Skip to content

Recent Comments



    and your point is? That my opinionated points of view are not a starting points for discussion? Personally I take great offense when someone responds to criticism with the response “if you don’t like it leave town”. Personally I don’t see much original discussion here, just folks who have adopted a point of view, and don’t seem to appreciate there is almost always two sides to an issue. So again, not sure what your point is?



    “the ENTIRE concept of democracy is the intelligent debate of issues”

    “the citizens should be free of the yoke of the burden of government”
    “a clear pillar of wisdom”
    “pig headed and unjust”
    “Clearly you are a much finer human being then I am”
    “accept whatever BS the wonderful city government throws your way”
    “Just look around genius”
    “same old knee jerk BS”
    “money is just flushed down the drain”



    So I see. Everyone that disagrees with you (a clear pillar of wisdom) or takes issue with the way the government acts towards its citizens should just pack up and leave? That is your answer to issues worthy of debate and discussion? I actually like living in SF and will continue to do so, and I also plan to raise my voice in protest to things that I find pig headed and unjust. Clearly you are a much finer human being then I am, with an evolved sense of civic pride and service. Me I’m just a regular guy who calls things the way I see them.

    But quite frankly, I don’t think the problem is me, after all the ENTIRE concept of democracy is the intelligent debate of issues, I think the problem is with people like you, who don’t really seem to question much, but accept whatever BS the wonderful city government throws your way. Just look around genius, and you think the city is doing great, or that our politicians are leaders worthy of our respect and loyalty? Give me a break San Francisco is a bloody mess, and politicians here give lip service to doing good, but almost every single one of them has their eyes on higher office and getting beyond this provincial berg. Don’t you get it? They talk as if they care about issues, when in fact what they care about is getting elected and staying in office until they can work their way up the “largesse ladder”. To stay in office they just have to play to the same old knee jerk BS, that has passed itself of as “progressive politics” for years. What do we have to show for it? A town where the poor and middle class are getting squeezed out, a town where police and firefighter leaders make more money then similar jobs in much bigger cities like LA. Where union bus repair guys walk away with lifetime 150K a year pensions, where home ownership is a lower percentage then ANY city in all of the US, and where money is just flushed down the drain. For example they recently wanted to name SF Airport Harvey Milk Airport, and ill conceived idea from the get go. So when it was clear there was no public support they decided to name a terminal after Milk. So what is the first thing they do? Form a 75K “steering committee” to research which terminal to name after Milk. That’s a lot of damn quarters isn’t it? So no I”m not leaving, and I feel no shame in having a different opinion then you and stating them with passion. Unlike many folks here I am certainly willing to change my opinion when given facts to convince me, I see no real facts here just political talking points.



    Cheryl Brinkman is just my favorite.



    Highways 101 and 280 weren’t built all at once. They were built in discontiguous stretches over several years as funding became available. The same goes for bike lanes.



    If Atherton has no money, then how was the road built in the first place. If the original road was funded city by city, I would assume it would just stop at the Atherton city limit for lack of funds. I assume it was not funded originally like that, so neither should its improvements be.



    Imposing new taxes require a 2/3 majority vote. Good luck with that!


    Jamie Scott

    Good article. Outstanding question I have after reading this. What is the current level of bike funding, what is the proposed bike funding if the ballot initiative doesn’t pass, and what is the bike funding if the ballot initiative does pass? Also, curious how much NYC’s spent on bike lanes since 2007.


    Eva Markiewicz

    Just found this article with a very compelling quote:

    If you’re riding down a busy city street on your bike, you’re as much as 90% more likely to get hit by a car than if you’re in a protected bike lane–a lane that actually has a curb or some other physical barrier rather than just a simple white stripe.

    Its a great article, and links to these resources:


    Eva Markiewicz

    I agree with one of the previous comments – the planters and bike lanes should be switched to provide bikers with the safety they need. In fact, I’ve heard that in many top bikeabiltiy cities – they put organize the street like this: bike, pedestrian, trees, car lane 1, car lane opposite, trees, pedestrian, bike.



    Great point. Caltrans is officially responsible for El Camino (it’s officially state highway 82), so it seems like this road is perfectly amenable to having a unified approach to pedestrian and bicycle safety since one body technically is in charge of the whole thing.



    I’m all for adding bike lanes to El Camino in Atherton. However, can’t all the cities along the route coordinate to build bike lanes at the same time? I believe that Sunnyvale is also adding bike lanes to El Camino. Having bike lanes in only some cities is very confusing and dangerous. What are bicyclists supposed to do when they get to the city line? Are they all of a sudden stuck in highway traffic?

    I would love to have a direct and easy to remember bicycle route from San Jose to San Francisco. Cars can just take Hwy 101 or I-280. I bet none of you could tell me a detailed, reasonably direct bicycle route from San Jose to San Francisco.



    The closing point was good though – the bike lane on the right hand side should be next to the sidewalk.



    Wow, how *ever* could we possibly come up with a solution for this type of terrible first-world problem?! Rich residents but a poor government?!

    Atherton is all housing, so with prop 13 they’re basically fucked.



    Also, Atherton doesn’t do development so there are grants they don’t qualify for. But, the routes through Atherton also serve Redwood City, North Fair Oaks, and Menlo Park, which do qualify for grants and have residents who’d rather bike and walk safely.



    “Although many Atherton residents are very wealthy, the town government itself isn’t, and it lacks sufficient city planning and engineering staff to analyze and apply for the many competitive grants that could fund recommended safety improvements.”

    Wow, how *ever* could we possibly come up with a solution for this type of terrible first-world problem?! Rich residents but a poor government?! Hmmmm …. I don’t know, how about raising taxes a tiny bit to raise some money for these worthy causes? Because better pedestrian and cyclists infrastructure is desperately needed here. I agree with Adina’s points in the article that Atherton is like a black hole when riding a bike through this area (and Redwood City and Menlo Park aren’t much better).

    Looking at the plan for El Camino, I’m confused: why not put the 4-foot bike lane on the *other* side of the planters and adjacent to the two-way shared trail to actually give cyclists the safety they deserve? It seems so easy to do this ….



    Start at 15:50 minute mark if you want to skip to the transportation section he talks about. 17:40 minute mark is specifically about the Sunday meter hint, hint I reference above



    You can find it here –

    It’s the Mayor Ed Lee: What’s Next for SF program

    You have to read between the lines on this when he talks about Sunday meters (which is a small part of the discussion) but this was my take from it.



    Actually, based on the city’s own numbers, only 3.5% of trips are done by bicycle and the city spends less than 0.5% of the SFMTA budget on ‘improvements’ to bicycling infrastructure. By some measures, SFMTA spends more on paper and office supplies then then do on bicycle infrastructure.

    But, because such a small percentage of people ride bicycles regularly in the city, licensing cyclists, which, I venture to guess you haven’t figured out how to administer in the first place, won’t raise anything more than symbolic revenue. In fact, it could end up costing more to administer than the amount of revenue it brings in. Then you have to ask yourself – what’s the point?

    Also, last I checked, while there is a parking crunch for cars in commercial districts, that’s not the problem with bicycle parking….



    Well fortunately for you those other cities are needing population a lot more than SF and SF is getting by just fine with Sunday metering. If you have such problems with SF city government in general, maybe it’s time to try living in the other 99.5% of other cities.

    I have no problem paying to park when I drive. I always know where I am going to park and make sure I have the money for it. What I don’t like is not being able to find parking and that’s why I appreciate the increased turnover from the meters or I park in a garage.



    Great idea, we can start that program as soon as cars pay for damage caused by air pollution, collisions, and parking.



    All I know is that 99.5% of ALL cities seem to be able to do fine without sunday parking, and SF seemed to be doing just great without it for all these years. In every neighborhood where there are businesses there are also residences. For every store there are probably 20 or 30 apartments. Hey you want to support sunday parking that is fine with me, the only thing I ask is if you don’t have a car then perhaps you don’t quite get it. If you do have a car and don’t mind getting reamed by the city, you are entitled to that. But I am certainly entitled to have my opinion about a city that seems to have no limits on their ability to spend and waste money, and therefore are always strained to find new ways to get revenue, rather then fix the underlying problems of government largesse.



    Then here is a great idea. Since our bicycles use our roads and side walks, and cause accidents and have even known to kill people, why not regulate and charge fees to the bike riders? I say we license all bikes in SF, that the parking the city provides currently for free on sidewalks should be metered. That should raise a good chunk of change and seems equitable to me. So why is that you wouldn’t support this idea? Perhaps you ride a bike, and have been getting off scott free all these years? Seems like a “perk” to me.



    Paying to store private property is not a tax, especially in areas like commercial districts in which the businesses rely on turnover. This is why meters were first used, to create turnover in high demand areas, and as previously mentioned the chamber of commerce supports Sunday metering for this reason. Sunday is no longer a “day of rest” in the United States, unlike other countries where the majority of businesses are closed on Sunday, businesses are open in the US 7 days a week. We have a parking policy that reflects this.

    If you don’t want to pay the city for parking, you can park in a private garage, or maybe you’d insist that they should provide their services for free?



    You are comparing apples and oranges. I’m not complaining about stopping at red lights on sunday. The things you are referring to are all services that you get something in return. Paying to park on a public street is not a service it is a tax. Just like one accepts the fact you don’t get mail on Sunday, its not that it wouldn’t be useful it represents a “day of rest”. Same with Sunday parking, simply a “day of rest” that was taken away.



    It’s actually become cheaper to go to whole foods, or Safeway, then it is to buy fish or veggies in the Mission on Sunday.



    We pay sales taxes seven days a week. And why Sunday and not Saturday? And why should parking be free and not MUNI? Your argument about ‘getting gov’mint off my back’ has no rational basis if you notice all the other inconsistencies in your argument.

    Sounds like you’re just upset that a perk you’ve enjoyed for years, if not decades is now gone and you’re upset about it. If you were focused on making MUNI free on Sundays as well as parking, then maybe you’d have a better argument. But instead, this is all about you, isn’t it.



    That’s a great idea. I especially don’t pay for muni on sundays, or any tolls. And don’t get me started on water and the sewer system, I’ll never use those on the sunday. Get these pipes out of my house! No visits to the library and don’t come to me about an emergency, because 9-11 is off limits as well.



    I don’t see how you can have one discussion without the other. But the bottom line is that parking meters on Sunday is mean spirited. I personally believe that we the citizens should have one day a week, free from government intrusion. It is simply the government acknowledging that it IS a burden, and one day a week was not too much to ask, to leave us the f**K alone.



    Actually, I own my home in the city and am acutely aware of how much in taxes I pay. And I understand how you believe that the city is misusing funds that it raises for various purposes, for I also believe that. However, that’s a totally separate discussion from managing parking demand in a city which has seen a population increase of over 61,000 people in 10 years.

    If you think the Chamber of Commerce is motivated by something else than getting more people into small businesses, then you need to go back to Econ 101 and take that course again. More turnover on city streets = more people visiting shops. Metering is about managing turnover, nothing more. Before you go off on a diatribe about general taxation, remember that this is a site dedicated to streets and streetscapes – not malfeasance in government.



    at least when I give a gas station money I get something in return

    I read this as you got to spend 15 minutes on I-280, whereas if you gave $4 to the parking meter you’d get to shop in the Mission. If you consider that “getting something in return” your utility function is badly broken.


    David D.

    Reiskin’s quote in the second paragraph of the article cannot be understated. What most likely happened is that some PCO’s were rescheduled to work on Sundays, making them unavailable on weekday afternoons. Some parts of the City are absolute zoos during the PM peak, and severe congestion has a negative impact on buses just as much as it does cars. There are very real financial and service implications to public transit when it is trapped by congestion, and some of this congestion can be alleviated by the presence of PCO’s at intersections. I would rather see PCO’s doing traffic duty on weekday afternoons than issuing parking tickets on Sunday afternoons.



    If you truly believe this has anything to do with something more then the government trying to raise more revenue I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Simple truth is that the government spends OUR money with reckless abandon, and lines the pockets of over paid government employees, union workers etc. If I had ANY sense that the government was not wasting our money in epic ways, I would have absolutely no resistance to taxes, fees, Sunday parking etc. The truth is they are gauging us silly. Corporations on one side the government on the other. They pay lip service to doing public good, helping the poor etc, but far and away the reason they don’t have enough money is that they are spending it like it is someone else’s money. Oh that’s right it is. As an example they made a big push to raise teachers salaries, but there was no money. So they turned into a parcel tax amendment and made this sad story push on how the money would help new teachers and poor districts. Big Lie. It was an across the board pay hike for all teachers, and did almost nothing to address issues they cried about. And it was set up so that 70% of the city residents didn’t even have to pay for it. My friend a teacher making about 78K a year plus benefits got a 3K raise out of that one. Recently they had an amendment to change the way they collected business tax fees, making is sound like it would be more fair, they neglected to tell everyone that smallest and most vulnerable businesses would have their fees TRIPLED..yes tripled. I think the majority of folks who support all these government imposed fees and taxes, simply are those that are not affected by them. If YOU had something to lose I’m sure your support would be considerably less enthusiastic. Taxes, fees, et al are just GREAT, especially if someone else has to pay them.


    Payton Chung

    Yes, because my idea of a fun weekend is to pay $10+ per hour to leave a car parked in a remote lot, while I eat dust and dodge semi trucks along the oh-so-enticing shoulder pictured there.



    The taxes you pay on gas and for your vehicle fees do not go towards the road construction and maintenance budget in San Francisco. That money goes to the state, which uses it to pay for state highways and roads and CHP. Property and sales taxes, and whatever revenue SFMTA brings in from fines, parking meter revenue etc instead do. It doesn’t matter how expensive it is to run your car in the city, that’s not what’s paying for roads here, so it’s irrelevant to bring that up as a reason why you shouldn’t have Sunday metering.

    The primary reason to have meters is to control demand for on street parking, which has become increasingly scarce as the population in the city has gone up from 776,000 in 2000 to 837,000 currently. In addition, the habits of people have changed. We drive and shop more on Sundays then in the past, which puts increasing pressure on commercial districts. It’s no surprise that the Camber of Commerce has come out in favor of Sunday metering, as it means more turnover on commercial streets to encourage shopping rather than long term storage.



    Actually about 25% of what I pay for gas also goes to the government, and at least when I give a gas station money I get something in return. Not sure about you, but money I give to the government doesn’t seem to give me personally much, if anything, in return. FYI to travel 2 or 3 miles by car costs me about 35 cents.



    Did you know there were two restaurant hit and runs on Sunday. A bar in Oakland had a similar incident too, where a car smashed into the window of the bar. :(



    I used to do a Sunday Mission run to about 3 different little shops,
    but it has become so expensive because of the parking nazis, I just take
    my business else where.

    Presumably somewhere that the parking is free but you give $4 to the Exxon Nazis.



    It’s not about whether you own a car. It’s whether you can get there without using a car.


    Bruce Halperin

    I meant the problem of getting there if one does not own a car. Parking will be scarce no matter what.



    “the SFMTA Board of Directors could send us back to 1947— the last time parking meter hours were changed, before they were updated last year” – so you actually mean back to 2012? What a strange way of writing.

    Believe it or not, I’m on your side, but when you choose your words to make people seem more evil than they are, I don’t think you help the cause. Not even a little.



    Did you not get the part where it’s very hard to park there?



    First of all, why mention the 1995 closure when there was a huge one in 2006. Second, yes, everyone knows there will be some future subsidence, erosion, etc. But whereas even minor issues prompt a road-for-cars closure a bike/ped trail can stay open if a few rocks crumble and fall onto the road. Repairs would be quicker and easier. Don’t get me wrong–this sounds somewhat unnerving. But you’ve basically removed the risk of catastrophic subsidence by removing the thousands of mulit-ton objects rolling over it every day.


    Dork Dork

    Wow, I’m liking Mayor Lee more and more these days. I bailed on Sun shopping along Chestnut long ago, because of the meter hassles. The Mission and the rest of the City would be such a nicer place with a meter haven for just one day a week.


    sebra leaves

    April Fools?


    Richard Mlynarik

    It’s inevitable that some innocent road users is going to be badly injured some day as a direct result of the out-of-control mid-street parking of the insane religious nutjobs, but you can bet your bottom dollar that none of the above-the-law chuch=state whackjobs involved will pay any price.

    What a disgusting., corrupt, horribly run, pay-to-play city.



    Can confirm, I’ve ridden it – very very nice.



    Doesn’t most, if not all, meters currently support pay by phone? I know there is a 40 cents charge for that, but that is an option even if it’s not as convenient as inserting a card into the meter.

    Is there a surcharge for using credit cards in the kiosk or meters with the credit card reader built in also?



    How about the notion that one day a week, we the citizens should be free of the yoke of the burden of government. Sunday parking meters are a stick in the eye of the basic notion of fairness. Perhaps one day government can make the case that they are spending our tax money in a reasonable and rational fashion. The plain and obvious fact is they are not. There is so much pork in the local budget if we, the citizens, even had the foggiest idea of how much money gets wasted, it would make our heads explode. To you knee jerk snobs think it is REASONABLE to pay 4.25 an hour to park on the street in the Mission on Sunday, then take my quarter and you know where to shove it, and that will get you all of 3 minutes. I used to do a Sunday Mission run to about 3 different little shops, but it has become so expensive because of the parking nazis, I just take my business else where. And from personal experience the notion that it is easier to park, is a bunch of crap.

    Funny thing is, that it is our tax dollars that paid for the streets. We pay taxes when we buy our cars, we pay money every year to register them and smog them, we pay for insurance and gas and taxes when we buy gas, and somehow it seems fair to charge us to park on the streets we have already paid for? And this so we can pay government employees and consultants six figure salaries a year, with benefit packages unheard of in the “real world”. But most of the people who are in favor of parking meters on Sunday are folks who don’t have cars, probably don’t pay property taxes or income taxes. Everything is just great as long as someone else is paying for it.

    Sunday parking meters have been the biggest government slap in the face to its citizens in a long long time. When did everyone forget that government is supposed to serve the people not the other way around. If Ed Lee runs on a platform of ending Sunday parking I would vote for him even though I don’t care for him or his policies. Down with Sunday Parking, Down with intrusive government. Free the quarter. yes.


    Bruce Halperin

    The problem was that heavy rains would wash away this entire section of roadway, forcing people (by all means of transportation) to take a VERY long detour (for cars, via Highways 92/101/280). This way access between Half Moon Bay and Pacifica will be maintained even if (read: when) Devil’s Slide experiences further erosion.

    By the way, I believe bicycles are permitted in the Tom Lantos Tunnels, and the shoulders there are quite wide. Can anyone confirm?