Skip to content

Recent Comments



    This is a wake-up call. Unless and until SF government commits to creating significant amounts of below market rate moderate and lower income housing in the Mission and other traditionally lower income neighborhoods, we will see more and more resistance to streetscape improvements. We can argue all we want about correlation versus causation of rising rents, particularly rising commercial rents. But the bottom line for people scared of losing their homes, businesses, and familiar neighborhoods is that without a place to live in SF, a lot of long term residents will oppose any improvements associated with gentrification. Better to live here in ugly settings than be evicted from someone else’s paradise. So far, Mayor Lee and pals keep talking up building market rate housing as the main solution. It is not nearly sufficient to build market rate housing. This incident of resistance is a prelude to more.



    I live on one side of a freeway.

    My job is on the other side of the freeway.






    You’re absolutely right! Nobody wants to be.

    Pretty sure our views diverge after that.



    I don’t so much mind the diverging diamond version (Alternative 8B). It places bike and pedestrian traffic on a dedicated path in the middle of the underpass, and the points of conflict with auto traffic are (mostly) signalized.



    Yes, they do. That’s what sustainable transportation advocates have been using to push for a bike lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.


    sebra leaves

    Why would anybody want to cross a freeway or be anywhere near a freeway entrance or exit unless they were in a car or truck? Freeways are made for fast moving motor vehicles, not pedestrians and cyclists.



    I’d see it coming because I would understand what the toll is based upon. The voters signed up for an RPP program that would cover its costs.



    Aside from obvious disappointment to see another liveable streets project postponed, I guess the question is: why? Is it budget?


    Thomas Rogers

    Some of my anti-infill/pro-sprawl Potrero Hill neighbors are gearing up for a fight against a “too big” 316-unit project today:



    What doesn’t make sense is that several studies showed the people who spend $ on Polk street mostly arrive on bike, foot and transit. Send your supervisor, Supervisor Christensen, the MTA board, and Mayor Lee a note telling them you plan to boycott the area’s businesses until they truly improve safety along Polk, as I just did. If enough voices are heard, they will change their approach.,,



    Don’t Caltrans DD-64 and California’s <AB 1358 require that there be routine accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians when Caltrans roadways are remodeled?


    SF Guest

    Okay, without further evidence I’ll strike my belief on “revenue grab,” but here’s my point — majority voters signed up for a $10 RPP program. (I’m aware the majority of bloggers on this site believe that’s a huge discount and it should be substantially higher, but that’s not the point.)

    How would you feel if voters passed a 50 cent/day Golden Gate Bridge pedestrian/cycling toll and 10 years later the toll is $5. Is this what you signed up for (and I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who doesn’t have an RPP)?



    You can’t charge people for the damage they COULD have caused! You can only charge then for damage they ACTUALLY DID cause. (and really, BART windows shattering under the brutal tapping of spoons?!)

    If it’s such a problem when freeways are blocked by protesters, why is it perfectly normal when they are clogged to a standstill every day by cars? That’s a real question.



    Hi there, hope you’re doing well! First off, I’d like to say that I agree that SFTRU could have done more to mobilize and organize transit riders, not just around certain issues, but in general, since the city does have a significant amount of transit riders who are impacted, but not everyone involved show up and get involved. I remember seeing your tweets urging your followers to get involved, and I really appreciate your effort in helping build the organization. Lack of involvement has certainly got me frustrated when I was a Board Member. There are a number of constraints, unfortunately, availability and motivation being some factors. We can fix that by getting more people involved, but it will have to take some effort on behalf of those already involved.

    However, SFTRU does not necessarily take positions on many issues, especially if they are known to be divisive (ex. Central Subway and Free Muni for Youth). It’s especially difficult considering the organization has four board members, which easily allows ties with a 2-2 split. To my understanding of the bylaws, a resolution in support or opposition to this would have failed with a tie. If you are interested in affecting the organization’s positions in the future, especially around transportation issues, consider either joining the board as they’re looking for members (Contact Thea), or lobbying the Board to allow members to vote on these issues themselves.

    I hope that you continue to get involved with SFTRU in the future, and I really appreciate your efforts in getting others involved.




    They don’t care about safety, only money. That’s always what government’s about and eventually they’ll be allowing us to be killed off by Communist invaders in the future.



    A disgrace. I only hope that our new District 3 supervisor, Julie Christensen, will show more backbone than that sorry excuse David Chiu did. Christensen showed vision and good sense in North Beach changes to pedestrian and bicycle environment. I am hoping she can be convinced to give support to what Polk Street should become. The old merchants (and yes, most of them are hidebound 60+ year olds) are completely stuck on an auto centric shopping model and pay lip service to safety. In fact, lots of condos are being built near the Polk corridor, making future shopping by foot, bike, or bus even more dominant than it is now.



    I’ve definitely noticed it’s below sea level during the king tides!


    Bob Gunderson

    *Whew* For a while there I actually thought city government was actually serious about Vision Zero!



    As a former resident of this proposed RPP zone who occasionally drove while living there, I too can attest to how difficult it was to find parking in the neighborhood – including at night. I recall coming home around 10:30 pm to end up driving for 20-30 minutes to find a spot (which often would be blocks away in the Fillmore). The time saved by driving was lost with the search to find a legal parking spot. Of course the elusive parking spot was “free” except for the cost to our environment from all that circling, idling, polluting..



    Ha! You bring up a good point. With that said, the wetlands issue is further south between Tam High and the 101 underpass. I read that technically the path is below sea level and the process to “reclaim” the land and convert it to above sea level is a crazy & expensive mess.


    Don't Ever Change Ever

    So we can’t repave the path because of the wetlands but we can build a concrete roundabout in the middle of it and parking and sports fields on either side?



    Seems like if protesters who blocked traffic on San Mateo/Hayward Bridge are going to be subject to harsh penalties, the same should be applied to those who caused civil unrest at the Embarcadero, Montgomery and Powell st BART Stations, especially the fact that they banged metal spoons on metal columns and the trains themselves. Just imagine all that banging, the damage that could been caused especially on the glass of BART Trains, what if they shattered? You can imagine the damage and injuries it could have caused. Harsh penalties should be enforced on them due to the damage they could have inflicted as well as the chaos it caused to BART riders who are simply trying to get to where they need to go.



    It’s not really a revenue grab when the money is limited to the costs of operating the program – notably permit printing and issuance, enforcement, and planning/outreach for new zones and extensions. It’s called the cost recovery constraint. Now, if prices could be set higher than what it costs to operate the program, as @murphstahoe said, we could really start matching demand to supply and address the parking problem present in many of SF’s neighborhoods…


    Jamison Wieser

    I appreciated your article.



    I’m certainly more interested in impact to cyclists than whether someone’s parking 15 cars near Glen Park or parking badly in an industrial street/illegal dumping area that no one rides on.


    Jeffrey Baker

    That story leaves me with the impression that the age of the average Sonoma County person is 70.



    Do it here, bring it on.



    I consider myself fortunate that I did not have the patience to deal with Medium’s comment registration, such that I could rebut your poorly researched article.



    “served more as a revenue grab” – please re-read the article. Particularly this quote – “California law limits RPP fees to the cost of administering the program,
    rather than the market rates that would actually make more parking
    available and reduce the time drivers spend cruising for a spot.”



    Google did give the city 8 Million for the free MUNI for kids program. Presumably they would not have done so for the “extra run on the 5L” program



    You lost me at “fair” and “balanced” which Fox News have turned into code words for “crackpot theories”.

    Not saying that’s what your article is, but I am saying I’m not reading an article by someone who does that little to distance himself from Fox News.


    SF Guest

    Residents either are too new to know or forgot they voted for the RPP, but not at the current rate of $110. When the RPP was presented to voters they thought it was a great idea at $10 per year. I voted to defeat the RPP knowing the SFMTA can raise that fee after initiation without voter input and that it served more as a revenue grab than a solution to easing parking.



    Uber issued a statement denying all liability.



    Of the four articles on the SFMTA board approving free Muni passes for seniors, only the ABC 7 story by Carolyn Tyler included an opposing viewpoint.

    It’s disappointing and frustrating that the print journalists put forth articles that were not fair, balanced, and inclusive.

    * Michael Cabanatuan at the Chronicle, whose own paper’s OpEd board called the program “a bad policy idea” included five sources in his story, all for the program.

    * Joe Fitzgerald at the Examiner also included five sources, all for the program.

    Yesterday, my post on the subject was the top link on Streetsblog’s headlines, which reporters covering transit should be checking out.

    This is a failure of journalism. But it’s also a failure of transit advocates for not proactively getting their point of view out to the reporters. Why didn’t the SFTRU have a clearly articulated position on this?



    100% agree with your point that speed is a simple point to grasp and makes a good short talking point that people can grasp despite the fact that speed was never cited as a cause for the accident.

    I don’t agree entirely with the point about Miller. Yes, the bike lanes in Tam Valley are abysmal, but where the path intersects with Miller/Almonte just south of the Tam HS football field there are good bike lanes and Camino Alto has good bike lanes. I’d love to see recreational riders heading north take Miller to Camino Alto and those heading to heading to a Paradise Loop take the path through Hauke Park to Hamilton to the the 101 frontage road. But many commuters use the path the whole way as it is the most direct route and doesn’t have lights/stop signs so it is much faster.

    For commuting when path usage is low in the early mornings and evenings I don’t think speed is a factor. When usage is high on the weekends, as a parent with kids it can be a little scary. When I take my kids to soccer/baseball it is easy enough to walk along the waterfront side of the park and not on the main path (wish more parents did this), but when my kids want to ride on the path, it can be intimidating (especially because my kids are still wobbly).

    Bottom line we need to widen the path (though I know wetlands issues are preventing even the re-paving of the path).


    Mario Tanev

    Oh, ok, but I am not sure why you’re treating them as equivalent. Sunday meter repeal is very different (and as I pointed out, much less cost efficient – we pay for harm).



    I wouldn’t call it an improvement, yet, at NB Valencia at Duboce. They should remove 4-5 parking spots for the dedicated right turn lane. They should also add a proper green painted bike box between the right turn lane and NB traffic. As it stands now they just smushed in a right turn lane where there wasn’t room for one.



    $4.5 million: Free Muni passes for seniors
    $4.4 million: Free Muni passes for kids
    $11 million: Free Sunday meters

    $19.9 million in politically motivated freebies


    Bob Gunderson

    Make sure to say “accidents happen” and vehemently defend a car’s rightful place is in a dense urban environment without any hint of irony.



    An RPP is a mediocre solution, anyway. In the inner Richmond, I generally find that the street parking is 100% occupied, regardless of the RPP. As far as I can tell, all the cars have a sticker– there are enough cars owned by locals to use up all the parking. I suppose it might be even worse without it, but 100% occupied is 100% occupied.

    I visited LA, and I was surprised to find that they have a system which is opposite ours: their residential permits are required at night (and they tow, apparently!), while ours are only required during the day. When I think about it, that system actually makes more sense, if your goal is to reserve overnight parking for residents, as that’s when the occupancy is highest.

    Regardless, you can’t give away unlimited numbers of permits and expect them to be effective.



    Really? Seems to me that regardless of whether there’s an RPP or not, people park on the sidewalk when all the street spaces are occupied. In that sense, an RPP might actually improve matters.



    I pay $240 a month, or $7.90 a day, to park in a garage. So I don’t have much sympathy for someone paying 30 cents a day to park on the street.


    Aaron Bialick

    That’s a good point. I will say I was happy tonight when I was on Hayes Street near Alamo Square (in the would-be RPP zone), and I pulled out my phone to call in a car blocking the sidewalk, but realized I didn’t have to when I spotted a parking control officer already ticketing another sidewalk parker across the street. I told her I was about to call them, and she said she’d already gotten complaints along that street. Just wish we could rely on them to cite on sight.


    Lee Ross

    There are just too many cars in San Francisco. People who live in the neighborhood are concerned about paying 30 cents a day to guarantee their Spot. C’mon. Maybe if Rev. Amos Brown declines to pass the hat for a couple of Sundays his parishoners could pay the fee for a Year. His Church has sufficient funds to miss the Collection.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Can we stop using “jumping the curb”? It sounds cute and harmless but the reality is neither. A good headline for this one might have been “Driver slams car into Tenderloin hotel” or something neutral and accurate. The curb is not there to keep cars in the street. If a driver has done anything other than proceed parallel to the curb, they have committed a major error.


    Ben Ross

    Reading about the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, I feel like a prophet! Last spring I wrote “The Counterculture Looks for Parking”


    Mario Tanev

    In fairness, you could argue that the connector being new could mean some kinks need to be worked out and the uptime is going to only improve.


    Mario Tanev

    Where you got the $20 million number is beyond me.