Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Does CHP have anything to do with ADA?


    Andy Chow

    Although it is not something I would do, but where it says it is illegal? If so, why did CHP approved it for operation? (every bus, including charter and transit, needs to be inspected by CHP before revenue operation.)



    My feeling is

    “we came for the blah…, and I did not care because I was not blah…”

    Leap is setting a bad precedent. It’s one thing to have a shop in a building that needs to be retrofitted. Leap intentionally converted their buses from ADA compliant to not. That’s junk.


    Andy Chow

    My feeling is that the person who filed the complaint isn’t going to use the service and doesn’t care if it goes away. If he lives in New York why not file a complaint against every dollar van in his town? Is having some kind of venture capital funding and a professional brand makes it more worthy of a complaint?

    The reality is that Leap provides a supplemental service, not lifeline core transit service. Leap is taking nothing away for those who want to ride Muni. Muni will continue to provide accessible service on the corridor and will provide para-transit service for those who can’t access fixed route Muni.


    Andy Chow

    Leap does have a CPUC permit so it is a transportation provider.


    Thomas Rogers

    The 30-Stockton improvements would help that route compete with services like Leap! Take the survey here, if you think your input differs from the Marina Community Association:

    I’ve been to a few equivalent meetings for the 22-Fillmore Transit Priority Project, and have actually been pleased with the level of support for these kinds of improvements.


    Mesozoic Polk

    The Mayor gets his eyes checked at the visionary office of Hiura & Hiura on Polk Street, so clearly he can’t be the person with the vision problems.



    Uber and Lyft at least have a vaguely colorable argument on this front,
    in that they can claim that they are networks that connect riders to

    Not really — if you take out the whole transportation element of these services, you have nothing left. No matter how they try to spin it, at the end of the day you’re paying for someone to take you somewhere.



    I think you’re right for most cases, but there are definitely cases when the police respond directly from the station. Like @94110 said, I’ve definitely seen cops go racing out of the 17th St & Valencia station and flip on their lights. So I think you do raise a valid point in a large difference between fire departments and police departments, but I still think it’s hard to argue that cops getting stuck in traffic in front of the station helps public safety.



    Having been nearly run over by a cruiser exiting the Mission Station (17th and Valencia) at high speed (driving fully across the sidewalk before taking the time to flip on the siren) seconds before a dozen plus officers came sprinting out of the station towards cars, I’m not sure I can completely accept your statement.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure requiring me to physically leap out of the way improves public safety.

    Maybe congestion will keep people safer.



    If the SFPD switched to bikes they would not get stuck in traffic. If the SFPD commuted to their new station on the T line then muni would be safer.


    Upright Biker

    Very observant, dude. That’s why I wrote “…previous crosswalk with flashing lights.”

    The point was that was a fine solution. All we needed to do was put in speed bumps. Now we have to beg and wait to cross the street, whether or not there are cars coming. Brilliant.



    By the way, the best part is this sentence: “In its terms of service, Leap says it “does not provide transportation services,” and that it is “not a transportation carrier.””

    Uber and Lyft at least have a vaguely colorable argument on this front, in that they can claim that they are networks that connect riders to drivers. Leap, on the other hand, is called “Leap Transit, Inc” for crying out loud. Their website talks about “our buses” and indicates that “Every bus has a Leap team member on board.” What are they selling if they aren’t providing transportation services? Do they think they are just an elaborate coconut water distribution service? Not buying it.



    Working that late means lots of overtime.



    Good. There are potential arguments to be made for things like legacy rental car or hotel shuttles without wheelchair lifts that equipping them would be too difficult and expensive. In such cases, companies need to do far more to provide accessible alternatives, but there’s at least an argument to be made for them. Leap already had wheelchair lifts. Accessibility didn’t fit with their aesthetic plan, so they ripped them out. That’s just wrong.

    Sometimes public transit is more difficult or expensive to operate because it actually has to serve the public at large with all of our many quirks and behaviors.



    The flashing lights were already there before the signal. It didn’t work.



    Sounds like a typical hater here. “Just copy the Dutch, Sweden, etc. and be done with it!” Typical narrow minded thinking that policies/standards/etc. in one part of the world can be implemented here. It doesn’t work that way. The US is not Sweden, Netherlands, etc.



    A news story had characterized the SFPD problem of congestion blocking access to the parking garage as a public safety issue. This is a misunderstanding. The police do not operate the same as the fire department, waiting at the station for an emergency call and then rushing to the scene. Instead the police are constantly mobile and roving their beat. When an emergency call comes, they could be anywhere in their beat area.

    The problem is actually an additional frustration for police officers commuting into and out of their HQ. It eats their time but doesn’t really affect public safety.



    Polk Street was an example of everyone getting a little bit of everything. This is a democracy so everyone gets a say in the project. I don’t understand why it is so hard for you people to understand that. It was only a “disaster” because bike advocates didn’t get what they wanted. Bike advocates are not the only stakeholders on Polk Street.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Ever wake up in the middle of the night fretting about your city or town’s future? Will the year 2030 find it bereft of nail salons and KFCs, tumbleweeds drifting past junked cars on its corroded streets? Or will your town be happy and healthy, perking along just fine? Take the viability quiz and find out! (Yes, livable streets issues are prominent factors.) Snazzy certificate at the end!



    This is a good step forward, but the city needs to establish parking maximums, similar to the .5/1 limit in the Market/Octavia Neighborhood Plan.
    Also, the city needs to get tough with banks who refuse to lend money to developers who don’t include parking. This could be an ordinance similar to previous ordinances forbidding the city from doing business with corporations who didn’t offer health care to their employees same-sex partners, as they did with married couples. This created an industry paradigm shift, and now companies who discriminate are the exception rather than the rule. This needs to happen with lenders who won’t loan without a certain amount of parking.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    I did, too.



    Re: “Wiggle Advocate to Publicly Shame Rude Wigglers….”:

    Initiating a negative public interaction with random strangers on the streets of a big city has never, ever been a good idea.

    It doesn’t matter if one feels some sort of kinship with or responsibility for other individuals who utilize the same favored mode of transportation–confrontation of any kind in the streets, even symbolic, can get quickly out of hand. Morgan Fitzgibbons is a smart guy; surely he must know this stunt can backfire. I hope he has planned accordingly.



    Cal Bike gained a member with me!

    As soon as I saw what they were doing to fight the drastic safety and health consequences a helmet law would bring to California I joined.



    Fantastic news. The fewer cars wasting space in this city, the better.





    I participated in the full afternoon of Vision Zero SF Task Force discussions and workshops subsequent to the survey walk. Rhonda Craft’s commented on SF as exemplary for the energy and diversity of its V0 community. We’ve been chosen as a vanguard city for how to proceed, missteps and all, not as a fully realized, extant V0 city. And it’s true that we’re unique for having been primarily community-initiated involved (Kudos to Leah S. and Nicole F.) and now added to the usual City agencies have a huge boost of talent from the SF Dept. of Public Health lead by Meghan Weir, and unprecedented contributions from the SFPD lead by Commander Mannix.



    I’m buying Bobby G a drink if he shows up!



    Awesome, last time was really fun–looking forward to it.


    Mike Fogel

    How do crossing guards stack up against other street safety improvements, like bulb-outs and daylighting – on a dollar-per-life-saved basis?


    David Marcus

    Alright! SF just took another step forward.



    Well, on small lots, underground parking may not be practical. And in any case it would need ground-level access, which takes up a significant amount of space.



    I have been in this business for more than 15 years.

    Interesting, I did not know this. What train agency have you worked for?



    Certain Marina residents go nuts over plans to improve the 30-Stockton


    Thomas Rogers

    Neat, just RSVP’d! Looking forward to meeting folks IRL. Who’s reserving a parking space for Bob Gunderson? ;)



    Basically it’s a way to force parking underground since other articles say that the parking doesn’t count against the density limit if they put it underground. No developer is going to want to waste their limited space on parking so this will basically reduce ground floor garages in most new development which is a good choice.


    Fedor Manin

    “[It would] not limit anyone’s ability to construct parking if they choose, they simply give people more options.” –

    If it counts parking spaces against density limits, doesn’t that, in fact, limit people’s ability to construct parking? Unless all density limits have also been raised to include the space that parking would have taken up before. Which I hope is the case, but given that this is San Francisco I somehow doubt it.


    Andy Chow

    …and that the $2 billion plan is just an idea, a bad one at best, and why would anyone bring it out as a serious alternative.

    It is not CPUC, but physics. Read up on the issue of dynamic envelope. Trains sway sideways when the train moves, due to track imperfection, wind, shifting loads, etc. The faster they move, the more they will sway. Many of the high platform stations in the East Coast are not exactly ADA compliant for this reason.

    ADA is not in effect in any other countries, and their ADA equivalent may allow much wider platform gaps or assisted boarding than ADA would allow. Something that may be acceptable and legal in Russia isn’t going to be okay with any disabled advisory committee around here (look at opposition to center poles in BART new cars).

    I am in favor of more Caltrain to Transbay, but I believe that there are other options to address the problem that has not been considered. I think the problem should be reframed as how to make Transbay platform compatible for different trains and allow unassisted boarding for all passengers.

    I have been in this business for more than 15 years. Why are you here if you think that you’re not relevant to the outcome? I cannot disagree with you more about this. Projects get slowed down if not stopped because the decision process was flawed and reasonable ideas were dismissed without consideration. Part of good planning is to take care of these issues early.

    Caltrain in 2011 pulled a fast one on the CAC and asked them to adopt eliminating Baby Bullet service to fill the budget gap (without presenting it to anyone before hand). The CAC members felt like that they had no choice but to accept the staff recommendation, which they did, but I told the committee that I object to the plan. A week later the JPB voted to keep not to adopt service cut but keep the existing service levels. So if I am the type that just go along to get along, then Caltrain certainly isn’t going to get 60000 daily ridership today.


    Jamison Wieser

    It’s more complicated… 4th & King is a clusterfuck and interlining the T-line trains was only meant to be a temporary solution until the Central Subway is completed:

    Currently the turning T-line trains create an extra light phase that blocks a few lanes of traffic and the N-Judah trains have to give each other some buffer space. This works at other branching points because they aren’t located at a major freeway offramp.

    When the Central Subway opens they will pass perpendicular, with through-moving traffic and happily sharing signal phases.

    In the meantime traffic gets backed up at 4th & King into Mission Bay that just interferes with T-line trains even worse and I had trouble getting a staffer to even admit it, but there were some intersections they gave cars priority to clear them out. I think Mariposa was one (the freeway offramp again) because more traffic that turns away at Mariposa, the less there is clogging up 4th & King.

    There will always be those who bitch about giving transit priority, but the SFMTA put a couple years of study, trial, and constant adjustment to find a balance that was about trying to keep frequency in Bayview evened out and do what they must to make the best of 4th & King until the Central Subway opens.

    I chaired the SFMTA’s citizen’s advisor council’s planning committer during the TEP and Central Subway’s environmental study. I have no idea how normal people would ever be able to wade through these things on their own (everyone is welcome to the advisor council meetings and the committee meetings where the council and public can directly ask staff WTF? and get an understandable answer) but I’ve read through iterations of the things and here’s a few details:

    A new option the Mission Bay loop opens up for Muni is to fix gaps further down the line by dispatching a shuttle all the way down to Sunnydale.


    Jamison Wieser

    Yep. Clinching proof the kids are being used disingenuously.

    I don’t think it’s completely specious for parents/teachers really concerned about the kids health and this supporting this lawsuit is a way to force SFMTA to address the problem.



    The $2bn Millbrae claim came from a cost estimation document produced by CAHSR shortly before the original four-tracks-all-the-way plan was shelved. This document was first brought to my attention by a commenter on cahsrblog, not by Clem Tillier. Argue the point, not the man.

    It makes very little sense to locate HSR platforms north of Millbrae, because then passengers transferring from HSR to BART or Caltrain would have to walk the length of the 400m platform to get to the existing BART or Caltrain platforms. If you must have separate platforms for HSR at Millbrae, the best way to achieve this is to remove a BART platform and give it to HSR; or simply demolish the entire station and start over. Either option would be cheaper than a $2bn tunnel, but neither would be as cheap as simply having HSR and Caltrain share the same platforms.

    It’s also false that high platforms cannot be placed on the mainline because of bypassing passenger and freight trains. It’s true that there is currently a CPUC regulation preventing this, but as freight trains on the peninsula do not carry oversized loads, there’s no technical reason why this can’t be waived.

    “it is not about finding a common height, but making Caltrain to adopt a height that it doesn’t need except for Transbay”

    That’s a HUGE ‘except’. The biggest problem with Caltrain right now is that, unlike BART, it doesn’t have a station in the Financial District of SF. Once Transbay is connected to the Caltrain line, the vast majority of people using Caltrain will be headed to or from that station, so it’s imperative that every Caltrain serves Transbay, which in turn requires a common platform height with HSR. Otherwise, each half hour you’ll have three train loads of people trying to cram on the one train that does continue to Transbay.

    Anyway, the decision makers appear to be moving in favor of compatibility, so what you and I think is not going to be relevant to the outcome.



    And it’s completely specious to the T-Third turnaround. She was complaining about residential construction in the article.



    The best way to address this is by working WITH the SFMTA, rather than working against it by filing a lawsuit that only delays (and increases the cost of) the inevitable.


    Jamison Wieser

    Hey now, there is every reason for concern about construction dust and the kids health.

    But this is a small detailed in the middle of the process that might need some better mitigations: spraying more water to minimize dust more, taller/better fencing or construction walls, scheduling to minimize overlap with class, what’s typically done in these situations?


    Andy Chow

    Your Millbrae claim (actually it is from Clem Tillier) is red herring. There’s space to the north and south for a pocket track and dedicated platforms. There’s no reason why all platforms must be in parallel. Also, because of bypassing trains (passenger and freight), high platforms should not be placed on the mainline otherwise the resulting platform gap would not be ADA compliant.

    People like Clem Tillier has no background in transportation operations (he may be a good number cruncher but that’s not good enough), and his values are simply personal. His bashes things like CBOSS. While it is not perfect, it addresses other things like grade crossing downtime that matters to people who drive and live around the tracks.

    It is time that another perspective is presented given other issues are ignored and the discussion is becoming one sided (it is not about finding a common height, but making Caltrain to adopt a height that it doesn’t need except for Transbay). Caltrain and HSR has more than enough detractors so it can’t afford to make any decision without considering all other factors and alternatives that Clem doesn’t give a shit about.


    Jamison Wieser

    Muni does it a lot less now than a few years ago, but to fix gaps and bunching nearer downtown Muni will have trains make “short turns” before reaching the outer terminal. (It’s most annoying/aggravating when they only announce it when you way out there already.)

    Creating a dedicated short-turn/shuttle line running at the same frequency is how they can reduce or eliminate the need for short turns.



    and it’s not really that hilly either. I use 2nd Street frequently. Also – 4th Street is going to have street car tracks the next time it’s usable.


    Ion Feldman

    It’s not flat, but I’m not sure going all the way to 4th St. to get a southbound bike lane is an attractive option.



    To be perfectly honest I am somewhat surprised they chose 2nd street, since at least from a biking perspective there are quite a few other streets that are a lot more flat and thus likely to attract the most causal bikers.



    Not immediately. There is a lot of work that will go on in the area (including at 19th to accommodate BAE’s trucks). At some point, there will be some repaving. The incremental cost of removing the tracks can be looked at then.