Skip to content

Recent Comments



    That was my first thought too. SMART to succeed will need to encourage people to switch to transit. Imposing draconian regulations to address a problem that cannot possibly even exist yet is not going to help attract riders. Why not see how it goes before making up rules no other transit agency in the country has?



    Of course you don’t; it weakens your argument. But you can’t just reject the facts you don’t like. Cars take up that portion of the roadway, period.


    Frank Malloy

    “Please keep your promise to do what it takes to keep the trail open.”

    Haha! The 49ers and the NFL haven’t kept any promises, especially on that nagging minor issue of who actually paid for building the stadium, what makes you think they care about a MUP?

    The plan from the start was to squeeze Santa Clara for as much as they could. Now they want to take over the soccer field for parking.

    The stadium was supposed to bring all this money into the city – now it’s COSTING us millions. This is just another problem WE have to deal with.


    L Taraval

    The train should be stopping at the already installed boarding island stop IB 22nd Avenue..Removing 24th Avenue is the best
    All Students would have goto 22nd Avenue if they want go Inbound direction.



    You asked you for my solution and I gave it. I’m not in the business of telling people in other neighborhoods what they should and should not do.

    There’s going to be unhappy people no matter what solution is adopted. But I’d go with the majority, this being a democracy and all.



    The IB 24th ave stop is great, it even blocks the entire sidewalk now that it has a shelter.


    L Taraval

    L-Taraval Plan is good no more delays and no more insecure people obstructing the insertion of the L Taraval safety plan with assumptions. Muni L Taraval Plan moving forward

    Let see how effective is their Painted Pilot plan work out.


    L Taraval

    I agreed with current stop OB 23rd avenue improvement and IB 22th Avenue improvement and removing IB 24th Avenue. OB 23rd Avenue a good location for safety as is a 3 way traffic supposedly.
    This will allow further safety improve expand.


    L Taraval

    We talking about the street of the L-Taraval route.





    Do you have a citation for that? Someone should post that on the Examiner’s site to call out their sensationalism.



    In this case it goes beyond just what a particular neighborhood wants. Did I get a vote on adding traffic signals to Sunset? No. They were added by the city to improve safety for pedestrians and as a traffic calming measure for a dangerous stretch of road.



    SMART Cell phone ban –

    SMART Police Chief Jennifer Welch said board members had
    expressed support for the ban at the spring meeting. If it were implemented,
    she said, SMART police officers would not necessarily cite offenders, and
    passengers would be allowed to make “emergency calls.” “It’s all about being
    reasonable,” the chief said. “We would have discretion.”

    Just another way to give the cops a way to harass people whom they have a distaste for. This is a trivial item and should be self-policed by the riders as it is on any other system – by shaming them on social media :)



    Mark, I think local communities should be able to make decisions locally about what type of neighborhood they want. So my solution would be a voter initiative in Katy Tang’s district with a simple up or down vote on whether to enact boarding islands.



    The 72 hour rule is a red herring here because it is one of those laws that is only enforced if an individual reports it. And even then DPT has to put a sign on the vehicle and then wait at least 72 more hours.

    In that sense it is more like the prohibition of blocking a driveway. It’s only enforced if the driveway owner or user reports it.

    On most city streets the more meaningful time limit is one week minus 2 hours, coinciding with street cleaning. DPT doesn’t go around tagging vehicles and then going back 72 hours later.

    I predict the ticket will be waived.



    You can’t spell troll without RichLL.



    Well then, what is YOUR solution? Please be clear in your response and provide details on how to solve this problem.



    It shouldn’t take an injury or tragedy to implement safety measures. It should be common sense when designing or upgrading a transit system. Also, where are all the complaints about stops not being ADA compliant? Taraval only has 3 wheelchair ramps along its entire surface route (over 2.5 miles). Hey opponents: If you’re so gung ho on preserving stops every two blocks shouldn’t each one be ADA accessible which would require a boarding island and ramp? But we can’t because that would remove parking spots and anger businesses and residents on side streets.



    The woman ticketed at the red zone originally posted the story to Reddit – which is where Examiner probably picked it up. What the article does not include is that the woman said she left the vehicle parked for five days during which the curb was painted.

    No parking signs may have been up 72 hours prior to painting since it is unlawful to leave a vehicle parked for more than that.



    Mostly opposition based on purely selfish reasons and petty whining like “Now I have to walk an extra block” and “No one is going to shop at my store anymore because there isn’t a metered space directly in front.” WAAAAAH! If the success of your business rests on a few parking spaces then you really need to revisit your business model.

    No one is surprised that 2/3 of the people at the meeting opposed the changes. That’s usually what happens at community meetings. You can be guaranteed that if someone who opposed the boarding islands was hit, or knew someone who was hit, by a vehicle getting on/off the train would be first in line to complain.

    The real problem isn’t about safety, preserving parking or improving transit. It’s about people being self-centered with their heads stuck in the past.



    Agreed. In fact, there really shouldn’t be a stop at 22nd AND 23rd OB. But, they had to put the ramp somewhere and removing a couple parking spaces next to the park versus up at 22nd was probably the trade off for the OB stop not being at 24th.



    Scientific studies indicate that you could be up to ten times safer if you did. Here:

    “Switching from dark clothing to a white vest markedly improved visibility. Drivers then detected pedestrians on the right at about 300 feet and pedestrians on the left at about 200 feet. Theoretically, the vest reduces the number of accidents to 3% right and 9% left, or an improvement by a factor of 10”

    You can always remove the high-vis item upon safely arriving at your awards dinner.



    So elected representatives should ignore those who elect them? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for further electoral success.

    The pesky thing about democracy is that it doesn’t always give you the result you prefer.



    Like I said, I was taught back in high school to wear something visible at night. Here’s a rather ghoulish child safety video on the same theme:



    You have clearly never attempted this during a game. You take your life in your hands. Gridlocked traffic, mostly gigantic buses, all of it honking and attempting to ram themselves into each other and any idiotic cyclists stupid enough to attempt this grim gauntlet.

    I tried it once, got hit twice (I’m OK and my bike is OK, there was some damage to the bus and Escalade that hit me LOL) and I vowed NEVER AGAIN.

    49ers, you make untold millions from this stadium. Please keep your promise to do what it takes to keep the trail open. It is a tiny drop in the bucket of your profit, but it would mean the world to the poor souls who live and work nearby.



    I saw one complaint about a stop being removed at 24th ave. Mainly because they bought a house there. Yet, there’s already a stop with a boarding island at 23rd, and another stop at 26th. These are stops within a few hundred feet of each other, which is utterly crazy for a light rail system.


    Chris J.

    So you’re suggesting that it’s “prudent advice” for anyone going out at night to wear something bright and reflective. It seems absurd to me to ask or expect people to have to do that to be safe at night. I’ve never heard of that recommendation, and no one I know wears bright or reflective clothes at night simply to walk around.



    It’s amazing how terrified supervisors are of their own constituents, esp those on the west side. wtf?



    So wait, what you are saying is that the majority of those who showed up to oppose these islands were actually a minority because otherwise the venue would have been bigger?



    Loading zones are VERY VERY IMPORTANT. New York City doesn’t have enough of them. Apparently this is becoming a problem in SF as well.



    That’s certainly a minority of local residents.

    When a majority of local residents care enough to come to a meeting to oppose something, the meeting invariably has to be moved to a much larger room. (They never expect very many people to care either way.)


    Donovan Lacy


    You had stated that cyclist “already have a disproportionately large amount of road resources relative to their numbers,” but excluded the fairly large protion of the roadway that is being used by drivers to park their vehicles.

    I was trying to understand what other portions of the roadway besides where cars are now parking you intended to exclude in your analysis. Assuming you are confining your focus to SF, do you intend to exclude the freeways and state highways in SF that cyclists are excluded from using, including US-101, I-280 and I-80?

    I am not a big fan of riding on State Highways and Freeways, but since you referenced dedicated bike lanes earlier in this thread, I could see carving out ~10′ of space for a seperated bi-directional bike lane on one side of the highway shoulder with a physical barrier and a nice vegetative buffer.



    Donovan, my understanding was that we were talking about SF, where cycling has about a 3% share.

    If you wish to extend the discussion to the Bay Area or, further, to the entire State, then I suspect that reduces to 1% or less.

    That said, I have no personal objection to cycling being allowed on freeways, but I cannot imagine that would prove to be popular.


    Donovan Lacy


    There are roughly 4,000 miles of freeway in the state of California. Would you argue that these should not be considered “road areas that are available for movement?

    I ask the question, because cyclists are excluded from roughly 3,000 of those miles, and unless we exclude them, your argument regarding the ratio of usable road space dedicated for cycling is going to be well below the 3% that you identified for cycling modal share.



    A lot of times, the city and SFMTA will do major safety improvements after a pedestrian gets killed on our streets. There’s many examples:

    47th Avenue and Fulton: Used to be a two way stop with those on Fulton going as fast as 35 without stopping thru intersection. I advocated to the city to change to 4-way stop, but they wrote back to me saying it would “delay Muni.” It wasn’t until one day, a pedestrian was hit and killed, they finally put in 4-way stop, and now there’s a signal in place.

    Sunset Boulevard and Yorba (near Sloat overpass): Pedestrian killed by a car. That crosswalk was dangerous as hell, even with the flashing lights telling people there’s a pedestrian wanting to cross. Now there’s a traffic signal, more traffic signals along Sunset, and lowering the speed limit.

    Sloat and Forest View: A Lowell High School student was hit and killed by a DUI driver. Everybody knew crossing Sloat was dangerous, and the city and state (since it’s highway 35) forked the money fast to put in a new crosswalk signal.

    For the Taraval project, I’m happy the SFMTA is shoving back at the anti project people. They are willing to be proactive instead of waiting for the next death.


    Donovan Lacy

    I think that is a great idea. I think it may also be worhtwhile to educate riders to the idea of not getting into an Uber / Lyft if they are in a bike lane. I have been guilty of this myself and moving forward will deduct stars on the rating at the end of my rides for exactly this type of activity. My understanding is that the TNC’s are very sensitive to rider ratings.



    “the agency encounters enormous push back. It comes from competing agencies, local politicians, but, more often than not, from a loud minority of angry stakeholders”

    Roger, did we ever establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a “minority” of local residents who opposed these boarding islands?

    As I recall, even your own report at the time indicated that about 2/3 of the meeting opposed them.


    Donovan Lacy


    I may be wrong, but I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that this is the wrong forum for pointing out the flaws of the standard pro-car argument. Not to put words into anyone else’s mouth; I think what Murph and others are trying to say is that pointing out these flaws to this particular poster (RichLL) is an exercise in futility, as he will respond to any argument that you make, no matter how articulate and logical by changing the subject or creating a straw man and typically refuting facts with his feelings and opinions.

    I spent some time responding to his arguments and then decided to try the blocking technique. I have enjoyed your responses and assuming you have the energy, and at the risk of sounding contrary and a tad hypocritical, I encourage you to continue the debate.



    Wait, Mario, there are many prudent safety precautions we can all take that are not enshrined in statutes. Assuming you had the same kind of road safety classes in high school that I did, then you were taught to “look both ways” before crossing a road.

    Is that a legal requirement? No. Does it make sense if you want to be safe? Absolutely.

    Laws tell you what you must do, Common sense tells you what you should do.


    Mario Tanev

    This is one of those things like requiring bicycle helmets. People’s clothing is part of their identity, and having to wear something specific so you don’t get killed is an invalidation of their identity. People would rather start driving than suffering such indignities.

    Also, using a “reason” which is not legislated, nor proven to improve safety is very unfair. If it was a requirement to wear reflective clothing at night, it should have been a law. But it’s not, because such a law wouldn’t pass. Hence the onus is on the dangerous multi-ton vehicle driver to have proper lights and to pay attention.



    > the practice is not intrinsically dangerous
    Well, neither is parking on crosswalks or sidewalks, as long as you don’t run over anyone in the process!

    There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about setting up a chess table and having a nice game on the middle of the cross-walk, as long as you enter the crosswalk in the walk phase. Once you’re there and not moving, its very predictable. Drivers can find their way around safely with some patience and ingenuity, right? Worst-case, they wait till check-mate! NBD



    I don’t really see how ‘nobody post anything, because that way Rich won’t have anything to respond to’ leads to a comment section that has useful discussion.

    I thought pointing out the flaws in standard pro-car arguments was on-topic for streetsblog of all places, but apparently it gets me scolded and called a sock puppet (wat). Message received. If the existing community here wants to drive away people who agree with the philosophy of streetsblog just to try to starve Rich of people to reply to, so be it. I’ll go back to just reading, and you can go back to ignoring the fact the the comments section often has a bunch of unrefuted pro-car arguments that are designed to sound reasonable and convincing to any less informed readers that happen by.



    VM, sorry but that is offensive. I comment here in in good faith and often contribute arguments that cannot be refuted.

    You are welcome to ignore me, of course, but commenting here just to insult an active and energetic contributor to this site is very negative and sad.



    You know that commenter is simply using this forum to troll and bait people. I wish we all would stop responding to these frivolous comments. I encourage you to ignore him, possibly by using the block function available at Disqus. Your blood pressure will thank you, as well as fellow readers.



    I don’t think that car parking spaces should factor into discussions about the ratio of usable road space for different types off vehicles. I’m talking about road areas that are available for movement.



    Fair enough, but there is still a legal question here. If I block a bike lane and, in response, you engage in a reckless passing maneuver and get hit by another vehicle, would I be held liable for the accident in any way? If I left the scene would that be “hit and run” even though I never hit you?

    Or to put it another way, can a fully stopped vehicle ever be deemed at fault for an accident?



    I don’t think anyone is claiming that the pedestrian was 100% responsible for the accident just because he was difficult to see. Only that it may have been a contributory cause and that the jury in a civil case may award his estate less in the event of a lawsuit.

    Likewise, I don’t think a jury would take into account that a pedestrian wasn’t wearing a helmet, but they might if the victim was a cyclist who died from a head injury.

    Accidents usually happen because a few things all go wrong at the same time. Each factor should be considered and weighed.


    StrixNoctis .

    It’s ridiculous that these days everyone but the drivers are getting blamed for collisions that all have one common denominator–motor vehicles. Drivers can do no wrong!

    What comes next is pedestrians getting blamed “for not having reflectors, lights and helmets.” I can see it now, “the two pedestrians who suffered life-threatening head injuries are to blame for not wearing helmets!” “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/wheel.”

    Vision Zero will continue to be Zero Vision while the smoke & mirrors continue..



    This is why I always wear neon orange when I attend black-tie dinners.



    I stand corrected. The city’s document does state that the $3M ultimate plan is indeed a grade separated crossing where the creek and parking-stadium traffic intersect. This is the right approach and ideally nothing should be spent on an interim routing of dubious merit. And the Niners should fund this mitigation of the problem that the stadium created.