way so it becomes the primary vehicle conduit to and from Chinatown. Both of these would reduce traffic into Chinatown significantly.

  43.  

    hp2ena

    The Stockton Tunnel was built originally for Muni streetcars.

  44.  

    roymeo

  45.  

    roymeo

    When does this open up for Public use, not just the Public Relations use? @andy_thornley:disqus ?

  46.  

    Michael Mathews

    While I’m happy to work with cyclists so that I can cross and they can keep going, I don’t really want even minor injuries when I’m out running errands, thank you.

  47.  

    jd_x

    “Sharing” implies that we all have something to share. Look down any road of your choice and tell me what percent of it is dominated by cars and what is left for pedestrians, and even worse, cyclists (who, if they are lucky, get a lane squeezed between fast-moving and parked cars). This whole “share the road” thing is BS: you can’t share what you don’t have. The sharing needs to be done by motorists, especially since their chosen form of transit causes the most death and injury, the most pollution, the most wear and tear on the road, and contributes to the obesity epidemic. It’s nuts to take that status quo which was entirely designed around the car and then try to appropriate the idea of sharing to defend this anachronistic mentality as people start to question the status quo. Cars are simply not the same as pedestrians and cyclists and it’s high time we stop pretending like they are somehow all equal in the way they are treated in our current urban design.

  48.  

    M.

  49.  

    Andy Chow

    Stockton is the main route for southbound traffic leaving Chinatown. Kearny and Grant are one way northbound only. Powell is not an alternative considering it is up a steep hill and has cable cars. Because of the tunnel, it might be safer than having cars to detour 3 blocks east to Montgomery and back. The same drive from Chinatown (Clay/Stockton) to Union Square (Post/Stockton) has only 2 intersections while has 11 intersections if it is detoured to Montgomery. 2 interactions with pedestrians vs 11. I think it is obvious which is a safer route.

  50.  

    M.

    Flood might be interested to know that in probably all of the European cities she visited, the initial proposals for no-vehicle zones were met with varying degrees of resistance that were listened to thence over-ridden. Now, those zones are thriving more than ever; loading gets done sans issues; tourism booms (hello, SF?); high-end retailers, cheek-by-jowl with more modest establishments, still ‘manage’ to turn robust profits; and guess what? People love the promenades, have forgotten any reservations they may have had, and all is forgiven. Done and dusted.