Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Donovan Lacy

    Our recent discussion on muni driver compensation would be a good example.

  2.  

    OaktownPRE

    I see people walking through the BART “emergency” exits almost every time I ride, the last time was directly in front of the well paid station agent who did nothing. I can’t in good conscience give more money to a system that’s run by people who can’t seem to figure out how to alarm an emergency gate to deter fare evaders. Heck, even Muni has that figured out.

  3.  

    citrate reiterator

    Well, I can dream. Probably not in my lifetime, but maybe by 2100 AD or so?

    (I tried to take into account the highest-ridership bus/rail routes and local population density. The N should really also continue down 16th St and connect with the T by where the new Warriors stadium is going to be. The Outer Mission and Ingleside also have quite high population density and need more service.)

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    Nope. Purely ideological. You and your ilk will stop at nothing in your anti-car echo chamber.

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    We obviously have a differing opinion on parenting and bedtimes.

  6.  

    JustJake

    Wow. Touchy response. I never used the word “better”. In my ‘suburb’, all your examples of activities are do-able, and we go see Giants games via a Bart ride and a stroll. Oh, and the schools are fantastic.

  7.  

    citrate reiterator

    Whether or not you agree with baklazhan, I think they would describe their purpose as “wanting to prevent cars from crashing into people at high speeds and causing injuries/fatalities,” rather than “purely ideological.”

  8.  

    citrate reiterator

    You keep making this error over and over again here. That 80% figure is irrelevant: owning a car doesn’t mean you oppose raising funds for transit. If you want to get a sense for how SF voters feel about spending on transit vs. cars, you may want to look at how people have actually voted in the recent past. Despite being favorable for car-owners, Prop L in 2014 lost 37-63. Likewise, Prop A that same year authorized the city to raise property taxes to repay the bonds it issued. It passed 72-28.

  9.  

    murphstahoe

    At this point, people are choosing the suburbs because they are priced out of the city when they have more people to support and potentially less income, not because the suburbs are “better”.

    As far as I am concerned, there is nothing better about not being able to take my son to a Giants game or a museum or out to eat at a moment’s notice. Nothing better about not being able to walk down the block to get a gallon of milk in a pinch and be able to get it at midnight. Nothing better about the park being a 10 minute drive instead of a 2 block walk – and then finding the park is devoid of other children.

  10.  

    JustJake

    Ah, families. They still generally choose the suburbs. Doesn’t slot perfectly into the high density, urban utopia lifestyle being so heavily over-sold. Suburbs may evolve, but they are not going away.

  11.  

    citrate reiterator

    You claimed that a protected intersection would prevent cars from turning. I said that you seem to have misunderstood what a “protected intersection” meant (it doesn’t prevent cars from turning, it just changes the angle at which they turn) and directed you to a video explaining it. What specifically was unclear about my argument?

    ETA: it occurred to me you may be asking why Rob’s comment (and not mine) made a valid argument. That’s because he also told you that you seem to have misunderstood what a “protected intersection” meant and directed you to a video explaining it.

  12.  

    citrate reiterator

    I know this is a super old comment, but just to throw in my two cents: these stops are really, really close together, much closer than any other rapid transit system. Stops on the L are even slightly closer together than stops on the N. The SFMTA is only just now trying to remove stops that are 0.1 mi apart — literally, 500 feet, or a two-minute walk. I’ve actually gotten off at 17th Ave, walked to 19th Ave, and beat the train (which has to wait for passengers to finish boarding/de-boarding, wait for the light, accelerate, stop, and then open the doors again).

    I think a big problem is that Muni’s light rail is being asked to perform two totally contradictory functions: rapid transit on the one hand, and the equivalent of a super-local bus on the other. In my view they should really be broken out into two separate services. The L and N could stop every half-mile at well-built-out islands like the T has, and a less-frequent L/N-local bus service could stop every other block on request.

  13.  

    Henry

    They’ve already made an agreement to the contracts that will last them until at least 2021. Also, I’d elaborate more, but intersectionality is very important. You can’t treat industry workers like clumpy brown piles and still expect a robust transit system. We’ve been there.

  14.  

    RichLL

    I asked you to reference the argument and explain why it is valid.

  15.  

    RichLL

    Alicia, you’ve now made 6 comments in the last 24 hours. All about me and none about transportation. Why?

    What would it take for you to make a material comment about transportation?

  16.  

    RichLL

    OK, so you have no specific citation to support your allegation?

  17.  

    RichLL

    Well, far and away the biggest determinants of capacity are road width and average speed. Sounds like what you are really saying is that you don’t want to increase either, but then what does that leave given the increase in population?

    Like I said, following distance could be a factor but it cannot be controlled, absent driverless cars

  18.  

    RichLL

    OK, so I think we all want to be clear about your suggestion. Is your idea seriously to place artificial barriers to normal progress for purely ideological purposes?

  19.  

    david vartanoff

    BART IS the subway, and in NYC terms,the East BAY from Richmond through San Leandro is essentially the image of Brooklyn–mostly residential/light commercial but with several CBDs, universities, and entertainment venues.etc.–all large trip generators. And like the NYC case, a body of water separation which makes transit/water crossings critical infrastructure. Yes, BART needs more routes–within the urban cores, not further extensions into SUV land. That said, Ashby at 11PM reminds me of 2nd Ave on the IND, or Astor Place at the same hour for exiting riders.

  20.  

    citrate reiterator

    I summarized the main point of the video in my reply to you upthread.

  21.  

    citrate reiterator

    Yes, good point. I think this one isn’t signalized, though?

  22.  

    baklazhan

    There are many “hazardous barriers” that drivers must avoid, particularly in San Francisco. These particular ones are relatively benign and can easily be fixed. A couple miles further are many “barriers” which are soft and squishy and cannot easily be fixed. I’d rather the bad drivers hit the benign ones, and learn their own limitations, before coming to the squishy ones.

  23.  

    baklazhan

    Well I guess some people might follow at one second at 60 mph, but it’s really not a good idea. In any case, increased speed does not do much to increase capacity. At 2 seconds following distance, going from 30 to 60 mph increases capacity by all of 8%. Capacity is determined almost entirely by following distance, so it’s typically higher at lower speeds, because people can safely follow more closely. If you try to have high speeds and low following distance, you can boost it a little– right up until someone blinks and then your capacity is suddenly zero for the next few hours.

    But really, if it’s capacity you’re after, the obvious low-hanging fruit is to increase the average vehicle occupancy.

  24.  

    Alicia

    Specific example – every thread you’ve ever posted in.

  25.  

    Alicia

    Kind of predictable how you immediately change the goalposts from “ever” to “this thread … this topic.”

  26.  

    RichLL

    Without a specific example, that is more wishful thinking than material evidence.

  27.  

    RichLL

    Alicia, the only topic you have discussed so far in this thread is me. I see no material comment on the topic. How can that be?

  28.  

    Alicia

    Nope. But if you make an idiotic comment, and other people demonstrate why your comments are nonsensical, then yes, you’ve lost the debate.

  29.  

    Alicia

    You haven’t been paying much attention if you don’t already know the answer to that question. (Spoiler alert: the answer is yes.)

  30.  

    RichLL

    And I’d like a pony. But with well over 80% of households in the Bay Area choosing to own a car, where will the votes come from for raising taxes to that extent?

  31.  

    RichLL

    SF and Oakland are closer to one million people than two million.

    And while several hundred thousands people cross the Bay in that area, almost all of them do so during the hours that BART currently operates.

    Do you have $$ to show the average cost per trip of a trans-Bay BART ride at 3 am?

  32.  

    RichLL

    Drivers arelegally allowed to drive into bike lanes in a variety of situations

  33.  

    RichLL

    LOL, so unless I respond to every single comment here then the presumption is that I’ve lost the debate?

    AKA last word syndrome?

  34.  

    RichLL

    I see no refutation. Perhaps you can explain it.

  35.  

    RichLL

    By any chance do you ever comment on the topic rather than to personally attack those with whom you disagree?

  36.  

    ItsEasyBeingGreen

    completely separate cyclists from auto traffic

    In a signalized version that’s exactly what they do though. In places where they can’t separate them in space (such as crossing perpendicular lanes) they separate them in time with the signal phases.

  37.  

    the_greasybear

    Motorists have no compunctions driving into bike lanes that are purportedly “protected” by paint and soft-hit posts in the rest of San Francisco, why would this area be different?

  38.  

    Mark

    The Bay Area should have at least triple the rail investment that it currently has. Heck, SF alone should have triple.

  39.  

    Alicia

    You confuse being scared with rolling our eyes.

  40.  

    Alicia

    Oh, but I do refute your arguments, quite often. When I do so, you retreat to silence.

  41.  

    citrate reiterator

    Literally the first reply refuted your point by directing you to the video.

  42.  

    citrate reiterator

    The point of a protected intersection isn’t to ban cars from turning or to completely separate cyclists from auto traffic, which is obviously impossible without a bridge or tunnel. It’s to orient the directions of car and bike traffic so that drivers and bicyclists can actually see one another when their paths need to cross. Crossing a perpendicular stream of traffic safely is a lot easier than merging.

  43.  

    murphstahoe

    with some limited local service in downtown SF and Oakland.

    2 cities comprising a couple of million in population, divided by a body of water with a single bridge.

  44.  

    Mark

    Not outage. More like major infrastructure repair project.

    And, once again, BART is nothing like the subway systems you reference. BART is a commuter rail system with some limited local service in downtown SF and Oakland. If BART were an extensive network of transit lines then I would agree that it should be 24/7 (or at least 22/7). But it’s not. Accept that fact and move on, folks.

  45.  

    david vartanoff

    Wrong!. Many track segments in NYC, Chicago, and Philly which run 24/7 are 2 tracks same as BART. The issues are political will and scheduling outages. Note that Labor Day Weekend there will be an outage from Glen Park to Daly City during the whole weekend, so obviously BART can do work outside the short work window overnight.

  46.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    Exactly. We’ve been through this before. BART can’t run overnight because of maintenance needs and the lack of redundant tracks. That’s it.

  47.  

    RichLL

    Yeah, I’m a big fan of BART relative to any other form of local transport that doesn’t sail or fly, but I can’t see throwing money at a BART. management that threw our money at its workers in 2013. Giving them a new slush fund just encourages the BART workers and unions to go big and aggressive at the next contract talks.

    So I will vote a big fat NO on this bond measure unless BART strikes are made illegal and a wage and benefits freeze is then imposed.

    And yes, a big fat finger to freaking “social justice”. We want operational efficiency and not political correctness.

  48.  

    Mark

    RE: 24 hour BART.

    Please, enough comparisons to other more robust systems. I think people will be happy if BART runs more frequently during normal operating hours. Let’s start there.

  49.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    That state senator from Orinda sounds like a bit of a dick, but his position on the BART bond is right on. BART needs a plan for dealing with labor when their contract runs out within a year. BART needs directors who are not “grassroots organizers” and who are not terribly concerned about “social justice”. The BART board needs hard-nosed operations people with real industry experience.

    As soon as the BART board presents the master plan for overthrowing themselves, I’ll be 100% behind a capital bond.

  50.  

    RichLL

    Alicia, everyone here makes the same points over and over. Nothing wrong with that – it shows consistency of though.

    But if my arguments were “easy” for you to refute, you would simply do that, rather than make only critical personal attacks like you just did.

    Best to stick to the topic here, or say nothing if you have nothing constructive to say.