Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    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.

  2.  

    mx

    s/Rainbow Escalators/Extremely Delayed Rainbow Escalators/

  3.  

    Ted King

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

  4.  

    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?

  5.  

    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.

  6.  

    david vartanoff

    No battery backup???

  7.  

    alberto rossi

    Probably someone like Jamison can speak more knowledgably about it, but isn’t that the long-range plan? J, K, L and the Ocean View leg of the M all evicted from the subway tunnel (extended to Park Merced), where only 3 and 4 car M and N trains would run?

  8.  

    helloandyhihi

    Thank you for this story. This campaign took a small army of volunteers, under the inspiring leadership of Ilyse Magy.

    Actually, I’m blushing. It’s nice to get credit for the volunteer hours I contribute to SFTR. I certainly pitched in with this campaign. But many other people were far more involved with the crowdfunding campaign than myself. As an org, we’ll have to make sure they get acknowledged, too!

  9.  

    Mark

    My comparison of types of rail transit feeds directly into my argument that there is demand for a BART-like system in most of the city rather than an outdated streetcar system that has proven that it cannot do the job adequately in either speed or capacity. I have no problem keeping the L local, but make it a feeder line to something more robust.

  10.  

    RichLL

    I am not sure it is fair to compare the journey times of an underground train capable of 70 mph with a street-car that, for much of its journey, has to trundle along surface streets.

    And which has dozens of stops versus just the 6 intermediate stops that BART has from Daly City to Montgomery.

  11.  

    RichLL

    How do you define “leadership” there? It sounds like what you mean by “leadership” would be Tang going against what the majority of her district constituents wants and instead imposing your preferred ideology?

    First and foremost Tang is an elected representative. That means she must faithfully represent and support the values of her local voters. It’s certainly not her job to ignore them when it doesn’t suit her or you.

    Isn’t your real problem here with the preferences of the people who live there, and not with Tang at all? What part of being a “leader” means not listening to what’s important to the voters who elected you, and who may vote you out next time if you ignore them?

  12.  

    MayorLee

    The interviewer is just as snarky as the commenters. Go worship your bicycle in privacy!

  13.  

    timsmith

    If only there was some helpful indicator that a traffic signal was about to change from green to red. Perhaps the engineers in the audience could suggestion an idea, such as a special color between the phases to give motorists a helpful heads up, or perhaps even a means of “counting down” the time from green until red. Futuristic, yes, but think of all the lives it could save compared to the present state of chaos these so called “traffic control devices” impose!

  14.  

    Althaea

    Why don’t people just go to Europe, watch and see how its done properly, then come back and make it happen???

    Why?

    Not because the abundance of knowledge isn’t there, but because its the agenda here – whether overt or covert – that it doesn’t and never will happen.

    Until then, I don’t want to read or hear about anything. Yes, there’s going to be dozens, hundreds of martyrs and victims every year.

    There’s no mystery here. People need to wake up and understand that what’s going on here is a crime.

  15.  

    Jamison Wieser

    SFMTA is now implementing signal priority city-wide under that Muni Forward banner (and a new contract) and seen good results. Last year the SFMTA reported cutting five minutes off the 14-Mission.

  16.  

    mx

    Everyone always stops? You must be new in town.

  17.  

    sebra leaves

    Stop signs are the safest because everyone always stops, unlike a light that could change at any time, you know what to do at a stop sign. You can anticipate everyone’s movement. I prefer stop signs on smaller slower streets.

  18.  

    OneSF

    Signal priority has actually been implemented on the T recently according to Liz Brisson, a SFMTA transportation planner: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/4hl3b3/i_am_liz_brisson_an_sf_transportation_planner_bay/d2qkdly

  19.  

    Mark

    Or, better yet, walk from errand to errand, if possible. Most businesses on Taraval are the type that welcome foot traffic. Unless you’re buying a ton of lumber from Great Wall or shipping 50 packages at the post office, most people I see on the street are either walking or using transit, including those lugging bags from Safeway on MUNI trains.

    The problem in SF is that people are spoiled. They either have to have a parking spot directly in front of their destination available at all times or a MUNI stop at the end of their block. It’s not so much a matter of inconvenience, but that of entitlement. The more the city concedes to every single person’s demand nothing will ever get accomplished.

  20.  

    Jamison Wieser

    My hunch is the politicians are on pretty safe footing, unless the SFMTA has actually put in a boarding island already and Supervisor Tang takes a jackhammer to it.

    Having spent five years working on the TEP, I get a bit upset seeing something threatening to undo all that hard work. Which includes the community members who took the time to get involved with the TEP when these changes were first being planned. None of the arguments being made now are any different than we heard five-ten years ago when these changes were first being planned.

  21.  

    Mark

    That seems to be the case. I ride the L every day to work downtown and it’s always a crap shoot whether the commute will take 35 minutes or double that. A perfect illustration of the stupidity of SF transit planners and residents is the following: it takes 16 minutes to get from Daly City to Montgomery Station via BART, roughly 9 miles. The same distance on the L (let’s say from the Zoo) is at least triple that time. But, MUNI wants to improve speed (only) by 20% yet you hear whining from residents about the proposed improvements. You know what, SF? Keep your slow, antiquated system. You reap what you sow.

  22.  

    MrEricSir

    Yeah, exactly. Obviously the timeline on the performance goals didn’t make it, but it’s because of meddling supervisors (and endless meetings) that we still haven’t implemented all the TEP proposals. And the ones that we did are now in danger of getting rolled back, all so a couple loud motorists and have “their” parking spots.

  23.  

    Mark

    She clearly hasn’t seen Wiener’s massive SF subway plan. Then again, neither have we.

  24.  

    Mark

    I live two blocks from Taraval. People who park usually park in one spot and call it a day. They don’t find a parking spot, hit up the post office, then drive to another parking spot, hang out in a cafe, etc. Or, like many drivers, they run their quick errands without feeding the meters. Hang out on 28th/Taraval and you’ll see it happen more often than not.

    I guess since she’s ridden MUNI for all those years that gives her an excuse not to participate in the 30-day challenge which really reveals a lot about her character. Rather than rise to the challenge and really connect with issues MUNI riders face she dismisses it and offers a lame excuse why.

    Signal priority? Hasn’t been implemented on the T line since it opened 10 years in spite of the promise so you can bet it won’t be happening on the L either.

    Consolidation of stops which would speed service is being held up by some seniors who don’t want to walk an extra block or two. Last time I checked, public transit wasn’t designed specifically for one demographic group. Typical SF “it’s all about me” mentality.

  25.  

    mx

    Ah yes, the Prop E that set the 85% on-time standard for Muni to be met 12 years ago. We’re still at 60%, and it’s embarrassingly even worse, 53%, for the light rail and the historic streetcar category the L falls into. As a sidenote, I’d far rather scrap the “on-time” standard and focus on consistent and reliable headways instead, which is what actually matters to most riders.

    In any case, the idea that a supervisor should be sued for holding meetings with her constituents about changes the city is making in their neighborhood is preposterous.

  26.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Like @MrEricSir:disqus stated, Prop E (1999) created the SFMTA. I think where he’s going with this is that voters also established performance goals for the Muni service along with the SFMTA.

    So if a Supervisor or Mayor puts up an obstacle to letting the SFMTA get on with its job, does that put them in questionable legal territory? Is that what you where trying to get at?

  27.  

    MrEricSir

    Sigh… name reuse. Yet another failure when it comes to ballot props.

    No, I was referring to 1999’s prop E, the one that created SFMTA in the first place.

  28.  

    david vartanoff

    “KT: Just relaying people’s concerns. It’s an artery for cars”
    No, Taraval is an artery for people no matter which way they choose to travel. Commercial areas grow up on transit routes because that is how many customers reach them.

  29.  

    mx

    Which Prop E? If you mean last year’s public meeting initiative, it lost.

  30.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The KQED article is syndicated from last week’s Berkeleyside article here:

    http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/05/12/bike-lane-opens-in-berkeley-by-near-fatal-crash-site-no-charges-filed-yet-against-driver-who-police-say-was-high/

    … which has more information about both the bike lane and the case against the driver who ran over the bicyclists (tl;dr: felony DUI with enhancements).

    I always like a nice bike lane but to be honest I don’t understand this one, which I just had to ride this morning. There’s not a proper right turn merge for the cars at Channing. Instead they have to stop and turn across the bike lane, and in general I also have to say that most of the bicyclists are not stopping. So there’s bound to be conflicts. Why did they design it like that?

  31.  

    MrEricSir

    So is everyone just going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs while a supervisor flagrantly violates Prop E? What in the actual fuck?! Where’s the lawsuit?

  32.  

    Dre Hund

    Tim didn’t just get a painful weekend. He’s going to be hurting for a long time.

    Amazing this was caught on video. I thought the Russians were the kings of car videos.

  33.  

    jd_x

    Great interview, especially since you asked tough questions.

    Tang strikes me as someone who is caught in a mental no-man’s land. On one hand,she sorta, kinda seems to recognize the car-centric past is not the future. After all, why even grant an interview with Streetsblog?

    But on the other hand, she isn’t showing the clarity that is apparent when someone truly gets that we cannot continue to build our city around cars. For example, her excuse for losing the Muni Challenge was that she rides all the time but didn’t feel the need to publicize it. What kind of disconnect is that?! The *exact* point of the challenge was to publicize public transit and show citizens that even their leaders take Muni. It’s in fact all about publicizing it, and if you don’t get that, you’re a poor leader who completely missed the point.

    But even worse is her excuse about merchants on “pins and needles”. Or talking about looking “at places where it has worked”? What is she even talking about? Of course you look to places where it’s worked, and the City has done that, and we so know it works. She’s tying herself in a knot trying to explain all her mental paradoxes. She seems to be clawing at excuses as to why she can’t just admit that these merchants are wrong and that making the street safer for public transit users and pedestrians will make it better for their businesses. This is like Urban Transit 101. But not for Tang who seems to think there’s a debate to be had because car parking is another issue that is just as important as anything else, like people’s safety.

  34.  

    murphstahoe

    I think the general sense of riding getting more dangerous here ignores that the control variables are not static.

    I commuted to Caltrain from Noe Valley from 2002-2012. In that period the conditions I saw on a daily basis got substantially better – there is no way you can compare 2002 era Townsend or Cesar Chavez with today, if you only look at the roadway conditions.

    However, the changes in infrastructure have not kept pace with the general growth in the city. Townsend is harder to navigate despite the great bike lanes because Caltrain is now carrying over 2x the passenger load it used to, and other businesses have appeared in the area, meaning that moderately improved infrastructure is handling 3x as many people. Valencia is better designed but overrun. Market? Forgettaboutit.

    If you look at places where the craziness hasn’t taken as much hold – Bayshore, Alemany, Sloat – it’s substantially more pleasant to ride than it used to be.

  35.  

    TimDoyle

    Will do.

  36.  

    TimDoyle

    Yeah you’ll have to fault me on that one. I’m the guy who got hit. I was in state of shock in the ambulance so I my interview I said in the SFPD car came out of a curbside parking spot. All I saw was a car that seemed stopped on the right curb suddenly jolt and come right at me. Thank god for the video because it shows everything.

  37.  

    TimDoyle

    I couldn’t agree more with statement that riding is getting more dangerous not less. I was at the first days of Critical Mass in the early 90’s, a once great movement has been splintered and diluted. (also the early days of The SF Bike Coalition) With a city government that allows and encourages “disruptive” technology companies (uber Lyft) flood the streets with unlimited cars and takes money from their VC’s like Ron Conway we as cyclists are in a fight for our existence. The decline and fall of cycling in this city can be marked with the mayoral election of 2003 between Matt Gonzalez and Gavin Newsom. Had Gonzalez won and been a two term Mayor this city would have been so much better for riding a bike in the city. I know I am getting “political”, but one has too.

  38.  

    City Resident

    Thank you for a great interview!

  39.  

    Jamison Wieser

    KT: …it’s a little disjointed. So people tend to do things by car and they’ll stop here at the post office, and stop here at the cafe, and stop here to do dry cleaning. Because people drive so much, that’s why there’s parking. I’m just reflecting what they’re saying.

    Supervisor Tang has such a one-size-fits-all notation of community needs. A lot of people tend to do things by car, but that’s not the entire population.

    For a variety of reasons from choice, to age, vision, or mobility issues, to the fact its illegal for a 10 year old to drive, there are a lot of people who use Taraval who are not driving themselves around and don’t deserve to be put at a disadvantage with less reliable, slower, and dangerous to exit Muni as their alternative.

  40.  

    njudah

    It’s clear Ms. Tang is very uninformed about what’s REALLY happening, and her “concern trolling” of changes real and suggested, shows she’s trying to have it both ways with everyone. It’s a shame we can’t have a supervisor that’s not a Mayoral appointment out there…

  41.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Oh so telling:

    KT: Taraval’s a little different from Mission. I don’t know that Taraval necessarily warrants the red carpets to be honest. In my experience growing up always around the L line, I’ve never seen the cars being the issue for the L–cars blocking the train.

    On one hand the SFMTA has 29,000 daily L riders with slow, unreliable service, and about 4-5 riders hit per year exiting the train into traffic.

    The SFMTA wants to speed up the line by 20%, but Supervisor Tang seems to want to keep things just as slow and unsafe as they are today.

  42.  

    Jamison Wieser

    On Taraval it’s kind of like, here’s a tranche, here’s a tranche–it’s a little disjointed. So people tend to do things by car and they’ll stop here at the post office, and stop here at the cafe, and stop here to do dry cleaning. Because people drive so much, that’s why there’s parking. I’m just reflecting what they’re saying.

    I may be getting a bit far fetched here, but with businesses spread along a single long corridor, it would actually make a good candidate for a light-rail or high-capacity transit line.

    Supervisor Tang doesn’t even seem interested in looking beyond what drivers are complaining to her about, but throughout the city and the world, many people in a similar situation will go from errand to errand using transit or a mix or transit and car.

  43.  

    Jamison Wieser

    KT: I agree with MTA’s position. They have data that people are getting hit. Boarding islands are non-negotiable.

    Does that really mean boarding islands are non-negotiable? I emailed her directly and she indicated she supported the stops which were getting boarding platforms would be getting boarding platforms, but didn’t even count the five “pilot” stops where SFMTA plans to install boarding platforms only after a crash.

    I would really like to see Supervisor Tang stop pussyfooting around: are we getting a safe taraval with boarding islands, or does the Supervisor still want some exceptions where merchants want parking over safety?

  44.  

    Parker

    She doesn’t want to promote riding Muni in her district, and blames her lack of leadership on her constituents. Odd. At least she’s willing to be interviewed I guess.

  45.  

    davistrain

    The only place I’ve ever seen automobile parking referred to as “car storage” is in Streetsblog postings. To most Americans outside of SB-land, “car storage” means a lot, usually in an industrial area, where inoperable vehicles (sometimes called “project cars”), travel trailers and motor homes are stashed.

  46.  

    Als

    “People tend to do things by car”…..like hit people trying to get off a stopped Muni train.

  47.  

    Bob Gunderson

    THANK YOU!!! Someone needed take this article as opportunity to bash bikers and also win Bike Cliche Bingo!

  48.  

    HMM burritos

    The police officer was not parked. There clearly was a right turn signal on when he went left across a solid white line without regard for safety.

  49.  

    Michael Morris

    We need an environmental review for the status quo

  50.  

    muttride

    I have been a bicycle commuter for 25 years, on and off, in various american cities and two different countries. While I love to ride in SF, and will continue to do so, I believe bike riding is getting more dangerous here, not less.

    I want to see my elected officials comment on this situation. Better, I want to see them ON THE STREET. How many supervisors rode on Bike To Work Day? I rode in the District 9 convoy, but David Campos was not on the ride. Who else was absent? Did the mayor ride? Any comments from his office?

    If elected officials cannot ride (fear, apathy, health issues) that’s fine. That’s what public transit is for. Last year SF Transit Riders issued a challenge for city supervisors and the mayor to ride public transit in the month of June and document how many times they did so.

    Check out the totals here … speaks for itself.

    http://sftransitriders.org/munichallenge/