Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Mark

    It is killing the jobs IN THE MISSION

  2.  

    deuce_sluice

    Hear hear!

  3.  

    Mark

    They can take the bus still, without the red lanes. By the way, notice how the SFMTA took out a bunch of stops, so people have to walk further to get to the bus? If you factor in the extra five minutes, or more if you are a senior, to get to your bus stop, did you really save anytime when you look at apples and apples?

  4.  

    Mark

    The red lane will do that for the Mission. As the small shops go out of business, developers step in, buy the buildings, and they tear them down to build them “UP” with expensive condos. The red bus lanes kill the local businesses so techies with money can buy condos. Don’t believe me? Research Bus Rapid Transit. There are thousands of articles on “How to do BRT” online…all the municpal transit agencies talk about it. See how they plan out “ridership increases” and look at corridors that are ripe for redevelopment. The Mission, as it has been known for decades, will go away. Uber is going to THRIVE here.

  5.  

    Mark

    What does this comment have to do with the story? Nothing. This is about business access and a red lane that keeps people from crossing it to get to parking. People are bitching more about the red lane than the loss of parking.

  6.  

    Mark

    MUNI is subsidized. Parking in the street is not cheap last I checked. There are no parking garages close to Mission Businesses. The lanes have worked in downtown SF because those businesses have garage parking, and are close to walking distance from BART and office and apartment buildings. What is your point about the Mission and parking?

  7.  

    Mark

    That picture you show is likely downtown where cars park in garages, and/or it is a residential/office area where businesses that need curbside parking are not an issue.

  8.  

    neroden

    So fix the fare structure. London went to zone fares in the 1980s.

  9.  

    neroden

    This isn’t populism. This is schpopulism. Pretend populism.

  10.  

    neroden

    There is NO legal right to store your car overnight on the street. If you own a car, you need to have a driveway or garage. You should look up the history of this.

  11.  

    jonobate

    But parking is not a “nice to have” optional privilege. It’s an essential component of what we build roads for.

    No, that’s just your opinion. In London it is extremely common to see roads without any parking. Euston Road, for example, has a bus lane, two general traffic lanes, and no parking:

    https://goo.gl/maps/WXB4c27Fvrq

    And don’t try to tell me that this road layout happened because London is populated by hive mind collectivists. This road layout was put in place as a congestion reduction measure. It’s long been recognized by city planners that parking on busy streets reduces throughput, both by taking away a lane that could be used for transit or general traffic, and also because of delays caused by drivers pulling into or out of parking spaces.

  12.  

    Henry

    Hence ‘final run on Van Ness in mixed flow traffic’ – after the BRT is finished, trolleycoaches will return to operate in the dedicated lanes.

  13.  

    Ted King

    It’s a temporary shutdown for various upgrades. Details from the SFMTA website :

    https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/van-ness-improvement-project#details

  14.  

    murphstahoe

    SImple deal – If you want the potholes fixed, vote to increase the gas tax, because we aren’t spending general funds on it. QED

  15.  

    PaleoBruce

    Sidewalks wide enough to walk upon, bicycle and bus accommodation, and travel lanes that function well are also essential components of public road design. There is always the option of parking on private property, in paid lots. And while there is sometimes a nominal fee for street parking permits and meters, those prices are obviously set unnaturally low below what the market will bear in most neighborhoods I frequent. Evidence of this is that you cannot find a vacant space. Raise the prices until you start to get vacancy. Car users should pay the market price for their choice, and not demand subsidies from the general tax fund.

  16.  

    RichLL

    If you don’t want politicians to give the majority what they want, then what should politicians do?

    In any event there is no Bay Area jurisdiction that could put such a measure on the ballot. There are nine separate counties and dozens of cities.

    So what would happen is that SF and Berkeley might vote for a special gas tax, but everywhere else would not, and nobody would buy gas in SF or Berkeley any more.

  17.  

    RichLL

    It’s not complicated. The projects that you claim are investing in new vehicle infrastructure are mostly just replacing existing infrastructure

  18.  

    RichLL

    I feel sure that you life isn’t perfect. But at least you can pick up your bike and easily move it

  19.  

    RichLL

    Either is valid but location is usually deemed more appropriate for parking spaces.

    But such spaces may have value at some times and not at others, and of course meter hours are typically just during the business day

  20.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I was at that SFMTA meeting, a neighbor arguing for the project. (The news report was slanted in a certain direction.) My take is some people hate change. It doesn’t matter what the change is, they’ll argue against it, even if it requires them to say how much they enjoy walking next to cars.

    But the pilot project to open the east side of Twin Peaks to bikes and peds only passed! Once it’s implemented this summer, I encourage everyone to take friends up there and enjoy the new car-free open space. If you fancy walking, from the east, there’s a lovely, relatively car-free hike you can make from the Castro Muni station (takes about 30-35 minutes). Here’s a description, “Conquer Twin Peaks and Stand on the Rooftop of San Francisco:”

    http://karenlynnallen.blogspot.com/2013/01/conquer-twin-peaks-and-stand-on-rooftop.html

    Or you can take the 37 bus to Crestview and hike just the last little bit. It’s also a pleasant hike from the Forest Hill muni station. If you’re up for it, climbing Twin Peaks can easily be combined with a hike through the Mt. Sutro interior greenbelt. (There is a connecting path that goes right by the base of Sutro Tower.)

  21.  

    murphstahoe

    We must defend the right of drivers to drive on a road with mixed traffic while gazing off into the distance instead of at the road

  22.  

    gneiss

    Another story on the changes to the roadway design on Twin Peaks: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Changes-coming-to-popular-SF-tourist-attraction-7283712.php

    It looks like litigation is driving the changes to the roadway configuration to some extent. What’s amazing is how the outdated notions of “safety” are being touted by neighbors and other people who don’t want any changes to the current car-centric design. The blatant greenwashing of their position (“As it is now, hikers, cars and bicyclists are able to access every inch of that figure eight, which is the beauty of Twin Peaks,” she said. “To take that away is a loss — an extreme loss.”) is all the more disappointing. No one is talking about removing access. All that is happening is that cars, buses and trucks will no longer be able to drive on one side of the roadway. That’s it.

  23.  

    Henry

    Trolleybuses to make final run on Van Ness in mixed flow traffic today; y’all invited to ride the very last one https://www.facebook.com/events/1741615692740039/

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    Where charging for parking is viable, we already charge, via meters or permits.

    Where – but not when, n’est pas?

  25.  

    murphstahoe

    “An extra block is more of a burden if you also need to leave your vehicle somewhere first.”

    “The inside is for people not vehicles.”

    I have to leave my bike somewhere. There are plenty of places where a suitable rack/pole are far away from the destination, let alone anything reasonably resembling secure parking.

  26.  

    murphstahoe

    Proving that no project is safe from controversy, there are a group of cyclists circulating a petition asking to kill the pilot.

  27.  

    RichLL

    Personally speaking I don’t like to play favorites with different transportation options. I am just grateful to have as many options as possible.

    If driving is made too difficult because of parking constraints then I’d expect to see more options involving using other drivers, be it cabs, car-sharing, Uber, driverless cars or whatever. Valet parking is popular for similar reasons.

    More than anything we need alternatives and the freedom for them to operate and compete. A government-imposed single system is a recipe for incompetence, corruption and excessive prices.

    And with the average Muni ride costing ten dollars, there is plenty of room for others to do better. I just wish we still had the jitneys.

  28.  

    RichLL

    A pedestrian or bike can stop wherever he/she wants. A car can only stop where space allows. Therefore a pedestrian or cyclist can always get closer to a given location than a driver can.

    The point made was simple and straightforward enough, so I can only assume that you don’t understand it because you don’t want to understand it.

  29.  

    Dexter Wong

    By more imagination, do mean Uber? Look, we offer taxi service but we’re not a taxi company, they say. We merely line up riders and drivers and make them pay for the service. No smart phone, no credit card, too bad. They’ve been in legal trouble fairly often. A better example might be be Chariot. They offer service in areas that are under-served by Muni.They started offering service to workers in Fisherman’s Wharf and even went so far as to offer paper tickets to those who didn’t have smart phones. They try not to compete openly with Muni. And they weren’t as arrogant as LEAP who went bankrupt after running into legal trouble.

  30.  

    Chris J.

    Sorry, I still don’t see your point. Leaving your vehicle somewhere is a part of driving. If you think by choosing to drive you deserve premium parking for things to be “fair,” then I guess I just disagree with you.

  31.  

    RichLL

    The point is much simpler. An extra block is more of a burden if you also need to leave your vehicle somewhere first.

  32.  

    RichLL

    If a household has a car then potentially all members of that household benefit from it. Even back when I was a tenant with roommates, we would lend each other a car, give someone a ride or pick up groceries for someone.

    I’m sorry if there is a clear majority of people who use an item that you appear to personally hate for some reason, but that doesn’t change the facts.

  33.  

    RichLL

    Where charging for parking is viable, we already charge, via meters or permits. America never passes up an opportunity to make a buck, and nobody is more capitalist in that regard than governments.

    But parking is not a “nice to have” optional privilege. It’s an essential component of what we build roads for. There is little point in spending trillions to have a network of roads and forgetting to provide anywhere for those vehicles to stop. It would be like having buses without bus stops and trains without stations.

  34.  

    RichLL

    You are over-thinking everything. By 2-way bike lane I just mean a bike lane in either direction on a 2-way street. The percentage width it takes would be the same either way.

    And if you are given your own dedicated lane then you should use it. If you require that of cars and buses, then why not bikes? Unless you have to turn or pass an obstruction anyway. It’s a matter of perception.

    There is no over-riding effort to shift travel mode share. The imperative is to give people what they want and not to manipulate them into changing. The people come first, remember?

  35.  

    Justin

    Definitely looking forward to the pilot project at Twin Peaks. Can’t wait to go up there the first day it’s in action. Hopefully it will work out and that it will remain permanent when the pilot ends two years from now. This project seems pretty thought out and thoroughly planned so I wouldn’t be surprised if it works out well. I have a feeling this is going to be good!

  36.  

    murphstahoe

    “We embark on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project so that people can stay late in bars?”

    They already stay late in bars. We embark on this project so they don’t drive home drunk. Which is probably less of a problem in Hong Kong.

    Do employees working shifts past the MTR have a 30-40 mile bus ride home?

  37.  

    tungwaiyip

    Also I wonder if building the second tube will bring really 24 hours service. The best it can do is to allow a rotating maintenance schedule split 50/50 between the two tunnels. How do you schedule a 24 hours service on Market if the tunnel have to shut down 50% of time? Sounds like the second tunnel will be using different rail gauge so you cannot just run the train there as an alternate route. Even if you can, it will probably add 20 minutes travel time, which make the service unpredictable and unreliable.

    The answer for late night service is really bus. No point to wait 20 years for a second tube to get built. Late night bus can start any time and at a small fraction of the cost.

  38.  

    tungwaiyip

    Your reply is mix up. Let me clarify.

    – HK MTR operates from about 5am – 1am.
    – HK is a 24 hours city. Lots of people are on the street. Restaurants are busy late into the night. 24 hours convenient stores are everywhere.
    – Bus service provide city wide coverage 24 hours.

    – Most San Francisco restaurants finish serving their last patron around 10pm.
    – Outside of some hotspots, most commercial area are deserted at late hours.

    I understand you enjoy SF at night. But the nightlife here is just lame compare to other cities. It does not have any detrimental impact on me. San Francisco is a very healthy city in comparison, which is the way I like it.

  39.  

    PaleoBruce

    Be fair. Almost everyone is loath to give up a free or subsidized perk. There wouldn’t be “nowhere to park” their cars, there would be nowhere which is cheap (or free).

    The irony is that the reason you cannot find parking spaces is that the parking spaces are underpriced compared to the demand. Raise the price to what the market will bear, and you will always be able to find a space.

  40.  

    StanO5

    Thank you. You are of course correct. One last thing. Can you provide a link to the acceptable reasons to ride BART? I could not find it on the BART website.

    While I was looking I did find the #1 most frequently asked question on the BART FAQs. I will let you use your Google foo to figure that out on your own.

    I had no idea that Hong Kong shuts down at 10:00 PM. Sorry if that had a detrimental impact on your upbringing. Next time I’m in SF after 10:00 PM I will think of you. Oh. Wait. That’s today!

  41.  

    tungwaiyip

    We embark on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project so that people can stay late in bars? I don’t think this is an important objective.

    I came from Hong Kong. The MTR system has 10 times the ridership of BART and they don’t run overnight. San Francisco by and large shut down after 10pm. Hong Kong is lot more a 24 hours city. The buses keep the city alive. I have no problem going to most part of the city any hour of the day by bus.

  42.  

    jonobate

    Exactly. And, even that figure is inaccurate; according to the most recent census, 69% of households in SF have one or more vehicles.

  43.  

    StanO5

    @tungwaiyip: Bars. How come I don’t stay later? Gotta catch the last train. Sorry, not riding the bus at that hour. Can’t have a 24 hour city without 24 hour transportation. Practical? That’s money talk. The same mistakes our parents made. Build it and they will come.

  44.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    The new Sleep Bus is hilarious. (Though it may fill a need until we get decent rail service between SF and LA.)

  45.  

    Mark

    I live in Parkside. It’s just easier for me to drive to SJ than deal with getting to Caltrain either via MUNI or MUNI/BART combo. Now, if I the option of hopping on a BART train at Taraval/19th and 20 minutes later catch Caltrain at Millbrae that would be a plus for me and for thousands of other commuters on this side of Twin Peaks.

  46.  

    roymeo

    And when one-sided displays must be used, point them so someone walking with traffic can see the time, rather than the opposite.

  47.  

    tungwaiyip

    I am skeptical that 24×7 BART is such a big deal. It is nice to have but does it worth building another tube just so some people can ride in the midnight? Bus seems much more practical alternative. Plus SF is not quite a 24 hours city anyway.

  48.  

    roymeo

    I’m not sure what you’re arguing about anymore. I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

  49.  

    tungwaiyip

    Nice idea for a parallel line. I suspect a second tube to Mission is not as useful to increase capacity as people hope. If it gets build, probably 75% of people will stick with Market St and 25% will use Mission Bay at best. So the capacity may increase by 1/3.

  50.  

    thielges

    Well the metrics are not calibrated to reality (0.01 point behind NYC? doubtful !), SF does shine when compared to other USA cities. To quote RealFakeSanFranciscan from the SFist comments:

    “Being one of the best American cities for public transit is like being one of the world’s tallest dwarves.”