Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    sojourner_7

    Yesterday, the State of California held its Cap & Trade Carbon auction. Jerry Brown had expected to sell $500 million worth of carbon credits, with the bulk of the proceeds to be spent on HSR and transit projects. They only sold $10 mil, or about 2% of what was expected. Cap & trade is seen as stumbling, and there is the chance it will not be renewed in 2020. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article79931332.html

  2.  

    RichLL

    Yes, you continue to be correct. Alberto’s suggestion is redundant for the reason we both agree on.

  3.  

    roymeo

    So: Right turns at a Stop sign are already illegal unless you come to a full stop.

  4.  

    RichLL

    SFO flies 50 million people a year on over 400,000 aircraft movements. Internationally it serves 40 different cities on 34 different airlines.

    SJC flies about 10 million people a year on 130,000 aircraft movements, and has only a handful of international destinations. It is constrained for further expansion due to its proximity to the city center.

    Flying to and from SJC isn’t an option for most fliers, and that will not change.

  5.  

    murphstahoe

    Millbrae is already airport parking. You have to book weeks in advance to get to park there for flights – because it’s SIX dollars a day

  6.  

    RichLL

    Correct. Alberto seemed to think that banning a right turn on red was an option for the city. It is not, but the problem is not as widespread as he claimed, as I thought I explained clearly. Do you disagree?

  7.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Any airline or flight which doesn’t fly out of SJC is a candidate for rides coming up from the South Bay or Central Valley.

    There is an extra transfer though for anyone arriving in Millbrae to BART and then to the airport peoplemover to the terminal to the plane.

    I’ve always wondered about converting/adapting the BART right of way between Millbrae and SFO into the airport peoplemover. There would still be BART to both SFO and Millbrae, the link between them would get taken over by the peoplemover. That seems like it could also make use of Millbrae as airport parking and a car rental hub (there are small rental lots closer to Millbrae than SFO already) and could alleviate pressure on parking/pickup car congestion at the airport proper.

  8.  

    murphstahoe

    dude

  9.  

    murphstahoe

    This is silly. They didn’t tear down the tracks from SFO to Millbrae, they aren’t using them because the ridership didn’t dictate using that connection. If and when HSR takes off, we can run trains there.

    Since when was the important link for HSR the all important SF to Sacramento route? The two main population and business centers in California are SF and Los Angeles. Period.

  10.  

    murphstahoe

    I’m trying to figure out the use case for SFO to HSR. If you’re going to SF, you’d just take BART. If you are going to San Jose, you’d … fly into San Jose….

  11.  

    Dave Campbell

    The bike ride from Daly City BART to SF State ranks somewhere between riding southbound shoulders of 580 on the Richmond side of the Richmond San Rafael Bridge, and taking a nap in the I-80 and hoping you wake up. Thanks for shining a light on this issue.

  12.  

    Josh Handel

    It was great meeting you Roger, I’m sure I’ll see more of you in the future!

  13.  

    shotwellian

    To avoid the hill going back up from Brotherhood on St. Charles, you can head west on Brotherhood and reach SFSU via Chumasero and the other streets of Park Merced. The Brotherhood bike lanes end west of St. Charles, but the light to cross Brotherhood is long enough that you can typically reach Chumasero, just west of Junipero Serra, before the cars start moving again. This route also allows you to avoid waiting through the endless lights at Holloway / Junipero Serra and Holloway / 19th.

  14.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    If SF State could push for these improvements to happen, it would be a great contribution to the city.

  15.  

    roymeo

    “Right turns on red are already illegal unless you come to a full stop.” So what you’re saying is that right turns on red are not illegal at all, but that you have to come to a complete stop at a red.

  16.  

    Steven Rappolee

    I blogged about this a little while now :)

    https://yellowdragonblog.com/?s=california+high+speed+rail++

    The idea is thus; (A) CHSR comes up the 101 and jointly funds and builds the San Jose tunnel with BAR/VTA.The partnership can involve bonds from multiple agencies owed to one another(Tunnel arbitrage) One agency might owe more or own more than the others (B) Caltrain is also a partner in the funding and borrowing for the tunnels.The end product would look like MUNI/Bart in downtown SF.(C) An ESOP would own a for profit entity that would fund & own/lease the CHSR stock and track and jointly own Caltrain track and stock.A minority of both systems would be managed/owned by CHSR and Caltrans.The ESOP is a leveraged one that borrows to build the system( it owns/owes the high speed rail bonds) and retired bonds become equity to the ESOP.Caltrans and high speed rail would in reality be under a common ownership.

  17.  

    RichLL

    I agree. But wasn’t there a problem with running the route though “lower income” areas (i.e. the East Bay) by virtue of CEQA? I recall someone here saying that, which totally stunned me. Instead HSR has to be routed through the affluent communities of the Peninsula.

    In other words, the “lower income folks” (and we all know what that really means) don’t get a decent train service because we don’t want to subject them to environmental factors.

    And won’t these trains be electric anyway? Meaning zero pollution?

  18.  

    RichLL

    Right turns on red are already illegal unless you come to a full stop. And if you come to a full stop and then turn if and only if it is safe and clear to do so, then there is no risk or problem.

    The issue here is what the fine should be for making that turn without stopping. The ability to turn right on red is a state law. While SF can make specific exceptions to that default, the city cannot give itself a blanket exemption from state law.

    The city can change fines and enforcement priorities, as we saw recently with the proposed bike yield change that ultimately failed. But not change the law itself.

  19.  

    escalinci

    Surely SF has money for segregated lanes on larger streets like this? Keeping motor traffic separate except on low-speed streets is the only thing that really mitigates against user error, and hence makes people feel safe enough to cycle, since I don’t think the average person wants their health to be subject to another’s momentary inattention.

  20.  

    alberto rossi

    We should be banning right turns on red, not tinkering with the fine

  21.  

    Mark

    Yep. Now that San Bruno is the “official” BART transfer station most times, without a direct Caltrain transfer, it gets more and more ridiculous. The proposed HSR plan makes getting from SF to Sacto longer than driving as it has to run south and over to Merced and back up the Central Valley. Oakland doesn’t get a station. Fortunately, when all is said and done I will be happily living out of state.

    HSR should run from SJ to OAK and under the bay to SF with additional spurs from SF and SJ to Sacto.

  22.  

    PASS Signs

    I think some of this money should be used to promote the “distracted driver” and “distracted pedestrian” syndrome. I agree that streets and bike lanes need better safety. However, we have to address why the problem is happening and that is because of distracted drivers. Thanks Jeff with passsigns.com

  23.  

    OaktownPRE

    One thing I know for sure is that nobody arriving at SFO will ever be able to immediately get onto the HSR service. Because of America’s finest transportation professionals, when those people arrive at SFO and want to actually get to HSR they’re in for an airport peoplemover ride, followed by a BART ride to finally get there. As taxpayers, we also get to pay for rebuilding the Millbrae BART monstrosity to accommodate HSR as room for the required tracks apparently wasn’t considered.

  24.  

    Justin

    “Editorial: Support Prop C for More Exclusionary Housing” Roger I think you meant to say INCLUSIONARY housing which is what the article actually talks about or the editorial that is

  25.  

    p_chazz

    Can hardly wait for robots to replace Muni drivers who abandon their passengers to take breaks.

  26.  

    enantiomer2000

    Vacuums tend to be pretty quiet and they are using magnets as propulsion. Should be pretty quiet.

  27.  

    murphstahoe

    If the infrastructure is better, and there are more riders, why do you feel less safe? Are you perhaps more safe but just more aware of the potential dangers than you were ten years ago? Or is there something else?

    I think this is the sort of question that the city needs to think about…

  28.  

    Gills

    And despite the increase in riders and bike lanes I feel less safe than I did ten years ago. I’ve stopped riding because the infrastructure just isn’t good enough. I don’t want to end up like these poor people.

  29.  

    CU

    Beautiful story, thanks for covering this important & powerful event Roger!

  30.  

    Wendy

    Presently, Vision Zero is mostly bureaucratic jawboning whereas, I think, there should be more of a focus on plain old traffic engineering. There is a study – done by the MTA – showing that while their 20-year redlight camera experiment hasn’t made a difference, the minor engineering improvements made at the camera enforced intersection have made a lot of difference.

    For those who would like to read that study, do a Google on (in quotation marks) “SFMTA Red Light Camera Annual Report 2014” and then
    click on the link to the highwayrobbery webpage, and then scroll down to Set #
    4.

  31.  

    jd_x

    I never said they did have a constitutional duty to do so. I said that the department is biased. And that’s wrong in my books.

  32.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    This neighborhood definitely needs some TLC. The removal of the mini-freeway and other improvements around the lake makes this more apparent. Right now, the most direct access to the lake from Laney College and OMCA is via an unsigned driveway from E 10th St. Homeless encampments along the channel and graffiti on the bridges are symptoms of the emptiness and lack of eyes on the street here. In fact, I was robbed while walking home from BART in the Kaiser parking lot. The area is just plain unsafe.

  33.  

    p_chazz

    Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0 ; and just because someone has a different vision from you doesn’t make him wrong.

  34.  

    AhmadChalabisFoRealz

    Telling inconvenient truths?

  35.  

    murphstahoe

    That’s what the SFGate comments section is for.

  36.  

    jd_x

    Suhr was doing a very poor job of adapting to the changing expectations from this city over how its streets should be used, i.e. not just for cars. Not to mention how bad street crime has gotten in this city on his watch, now the worst per capita in the nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/us/san-francisco-torn-as-some-see-street-behavior-worsen.html?). Honestly, I think he has been pathetic as a leader. The police force and its ridiculous car-centric bias (as well as its even more ridiculous bias against minorities) comes from the top. Suhr has had yeas to fix it, if he really could and wanted to, and nothing has changed. So he needed to go. But now the question is: can we find somebody better? That’s what worries me most, that his replacement will be more of the same.

  37.  

    roymeo

    Boy, that is “complex”. In order to provide balance when critiquing the specific actions of a specific police chief one must “spend an equal amount of time on the impact of crime”.
    The false dichotomy is built into your original post.

  38.  

    AhmadChalabisFoRealz

    No, you clearly missed the point. Its that Streetsbliog finds fit to doscuss the impact of policing on street life (a fair issue) but rarerely on the impact of criminals and crime on destroying communities and normal street life, particularly in liow-income neighborhhods…i know that most people here live in a worls of duality (cops bad/never good), but sometimes life requires complex analysis.

  39.  

    roymeo

    Because if you don’t support Greg Suhr as the SF Chief of Police, you are therefore pro-criminal? What country are you from that critique is seen as an offense?

  40.  

    AhmadChalabisFoRealz

    Very interesting post. It would be good if you spend an equal amount of time on the impact of crime and criminals on streets and street life.

  41.  

    davravidumn

    Whatever became of Joshua Calder? Did he at least serve time in prison?

  42.  

    steveintoronto

    [People climb Everest every year and we don’t go around claiming people
    calling “difficult” are overstating things given that people do in fact
    summit the mountain.]
    Huh? Since when was sensible commuting a simile for mountain climbing?

  43.  

    davistrain

    I’m rather amused by the slogan “Make Transit Awesome”. Transit doesn’t have to be “awesome”–just make it frequent, reliable and comfortable.

  44.  

    Justin

    Realistically, chances are that the culture and the status quo at SFPD regardless of who is the police chief will remain unchanged period. Police officers will still blame bicyclists for collisions they are not at fault of, waste resources for bike enforcement that have no effectiveness in making streets safer as well as oppose any proposals such as the Bike Yield Law or the Idaho Stop Law. I am doubtful any reforms will occur unless I actually see it happen. Just being realistic and not trying to paint a gray gloomy picture, but don’t expect any huge changes soon, long term, meh, maybe.

  45.  

    Mark

    re: second tube.

    Misleading article that only provides mere speculation of a tube “in the far off future.” LA will have built hundreds of miles of mass transit before a single shovel of dirt is turned for a new BART tube.

  46.  

    mx

    s/Rainbow Escalators/Extremely Delayed Rainbow Escalators/

  47.  

    Ted King

    s/Castro Rainbow Elevators/Castro Stn. Rainbow Escalators/

  48.  

    Prinzrob

    You should also check out the every-other-month Measure DD Coalition meetings (http://www.waterfrontaction.org/dd/) and monthly Oakland Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission meetings (http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/BicycleandPedestrianProgram/BPAC/index.htm) for all the latest on the many infrastructure projects that are underway, up and coming, or planned for future phases. These meetings are also an opportunity to speak with staff working on the projects and provide direct input.

    With all of the bike/ped projects planned along the Lake Merritt Channel, as well as the Bay Trail gap closures along Embarcadero from Downtown Oakland to the Coliseum, conditions are going to change before too long in a way I don’t think many people yet appreciate. I foresee a future bike/ped highway connecting the planned Brooklyn Basin development and Lake Merritt, even though that pathway along Laney College is now quite sleepy and deserted.

    Speaking of the bike/ped commission, there is a meeting tonight at city hall (6-8pm) where the group will receive an update on four separate cycletrack projects the city is submitting for possible state ATP grant funding (14th St, W Grand Ave, Fruitvale Ave, and 66th Ave), including multiple protected intersections. See you there?

  49.  

    Mark

    I may not have been on any committees, but I am more in the know than your average SF citizen. Several transit enthusiasts have pressed for removing many of the surface lines from the Market St. tunnel, but I have never read any SFMTA proposal that calls for that change. 4-car trains could never fly in older stations, like FH and WP. The platforms would have to be extended to accommodate. Although putting the M underground at WP is a consideration, the station would have to be completely rebuilt to serve both the M and surface K and L lines.

  50.  

    david vartanoff

    No battery backup???