Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    thielges

    That article about Ms. Kosberg taking action on buses parking in the Townsend St. bike lanes is interesting. Just a little polite prodding from a concerned commuter was all it took to change some behavior for the better. Imagine what even just a little enforcement from the SFPD could do.

    Maybe bike lane parkers don’t even realize that they’re causing a problem?

  2.  

    mx

    (nevermind. Link was broken, now it’s not)

  3.  

    jonobate

    The aerial photo in this article neatly illustrates why I-280 should be removed all the way back to the interchange with US-101. If that was done, ALL of the aerial structures in that photo could be removed.

    The part of the double-deck structure that splits off to the left of the picture goes to the I-280 east of the interchange, which would no longer exist. The part that splits off to the right goes to I-280 west of the interchange, which is a movement that very few cars perform, so it could also be removed. Cars wishing to make that movement would connect between the two freeways using Alemany Blvd, which would not be much slower than using the direct ramp.

    The aerial structure at the bottom of the picture is the main carriageway of I-280 through the interchange, which would also be removed. Traffic between I-280 and downtown would instead be routed onto the aerial ramps connecting I-280 west of the interchange to US-101 north of the interchange (not shown in the picture), which would remain in place. These ramps are located above the Alemany interchange and don’t affect residences and businesses in the way that the other ramps do.

  4.  

    jonobate

    How does “opposing bus lanes” equal “supporting gentrification”? Are Calle 24 worried that if the bus lanes are implemented, the techies will flock to Mission St to take advantage of the projected 5 minute travel time savings for the 14-Mission through the project area?

  5.  

    Sprague

    The “governator” played a role in this, with his populist and successful effort to reduce the vehicle license fee immediately upon assuming the office. When he left office, he expressed regret for this with its severe budget implications for California.

  6.  

    Sprague

    Ignoring the increased environmental and fiscal consequences of highway expansion is irresponsible to current and future residents. To knowingly increase air pollution and decrease transit ridership (by widening 101) is a major fail – especially when it’s now widely known and understood that this will further climate change and thereby contribute to this very freeway being flooded by rising sea levels. Furthermore, to undermine Caltrain, Samtrans, and other county funded public transit services is very poor planning. Caltrain has had unreliable public funding but despite this has rapidly increasing ridership. San Mateo County officials should know better. Innovation is required.

  7.  

    StrixNoctis .

    The people struggling to remain in the Mission district would just get “washed away” even quicker if they supported the gentrification.

  8.  

    StrixNoctis .

    Valencia Street isn’t exactly “up” or improved by gentrification. There are clubs & bars along that street, public drunkeness, prostitution (not low-end street walkers like there has been on Capp St, but the high-end prostitutes at and around the Valencia St clubs & bars are prostitutes nonetheless), loitering, a lot of illegal double parking.

  9.  

    Artemisia1

    What is the opportunity for public input to this plan?

  10.  

    shotwellian

    Yes, I meant my suggestion to be in addition to, not in place of, the proposed path between Alemany and San Bruno. Together, those two improvements would go a long way to making the area navigable for people walking and biking.

  11.  

    Chris W

    During the Mayor’s budget outreach to communities earlier this year, PNA (of which I am also chair) corridor manager Jack Tse and I presented three proposals to be added into the city budget. Two of them were added, leaving the last one, $100K to top-up the Alemany study, to the add-back process (where supervisors all negotiate over a pool of ‘extra’ money). Supervisor Campos felt so strongly about this project that he got the extra $100K to expand the study beyond pedestrian access and to look more fully at bike access as well. Now with $200K for the study, the PNA is really looking forward to working with other community partners in Bernal Heights, Glen Park, and with all the stakeholder agencies to see what we can come up with.

  12.  

    hp2ena

    What about those coming from/going to San Bruno?

  13.  

    baklazhan

    HOV lanes are also bus lanes.

  14.  

    shotwellian

    Connecting the Alemany and Bayshore bike lanes would be great. The buffered bike lanes on Alemany are quite nice, but I hardly ever see anyone else riding them since they dump you into this mess here.

    In the long term, the planned studies of removing part of 280 should look, at least as an option, at removing 280 all the way back to 101, which would drastically simplify the Alemany interchange.

  15.  

    SFnative74

    Seems a little disingenuous by C/CAG to tack on the cost of additional transit operations to the cost of converting existing lanes to HOV. To be fair and accurate, are they tacking on the numerous external costs associated with encouraging more driving to the proposal for adding lanes on 101? Seems to me they already know what they want and are stacking the deck against converting existing lanes to HOV lanes.

    We should look to experts in European transport, who have great transportation systems partially because they honestly assess as many external costs as possible. When doing so, it becomes very clear that a “car-first” transportation approach is nearly always more costly and less efficient.

    Here’s one example: http://habitat.aq.upm.es/boletin/n28/ncost.en.pdf

  16.  

    jonobate

    I was very pleased to see that the results of the open house survey showed that they were out of touch with the majority of the open house attendees: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2015/14%20Mission%20-%20Inner%20Survey%20Results.pdf

  17.  

    jonobate

    The proposal isn’t to add a HOV lane, it’s to add a HOV/HOT lane. In other words, if you’re not carpooling, you can pay a small amount to bypass the congestion. That seems to me like it would be an attractive option for many solo drivers.

  18.  

    murphstahoe

    Widening the freeway – oh my.

    By the time such a ridiculously costly endeavour could be completed, we’ll have electrified Caltrain and deployed self driving cars, both of which will reduce overall vehicle usage dramatically – such that we won’t need the lanes.

  19.  

    Andy Chow

    101 needs to become a second transit corridor, since Caltrain will be maxed out eventually. One of the quicker ways is to improve the freeway shoulders to allow for buses to use. Since a lot of companies provide their own buses so a lot of transit operating costs are absorbed by the companies.

    A lot of the freeway congestion on 101 is due to the transbay traffic on San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges. So if transportation options are improved on these routes it can take burden off 101. HOV on ramps for bridge approaches can help speed up transit for San Mateo Bridge. Dumbarton corridor will require more work, though.

  20.  

    murphstahoe

    How does *adding* an HOV lane make traffic worse?

  21.  

    lunartree

    How do they expect HOV lanes to move more people? People will switch to transit before carpooling so it seems like adding HOV lanes is simply a way to make traffic even worse so that more people switch. Perhaps bus lanes on the highway would have a real impact on the number of people per hour carried, but then you’d need to weigh the benefit of that over using that money to get Caltrain up to speed sooner rather than later.

  22.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Yes! I’d rather see cars in various states of beauty and decay. And let’s make sure that stupid pedestrians die out and we’re only left with the safe, courteous, and patient motorists on our city streets.

  23.  

    mx

    It’s one of the classic responses to gentrification: let’s resist all efforts to improve the neighborhood so wealthier people won’t want to live there.

    I get that they don’t want change because change means displacement, but intentionally keeping the neighborhood down isn’t going to help either.

  24.  

    MrEricSir

    Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

  25.  

    murphstahoe

    In the other thread you say you can empathize with people who are different than you. Presumably you can empathize with Calle 24’s leaders desire to make more money :)

  26.  

    p_chazz

    I can empathize with people who are different from me. I don’t believe in factionalizing into pro- and anti- camps around issues. In this case, the twisty-turny block of Lombard was created to reduce the grade for–wait for it–cars! It wasn’t even a thing until it featured on a postcard–the tweet of the pre-computer age–in the 1950s.

  27.  

    Gezellig

    Seeing as a disproportionate number of those hit in crosswalks are the elderly who’ve already reproduced, I’m not sure how Darwinist the status quo is.

    But, hey, victim shaming is fun!

  28.  

    p_chazz

    An interesting position to take, considering how much Calle 24’s constituency would benefit from the 14/14R improvements. It just goes to show how disconnected so-called “community leaders” are from the community they purport to represent.

  29.  

    murphstahoe

    Something will change. If you don’t participate in the change, eventually the change will just wash you away.

  30.  

    alberto rossi

    I guess SFMTA admitting that these paint jobs aren’t really bulbouts is progress, of a very lame sort.

  31.  

    jonobate

    Calle 24 are the worst. One of their representatives was at the Muni Forward open house for the 14/14R, arguing that no parking or travel lanes should be removed for bus only lanes. When the SFMTA representative asked how they could otherwise deal with the problems of the buses not fitting in the lanes, he replied “make the buses smaller.”

    He was also boasting about how their opposition managed to keep Sunday Streets and “the bike people” off 24th St, and how their opposition would defeat these bus lanes as well. These people are conservatives, in the true sense of the word – they don’t want anything to be changed from the way it was before. I understand that in many respects the Mission has changed for the worst in recent years, but opposing ALL change because of that is an unthinking and reactionary position.

  32.  

    Jimbo

    these paint jobs are so ugly though. total eyesores. why don’t we just let darwinism continue to adress these problems

  33.  

    mx

    So people are willing to back a $3 billion bond for transit, but won’t pay an extra $50/year on their car registrations to maintain the roads they drive on. Just how did vehicle license fees become the third rail of California politics?

  34.  

    roymeo

    The purpose of these, protected by soft-hit bollards and the like, verboten to vehicles was clear. Until SFMTA declared that you shouldn’t be in them.

    Some weird sort of DMZ.

  35.  

    SFnative74

    People have been doing that for as long as I can remember, way before any of these things started being put in. I still have to sometimes remind myself to not stand in the street waiting for the light to change.

  36.  

    Andy Chow

    It is about supply and demand. Plenty of companies want to serve airports because it is good money. There’s nothing wrong with airports asking to share part of that revenue. This is no different with higher rents for retail in highly trafficked areas. If you’re a driver, it is a cost of doing business. If you think the cost and the hassle is high enough not to do it, then don’t. For example I don’t have an airport permit and I don’t go to airports. A lot of companies only apply airport permits to parts of its fleet, and make sure that their employees don’t take unpermitted vehicles to airports

    I don’t think SJC is doing apply any rules stricter than that has applied to taxis to TNCs that are not already required by the state. The $1 million insurance requirement was set by CPUC because that was what the TNCs have agreed to (only kicks on after the driver have used his or her insurance, after paying for deductible). What the TNCs are complaining about is the airport is setting a requirement that doesn’t give complete freedom to TNCs, or actually the same as taxis.

    TNCs business model is we do whatever the hell we want and however we want to do it. They undercut and underpay to compete with permitted vehicles. All the VCs money is being spent on lawyers, lobbyists, and coders to essentially exploit drivers (those who work for TNCs and those who don’t). Since they claim they have so much money, why not just buy the entire taxi fleet everywhere? Of course, that means spending money on actual transportation operation, which is not what they do.

  37.  

    mx

    To put it simply, the financial goal for airport transportation is to milk the transportation sector as dry as possible because the airport has a monopoly on a place people want to get to/from. Some examples:

    - SFO charges BART $2.5 million/year in rent for the airport station, plus an additional $800,000 or so in “custodial fees” (you really can’t keep the most tidy BART station in the whole system clean for less than $800K?). That’s a great use of public transit funds, which could be better spent either reducing the SFO surcharge or on, say, providing transportation.

    - SFO charges $5/trip for taxis, which is estimated to bring in close to $10 million this year. In no possible situation should it cost the airport $10 million/year to cover the costs of providing the taxi lot (pavement, picnic table, restroom) and a couple of employees to summon cabs to the terminals (a job handled by taxi companies in some cities). These fees have also increased close to 50% in the last couple of years. I’m far from a legal scholar and don’t know how airport authorities are covered, but I’d be curious whether there’s a Prop 218 issue here in fact.

    BART, taxis, TNCs, buses, etc… are not some kind of drain on the airport where their negative impacts must be paid for. The airport would surely suffer greatly if it only permitted passengers to arrive on foot or by bike, because these are the ways in which the airport’s customers arrive at the airport.

    Here, SJC wants to go well beyond reasonable rules in setting insurance and background check standards for TNC drivers to access the airport. If the standards are too low, that should be addressed at the state or at least the city level, not property by property. What’s next? The Department of Public Health requiring all taxi drivers dropping off clinic visitors have to wear pink fedoras? It makes about as much sense.

    Airports have set a fee of $0 to cover their costs when a private driver picks up or drops off a passenger at the curb. Surely their reasonable costs for a taxi or TNC doing the same activity can’t be very large.

  38.  

    Andy Chow

    Airlines oppose higher landing fees to pay for improvements that could be collected through user fees. They wouldn’t want to absorb costs that can be passed to the customers through other means.

    In the past, air fare includes checked baggage and on board meals. The’re not longer included for domestic flights.

  39.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    This is good news! But every crosswalk in the city deserves at least five feet of daylighting. It should be standard. Luckily, it isn’t expensive. Just a little bit of paint.

  40.  

    baklazhan

    Ok, but then passengers pay that toll regardless of whether they are driven there or take Bart or a bus. And so they have no incentive to take mass transit, and so there’s a congestion problem.

  41.  

    Andy Chow

    The financial goal for airport transportation is different than other types of transportation. The goal for airport transportation is full cost recovery from user fees (plus contribution to the airport). If you drive, airport expects you for pay for the cost of parking, if you take a taxi, the taxi driver expects you to pay for the operating costs, and the airport also takes a cut. With that in mind, that’s why BART collects a $4 surcharge at SFO and $6 at OAK.

    Cheaper transportation options exist with AC Transit and SamTrans, but both are geared towards employees (who deserve transportation subsidy like non-airport workers) but open to everyone. Sometimes airports subsidize scheduled bus transportation to address congestion and equity issues, but they wouldn’t subsidize car or van transportation that are door-to-door, which are still profitable.

    Airport may be government operated but it runs on a for-profit principle. How else would it be why food at the airport costs more than outside?

  42.  

    Andy Chow

    CPUC regulation explicitly allows airport to regulate commercial transportation in addition to what CPUC already does. Airports traditionally have been a magnet for private providers whereas most private sectors have abandoned other markets (and where public providers took over). For example, a private company Monterey Airbus provides transportation between SFO, SJC, and Monterey, but Monterey-Salinas Transit provides transportation between the train station in San Jose and Monterey.

    Because of that, airport is also a magnet for illegal operation. Airport authorities have assisted CPUC to rat out illegal operators.

    Airports certainly have a responsibility of how they want to regulate traffic. Large airports like LAX and SFO have congestion issues. If they support a scheduled private bus service (like the Monterey Airbus) to help address the traffic issue, it is in their interest to protect that company from excessive competition. So if you want to provide a similar service, you may get a permit from the CPUC but not the airports. Because airport charges taxis serving the airports, it is in their interest to protect taxis from illegal competition, including limos that are legal to operate but cannot solicit riders who aren’t booked.

    Airports also use such authority to achieve their air quality goals. SFO for instance charges a different rate for CNG buses than diesel buses. So hotel shuttles that serve SFO generally are CNG fueled.

  43.  

    murphstahoe

    It’s not functionally the same. People who take BART, full shuttle buses, carpool, etc… should pay less towards this portion of the infrastructure than those who are less efficient.

  44.  

    mx

    But we already do that in the form of the facility fees that are part of every airline ticket in addition to the gate rental fees, fuel surcharges, and other fees paid by airlines to airports (these costs must be recouped from passengers as part of ticket prices). Since the vast majority of people going to the airport either work there or plan to fly, passengers are already paying the airport for its services.

    Functionally, it’s the same thing as a toll to enter the airport, but collection via airline tickets is far more efficient.

  45.  

    Everybody Hates A Tourist

    These are great. But please, everyone, stop standing in the middle of the street while waiting for the light to change! I see fellow pedestrians doing this all the time, and I know that sooner or later I’m going to see someone get hit. Drivers in this city are bad enough, don’t make them have to dodge you when they have the green light.

  46.  

    murphstahoe

    I feel the opposite. The airport entrance should be a toll road and *everyone* pays.

  47.  

    murphstahoe

    Come on, a BMW or two is part of the charm!

  48.  

    murphstahoe

    This is your perspective. I might say the attraction is riding a bike down it, or walking down it, or just looking at it from the bottom with no cars.

    I don’t see any reason to see your perspective as more valid than any others, given you are part of the minority of freakozoids who don’t drive a car.

  49.  

    YoYo Ma

    I was fine with the bike lane, but the new merge right on the off-ramp seems pretty dangerous. There was already a big accident there last week. Now traffic is backing up onto 280 just like at Ocean Ave; it’s brutal.

    People still floor it at 50mph along San Jose Ave Northbound, because after the merge slowdown, it’s open until the stoplight traffic. People love to waste gas on wearing out their brakes. These are my observations at 4-5pm.

  50.  

    mx

    It’s absurd for airport officials to regulate TNCs beyond reasonable restrictions on the orderly use of airport property (e.g. what curbs can be used, where vehicles should wait, prohibiting solicitation of passengers, etc…). Issues like insurance and background checks should be handled at the state level, which is already happening.

    Airport managers, who operate free public curbs where anybody with a car and pickup and drop-off their passengers, have become the most entitled control freaks when it comes to transportation services. Why should passengers pay airports trip fees when taking taxis and TNCs? If I hail a cab at City Hall or take one to the Marriott, I don’t somehow have to pay the City or hotel for the privilege, so why should airports get paid?