Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    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.

  2.  

    RichLL

    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.

  3.  

    murphstahoe

    You claim motorists subsidize everyone else.

    Prove it. With citations.

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    Skeevy: Adjective – containing brown people

  5.  

    murphstahoe

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

  6.  

    Ted King

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

  7.  

    RichLL

    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.

  8.  

    RichLL

    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.

  9.  

    chetshome

    “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

  10.  

    mx

    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).

  11.  

    SF_Abe

    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.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    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.

  13.  

    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.

  14.  

    thielges

    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.

  15.  

    RichLL

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

  16.  

    RichLL

    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.

  17.  

    RichLL

    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?

  18.  

    RichLL

    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

  19.  

    p_chazz

    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.

  20.  

    gneiss

    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.

  21.  

    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

  22.  

    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?

  23.  

    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.

  24.  

    Gezellig

    Absolutely!

    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:

    http://www.cahighways.org/maps/1955trafficways.jpg

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

    http://imgs.sfgate.com/inline/c/pxs/2004/10/20/mn_octavia_cntrlfwy_chronfile.jpg

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

  25.  

    SF_Abe

    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.

  26.  

    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.

  27.  

    jd_x

    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 ….

  28.  

    jd_x

    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.”

  29.  

    gneiss

    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.

  30.  

    djconnel

    Sweden changing driving side. Obviously a failed experiment that should have been canned, right?
    https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/rawfile/2014/02/sweden-traffic.jpg

  31.  

    djconnel

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

  32.  

    djconnel

    Bayway.

  33.  

    RichLL

    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.

  34.  

    CarsRuleBikesDrool

    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

  35.  

    the_greasybear

    “While Well Intentioned…” is behind a paywall.

  36.  

    murphstahoe

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

  37.  

    Jeremy

    I think that’s just the lines from the right of way. Elgin Park is still open to Market.

  38.  

    SF Guest

    Many drivers are on Mission looking for parking due to all the businesses on that corridor. I rarely ever drove on Mission other than to look for parking.

  39.  

    the_greasybear

    Interesting the Planning Department is using a very, very old map showing the area’s street configuration before the elevated freeway was torn down (e.g. the old Octavia alignment, the old McCoppin underpass). Weird!

  40.  

    RichLL

    True, but there is a distinction between local traffic and longer-distance commuters who are heading downtown.

    So a compromise might be as p_chazz suggests. Put the express/limited buses on SVN and the local stopping service can carry on ponderously trundling down Mission.

    There are precedents for that – the faster 38 routes use Pine/Bush rather than Geary.

    Meanwhile, the battle continues:

    http://sfist.com/2016/04/14/mission_street_changes_have_drivers.php

  41.  

    RichLL

    My vote for the worst intersection would be the 5-way intersection at Potrero/Brannan/Division under the freeway. Probably the least scenic as well.

    Of course, it’s people that cause accidents and not things.

  42.  

    SF Guest

    Moving Mission buses to S. Van Ness is a very tough sell since it’s only one block away from Folsom’s 12 line and would make it more burdensome for those coming from Valencia and Guerrero.

  43.  

    p_chazz

    Everyone does, eventually. 😉

  44.  

    p_chazz

    Ban RichLL? He is always polite and well spoken. Unlike some posters I know.

  45.  

    p_chazz

    Good point. I would move the 14R to SVN, and leave the 14 on Mission.

  46.  

    Gills

    Of course the Planners want to improve pedestrian access in that area. It’s right by the Planning Department and every time they go to lunch they risk bein killed crossing the street, especially at Otis/Van Ness and Mission. I think that ranks as the worst intersection for pedestrians in the city.

  47.  

    RichLL

    als made a statement without any basis, and I questioned it. You are asking me for data but not als, for no apparent reason other than you personally prefer his guess to mine.

    If you have data then provide it. Otherwise posting just to call someone a “loser” is juvenile. And demanding censorship just because that other contributor holds a different viewpoint from you is not furthering the debate either.

  48.  

    Gezellig

    Mmmmmmhmmm! Look at all that freedom-loving Access that San Franciscans used to enjoy:

    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/6954524483_d6e40b8bec_o.jpg

    http://sfpl.org/images/libraries/main/departments/sfphotos/featured-galleries/james-scott/fullsize/223a.jpg

    In those days, people used to flock to the waterfront and public plazas, before the freeway came down and ruined all the Access.

    People *especially* enjoyed flocking to–well, more like briefly alongside and around and then quickly away from–these lively public gems by car. Actually…pretty much all by car.

    What a loss!

  49.  

    goodmaab

    Promote public transit on 19th Ave, do an air-tram shot up and down, on the west side, take the line underground along sloat, turning southbound at 20th (not 19th) to avoid construction on 19th, bring it up along the back edge on that raised roadway, to an elevated route on the west-side of 19th (no complaints about views being blocked) as its on the west-side of 19th, out and would create new urban plazas at Stonestown, and green-ways on 19th, by burying the roadway, and taking the train using topography back to the flat area at the rise south of Holloway, and than back to an elevated level out near the 1952 interchange and than back to an intermodal station at Daly City I-280 plinthed over freeway interchange and new entry development areas align and along the whole route…? There are some very interesting solutions that can come from not burying transit, and the public should have a better view and ride, than a tunnel route the whole way.. Bury the cars with a through-way out from the golden gate and 19th, till they get to I-280…and we can alleviate some of the city traffic due to cross-county commuters blocking it all up….

  50.  

    goodmaab

    Why all the downtown projects? With all the outer AHBP, there needs to be a solid focus on the oustidelands areas of SF. 19th Ave planning is only 1/2 a solution as they do not relay the overall costs of getting the M-Line to a new intermodal hub and station at Daly City (750 million – 2-3 billion?) Tier Level 5 funding is mentioned, but no discussion of simple short-term fixes, taking the L-Taraval up Sloat to St. Francis Circle, or down and out along Lakeshore Blvd. to Daly City? What about the F-line out along the old Pan-American Exhibition line to the golden gate bridge? Why not spend some money doing the Bayshore Caltrains station correctly by linking the Light-Rail Vehicles back up to Balboa Park station and the J-Line creating a loop and link in the system. Finishing the DTX as planned than play “city-maker” and tear-down or suggest other shifts out to or under the bay… Finish what we can and should, and develop a short-range project list that makes the system improved for the perimeter of the city where development is being pressurized into. Than we can discuss other solutions.