Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    And do you not think that maybe those who live, work, shop, eat or drink there might not have a tiny problem if you take away their parking?

    As I understand it, that option was not considered because it was well known that the community would not tolerate it.

  2.  

    RichLL

    Jonobate, I never said anything of the sort. If you are going to quote me, then at least have the common decency to do it accurately and provide context.

    The discussion here is about access to businesses and not “storage”.

    In any event, people who talk about “storing” cars on the street are usually opponents of driving and parking. No driver talks in terms of “storing” his car unless he is taking it off the roads. He says he is “parking” his car.

  3.  

    RichLL

    There is currently a legal right to park on any city street unless there is a specific prohibition against it, either by time, or by permit.

    We have designed streets to be wider than needed purely for traffic precisely so that it is possible for a car to stop when it reaches its destination.

    A car would be fairly useless if it could never stop, don’t you think?

  4.  

    RichLL

    Actually I can usually find a parking space, with the possible exception of ChinaTown, North Beach and the financial district during the day.

    So it is not obvious to me that we are missing massive revenue opportunities here. Where demand is high, there are meters or special parking zones.

    Anyway, wasn’t SFPark supposed to address this?

  5.  

    RichLL

    Jonobate, London has a world-class subway, overground trains and a vast bus network. The road structure pre-dates automobiles and has a medieval structure. And culturally the place is much more receptive to unilateral government action.

    None of that is true in San Francisco, which us part of an urban area that is probably close to 10,000 square miles, and where reliance on cars is over 90%.

    Apples and oranges. The reality is that when we have designed streets in the Bay Area then we either deliberately provide extra width for parking, or we set aside enough off-street space for parking.

    It’s a nonsense to provide a road for cars to move along, and then not give them anywhere to stop at their destination.

  6.  

    RichLL

    Since everyone has an interest in pot-holes being fixed, why do you not want everyone to pay for that?

    I agree the city doesn’t spend enough on fixing the streets. But that is not because taxes are too low, but because their spending priorities are all wrong (e.g. $200 million a year sprayed at the homeless).

  7.  

    RichLL

    It is not enough to pay for the roads, it’s true. But then there is no reason why it should be. Roads are essential infrastructure and so should be at least partly paid from general funds, because everyone benefits from roads and not just those who drive private cars on them.

    We could debate what the split should be, and no doubt we’d reach different answers. But the idea that gas should be at whatever price it takes so that non-drivers pay zero isn’t going to fly.

    If you want to know how much tax there is on a gallon of gas, look at gas prices in places like Kuwait, where gas is under a dollar a gallon. Most of the cost of a gallon of gas is either direct taxes or extra costs as the result of government regulations.

  8.  

    RichLL

    Tumlin says:”often times a small number of deluded people are the ones who show up”

    Well, yeah. It’s almost inevitable that the kind of people who show up for any kind of public meeting will be the ones who have the most extreme views on the topic. For transit topics that usually means either the pro-car mob or the anti-car mob.

    As an obvious example, I doubt that the people attending this meeting were an accurate cross-section of the population, but rather a skewed self-selected set of people who are pro-transit.

    If I were an elected politician I’d probably ignore most of the products of such meetings. You don’t learn much from single-issue activists about what the majority want. And I’ve never met an activist who asked me what I want. Rather they try and tell me what I should want.

    These meetings might be fun but they don’t have much to do with democracy.

  9.  

    ComradeFrana

    “The tube itself at peak times is running at about one-quarter theoretical maximum capacity based on emergency stopping time.”

    If I recall correctly the tube currently runs 23 trains per hour per directions at peak. Four times that is 92 tphpd. That is more than double the frequency of the most frequent subways in the world. “Theoretical” capacity indeed.

    “Building a second downtown SF line, either under the current one or on
    Mission Street, would double tube usage. There are other factors too,
    such as signalling and number of available cars, but those are
    comparatively easy to address.”

    Signalling is not exactly easy, when you’re trying to cram 40+ tph worth of several lines on different branches into one track per direction. Different delays on each line means the trains are really out of sync when they arrive at the merge point. Trying to maintain headways on the trunk then is not trivial and eats up capacity.

    There are two other factors: Capacity of electrical systems (which is admittedly probably easier than building new lines), and safety regulations.

    Supposedly only three trains per direction are permitted to be in the tube at the same time. Which, if we assume that trains take 6 min through the tube means 40 tphpd max. IF everything goes perfectly, which it won’t, so effective capacity would be less.

    But you’re right that dwell time is a big constraint. But I think considering any infrastructure solutions is premature when you still have trains that have only two doors per side.

  10.  

    Alicia

    and less deferential to politically-powerful unions.

    Wait, what? Unions are stronger in most of Europe than in the US.

    This was only a couple weeks ago: http://www.thelocal.fr/20160330/paris-braces-transport-chaos-as-strike-looms

  11.  

    Ziggy Tomcich

    Yes. Next, we need to do all of telegraph! So much of our bicycle infrastructure randomly ends, making it difficult to figure out how to bike anywhere we’re not familiar with. We need more protected bike lanes, they need to be connected as complete routes so that biking as a means of transportation can become viable for everybody.

  12.  

    Alicia

    By what percentage? Which businesses have lost revenue, and how much?

  13.  

    roymeo

    Why do small shops go out of business? Why don’t developers already own those buildings?

    Don’t improve things through here or someone might want to live here.

  14.  

    Ted King

    No problem. Just a little humor between anthropoids.

  15.  

    jonobate

    No, I don’t. The person who brought that up was “RichLL”, and he’s clearly grasping at straws.

  16.  

    jonobate

    Okay, if you don’t think that’s a commercial street, you’re being intentionally dense. Take a look around on Google Maps. There are shops on the lower level, and residences above, with no garages and no street parking.

  17.  

    Henry

    Sorry, didn’t mean to come off as terse. I really appreciate you providing some background to this, and wish I should’ve done it before I published my initial post.

  18.  

    roymeo

    So we’re pretty good at building replacement infrastructure even if it’s novel, untested, and turns into a big mess, but new infrastructure is gonna be a disaster?

  19.  

    alberto rossi

    I like the formulation 30-30.

  20.  

    gneiss

    That is false. there are three parking garages in the Mission along the commercial Mission Street corridor. Parking in the street is very cheap and heavily subsidized compared to rates in privately owned garages.

  21.  

    gneiss

    Kudos to all who are working so hard on these issues! Made my donation today.

  22.  

    murphstahoe

    No matter how you do your math to sum up how much money comes in from gas taxes, the flat out truth is that it’s not enough to pay for the roadways.

    When the stimulus was passed the country was littered with signs about road construction projects being paid for by the ARRA. Zero percent of those pork barrel road projects money came from the gas tax. Zero.

  23.  

    murphstahoe

  24.  

    Mark

    It has nothing to do with storing cars at night.

  25.  

    Mark

    The person who brought up the talk about storing cars overnight on the street. What does that have to do with the story? I didn’t see anyone complaining they can’t park their car overnight on a street. Did you?

  26.  

    Mark

    That looks rather residential..rather dense. I see something that looks like a business…there is zero parking along that thoroughfare, and if it is residential, no one cares.

  27.  

    Mark

    “Prove it” lol

  28.  

    Mark

    The poles done by the SFMTA are not thorough. They tend to have “Government Hours” and are not there when the business owner is, so they talk to a cashier who couldn’t give a rat’s ass how to answer the question even if they knew. If the SFMTA went to visit during the early morning hours when the owner is doing the books, and not out getting supplies, etc, they might get a better picture. I own a business where they supposedly took a pole.

  29.  

    Mark

    You see that 39 cents on each gallon of gas is applied to the retail price of gas before the state taxes the gasoline with their ever increasing sales tax, right? What part of that do you not get. The reason the money isn’t being used for what it is supposed to be used for – one of which is repairing roads – is because it is used for other items in the General Funds of the different money collectors. The sales tax has been rising and falling with the price of gas for decades. The taxing of gasoline by state ON TOP OF THE gasoline taxes makes the state take even greater. They get 8.5% or whatever county’s rate you live in on the price of the gas plus the almost 40 cents a gallon. That seems incredibly wrong, yet, that is how taxes are calculated. Google and learn about gas tax. Even the nominal amount of 1 or 2 cents designated for cleaning gasoline contaminated sites is going to be hijacked. But I think at least it will be hijacked to fix the roads.

  30.  

    Mark

    So far, your proof is the Mission Street merchants that are complaining. If you do not believe them, look at what happened to many of the merchants on 3rd. “Prove it”…lol…

  31.  

    jonobate

    That’s kinda the point. People are primarily complaining about the congestion caused by the forced right turns, which I agree are annoying. If you get rid of parking on the northbound side of the street, you can have a general traffic lane and a transit lane in the northbound direction, and that means you can get rid of the forced right turns.

  32.  

    Ted King

    (OO-OO) Just providing a missing link. (OO-OO)

  33.  

    jonobate

    This particular example was downtown, but you can see similar examples all over the city. Random example from the suburbs:

    https://goo.gl/maps/k6MjnVLNPnE2

    This street is commercial, with residential above the shops. Looks very similar to Mission.

  34.  

    murphstahoe

    This is a lie

  35.  

    jd_x

    Why does it matter to businesses whether cars go down Mission or SVN? I mean, unless they are getting a parking spot directly in front of the business (and how often does that really happen?), they are walking a block or so either way. And I do not think the businesses even know how many of their customers come by car and by other modes. Do they do studies/polls/surveys of their customers? In cases when the City has done this in dense commercial areas, it has consistently shown that businesses completely over-estimate how many of their customers come by car and how many by other modes.

  36.  

    eean

    There are plenty of multi-county agencies in the Bay. See the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority which has a tax proposed on the June ballot. So if there was the political will to raise a Bay Area gas tax, I doubt the details wouldn’t be that hard to work out.

  37.  

    eean

    Gas paying for the roads is pure fiction. It isn’t even true at the Federal level anymore either, since Congress and POTUS refuse to raise the gas tax for YEARS and inflation has taken its toll. Locally see Oakland proposing a bond (aka property tax) to fix pot holes in November.

  38.  

    Mark

    Are you guys for real? Think there isn’t already a gas tax to pay for roadways? There are almost 38 cents worth of extra taxes built into a gallon of gas. It might be 39 cents now. Look on the dispenser next time you fill up. THEN on top of that TAX, they add the STATE SALES TAX. So, when gas prices fall, so do the monies that pile into public agencies. There is already fixed taxes on gasoline BEFORE sales tax.

  39.  

    Mark

    No, but the gas tax monies are being used in the General Fund.

  40.  

    deuce_sluice

    Only way buses on Valencia would work is if you remove cars altogether (no through traffic, no parking) and go full pedestrian thoroughfare + Muni.

    I actually like that idea, but I’m certain Valencia merchants would lose their minds. (See something like State St in Madison, WI as an example of how nice it’d be.)

  41.  

    Mark

    How much time are the transit riders saving? When they pulled a lot of the stops, are you factoring in the added walk time to get to another stop? When someone gets evicted from their place in the Mission and cries on TV for the 1000th time because the owners of the building can’t run their businesses anymore, or their tenant’s can’t pay the rent on the ground floor so the building is sold and Grandma loses her rent control after 20 years, don’t think it isn’t by design. The developers are going to TRANSFORM the Mission more so than what is happening already. The red lane thing is a land grab for developers. Keep the transit lanes, get rid of the red. People are not afraid to cross a REGULAR LOOKING transit lane and park to go to dinner. Red lanes, not so much.

  42.  

    Mark

    It is not just motorists. It is the business owners on Mission that are complaining. Business is down since the red lanes went in.

  43.  

    Mark

    Tell that to the business owners in the Mission.

  44.  

    deuce_sluice

    It is? Prove it.

  45.  

    deuce_sluice

    The need to preserve free / cheap car storage on the street is the reason why the red lanes were done the way they were. The better options all would have nuked street parking.

  46.  

    Mark

    It is killing the jobs IN THE MISSION

  47.  

    deuce_sluice

    Hear hear!

  48.  

    Mark

    They can take the bus still, without the red lanes. By the way, notice how the SFMTA took out a bunch of stops, so people have to walk further to get to the bus? If you factor in the extra five minutes, or more if you are a senior, to get to your bus stop, did you really save anytime when you look at apples and apples?

  49.  

    Mark

    The red lane will do that for the Mission. As the small shops go out of business, developers step in, buy the buildings, and they tear them down to build them “UP” with expensive condos. The red bus lanes kill the local businesses so techies with money can buy condos. Don’t believe me? Research Bus Rapid Transit. There are thousands of articles on “How to do BRT” online…all the municpal transit agencies talk about it. See how they plan out “ridership increases” and look at corridors that are ripe for redevelopment. The Mission, as it has been known for decades, will go away. Uber is going to THRIVE here.

  50.  

    Mark

    What does this comment have to do with the story? Nothing. This is about business access and a red lane that keeps people from crossing it to get to parking. People are bitching more about the red lane than the loss of parking.