Skip to content

Recent Comments



    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.



    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.


    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


    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?


    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.




    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:

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

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



    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.


    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.



    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 ….



    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.”



    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.



    Sweden changing driving side. Obviously a failed experiment that should have been canned, right?



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






    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.



    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



    “While Well Intentioned…” is behind a paywall.



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



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


    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.



    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!



    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:



    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.


    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.



    Everyone does, eventually. 😉



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



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



    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.



    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.



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

    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!



    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….



    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.



    “But whether it moves more people than other road vehicles is something that can probably be measured rather than guessed at.”

    Once again – “You don’t have stats, so until you prove me wrong, I’m right”.

    Can we ban this loser yet?



    The J-Church is slower than my grandmother. And she’s 99.


    Mario Tanev

    They’ve been quoting the 2 minute number for weeks, before transit only lanes North of Chavez came in. I can’t find a reference for that, but the following article seems to confirm that 2 minutes doesn’t account for the whole project yet:

    Muni says the ride is two minutes faster right now and when the project is finished next week, it will be five minutes faster. But the speed comes with a cost.



    Literally, yes, but the distance is roughly equivalent to what we call a block elsewhere. Google Maps tells me that South Van Ness to Mission (I measured at 21st) is about 600ft, roughly the same distance as Dolores to Guerrero, or Guerrero to Valencia, and about 40 feet longer than 21st to 22nd.



    Can you please site where you saw this info? I didn’t see it specified in the linked SF Chronicle article and only found the bit below.

    John Haley, the MTA’s transit director: “…bus travel times along the stretch of Mission have dropped by two minutes, he said.” , but he does not specify a specific area so I am assuming he is referencing the project area.



    Hey everyone, just a friendly reminder that Bartlett Street and Capp Street exist, which means that South Van Ness and Valencia are each TWO (2) blocks from Mission



    Again my impression using the bus mid day but between the 14, 14R, and 49 there’s pretty frequent service on that part of Mission (of course we are talking Muni so frequent?). would be pretty interesting for sfmta to publish load factors by vechile type.


    Chris J.

    So why not re-introduce the 26 and move the 14 (and 49) one block east to SVN?

    Well, no one is really walking on SVN, so it wouldn’t be more convenient for anyone. Guerrero and SVN, which flank the two pedestrian corridors of Valencia and Mission, already provide faster through-traffic for personal autos. Mission can be left for public transit for more convenient access where the people already are.



    The 26 Valencia bus was discontinued because it was considered that the 14 bus was “just” a block away and so “close enough”.

    So why not re-introduce the 26 and move the 14 (and 49) one block east to SVN?

    Then Mission can resume its original function as the area’s major thoroughfare. Low riders on the transit lane doesn’t really have the same ring about it.


    Chris J.

    Moving the buses to SVN would also move the stops farther from Valencia. Pedestrians on Valencia would then have to walk at least two blocks (more depending on whether the bus stop is).



    We’re shunting the drivers onto South Van Ness (at least until Cesar Chavez) now. That was basically the point of the new design on Mission. That’s leading to large backups on cross-streets (backups that can then
    impede the buses on Mission), lots of honking, and a lot of screaming.
    Maybe all those things will sort themselves out in time and we should
    ignore the complaining, but it’s worth exploring alternative options to see how they would

    Running the buses on South Van Ness instead could well provide faster bus service. The trade-off is stops would be a little further away from Mission St, more inconvenient access for transfers to/from BART, and you wouldn’t have a colorful urban corridor on Mission with fewer cars and more buses gliding over red thermoplastic treatments that win you awards in urban planning magazines. There’d also be some expense since the 14 and 49 need overhead power not currently present on South Van Ness. Either Mission or South Van Ness are perfectly valid routes, and it’s not ridiculous to examine the pros and cons.

    Personally, I’m not a big fan of separating the 14 and 14R. It’s easier as a rider to go to one stop and check my phone or one of the displays to decide what line to take. Playing a game of “do I run to South Van Ness for the 14R or stay here for the 14” chicken doesn’t sound fun. But I don’t ride the Mission corridor daily and I might well feel differently if I needed a fast ride from, say, 30th all the way to downtown.


    Mario Tanev

    The 2 minutes was measured only between Chavez and 30th. Not the entire length of the segment.


    Ted King

    Huh ? The J-Church is way closer (two blocks) than either BART stn. (Glen Park / 24th + Mission). Plus, you still wind up under Market St. instead of a block away on Mission.



    A demo of the Central Subway was not a central part of the proposals and discussion, but rather an opportunistic fantasy suggestion by Jason Henderson, who never met a freeway he didn’t want to demolish.

    We had three voter initiatives on the Octavia Boulevard and I think many people might lose the will to live if we have to go through that again.



    If you think the Central Freeway could be used for evacuation during an emergency, you must be on crack. It’s elevated. After an earthquake, do you think any elevated roadway would be stable enough to use? Don’t forget that they were shut down all over the Bay Area after Loma Prieta, and that earthquake took place 60 miles south of San Francisco and was only a magnitude 6.9. To give you an example of what a real disaster will be, you only need to consider the 1906 earthquake – magnitude 7.9 and just offshore from the city.

    As for reducing our infrastructure, there was far more of that on the Embarcadero Freeway. Do you see a reduction in access to the area? Has Fisherman’s Wharf or the Ferry Building experienced a decline in access?



    “The number of people riding the bus on Mission far exceeds the number of people driving (my impression).”

    It certainly feels that way when a 14 shows up packed with 100 people. But whether it moves more people than other road vehicles is something that can probably be measured rather than guessed at.

    My own impression would be that you are correct at certain times of the day but, over 24 x 7, the reverse is probably true. After all, there can be 10/15/20 minute waits between a 14 coming along, and a lot of people move along Mission while there is no bus in sight.

    I suspect SFMTA’s decision to put in a transit line was based on other more political factors. And apparently Campos’s phone is ringing off the hook with pissed off merchants from Calle 24 complaining about the new layout, so I suspect this isn’t over yet. It’s OK to piss off affluent white professionals, but upset the Hispanic businesses on Mission and it’s the Alamo all over again.



    Further demolition of the central freeway is purely money driven/greed and would be a grave mistake in the long run. It would further reduce our infrastructure reducing access to the area, adding street level congestion, and eliminating possible evacuation or access routes in case of a major emergency or disaster. That would not be forward thinking for an area expecting a major density increase…



    BART is faster, safer, more comfortable and even cheaper – by 25 cents anyway. So not crazy at all.

    Presumably the 14 is packed with people living further out along Mission, where BART diverts.