Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    BBnet3000

    Nah, nothing is getting past the huge concrete wall for awhile, and the Army Corps presumably adds sand back to the beach every year.

  2.  

    Guch

    Back in the 1970′s Muni should have went with Siemens U2 LRV instead of the lemons called Boeing Vertrol LRV aka North American Standard LRV. In the 1990′s Muni could have went with Siemens SD 100 instead of the Bredas. In other cities Siemens have operated very well.

  3.  

    jonobate

    Plenty of right of way. I would argue for simply filling in the underpass and bringing the four underground lanes to the surface rather than trying to build a station down there. That gives at least six surface travel lanes + two surface parking lanes on the block east of Presidio and the block west of Masonic.

    There are already six surface travel lanes + one surface parking lane on the block in between Masonic and Presidio. You could find space for another two travel lanes (left turns onto Masonic) by removing the parking and that scrubby median. The BRT station would probably be located on the west side of the intersection with Masonic, where there is more space and turn lanes are less necessary.

    I’m not sure why the driveways effect anything – there are already driveways opening out onto Geary in many places where it is a six-lane surface road.

  4.  

    Bruce

    Not as much right-of-way, especially if a station is to be built there. Plus it’s asymmetrical, and the left turns from westbound Geary onto Masonic (currently one of the busiest maneuvers) would probably have to be banned, causing problems elsewhere.

    Oh, and there are houses and driveways along the outer Masonic roadways, which aren’t as much of a problem at Fillmore (except the KFC/Taco Bell eastbound at Steiner).

  5.  

    jonobate

    Why? It’s exactly the same as Fillmore, except it’s four lanes wide instead of six, and it goes under two intersections instead of one.

  6.  

    Upright Biker

    You know, the fact of the matter is we _are_ getting there. What used to be a clusterf***k in the area pictured above is a whole lot better. The Beach Chalet is delightful, and we even take visitors to the Cliff House for a meal and a view.

    In the end, though, (and I warned about this way back when I sensed Ed Lee backing off from his support for livable cities initiatives such as Sunday Meters, and the whole “Restore Balance” crowd started to gain some headway) it seems the political winds have slacked off a bit even if they haven’t exactly shifted completely away from the ideals of the Transit First Policy. These are people who commission and then read polls very closely, so it’s no surprise SPUR also has their finger to the wind and is sacrificing the controversial for the essential in this election cycle.

  7.  

    Miles Bader

    The fact that the lane removal is “most controversial” is so sad… Even without the erosion issue, giant roads like this which cut off the coastline from access are insane full-stop.

  8.  

    p_chazz

    Forget SPUR. I think Ocean Beach will put Great Highway on a road diet–a starvation diet at that.

  9.  

    Jass

    How about an unofficial road diet?

    That is, do not repave the outer lanes. Have a nice smooth left lane, a nice smooth bike lane, and a right lane that feels like driving on Mars.

    The lane is still there for all the traffic that “needs” it, but $5 most drivers merge to the left lane…where their speed is set by the slowest driver?

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    Let’s say some traffic changing item could have been put in a place on Folsom for 1 million that saves Amelie Le Moullac’s life. Aside from the emotional component, Le Moullac was 24 and by all accounts a very productive young woman. She would almost certainly pay many times 1 million dollars in taxes over her lifetime, and accelerate money into the economy many times past that.

    We have a clear example here – it is not just time, it’s also safety. And making the statement that it is the pedestrians fault will fall on deaf ears – results are what matter.

  11.  

    Don't Ever Change Ever

    While obviously no reasonable person would infer that the intersection in question was meant for pedestrians, technically it could be an unmarked crosswalk.

    California’s definition of a crosswalk makes no distinction between a divided highway or any other type of road:

    “(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.”

    Furthermore, California’s definition of an intersection does not require one street to cross another:

    “An ‘intersection’ is the area embraced within the prolongation of the property lines of two or more streets which join at an angle, whether or not one such street crosses the other.”

  12.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Aaron Peskin really is a piece of work. Is there any development anywhere that he doesn’t oppose?

  13.  

    Bruce

    Legally it’s a divided highway, and the intersection does not extend across (even for autos), so there is no unmarked crosswalk.

  14.  

    Bruce

    The Fillmore one is easy. The Masonic one is hard.

  15.  

    HuckieCA

    I’m not sure how to explain this, because you really don’t seem to be understanding that concept of there needing to be a balance between competing goals, and/or lack of infinite resources. There are lots of things I’d rather our government not spend money on. I’ve also never used Doyle Drive, but clearly someone made a decision that that project was a worthwhile cost to achieve one of our collective mobility goals. Don’t like it, figure out who it was and work to vote them out of office.

    My point was, we clearly can’t prioritize convenience for everyone all the time, and had you read my post, you’d have seen that I listed a whole bunch of arguments that I would consider compelling reasons to justify changing the design. Inconveniencing what is probably a relatively few people to walk 1000 ft (aka, one block) out of their way is acceptable to me, albeit the edge of acceptable. Now, if this was routine, I’d say no, if this was inconveniencing lots of people, I’d say no, or if it was inconveniencing a good number of people with mobility problems, I’d say no, not acceptable. If you look at the Google map, the main attraction, the shopping mall, doesn’t even have an entrance on that corner, and I would imagine, that was completely intentional.

  16.  

    Ted Camesano

    We can discount suburbanites but they are a part of the city’s economy, working and playing here, and they often need to drive. GG Park users fought the deYoung Museum’s underground parking garage; can the museum survive without visitors from our metro area?
    I moved to SF in 1977, partly because I wouldn’t need a car. I now own one, but tend to walk in my own little neighborhood. I realize that I am privileged and pity those who must drive.

  17.  

    Chris J.

    Yeah, what’s the reason for prioritizing this cosmetic change ahead of all the other projects that can actually increase safety? It especially doesn’t make sense if there’s a chance they’ll need to do it yet again to widen it.

  18.  

    Jym Dyer

    @donsf2003 – I guess it’s because people here are interested in substantive issues rather than vapid ad hominem pattern-matching.

  19.  

    Andy Chow

    To be a safe crosswalk there you need to make it signalized. If the crosswalk is synced like other signals along Geary, delays to auto is not significant, but it requires money that could’ve spent to improve crossing elsewhere where it is more needed.

  20.  

    murphstahoe

    I don’t see you crying a river when we spend over a billion dollars to bring Doyle Drive up to the current specs of what would be considered safe. By your standards we should just close it down. They can just take Lincoln or any number of other roads through our National Park, the Presidio.

  21.  

    HuckieCA

    No, the 4 minute delay is not to save every motorist from a 2 second delay. It’s to save the city from probably having to spent about $1M to bring that intersection up to the current specs of what would be considered a safe crosswalk and compliant with ADA standards. And, even if it was a delay imposed on one form of travel vs. another, those are trade-offs that have to be made sometimes. I don’t see anyone on here crying a river when a 10-minute delay gets added to someone’s auto commute, but no delay is acceptable for pedestrians? Let’s at least keep this at a reasonable level of discussion. :-/

  22.  

    Jym Dyer

    It turns out that the truck in question is a Kenworth T370, which is quite a bit smaller than a semi. Here’s a press release from Daylight Foods, the employers of truck driver Gilberto Alcantar, whose actions killed Amelie:
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10715519.htm

  23.  

    Jym Dyer

    For those who’ve come across this year-old story somehow, the update is that, thanks to lots of work from activists, the SFPD did forward the case. And the D.A. dropped it:
    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/05/14/legal-system-fails-again-no-charges-for-trucker-who-killed-amelie/

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    Wait a minute. On the other thread you went into a fit that all we care about is bikes and there are disabled and elderly people who cannot bike. Now all of a sudden everyone can walk 1000 feet, no problem.

  25.  

    murphstahoe

    This 4 minute delay is in place to save every motorist from a 2 second delay.

  26.  

    murphstahoe

    wrong. In the case of the pedestrian, the value is 1000 feet. No more , no less. In the case of bus rider with stops 1000 feet apart, the *maximum* walk distance per trip is 1000 feet, but it could be as small as zero. The average would be 500.

  27.  

    murphstahoe

    Additionally, as a cyclist, gneiss is particularly acutely aware of the issue of having one’s mode of transit be substandard, and develops empathy. The people who cannot empathize with the transit rider are people who solely drive.

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    This is such horse hockey. Even if gneiss *never* uses MUNI (I used it – not as much as I biked, but I used it), gneiss benefits a *lot* from excellent MUNI service, and he knows it. 10 people on a bus means 9 fewer vehicles that might hit him, and the one vehicle remaining, while large, is driven by a driver who is at least given a modicum of training, and whose livelihood depends on him or her driving properly. That’s a win.

  29.  

    gneiss

    Greg – why spend billions of dollars on public transit along already well traveled routes relatively short haul routes when we could much more cheaply install good, safe bicycle infrastructure for 10th of pennies on the dollar compared to the subways you envision? I encourage you to look at the examples in cities in northern Europe that have spent money of bicycle lanes and created high quality networks that get people where they are going. It’s far more cost effective then the giant public works projects we are spending money on in San Francisco. After all, the central subway is going to cost $1.58 billion for a 1.7 mile line that is expect to only carry some 20,000 people a day. If they had simply diverted private automobile traffic, made the bus lines better, and installed good bicycles along that route, they could have easily achieved that level of ridership with the need for a costly subway.

    As for Polk street being scary, that’s exactly what the Polk street redesign was expected to address.

  30.  

    murphstahoe

    Sounds like you have created a problem for yourself.

  31.  

    gneiss

    SFMTA doesn’t focus on bicycle based infrastructure by any stretch. The last few years they have spent less than 1% of their budget annually on bicycle improvements, and yet the number of people bicycling has increased by more than 60% over the last decade.

    Not spending on bicycle improvements means (1) more people riding on sidewalks (2) more crowding on multi use paths. Making everyone who rides a bike a law breaker because the streets aren’t safe is a totally counterproductive use of city resources. Instead making the streets safer with clearer definitions for what people who ride bike should do, and you’ll make everyone safer.

    As for saying that ‘I don’t care’ about the MUNI sickout isn’t true. I was asked if it affected me and I said no. But as I pointed out, this isn’t an isolated incident. Every city has labor issues with their public unions. But that’s not a reason to throw up your hands and say that you shouldn’t invest in transit, or that we should discount the needs of transit users by making driving easier.

  32.  

    Greg

    This is exactly what I’m talking about – you don’t care about the MUNI sickout since it doesn’t affect you – you bike. But not everyone can bike – someday you won’t be able to. Is it helping SF create a sustainable transportation infrastructure by focusing on biking like this while MUNI remains awful?

  33.  

    Greg

    I’m for everything except installing more bike lanes. Make driving and parking more expensive. Congestion pricing, Sunday meters, increase parking permit costs. And invest massively in public transportation – dedicated bus lanes, subway under Van Ness to Marina/Wharf, under Geary to Ocean Beach, etc. Expand BART to San Jose and up to Novato, etc. The focus on biking is distracting from/counterproductive to these goals. Biking isn’t reducing cars on the road and it not a practical solution for many folks. It is also making it more dangerous for walkers (Polk street is scary for me now to cross in foot). The solution is to focus on walking and usable public transit.

  34.  

    HuckieCA

    Our transportation system must balance Safety, Efficiency, Convenience, and Cost Effectiveness, across multiple modes of travel. I don’t really subscribe to the notion that convenience, especially convenience for only one mode of travel, must always take precedent. I thought that the TEP analogy was good, and being asked to walk 1000 ft in a few isolated locations to cross a major thoroughfare, is not unreasonable. We are talking about a 4 minute detour, and if this truly only in some isolated locations, where there’s some other factor that takes precedent, e.g., safety, then I”m OK with that. In this case, pedestrian crossing at that intersection is prohibited because of the road geometry (exit, merging lanes, no room for a mid-street protection median) and grade issues (on the west side).

    Now, if the case could be made that this is a location with very high pedestrian traffic that wants to cross right there (a bus stop, a park, some sort of community center or service), or if the case could be made that many (not even most, just many) of the inconvenienced pedestrians were mobility challenged (a nearby senior center, etc.), then I think that there would be a clear case as to why this particular location should be modified.

  35.  

    gneiss

    When the alternative is to simply cross the street – yes. It borders on criminally negligent to install a dangerous freeway like high speed street in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

  36.  

    gneiss

    Right – that’s just the approach the Republicans since Ronald Reagan have used to bankrupt the country. It’s called “starve the beast” and it’s worked so great, that we now owe over $17 Trillion. Great job.

    As for the MUNI sickout – each of the other cities you mention periodically has issues with their unions as well. Frankly it didn’t effect me one bit. I bicycle to work, and was picking up my daughter from camp on a trailer bike. I am very glad that there are other options available than trying to compete with all the crazy car drivers out there.

    And Let’s not forget that for the cities you mentioned, NYC, Chicago, and Boston contend with snow in the winter that shut down streets- but in my experience, the trains keep running.

  37.  

    gneiss

    Then Greg – you should be in favor of strengthening MUNI, adding more meters, and installing more bike lanes. The fewer people who are in cars, because it the only safe or convenient option available, the easier it will be for you to drive to your destination. For the last 80 years we have tried to build our way out of traffic congestion and to put it simply – it doesn’t work.

    If more people like me use the other options available then people like you wouldn’t be so frustrated by your experience driving around the city. If there weren’t bike lanes, calmed streets, and MUNI between my house and various destination do you think I would be biking? No – I would drive just like you. And I would be taking up space on the road just like you. And probably taking up a parking space – the exact one that you wanted to use.

  38.  

    Guest

    Wow, you deserve a medal.
    I am a 30 year native of SF and we are over taxed and over billed on city fees.

    NOT ANOTHER DIME to subsidize inefficeint systems.

    Did you have fun getting around town during the MUNI ‘sickout’? So much for a transit rich city. You have not spent enough time in NYC, Chicago, Boston (which I find is the best) Philadelphia, or even Seattle. Their public transit is 10X better than ours.

    MUNI is a joke. To say otherwise is to be in denial.

  39.  

    Greg

    replacing the original concrete curbs with materials that better match the rest of Market Street.

    Glad the City’s money trees are producing so well now.

  40.  

    Greg

    I can’t take both of my kids on my bike at the same time. The buses don’t go to my kids’ baseball games and swimming in the Presidio. I can’t carry the 150 pounds of little league coaching gear on my bike. The city refused to allow my kids to go to any school near my house (I picked the nearest 7 and got none) – so we have to get them across town by 8am each day. The bus between my house and my kids’ school (thru the ‘loin) is filled with meth heads and crazies that assault us, the bus usually has to stop due to an incident and is totally unreliable.

  41.  

    jonobate

    It’s pretty terrible that Geary BRT failed to set out a long-term plan for the Masonic and Fillmore underpasses. Given that funding isn’t available to fix these underpasses, Geary BRT should have been done as a phased project, with the downtown and Richmond sections implemented now, and Palm to Gough implemented at a later date.

    As things stand this section will be stuck with side-running bus lanes and these horrible underpasses indefinitely. Those could have been created through an SFTMA Engineering hearing as an interim measure until funding was available to do the section properly.

    The obvious solution for both of these underpasses is to fill them in – there’s simply no reason for them to exist.

  42.  

    Andy Chow

    What about people who work in the Sunset District where a lot of them pass through Hayes Valley? Transit availability and speed is much lower compared to downtown.

  43.  

    Greg

    Walking 1,000 feet is an impractical proposition for many people?

  44.  

    gneiss

    Frankly, your first comment is baloney. For a majority of people in the city, particularly low income, elderly and disabled who don’t have the resources or ability to own a car and drive MUNI is the default option even if you own a car. Look in the mirror. Your anger over their poor service is largely the fault of drivers like yourself. If there weren’t so many people trying to drive everywhere, MUNI would be far more reliable

    As for your second point, I have a daughter and for most activities (soccer practice, ballet, taking her to school, swimming practice, etc.) I use MUNI and bicycle to get around, and they work fine, even though I own a car. Saying otherwise is just a cop out. We live in one of the most transit rich communities in the country, in a city that is only 7 miles by 7 miles. Nothing is more than 30-45 minutes away by those modes.

    Finally, if you must drive, then you would want to have parking available at your destination. Meters priced appropriately are the most effective way of managing demand for those spaces. Creating more free parking with land prices the way they are in SF is the most inefficient use of that space and would only externalize that cost on to others – say poor people trying to find housing.

  45.  

    42apples

    I think there is a legitimate case people are making about the left lane being a passing lane. What bothers me is that there was exactly one comment regarding drivers speeding through *city* streets, which is actually very dangerous (to safe drivers, pedestrians, and bikes) rather than mostly an annoyance. Also, I highly doubt that many people fail to turn right on red when it is actually clearly safe (how would you know if you can’t see?). Also, I think the “tortoise-to-hare” slowpoke is completely backwards: I find it super dumb/annoying that so many drivers gun it when they are clearly coming up to a red light. Waste of gas, waste of brake pads, and can cause congestion once everyone else follows. If people were patient and slowed down, then there wouldn’t be such a queue waiting for the person ahead of them to move when the light turned green.

  46.  

    Marvin Papas

    1.Muni….does not deserve another cent given their atrocious service.

    2. If one has kids one needs to park & drive. Its ugly but its true. The increases in rates over the past 10 years to fund underfunded city programs is a crying shame. The city should cut its bloated bureaucracy first instead of punishing the taxpayer over and over.

  47.  

    Don't Ever Change Ever

    It looks like the northwest corner is missing the “No crossing” sign that’s on every other corner, so legally there’s an unmarked crosswalk for pedestrians traveling south on the west side of Lyon to cross to the opposite corner across Geary.

    Perhaps the sign wasn’t installed there or was removed because it blocked access to the parking lot for Tony’s Cable Car Restaurant.

  48.  

    gneiss

    First of all, that isn’t all that this proposition is asking for. Secondly, charging for meters should be based on the demand for those meters rather than evaluating based on fees alone. In many commercial districts, not charging fees on Sundays, Holidays, or during hours outside of the 9 AM to 6 PM window has lead to a shortage of parking, which in turn means that businesses and people looking for parking can’t find it.

    The issue of ‘not putting new meters in neighborhoods without consent from affected residents and business’ is a red herring. SFMTA already has an exhaustive outreach program. This just means adding another layer of additional delays (and cost to the city taxpayers) without doing anything to change the overall process.

    Finally, let’s point out that every government resource requires funding. Not raising garage rates means that other things will be more expensive, like transit for the elderly and disabled for example. Saying that you need to cap rates on garages means you are happy to see the elderly and disabled be forced to pay more for transit.

  49.  

    Spanky

    It is sad that the narrow minded folks in the Lower 24th Street Merchants Association pushed the event off 24th street. 18th street was a ghost town in comparison.

  50.  

    p_chazz

    Until the 1940′s there was no Lyon Street south of Geary–it was Calvary Cemetery.