Skip to content

Recent Comments



    So damn sick of this. So sorry for the victims and their family and friends. So unnecessary. And yet so preventable … but the City does nothing. Can we please get some lawsuits against the City? And for what, you might say?

    Let’s start with this: why are cars even allowed in GGP? And even if they are, why are they allowed to cut through (as opposed to their just being one giant loop where you enter and exit at the same point)? Can’t we have *one* place where pedestrians and bicyclists don’t have to worry about getting killed by motorists operating 2-ton vehicles recklessly?

    And this scumbag, when caught (and he will be caught), should have life in prison with no chance of parole. This sort of behavior — going 50 mph through a park while driving in the bike lane, and then running after hitting a bicyclists — makes this a life-in-jail punishment.



    I hope the people and the members of SFBC will give him a chance to lead, regardless of what vision he sets forth. He seems like he’s got good potential.



    After yesterday’s shout-fest against #keepmissionred, then today two hit and run murders (one a driver running a red light, the other passing in the oncoming bike lane), it’s clear SFBike needs to take stronger positions, to treat Vision Zero seriously and rescue it from its present farcical state of “balanced approaches”, to stop making absurd endorsements like those of the past two mayoral elections, and to demand an end to vehicular through traffic in GGP. San Francisco is engaged in a battle over whether Transit First, in the charter since Milk, is going to be treated like legitimate law and not lipservice. There is a very vocal, very angry minority who will make any hare-brained arguments they can twist to their own selfish purpose, and people like Chu, Lee, and Campos instantly surrender. We can’t allow more decades of delay and “compromise”. It’s time that the majority view, a majority which expressed itself in crushing measure L, be respected, and that rational, transit first policy be implemented despite the unruly mob. SFBike needs to be at the head of this fight.






    Bring it on RichLL. Bring it on



    And another hit and run in SOMA.













    Yeah. I was wondering, is he clueless? Or just a manipulative creep?



    Woman riding her bicycle killed by driver in Golden Gate Park this evening. Check out @DeboraKTVU’s Tweet:



    geary BRT is an utter waste of money. they should be saving it for a subway, so we can keep flow above and below ground



    Sorry, my bad, I should have asked for RELEVANT citations.



    @BluTarp @natogreen @FitzTheReporter Calle24 spoke to dozens of merchants and asked them if they'd seen any changes.— Cultural Action (@CulturalActNet) June 21, 2016



    Citations needed. Your plucked acronyms and regal references do not compute.



    Yes, and of those 30 minutes, about 25 were stopping to pick up and set down swarms of people. The actual elapsed time of the journey was trivial compared with dealing with the dwell time at every stop due to over-crowding.

    We need to get those folks onto under-ground transit.



    Temporarily stopping in a prohibited zone to set down a transit rider is generally not considered a hanging offense, but does free up parking elsewhere.

    More generally any build-out that confiscates available space for cars can reasonably be expected to increase congestion, stress and risk.



    Prohibited but not impossible :)



    His account appears to me to indicate that the anti-buslane speakers were not members of organized lobby groups

    ENUF and CAN were there in spades, and the Monarch of the Mission represents a group as well.



    Have you ever ridden the 14 or 49? They used to take 30 minutes just to get from Cesar Chavez to 14th.


    City Resident

    Bus bulbs are constructed at existing bus stops, where parking is already prohibited.



    OK, so what we really know here is that two people from a neighborhood 3 or 4 miles away, who have not been affected by this change, disagreed with each other?


    City Resident

    I didn’t catch his name. After the meeting, I went up with him to talk. There was such divisiveness in the air I figured it was worth trying to find middle ground. I told him that I work on Geary and that it took me an hour, traveling by Muni, to make it to the meeting. When he recognized that I was supportive of BRT on Geary, he asked me: “are you a merchant? are you a homeowner?” He then ended the conversation. Diatribe has (too often) replaced dialogue.



    Evidently you did not understand my point. It wasn’t that the people of the Mission are Anglo-Asian Yuppies, but rather that the representatives of SFBC, Walk SF and SFTRU are.

    And that addresses the points that gneiss and p_chazz made i.e. that it is those non-White low-income folks who were under-represented at the meeting.

    A useful rule of thumb is that the middle-class bike/walk/transit advocates are NEVER under-represented.



    If 88% of visitors to Mission Street were already not by car then clearly there was already adequate transit to this area, so why the change?



    I dare you to ride the 14 or 49 through the Mission. If you see more than a small sprinkling of “people who look like they work at Salesforce”, I’ll pay for the corrective lenses.



    88% of people get to Mission Street without a car. It’s pretty clear the driving-focused opponents were not representative of the actual people on the street.



    David Heller, perhaps. He has been the singular force holding up Geary BRT for years. Yes, its possible in SF to have a single person delay plans that would benefit tens of thousands. San Francisco needs to solicit feedback and MOVE ON. We seem hell bent on getting everyone to agree, when there are large amount of people who will never agree to anything except what they want.



    re: SF transit dream map.

    Enough of these semi-annual fantasy transit maps, please. We all know the reality is that 99% of what’s dreamed of will not come true, regardless of the fact that most of what’s proposed should have been built a generation ago. The facts remain:

    (1) BART will never be extended in SF.
    (2) The Central Subway will never be extended past Chinatown.
    (3) Caltrain electrification and extension to downtown is decades away, if it ever happens. (Enjoy your $2B bus station, folks.)

    Why? Zero interest from pols, transit agencies and many businesses.

    So there you have it.



    Take a look at the board and staff of organizations like SFRTU, Walk SF and SFBC. They look like the board and staff of SalesForce – mostly white with a sprinkling of Asians, all middle-class and professional. It’s not surprising if they struggle to find a way to talk to low-income minorities, and that gives them a credibility problem, particularly in an area struggling with gentrification and displacement.


    Alice Hlidkova

    This is a great report! I am working with the City of Pittsburgh City Planning Department and I am trying to collect transportation data on the famous Strip District – loading/unloading data. Any recommendations on best practices/ methodology?



    “At the public meeting last night, there was one notable constituency that was largely missing from the public comments: The low income Latino residents who ride transit”

    Probably because they are working two jobs, taking care of kids or are not comfortable expressing themselves in English. If you want to hear from these folks, talk to the community organizations that provide services to them and address them en Español, por favor.



    Murph, the plea agreement clearly states that drink was not a factor, and that the accident would have happened anyway. That means the DA agrees with the defense that was the case and the judge approved the agreement.

    So, sorry, but you are wrong. Glib hashtags are no substitute for the facts.



    The underlying assumption of so many comments against was that good transit = gentrification, one person even declared outright that the SFMTA wants to speed gentrification of the Mission. The person next to me accused me of being on the payroll of SPUR when I nodded in agreement at a fact-based comment. I knew making public comment would be useless – and the high decibels and temp were unbearable – so I approached Campos and, in the presence of Reiskin, asked that he please clarify for his constituency that transit improvement does not drive gentrification; that the pain they’re feeling is real, that we’re in an economic system that is deeply unfair but evictions started long before the red lanes; that no one can argue that Chinatown is gentrified though it is transit-rich and will soon have a subway. His reply, ‘Why don’t *you* say that?’ I answered that no, he is their leader and he should lead. I tweeted it and walked away #Gobsmacked.



    Come on, a lot of people love cars and driving. There are entire TV shows devoted to that – ever seen Top Gear or Jay Leno’s garage? While Formula One and NASCAR are immensely popular.

    Commuting on a freeway can suck but what does it say about how bad transit is if people do it anyway? And a nice car with leather seats, good sound system, good aircon and soundproofing etc. makes commuting much more pleasant.

    The sin Khamis committed was more one of exaggeration. He cited a 97% figure when the car ownership and use rates in Santa Clara are about 90%.



    Thanks for making the point that no request for proof that businesses have suffered as a result of the very new installment. And if the data is there, was it just a glitch due to the installment period, adjustment period, fundamentally unresilient or shaky business practices? How about checking data, such as tax receipts as was done after changes at Fisherman’s Wharf?



    I wasn’t there and so can only base my remarks on what Roger wrote. His account appears to me to indicate that the anti-buslane speakers were not members of organized lobby groups but rather individual residents and business owners with a direct personal interest.

    Clearly that doesn’t apply to the “usual suspect” activist groups like SFBC, SFTR and WSF. But yes, I’m sure there were a few people from other neighborhoods speaking against the bus lanes because they fear the same treatment in their back yard unless people speak up.

    As to being hostile to SFMTA, that is Reiskin’s fault. He stated that ” there’s no intention to remove the lanes”. Even Campos said ” this is not about eliminating the transit lanes”. Why even hold a meeting if there is no intent to act on the criticism? That disrespects the audience and perhaps made the even more difficult



    ‘Almost bullying of public servants?’ Strike the ‘almost.’ It was bullying and demagoguery at its worst. And yes, shame on us.



    The answer is in the article, here:

    “The bus bulbs take parking spots”



    “The motorcycle case: First offense and drink was not a factor”



    City Resident

    I think your observation applies to both camps (pro and con). A vocal opponent of Geary BRT, who is a merchant in the Richmond, spoke. Although I do not know where he lives, his presence and opposition seemed to be ideological. It is worth noting that some of the opposition was of a general anti-SFMTA variety. This agency is one of the local bogeymen, like the IRS is on a national level. Many of the anti-Mission red lanes statements seemed to be related to larger issues, like housing displacement and housing shortages – issues unrelated to this project or the SFMTA’s realm.



    This case: Third offense and drink was a factor

    The motorcycle case: First offense and drink was not a factor

    That said I really don’t see the point of throwing a 77 year old woman into a state prison.



    I wasn’t expecting a coherent informed rebuttal from you and I was not disappointed.


    David Gouldin

    Did anybody ask Basem El-Kurd where their delivery trucks were parking before? As I understand it, very little parking was removed as a result of this project, so the argument that “parking is hard to come by” doesn’t seem relevant to the transit lane changes.



    On the other hand, in Santa Rosa a 77 year old woman just got 7 years in the big house for a DUI killing

    I’m not sure what to think about this one. Basically free assisted living. for an elderly woman. In this case perhaps a severe and no-exceptions allowed house arrest with a monitoring bracelet may have done the trick. Certainly she needs to be removed from society as a three time loser – she’s a proven recividist






    I want a webcam inside Mr Khamis’ car as he sits in gridlock on US-101 so we can see exactly how much he’s loving it



    Didn’t say that, but is does seem to be a key principle of new urbanism and the need to minimize greenhouse gases we generate.