Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Sprague

    An increase in Muni’s speed is welcome to all transit riders, especially residents of the Sunset district that rely on the 71 bus to get them downtown and elsewhere. And since we all contribute financially to Muni’s operation (and we all benefit from its utilization), it’s in our collective interest to have Muni’s buses operating quickly and efficiently on the streets of San Francisco.

  2.  

    Sprague

    Objections to new transit shelters at Haight Street bus stops appear to not be grounded in reality. Our family regularly uses Haight Street stops (especially those at Stanyan – each of which has a shelter). Never have any of us observed any illegal or unsavory activity at one of these shelters. Needless to say, such activity may occur in fairly close proximity but this has nothing to do with a bus shelter. It’s the general location. Drug dealing and drinking both occur regularly along upper Haight Street and at the Stanyan Street entrance to Golden Gate Park but not at the transit shelters at Stanyan. Due to a few bad apples, must we really force disabled passengers and others to stand as they wait at upper Haight Muni stops that lack any seating? Should all transit riders be punished due to the actions of a few?

  3.  

    yermom72

    Seriously, what’s with all this fetishization of speed? Walking is best and four-way stops work fine. They also encourage drivers to slow down and pay more attention to their surroundings.

  4.  

    patrick_sf

    I agree 100%. On top of that, bulb outs, which would be the major safety improvement for pedestrians, can be installed without a traffic signal.

  5.  

    Sprague

    Haight Street’s currently narrow sidewalks accommodate panhandlers and camping now. These things occur regardless of how wide a sidewalk is – if only it were that simple.

  6.  

    MrEricSir

    Looks nice! Pedestrian-only alleys and streets seem like a no-brainer in terms of Vision Zero.

  7.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    That’s great. I’d love to see this treatment applied to Ecker alley between Folsom and Clementina which was illegally demapped and privatized by a development company partially owned by Gavin Newsom. It’s part of the transbay district and Clementina is supposed to be a major pedestrian route under the plan.

  8.  

    Michael Smith

    One other question to ask is how credible the stated data is on whether traffic signals are safer for pedestrians. Pedestrian advocates have long advocated for “traffic calming” measures, the antithesis of traffic signals. The vast majority of serious injuries and deaths occur at signalized intersections.I believe that the data SFMTA is using is predominately for intersections where stop signs were replaced by signals *due to safety issues*. For example, if there is a road with two lanes in each direction, such as 30th & Dolores, then a 4-way stop can indeed be problematic because drivers don’t always notice pedestrians crossing. One would expect that replacing a 4-way stop with a traffic signal for safety reasons, as was done at 30th & Dolores, would indeed improve safety. But this is not the situation along Haight and McAllister.

    It would therefore be very useful for the SFMTA to publish the details of the intersections that they are using data for and what the specific data is. That would help the powers that be make a more informed decision.

  9.  

    Dark Soul

    To be clear, Which December?

  10.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I appreciate how you keep using the same photo in each delay update. Soon you’ll be able to do this mad lib style: “Double birthing will he delayed [ number ] month(s). SFMTA’S [ choose John Haley or Paul Rose ] said this was due to [ reason ]. Once work on that project is completed, Muni will need an addition [ number ] month(s) for testing.”

  11.  

    boter_op_je_hoofd

    Haight and Clayton needs a traffic light, just like at Ashbury, because it is too hard for peds to cross safely, and takes forever in a car. A two way stop at Shrader would make it dangerous for peds to cross Haight street there. Bulb outs and bus shelters would be a great place to pan handle and camp out, and should be avoided

  12.  

    thielges

    Last night’s public meeting on the Lincoln Ave., San Jose road diet was encouraging. The city wants to prototype/mockup the new lane configuration first and then collect data on its effects. They’ll be measuring traffic counts on various streets before and after to see how much traffic diverts to neighborhood streets. The diet is to convert the current 4 lanes of traffic into a 3 lane config (1 each direction and a shared left turn lane in the middle) and possibly use the extra space to install bike lanes. In the current config lanes are narrow and parallel parking means that bicyclists need to take the lane. Parallel parkers and left turners block traffic.

    Most of the public speakers were in favor of the road diet including several business owners. Of course there were the usual naysayers predicting carmageddon though even most of them were willing to let objective data drive the decision.

    Next step is for a citizen working group to deliver recommendations to the city. Then another public meeting after the city digests all of the input and proposes a more detailed project.

  13.  

    Andy Chow

    Off boarding ticketing…yes
    Signal priority…yes

    The only thing missing is level boarding, which frankly there are no good solutions for. I don’t know if you’ve visited any of the American BRT lines that have level boarding, but I recently rode on one. Unless you think Muni should have a dedicated fleet traveling only on a dedicated corridor, and take away space inside the bus to store bikes rather than exterior bike racks, there’s no need to have “level boarding” which isn’t much more beneficial (you will be wrong to assume that you’ll get a rail like or elevator like access if bus and platform are at the same height). Low floor buses only have a one step gap compared to the 3/4 step gap with most Muni buses.

  14.  

    Bruce

    The PBB segment was filmed in Daly City, not Burlingame. The officer was from Burlingame, but the sting took place in and around Serramonte Mall.

  15.  

    danbrotherston

    What?! Passing a cyclist to closely is a moving violation. Not riding in a bike lane is not. Illegal acts are against the law, something that some driver somewhere feels correctly or incorrectly is inconsiderate is not. Do you understand the difference between a dangerous illegal act, and a legal perfectly safe and acceptable and possibly justifiable act?

  16.  

    MrEricSir

    Dedicated lanes are a step in the right direction, but there’s quite a bit more to BRT than that.

  17.  

    Andy Chow

    How is it watered down when it has dedicated and separated center lanes?

  18.  

    emceeski

    it’s all part of an effort to encourage more drivers to try transit–by giving them a familiar experience to gridlock

  19.  

    Bruce

    My prediction for January: “Double berthing? What double berthing?”

  20.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    My prediction for December: “Double berthing has been delayed until January”

  21.  

    Bob Gunderson

    I’ve given up on this one. At least the amount of stops will mimic stop and go car traffic

  22.  

    runn3r85

    No accountability. If no one holds you accountable, why not take your time? Then you know you have a job. And worse, the voters just gave them another 500 million to play with.

  23.  

    Bruce

    Bob, I expected a heartfelt diatribe against the evils of replacing car lanes with transit, and instead I got a reasonable critique of the plan. I’m very disappointed in you. I thought you were the car whisperer!

  24.  

    Lego

    one thousand words

  25.  

    Lego

    I haven’t thought of this before (well who am I anyway?) but maybe there is not much reason for the Broadway tunnel to be 4 lanes to motor vehicles. They just scream through it and stop/bunch-up at the ends (mentioned before and I always see it, fwiw) going either way which equals no net increase in travel speed. True throughput data might indicate otherwise. Maybe there’s some lane width to spare? Just thinking out loud.

  26.  

    Marvin Papas

    Don’t Bro me, Dude.

  27.  

    Gezellig

    Yup! Looks like just another normal storm grate:

    http://azbikelaw.org/contrib/data/grate-shamrell.jpg

    Unless you’re on a bike. And that grate takes up half or more of the bike lane.

  28.  

    Gezellig

    Yeah, I just wonder why the pilot couldn’t have been done on the non-Muni-boarding side of the street where the transit thing wouldn’t be an issue. Maybe also something to do with signaling?

  29.  

    Bob Gunderson

    But at least they get paid like they do a phenomenal job!

  30.  

    Bob Gunderson

    The Van Ness will probably take longer since they have to put in a bus stop every 5th of a mile. They might want to just call it BT

  31.  

    Chris

    Absolutely anything to change anything at Muni always takes much, much longer than initially predicted – Van Ness BRT, Geary BRT, TEP, and now this. Why is that? Should I just abandon my foolish dream that someday, somehow Muni will improve?

  32.  

    Lego

    Yes: in Soc Psych it’s called Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977)

  33.  

    bobster855

    Not with Photoshop around, no.

  34.  

    Lego

    I’m not following every inch of this latest thread, but Grant Av. in North Beach is one-way with two lanes of parking. I don’t appreciate it, but until proven mistaken, I probably agree with your statement:

    “A lot of the NIMBYs are fine with or even support traffic calming on
    their blocks–they just want to keep all the parking spaces”

  35.  

    Gezellig

    Re: SFFD then do whatever width is acceptable with the same one-way + both-sides parking setup on Precita and South Park. It’s not an unprecedented setup in SF.

    As you can see on the second rendering with over 11 feet for the travel lane it’s doable.

    Re: buses, what buses use 17th (in between Church and Kansas–as I mentioned earlier this is the stretch I was talking about) as a pass-through and on which blocks? And even if they do, there aren’t any stops on 17th so they absolutely can’t be rerouted? These are not world-ending insurmountable problems.

  36.  

    SFnative74

    No way the Fire Dept would accept a 9’6″ wide space (for good reason). Trucks couldn’t make it down the street either if anyone parks less than perfectly. And buses do use 17th to get to other routes. Also, the buffer between parking and the bikeway must be 4 feet minimum. The answer isn’t always as simple as it may seem.

  37.  

    Lego

    Yes, and many are alone in their cars and taking up the amount of lane space of the true side-by-siders. Indeed, the bias of motorists is so thorough that it should come as no surprise. But it never hurts to revisit and re-express it since bias-blindness abounds

  38.  

    Ryan

    I was thinking the same thing… I’ve only ridden through the tunnel a few times, but never had any problems with drivers (yet). Most cars happily pass in the left lane with plenty of room, as they should. It’s not hard to drive safely around cyclists, and won’t add more than a second or two of extra time onto your commute, if that. Just slow down and wait until it’s safe to go around, no big deal. I don’t get why so many drivers can’t do it properly without bitching and moaning.

  39.  

    Gezellig

    How about the redone 11.5′? City car lanes don’t get much wider than that. Plus, these setups aren’t unknown in SF. The streets around South Park and Precita Park have dual-side parking on their one-way streets, for example:

    I think there’s a lot more emotion-based outcry over loss of parking spaces than narrowing of travel lanes, which can even be seen as a benefit since a lot of the NIMBYs are fine with or even support traffic calming on their blocks–they just want to keep all the parking spaces.

  40.  

    Ryan

    Cyclists like the ones you speak of are the vast minority. You just don’t notice the other 99% of us when we’re respecting laws, or safely rolling stop signs while not getting in anyone’s way at all.

  41.  

    ladyfleur

    There’s more than just Caltrain connecting Diridon and Santa Clara stations. The VTA 522 Rapid connects them with an 18 minute ride at an economical price. During peak times/directions, the Capitol Corridor and ACE trains also make that run in about 12 minutes.

  42.  

    Bruce

    I like the idea. My concern (well, the concern of the parking-first crowd) would be that 9.5 feet with cars on both sides was not enough room to maneuver into a parallel parking space.

  43.  

    ladyfleur

    Where are you getting four blocks? The distance between Diridon and the downtown San Jose station is about 3/4 of a mile.

    Beside that, Diridon is the major transit hub, not Santa Clara: Caltrain (all trains), Amtrak Capitol Corridor & Coast Starlight, ACE Train, Hwy 17 & Monterey buses, plus a slew of VTA local buses. The Santa Clara to Diridon segment is redundant with Caltrain plus VTA’s #1 bus route.

    As for the SJC connection bus, it would be better served from Diridon instead of the lower-service Santa Clara Caltrain station regardless.

  44.  

    Gezellig

    How so? This kind of setup is not unique or exotic in the world and it works elsewhere.

    http://www.oozo.nl/Data/Streetview/hulpdiensten/1583619.jpg

    http://www.oozo.nl/data/woonwijs/1114046802/0.jpg

    Moving cars have to wait for the parallel parkers to finish (and parallel parkers should wait for traffic to be clear).

    But if you think about it this is already the case on 17th–since there is currently only one 9′ travel lane in each direction anyone parallel parking already blocks through traffic in that lane till they’re done. Through cars already can’t pass as it is (unless they go into the oncoming travel lane, which really shouldn’t be happening anyway).

    So, yes, it would continue to cause delays for through car traffic while people parked, but the question is are our neighborhood streets like 17th for throughput of cars or for living in?

    Btw, if the 9.5′ width I proposed is really not enough, make it 11.5′ (the max Streetmix will let you do without telling you it’s probably too wide):

    5.25b+11p+11.5c+11p+5.25b = 44

    There are lots of ways to rethink our streets :)

  45.  

    Lego

    Folsom Street bike lane took months. Please consider more carefully your strong ‘trust me’ assertions. Aggressive ignorance may be popular in this country*, but I gave it up a long time ago after conversing/sparring with people who wiped the floor with me. Please display some curiosity and discover why Folsom took such a short amount of time and what you can do to reduce the obstacles to versioning our infrastructure. For example there’s a community-engagement meeting tonight on Embarcadero plans. Nihilists welcome. Thanks

    *excepting that American who wisely advised “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”

  46.  

    Bruce

    Good idea in theory, but the travel lane isn’t wide enough for a car to parallel park in this scenario.

  47.  

    murphstahoe

    Transit ridership is up, but by the time Caltrain ridership levels demand 19 trains per hour, we’ll have a whole different set of issues to deal with.

  48.  

    murphstahoe

    and if you get to Diridon you can hop onto Caltrain and get to SCU. Or if you are coming from SF, you just take Caltrain in the first place.

    “Oh, but not very many trains stop at Santa Clara!!!’ you say?

    It would probably be cheaper to run special 2 car EMUs from Diridon to Santa Clara that meet the BART train as a shuttle for the next 100 years, than it would be to build the extension to SCU. And frankly, we have no idea what the Caltrain schedule will be like when a BART station in Santa Clara would open in what, 2030?

  49.  

    murphstahoe

    Cool story bro

  50.  

    Gezellig

    You mentioned 17th has car lanes 9′ feet + parking lanes 8′ wide. Assuming 5′ bike lanes that’s:

    5b+8p+9c+9c+8p+5b = 44′

    In the above retrofit I turned 17th into a one-way street for cars, removed a car travel lane, kept both parking lanes (to avoid parking wars–NIMBYs often seem more concerned about losing a parking lane rather than a travel lane). So that’s

    6.25b+11p+9.5c+11p+6.25b = 44′

    This setup could work great on the entire 1.5 mile stretch of 17th in the Mission (between Church and Kansas) which has no transit running on it so no Muni considerations needed.

    “That’s all great, but you can’t use that CVC section to justify riding side by side if it results in one of the riders being outside the bike lane.”

    For passing you can! And as far as I know there is no defined max window of time for how long max you’re allowed to overtake someone.

    Clearly, the poor condition of much of these infrastructure treatments means leaving the bike lane is a frequent occurrence and even the police seem to recognize this. With the huge exceptions in CVC21208 it’s my understanding it’s really hard to enforce. In fact, it’d probably be easier to enforce the rules against blocking bike lanes but SFPD is rarely known to do that, either. So they seem to accept that leaving the bike lane early and often for whatever reason is a thing.