Skip to content

Recent Comments



    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.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Good article on how pedestrians and bicyclists subsidize car drivers.



    Dude – have you seen how many times the buses have tried to drive down some 24 percent grade in Noe Valley and then SHOCK! bottomed out at the bottom of the hill?

    There are some narrow roads and hills around here and those roads are not spec’ed for giant buses or semis. Pretty simple



    San Francisco is not Europe!


    Dan Allison

    Rob Poole – Please do not use the epithet jaywalking unless you are directly quoting someone else, which you are not, on item 4. CBS at least put the word in quotes in its headline, knowing that it was misused.


    Andy Chow

    Unless and until there’s a general political attitude for high density growth in the west side of SF, such subway ideas that you talk about isn’t really feasible. The Sunset and the Richmond aren’t Mission Bay or SOMA, or even the Bay View.



    “Commuter Buses Halting 33-Ashbury Line” — well, one bus. Because its undercarriage got caught on the pavement. Not on a curb… *on the pavement of the street*.

    How does that happen? Is there a certain clearance vehicles need to drive around SF? Are the SF roads not to spec?

    To me this seems like a story about how SF’s road infrastructure has problems. But of course it’s spun as tech bus demonizing.


    Andy Chow

    Some people is suggesting that because San Mateo County pulled out from the BART district in the 60s, BART isn’t under Geary today. While they may not actually blame San Mateo County for the current state of transit today, I think that there other facts to consider for what they appear to imply:

    1. Original BART bond was approved because of strong support from San Francisco, while support was reduced in East Bay counties. If San Mateo and Marin counties stayed, the more likely that such bond would have failed.

    2. After voter approval, the BART program was facing budget shortfall. BART dropped subway conversion between Sunset Tunnel and Market Street and between West Portal and St. Francis Circle, as well as underground turnaround for Muni Metro. If these conversion took place there would be no doubt that Muni Metro would operate much more effectively. Some elements like Muni Metro turnback was eventually constructed.

    3. Muni streetcars were running on Geary until 1957 and had been the most productive streetcar routes in SF, even with a 2 person crew. May be if SF had not be obsessed with automobiles or at least wait until the BART plan becomes more mature, Muni might have kept the rail line and at least be in a better position for Muni Metro-like subway conversion, or provide faster surface service with large capacity LRVs.

    SF cannot blame San Mateo County for tearing down the streetcar line, and should not really expect other counties to essentially subsidize subway construction. These days every jurisdiction prioritizes their internal needs. SF considers Muni a much higher priority than Caltrain for example. May be a regional government would’ve remixed and prioritized funding (like VTA in Santa Clara County taking tax monies from Palo Alto and spend on BART in East San Jose) but that always has been a struggle.


    Andy Chow

    Bad breaks –> bad brakes



    Minor correction: the Four Corridors plan is an existing document from the 1990s (I believe). It’s one of several previous transit plans being presented.



    Stop making sense!


    david vartanoff

    Indeed Geary needs a subway. Given how badly Muni has designed the Central subway, BART is the default. A route should branch from the existing Daly City station, coming under 19th thence through GG Park joining the Geary trunk line to head downtown. The Geary trunk should go at least as far as the VA facility. On the east end the Geary trunk (should be 4 tracks east of 19th to facilitate express service) should cross under Market offering transfers to the existing route and then turn under the Bay.



    It’s unknown whether the bicyclist was passing the stopped bus on the right to reach the intersection, or whether the bus driver half-passed the bicyclist to reach the light first then stopped, pinning her to the curb with nowhere to go. I don’t want to make any assumptions, but the latter has happened to me plenty of times while biking, due to impatient bus operators who try to pass and merge/turn with not enough room instead of slowing and merging/turning behind me. The only way to avoid this is to take the lane, which can also be a very dicey proposition on San Pablo.

    Yes, it is not safe to pass a bus or large truck on the right at an intersection, even in a bike lane, but this does happen so professional drivers need to be trained to look for and avoid these conflicts whenever possible, even when the bicyclist is being negligent.



    Come to think of it Mission in general could use bike lanes throughout, even with Alemany paralleling it at points. As with any major corridor it’s lined with businesses, residents, services and transit options so that alone is worth it. After all:

    Besides, even Alemany is out of the way if your origin and destination points are along Mission St. This has happened to me numerous times.



    Regarding a bike lane on Mission at Trumbull…

    How does it connect to San Jose Ave in the North? I don’t expect it to continue over the hill on Mission.

    How does it Connect to Alemany? The grade separation here is a problem.

    Where does it end in the South? Mission stays very close to the bike lane on Alemany to the South, reducing its utility. But it might help businesses along Mission. Sunday Streets down there is always nice.

    I’m not really seeing it, but it’s good thought experiment.



    I’ve been the guy who passed stopped traffic while in the far right bike lane, only to find a left turning vehicle in my path at the intersection (Arastradero, crossing Manuela). I was fortunate that the car was ahead of me, so I hit the side of the car and went over, not the other way. The police officer told me that the “at fault” party is always the left turning vehicle, but the lesson to me was that if I cannot see the intersection, someone crossing the intersection may not see me, and fault really doesn’t matter if you are dead. In this case the bus driver was at fault, and AC transit is paying. I’m glad the rider is recovering, but better to ride to be safe, not just right.

    The stopped AC transit bus traveling the same direction as the cyclist may have been waiting for traffic to clear in the next block ahead, or waiting for left turning traffic to clear the intersection when the light turned green, or ??? I don’t think it matters.



    Now we know the real reason the signs came down. Ed Lee does not want to be told to put in Bike Lanes.




    Airbnb! Your favorite passive-aggressive neighbor who wants a gold star, concern-troll pretends to care about bike lanes. Also…doesn’t understand how taxes work.

    No matter how you feel about Prop F one wonders how much actual bike-lane progress we could’ve seen if Airbnb had spent even a fraction of the $8 million it used to lobby against F on, ya know, bike lanes.


    Andy Chow

    This is the same agency that wants to build dedicated lanes on El Camino Real (more of the same for west side of the county), and wants billions more for a BART subway next year. This mess can only erode the confidence for the agency. Newspaper like SJ Mercury has an agenda so it is not in their interest to cover a story that goes against their agenda.


    Andy Chow

    The AC Transit driver was clearly turning too fast (you also have to consider comfort and safety of passenger. But it seems that she was turning to get back into the bus yard without passengers), but I can’t imagine that passing a stopped bus on the right and entering the intersection as something that I would do on a bike. I don’t know the reason why the bus was stopped in front of the intersection. But that fact should be a caution.

    If you’re driving and you see a car ahead on an adjacent lane is stopped, a good habit is to slow down enough and know the reason for the vehicle to stop, and proceed if it is clear. What if the car is yielding a pedestrian? You need to be ready to stop if it is so.

    A lot of bicyclists think that they should always stick to the right side of the road regardless of the situation, but the law clearly allows taking the whole lane in certain situations. For transit buses, they may have a stop right after the intersection. So it is generally a bad idea to try to pass a bus on right. If you know that the bus going to make a stop, it is better to get behind the bus, let the bus get to the curb without you being in the middle, and pass the bus on the left.



    Wow, the CBS video on the story was interesting. It shows that the AC transit driver was going 3X the allowed speed around the left turn that hit the cyclist.

    Also, I wonder, from a liability standpoint, what part the stopped AC transit bus across the intersection (that hid the cyclist from view), played in the settlement? Why was an AC transit bus stopped in a lane of traffic??? If it was at a stop loading/unloading passengers, it should have been stopped curbside, which would’ve enabled the cyclist to safely pass on the left of the bus instead of being funneled to the right in the bike lane. Had the cyclist been able to pass on the left, she would’ve been more visible to the turning AC transit bus that hit her (and she would’ve had a better view of the AC transit bus turning towards her).

    My last observation is that this serves as a good reminder to myself that when passing larger vehicles at intersections/driveways/crosswalks, etc, to ride defensively so that I had time to protect myself (as I know most drivers won’t be paying attention to me).

    Glad the cyclist wasn’t killed, is moving on with her life and that she is back on her bike.



    The Santa Clara VTA Alum Rock BRT is in a bad state. Construction was halted in July, the street is a mess, business way down, and the new completion date is now December 2016. It was supposed to be an 18 month project, completing Oct 2015. VTA is now offering to pay to pay businesses up to $50k each to avoid lawsuits.

    Meanwhile, zero press releases from VTA, and no coverage at all in mainstream media (SJ Mercury or TV). Jennifer Wadsworth at has been covering this. Start here and work backwards (4 articles since July):



    The second worst part about the video of the AC transit driver hitting the bicyclist (the worst part, of course, being the actual impact), was how she says it wasn’t her fault and she didn’t see the bicyclist. This is arguably the biggest problem with our car-centric society, that we think that just because you didn’t see somebody (especially when they had the right of way) that it wasn’t your fault. We would all drive much less and much more carefully when we did when we truly appreciated the responsibility you undertake when driving tons of steel with hundreds of horsepower, limited visibility, and lots of distractions.



    The City Hall Bike Room is available to all city employees, and every user gets a user-specific code as well as a special badge (in addition to the employee badge) which must be presented to security at the checkpoint. There’s zero chance a non-employee will make it into the Bike Room.





    Eco Creative

    I used to go to City Hall for hearings a lot. At one point I was able to get the code to access the bike room in the basement that the bicycle commissioners use–you might ask.


    Eco Creative

    new products have come onto the market in recent years to prevent saddle/seatpost theft. the Sphyke, which I’m about to try; also the Infiniti3D by Atomic22. And Pitlock has been around for a bit, have been using them with success as well. each design has pluses and minuses but add much less weight than the bike chain setup and seem to work.


    Ziggy Tomcich

    Anybody but Lee! There are three candidates that by themselves couldn’t mount a campaign against Lee. But this mayor election is not about the other candidates. This election is all about Lee. If a majority of voters vote against him by voting for all 3 of the other candidates, mayor Lee will loose this election.