Skip to content

Recent Comments



    The article clearly states that a majority opposes this plan. So I don’t need a poll – this meeting constituted one.

    Where is your “independent polling data”?



    Well, the activists who don’t even live in the neighborhood didn’t seem to have any problem trying to pack the meeting at 10 am.

    So the assumption has to be that had the meeting been on an evening or weekend, then even more people would have opposed the plan.



    But was it an “outreach meeting”? That implies that a decision has been made and all SFMTA has to do is tell people what’s going to happen.

    Surely this is instead a meeting for SFMTA to accept feedback and input, so they can come up with a better and more popular design. In which case it is absolutely correct that SFMTA takes note of where there is a clear majority in favor or against.



    “Those who actually live in the area and are directly effected by it, opposed the plan.”

    And for those that live in the area and couldn’t attend a 10 AM meeting because they were at work, should they just pound sand?



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be628p:….,….


    Dave Moore

    “In a democracy, we get what the majority want.” We occasionally specifically protect the minority from mob rule. I’m not saying this is one of those cases, but your premise is simply false.

    In a representative democracy we elect people to pass laws, or appoint people to run services. We don’t have a direct democracy. People get to state their opinions and if they don’t like the laws being passed work to overturn them or replace the elected officials. We don’t just poll people and do what they say.

    In this case it’s not even clear who exactly you would poll. Who are the people affected by the decision? You seem to think it’s the people who show up at the meetings and yell loudest. There are many constituencies affected by these decisions and our elected officials and service workers have to balance their needs.


    Christopher Childs

    Your interpretation is too narrow. It’s not “interurban electric streetcar”. It’s “… or streetcar.”

    Section A is basically posted on every cable car (and widely ignored by drivers, which is why we’re arguing for safety zones in the first place). I think it’s on the light rail vehicles, too. You can see Sections B and C in action on Market St. Check out the safety zones for the buses and the F line. The 10mph speed limit for passing the safety zone on the right is explicitly posted at each zone.

    It’s pretty clear that this CVC is interpreted as applying to Muni cable cars and light rail vehicles operating on the street.



    “So the neighborhood residents don’t matter”

    By this presumption we should remove the L Taraval stops in that neighborhood, nobody there takes the L



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be467p:….,….



    your constant comments and aggressive posturing are really making the world a better place and you need to spend more time doing this.



    What is the point of supporting current SFMTA leadership if all they do is capitulate to loud people and roll back plans to increase safety and make the system run faster and more efficiently? If the best Ed Lee’s SFMTA appointed board can offer is rollback and capitulation to the angry mob in favor of Car Worship, then why should we support them any longer with a sales tax increase, bonds and the like? It is all fine and good to have presentations at SPUR about all sorts of studies and Big Plans, but it doesn’t mean sh*t if a loud pack of trolls IRL can derail it at these so-called ‘outreach meetings” with talks of conspiracy theories and other bs.


    Ron W.

    MUNI streetcars are not interurban streetcars (they don’t leave San Francisco, so they are intraurban.). But, for example, these are iterurban, but they no longer run:


    Do Something Nice

    Oh noes, it’s the “transit activists” again!



    CVC 21756.
    (a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking any interurban
    electric or streetcar stopped or about to stop for the purpose of
    receiving or discharging any passenger shall stop the vehicle to the
    rear of the nearest running board or door of such car and thereupon
    remain standing until all passengers have boarded the car or upon
    alighting have reached a place of safety, except as provided in
    subdivision (b) hereof.
    (b) Where a safety zone has been established or at an intersection
    where traffic is controlled by an officer or a traffic control
    signal device, a vehicle need not be brought to a stop before passing
    any interurban electric or streetcar but may proceed past such car
    at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour and with due caution
    for the safety of pedestrians.
    (c) Whenever any trolley coach or bus has stopped at a safety zone
    to receive or discharge passengers, a vehicle may proceed past such
    trolley coach or bus at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour.



    In a democracy, we get what the majority want

    …unless that’s rent control, or eviction controls, or limitations on development…



    None. It’s argumentum ex ano.



    Color me skeptical that Guido Salomone would object to the transit-only lane less if the train was coming every 10 minutes. He’d probably scrap all trains entirely if he had his way.


    Ron W.

    The article is incorrect in at least one respect – there is no Vehicle Code section that requires a motorist to stop when a MUNI streetcar stops to offload passengers.



    What evidence do you have of this claimed majority?



    If a majority is against these proposals, why are folks like Katy Tang continuing to support them?



    I live 100 feet from a L Taraval stop, my wife uses it everyday, and I wish they’d gone even farther with pro-safety, pro-transit proposals. If it were up to me, we’d be discussing whether to dedicate more streets in San Francisco to just transit and bikes, separating out less efficient private car traffic entirely. So, unless you have some independent polling data to share, RichLL, your assertions go too far.


    Joe Brant

    They won’t even have to sacrifice parking. there’s a net GAIN in parking spots by adding spaces on the cross streets.


    Joe Brant

    Of course, the L will be more reliable when the transit only lanes proposed here are implemented.



    Kim is not as bad as Campos or Avalos. She voted for the Twitter tax break and indicated that she would vote to impeach Mirkarimi after bitchslapgate.

    But she has been getting worse as she jockeys for a new job, given that she is termed-out at the next D6 election. Her recent tenant law was appalling.



    Kieran says this involves taking out parking. You claim it does not. Take it up with him.

    But in either case, if you don’t like there or don’t have a car, then a claim to block lanes or take out parking is easy to make because you’re not affected. This meeting was for the people who are effected, and they oppose this plan by a clear and significant majority.



    Sorry but these things don’t get decided because you decide that someone who disagrees with you is “ill informed”. That opinion itself is ill-informed.

    This is exactly the problem here. The transit zealots are so totally convinced that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, that what people actually want goes out of the door.

    In a democracy, we get what the majority want. And the fact that you personally disagree with that majority doesn’t make you right, nor them “ill informed”. Your entire attitude is entitled and arrogant.



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be277p:….,….



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be277p:….,…



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be277p:….,..



    <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be277p:….,.



    Well, the number of times that I find parking directly in front of the business I want to visit in SF can be counted on one hand. No parking is being lost and if people will really torn around and home unless they park directly in front of a store, then a business that really depends on such picky customers has bigger issues to deal with.



    What about neighbors that got on 10 mins earlier and would like the train to not stop every few blocks. Doesn’t their time matter?

    Of people who are feek walking two extra blocks ID too far. Is that extra couple hundred feet double their distance or just increase it by 10℅?

    Don’t we have ridership stays for these stops to make a decision Barratts on facts rather than antidotal statements?



    In fairness, those are the L’s scheduled headways. The times when two come in a row followed by a 25 minute gap are exceptions.



    Traffic volumes are low late at night too, so that’s not really relevant. I assure you that traffic on Market St at 4am moves just as quickly whether there’s a transit only lane or not.


    City Resident

    Saturday headways: every 10 minutes. Sundays, every 12. It certainly is plausible that more people travel this corridor inside a Muni LRV than inside an automobile. Regardless, this is about improving safety and speeding up transit. If transit is safer, faster, and more reliable, more people will ride it and it’s expected that many of these new riders will be ditching their cars for such trips. Fewer cars = less congestion and less pollution. Higher transit ridership = better use of public resources (including government funding). This is a good use of scarce resources.



    We have a version of representative democracy for elections. Our constitution ensures that people have the right to speak their minds. However, our democracy doesn’t guarantee that we have to obey neighborhood residents who are “ill-informed and callous to our collective well-being.” nor that we have to commit huge funds from the public purse to cater to their whims.


    City Resident

    I’m afraid you’re mistaken regarding my proximity to this change and to its effect, as well.



    “They’ll have to sacrifice some parking spaces but in the end it’ll be worth it.”

    Worth it because you personally won’t lose anything, so that’s easy for you to say.



    And for 6 hours every night there are no streetcars, and yet the lane will be blocked while hundreds of cars pass by.

    On week-ends there are far fewer trains, but still the lane is blocked.

    This is bad use of a scarce resource



    So the neighborhood residents don’t matter?

    That’s good to know. Next time we should just skip all these pesky meetings and do what the bureaucrats tell us do. I always thought that democracy thing was over-rated anyway.



    The residents who were killed or seriously hurt along the L can’t speak. And let’s be clear: neighborhood residents come and go and don’t own nearby public space and rights of way, we all do. Further, if advocates are ill-informed and callous to our collective well-being, we have no obligation to pay the economic and social costs of their opinions.



    Four words need to be put back into this convo: fellow human being’s lives.


    City Resident

    The L’s headways are generally in the 7 to 12 minute range for much of every day. 20 minute headways typically only occur early in the morning or very late in the evening. 30 minute headways mostly only occur with the L-Owl and with very few L trips.


    City Resident

    Guido’s comment regarding the L’s headways is mostly wrong. During commute hours, the L is scheduled to run as often as every 7 minutes. Sometimes it runs more frequently and sometimes less often. On Saturdays it runs every 10 minutes and on Sundays every 12 – and from my experience it generally sticks to those headways. The only time it’s scheduled to run at 20 minute headways is with a small number of early morning runs and as of about 10 pm. 30 minute headways are very few. At those few hours when the headways are in the 20-30 minute range, traffic on Taraval is very light and one automobile lane in each direction is plenty.



    I very much doubt that one streetcar every 20 minutes caries more people than 20 minutes worth of vehicular traffic. And you cannot assume that every car has only one passenger.

    Also, the L only goes one-dimensionally along Taraval. Many cars are taking two dimensional trips, so the comparison isn’t fair.

    Blocking off half of Taraval will drive traffic onto surrounding streets. You’re moving the accidents but not necessarily stopping them.



    If detours are no problem then let’s have a party on the Wiggle!



    The thing with single issue advocates is that they are never happy. Spend millions and they want to spend tens of millions. Confuse and congest drivers with street make-overs and they want to ban cars. Nothing is ever enough for them, because they see the 90% as evil.

    They don’t want balance. They want it all. And although few in number, they are mostly white, educated and professional, and so know how to work the system.

    Constant vigilance is required or the sandal brigade will turn the city into a theme park.



    Neighbors are like family. You don’t get to choose them. I’d rather socialize with friends and people I have things in common with. Suggesting that your way is somehow better than my way is ignoring the subjectivity of such preferences.

    Look, you get your little parties and pay very little for the privilege. Be happy with that.



    Let’s summarize the audience participation.

    Those who actually live in the area and are directly effected by it, opposed the plan.

    Then there were the drafted “usual suspect” transit activists, most if not all of whom live elsewhere and are not effected, who supported the plan.


    Mario Tanev

    But Taraval is not a very busy street to begin with. If you took all the people in the cars, and stuffed them on the L, would that L run more frequently? It’s possible that even as it is, the L carries more people than cars do. In that case, it may not “seem so”, but the L uses space more efficiently than cars.