Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    shamelessly

    The point is also to make it worth a driver’s time to drive in crazy conditions. I’m no fan of Uber, but if you look at surge pricing from the perspective of Uber’s drivers, it makes more sense.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

  3.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The sfist commenters are right. Yesterday’s surge factor was not nearly a record. Anyway the point of the surge factor is to curb demand. Pricing is one way to allocate finite resources.

  4.  

    Sprague

    don’t forget the 28 and 33 lines (which serve BART stations at Daly City and 16th St)

  5.  

    Sprague

    Looking at the plan pictured in the article above, it’s too bad that right turning vehicles must cross through the bike lane prior to the intersection. This is not protected. A safer arrangement (that also has better potential to encourage higher bike ridership/better usage) would be for the bike lane to remain removed from motor vehicles until the intersection, like a sidewalk separates pedestrians until the intersection. Masonic Avenues’ planned redesign gets this right (see http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/06/26/sfcta-board-approves-funding-for-masonic-second-street-and-more/). Sure, these proposed changes to Telegraph are welcome and much better than what’s there now (but higher bicycle mode share would be captured if the new lanes would be “protected” for the length of the block). (I believe that bicycle advocates called for such a design.)

  6.  

    yermom72

    How about banning “smart”phones in cars?

  7.  

    voltairesmistress

    Seems like these two supervisors are trying to prove their pedestrian-friendly chops after months of defending drivers’ prerogatives like free street parking. Perhaps Prop L’s defeat showed them that even their west-side constituents want more transit and more safety, not a suburban drivers’ paradise in San Francisco. Still, why don’t they just get on board with the police’s Focus on the Five program? Oh, I guess they want to appear to be doing something unique, something they can boast to their constituents about at election time. This is all about them, not about supporting best practices. And like many things in San Francisco politics, Vision Zero will never become a reality if we don’t prioritize what is most effective. I remain unconvinced by Tang and Yee’s commitment to anyone but themselves.

  8.  

    Mario Tanev

    I can understand why they did it (they need the resources elsewhere). But why they had to announce it is beyond me, what is the rationale for that?

  9.  

    Prinzrob

    City Council added an amendment to the staff recommendations, indicating that shared lanes are not to be used within any part of the project area, including the Temescal segment. This sets a base level of accommodation for staff to study, so the choice will be for stake holders to decide whether they prefer to remove parking or a travel lane in order to install a dedicated bikeway, and staff can determine whether a standard, buffered, or protected bikeway makes the most sense.

  10.  

    theqin

    What about police cars parked in the sharrow lane on Market St. The police were just standing around on the sidewalk, no imminent emergency in sight. They also failed to ticket all of the Uber drivers stopped in other shadow lanes on Market St.

    We all know Uber tracks their vehicles and pickups and drop offs, maybe they should pass some legislation so the city gets vehicle location from Uber and automatically tickets drivers who have stopped to make an illegal pickup or drop off.

  11.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Yes let’s keep discussing how we can continue to have gobs of personal 2 ton machines moving thru a densely populated city at high velocities, safely.
    http://dearestdistrict5.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-effort-to-make-street-sewers-safer.html

  12.  

    Joel

    Parking meter enforcement has been suspended for today… is Muni free today? I can probably guess the answer to that…

  13.  

    cralledode

    Hard to imagine how this is more transit accessible than the Oracle Arena. BART > Muni every time. High speed, grade separated regional transit is always more useful during major sporting events than street-level, at-grade trolley lines.

  14.  

    mcva

    AT&T holds more than 40,000. In comparison, the new Warriors arena is planning to hold 18,000.

    The best way to get to games will probably be by bicycle.

  15.  

    Drooling_Sheep

    AT&T park has just over twice as many seats as the future Warriors arena will. I’m not sure how well the T can cope with post-game ridership, though. The platforms are not very wide. Maybe they can put the stairs down and block off the street to allow boarding a second train away from the platform.

  16.  

    SF Guest

    The inherent problem with the Mission Bay stadium is there are only two main thoroughfares to access it — 3rd St. and 16th St. I know someone who works at Mission Bay, and during a Giants game it’s already rough leaving that area because they close off a lane on 3rd St. Closing a lane off on a major artery is like adding salt to a wound

    I don’t know if Muni can handle the extra load but they better develop a plan. Driving to the stadium won’t be a viable option but there will always be those who do it anyway.

  17.  

    YWHYKNOT

    I kind of agree. But I am actually happy they took the Temescal neighborhood out of the plan in order to redesign that section at a later date. What they came up with was basically a few sharrows, and at many locations made the street worse than it is currently for anyone other than vehicles. Their idea to do nothing at the 51st street freeway on-ramp intersection was particularly disappointing.

    I hope they come up with something better than that in the Temescal neighborhood. I’ve said many times, Telegraph (especially in Temescal, South Berkeley area) has the potential to be a truly world class street. Let’s hope they get closer with their next iteration

  18.  

    cralledode

    Then get your neighbors out to the community meetings when they start planning phase 2!

  19.  

    94103er

    Being careful goes without saying. I’d put ‘real consequences for drivers not following basic rules of the road’ high on my list of things to wish for.

  20.  

    Mario Tanev

    AT&T park has 4,000 parking spaces. What’s the difference in attendance between baseball and basketball? Ideally there would be no parking whatsoever for any sports venue, and instead the venue should invest in better transit connections. But how do these two compare? I know AT&T park is used as an example as a transit-oriented stadium.

  21.  

    BBnet3000

    Without the “why” this comment is disappointing.

  22.  

    Disappointed

    This Temescal resident is disappointed.

  23.  

    Prinzrob

    What was once train/trolley lines through much of Oakland has since been converted into wide medians or extra travel lanes. This basically just leads to speeding, and dangerous pedestrian crossings.

  24.  

    Prinzrob

    The original proposal for Telegraph through the Temescal District included only sharrows through those blocks, which the community largely rejected as unacceptable. The council vote last night gave staff direction to study multiple options, with the only mandate that the bikeway not include shared bike/car lanes. Hopefully the Phase 1 of the project on the lower part of the street will be successful and give support to protected/buffered lanes for Phase 2 in the Temescal.

  25.  

    Easy

    Looking forward to visiting.

  26.  

    Kid Charles

    An issue with this ban is that 1st through 4th streets are all one-way streets which are annoying enough for drivers, but much more burdensome for bicycle riders. The blocks between east-west streets are long downtown and so
    diverting to adjacent streets can add a significant time/distance to a
    bike trip. 3rd and 4th have nice bike lanes but only in one direction, it’s very common to see salmon riders on these streets and I expect this to continue. 1st and 2nd are a little crowded with bus-only lanes, light rail tracks, and a single lane available for cars (sharrows were recently added to these streets). Traffic speeds though on 1st and 2nd are consequently quite slow and feel safe to ride. San Fernando Street is fantastic with nice green bike lanes, but Santa Clara street is terrible for riding. I do like that the banned streets all either have bike lanes now or very slow traffic with sharrows. I hope that there will be provisions for bike lanes when BRT comes through Santa Clara street (Currently the 22/522 bus route).

    Enforcement of this ban is the most dubious part. Police in San Jose tend to appear in large gaggles for short periods of time and are otherwise completely absent. Occasionally one will see a lone bicycle cop or a pair of them downtown, but that is pretty rare. The best bet if they want this ban to actually mean something would be to post some new signs that actually say it is against the law, but that will also still have only a limited effect.

  27.  

    p_chazz

    Bicycles on sidewalks are inherently unsafe. Protected bike lanes for the “high speed downtown roadways” is the way to go.

  28.  

    Adam S

    I saw a cyclist get drilled a couple hours ago at Polk and sutter by a chick who ran a red light. He’ll be ok but it was ten feet in front of me and not pretty. Be careful out there and make sure you check oncoming traffic at an intersection even if you have the light.

  29.  

    Christopher Kidd

    Regarding 20th Street, the City recently adopted road diet plans to take away travel lanes and add bike lanes. It will also reconfigure bus stops for better landing locations and get rid of that weird double-right turn onto Franklin Street.

  30.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    I guess I don’t see the connection. The streetcars look pretty compact. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sk5SCxBod48/TvOGRD2lO7I/AAAAAAAAAUI/njRceRBhJ7k/s200/OaklandStoryBagwell2.jpg

  31.  

    Gezellig

    Cool, thanks for the update!

    Presumably their definition of “continuous, dedicated bikeway” includes 1) protected bike lanes and 2) on-street “buffered” bike lanes, right? Just not sharrows?

  32.  

    Prinzrob

    Oakland’s Telegraph Ave protected bikeway plan was approved unanimously by City Council last night, by the way! The first phase of the project from 27th to 41st Street will be implemented this spring in conjunction with a paving project, and Phase 2 from 41st Street up toward the Berkeley border will be implemented at a later date after Phase 1 has been analyzed. The council resolution did include a requirement that the entire project provide a “continuous, dedicated bikeway” (i.e. no sharrows through Temescal).

    A separate project including bike lanes from 19th Street south to the end of Telegraph at Broadway will also be implemented in 2015.

  33.  

    Prinzrob

    There is so much excess road width in Oakland that is just a holdover from the streetcar days, but now all it does is encourage speeding. Luckily there are a bunch of already-approved road diets that will be implemented soon, including Adeline Street and West Grand.

  34.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Signal priority was supposed to be deployed on the T-Third in 2007, and yet here we are.

  35.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The GJEL article is interesting and does point out a too-narrow sidewalk on 20th street, but you can point to almost any street in Oakland and say it’s too wide. Why is Adeline St six lanes in Oakland? It narrows to 4 lanes and gains bike lanes as soon as it hits Emeryville. Why are there 8 lanes on W. Grand? Why are there 8 lanes on 7th? You can saunter right across 11th street at rush hour. Why does it need to be so wide?

  36.  

    vcs

    Various Geary subway plans were voted down at the ballot over the years, or cancelled due to BART politics.

    But recently it comes down to the bizarre decision that Third Street is a more important corridor than Geary.

  37.  

    David D.

    The NPS has already studied an extension of the F line west to Fort Mason. I know it’s a painfully touristy line, but why no mention of it? If it’s going to run west to Fort Mason, it could be extended further west to the Marina. Along with the creation of the E (planned) and T (discussed above), there might be enough capacity to serve this part of the City. All that despite the short-sighted reduction in platform lengths that was done to reduce the Central Subway’s painfully expensive construction costs.

  38.  

    David D.

    Yeah, because the 8X, 30, and 45 always run empty while the 10 and 12 are packed like sardines. Yup. That’s totally what’s happening.

  39.  

    EastBayer

    This is so right. people like to think that their values drive their actions but really their actions drive their values.

  40.  

    Bluehale

    Well at least BART is finally going to at least study a second Transbay tube plus a Geary line. Whether or not we’ll see it in our lifetime will depend on the political will in SF.

  41.  

    baklazhan

    They had no problem giving up $10 million in Sunday meter revenue, apparently.

  42.  

    M.

    Flags, stashes of little fluoro orange flags at every intersection so walkers can wave them frantically in hopes that vehicles bearing down on them at top speeds will stop.

  43.  

    Andy Chow

    Because of the mistake of removing the streetcar line due to the false promise of a subway. If they hadn’t remove that, it would likely have received light rail treatment.

  44.  

    M.

    Yes, I stand corrected.
    The discussion came after a Director’s Report update that included the Central Subway Project. The presenter ended with the Winter Walk project and the words, ‘…it was a wonderful hit, it was amazing, people just flooding the street laying down…’ This was met with light laughter and applause from the audience. The general demeanor was one of smiling approval, unusual at these meetings.
    Dir. Reiskin said ‘[the SFMTA] will certainly be watching and evaluating and working with the [USBID] and others to capture feedback to initiate a planning process for going forward on that.’ So public input will be registered.

  45.  

    Gezellig

    Amer.I.car?

  46.  

    shotwellian

    Terrible that the Fillmore and Masonic tunnels are such obstacles — it’s like the dead hand of auto-centric 1950s and 60s planning is reaching out to prevent transit from being improved even now.

  47.  

    MrEricSir

    The 38 is one of the most heavily used Muni routes in the city, yet somehow we went from planning a subway to planning a couple of small bus optimizations over the past four decades. How sad is that?

  48.  

    voltairesmistress

    Because that is how Mr. Mlynarik conducts himself on Internet forums. Don’t take it personally, Bruce. He denounces nearly everyone and everything. Kind of amusing, if you don’t have to live or work with him.

  49.  

    Chris

    I thought transit signal priority was supposed to have been installed on Geary a couple of years ago. I guess a couple of years ago in Muni speak means 2020 or so

  50.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Why bring them back? Because America that’s why!