Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Only peons use crosswalks and take muni!



    thanks for the link….i’m really interested in this project.


    Chris J.

    Kudos to Supervisor Wiener and others like him. There’s no better foundation to understanding transportation issues like Muni than to experience it from the public’s perspective on a regular basis.



    Yes please build it already. I lived in the richmond for 6 years and its been all bullshit talk. Get going sfcta, this is why your agency is a joke.



    You actually have to build the damn thing. SF talks and talks and talks and nothing gets done. In the meantime, lots of taxpayer money is spent for studies and all we get are these great Microsoft word charts.



    That pic is great because it demonstrates how tall Supervisor Wiener is.


    Dr. Maysure

    It’s called decelerating. This number is not alarming at all and seems fairly standard for a freeway offramp.


    Dr. Maysure

    This. Biking is the fastest way to get around SF, but you’re sucking down loads of fumes due to all the traffic.


    Dr. Maysure

    Ugh, having lived in SF for 3 years I’ve come to realize that this is the typical attitude of people who live in this city and control its politics.

    Cars = evil, so get rid of traffic lanes and parking at all cost. As a result, this city has become the most difficult in the country to get around. The public transit system here is a joke, falling well short of even the systems I’ve used while traveling in cities in poor, developing countries. By “falling well short”, I mean that it’s slower, less adherent to schedule, less reliable, less frequent, often dirtier, less safe, and full of more crazy people. That’s right – countries with rampant corruption, minimal rule of law, and most of the population living on <$2 a day still somehow manage to build a far better public transit system than SF. Sad but true.

    There was once supposed to be a freeway system throughout the city. This would have helped the situation, but cars are evil, so it didn't happen. Embarcadero Freeway falls down? Don't rebuild it. Cars are evil. Why not remove a lane on Cesar Chavez? Cars are evil, so it's done. Tear down the northern section of 280? Sure, let's get more of those evil cars out of the city? Any road where cars can travel faster than 20mph through the city is under constant attack, so of course this tiny spur of San Jose is a natural target. Who cares if have to wait in traffic another half hour every day? Just take public transit! It'll get you 20 miles to work in only 2.5 hours each way! Sleeping, spending time with your family, and being on time for work are overrated anyway.

    Enough of this madness. Fix public transit first, then you can talk about taking lanes out of major thoroughfares. Until then, let us be.



    I would have rather seen alternative 3 throughout most of the Geary BRT and including the Masonic tunnels and Fillmore overpass and alternative 2 on Geary/Starr King way past Laguna St heading east, in the westbound direction alternative 2 on Geary ending and the transition to alternative 3 at Geary and Gough St or Geary and Laguna St. I just hope that we’re building REAL genuine Bus Rapid Transit otherwise the real benefits of it won’t genuinely be seen and realized


    Thomas Rogers

    Good news! On BRT in general: my friend Brock dedicated a recent episode of his 510-oriented podcast, The Eastern Shore, to AC Transit’s BRT project:

    Joël Ramos from TransForm and Jim Cunradi from AC Transit were his guests, and had good comments on that project and potential lessons for other jurisdictions.


    Richard Mlynarik

    Q: Is rent-seeking sole-source defense conreactor Cubic, Inc, making out like a bandit while reaming all of the transit agencies and taxpayers? (And especially fucking Caltrain passengers?)

    A: Yes!

    So, there is no problem! Capitalism is working as intended!

    And do feel free to “contribute your insights” to the “Clipper 2.0″ “focus groups” or via our futuristic web form! The Transit Industrial Complex sincerely values the hours that can be billed for holding community hearings.





    If you live in SOMA or D6 at least, write to Supervisor Kim! I’m planning on dashing off a note to her today, but I’m not actually a D6 resident so my missive might get pushed into the dustbin.

    Also, SOMA alley residents: I got a tip that you can order speed bumps from Canada and the hardware needed to install one isn’t all that specialized. Just sayin, Google it, just leaving that info there….


    Andy Chow

    On tomorrow’s Caltrain agenda is an item to approve an additional 25 cents on every paper ticket.

    This is the interesting part:

    “The analysis is consistent with the Board-adopted policies on Title VI of
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and finds that the proposed amendments to
    the Codified Tariff would result in no disparate impact on minority passengers. The changes to the Day Pass and youth fares would present no disproportionate burden for low income passengers, but the increase to the One-way paper ticket fare would disproportionately burden low-income populations when measured against the Caltrain Title VI policies. However, in recognition of the regional policy to increase Clipper usage, the fact that no less discriminatory alternative exists, and the proposed mitigation set forth in the attached Title VI Equity Analysis, staff recommends adoption of these changes to the Caltrain Codified Tariff.”

    I beg to defer. If increasing fares on paper ticket would disproportionately hurt the low income, then that proposal should be dropped. In these days when there are social equity issue when it comes to Google buses, this is also a social equity issue as well. People with well paid white collar jobs not only are not affected by this, but also enjoy maximum fare benefits by purchasing monthly passes, income tax deduction, and Go Passes, while those who are unbanked and underbanked are paying the highest fare for the same service. This plan, instead of reducing the gap, it widens it further. Currently only 6 stations where riders can put money onto Clipper cards, but none can issue new Clipper cards. On the other hand, all Muni Metro underground stations have ticket machines that can add money and issue new Clipper cards.

    Having the regional policy to increase Clipper usage is one thing, doing it at the expense of the low income riders is another.



    If you relatively low figures for the size of a parking space, 175 square feet on street and 350 feet off, the public parking spaces are occupying 2,444 acres. Let’s round down to 2,000 for easy math, to allow for unusable locations etc.. At 50 units per acre, which is lower than the density of most new San Francisco buildings, that’s enough land for the construction of 100,000 housing units.



    Rubbish reporting on Kwong’s part — reminds me of the old Examiner before the ownership change.

    She’s usually better than that. Wonder if the Ex is going back to its clickbait ways.



    I suspect that the Richmond is significantly denser, both population and business-wise, than the southeast neighborhoods. I know there are statistics of commuting type and other interesting data which are broken down by census tract, but I can’t seem to find them right now.


    Thomas Rogers

    Yeah, that’s what I’m not understanding- the spokesperson said the mayor “was dropped off”, but there isn’t a driver sitting in the car in the photos. Did the driver stop to let the passengers out for the taqueria, wait a bit, and then head inside and pretend he’d found a legal spot? Then what happened when meal time was over- did the driver leave the restaurant a little early to complete the charade in reverse (“Oh, hey guys- just pulled up here in the bus stop to pick you up”)?

    Or (more likely, at least to me), did the driver park in the bus stop, and then everyone headed in together with the full understanding that the car would be blocking Muni and transit riders? If that’s the case, the spokesperson’s claim about the mayor’s expectations doesn’t seem truthful.



    Good grief, what a piece of clickbait garbage is this latest nonsense from the Examiner. First of all, it’s Mission Terrace, not Glen Park. Second, the dude accusing a specific PCO of shenanigans has been living on an RPP block for FIVE YEARS and still doesn’t have a sticker–hmm, why do you suppose that is? Third, the PCO probably was handing him a ticket for moving his car within an RPP zone (which is against the law, it turns out). Problem is, I’m guessing this is a difficult violation to prove without a lot of extra work on the part of the officer, so hence the squirrelly behavior when she realized it wasn’t worth fighting about.

    In any case, truly shoddy, half-assed reporting from the Examiner.



    What I want to know is why the city doesn’t add more speed bumps in SOMA so that people will following the existing posted speed limits. I find it hard to believe that lowering the speed limit there would change the actual traffic speeds, since it seems people are either gunning it or are stuck in traffic.


    Thomas Rogers

    I see a reply from Andy Thornley on another post (, which confirms data sharing:

    “Participating car share organizations (City CarShare, Zipcar, and Getaround) will pay monthly permit fees for the parking spaces, and they’ll have to collect and share a lot of data with the SFMTA about how the vehicles are being used, and who’s using them. At the end of two years we’ll evaluate the data and potentially recommend making on-street car sharing a permanent program, if the pilot experience so indicates.”

    Good to hear!


    Dave Snyder, CalBike

    I think that the speed trap law limits an agency’s ability to enforce speed limits remotely (by radar or lidar or airplanes, or whatever) but not its ability to set speed limits. That is, a city could set a lower speed limit than justified by the engineering survey and the 85% threshhold; they just can’t practically enforce it.



    City employees pay no attention to parking regulations. They
    park in bus zones, red, yellow, and white zones, in front of fire hydrants, on
    sidewalks, in the middle of the street, you name it and they’re there every day.
    They’re immune to parking tickets. They don’t have to pay the fines everybody
    else does. Take a photo of every city car you see parked illegally and send it
    in to the mayor and your supervisor. Send a copy to Streetsblog.



    Why do we allow bikes? I ride bikes; but I know they can be a real threat to pedestrians. The rules for bikes on roads should be the same for cars as this issue is about more than traffic jams. It’s about safety for all.



    They might have to actually talk with a tourist. I love talking to tourists as they come here from all over the world! They spend their money and share their culture with us.



    I think the graphics at the top of this are good. There will be lots of noise against this from different moneyed interests. I walk by the spot in the Tenderloin along Polk Street where the mother and two children were hit by a driver. One child died; and mom and the other were badly hurt. This is a great city; what’s your hurry? Thanks for the report.


    Dark Soul

    If you vote yes on whatever the ballot than you start seeing reduced service further



    You are right, of course. I was being deliberately lazy with my wording for dramatic effect.

    That said, a good many of the 36.6 percent of San Franciscans who drive alone to work every day do live in the Richmond. (If anyone can point to how that population’s broken down by neighborhood, thanks!). And not that carshare cars are appropriate for commuting, but I do still wonder why the Richmond continues to abound in transit alternatives and the southeast neighborhoods get forgotten. Same distance to downtown and likely a similar percentage of households that could go car-lite or car-free if there were more options. [And no, I don't think the T offers much by way of close access for many of these neighborhoods. Too much geographic variation aside from the problems that line has.]



    Everyone does not drive to work in the Richmond…

    The bus lines connecting the Richmond to downtown carry 100,000 people a day.



    I think that’s already a widely-held notion. I would rather replace it with the idea that all residents have an equal claim, not just those who own cars.


    Patrick Z.

    Here’s my response to your post.

    1. Actually, study after study has shown that when you make a street more comfortable for bikes (including buffers and dedicated lanes), biking increases tremendously. Whether people chose to ride their bikes or not depends largely on perceived danger. This stretch of San Jose was pretty damn hostile to bikes. I used to ride it almost every day and it’s very scary to have a car zoom past you at 50 mph. So yes, as people discover that this route has been made safer, they will be more likely to ride it. And if you’re about to tell me that bikes could just take a different route, no. This is by far the flattest route through this area and, unlike when you’re driving a car, hills do matter. So creating this connection is vitally important to a citywide bike network.

    2. You’re right about balancing the needs of different stakeholders. Up until a month ago, the needs of drivers far outweighed the needs of everyone else. Now, it’s starting to seem a little more balanced though let’s acknowledge that drivers still take up 4 lanes, while Muni, bikes and pedestrians get two “lanes” each. Cars are not an efficient way of transportation and the city is trying to discourage people from using them since there is a finite amount of space that the city can devote to transportation. Driving your car to work is not a constitutional right (though in many places in this country it may feel like it) and everyone else shouldn’t have to sacrifice their needs so yours can be met.

    3. It’s interesting that you call people who leave nearby entitled for wanting calmer roads. I think as they are most directly impacted by this project, I would think that they are more entitled to have their opinions heard than someone who wants to zoom through the area twice a day. I’m also reminded of the fact that most drivers would drive through here going way above the speed limit. Is that an entitlement of yours, too?
    You also use the word inconvenience. It’s true that sitting in traffic for an extra 5-10 minutes is an inconvenience. It’s also not much more than that, however, especially compared to the positive benefits that greater cycling accessibility has on the city and nearby residents.

    No project will ever satisfy everyone. You live in a city, one of a only handful in this country, that has decided to reduce reliance on the automobile. If you don’t like that you can lobby the city, try to get pro-car folks elected, try to get a referendum passed, or you can move. In the meantime, I will enjoy the new bike lanes and feel so much safer riding down San Jose.



    Obviously he’s got that bad boy wired directly to a coal-burning power plant in China with his own private power lines running across the Pacific…


    Bob Gunderson

    sorry you’ll need to buy a car instead and then bitch and moan when you can’t find a place to park it. Just blame it on bikers, somehow.



    Yes, These spots were requested due to demand from the Car-sharing organizations. They are required to have at least 15% spots in Zones 2 and 15% spots in Zone 3 (the two rings outside of the downtown/Market St. area).



    Sorry if I’m out of the loop on this, but was this a request-driven process? [EDIT: Ah yes, now I see the word 'request' all over that map]

    I find it frustrating that the southern neighborhoods are neglected, as usual. Bernal Heights gets *two* Zipcar spaces? Portola, zero? Whereas in the Richmond, where everyone also drives to work but most people have working garages (which they often don’t use), on-street carshare will abound.

    It seems like the city’s attitude is that the poor and middle class will park their cars on their lawns and/or sit on slow buses no matter what, so why change anything? If they’re not careful, the NIMBY fear that new housing in the southeast will bring on traffic gridlock will be 100% true.

    EDIT: So perhaps this was entirely driven by requests. I have to wonder, though, if there’s a difficult-to-surmount information gap and/or other difficulties with lower-income, possibly immigrant households accessing the technology or not having sufficient credit, etc. And also, if the city doesn’t figure out other ways to bring car share to the southeast now, will new residents be willing to take a leap of faith and count on it in the future?



    The Muni fare and pass increases go into effect on Sept. 1, actually.



    Thanks Andy. Now, what do I need to do to get a city car share space on my block?


    Thomas Rogers

    Does the project include SF getting data from the car share companies? It would be great if we could quantify actual demographic/customer data from this pilot- things like how many people were using these spots, were they new or existing car sharing users, had they previously owned a car or not, etc. That would be great stuff for figuring out whether to extend the pilot. Often, companies are reluctant to share their proprietary data, but SF has leverage here since it’s our right-of-way.

    A related question- is there a way to ensure that these spaces are additive, i.e., the car sharing companies aren’t using them as an excuse to cut leases with off-street spaces?


    Andy Thornley

    Here’s an updated draft of the car share parking space proposal map, showing further adjustments as of 6/30/14:



    Patriotism requires more than buying a Hybrid car. Where does the electricity from said car come from?



    Doesn’t your idea re-enforce the notion that each resident is entitled to a parking space and that they can do whatever they want with it? That said I’d be happy to “give up” my space so that I can have carshare on my block.


    Jeffrey Baker

    The communication from AC Transit about the new fare structure has been about as clear as mud. I don’t even see how it’s supposed to speed boarding. The people who pay cash now will continue to pay cash, and will still be paying $2.10, and therefore groping around in their bottomless baggage for the dime while blocking the door. Maybe, MAYBE the discount will incentivize people to get Clipper cards, but I doubt it.

    I still don’t understand whether the transbay fare counts toward the $5 day pass. For example, if I ride round trip on a transbay bus ($8.40 fare) do I ride local buses free the rest of the day?


    Anthony Eskinazi

    Hi Jym,

    ParkatmyHouse was launched a few years before ParkCirca.

    It doesn’t allow you to make money from the public highway.


    Kevin J

    Wait, you mean the mayor who’s raising Muni fares to pay for free parking still isn’t satisfied and wants to park in bus stop. Why doesn’t he just shut down Muni so all those useless bus zones can be used for car parking.


    Peter M

    But then what will Ed Lee do next time he wants a burritio?



    Last story on Friday!



    If the criticism of this project is that it removes spaces from “public” use and turns them over to “private businesses,” it occurs to me that one way to pre-empt this would be to require the car sharing companies to find local residents to “donate” their share of street parking– something like “I, X, who am entitled to parking on this street, transfer my right to City Car Share”. Maybe have several people do it for each reserved space (since it’s reserved 24 hours a day).

    Doing this would probably be trivial (just ask the existing customers), and it makes the point that if everyone supposedly has an equal right to street parking, car share users are probably getting less than their share, rather than more.



    I’m confused by this map. Can someone clarify…. several spots noted for Haight street itself.

    We have a number of parking lots (McDonalds, Kezar stadium) that already have leased spaces. Why wouldn’t these companies just take more of those spots in private lots?

    Is it because the city is selling spots for less?

    Also, how do we know which spots will be discussed in the City Hall hearings?


    Bob Gunderson

    The war on cars (With cars) continues! Well played Bike Coalition, well played.