Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    SF_Abe

    I think you misunderstood my comment. I think that permit policy should favor all San Franciscans (as all public policy should)– not just those with cars. Ya know, the whole “general welfare” thing.

    If that were to happen, I don’t think the result would be more “freedom” to drive.

  2.  

    Dave Moore

    The goal is not to have a large number of citations. Citations are only a means to the end of deterrence.

    Cyclist + pedestrian citations already are only about 5% of the total so that 95+% you ask for is already the case. For example in September (the last month I could find): http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/September-2014-Traffic-Citation-Report-for-the-Public-with-stations.pdf

    But that doesn’t really tell much of the story. Of the 11146 citations over 7000 are listed as “other” (over 60%). Are they very minor infractions, or does it represent a very long tail of difficult to classify things? Note: if you eliminate the “other” then the percentage of motor vehicle infractions falls to 87%. So the real number is somewhere between the two.

    What stands out to me is the tiny number of red light infractions, only 444. This seems like an easy target. Stick a cop on foot at a commonly run light with a chaser car a half block down the road. Wait 30 seconds. Like shooting ducks in a barrel. Most importantly once word got out people might change their behavior, which is the whole point.

  3.  

    jd_x

    It’s sad how a city that is supposedly so progressive has such poor leadership from the police department. It’s like SFPD is stuck in the car-centric 1960s while the Planning Department, MTA, etc are moving into the 21st century and realizing that Livable Cities are the future. There is a massive disconnect between the SFPD (and the SFFD, for that matter) and the agencies of the city which are changing our street designs to make roads safer and more convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users.

    “It’s a very fine line between issuing a quota to police officers to do something — they observe a violation and cite it. I cannot, by law, make them go out and issue a citation.”

    What? You don’t need any quotas. Just tell your officers to go out and cite the most egregious and dangerous violations on the streets. And use statistics, not your car-centric bias, to determine what those are. You will find that 95+% of your citations will be for motorists.

    Pedestrians and cyclists will forever be relegated to second-class citizens on our streets until there are massive changes in the mindset of SFPD away from a windshield perspective and towards a “complete street” view.

  4.  

    Jim

    The proposal for Clay between Montgomery and Sansome is to modify the part-time TOL to a 24-hour TOL. There isn’t a lot of traffic on that block, even when there are multiple drivers illegally making a right-turns onto Sansome. At Battery, the lane is usually blocked by right-turning drivers. This is further exacerbated by taxis queuing up and hotel guests parking their cars in the right turn lane.

    The 1 can run relatively fast on Clay between Montgomery and Front. The 1 on Clay runs at its slowest between Mason and Kearny.

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    Cyclists as an indicator species.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stanford-athlete-accused-of-raping-unconscious-6044286.php

    “The district attorney’s office said two students on bicycles stopped to help after finding freshman Brock Allen Turner, 19, on top of the woman in the early morning hours of Jan. 18 on Lomita Court, near fraternity houses on university grounds.”

    Two men in a car would not even notice the incident as they sped by. Cyclists (and pedestrians) are an indicator species of a healthy community.

  6.  

    chompsky

    You do realize this is about Mission st., right?

  7.  

    allisondan

    Wow, insight into what the data in SWITRS “really” means. She deserves a raise. Or maybe termination.

  8.  

    Christopher Champion

    “It’s unclear how widespread the resistance to streetscape changes is, as even opponents argued that attendance at the meeting seemed somewhat sparse and not representative of the neighborhood’s demographics”

    As the saying goes you opinion does not count if you do not vote.
    If the 10 people at this meeting where against it the city is not going to go through with this plan.

  9.  

    murphstahoe

    touted a slight dip in pedestrian fatalities from 2013 to 2014, from 21
    to 17. “What do they say? Numbers don’t lie,” Suhr said. “He did a good
    job.”

    As The Dude would say “Obviously you’re not a statistician”

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    “If the speed limit’s 25, you could be going 10 mph and be going too
    fast for conditions — you were speeding,” she said. “That would be a
    primary factor barring any other obvious collision factors.”

    Cops love anecdotes.

  11.  

    Crusselsprouts

    Classic Mannix(?).

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    “Who should parking permits favor if not SF residents who own cars?”

    Twitter employees from outside SF. They pay the most taxes.

  13.  

    Rick Bernardi

    The same Ann Mannix who backed up an anti-bike cop when he blamed the victims of a road rage assault:

    http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/03/13/nightmare-on-oak-street-couple-harassed-while-biking-blamed-by-sfpd/

  14.  

    NoeValleyJim

    I agree with what you are saying here.

  15.  

    sebra leaves

    That would allow too much freedom to drive for the citizens of San Francisco. I wouldn’t complain, but that is not how the system works now. You would have to re-write the RPP rules. Considering the last time the rules were re-written, you might not like the results. See the evidence on what happens when the SFMTA merely”simplifies” the rules:
    https://metermadness.wordpress.com/actions/

  16.  

    Bruce

    I believe that’s planned as part of this project (at least on Clay). They just need approval from the SFMTA board.

  17.  

    phoca2004

    Not an auspicious opening.

  18.  

    SF_Abe

    “Who should parking permits favor if not SF residents who own cars?”

    How about all SF residents, period?

  19.  

    Erick Arguello

    In our culture “Staying off the streets” means staying out of trouble.

    They spend a lot of time repairing the cars and creating murals on them. Keeps them focused on something positive that gives them pride in them selves and community. Bonding with others in a positive way.

  20.  

    murphstahoe

    “Later It also became a way to keep young men busy and off the streets.”

    I find it very odd that a car… is something that keeps people *off* the streets.

  21.  

    murphstahoe

    “residents that are driving in”

    I think that’s a contradiction.

  22.  

    murphstahoe

    Doesn’t anyone else recall the RPP was a ballot measure with an annual
    fee of $10 or less passed by the voters way before the SFMTA was
    created?

    No. Only carpetbaggers allowed on Streetsblog. What are you doing here, interloper?

  23.  

    Erick Arguello

    I agree. Does it also include ethnic and gender breakdowns? Growing up in the Mission buying a car was a sign of success for many immigrant and chicano families. Not a luxury car but anything on 4 wheels. The low rider culture comes from that prospective. Pride and culture. Later It also became a way to keep young men busy and off the streets. Today the lowriders are making a comeback in the Mission. They are visible at events and are cruising 24th and Mission St. on a more of a regular basis and making a political statement.

    The car culture is deep in our community, and not to say we don’t take the bus or do both or ride a bike.

    We also have many seniors who ride the bus in our neighborhood and we need to look at how effective these changes have been or not for everyone in the community, young and old and within different cultures.

  24.  

    murphstahoe

    The streets in the Excelsior take this to amusing levels, the drivers move their car onto the sidewalk, the driver waves to the street cleaner as it goes by, then moves the car back onto the street.

  25.  

    NoeValleyJim

    By skipping stops, Muni can run faster and carry more people with the same number of buses and drivers. This makes the buses less crowded. That is the main idea of TEP. The City can get more service for the same amount of money. People with disability already have a very excellent paratransit service.

    Car drivers are wealthier statistically than bus riders, I can show you the evidence if you like.

  26.  

    Jym Dyer

    Enforcement also seems targeted towards the poor. Old, shabby vehicles are more likely to be suspected as “abandoned” than shiny new ones. I’ve seen PCOs show up for this or other reported offenses and demur when they saw a BMW or Mercedes.

  27.  

    Erick Arguello

    In our area residents that are driving in are working class who go to the mom and pop immigrant business’s,non-profit services and local churches mostly Latino. We hear from the service non-profits and the immigrant business owners. I don’t know where the wealthier car drivers are going, maybe Valencia. I don’t have that info. We also hear about the overcrowding on buses that have made it dangerous for many that ride the buses on Mission St. We supported to keep the Bryant bus twice and added the 5 to 24th. Many seniors and persons with disability showed up to a public meeting with the MTA and expressed their concerns about walking further (26 Valencia).
    Thats an issue that needs to be addressed. I appreciate your opinions and ideas.

  28.  

    Jym Dyer

    They don’t tag it, they read the odometer. Then they come back after 72hrs and see whether the odometer has moved any.

  29.  

    Jym Dyer

    ⦿ Twice in the last week I’ve been at this stop when drivers headed into it. One was an Uber vehicle that sharply veered away at the last second, because everyone working for Uber is so highly-skilled. The other driver sped into stop but managed to slam on the brakes before the roadway ended. He did delay the train on the eastbound track while backing out.

    There is a white thermoplast line and an arrow directing motorists away from the stop and the tunnel, but they are worn down from cars driving atop them!

  30.  

    roymeo

    And to get in before the erroneous complaint(s): These are all already Bus Only lanes (for at least some part of the time) that are being painted red.

    The change is red paint, not that the lane is being “stolen” and turned into a transit lane.

  31.  

    roymeo

    Pretend you have a car and a place to live and a job that is a bit away from your place to live and a street-cleaning time on your street in your RPP that is during business hours when you need to be at your job. You could move your car out of the street-cleaning zone to some other street, but depending on schedules, finding that parking may be difficult. Or you may take the car somewhere, even somewhere you maybe don’t usually, because you know you’ll be able to find parking more easily when you return, such as after work.

    There’s a lot of stories about people in NYC who work from home on street-cleaning days so they can move the car, and I’ve seen it happening in the Noe Valley area, where a lot of one side of the street suddenly appears to park on the sidewalk while street-cleaning comes by.

  32.  

    roymeo

    Because parking isn’t a problem?

  33.  

    roymeo

    Someone living in the area should put a petition together to get an RPP.

  34.  

    sebra leaves

    This was already suggested turned down by the SFMTA, presumably for legal reasons. Go fix a problem that needs fixing. Like, why can’t the folks who want more service, such as the people in Bay View and Hunter’s point who want to extend the service of the T-Line, get more service and the folks who want to be left alone be left alone. Why does the SFMTA insist on spending money on programs the neighborhoods object to instead of spending money where neighborhoods want them to? SFMTA spends millions of dollars on consultants who do not represent the people, and refuse to listen to free advise. Is this because free advise if worthless?

  35.  

    sebra leaves

    Who should parking permits favor if not SF residents who own cars? Make up your mind. Do you want people to drive their cars or not? By having RPP a resident has a choice on whether to drive every day or only occasionally. RPP is necessary for SF residents who want to walk and bike or take public transit, otherwise, they have to drive their car every day just to re-park it.

  36.  

    Golden Gate Shark

    I wish we had permits in my neighborhood. Everyday is Carmageddon. houses with 10 people living in them and all having cars. It is crazy.

  37.  

    Golden Gate Shark

    that muni blowing the light is classic

  38.  

    jd_x

    Why is price a separate issue? Price is just one part of deciding whether or not to implement a permit program. Do you think residents would be as inclined to support an RPP zone in their neighborhood if it cost $10,000/yr? And how would that answer change if it was $10/yr? You can bet you would get very different levels of support. So the price is something you can’t just include from the discussion.

  39.  

    Dave Moore

    Which is why the cost of the RPP program is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s like Aaron’s continued quoting of “475,000 on-street spaces (which amount to a total length greater than California’s coastline)”. It may be true but it provides little insight into the matter at hand.

  40.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    If combining vehicle traffic and bicycle traffic is such a brilliant idea, why has every country that has high bicycle traffic abandoned it? Bicycles driving right next to cars, trucks and buses is dangerous and stressful for everybody, because there is no margin for error. Biking is never going to grow if we keep prioritizing cars traffic. Cycling needs to be safe, and mixing it with traffic makes it an extreme sport; not a reasonably safe way for people to get around.

  41.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    I always do ride directly over the bike sharrows because of the imaginary speed boost they provide, but drivers don’t pay any attention to bike sharrows at all. On the contrary, bike sharrows encourage drivers to be more aggressive towards cyclists. Every near-hit I’ve encountered with a car has been near a bicycle sharrow. They are absolutely a useless waste of paint, and do nothing to improve traffic safety. Signs would be more effective.

  42.  

    SF Guest

    Be aware not all residential neighborhoods have street cleaning, and these are the same neighborhoods where a car is likely to not move for weeks and even months so it’s extremely effective in these cases where a car owner thinks he/she has secured a long-term permanent parking space. SFMTA will come and tow it after giving a 72-hour warning.

  43.  

    Dave Moore

    What they can do is when a resident reports a car they can tag it then, and then see if it’s still there in 3 days. But of course a resident is unlikely to do this before he noticed it was there for a long time, probably like 3 days. So it’s not much more effective than weekly street cleaning, which has become the defacto limit.

  44.  

    SF Guest

    The SFMTA does enforce the 72-hour parking rule but mainly rely on residents to report it.

  45.  

    SF Guest

    Doesn’t anyone else recall the RPP was a ballot measure with an annual fee of $10 or less passed by the voters way before the SFMTA was created? There wasn’t all this impertinent discussion about how much a parking space is worth. That is an entirely different topic.

    ““We definitely do want to evolve the RPP program so it reflects the changing reality of how San Franciscans and visitors live and work, including the changing nature of car ownership,” said Rose.”

    The objective behind the program was to prevent non-SF commuters from driving into the city and parking in residential neighborhoods for free during business hours. That’s what voters approved and passed (I voted No).

    Using my perspective of the RPP’s intended goal no one would disagree non-SF commuters should not be allowed to park in SF residential neighborhoods for extended periods during regular business hours.

    Anyone’s opinion on how much those parking spaces are worth or how much the City can gain by converting them into a different function is irrelevant to the RPP’s intended goal or its implementation which is to prevent SF residential parking spaces from being hoarded by outsiders.

    Murph, BTW, we both know the SFMTA would charge market rates to implement the RPP if not for the state law which limits their fees to the cost of administering the program.

  46.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Yes this is a good solution for parking woes. I would add in that poor people get subsidized on a sliding scale.

  47.  

    SF Guest

    What makes you think that hasn’t already happened?

  48.  

    aslevin

    Palo Alto decided not to sue, but Atherton might (closed session today at 11:30), and now MP has scheduled a closed session, ugh. http://www.greencaltrain.com/2015/01/palo-alto-council-decides-not-to-litigate-caltrain-electrification-but-atherton-might/

  49.  

    94110

    A quick SB search on his replacement: http://sf.streetsblog.org/?s=Mannix

    Despite being involved in negative stories, seems like Mannix is willing to pick up the phone when SB calls.

  50.  

    crazyvag

    They could rent out a really expensive office with high wages paid to few people to jack up the “administrative costs”…