Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    Where charging for parking is viable, we already charge, via meters or permits. America never passes up an opportunity to make a buck, and nobody is more capitalist in that regard than governments.

    But parking is not a “nice to have” optional privilege. It’s an essential component of what we build roads for. There is little point in spending trillions to have a network of roads and forgetting to provide anywhere for those vehicles to stop. It would be like having buses without bus stops and trains without stations.

  2.  

    RichLL

    You are over-thinking everything. By 2-way bike lane I just mean a bike lane in either direction on a 2-way street. The percentage width it takes would be the same either way.

    And if you are given your own dedicated lane then you should use it. If you require that of cars and buses, then why not bikes? Unless you have to turn or pass an obstruction anyway. It’s a matter of perception.

    There is no over-riding effort to shift travel mode share. The imperative is to give people what they want and not to manipulate them into changing. The people come first, remember?

  3.  

    Justin

    Definitely looking forward to the pilot project at Twin Peaks. Can’t wait to go up there the first day it’s in action. Hopefully it will work out and that it will remain permanent when the pilot ends two years from now. This project seems pretty thought out and thoroughly planned so I wouldn’t be surprised if it works out well. I have a feeling this is going to be good!

  4.  

    murphstahoe

    “We embark on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project so that people can stay late in bars?”

    They already stay late in bars. We embark on this project so they don’t drive home drunk. Which is probably less of a problem in Hong Kong.

    Do employees working shifts past the MTR have a 30-40 mile bus ride home?

  5.  

    tungwaiyip

    Also I wonder if building the second tube will bring really 24 hours service. The best it can do is to allow a rotating maintenance schedule split 50/50 between the two tunnels. How do you schedule a 24 hours service on Market if the tunnel have to shut down 50% of time? Sounds like the second tunnel will be using different rail gauge so you cannot just run the train there as an alternate route. Even if you can, it will probably add 20 minutes travel time, which make the service unpredictable and unreliable.

    The answer for late night service is really bus. No point to wait 20 years for a second tube to get built. Late night bus can start any time and at a small fraction of the cost.

  6.  

    tungwaiyip

    Your reply is mix up. Let me clarify.

    – HK MTR operates from about 5am – 1am.
    – HK is a 24 hours city. Lots of people are on the street. Restaurants are busy late into the night. 24 hours convenient stores are everywhere.
    – Bus service provide city wide coverage 24 hours.

    – Most San Francisco restaurants finish serving their last patron around 10pm.
    – Outside of some hotspots, most commercial area are deserted at late hours.

    I understand you enjoy SF at night. But the nightlife here is just lame compare to other cities. It does not have any detrimental impact on me. San Francisco is a very healthy city in comparison, which is the way I like it.

  7.  

    PaleoBruce

    Be fair. Almost everyone is loath to give up a free or subsidized perk. There wouldn’t be “nowhere to park” their cars, there would be nowhere which is cheap (or free).

    The irony is that the reason you cannot find parking spaces is that the parking spaces are underpriced compared to the demand. Raise the price to what the market will bear, and you will always be able to find a space.

  8.  

    StanO5

    Thank you. You are of course correct. One last thing. Can you provide a link to the acceptable reasons to ride BART? I could not find it on the BART website.

    While I was looking I did find the #1 most frequently asked question on the BART FAQs. I will let you use your Google foo to figure that out on your own.

    I had no idea that Hong Kong shuts down at 10:00 PM. Sorry if that had a detrimental impact on your upbringing. Next time I’m in SF after 10:00 PM I will think of you. Oh. Wait. That’s today!

  9.  

    tungwaiyip

    We embark on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project so that people can stay late in bars? I don’t think this is an important objective.

    I came from Hong Kong. The MTR system has 10 times the ridership of BART and they don’t run overnight. San Francisco by and large shut down after 10pm. Hong Kong is lot more a 24 hours city. The buses keep the city alive. I have no problem going to most part of the city any hour of the day by bus.

  10.  

    jonobate

    Exactly. And, even that figure is inaccurate; according to the most recent census, 69% of households in SF have one or more vehicles.

  11.  

    StanO5

    @tungwaiyip: Bars. How come I don’t stay later? Gotta catch the last train. Sorry, not riding the bus at that hour. Can’t have a 24 hour city without 24 hour transportation. Practical? That’s money talk. The same mistakes our parents made. Build it and they will come.

  12.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    The new Sleep Bus is hilarious. (Though it may fill a need until we get decent rail service between SF and LA.)

  13.  

    Mark

    I live in Parkside. It’s just easier for me to drive to SJ than deal with getting to Caltrain either via MUNI or MUNI/BART combo. Now, if I the option of hopping on a BART train at Taraval/19th and 20 minutes later catch Caltrain at Millbrae that would be a plus for me and for thousands of other commuters on this side of Twin Peaks.

  14.  

    roymeo

    And when one-sided displays must be used, point them so someone walking with traffic can see the time, rather than the opposite.

  15.  

    tungwaiyip

    I am skeptical that 24×7 BART is such a big deal. It is nice to have but does it worth building another tube just so some people can ride in the midnight? Bus seems much more practical alternative. Plus SF is not quite a 24 hours city anyway.

  16.  

    roymeo

    I’m not sure what you’re arguing about anymore. I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

  17.  

    tungwaiyip

    Nice idea for a parallel line. I suspect a second tube to Mission is not as useful to increase capacity as people hope. If it gets build, probably 75% of people will stick with Market St and 25% will use Mission Bay at best. So the capacity may increase by 1/3.

  18.  

    thielges

    Well the metrics are not calibrated to reality (0.01 point behind NYC? doubtful !), SF does shine when compared to other USA cities. To quote RealFakeSanFranciscan from the SFist comments:

    “Being one of the best American cities for public transit is like being one of the world’s tallest dwarves.”

  19.  

    jonobate

    Doesn’t the SPUR map above do almost exactly what you’re suggesting? It’s shown as an extension of Caltrain rather than a new BART line, but that’s appropriate given that the corridor already has standard gauge tracks.

    You’ll need to add passenger only tracks to the corridor, electrify them, and grade seperate the crossings, but it would still come out cheaper than a new BART line. And you could extend it past Richmond up to Hercules and possible Martinez, thus avoiding the need for a BART extension in West Contra Costa.

  20.  

    Jim Baross Jr

    First, there shall be no two-way bike lanes. There may however be two way Separated Bikeways, Class IV.
    Second, what is your point? Should we acquiesce to being prohibited from using an adjacent roadway when/if we find the Separated Bikeway to be crowded, slow, or not as convenient?

    The effort to shift travel mode share from motor vehicles to bicycling will succeed best if better bicycling travel accommodations are available; not by being segregated onto second class facilities. I do not want us to give up on having choice; we currently have the right to use most all roadways though restricted by CVC 21202 and 21208. We – people who would use bicycles – would give this up at our peril.

    Class IV facilities appear to provide for comfort and a feeling of safety, but this is not assured. And, bicycling travel in Class IV facilities will be slower than that usually available on adjacent shared roadways. Build them where there is will and funding; children and others may be more likely to use a bicycle for some trips when these are available. Do not let us lose what roadway access we now have by not caring, please.

  21.  

    joechoj

    “driving WITH NO TRAFFIC takes 16 mins”

    That’s a very weak link in your assessment

  22.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    I wonder what the traffic impact of SpoonRocket was. Probably negligible compared to total traffic volume. At least I don’t have to deal with them double parking ever since they went out of business.

  23.  

    Chris J.

    In both cases, the bicyclist or driver would be walking one extra block in addition to what they are already accustomed to doing. Drivers don’t have some extra cross to bear.

  24.  

    Mark

    And for the record that survey of transit systems is complete garbage. Leaving out important criteria, like on time performance, says it all.

  25.  

    RichLL

    There is a credibility issue however. If there is a bike lane there and you choose to not use it, then it might appear to the general public that the bike lane isn’t necessary at all. Or that if bikes can use the car lane then cars can use the bike lane. And neither of those outcomes are positive.

    A bike lane usually takes 4 to 5 feet, so that is up to 10 feet of the available width of a street. The minimum street width for access for fire trucks is 20 feet. So it follows that 2-way bike lanes can take as much as 20% of the available street width for a 3% modal share.

    Taking even more than that might strike a reasonable person as a tad greedy, you know?

  26.  

    Mark

    If SF transit rates well nationally, I can only imagine how deplorable other transit systems are. Honestly, I simply don’t buy it (as I wait for a 1-car packed L train to arrive 20 minutes later during rush).

  27.  

    Rayca

    ” For example, by offering discounts for people to take a later train, peak loads can be thinned. “We just want to get some people to wait 20 minutes,”

    Are you completely insane? Do you take inventory on what’s happening right now, this minute, ever?!? I started going to work an hour later, arriving in SF at 10 am when you changed your schedule last September, leaving Concord commuters in the dust!! No seats, ever! There is no ‘peak’ commute time anymore. Every train I’m ever on is standing room only from Pleasant Hill on. It’s just rude. This is not hop on/hop off downtown commuting. Making people stand for an hour, with time added on for medical/police emergencies is just plain rude.

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    “Sadly, the travel time to get to Caltrain in the city is still painstakingly long if you live anywhere outside of SOMA/MB.”

    well, it is 22 minutes from Glen Park to Millbrae Caltrain, which also cuts 17 minutes off the southbound trip to points south of Millbrae….

  29.  

    RichLL

    I just explained it!

    The difference is that for a walker or cyclist one block is exactly one block. For a driver, he has to find a parking space, so it is at least one block but usually more, sometimes many more, and sometimes not possible at all.

  30.  

    Mark

    RE: Caltrain’s success. Without a doubt the BB really cuts down on the travel time between SF and SJ, but only for those folks who live nearby each station. Sadly, the travel time to get to Caltrain in the city is still painstakingly long if you live anywhere outside of SOMA/MB. Outer Richmond to Caltrain takes about an hour. If you miss your connection at Caltrain then you’re talking several hours to get to SJ.

    A no brainer is BART under Geary and 19th Ave to Daly City. Rapid transit connections from the west side of town should be a priority rather than second or third thought. MUNI wants to spend upwards of $3B to put the M line underground from West Portal to SFSU which will be a horribly expensive move that will generate no new riders and only save a few minutes of travel time. Put those dollars toward a BART extension in the city. Wiener, you reading this? I’m still waiting for your fabulous subway plan to be revealed.

  31.  

    Jim Baross Jr

    Who exactly is confused and misleading others by calling these new facilities
    Protected Bike Lanes? Someone is apparently uninformed about the difference between a Bike Lane, Class II Bikeway buffered or not with paint on pavement, and a Separated Bikeway, Class IV Bikeway separated by some barrier from motor vehicle traffic. There is no such facility in California as a Protected Bike Lane.
    Why should you care? People bicycling are required to use Bike Lanes where they exist – though with some exceptions, see CVC 21208. These new to California and the USA types of bikeways, popularly known as Cycletracks but officially titled Separated Bikeways or Class IVs, are being tried out to provide more comfort and to encourage new riders, BUT we are not required to use these Separated Bike ways if we find the shared roadway to be better for our bicycling. Since we are required to use Bike Lanes and not required to use the Separated Bikeways, it’s going to be useful for people – motorists, bicyclists, and law enforcement – to understand the difference.

  32.  

    Chris J.

    So no, I don’t want to take my car with me to my destination but I do need to be able to park it close enough to be viable.

    Remind me again why you don’t have any problem with bicyclists walking an extra block, but for car drivers that’s a big problem for some reason?

  33.  

    RichLL

    My point was that you can’t just stop a car and walk a block in the same way that you can with a bike.

    So no, I don’t want to take my car with me to my destination but I do need to be able to park it close enough to be viable.

    Bikes don’t have the same issue, obviously.

  34.  

    RichLL

    Yes, bikes are typically parked OUTSIDE places of business and not inside them. The inside is for people not vehicles.

  35.  

    RichLL

    I might take transit if it was better, cheaper, safer, more comfortable or more convenient. The problem is that the only idea you have for making transit better is to make things worse for people with cars.

    More imagination and a win-win, perhaps?

  36.  

    RichLL

    Mode share under-states car ownership, because not every car owner drives every day. But car owners need a parking space whether they drive or not, so your modal share number doesn’t inform us meaningfully about the aggregate need for parking.

    My advice? If you really want to know how important parking is to a neighborhood, threaten to take it away and see what kind of response you get.

  37.  

    StanO5

    @Jef Poskanzer: Very nice ideas. I’m in favor of building more tubes. Yesterday. The reason BART is not a 24×7 system is because our parents were cheap. Let’s not make the same mistake again. Big city populations are going up. As they should.

  38.  

    Jef Poskanzer

    A second tube would be nice but it’s possible to greatly improve BART’s capacity much cheaper by building a second line on the SF side. The key point is that the tube’s usage is currently limited by loading/unloading time. The tube itself at peak times is running at about one-quarter theoretical maximum capacity based on emergency stopping time. 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.

    The East Bay side is less of a constraint because it already has fan-out once you’re past the West Oakland station. If West Oakland dwell time is still a constraint it could be addressed trivially by having half the trains skip that station.

    Furthermore, a second tube would require a second SF line too, or be useless. Since we have to build the second SF line anyway, let’s do that first and then pause and see if we still need another tube.

  39.  

    Alex

    I can’t wait for this to be built and hopefully it will be built within our lifetimes. This could revolutionize public transit in the Bay Area and especially with San Francisco because they can become a part of the larger overall rail network.

  40.  

    SFnative74

    In addition to Valencia and Folsom, the Mission has Harrison, and Potrero – 4 north-south streets with bike lanes. Shotwell is a great street to ride too, and Capp isn’t bad either. So, 6 north-south streets that are good options for bikes. Valencia is a double-parking slalom course but at least the traffic moves pretty slow there with the traffic lights.

  41.  

    crazyvag

    While there are many good routing options on the SF side (Mission Bay, under 3rd St, Geary), on the Oakland side, things are less obvious.

    One area that hasn’t gotten much attention is improving the I-80 corridor. If you’re an I80 commuter, your best bet is to switch to BART at El Cerrito Del Norte. If you compare straight transit time, BART takes 31 mins to Embarcadero while driving with no traffic takes 16 mins. BART already has a 15 minute disadvantage which grows by another 10 mins if you factor in exiting I80 and parking. For BART to be competitive on time, traffic must slow drivers down by at least 20 mins over a 14 mile segment.

    I’d claim that 2nd BART tube, should be matched up to a second line roughly paralleling I-80, but one that skips the “Berkeley Detour” and “Oakland Wye”, but instead hits Emeryville Amtrak before heading under the bay.

    Getting travel time comparable to driving (say avg of ~40mph) is one reason for Caltrain Baby Bullet’s success.

  42.  

    Dexter Wong

    Why even bother with transit in the first place if you’re going to drive? Why complain about it if you’re not going to use it? Like the banker you disdain mixing with the common man.

  43.  

    Bob Gunderson

    I love you too Sebra!

  44.  

    sojourner_7

    Yawn. Second tube dreamed about forever… but the Bay Area can’t seem to manage existing transit, it’s a huge financial black hole. If MTC and Heminger are remotely involved, avoid it like the plague. Current power brokers in the Bay Area need to be kept far away from this type mega-project.

  45.  

    Rachel H

    BTW, the “white paper from SPUR” link appears to be incorrect. Was this the intended link? http://www.spur.org/publications/white-paper/2016-02-10/designing-bay-areas-second-transbay-rail-crossing

  46.  

    Rachel H

    Roger and JGEL — Thank you for reporting on this important event. I noticed that there were several more panelists this time than at SPUR’s February presentation, which indicates increased institutional support. As a region we need a second crossing, we need connectivity with state rail systems, and we need guidance on how to get there. I appreciate SPUR and Ratna Amin’s leadership on this important issue.

  47.  

    murphstahoe

    You can raise taxes – but if it’s for a specific use you need 2/3rd to pass.

  48.  

    Rob

    “I see the problem here. Do you believe that the 75% of SF voters who have a car would vote to have nowhere to park their cars?”

    Perhaps they would be able to vote if they weren’t circling around for a parking space.

  49.  

    Flatlander

    You keep trotting out that figure about vehicle occupancy by household, then continually misinterpret it. A lot of people live with housemates in San Francisco. I for one would be considered part of a one-vehicle household even though I don’t own one because one of my housemates does.

    Then there are numerous one-vehicle families where it does not make sense to interpret the numbers as “75 percent of SF voters”

  50.  

    murphstahoe

    If we paint it half red and half blue, maybe all the gang bangers will leave