Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I think the closer you live to SF, the more people get upset about the service. When you are coming from Sonoma County, the bus is so superior to driving in time, cost, and hassle, that everyone seems very pleased with the service. The primary improvement would be more buses – not so much for frequency but because the buses are getting pretty crowded.



    I was thinking the same thing. Then again, I’d be afraid that people that saw the pictures would just think “yes! I’d love to have more parking in my neighborhood!” So many people here simply don’t care about good urbanism. Its all about making their commute and errand-running easier. Suburban mindsets in the densest metropolis in the country.



    GG Transit risks running a death spiral. What I don’t get is GGT seems to have no other notification other than official schedule, as they still have no real-time indicators, no texts, etc.

    This can be a really big deal as someone who rides a once-hourly bus. You just have to stand there waiting for 10-15 minutes hoping that it’s just late and not that you missed it (they’ll sometimes leave earlier than scheduled, too).



    I know! It really required an overactive imagination on my part to Photoshop in a double-decker freeway in front of the Ferry Bldg of all places!



    When you mandate parking, you are basically pushing private costs onto the market without demand. It becomes more expensive to build housing which drives up the cost of housing, not something that SF needs. And when you mandate parking be provided, you also induce more car ownership which just creates more traffic, something else that SF does not need. There is and endless supply of reading that explains all these issues on this site. I recommend reading up on it all. You’ll quickly see what a bad deal mandating parking is for cities.



    Wait, you disagree with the measure but hope it passes out of spite because you don’t like someone’s efforts against it? That’s just bizarre and a terrible way to establish policy in a city.



    Frustrating that the Cal Alumni article cites a bunch of recent successes and plans that Bike East Bay (formerly East Bay Bicycle Coalition) was largely responsible for, but doesn’t provide any quotes from their staff members or even mention them in the article. No love for their home town bike coalition?



    How can you dictate to developers how much parking to build, but then say it’s not up to you or I to decide the policies? Building less parking allows for more affordable development and more units per development. Would you rather house cars or people? Should voters be able to dictate how much private parking is built?


    Upright Biker

    @disqus_2xADSo7Zq7:disqus that is _so_ sleazy of you to show that Photoshopped image of what SF would look like if we allowed double-decker freeways to be built right in front of our most important civic buildings! How could you stoop so low as to suggest that’s really the way it would be if cars-first became City policy!




    What lie are you referring to?



    Not to mention the sleazy factor of their first bullet point in their ‘About’ section:

    “Parking meters shouldn’t operate on any City holiday, Sundays, or between the hours of 6:00 pm and 9:00 am.”


    Uhhh….Sunday metering was already rescinded and it had nothing to do with L. Purposeful obfuscation here.



    They’re part of the Drivers’ Team and nothing will change it except making them all ride bicycles.





    Yes. This. Only addition I’d make is it’s certainly not just mainly those who write and read this site who recognize there’s a better toolbox cities could be using besides the All Cars All The Time one.

    Anyone who’s enjoyed the amazing street life at the square at Hayes Valley (post-freeway) or the Embarcadero (post-freeway) or even just the conversion of a parking space to a parklet outside a coffee place recognizes that maybe, just maybe, this whole 125% Cars All The Time m.o. hasn’t been the best idea all the time.

    Also, it’s funny how just like with other movements, once the group enjoying the most privilege and dominance in the status quo starts noticing even minimal encroachments they are quick to label it as “imbalance” or discrimination. Oh, no, we’re going from 125% All Cars All The Time to only 110% All Cars All The Time! Restore balance!

    What’s even funnier is that by implementing better bike/transit/walking infrastructure you take more cars off the road in the first place meaning for the die-hard motorist and/or someone who really does need to drive it’s fewer cars to road-rage with in the first place! Imagine rush hour if all those bikes were cars–it’d be insanity.

    Yet the car traffic along that road mostly flows freely even at rush hour in a major city. From a driver’s point of view this kind of infrastructure *helps* them in that they have less competition! (and it keeps bikes out of the way).



    Right, and voters in SF have decided on a transit first policy. But more to your point, we also never voted on whether or not we should have a car-centric culture, it was an idea imposed by planners in the 1950s and 60s and continues to be carried out today. We inherited the world as it stands so we tend to think that this is just the natural way it came about. But it was the result of manipulation by people who at the time considered it the “right” way to go. Nowadays, that way no longer works and we are all having this argument about what the “right” thing to do is. To some, like you and the proponents of this measure, we need to continue with the status quo and make sure to shore up the dominance of cars in our society. Others, mainly the people who write and read this site, like to imagine that there could be a different way in the future. We’ll all decide together, I guess.


    sebra leaves

    It is not up to you or I, or an unelected body of appointed administrators, to decide what the policies and goals should be. The voters will decide and their wishes should be honored.


    Jeffrey Baker

    So true. There’s a one-story parking structure at Webster and 13th that just acts like a black hole sucking the energy out of the neighborhood. Not to mention the full block of surface parking adjacent to the absurd full block spiral cold war parking garage at 13th and Jackson, or the five-story parking pedestal beneath caltrans regional offices on Grand, or the cathedral that’s more parking garage than anything else.

    Part of Oakland’s problem in this regard is public “servants” have been effectively promised ready parking as part of their compensation. But anyone who needs an example of “balance” can come to Oakland to admire or surfeit of wide, deserted boulevards and empty parking spaces.



    Agreed, and I’d just add that there IS a point where adding more parking satiates demand. It’s the point where the city is no longer worth visiting because it’s been turned into a giant parking lot.



    See Prinzrob’s comment above.



    The problem with that, though, is that assumes there’s lots of space around the city to build lots of new expensive parking garages–in addition, whatever space those take up is space that can’t be used for housing/commericial/etc. needs.

    The more car-centric infrastructure you build, the more it creates its own demand. In fact, the mid-century push to require garages in homes and other forms of off-street parking also was based off the assumption that the N number of street-parked cars was static and as soon as you put them inside a garage those spaces would be open on the street again.

    Turns out, that only made driving/parking all the more attractive an option, encouraging yet more people to do it in yet more instances, so it suddenly became Nx2 or 3 or whatever and voilà still not enough parking. Just like widening freeways in a city is never enough to satiate demand, neither is adding endless more parking.



    The images posted above are not part of any ad campaign, they were just hastily photoshopped together by an individual (and frequent Streetsblog commenter) who opposes Measure L. You already know this, as you participated in the Streetsblog comment thread a couple days ago where they were posted originally.

    Beyond that, how is it sleazy to provide a visual representation of what an actual parking garage would look like in different contexts around the city, in response to a measure that specifically asks for more parking garages in the city? Is it okay to demand more parking garages but not okay to show photos of parking garages because people might accidentally realize what they are asking for?

    I think it is sleazy for the Measure L campaign to show a Muni train on the front page of their website, when enshrining on-street car parking, wasting funds on hugely expensive garages, while also reducing meter and ticket revenues as the measure requests would all have a significant negative impact on Muni service.



    “Insufficient” is not really an objective term. If your goal is to have everyone reliant on driving around and not interesting in providing space for alternatives then, yes, perhaps <1 car per unit is insufficient. If, instead, you are trying to challenge the dogma that cars are the only thing we should ever rely upon for getting around, and seeking to reduce the amount of entitlements that drivers get, then it's a perfectly sufficient amount.



    Anything that relies on enforcement will fail. There is none.



    Who cares if it is a lie right?



    This ad campaign against this prop is so sleazy. I disagree with the prop but wish it passes because this is so sleazy.



    And why do bikers think they can push everyone aside?



    No one here seemed to care when the Stewart billionaires shelled out half a million to protect their view with the sham prop against 8 Washington



    As Bob Dylan sang it. “How many deaths will it take til too many people have died?”


    sebra leaves

    We can start by reinstating the minimum 1 car per unit rule for new properties. It was changed from a minimum to a maximum requirement a couple of years ago and has resulted in a lot of new market rate housing being built with insufficient off-street parking. The voters may also want to chime in on the “sharing economy” privatizing public property. The courts are looking at that now.



    Leeland Yee



    Octavia and Market is a failure because the bike idiots forced the city to forbid turns from Market into the freeway.



    Who cares if it’s a big lie right?



    Do you have any ethics?



    Brilliant. Yes and as ethical as a Karl Rove ad.



    Sleazy ad campaign. Who did you hire? The ethically challenged folks that slimed 8 Washington?



    Excellent column on a tragic, and dare I say, needless fatality – completely preventable, particularly if the street redesign improvements suggested in the column were implemented.

    How many more traffic casualties are necessary before Caltrans takes action?

    Re., “Atherton’s first-ever bicycle and pedestrian plan strongly recommends reducing the number of travel lanes on El Camino Real from six to four, converting the right-most lanes in both directions to bike/ped paths separated from vehicle traffic with some type of barrier.”

    Four lanes moves traffic well through Burlingame, but there are no bike lanes. This would be a great improvement for the 1.6 mile stretch – and would increase biking and reduce auto traffic speeds.



    What about a compromise? If they built parking garages, then they would have to remove street parking and put in cycle tracks. A hundred parking spaces in the garage equals to a hundred parking spaces removed from the streets.



    I’m getting tired of using “we can’t determine if the person was walking in the crosswalk” as an excuse. When someone gets hit by a fast-moving car they’re not going to remain in the crosswalk. How far they fly is based on how fast the driver was going.

    Does it really matter whether they were fully inside the crosswalk or 5-10 feet outside of it on a straight road? If they’re anywhere near a crosswalk, they should assume the person was in it, not cop-out with a “we can’t know precisely if they were in the crosswalk.” That’s what the cops said about two deaths in Mountain View where men were killed a couple of years ago.

    Oh, and the cop said speed wasn’t a factor in either case. In one case the driver was estimated at 35-40 at night in a 35mph zone. In the other, the average speeds are so fast that cops only ticket people going over 55mph even though it’s a 35mph zone. Is it any wonder why I have little faith in their bias?



    Having people park in area garages instead of on the street is actually a very good idea. It’s really the “restoring balance” people who should be careful what they wish for!

    And the garages would not have to be ugly, mid-to late 20th century monstrosities. There’s a book on this:



    I real life example of “restoring balance” is Downtown Oakland. Parking garages everywhere and wide streets don’t make it a place I want to spent time.



    Let me guess: taxpayers would get stuck with the bulk of the tab. Mayor Lee doesn’t want to “nickel and dime” drivers. He just wants taxpayers to pay through the nose to provide parking, whether they use it or not.

    *Each on-street spot costs taxpayers $400 annually to maintain. Source:



    As someone who lives near Ocean, I can attest to the fact that the sharrows on that avenue are a joke. If there’s any street that could this treatment, it’s Ocean:

    (plus, it already has the lightrail part)

    The Ocean Ave corridor is surprisingly underrated, and could be so much more lively with a more equitable and pleasant streetscape. I’ve often thought there’s a lot of potential for some treatment à la Patricia’s Green (the Hayes Valley Square at Octavia/Hayes) for underutilized pockets along the corridor such as this:



    LOVE these! This is brilliant visual messaging.



    This is great. I’m going to put these up in my neighborhood once we get closer to election time.



    Apparently the shuttle busses are “inducing” techies to move to SF, “displacing” lower income residents.

    Because having a city center be well-connected to outlying areas via transit is apparently a bad thing for the city.



    So you say you want to “reduce induced demand for housing.” What you’re really saying is that your solution to SF’s housing crisis is to make SF a shittier place to live so less people want to move in. That does not sound like a good long-term plan for the city to me.

    The *only* way to solve a housing crisis is from the supply side: build more housing, high- medium- and low- end all together, and build it *fast*.

    But by all means keep harping on the “techies” scapegoat. Blaming “outsiders” for your problems is a time-tested technique, even if the irony of doing so in a “diverse, tolerant” city is completely lost on you.



    Bus lanes make too much sense for Ocean, especially east of Miramar. All of the metro lines should have had comprehensive TEP proposals.


    Upright Biker

    Funny how when you ask regular people, they always put “more space for cars/parking” at the very lowest end of the totem pole and “more space for peds/transit/bikes” at the top.

    If you asked Prop L proponents, they would probably claim that these regular people didn’t exist, or were socialist moles rigging the process, or were somehow influenced by the pro-bike propaganda coming out of City Hall.


    Dallam Oliver-Lee

    Yet California allows cars to park in bike lanes and protected bike lanes unless a “no parking” sign is posted.



    That solution should apply to all companies and individuals (who are paid by said companies) and is called a tax increase. Start campaigning.