Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Nice job hyperbolically mis-stating the issue. That’s what liars do, not people with legitimate points to make.

    Furthermore, the point of transit (except in the minds or Utopian imbeciles) isn’t to “reduce auto trips”. It’s to enhance resource effectiveness — both of roads and rails. Pulling cars off the busy and long-distance corridors, and putting them onto the sparsely-used short-distance corridors, is a big gain that commuter rail accomplishes.

    Bicycles, on the other hand, are the least effective means of resource utilization — as they offer the lowest-density usage of any dedicated resource. That inefficiency is multiplied on trains, too, where a cyclist and his vehicle take up two spaces, while all other commuters take up one.



    Yep. I keep saying this: the SFBC, SVBC, etc need to create a legal arm that sues these cities when bicyclists’ rights are clearly violated just like the NAACP or ACLU. I’m not surprised that cities don’t stand up for the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians, but I am amazed these groups haven’t done so.



    Yesterday I was bicycling east along Geary downtown. The right lane is a bus only red lane and believe me if you are in the lane the busses will not hesitate to let you know. So instead I ride on the far left of the road along that stretch. But that was enough to piss off some nazi in his SUV who sped up next to me and then quite deliberately cut in to me while sticking his hand out his window and flipping me off. Basically he just committed felony assault against me with a vehicle. Yet I wonder if I had pulled out a firearm and shot at him that I would have been the one demonized by law enforcement and arrested. It makes me sick that we just have to take this violent assault on the roadways perpetrated by disgusting nazis.



    Another bicyclist killed in another tragedy here in the Bay Area and it barely gets any mention. Just a couple of lines. Just status quo grimness that everyone seems inured to these days.

    Doesn’t any organization which purports to support or be concerned with bicyclists and bicycling believe that they have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate each and every one?

    Its not like we don’t know that law enforcement has an appalling record in terms of ascertaining the truth when it comes to bicyclists.



    It’s not the manufacturer, it’s the distributor.

    Sue the dealership that sold the SUV.



    Because nobody is ever personally responsible for their own choices.



    If you’re worried about people on Caltrain getting space ‘for free’, we should just close down the entire system, because every ride is subsidized by the taxpayer to a greater or lesser extent.

    You could argue that weekend riders are the biggest cost to the system – because there are so few people on each train, the per-rider cost of providing weekend service is huge. Does that mean that fares should increase on the weekends? Of course not.

    The point of transit is to reduce auto trips. Aside from the fact that it’s completely impractical, parking a car at your destination creates auto trips, and so is not a solution we should be encouraging.



    They need to start suing the alcohol companies, just like they do with gun companies.



    Two ten-year olds hit by a drunk SUV driver:

    It’s insanity out there.

    Thinking healing thoughts for the boys. Apparently they are both expected to survive.



    North Oakland neighbors oppose AC Transit transbay service cuts:



    I essentially biked from Emeryville to Richmond several times a week, then hoped fervently that the bike racks wouldn’t be full, especially considering how infrequently the 40/42 came. I had an AC Transit pass at the time, so sometimes I would just take the transbay bus into SF, then take the enjoyable 21-mile ride to San Rafael.

    An efficient, one-seat, no-bike trip would have been amazing. But then I strongly prefer walking to access transit instead of biking.


    Bhautik Joshi



    How about charging cyclists for the two seats they need to occupy to take their vehicle with them on their commutes? Or run fewer bike-equipped cars during peak hours. Or course — add more bike “parking” (storage) at stations.

    Even charging cyclists for the space they need to occupy doesn’t account for the fact that they are MUCH SLOWER to board and de-board, resulting in each train taking 5-8 minutes longer than it should, or would without cyclists, for its entire journey.



    Then park a car at your destination end. I don’t get to take up extra seats to carry my car or motorcycle with my on my commute. Why should you get to (for free) take your vehicle?



    Car-Free Powell Streetand and Bay Bridge Bike/Ped Path to Treasure Island Delayed Today’s headlines



    I guess they figure people can take the 40 to El Cerrito del Norte BART, though that will hardly be an express San Rafael Transit Center Richmond BART service.



    Would be curious to know, too. Though chief of planning at GGT did say this:

    “Regional travel is changing. There are more people commuting into Marin.

    I am one of those people, though I do it from SF. One reason why (over living in the East Bay) is the East Bay Marin commute via any means is suboptimal.



    That is mighty odd. Haven’t seen any studies on why that would be. I guess they figure BART riders will do the Richmond connection?



    No BART connection? It’s basically east bay to Marin commute service (only that direction). Did they do some research to see there was such a demographic?



    I bet! As limited as this new service is the Marin East Bay connection is seriously underserved so anything will be an improvement.

    I hope that updated schedules coordinating with the 101 will help enable reasonable transfers. For example, if you take the upcoming 580 arriving at San Rafael Transit Center at 9:20a, under the current 101 schedule you will have just missed the north and southbound 101 by only 5 minutes (both leave at 9:15a). For an hourly bus this is a big problem.



    My goodness this would have been so useful for that internship I had in San Rafael 7 years ago…



    More on Golden Gate Transit’s expanded upcoming Marin East Bay service:

    The current 40/42 routes will be consolidated as a single line 40 and there will be a new route 580 connecting Emeryville and the San Rafael Transit Center.


    Andy Chow

    In case of safety my assumption is that whatever that is will not be allowed unless it is absolutely necessary and it is proven safe (not just it is technically feasible). It seems your assumption is that as long as it is technically feasible, it should be permitted unless it is not safe.

    To this day we haven’t heard a word about double stopping in Muni Metro. We know it is technically feasible but it hasn’t been proven safe.

    As a regulating agency, CPUC really doesn’t care about timelines and efficiency. CPUC could even put the entire Caltrain electrification on hold because of this trolley crossing.



    I saw one of the new trolley buses running down Mission St the other day, on a test run, not attached to the wires. From a standing start it quickly accelerated to match regular traffic speed. Performance while it was off the wires appeared to be the same as a regular bus.

    I’m sure it can’t keep up that performance for too long, but it means that it will have plenty enough juice to get clear of the crossing in the case that it detaches from the wires. There’s no technical reason why battery power can’t automatically kick in the instant that wire power is lost, so it wouldn’t be a case of ‘cruising through in neutral’, as has been done in the past with older trolley bus designs.

    I think you are presuming a lot of things about what the CPUC will and will not allow. This is a new case and we don’t know what they will decide, but I can’t believe that Muni are so committed to this option without having at least having had a discussion about it with the CPUC. Regardless of whether they allow the 22 to cross the tracks at grade, I’m sure grade separation of the intersection will follow before too long in conjunction with the Transbay extension and I-280 teardown.


    Andy Chow

    There are no technical issues with streetcar/LRT at grade crossings with railroads as well, but as long as there are alternatives (some kind of grade separated crossing) CPUC won’t approve them. The issue with trolley bus crossing with mainline electrified railroad is safety. Trolley bus is prone to poles detaching from the overhead wires. If that happens at or near the crossing, the bus and surround vehicles would be in danger of getting hit by trains.

    While the same risk exist at trolley bus/LRT crossings, in all of these situations the bus and LRT operate at street speed and have short braking distance. The risk of collision is low. Mainline trains run at a higher speed and have a much longer braking distance.

    In the US, there are only 5 trolley bus systems. In Boston and Philly, where they have LRT, subways, and commuter rail, there’s no at grade crossing between trolleybus and rail. Other than SF between trolley buses and Muni Metro/historic streetcar, the other system is in Seattle between the bus and low speed streetcar. There’s no at grade crossing between trolley bus and higher speed/higher voltage Link LRT.

    Alternative to running the trolley is already implemented now. The only downside involved is the necessity to transfer if you want to travel onto the rest of the 22 line. According to the EIR, it may require “special onboard equipment.” If the goal is to have zero emission transit in Mission Bay, ordering battery powered buses from manufacturers like BYD will suffice without unique solutions and safety hazards of having buses to “coast through” the tracks where trains won’t have enough distance to stop.



    I don’t see any reason why the CPUC wouldn’t approve the crossing if a decent technical solution can be found, and I don’t see any reason why a decent technical solution can’t be found. This is not an unheard of problem:


    Andy Chow

    Right now there are only concepts and no plans for grade separations. There may be simpler plans to say have 16th Street to go under the train tracks, but some in the city want to get rid of I-280 and put the trains underground. Whatever that is, it seems rerouting the trolley now only serves as a distraction. Whatever temporary arrangements would have to include trolley wires for the duration of the construction.

    I believe trolley bus/main line rail crossing would require approval from CPUC, like other matters related to rail crossings and rail electrification itself. CPUC should ask why such crossing is absolutely necessary. Unless the trolley buses have been running through this crossing already, I don’t think CPUC would favor a new crossing given that the same service can be provided with regular buses as it is now.



    Longer term, I would like to see grade separation of the Caltrain line at 16th St and Mission Bay Dr, and a new Caltrain station at 16th St. With that in place, it makes perfect sense to move the 22 to 16th St in order to create a strong bus link between 16th St BART, 16th St Caltrain, and Mission Bay, and to move the 33 to serve the Potrero Hill commercial district on 18th St. It’s questionable whether it’s a good idea to do this before grade-separation due to the challenge of crossing two sets of overhead wires at grade. Caltrain put the the task of figuring out this problem in their electrification RFP, so we’ll see what comes out of that.

    I was hoping we would learn more about the Planning Department’s I-280 teardown plans in a couple of weeks time, but it seems like they’re not ready to spill the beans just yet:


    StrixNoctis .

    I’d call it poetic justice if their loved ones happen to get run over. I’m sure then, out of their selfishness, they’d become serious in reaching the Vision Zero goal.

    It’s a shame they’re that type who only put on a facade of pretending to feel compassion for others losses for their personal gain (politics and funding).

    I hope our state officials who are funding Vision Zero are watching closely and aren’t as insincere as our PD & mayor.


    StrixNoctis .

    I don’t think there’s a law requiring pedestrians to make eye contact with drivers before crossing, but I recall seeing it mentioned in a California vehicle code, and I find it ridiculous because, as voltairesmistress said, pedestrians crossing in crosswalks most often get hit by vehicles making a turn. Not only that but how can a blind pedestrian or pedestrian with
    failing eyesight be expected to make eye contact with a driver?

    Many drivers around here these days don’t seem to realize that it’s illegal to make a right turn on red without stopping first–to treat a red light like a stop sign prior to a right turn–or they just don’t care. I’ll assume they just ignore that traffic law since many ignore other laws that exist to make our streets safe (such as using blinkers prior to turning which too many fail to do these days).

    What shocks me the most out of everything is that our law enforcement lets the irresponsible behavior of the people operating the vehicles that so often kill people slide and blames the victims instead. It’s silly like blaming an innocent bystander, gunshot victim for unknowingly being in the wrong place at the wrong time instead of blaming the irresponsible person who carelessly shot a gun on the street through an intersection.

    Our PD and officials keep continually clearly showing how insincere they are in accomplishing Vision Zero when they choose to ignore the major contributing factor to the pedestrian deaths–the incompetent drivers of motor vehicles.


    Darksoul SF

    The 33-Stanyan should re-route off the Hospital , because we got the 9-San Bruno and 9R San Bruno increased frequency making it more buses come almost every minute with Muni 33 still serving that area will make it harder for Emergency Autos to get in the hospital entrance.. The Emergency Vehicles should not be by mostly 40 foot buses.


    Andy Chow

    Overall I think the 22/33 reroute is a bad deal. There’s still an unresolved issue regarding the crossing at Caltrain as Caltrain is undergoing electrification and both systems have incompatible standards.

    Even with the goal if having zero emission transit in Mission Bay/16th Street, the current 55 line is flat and short enough for Muni to operate battery powered buses.



    “Look. We can’t control these crazy drivers – well really we don’t want to and Ed Lee really doesn’t want to – so you better just look out for yourself. I recommend doing a lot of cowering”



    I don’t think that Suhr is saying that the law requires pedestrians to establish eye contact before stepping out. I do not believe that the law says that at all.

    Rather, Suhr is saying that it is a good idea to establish eye contact and ensure that the driver has seen you and knows your intent before stepping out. And that surely is good advice.

    I always make sure a driver has seen me before crossing. Often I will signal the driver to proceed before I cross if that seems fairer or safer.

    That stretch of Euclid is hazardous. Drivers get frustrated with stopping at every intersection and do tend to “roll” through. I was nearly hit by a cab there myself, which is part of why I now always eyeball the driver.

    Not that a two year old should have to, of course.



    Or run them over?



    Mayor Lee doesn’t get it either. Neither of them can be bothered. The only way to have an impact is to vote Lee out.



    Re: the ABC story on toddler run down by driver in Laurel Heights

    I am sickened to hear our Chief of Police still does not understand Vision Zero or how to achieve it; instead he still places a large degree of responsibility on pedestrians, as well as telling drivers a vague message instead of a clear set of parameters. First, he wrongly repeats the falsehood that a pedestrian with the right of way in a crosswalk should make eye contact (aka get permission to walk) with any approaching driver. This is absurd, especially since people in crosswalks are most often struck by turning cars. The best a pedestrian can do is glance backward to try to jump out of the way of drivers who appear to be about to run them over. Hardly even possible for those with slower reflexes. Second, Chief Suhr keeps saying we have to slow down. No, sir, we need to focus on the five most deadly behaviors that result in pedestrian injuries. Speed is just one of those and probably not the cause of the 2 year old’s injury. That was caused by failure to yield to pedestrian right of way.

    So here we are, almost a year into Vision Zero without a jot of statistically measured progress and a Chief of Police so obtuse as to not understand a very clear set of guidelines for the police enforcement aspect to the overarching policy. I think it is high time for the mayor to demand Chief Suhr’s resignation.



    Hopefully, Bart can make some extra money on the side with those retail pods.



    So basically, there are two routes that that will help people get around a lot better, but they’re arguing over which one to implement. Implement them both! If we really want a robust bus network we can’t choose to intentionally underserve certain areas.

    I like your proposal. I hope they are considering that possibility.



    As has been suggested here before, the best way to solve the 22/33 re-route problem is to retain the existing re-route plan but add a new line that runs from 16th St/Mission east to Potrero, south to 24th St, then west to 24th St/Mission, where it would terminate.

    This could be run with the diesel buses currently used for the 55-16th St line (which will be cancelled once the 22/33 re-route takes place) and would give Mission residents a direct route to SFGH from two major transfer points. Wheelchair user transferring to this new line from the 33 or other lines would likely make the transfer at 16th/Mission, the first stop for this new service, so space on the vehicle would not be an issue.


    Alexander Vucelic

    then raise the toll during peak hours even more



    They could use the money to fix the bridge. God knows it needs it:



    That’s really not a thoughtful economic view though.

    Congestion charging is intended for economic efficiency, not revenue raising. Similar to how red light cameras are to achieve safety (by addressing the externality of people running red lights), not to raise revenue


    SF Guest

    Whenever there’s a tax or toll increase proposal and arguments over who gets the money the main goal can only be to raise revenue.

    The DPT was an agency who prided itself for not being revenue-driven, and we all know how that story ended.



    Except that raising the tolls and even implementing congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge has done literally nothing to reduce congestion. All congestion pricing did was shift a little bit of traffic during the tails of the peak hours earlier or later to avoid the increased cost. Also, I think that it’s a poor characterization to call a bus using a bridge as a negative externality. They are not external to the system, they are participating in the transportation system and trying to use the same scarce resource as everyone else. Without providing a comprehensive transit system alternative that is both fast and convenient, I doubt that even doubling the current bridge tolls would dent traffic. Even at double the bridge toll, I’m looking at 35-45 minutes driving vs. a minimum of 1.5 hours by transit. Everyone must do their own math, but gaining 1-2 hours a day is worth quite a bit.



    New BART Cars to Include Three Doors…

    Only three? You might want to check that math there.


    Jeffrey Baker

    I didn’t get the feeling that the toll increase was to raise revenue. Indeed, the fact that they don’t know what to do with the money indicates that revenue is not the main idea. It seemed to me that raising the toll is being done to reduce congestion, which is a negative externality paid even by people who don’t drive (for example, riders of the AC Transit transbay bus service today sit in epic traffic jams behind single-occupant vehicles while approaching the bridge, even at 6AM).



    I disagree that raising the bridge toll makes sense. It’s basically a tax on only about 1/3 of the commuters and might raise a paltry $125M per year. If we want real money for real improvements to our transportation system, we need to look at raising the money from everyone, e.g., vehicle milage based fees and/or higher gas taxes, not to mention public bond measures. Let’s face it, we’ve had three decades of under-investing in our transportation infrastructure. Raising a few bridge tolls is a drop in the bucket and a political slap in the face to a handful of commuters. The only reason this is being considered is that you need a supermajority to pass new taxes, and since 2/3 of the people don’t use our bridges regularly, it’s a politically expedient way to raise a few bucks for a few pet projects. Where’s the ferry to Berkeley that was promised over a decade ago when bridge tolls were first raised from $2 to $3?


    Jeffrey Baker

    Raising the bridge toll makes a lot of sense, but they also need to extend carpool hours and stripe the carpool lane down I-580, probably all the way back to Tracy. The existing carpool hours (and pricing) seem to be based on a fantasy where congestion ends at 10AM, which is plainly incorrect.



    Regarding “Laurel Heights Site With More Than 500 Parking Spaces”, is that a count of the number of spaces on the site currently? The article does not mention parking.