Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Chris McMahon

    Dang. Why not make this like Los Angeles?

  2.  

    adamspacemann

    “Insufficient” is not really an objective term. If your goal is to have everyone reliant on driving around and not interesting in providing space for alternatives then, yes, perhaps <1 car per unit is insufficient. If, instead, you are trying to challenge the dogma that cars are the only thing we should ever rely upon for getting around, and seeking to reduce the amount of entitlements that drivers get, then it's a perfectly sufficient amount.

  3.  

    donsf2003

    Anything that relies on enforcement will fail. There is none.

  4.  

    donsf2003

    Who cares if it is a lie right?

  5.  

    donsf2003

    This ad campaign against this prop is so sleazy. I disagree with the prop but wish it passes because this is so sleazy.

  6.  

    donsf2003

    And why do bikers think they can push everyone aside?

  7.  

    donsf2003

    No one here seemed to care when the Stewart billionaires shelled out half a million to protect their view with the sham prop against 8 Washington

  8.  

    Dean

    I’ve lived in a city (Minneapolis) that is jammed with parking garages and let me tell you: it’s ugly.

  9.  

    AlanTobey

    As Bob Dylan sang it. “How many deaths will it take til too many people have died?”

  10.  

    sebra leaves

    We can start by reinstating the minimum 1 car per unit rule for new properties. It was changed from a minimum to a maximum requirement a couple of years ago and has resulted in a lot of new market rate housing being built with insufficient off-street parking. The voters may also want to chime in on the “sharing economy” privatizing public property. The courts are looking at that now.

  11.  

    murphstahoe

    Leeland Yee

  12.  

    donsf2003

    Octavia and Market is a failure because the bike idiots forced the city to forbid turns from Market into the freeway.

  13.  

    donsf2003

    Who cares if it’s a big lie right?

  14.  

    donsf2003

    Do you have any ethics?

  15.  

    donsf2003

    Brilliant. Yes and as ethical as a Karl Rove ad.

  16.  

    donsf2003

    Sleazy ad campaign. Who did you hire? The ethically challenged folks that slimed 8 Washington?

  17.  

    IrvinDawid

    Excellent column on a tragic, and dare I say, needless fatality – completely preventable, particularly if the street redesign improvements suggested in the column were implemented.

    How many more traffic casualties are necessary before Caltrans takes action?

    Re., “Atherton’s first-ever bicycle and pedestrian plan strongly recommends reducing the number of travel lanes on El Camino Real from six to four, converting the right-most lanes in both directions to bike/ped paths separated from vehicle traffic with some type of barrier.”

    Four lanes moves traffic well through Burlingame, but there are no bike lanes. This would be a great improvement for the 1.6 mile stretch – and would increase biking and reduce auto traffic speeds.

  18.  

    Chris

    What about a compromise? If they built parking garages, then they would have to remove street parking and put in cycle tracks. A hundred parking spaces in the garage equals to a hundred parking spaces removed from the streets.

  19.  

    ladyfleur

    I’m getting tired of using “we can’t determine if the person was walking in the crosswalk” as an excuse. When someone gets hit by a fast-moving car they’re not going to remain in the crosswalk. How far they fly is based on how fast the driver was going.

    Does it really matter whether they were fully inside the crosswalk or 5-10 feet outside of it on a straight road? If they’re anywhere near a crosswalk, they should assume the person was in it, not cop-out with a “we can’t know precisely if they were in the crosswalk.” That’s what the cops said about two deaths in Mountain View where men were killed a couple of years ago.

    Oh, and the cop said speed wasn’t a factor in either case. In one case the driver was estimated at 35-40 at night in a 35mph zone. In the other, the average speeds are so fast that cops only ticket people going over 55mph even though it’s a 35mph zone. Is it any wonder why I have little faith in their bias?

  20.  

    yermom72

    Having people park in area garages instead of on the street is actually a very good idea. It’s really the “restoring balance” people who should be careful what they wish for!

    And the garages would not have to be ugly, mid-to late 20th century monstrosities. There’s a book on this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Early-Public-Garages-Francisco-Architectural/dp/0786466812/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

  21.  

    Kevin

    I real life example of “restoring balance” is Downtown Oakland. Parking garages everywhere and wide streets don’t make it a place I want to spent time.

  22.  

    peternatural

    Let me guess: taxpayers would get stuck with the bulk of the tab. Mayor Lee doesn’t want to “nickel and dime” drivers. He just wants taxpayers to pay through the nose to provide parking, whether they use it or not.

    *Each on-street spot costs taxpayers $400 annually to maintain. Source:
    http://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone

  23.  

    Gezellig

    As someone who lives near Ocean, I can attest to the fact that the sharrows on that avenue are a joke. If there’s any street that could this treatment, it’s Ocean:

    https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7434/13965355102_f42bd00d48_c.jpg

    (plus, it already has the lightrail part)

    The Ocean Ave corridor is surprisingly underrated, and could be so much more lively with a more equitable and pleasant streetscape. I’ve often thought there’s a lot of potential for some treatment à la Patricia’s Green (the Hayes Valley Square at Octavia/Hayes) for underutilized pockets along the corridor such as this:

  24.  

    Gezellig

    LOVE these! This is brilliant visual messaging.

  25.  

    jonobate

    This is great. I’m going to put these up in my neighborhood once we get closer to election time.

  26.  

    Ken

    Apparently the shuttle busses are “inducing” techies to move to SF, “displacing” lower income residents.

    Because having a city center be well-connected to outlying areas via transit is apparently a bad thing for the city.

  27.  

    Ken

    So you say you want to “reduce induced demand for housing.” What you’re really saying is that your solution to SF’s housing crisis is to make SF a shittier place to live so less people want to move in. That does not sound like a good long-term plan for the city to me.

    The *only* way to solve a housing crisis is from the supply side: build more housing, high- medium- and low- end all together, and build it *fast*.

    But by all means keep harping on the “techies” scapegoat. Blaming “outsiders” for your problems is a time-tested technique, even if the irony of doing so in a “diverse, tolerant” city is completely lost on you.

  28.  

    Chris

    Probably because they asked normal people in the streets. The ones that prefer cards hide in them our their homes in the suburbs.

  29.  

    Joel

    Bus lanes make too much sense for Ocean, especially east of Miramar. All of the metro lines should have had comprehensive TEP proposals.

  30.  

    Upright Biker

    Funny how when you ask regular people, they always put “more space for cars/parking” at the very lowest end of the totem pole and “more space for peds/transit/bikes” at the top.

    If you asked Prop L proponents, they would probably claim that these regular people didn’t exist, or were socialist moles rigging the process, or were somehow influenced by the pro-bike propaganda coming out of City Hall.

  31.  

    Dallam Oliver-Lee

    Yet California allows cars to park in bike lanes and protected bike lanes unless a “no parking” sign is posted.

  32.  

    murphstahoe

    That solution should apply to all companies and individuals (who are paid by said companies) and is called a tax increase. Start campaigning.

  33.  

    baklazhan

    Has anyone calculated just what fraction of SF street space is used for bike lanes and such? 1%?

    Perhaps that could be made into a slogan:

    1% of streets for bikes, 99% for cars? No! Restore balance: 0% bikes, 100% cars!

    Or some other way to drive home the point that the supposed ‘balance’ is not particularly balanced.

  34.  

    Andy B from Jersey

    What a surprise! There were problems with the Bay Bridge parts made in China and those problems were covered up.

  35.  

    Andy Chow

    Caltrain already has a robust shuttle program that is based on public-private funding partnerships. Caltrain can replicate the feeder shuttle partnership model to long distance buses. Some of the large companies can provide funding to sponsor the shuttles for their workers, and public funds can pay the rest to ensure the service is available to everyone else.

  36.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Take the fight to them, put one on top of Tony Hall’s house or next to it.

  37.  

    Upright Biker

    If I didn’t have a business to run, I could do this all day it’s so fun! Almost like building the real thing! What neighborhood institution would _you_ like to see with a parking structure next to it? I’m taking requests!

  38.  

    Upright Biker

  39.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Great job. It seems like with one of the most annoying people in tech bankrolling this and the Republican party being the biggest backers, this measure is going to be a hard one to pass in this city at this time. The campaign against L writes itself, the parking garage next to victorians is perfect.

  40.  

    Upright Biker

    The ever-helpful Rob Anderson pointed me to an SFMTA study regarding traffic at Octavia and Market, which noted that 73% of the motorists clogging that intersection had neither originated their trip in San Francisco nor did they stop or terminate it in San Francisco — They were heading to Marin and points north.

    If we keep making it attractive for these drive-bys to use our city streets instead of going around on 80 or 880, we’ll keep seeing no benefits from them while their impacts continue to be significant.

  41.  

    Upright Biker

    Ask and ye shall receive:

  42.  

    murphstahoe

    Are you saying that most folks are stupid? That’s well established.

  43.  

    SFnative74

    This is a map of SF’s bike routes in December 1971 that I found very easily via a search engine. http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/20110525162247395-1.jpg This by itself shows the MapStory map is off to a bad start.

  44.  

    Justin

    indeed

  45.  

    sebra leaves

    “Blame ya self” didn’t work so well for Herman Cain because most folks don’t. They blame someone else. In this case, they blame the folks who are in charge of the streets who claim they are fixing things.

  46.  

    Upright Biker

    Don’t forget about SFParkRIPOff!!

  47.  

    JJ94117

    I agree. The biggest traffic congestion is caused by getting in, out and around the City. Driving through is not too bad. Rush hour is tough, mainly due to access to freeways and the volume of cars already congesting them.
    Maybe an effort needs to be put on the businesses to promote work-shifting to allow workers to commute at off hours. I have the flexibility to do this myself, and it makes a huge difference, especially on days when I drive rather than take caltrain.

  48.  

    Justin

    Thanks for the clarification

  49.  

    murphstahoe

    The No on L need to photoshop a parking garage in the middle of the painted ladies.

  50.  

    murphstahoe

    It has plenty of power. If it passes, it’s an ace in the sleeve of these guys when the next critical issue comes up before SFMTA. SFMTA goes against this measure, Ed Lee puts the hammer down on SFMTA and points to Measure L, SFMTA caves.

    Though when I think about it, Measure L may actually be a blessing. If it passes, we may very well just end up with the status quo anyway. But if it FAILS – it will be hard for the Sebra Leaves and Rob Andersons of the world to parrot the line about the “silent majority”