Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I’m not sure that the car manufacturers agree with you.

    Are you sure these aren’t weapons?



    Mario Tanev

    Congestion pricing in fact limits the driving to a constant rate. Which means any population growth would be for the pedestrian and transit benefits, not because of driving ease.





    Oh, sure, I supported pulling down 101 back to Bayshore 15 years ago but the political support wasn’t there, I guess.

    But right now access from the NW to the 101 spur is fairly limited – Octavia or Van Ness, unless you want to thread your way through SOMA to 280 or 80.



    Yeah, I was thinking that was a part of it, too.

    Though with how well Civic Center is connected via transit I wonder how many workers there actually drive to work? I mean, this dude certainly does:

    Except for his once-yearly photo-op:

    “Whoa, our bike strategy on Bosworth is a sharrow?! This is terrible. Can’t wait to get back in my Volt tomorrow.”



    Bay Bridge bike path? Maybe we can have nice things!



    So, basically you’re saying we shouldn’t take too many cars off the road or take too much pollution out of the air or reduce too many car-related deaths because Gentrification.

    Wow, that’s some really cynical fatalism.

    By that logic we could *really* hamper gentrification by going ahead and suckifying as many neighborhoods as much as possible. Maybe reintroducing that old Freeways Everywhere plan again?

    Or how about demolishing 50% of all buildings to replace with parking lots to really kill the cool urban vibe?

    That’ll show those gentrifiers! And will *definitely* help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, for sure. Especially by making snooty transit and snobby walking less viable and totally egalitarian driving easier. Because people of lower socioeconomic status in SF are the ones driving everywhere, of course, unlike those selfish transit-taking, elitist walking gentrifiers.

    Whatever we do, let’s *definitely* make sure this never changes!

    Whoa, too nice, Van Ness–no thanks!

    Let’s keep it like this:

    Take THAT, gentrifier 47-takers! Let the *REAL SAN FRANCISCANS*–the selfless drivers in their cars–go FIRST!



    Through the neighborhood, not the street. As opposed to driving around it, or stopping in it.



    The perception of traffic and the reality of traffic don’t always coincide. Traffic for me the few months has been awful due to constant construction in my neighborhood, but in reality, there were probably few cars overall. People who could divert, did. That being said, I think the major reason is more related to the shuttle busses removing cars from the roads, and the fact that many of the tech companies and workers who have recently moved to the city have done so to avoid commuting by car. It would be really interesting to see traffic stats, public transit ridership, and economic growth in the city all plotted together. I suspect that there are probably some areas where traffic got better, and some areas where traffic got worse.



    Probably particularly noticeable on Van Ness because of all the government workers there.


    Bob Gunderson

    Up is down, cats are dogs, parking garages are car-free homes. It’s MADNESS!!!



    Palo Alto RPP was just planning commission, it will need Council approval.



    Also, all these new bike lanes are killing the manufacturing jobs! (sarcasm)



    How exactly would congestion pricing impact the lower income portion of the citizenry which doesn’t own a car, or drive it downtown because of the cost of parking?

    I guess your point is that by implementing congestion pricing, San Francisco would become so much more pleasant that the demand for living here would go even higher, drawing more higher income people into the city, thus driving out lower income people who can’t afford to live in such a desireable place?



    “Of course, if we really want to accelerate this virtuous trend, SF could finally implement congestion pricing, which is a proven strategy to make everyone’s trip faster, safer, and more reliable.”

    While of course putting the last gentrifying nail into the city’s coffin. No thanks.


    Upright Biker

    I’m not saying there’s a _better_ route, although 280 to Embarcadero is also an option.

    What I’m pointing out is that this is a stub of the Central Freeway (not part of 101 — that’s Van Ness) that was intended to cut through SF, including through GG Park. It was stopped as part of the Freeway Revolts in 1955, but this legacy route remains despite how deleterious it is to the communities through which these cars travel…and idle.

    If it hadn’t been for the Central Freeway, this wouldn’t be an issue at all. But that’s what we’ve been left with so I suppose we just deal.



    How exactly would drivers go “around” Octavia if they do not take it? They are presumably going to 101 from the north or west of the city, or the reverse. What’s the alternate route that is better?

    19th Avenue to 280 might be an alternative if you happen to start and finish on the west side, but that’s hardly less congested anyway.

    Octavia was built to replace the elevated section of 101 that really didn’t cause congestion to Octavia nor congestion trying to get across Market Street. We all voted (eventually, after three ballots) to instead provide local access to 101 via Octavia, and that is exactly what we’ve got, with all the congestion there that that implies.


    Upright Biker

    Ask and ye shall receive:

    This is two years old, but it shows that 70K+ vehicles per day clog that area, and the vast majority of them have neither final destinations, nor do they even stop in, SF.

    They are simply driving through, rather than around.



    “Of course, this will lead to conflicts between pedestrians and bicycle scofflaws, who, lacking the skills needed to ride on Van Ness,”

    Oh, please. Clueless elitism alert. Something’s wrong with the *public right-of-way* when only those with elite skills need apply. Btw, even that doesn’t always work out so well:

    “take to the sidewalks instead one block down to Polk.”

    And what if your point of origin and destination are on Van Ness?

    This kind of thing happens all the time. Let’s say you’re on Lombard/Van Ness and need to go 3 blocks south to Union/Van Ness. If you’re on a bike you have three main choices:

    1) ride on Van Ness. Few opt for this, for very understandable reasons.

    2) Be forced to walk your bike the distance despite being in possession of a bike and the only hindrance to actually using your bike as intended being the utterly hostile infrastructure.

    3) Bike the 14% grade up Lombard to Polk, bike 3 blocks south on Polk, then cut back down a 13% grade on Union to Van Ness. Of course parallel Franklin is flatter but it’s a one-way street so no dice (btw, the near-lack of contraflow lanes in this city is yet another common reason for sidewalk riding).

    4) Realize the infrastructure doesn’t serve your mode so use coping strategies such as sidewalk riding.

    Let’s fix the infrastructure instead of blaming the victims here. Build good infrastructure and if someone still ends up on the sidewalk *then* throw the book at them.



    Btw, even moderate drops in car modeshare can lead to disproportionate drops in congestion for various reasons. One might be the fact that up to 90% of car traffic in some neighborhoods is simply due to drivers endlessly cruising around and around for on-street parking. This kind of heightened concentrated repetitive searching around the block creates a *lot* of congestion per car. So going by another mode not only takes away a moving car on the way but takes away a lot of that endless circling at the end.

    I was actually just thinking how noticeable even slight traffic drops are. Yesterday was Veteran’s Day, which is a day some offices take off but probably a majority don’t. Yet the difference during rush-hour was palpable on Van Ness. There were still plenty of cars, but everything was very free-flowing instead of the normal constant stop-and-go backup. So the moderate (5%? 10%?) drop in traffic made a world of a difference, especially being on a bus.



    These improvements are also important in a regional context. For those who travel between San Mateo County (especially Daly City and the 280 corridor) and the North Bay, transit is often a very time consuming (and costly) choice. Having a faster and more reliable 28, is an important step towards improving transit as a viable option. Also, North Bay residents who commute to SF State for school or work often dismiss doing so by transit due to the 28′s poky speed (despite there being easy transfers at the Golden Gate Bridge toll plaza). The 28 is an important regional transit line and improving its speed is important to the Bay Area as a whole. (In the absence of regional rail linking the North Bay to SF, faster bus transit connecting not only the North Bay and downtown/Market Street but also connecting to regional hubs like Daly City BART and SFSU is needed.)


    Lun Esex

    I’d like to see studies of traffic at intersections around Octavia Blvd. It’s definitely been getting worse there over the past few years, at almost any time during the day.



    Thousands (?) of SF residents now get carted to work in a private bus, Caltrain ridership has doubled. Caltrain median income is over 6 figures, shuttle bus median income is probably higher than Caltrain.

    Own a car, and use it for long distance pleasure trips only. That was my model while living in Noe Valley, we walked to the grocery store and mostly took the car out if we left town to some far flung place – adding little to local congestion.

    If we didn’t own the car to begin with we might have just rented cars, but given we had established parking at home, there was little incentive to sell the car. Even after moving to the netherlands we didn’t add a second car, and we rent a car 2-3 times a year when situations arise, for less than the cost of insuring a second car, let alone depreciation.


    Upright Biker

    This is even more interesting given the fact that the DMV shows something on the order of 20,000 more cars _registered_ in SF in the last decade, if my memory serves (which it probably does not). That would suggest that even though ownership is up in straight numbers, people are driving those vehicles less.

    Given the anecdotal aspect, though, one has to wonder whether that has to be chalked up to the fact that we’re just fed up with sitting in traffic as a general concept, so it seems more annoying even though it’s not as onerous as it once was.


    Mario Tanev

    There are two spots with the misspelling. Only one has been fixed.


    Aaron Bialick

    Oops! Fixed.


    Mario Tanev

    It’s EskEnazi, not EskAnazi, though the latter would be a mildly amusingly ironic last name if segmented around the A.


    Ted King

    There are a lot of tourists transferring from the 30-Stockton to the 28-19th Ave in the Marina area. So your shuttle plan would need either an eastern stop or a second shuttle.



    In addition to running them more frequently.



    Reminder: tomorrow’s the second SF Transit Rider PUBlic Transit Crawl, “to L and Back.”

    The last one was really fun! Looking forward to the next one tomorrow.



    SFGate article:

    “A condo building with 1-to-1 parking generates a whole lot less traffic and parking problems than an institutional or medical use,” said Scott.

    At Dugoni, for example, only faculty members had parking spaces — patients and students had to fight for street spots in a part of town with notoriously bad parking.”

    That Pac Heights location has great transit connections, an underused public parking lot on California and Steiner, an underused private paid garage at Webster and Clay, and parking meters in the immediate area. The area does not have a parking problem.



    The 28 should run articulated buses during rush hour, as Akit says.



    A lot of people at commute time take the 28 after transferring from GGT, it would suck to make them do yet another transfer.



    That’s not necessarily true-it’s better to wait than be left with garbage. For example, Amtrak could have gotten a lot better deal on locomotives if it had waited a couple of years

    Currently, Bike Share is not getting good customer reviews at all-improving the experience is essential to maintaining existing riders and encouraging a greater mode shift.



    Bus bulbs and bus stop consolidations make a lot of sense. The former reduces the time buses spend at stops, shortens the crossing distances across streets for pedestrians, adds sidewalk space where people are waiting, and also don’t need to be as long as a curbside stop, which can mean a shorter red zone. Bus stop consolidations are also welcome…how many bus lines stop every single block, sometimes twice in a block?? It’s overkill and slows down transit too much.



    And they have been closing off a bit at the end every weekday while the old bridge is being taken apart.

    Looks like the CBS text story is regurgitating info from the link as if it is new. But if they’re really working at the TOUCHDOWN area, they would probably close down the whole path, not just that last 1/4 mile that’s been closed during demo since it started.



    Someone probably hit this fire hydrant in Oakland on the corner of San Pablo Ave/17th St/Clay St:



    The NextMuni article uses the term “ghost bus” differently than I usually do. Having a bus show up that isn’t expected can be annoying at times, but also can be convenient. Worse are the ghost busses like those on the 23 route that haunt Sloat.

    On Sloat you watch your NextMuni time steadily count down until a couple minutes before the bus is expected when poof, no more bus. Have fun waiting at that stop for the next half hour for the next bus (if it doesn’t ghost too, as has been known to happen).




    Wouldn’t this be an opportunity for Muni to consider operating articulated buses on the 28 during rush hours to handle the crowds? I would also like to see if Muni could omit the Golden Gate Bridge route in lieu of a dedicated Golden Gate Bridge short line bus from Geary & Park Presidio to the Vista Point because of the bridge traffic and parking lot traffic that delays the 28 line even more.

    Also, I’m a little weary of having bus bulbs as it holds up right lane traffic even more. Certain stops like on Taraval allows cars to pass by while the bus handles the loading and unloading in the curb lane. It would be nice if Muni could get a priority signal in the bus stop lane so it can move first before all other vehicles.


    Mario Tanev

    Such a silly consolation that somehow delaying deployment of bike share is good because we can use newer technology. If that logic is taken further, perhaps we should wait for self-riding bikes in 2015? Further, although the article indicates that the minimal expansion that was supposed to happen early 2014, MAY happen early 2015. But it MAY NOT happen as well, and MAY be bundled with another expansion in East Bay. Enough is enough. Delaying is of no benefit whatsoever.



    The CBS article failed to mention that not the entire Bay Bridge path will close – only about the last 1/4 mile.



    Another reason for slow transit along the 28′s route is the fact that the bus shares a lane with private automobiles (as illustrated in the initial photo). Bus travel time and reliability is greatly enhanced by busways – a key design feature of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Read more about the design components of BRT at the TransitWiki website:



    You missed one other reason that this bus is slow on 19th Ave — it’s often so full of passengers that people are standing in stairwells and in front of the yellow safety line. Once you get over a certain passenger density threshold it takes significantly longer for people to push and shove their way on and off.



    The comments about the homeless in that article completely miss the point. It’s become a homeless encampment because it’s a deadzone for pedestrians. If it was reconfigured as a regular surface level intersection, it wouldn’t be such a deadzone, and at least some of the homeless people would go elsewhere.



    I’ve regularly seen some motorcycle cops pulling over people who are turning left from Industrial onto Loomis (behind Lowes) which is illegal during commute hours. If they just went one block over to Industrial and Bayshore they’d see all sorts of crazy and very dangerous shit. But they seem to prefer the low hanging fruit.


    Bob Gunderson

    Let’s just discuss it, and then discuss the discussion and discuss that and bring it to a panel to discuss the discussion of what was discussed. After that we’ll discuss.


    Fran Taylor

    You’d never know from the Potrero View article that plans to fix the hairball have actually been in the works for years:

    Rather than just quotes from crabby drivers and neighbors who vilify homeless people, Potrero View readers could have used some real information. Maybe nearby residents would add their voices to those of bike and ped advocates who have been frustrated by official inaction on this monstrosity for years.



    It should be noted that the route Chariot is planning in question closely duplicates the 19 and 47 lines. However, neither lines serve the Marina, so it would be a good market to serve. At issue, however, is that they plan on running the route down Polk, which may make it less safe for cyclists to ride on Polk and potentially slow the 19 down, depending on where they place their stops. (From what I observed, Chariot locates their stops on either open parking spaces, loading zones, or garage entrances, which wouldn’t be a problem. But if the vans are loading passengers while double-parked on the street, that’s a problem.)



    Don’t forget Biketopia, Bike East Bay’s yearly fundraiser party and auction being held this Thursday in Downtown Oakland (2323 Broadway Ave) from 6-9:30pm: Tickets are likely to sell out this year, so purchase in advance if you are thinking about coming, or sign up to proxy bid on auction items if you can’t make it.



    Perhaps, but in this particular case life-threatening head injuries were sustained by the victim. I think most reasonable people would regard that as harm.