Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    Stuart,

    I do not see where any of those statements have been refuted. Nor are they in any way inconsistent with the statements I made in this thread.

    My point here was that all laws should be enforced some of the time, but that no law should be enforced to the exclusion of others.

    Where there is a priority it is reasonable for guidelines to be developed reflecting that. But they won’t necessarily be the ones that a minority subjectively prefer.

  2.  

    PaleoBruce

    Well you obviously are not poor and you benefit from this public subsidy. I would like to see if charging a user fee on people like you (call it a tax if you want) could be used to fund the improvement of MUNI transportation. Likely this would result in even better transportation service to poor people and therefore be less regressive. Let’s just ask rich people pay their own way, subsidizing their parking costs might not be the best use of public resources.

  3.  

    farazs

    If airlines were the pre-dominant means of travel, those few hours would seem pretty serious. If all surface transport (outside of walking distance) is disabled for few hours then one would imagine the after effects to take a few more hours to normalize. Think not just of economic activity, but emergency services, law enforcement and the like. By all indications of where we are and where we are headed, a communication network black-out will be on par with electrical black-outs eventually. The word “screwed” is subjective, but its safe to say that the repercussions will be far beyond your analogy.

  4.  

    Stuart

    > LE doesn’t work that way – if any law is on the statute, it has to be enforced.

    For an opposing viewpoint on this topic, we’re joined now by RichLL, discussing non-enforcement of illegal parking in bike lanes:

    “SFMTA has the lenient and liberal de facto legalization of cabs and other similar vehicles briefly taking the bike lane”

    “SFPD and DPT have a de facto guideline not to ticket in such situations.”

    “I support cops using discretion and judgement, rather than mindlessly citing technical infringements regardless of context.”

    “it is allowed because municipal agencies are free to decide not to enforce certain laws or to allow certain actions where it is considered in the public interest.”

    “what I was saying is that an act may be allowed either by statute or by precedent and practice.”

    “I really do not see the problem with a 60 second drop-off., and evidently nor do SFPD or DPT since I’ve never gotten a ticket even when a cop car has passed at the time.”

  5.  

    Kenny Easwaran

    But even though poor people tend to live farther out, they tend to be traveling at less-congested times of day.

  6.  

    Kenny Easwaran

    What sort of a better job could Google do? They don’t have any demonstrated ability to operate an all-day transportation system. They do operate a commute-hour-only bus system that mainly uses freeways, but they haven’t shown any ability to operate vehicles that can get you from any point in the city to any point in the city at any time of day, the way the city has.

  7.  

    Kenny Easwaran

    Not if the funds collected from the congestion pricing are rebated on an equal basis to all people. In that case, the poor would usually be net financial beneficiaries of the plan, while the rich would financially lose out.

  8.  

    Kenny Easwaran

    What flexibility do they offer over rails on the major transportation corridors? As far as I can tell, the main flexibility offered by the bus (when you already have rails on the major corridors) is the flexibility to avoid the popular destinations and instead serve smaller destinations (not very valuable) and the flexibility to go around a stalled car (which only matters if you allow private cars on the right-of-way).

    Buses certainly have lower capital cost than rail, but my understanding is that they usually involve greater operating cost.

  9.  

    Kenny Easwaran

    He’s not complaining about everyone *using* Lyft or Uber. He’s complaining about the people *pushing* for Lyft and Uber to *replace* transit. Also, we don’t need to see them as being driven by mean-spiritedness that intentionally excludes the poor and handicapped – they might just be pushing for something that they feel is more comfortable but still has the effect of eliminating everything that works for the poor and handicapped. It doesn’t really matter what the motivations are, if the end result is the same. (Anyway, I think there’s no point in wondering whether people pushing for one thing or another are good people or bad people – we should just be evaluating the effects of the policies themselves.)

  10.  

    SF Guest

    I never stated SFMTA’s revenue-first mentality should preclude enforcing double parking. I am all in favor of their enforcing double parking and acknowledge it poses undue safety risks in many instances.

    Your idea to post a PCO in a driving loop in popular spots is sound and valid and as I see it would bring in more revenue than all other non-safety related parking violations since double parking violations are the highest, however, your idea to post an exclusive PCO for double parking implies all other non-safety related parking violators will be off the hook unless they post an additional PCO for that purpose.

    The more practical solution is to retrain PCO’s not to ignore double parking violations and to tag all parking violations the way the non-revenue oriented DPT did back in the day.

  11.  

    Mark

    Most people don’t want to stop and dwell on Market St. for the obvious reasons…

    “Public spaces are one of the few places where everyone is equal”…you’re kidding me. Most SF public spaces are overrun with homeless, crazies and the like. Market St. is a mess its entire length and not from a lack of interactive art displays that bring people together for a fleeting moment. It’s because the city has done nothing to address the homeless and mentally ill problems.

  12.  

    RichLL

    Stuart, since my parking spaces are off-street, I pay the full cost of those. No subsidy.

    The on-street parking space I take is something that I have to compete for with other drivers. Since it is not an assured and exclusive space, its value is far less. And of course I have to pay for a RPP.

    Nobody is subsidizing me. Society as a whole benefits from the provision of on-street parking.

  13.  

    RichLL

    Dexter, are you seriously trying to argue that taking a Lyft or Uber is an act of racism, classism or economic apartheid?

    I think you’re reading way too much into peoples’ motives. They just want speed, comfort, safety and convenience.

    And what about people who fly first class? You must really hate them.

  14.  

    p_chazz

    Uber and Lyft are simply filling a need. If there was no market demand for them, they wouldn’t exist.

  15.  

    p_chazz

    You are overlooking the fact that buses offered more flexibility with a lower operating and capital cost than rail systems.

  16.  

    Stuart

    Everyone who has had to explain to someone how bogus the argument that cyclists don’t pay their fair share is should bookmark the comment above to point people to. Not only are those who don’t own cars subsidizing car owners via massively discounted on-street parking, but here’s direct evidence that some car owners are arbitraging that taxpayer-funded subsidy into direct personal profit.

    So while people whine about having to pay for bike lanes they don’t use, the people who don’t own cars are not only paying far more for parking they don’t use, but on top of that are literally paying for RichLL to carsplain everything to them.

  17.  

    Dexter Wong

    Another thing, the people pushing for Lyft and Uber don’t want mass transit, they want specialized transit that excludes people such as the poor, the handicapped and anyone who can’t afford the smartphone and credit card needed to access those services.

  18.  

    Dexter Wong

    With regard to the article, Key System was allowed to deteriorate because it was bought by National City Lines, which favored buses. The Muni lines that were converted originally belonged to Market St. Ry., which had allowed its infrastructure to fall apart, leaving Muni little choice but to convert those lines to bus.

  19.  

    Tanner

    How is this thing not going to be obsolete by the time it’s done?

    Japan and China are building Maglev train systems that go at least 100mph faster than the best high speed rail trains can.

  20.  

    RichLL

    The mantra of road safety advocates is separation of disparate traffic streams. That is why we have bus lanes, bike lanes and, for that matter, side-walks.

    Geary is a major East-West vehicular artery and, as such, it makes sense to avoid the major conflicts at arterial North-South routes such as Van Ness, Fillmore, Divis, Masonic and Park Presidio.

    I suspect that if this cyclist was on Masonic or Fillmore, safely insulated and immunized from the streams of fast traffic underground on Geary, then he’d be a lot happier and healthier today.

  21.  

    david vartanoff

    au contraire, the real mistake was building the expressway tunnels instead of putting the streetcar line underground.

  22.  

    RichLL

    mx, I hate double parkers as much as you do. It’s as bad, or worse, for drivers as it is for cyclists. But that’s a matter of convenience and consideration.

    Take the airport for instance. The cops are all over anyone who stops for any longer than absolutely necessary. But it’s not a safety thing – those airport cops are simply trying to keep traffic moving.

    Whether as a driver or a cyclist, I am in the most danger from other vehicles that are moving, not that are stopped. The stopped cars are annoying but they are not dangerous, UNLESS I choose to respond to them with a careless, risky lane change.

    Re hazard lights, there is a risk that a following vehicle may hit me if I stop. But the law always blames the following car or bike in those situations. I put my hazards on to be more visible, to prevent such a risk. and even a cop has told me that he doesn’t cite a double-parker if the hazards are on.

  23.  

    RichLL

    Ray, it would be regressive and discriminatory against poor people who, typically, are more dependent on driving because housing costs force them to live further out

    And being poor means they are more likely to be a minority, so your policy idea is potentially racist and discriminatory as well

  24.  

    mx

    We’ve had this fight where he claims that there’s not one iota of additional hazard caused by random obstacles in people’s way. It’s not a good argument. I believe I pointed out that the very reason (some) people put their hazard lights on when the are double parking is because they are creating a HAZARDOUS condition to others around them. The clue is right there in the name.

    Even if SFMTA/DPT can’t enforce moving violations, there are still things they could do if they wanted to get serious about the problem. They can call up SFPD and get a sweep when they see many double-parked cars in one place, such as frequently occurs on Valencia. They can simply get behind people and order them to move along (I see this in NYC quite a bit. If a driver is doing something stupid, an officer may or may not give them a ticket, but they’ll surely get on the horn and give directions to keep things moving. Here, they drive by and ignore it). We could look at legal options for DPT to cite double-parked drivers with parking violations, which they are allowed to enforce; the fines are lower and it doesn’t give points against the license, but it would still be a deterrent (and a double-parked car is illegally parked). If preventing double parking was a priority for SFMTA, there are plenty of ways they could do something all on their own.

  25.  

    RichLL

    A tax or fee is regressive if it adversely disadvantages poor people. And in SF, the poor tend to live further out, meaning that they are more dependent on cars

  26.  

    RichLL

    Sure, I agree that an obstruction in any traffic lane increases the possibility that someone will react riskily to that obstruction.

    But i maintain that is something within the control of the blocked bike or vehicle. A stopped vehicle cannot kill you.

  27.  

    RichLL

    You misunderstand. The act of blocking your progress in a straight line is 100% safe. You simply come to a stop and wait. Or dismount and walk around.

    The danger only happens if you are impatient and swing out into traffic without taking due care. And that is 100% under your control.

    On the other point, we actually agree. Parking (legal ir illegal) is not dangerous, because a stopped vehicle cannot harm you.

  28.  

    Ray

    Imagine this, a road system that used congestion-based road pricing. This would incentivize a switch from single-occupancy vehicles to a variety of privately operated shared-ride vehicles. We already have uberpool and bridj operating, that’s 4-20 people per vehicle with point-to-point service. What is the public waiting for, start congestion pricing now!

  29.  

    Ray

    They wouldn’t be regressive to the fees collected fund the public transportation system. Also, imagine the impact of hugely lower levels of pollution on poorer neighborhoods.

  30.  

    Ray

    Yes, congestion-based road pricing would incentivize the public to use private shared-ride vehicle services like uberpool and bridj. It would also create a market for luxury buses. As far as the public transportation system is concerned, the road fees could subsidize the services for poorer individuals.

  31.  

    Maurice

    the only way market street will ever change! Once a year, for a prototyping festival. This town…..

  32.  

    jd_x

    Totally disagree that having to move around an obstacle blocking you is safe. I know you disagree, so that’s the end of that conversation.

    And the SFMTA doesn’t enforce moving violations. They can only enforce non-moving violations, so speeding and running red lights are irrelevant to this discussion. Look at the link I sent out. The vast majority of citations (the ones that SFMTA can cite, which are all non-moving) are for things like street cleaning, parking meter violations, RPP violations, etc. There is no way in hell (though I know you will) argue that those present a greater safety threat than double-parking.

  33.  

    dawdler

    This is true. If you rely on a service you also have the risk of losing the service or being denied the service because of other people. (For example, for political reasons).

  34.  

    dawdler

    Nothing wrong with knowing what you want!

  35.  

    dawdler

    :) I think some of this stuff is still pretty far out. There’s current reality and what’s possible in the future.

  36.  

    RichLL

    Ha, transit is for the little people :-)

  37.  

    Jimbo

    i will ahve my own self driving car. no sharing

  38.  

    RichLL

    Personally I would not abolish Muni but rather put it in direct competition with private vendors. We already have Chariot and, effectively, Uber, How about Jitneys on the major highways?

    Muni can focus on the lighter routes and poorer areas, given that its entire business model is predicated on subsidies. But anywhere that can sustain a premium service, let’s have some competition. Bid for my transit dollar!

  39.  

    bike_engineer

    http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/CAMUTCD2014-Chap3F.pdf

    Note the main definition: Delineators are considered guidance devices rather than warning devices

  40.  

    Jimbo

    transit should definitenly be privatized. you dont think google could do a better job than the city of SF?

  41.  

    RichLL

    Possible, but if I am to rely on some high-tech service to deliver a vehicle that I want exactly when I want it, then I am at risk both of the technology failing and at risk of being a lower priority than some other customers.

    To be 100% certain that I can always go where I want to go, nothing can replace ownership and availability

  42.  

    dawdler

    I don’t doubt your sense of freedom. But I don’t agree with your assertion that your scenario is only possible if you own a vehicle. That’s true now. But I don’t think it’s impossible to have a future where it’s possible without owning the vehicle. I also am not principally against car ownership. I think it’s just interesting to explore new economic/usage models.

  43.  

    dawdler

    Sure I do. I own two. :)

  44.  

    RichLL

    I have a 6-car garage but only use one of those six places. I rent out the other five. Our second car is parked on the street with a RPP.

    There are times when my wife and I both need a car, so one vehicle isn’t an option.

  45.  

    dawdler

    Autonomous vehicles are just a technology. Changing transit economic models and usage patterns is something that COULD happen because of autonomous vehicles but may not necessarily happen.

    I think different scenarios could play out. For example, there could be autonomous fleets of multi-person vehicles. Scheduling would be a complex challenge. Or we have fleets of transit vehicles on scheduled routes.

    But the 1:1 ratio is definitely an important parameter. To reduce congestion we’d have to increase that ratio.

  46.  

    RichLL

    Or have your own car handy, huh?

  47.  

    RichLL

    You don’t understand the feeling of freedom and independence that comes from having a vehicle.

    I am not reliant on anyone or anything else to go where I want to go. And that is as American as it gets.

  48.  

    farazs

    Hah … if only one could end discussions by proclaiming it to be so!

    BTB, could you point me to the relevant MUTCD guidelines. I am not working for SFMTrA or trying to get them to be compliant, just curious.

  49.  

    RichLL

    Those of us who own cars will continue to, even if they become unusable in cities, because of the freedom they confer.

    I can take my family and a whole lot of gear to a beach or mountain, at no notice, in a couple of hours. But only if I own a vehicle.

  50.  

    RichLL

    But again, double parking is not dangerous because a vehicle that isn’t moving cannot harm you.

    What you are really arguing for is high fines for those who react to a double-parked vehicle with a reckless maneuver.

    Speeding or running a light are much more dangerous than any form of parking, for obvious reasons