Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    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:

    http://sfist.com/2016/04/14/mission_street_changes_have_drivers.php

  2.  

    RichLL

    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.

  3.  

    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.

  4.  

    p_chazz

    Everyone does, eventually. 😉

  5.  

    p_chazz

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

  6.  

    p_chazz

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

  7.  

    Gills

    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.

  8.  

    RichLL

    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.

  9.  

    Gezellig

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

    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/6954524483_d6e40b8bec_o.jpg

    http://sfpl.org/images/libraries/main/departments/sfphotos/featured-galleries/james-scott/fullsize/223a.jpg

    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!

  10.  

    goodmaab

    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….

  11.  

    goodmaab

    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.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    “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?

  13.  

    murphstahoe

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

  14.  

    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:

    http://abc7news.com/traffic/neighbors-upset-about-transit-only-lanes-on-mission-street-in-san-francisco/1290877/

    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.

  15.  

    mx

    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.

  16.  

    ARRO

    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.

  17.  

    SF_Abe

    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

  18.  

    Als

    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.

  19.  

    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.

  20.  

    RichLL

    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.

  21.  

    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).

  22.  

    mx

    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.

  23.  

    Mario Tanev

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

  24.  

    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.

  25.  

    RichLL

    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.

  26.  

    gneiss

    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?

  27.  

    RichLL

    “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.

  28.  

    ARRO

    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…

  29.  

    RichLL

    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.

  30.  

    murphstahoe

    If I were getting on at 30th and Mission and going downtown, I’d probably walk to BART. Second choice would be to get off at 24th and get on BART. But I’m crazy like that.

  31.  

    murphstahoe

    But South Van Ness has a ton of extra capacity

    Why are we then shunting the buses onto SVN, instead of the drivers?

  32.  

    murphstahoe

    ” It would reduce travel times and not infuriate drivers.”

    This presumes that people are traveling through the mission, not to or from the mission. Given that the Mission is one of the densest residential and commercial areas, I think the latter is more prevalent. And most of those businesses are on Mission, ot SVN.

    I can’t figure why the drivers are on Mission – I lived in 94107 and 94114 for 15 years and never drove, or biked on Mission.

  33.  

    als

    Rode the 14 yesterday for the first time since they painted the red lanes – slow and poky till we got to 16th and then damn fast to where I got off at 28th – the red lanes work.

    Just to flip your thought, why not move all car traffic to S. Van Ness? The number of people riding the bus on Mission far exceeds the number of people driving (my impression).

  34.  

    jd_x

    Wow, I agree with p_chazz for once. Mission clearly has as much potential as Valencia to be a pedestrian- and bicycle-centric street given the “activated” nature of the retail (and housing). Having huge buses traveling down the street is never compatible with such streets. S. Van Ness, on the other hand, does not have an “activated” streetscape and thus is more suitable to public transit. Of course, the downside is that people want to go to Mission (or Valencia) which is now out of the way making it less convenient (though at least Bart is directly down Mission).

    But … it only makes sense to move the buses to S. Van Ness if you also move the cars (since the latter are actually more of a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists). If they were to reduce Mission to one-lane in each direction, move the buses to S. Van Ness, expand the sidewalks, and add protected bike lanes (may need to remove one side of parking), now we would be talking.

  35.  

    p_chazz

    It all depends on whether the rider wants to get to or through the Mission. If you are a 14 R rider getting on at 30th and Mission and you want to get downtown, you would rather take South Van Ness because it’s faster. If you were a mobility-impaired rider going from 30th Street to 20th Street, you would rather take a bus that would get you closer to your doorstep than walk a block from South Van Ness.

  36.  

    mx

    It’s a trade-off worth considering. There’s value in having direct bus access down Mission, a busy commercial corridor with BART stops, vs South Van Ness, which is much less useful for riders. But South Van Ness has a ton of extra capacity (and it used to have more before the Mission St. changes), doesn’t have many businesses to bemoan improvements, and it’s a block away from Mission (recognizing that even a block is a hardship for some riders).

    The problem I’ve been seeing is horrendous traffic on the cross-streets (which backs up onto Mission). This was entirely predictable given the design they ended up with, especially since these cross streets are low-throughput narrow two-lane streets with stop signs.

  37.  

    p_chazz

    Then SFMTA should at least move the 14R onto South Van Ness, because isn’t it supposed to be rapid?

  38.  

    ARRO

    Agree with p_chazz if SFMTA is truly attempting to decrease travel time. As of now with the current changes, only a 2 minute decrease in travel time has been seen. For all of the negative impact caused by these changes not to mention the cost, it hardly seems to make any sense other then being someone’s pet project.

  39.  

    shamelessly

    Based on experience from past projects, drivers will get used to the new traffic flow on Mission and start taking alternate routes — like South Van Ness. Buses should stay where the people and businesses are.

  40.  

    p_chazz

    The Mission buses are so slow and poky, I think the best answer may be to move them off Mission Street and onto South Van Ness from where the two intersect to Cesar Chavez. It would reduce travel times and not infuriate drivers. The buses ran down South Van Ness for a few months while Mission was being resurfaced and it really did reduce travel time through that congested area.

  41.  

    sebra leaves

    Why are there tall weeds on some of the bulbouts along Bryant Street that block the view and are far taller than the cars they replaced? Is this daylighting or a mistake that we need to pay to repair?

  42.  

    AnonymousUser

    I miss the Boeing LRVs of my childhood. Hell, I miss the entire city as it was then. It’s like a totally different place now. I feel like a damn alien in my own home.

  43.  

    mx

    A serious question: I’ve seen the SFMTA apply daylighting to the far side of intersections (in other words, removing a parking space on the right side of the street after the intersection). Is there any evidence that this improves safety? Certainly, removing parking on the near side of the intersection improves sightlines, as it avoids the scenario where a pedestrian is peaking out from behind a parked car in the crosswalk, but removing parking on the far side would only improve sightlines when it comes to a wrong-way driver, at which point you have a bigger problem.

    I suppose daylighting on the far side of an intersection could help the pedestrian stand out more by giving them a bit more contrast vs standing directly behind a parked car, but that’s just a random guess. Is there any actual data to support this practice?

    To be clear, I’m not criticizing daylighting or bemoaning the removal of parking spaces, but just trying to understand the logic here.

  44.  

    pedestrianist

    Go Nicole!

  45.  

    p_chazz

    Murph isn’t troll posting, he’s ironic troll posting. There is a big difference.

  46.  

    p_chazz

    Maybe the Transbay JPA can rebrand it as the “Port Authority Bus Terminal of the West” because that’s where it’s headed, fast.

  47.  

    RichLL

    Introducing driverless cars is the easy part. Making them mandatory is much tougher.

    An interesting debate for our grandchildren to have. Meanwhile . . .

  48.  

    Andy Chow

    The DTX project is being distracted by things like I-280 tear down, railyard redevelopment, and possible realignment to serve the Warrior’s arena. Either none of these things happens and trains stuck at 4th & King, or that some of that happens and with trains to Transbay.

    This will add a lot of time, likely a lot of money, and may stir up opposition overall because of opposition to one of the elements. It is very obvious that Lee and his staff want this to be their legacy, rather than continuing with past plans.

  49.  

    Mike Jones

    The Transbay Terminal, firmly in the financial district, is a great place to terminate Caltrain, Samtrans and Goldengate Transit, but less so AC Transit. As for HSR, the existing Caltrain location would do just fine with much more room to play with.

  50.  

    murphstahoe