Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    DrunkEngineer

    I find it hard to take seriously a “group” that supports the BART-OAK connector project.

  2.  

    ladyfleur

    Well, if young people don’t want to live in Mountain View someone should tell the ones I’m seeing in increasing numbers all over town. In particular, the Safeway on Shoreline Blvd is crowded by 20-somethings much to the dismay of older residents who aren’t accustomed to long lines at the checkouts at 8pm on Friday night. You should see the furrowed brows. It’s almost comical.

    Seriously, some younger people will choose to live in San Francisco and take shuttle buses. Others are quite content to live in Mountain View, especially near downtown which has restaurants and dance clubs open at midnight just like it did 20 years ago when I was their age. We need more housing to accommodate this growth and not presume young people don’t want to live near workplaces like Google, LinkedIn and Intuit.

  3.  

    murphstahoe

    Mostly because we don’t have, never did have, nor dont want a “City”.

    Interesting. In your other post you discuss the people who work at Google – 15,000 strong or so, wanting a “City”. They work in Mountain View and certainly could have the freedom to live in Mountain View, and to change the fabric of the city as well.

    You are co-opting the word “we” and “us”. How many people are in this group “we” that you discuss? You and 100 of your Facebook friends? I understand that you – and perhaps some of your friends – may like Mountain View pretty much the way it is. But don’t pretend to be speaking for everyone – you are speaking for yourself. And that’s fine – if you like the town the way it is you are absolutely free to use the political process to keep it that way. But we know nothing is encased in amber.

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    Nah, there just won’t be a “market” for them other than for those who
    will benefit most from this effort – developers and those candidates
    that support them.

    How does a developer benefit from building a bunch of houses they can’t sell?

  5.  

    Richard Gardner

    Mostly because we don’t have, never did have, nor dont want a “City”. Mixed biz/suburban housing is ok, and per my above, we (who live in Mtn View) are not saying we shouldn’t build a “concomitant” amount of housing to support current needs. But (in so far as the proposed dense structures/high rises, etc. as seen in the links from the discussion) you should be singing the praises of The City rather than attacking Mtn View. You have built a City that rivals any on Earth (ON EARTH), and that is why there are so many people living in the City but commuting to the Peninisula, reversing what was the original “plan” if you want to call it that – though a “plan” is exactly what is missing.

    Side Bar – ABAG and the MTC are HORRIBLE. And unless “we” get off our asses and force our representatives to appoint logical, progress minded appointees to the ABAG and MTC we will forever be having this argument.

    They call us bedroom communities, or “whistle stop” towns for a reason. There never was an intention to have industry along the Bayshore, but it happened, and Mountain View as opposed to other, more tony neighborhoods (Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Burlingame, etc..) are far more accommodating and progressive than these other towns. We should be (companies should be) looking also at building where their workers live, and allow for options where like either Livermore or Tracy are afforded opportunities to host corporations, and as Mountain View always has will continue to look at sensible, logical growth with a sober view.

  6.  

    Richard Gardner

    I think you all may be forgetting some important points, amidst your assumptions that “Towns like Mountain View need to contribute in taking in some of the growth and not bear all of it to SF” or that “we don’t want them”.

    Speaking as a Mountain View(er?)…, I would welcome a measure… a measure…, of concomitant housing to support a measured amount of growth.

    What y’all are forgetting is that a) if people (Googlers, etc.) wanted to live in Mtn. View, they would. They clearly make enough to afford it if they can afford apartments in the city. But that’s just it, they don’t “want” to live here, they want to work here, they want to maybe browse and shop or eat here at lunch or directly after work, but sticking around in Mountain View is “not” where the attraction is… This city rolls up its carpet by 10pm, even on weekends because there are no other attractions. People want to live in the City because its vibrant, there are shows, plays, concerts/music, fine dining, attractions, etc… The nightlife for that age bracket (the major demographic of those who work at Google – young white or asian males) does not jive with the proposal to bring a community of family homes to North Mountain View.

    And in reference to b) that “we dont want them” is ludicrous… read onward…

    I do support dense housing, and would support “some” development in North Mtn. View, but to the level that is being proposed? Nah, there just won’t be a “market” for them other than for those who will benefit most from this effort – developers and those candidates that support them. The persons I am most concerned with getting more access to housing, I will bet are vastly different than the ones you are most likely thinking of…, the biggest burden is not amongst the tech workers; it is amongst those who make the very least. These folks are NEVER going to be able to afford housing in Mountain View, OR the City. These are our janitors, facilities workers, admin assistants, groundskeepers, etc. These are the people who have for at least the last 14 years been pushed out of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, East San Jose, etc… and these are the most under-served and hardest workers. Most of these persons have had to build lives for themselves in the Central Valley and commute 3-4 times a far/much as the tech workers from the City. They also have the least amount of capability to adapt when boom and bust occur. These folks, I support apartments and single family living dwellings for whom to be built in North Mountain View.

    For those who “do” want to live in Mountain View, and don’t want to commute, most are going to be full fledged families. The 30+ and older with kids, who will also want to benefit from Mtn. View schools, etc. But this proposal won’t address those issues, and the A#1 thing that these prospective homeowners will want is “Quality of Life”; but by providing that you thereby then take it away.

  7.  

    KWillets

    My (recurring) question on Market: with little or no car traffic now, can we finally get rid of the chains that obstruct crosswalks on the North side of Market? And the labyrinthine islands and merge lanes as well.

  8.  

    Nicasio Nakamine

    Agreed! If your intent isn’t to drop off/pick up someone on Market, the smart driving is on Mission.

    While a private car-free market will be nice for cyclists, I think the largest benefit will be in less congestion for transit. There are a huge number of lines that travel on Market for part of their route.

  9.  

    KWillets

    They finally painted red lanes all the way to Van Ness, and that may have helped, but it’s still a Stanley Roberts zone.

  10.  

    Bing Wu

    Do you have a link to the PDFs?

  11.  

    murphstahoe

    Look at it in reverse. If Market were car-free – would you see value in allowing cars to use it? When you look at the problems both ways as opposed to starting from the status quo, I think it’s clear which implementation has more value.

  12.  

    Upright Biker

    Hi Bing — I haven’t seen them anywhere, though a number of people did download the PDFs so let’s hope a few have seen the light of day.

  13.  

    Bing Wu

    Hey Upright Biker, I thought I saw you make some really neat No on L posters depicting parking garages in neighborhoods a while back? Is anyone now posting them on poles in their neighborhoods?

  14.  

    Bing Wu

    Doesn’t look to me like they’re adding new turning movements. If anything they’re restricting them, reducing crashes. Only by eliminating turns onto Market St can they keep cars off.

    If you bike Market in that section frequently you’ll know that it’s not one of the most pleasant streets for biking. Maybe the mid-Market section between 8th and Valencia where there’s a wide semi-separated lane but not beyond 8th where you’re sharing a lane w/ cars and buses. It’s too narrow to comfortably and safely share. Besides, cars already sort of avoid Market St because it’s such a pain to drive on although the ones who do create a lot of backups especially for Muni. So it shouldn’t be a big deal to ban them altogether and the effect is more than symbolic.

  15.  

    EastBayer

    i don’t understand the value of a car-free Market Street, to be honest. The few times I’ve driven in the area, it has been hellish, in part because the side streets are so indirect. I bike down Market street much more often and find it one of the more pleasant streets for biking already.

    These changes would increase the number of turning movements, and turns cause a lot of crashes. Turning movements also increase Muni delay, as drivers yield to pedestrians when buses are waiting behind them, and Muni runs on almost every street in this area.

    I can see some symbolic value in a car-free Market Street, but I remain skeptical of the tangible benefits.

  16.  

    unbiased driver

    What I’ve noticed from reading these comments is that most of you seem to ride bikes or simply not drive. Unlike probably half of you, I was born and raised here and have had my car broken into twice (once and a good side of town, once in the bad side). I feel your pain about the blaring horn at 3AM but the owner can set the sensitivities of his alarm fairly easily. From feather setting it off to you having to physically kick it to set it off. “Alarms are useless”? Annoying when set off? … yes … useless?…no. Car alarms have ignition immobilizers that act like kill switches mean thieves can’t take your car. A car jacker would love your car unprotected. To be fair, never keep valuables in the car and in plain sight (that’s asking for it). If you have a Honda and do research, you’ll find these are the most stolen cars by most police reports. Tell the owner to lower the sensitivities on the alarm. Don’t outlaw alarms. That’s just stupid. Make it just a bit harder for a car jacker and possibly deter him with a little noise and security features.

  17.  

    Upright Biker

    If they do this, there has got to be better signage to make it absolutely clear that private autos are not allowed on Market. As it stands, so may people are confused and the rules/enforcement are so ambiguous that anyone who gets a ticket can rightfully feel that they were tricked in some way.

  18.  

    Dark Soul

    Approve this project only if…it specifically help pedestrian safety improvement and claimed muni reliability .

  19.  

    Andy Chow

    There’s a reasonable limitation for Caltrain on a desirable floor height. Otherwise there will be operational implications and additional costs. Everybody has been accepting Clem Tillier’s idea that common platform height (actually 51″ platform for Caltrain) is so damn important above everything else, and I am the only one who is willing to challenge this.

    His transition strategy for Caltrain (2 high floor doors and 2 low floor doors) would likely result in additional cost on rail cars because of additional doors and lifts, and an unsafe situation for bike riders as they may have to haul their bikes up and down interior steps. His strategy will not result in full 51″ platform everywhere on the Caltrain system (since there’s no reason to increase the platform height above the height of the lowest door).

    And what is the everyday benefits of common platform heights? Yes there are operational benefits, but if they’re most confined in a situation where trains are severely delayed or in an emergency, the 51″ height is quite a high cost imposed on Caltrain. Is the Transbay terminal that small that trains and platform usage must always be random? Can additional capacity be added by changing some designs and operational procedures including layover time?

    I support both agencies to study the issue and to see whether there’s any opportunities to compromise. There are opportunities for HSR to consider lower floor height since technology is evolving and that HSR is not an operating railroad. But I think it is reasonable for Caltrain to walk away in the event that there’s no acceptable solution for Caltrain.

    You might think that all platforms should be rebuilt, and that it will be the same regardless of height. I don’t with that. There’s visual impact and difference in construction method between a platform slightly higher than the one that’s significantly higher, and things like that do matter in smaller cities. Even in Muni, placement of a mini-high is a big deal in the neighborhood (with associated impacts on traffic and driveway access) even though it is smaller than a full length high platform. Also, most systems that transition from low platform height to high height tend to have an incomplete transition (including Muni) because of cost and community issues, and that systems that use low platform tend to have a more graceful transition. Is it wise to create another Muni Metro situation?

  20.  

    Tisay

    Hi, Aaron, thank you for the article. Safety is always top priority when it comes to our children, residents, and neighborhood holistically. There seems to be growing concerns of a lack of respect and don’t care attitude in city neighborhoods particularly components from drivers (of all forms of transportation); newbies from residents, passersby, to transients; developers building new structures all over the city; growing number of businesses and humongous events, all of which, fuel the rise of traffic and a realistic cause of traffic. Even worse situations with grassroots issues like evictions, displacements, gentrification, which all in all, add up to the insanity that’s now happening in the city of St Francis de Assisi. However, with all these craziness, I’m glad to see that the city is finally doing something good for a change, especially, for our children.

    And, I just want to kindly ask from you Aaron, if you don’t mind, and with all due respect, to please correct the school name from Bessie Carmichael School to Bessie Carmichael/Filipino Education Center Pre-K to 8 School. For many who do not know, I would like to share some historical overview about the Filipino-American community in District 6. We want to respect the Filipino-American community who, for the past 50 years, fought hard to protect its Filipino Education Center school,Filipino Bilingual Program, Galing Bata @FEC After School and Summer Program, Teachers and Staff from the oblivious and neglectful current and previous administrations of the SFUSD. The protective community also keeps a watchful eye on it’s non-profit organizations and small businesses that employ and provide valuable services. They valiantly fought hard to install it’s Middle School even in the midst of a school budget crisis. And this is the only district in the city of San Francisco that does not have a high school.

    Our city’s safety issues doesn’t stop there. The issues extend to a plethora of problems that appeared in the timeline just before and during the helm of the current city administration. For instance, embroiled in the middle of an affordable housing crisis, the city wide community non-profits are working their heart out to save San Francisco from real estate speculators and their allies who are evicting thousands of residents for profit. And many of these affected residents are families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and people who are sick.

    Many are blinded by their selfishness and do not see the connection. Yes, many, and that may be you or I. The whole purpose of a city are people and to live together in peace. But that peace is in trouble.

    I pray that the officials are sincere about their ‘building partnerships’ slogan. After being involved in the community for the past 20 years, I’m so darn wary and tired of pretense by city officials and their cohorts.

    San Francisco never give up! Please respect our city and residents.

    Thank you, community. Really appreciate your blog, Aaron. God bless everyone.

  21.  

    Justin

    This should have been done already and quite a while ago. The goal has to be making Market St preferably from Van Ness Ave all the way down to the Embarcadero Car free immediately. I feel like that private cars on Market St burden the street itself as I see no benefit of having any private motor vehicles on it whatsoever. I don’t see it benefiting anyone including the driver itself just like Prop L in someways. Banning private auto traffic would help speed up Muni, alleviate congestion and make Market St a more desirable and safer place to be for pedestrians, bikers and the average joe out there and hopefully there will be a complete PROTECTED bikeway that connects to the existing one near Mid Market all the way to the Embarcadero . Boy this should not ever take SO LONG for this to happen, it should of happen already but NO, we’ve been waiting for at least 5 years now and that’s sure long enough.

  22.  

    sebra leaves

    If you don’t like it
    you better vote against funding it. Good reason to vote No on Props A and B and Yes on L. Stop this insanity before it gets any more out
    of hand.

  23.  

    murphstahoe

    I own them all!

  24.  

    jonobate

    In the long term, it absolutely does not matter whether HSR and Caltrain use low floor or high floor trains. It only matters that they both agree on the same floor height. There is absolutely no difference to passengers when boarding a high floor train vs. boarding a low floor train, if the platform is at the height of the train floor. BART is high floor and high platform, and boarding a BART train is a very smooth process.

    It is a little better to use low floor trains rather than high floor trains if the platforms are not level with the train floor, because passengers only have to climb up one or two steps rather than three or four. This is why Muni should use low-floor trains, as they will never be able to construct train level platforms at all of their flag stops on surface streets.

    But for Caltrain, this is a relatively unimportant issue as climbing up and down steps will be a temporary measure until all the Caltrain platforms are rebuilt level with the train floor. And they *should* all be rebuilt, because it’s a relatively inexpensive way to achieve considerable speed and reliability benefits.

    The transition process will be the same regardless of whether the train floor is low or high – either way there will need to be movable/deployable steps for the platforms that have not yet been rebuilt, similar to how Muni Metro operates.

    So no more of this “high floor trains are terrible” nonsense. Any train floor height that will work for both agencies will do fine. I don’t have a strong opinion on what it should be, but I’m sure if Caltrain and HSR both put out RFIs that requested that manufacturers specify the train floor heights they could provide, it would be possible to pick out suitable trains for both agencies with a shared train floor height.

  25.  

    maaaty

    Hallelujah!

  26.  

    roymeo

    I don’t think you even tried.

  27.  

    p_chazz

    A good plan, but it should also allow Lyft, Uber and vehicles with handicapped plates or placards to travel on Market.

  28.  

    Osowoofy

    There is most certainly *not* a BART extension to Antioch, as the local news station puts it. It’s a diesel locomotive unit, not powered by a third rail.

  29.  

    GetHubNub

    Sometimes sidewalks are the only option rather than getting hit and I do this sparingly only when absolutely necessary such as at Third and The Embarcadero where suddenly the bike lane ends and the only real safe option is an empty sidewalk.

  30.  

    SafetyFirst

    I can’t even get past the first few sentences of this piece without having to point out the stupidity of your argument against this new lot:
    -During construction, ridership went up despite a lack of parking because people didn’t have a choice. We all had to suck it up, waiting for light at the end of the tunnel when it opened.

    -As a female, I would prefer to drive to BART in the morning, park, and return to my car after work knowing that I don’t have to take an expensive cab ride home or ride the ghetto a$$ AC transit bus AND then STILL have to walk home from the bus stop after dark. The area around the station is sketchy, so assuming everyone is HAPPY AND WILLING to walk home from there is ridiculous. Why does everyone who is anti-car assume people who take BART are within walking distance, have bus access, or someone to pick them up everyday?

    -You’re arguing that “better uses” instead of a parking structure exist. Are you completely missing the point that this is just phase one of a village including housing and retail? Are you saying that a parking structure was never going to be needed? How about for the families who live in the future housing…you seem to expect that they will take BART everywhere?

    Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich and the author of this piece (a male resident of SF’s Inner Sunset, which IS connected to Muni and much safer than the MacArthur BART Station area—you are both complete TOOLS. Wake up!

  31.  

    Parent

    re: 1940 Proposal to replace cable cars. There is a wonderful classic children’s book on this very topic. It’s called “Maybelle the Cable Car” written and illustrated by Virginia Lee Burton, author of the very well known kids book “Mike Mulligan and the Steam Shovel.” Virginia mostly lived in New England but lived for a time in SF. “Maybelle” is a remarkable book because it goes into quite some depth about civics and elections for a kids picture book.She also has a great book called “The Little House” which has wonderful illustrations of the evolution of urban development, though the ethos of that book is quite anti-urban.

  32.  

    RoyTT

    I didn’t even bother mentioning Duboce because, as well as being dark, dank and depressing, it’s hard to make left turns onto and off.

    16th is an alternate but it’s slower in practice. Both lanes can be blocked waiting for left and right turning traffic waiting for pedestrians. And buses and double-parked vehicles slow it down further.

    The only real arterial alternative is Cesar Chavez but that’s way out of the way from, say, the General Hospital, Best Buy, Rainbow etc.

    I’ll stick to the cabbies route – 15th. And look out for pedestrians, natch.

  33.  

    Sprague

    Thanks, Aaron, for covering this. Kids seem to be so much more at risk than adults, due in part to their shorter height. As a parent, my greatest safety concern for my kids is injury or death while they cross a street. Far too many otherwise responsible adults seem to abandon safety and common sense in the name of haste. Our love of the car not only makes walking to school a risky activity but it even turns schoolyards into parking lots (ie. at back-to-school night, at other after-hours school events and, at some schools, even on regular school days when school is in session). Accommodating cars, even if they belong to our beloved teachers, is too often more important than giving kids safe places to play outdoors – away from the pollutants and the dangers of automobiles.

  34.  

    Prinzrob

    At least the bicyclist muggings in North Oakland, about a dozen of which occurred earlier this summer, seem to have abated. No additional reports since the OPD made a number of arrests in August: http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/5520-rise-in-cyclist-robberies-near-macarthur-bart

  35.  

    MrEricSir

    Ambitious New High-Speed Rail Plan Will Fly Americans To Japan To Use Their Trains (The Onion)

  36.  

    coolbabybookworm

    16th is the most arterial street in the area, it has lights (instead of stop signs) and two lanes each direction.

    15th literally has a speed bump so I wouldn’t consider it an arterial.

  37.  

    Chris J.

    > Does it mean a street with more than one traffic lane in the same direction?

    Not at all. It means a high-capacity urban road (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_road ).

    Duboce and 16th, both within a couple blocks, both seem more equipped for high capacity traffic. They both have four lanes. Duboce even has three west-bound lanes in parts.

  38.  

    42apples

    If Uber gets an F, then what would the taxi industry receive? Ride-sharing companies would not exist if taxis performed well.

  39.  

    RoyTT

    Chris, I’m not sure what the official definition of a road being “arterial” is in this city. Does it mean a street with more than one traffic lane in the same direction?

    If so then 14th and 15th streets in the Mission are about the closest thing to “arterial” north of Cesar Chavez. Both are (mostly) one-way with (mostly) two lanes running from Market to Harrison, or so. The other numbered streets are all two-way, from memory anyway.

    A few times I have taken a cab from the eastern Mission the driver has taken 15th to get to Market. Seems it is regarded as the best route to take going west.

  40.  

    Nick

    I think it’s stupid. Somebody has to take a risk, and a cyclist getting hit by a car is a lot more likely to be seriously injured or killed than a pedestrian getting hit by a bike. I had a friend get hit and killed while riding in the BIKE LANE in a popular tourist area. The streets are not safe for people on bicycles. Maybe more enforcement of recklessly driving a bicycle on sidewalks instead of a complete ban would be a better compromise. I hate speed limits of any sort because regardless of what any study shows, I think careless driving is much more dangerous than speeding, and there are many speeders who drive carefully and MANY people who drive at the speed limit but drive absolutely RECKLESS. But it comes down to the speeders being the ones prosecuted because those cases are more cut and dry and are easy revenue.

  41.  

    Jym Dyer

    @timsmith – GOP = Gas, Oil, Petrol. The corporate welfare enjoyed by these particular benefactors doesn’t count as big bad gummint subsidy, because lobbying.

  42.  

    jd_x

    This is really scary. I’ve ridden that path many times late at night and never even thought to be on the lookout for somebody jumping out of a bush and shoving a stick in my spokes or smashing a bottle over my head. These thugs need to be caught … but I know that the cops have more important things to do, like bust cyclists rolling stop signs on T-intersections on Arguello or Townsend.

  43.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    The violent attacks on bicyclists in the Panhandle are very concerning.

    http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/10/09/violent-bike-thief-attacks-hit-san-francisco-panhandle/

  44.  

    crazyvag

    TGV Duplex which is a bi-level trainset that was introduced in 1995. if CAHSRA would pick that design, the floor height would be made similar to whatever bi-level EMU Caltrain selects.

    The only issue is that these trains run only up to 200mph, but CAHSRA wants 220mph. However, I’m sure some effort could be made to increase the speed to 220mph by the time the line in California goes into service.

  45.  

    Gezellig

    Precisely. We’ve got to stop thinking of bike infrastructure from the perspective of how the Brave and Fearless who will bike regardless manage it and how many of the Interested But Concerned refuse to touch bike “infrastructure” if this is what it looks like.

    Andy B in Jersey, yes, parking-protected lanes are not without their own occasional problems but compare this to the Double Parking lanes of SF which are virtually guaranteed to be blocked with high frequency. Some—all the time (there has never been a day or time that I’ve biked down Folsom or Valencia without multiple double-parkers/drivers).

  46.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Only in that picture. Not pictured, all the people not biking because it feels too unsafe having to constantly leave the bike lane. Biking on Folsom can be a mess, especially during commute times as all the other lanes are full of cars going 30-35 mph while the bike lane is filled with double parked or cut through drivers. You can’t leave the bike lane if the lane to the left has a cement truck.

  47.  

    coolbabybookworm

    On both 8th street and Folsom the reason they aren’t parking protected is the bus stops. They’d have to reconfigure the street with boarding islands and the bike lane going to the right of them so that the bus can pick people up and that takes $$$$ and time. Hopefully someday though.

    They could also put a parking protected bike lane on the left side of Folsom since it is one way and there are no bus stops on that side.

  48.  

    Andy B from Jersey

    I’d like to see NACTO back up some of its safety claims with hard empirical evidence NOT gathered from other NACTO cities or contributing consultants.

    For example, I still don’t buy it that left side bike lanes on one-ways are safer but NACTO continues to claim that they reduce doorings and conflicts with overtaking drivers all based on theory, not solid evidence. I’m not against left side lanes particularly where buses are involved but to make general unsubstantiated claims about them being generally safer than conventional right side bike lanes is a little dubious in my book.

    While I love most of the ideas in NACTO’s guides, without compelling proof that their ideas are sound and provide superior safety benefits (particularly for cyclists), I will have a hard time supporting many of the more unconventional ideas proposed in their guides.

  49.  

    Andy B from Jersey

    But the cyclist in your SF photo seems to have no problem going around the illegally parked cars. Get a car or even street vendor cart in the NYC lane and your totally stuck! And YES it happens!

  50.  

    Gezellig

    NACTO’s far from perfect, and its lack of imagination on intersections is particularly troubling.

    That being said, does this mean we can get somewhat closer to a #minimumgrid of protected cycletracks in SF? Especially in SoMa/Mission/Tenderloin where land is relatively flat, streets are often wide, and density high.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu32m1UCQAEmvfA.png
    “Buffered” by nothing other than paint = doesn’t cut it

    Was on Folsom’s so-called “buffered” lane yesterday during rush hour. Completely and utterly blocked by cars. Sure, police ticketing could do something, but the daily temptation is just too great and wouldn’t even be there in the first place if they just flipped the order of the paint.