Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Dallam Oliver-Lee

    Yet California allows cars to park in bike lanes and protected bike lanes unless a “no parking” sign is posted.



    That solution should apply to all companies and individuals (who are paid by said companies) and is called a tax increase. Start campaigning.



    Has anyone calculated just what fraction of SF street space is used for bike lanes and such? 1%?

    Perhaps that could be made into a slogan:

    1% of streets for bikes, 99% for cars? No! Restore balance: 0% bikes, 100% cars!

    Or some other way to drive home the point that the supposed ‘balance’ is not particularly balanced.


    Andy B from Jersey

    What a surprise! There were problems with the Bay Bridge parts made in China and those problems were covered up.


    Andy Chow

    Caltrain already has a robust shuttle program that is based on public-private funding partnerships. Caltrain can replicate the feeder shuttle partnership model to long distance buses. Some of the large companies can provide funding to sponsor the shuttles for their workers, and public funds can pay the rest to ensure the service is available to everyone else.



    Take the fight to them, put one on top of Tony Hall’s house or next to it.


    Upright Biker

    If I didn’t have a business to run, I could do this all day it’s so fun! Almost like building the real thing! What neighborhood institution would _you_ like to see with a parking structure next to it? I’m taking requests!


    Upright Biker



    Great job. It seems like with one of the most annoying people in tech bankrolling this and the Republican party being the biggest backers, this measure is going to be a hard one to pass in this city at this time. The campaign against L writes itself, the parking garage next to victorians is perfect.


    Upright Biker

    The ever-helpful Rob Anderson pointed me to an SFMTA study regarding traffic at Octavia and Market, which noted that 73% of the motorists clogging that intersection had neither originated their trip in San Francisco nor did they stop or terminate it in San Francisco — They were heading to Marin and points north.

    If we keep making it attractive for these drive-bys to use our city streets instead of going around on 80 or 880, we’ll keep seeing no benefits from them while their impacts continue to be significant.


    Upright Biker

    Ask and ye shall receive:



    Are you saying that most folks are stupid? That’s well established.



    This is a map of SF’s bike routes in December 1971 that I found very easily via a search engine. This by itself shows the MapStory map is off to a bad start.





    sebra leaves

    “Blame ya self” didn’t work so well for Herman Cain because most folks don’t. They blame someone else. In this case, they blame the folks who are in charge of the streets who claim they are fixing things.


    Upright Biker

    Don’t forget about SFParkRIPOff!!



    I agree. The biggest traffic congestion is caused by getting in, out and around the City. Driving through is not too bad. Rush hour is tough, mainly due to access to freeways and the volume of cars already congesting them.
    Maybe an effort needs to be put on the businesses to promote work-shifting to allow workers to commute at off hours. I have the flexibility to do this myself, and it makes a huge difference, especially on days when I drive rather than take caltrain.



    Thanks for the clarification



    The No on L need to photoshop a parking garage in the middle of the painted ladies.



    It has plenty of power. If it passes, it’s an ace in the sleeve of these guys when the next critical issue comes up before SFMTA. SFMTA goes against this measure, Ed Lee puts the hammer down on SFMTA and points to Measure L, SFMTA caves.

    Though when I think about it, Measure L may actually be a blessing. If it passes, we may very well just end up with the status quo anyway. But if it FAILS – it will be hard for the Sebra Leaves and Rob Andersons of the world to parrot the line about the “silent majority”


    Upright Biker

    As noted above, it is true that the Chamber went back on its own recommendations re Sunday Meters, etc. to endorse PropL, under pressure from small business constituents.

    Too bad these small business owners don’t look at the facts as to who spends the most money, most often, in their stores — it’s people who arrive by foot, transit, and bicycles, not motorists.


    Upright Biker

    I got confirmation that the Chamber is indeed endorsing Prop L because of the concerns of small businesses.



    An impostor!



    Damn that could be some HUGE news if the Chamber itself doesn’t support it and the RTB website says otherwise, stirring things up, if this statement is true, consistent and that it corroborates with @uprightbiker:disqus, it would make things interesting, well see about that…


    Upright Biker

    I think the specter of block-numbing parking structures rising in the neighborhoods should be emphasized as well as the Republican angle, and that’ll kill it dead.

    No Wall in My Neighborhood!



    Anybody else notice changed timing for the 14th st green wave recently (week of August 5th, 2014)? I think it’s worse.


    Upright Biker

    And when you see the sheer volume of evening rush-hour traffic idling on 280 S as you get down towards Palo Alto, you really wonder how the hell we fit so many cars in SF in the first place! Makes you think SFMTA is actually doing a pretty damn good job, given the magnitude of the challenge.


    Upright Biker

    They may well weigh in later in the season, but they only endorse or oppose the initiatives themselves, and do not endorse/oppose candidates or initiative groups.

    Edit–The Chamber itself is not supporting the initiative. The Chamber’s Small Business Advisory Council (on which I used to sit, so I can tell you they are generally well-meaning but myopic when it comes to parking) recommended the larger Chamber support this, but they wisely chose not to.

    Edit to my edit–It does in fact say on the RTB website that the SF Chamber has endorsed them…have to look into that.



    Makes sense, and definitely agreed about sharrows on multi-lane streets, though they do serve as a small warning to drivers to pay more attention. Not much, but, given how few streets have sharrows, it’s probably worth something.



    “The officers did not pursue Wisner …”

    Please read the article.



    Not without a better train control system, or expanding their two-track system to four tracks. They are currently implementing a better train control system which will increase their frequency from 5 to 6 trains per hour during rush hour. Four-track segments are planned for the future, but again these need to be funded.



    So wait, there are no PROTECTED bikeways planned at all?? Seems like an incomplete plan


    Mario Tanev

    Anyone know why the Chamber of Commerce chose to be involved with this? Especially given that they had supported Sunday Meters in the past?



    Park is a critical connection to Diridon Station from the West. I’d guessing that’s a big part of why it’s a priority. And while I haven’t ridden much on the East Side to compare, I have ridden Park Ave at rush hour to get from Hedding to Willow Glen and it was only marginally better than The Alameda. Given it’s either one or the other, I’d say there’s no good way for anyone but the “strong & fearless” to get downtown from the West.

    Which streets on the East Side do you think need it most?


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Framing prop L as a Republican measure is a brilliant stroke because almost no San Franciscan wants to be identified as a Republican even if said San Franciscan would like nothing better than to revert San Francisco back to the city it was in 1974 and cast it in amber to be preserved exactly as it was then forever. The irony is anyone who can’t afford Sunday meters won’t be able to afford a car at all quite soon, and anyone who has $49,000 to squander also likely has a chauffeur who makes parking (and even driving) issues irrelevant.

    Preserving motor vehicle dominance in San Francisco is an attempt to cast the current oil-gobbling American way of life in amber with all the attendant pollution, planetary destruction and waste that it entails. Even if it were a good idea, it’s a losing hand because the cheap oil is gone and the rest is so expensive to produce, oil companies cannot make the cash flow work even at today’s elevated prices and so are cutting capital expenditures, selling assets and taking on debt as a result. (see: and )

    San Francisco (and the US as a whole) is going to have to adapt and reinvent itself tremendously over the coming decade. Fortunately through long practice San Francisco is quite adept at reinventing itself, and this process is already underway.



    This is nice, but it still makes it seem like this “advisory” measure has any real power if passed. IT DOES NOT. Parker and the GOP could pay people to wear sandwich boards in front of city hall – that would have as much real effect on policy as this foolish advisory only measure


    Kid Charles

    I was just thinking that “L? No!” would be much catchier than the boring “No on L” catchphrase.



    So odd. I lived in Boston for a few years. Driving and Parking in SF is trivial



    Where can I swoop a window sign?



    San Jose used to be one of the safer cities, but thanks to staffing issues, they’re above the national average and state averages for violent crime (a trend that has been going sharply upwards in the past 3-4 years, albeit still nowhere near SF or Oakland).



    The solution is for the tech companies to take the money they’re spending on private charter buses and put it into Muni instead of interfering with Muni service to city residents. They could also subsidize their employees’ transportation expenses and, if necessary, cut the outrageously long hours their employees work to allow for extra travel time. So why don’t you move along yourself?



    Can’t Caltrain run trains more frequently?


    Chris J.

    L ol!



    L no!



    San Jose regularly ranks on ‘safest cities’ lists. Also, how does a 180-square-mile city with tons of the US’s top performing companies ‘accommodate more than its share of Bay Area growth’ without getting dense at all?



    Proves my unspoken point that you’re really just trolling here and not looking for solutions. You have read the rebuttals and have plenty here on this site to direct you to the answers you need. Now, move along please.



    San Francisco cares so much about cleaning its streets but gives a damn about its sidewalks, which have become latrines for the homeless population and a the greatest place to litter. Good job again again SF with your ingenious regulation.



    And what about their spouse, kids, and mother-in-law, who all live and work happily in the city without a car? They should all move to some suburban hell-hole? Ha ha. Yeah. No.



    There is even less affordable housing in Silicon Valley than there is in SF proper. So how on earth is someone who works in the kitchen at Google supposed to move closer to her work?



    I’m not sure that’s true. Those corporate campuses have a small army of low paid kitchen workers, custodians, admins, etc. who are usually contract hires, not direct tech company employees, and live far from Silicon Valley by necessity, not choice. In some cases they can ride the corporate shuttles but have to pay to do so, despite being the ones who can least afford it.