Skip to content

Recent Comments


    sebra leaves

    Yeah, you can try to read and follow the signs on the street while you look for parking and after you park you can try to decipher the signs on the meters, which may or may not be visible or informative. Short people and people with bad eyesight cannot read the signs. If it is raining or too sunny or dark you can’t read the signs.


    Jeffrey Baker

    MASS CONFUSION!!!!!!!111111111ONE



    The SFMTA has no authority to set parking rates at meters that are owned by the Port of San Francisco. That’s why there are meters along the Embarcadero that have Sunday metering, and the SFMTA is simply doing you a service by pointing out that is the case on their website.

    The authority of the Port over those meters is set in the city charter and the 1994 Burton Act. You would be hard pressed to find any politician who would try and work to overturn those measures, as the revenue from the meters is used by the Port for their operations. Loss of that revenue would somehow need to be made up, and that would mean *all* city taxpayers would end up footing the bill rather than people who park their cars on the Embarcadero on Sundays.


    Thomas Rogers

    Yeah, as far as petition collection misrepresentations go, this is pretty typical. That’s a low bar, but still!



    Wow this is the first time in history that the Safeway petition guy ever tried to mislead me!



    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lee’s compromise was to leave the meters posted for Sundays, only not enforce them.



    Isnt this why theres either a sign or times/rates written on the meter? Its not rocket science. Read, feed it for the time, and move on.



    “ALL Sunday meters are not free.”

    Nor have they been for quite a while. The Port of SF which controls many of the parking places along the port has long required payment for their meters on Sunday. Are you proposing that this fight is now about ‘restoring’ free parking on Sunday to the entire city and county of San Francisco?

    “The lack of consistency and mass confusion has angered a lot of people.”

    But no one was particularly interested in doing anything about it–now that Sunday Metering has brought out the torches there seems to be a movement to continue that momentum, crafting demands-on-the-run, and using ‘well-crafted messages’ with little enough of the truth to them to push paying for parking much further back than it was a couple years ago… One wonders why the argument cannot stand on its own merit cloaked in the full truth.

    We’re gonna park here like its 1899?



    It’s clear you obviously support this delusional ballot measure


    Jym Dyer

    @sebra leaves – Condolences for your massive confusion.


    sebra leaves

    Details on this part of the initiative “restoring free parking at meters on Sundays, holidays and evenings”:

    According to the SFMTA web site, and recent reports, ALL Sunday meters are not free. Parking at meters is NOT free on holidays, except for Christmas and New Years. As for evenings, that depends on your definition of evening. More people think it starts around 6 PM, but not all meter enforcement stops at 6 PM in ALL our neighborhoods. Some areas limited parking and meters run from as early as 7 AM to 11 PM. The lack of consistency and mass confusion has angered a lot of people. A few Supervisors have complained about it as well. In fact, we understand that three of the five contenders running for Supervisor in D-10 signed the petition. Good luck stopping the backlash in November.


    Jym Dyer

    What it can accomplish is raising a fuss, which is a great distraction from whatever real issues there are. Not the worst strategy in a city that will back down when a wingnut comes to a meeting and babbles about Agenda 21.



    Hard to say. I think it will pass narrowly unless there is a concerted effort to get out the no vote.



    What are your opinions on this ballot initiative soon to be ballot measure?



    And that SF pols won’t want to be seen going against a popular mandate.


    Thomas Rogers


    Jamison Wieser

    SFMTA’s plan for the J-Church is located here if you want to know more about traffic calming measures proposed along the corridor:


    Dark Soul

    DIdnt you hear that Muni want cars off the roads thats is basically unbalanced and freedom being take away.




    Bob Gunderson

    Correction: Geary BRT will take FREEDOM off the roads!!!



    Drunk Driving loser gets out of pokey, drives drunk.


    Richard Mlynarik

    This is the only new signal proposed on the J, the L has 9 for
    comparison, and for all this vilifying I don’t have a position on
    signalizing this intersection, far side boarding alone should offer some
    level of speed improvement, but that’s how the system SFMTA intends to
    install will work.

    That’s a fascinating regurgitation of TEP TEP TEP.

    But THE FACTS ON THE GROUND are that 24th/Church is not a problem for the J, nor for the 48, nor for any other vehicle or pedestrian or other mode of transportation.

    The ONLY problem is the positioning of the bat shit insane high floor ramp on the inbound track.

    How does a new signal fix that?

    What does far side boarding have to do with that? (Other than fixing an idiot construction the most expensive and unnecessary way, as an almost-unintended side effect.)

    What the hell does that have to do with the L?

    This is a simply bad project. It’s not just un-neeed and wasteful, but it is guaranteed to be counter-productive, not just for Muni, but for every user of the intersection.

    Come on Jamison, man up, grow a pair, and admit that SFMTA (America’s Finest Transportation Planners! With the mode share, cost effectiveness, operating costs, implementation speed, and capital costs to prove it!) make a mistake once every couple decades … or so.


    Mario Tanev

    I think it is the latter. They are hoping that if it passes, next year they can come back with something binding.


    Andy Chow

    Those “home owners associations” are very regimental indeed, and along with cities, use power over land use to force a particular regiment. It used to be worse with restrictions against people of certain race to reside. Today there’s still a lot of restriction on how people can use their property based on quality of life/aesthetic rationales.



    Sometimes I wonder if the American public has been “brainwashed” by the automotive, petroleum and real estate industries into thinking that “Real Americans” live in suburban houses and drive the biggest cars they can afford. The subtle message is that transit-riding apartment dwellers are “second class citizens”. We can even go back to the “Cold War” era, when citizens of the “Union of Silently Swallowed Republics” were objects of pity for being crammed into Stalin-era apartment blocks. Proponents of urban density can also be seen as wanting to go back to the days of teeming slums in New York. Owning your home is seen as being free of dealing with landlords and obnoxious neighbors–I’m reminded of folk singer Oscar Brand, and his parody of a Woody Guthrie line “This land is my land, it isn’t your land, and you better get off. ‘fore I blow your head off.” Of course, this “A man’s home is his castle” can be illusory–if some government entity wants your property for a sales-tax generating shopping center, you could be forced to move, some neighborhoods have “home owners associations” that can be very “regimental” and even after the mortgage is paid off, you still have to come up with ever-increasing property taxes.


    Thomas Rogers

    Detail-type question: why is the “Restore Balance” initiative just a policy measure, as opposed to something binding? Is there a lower threshold of signatures for a policy recommendation, vs. an actual ordinance? Or do supporters think it’s more likely to get broader support if it’s understood to be non-binding?


    Lee Ross

    I live in the Outer Richmond. All these enhancements are nice. The critics have been hyper ventilating because CHANGE IS TOUGH. Realistically the overall changes are ok. Nothing fantastic yet definitely not worth the scorn heaped on City Hall. What is really the big change OUT HERE are the influx of more upscale eateries which, I suppose, is commensurate with the BIG hike in property values and rents. Now THAT’S A STORY!!



    The Hairball needs sharrows? I think it needs a lot more than that!


    Jamison Wieser

    To your first point,and towards the goal of building consensus.

    Parklets provide a good example of how we can start getting our priorities straight a few parking spaces at a time. As they become more widespread they become an even more relatable example of a local benefit.


    Jamison Wieser


    While this crazy motherfucker babbles on, another piece of information about the TEP and ADA boarding platforms you are free to hold me responsible for, is that by moving the platforms to the far side, the boarding ramp will be located at the far end of the platform where it will meet the front door and the operator at a level height. This does away with the awkwardly placed inbound ramp and the outbound ramp a half block away.

    I have nothing to do with these design decisions, nor did I set the 1990 ADA requirements, and I know I’m going to be the great satan to Richard for thinking this, but my personal take is the far side platforms will be an improvement over the ones there today.

    SFMTA intends to signalize many intersections to reduce travel times. This is the only new signal proposed on the J, the L has 9 for comparison, and for all this vilifying I don’t have a position on signalizing this intersection, far side boarding alone should offer some level of speed improvement, but that’s how the system SFMTA intends to install will work.

    Since SFMTA plans to signalize, they will be tearing up the intersection to lay all the sensors, utility poles, power, etc. it makes sense they went with very modest changes in the interim. And because they will be tearing up the intersection and adding signals I think it’s well worth asking if there are additional bulbout possibilities – like a bus boarding island at the southwest corner to match the one on the northeast corner – or other traffic calming tools they already have approved as part of the toolkit that can help mitigate the fact SFMTA does plan to be signalizing it?


    Bob Gunderson

    park in a crosswalk or a traffic lane, silly



    Potrero Hill needs a secure parking garage at 22nd Street. For bikes!


    Richard Mlynarik

    It’s like we have a coin-operated TEP machine in here.

    The signalisation (lack of) at 24th/Church isn’t a problem. Not for Muni. Not for the J. Not for the 48. Not for SUVs. Not for the Google-y buses. Not for strollers. Not for pedestrians. Not for cyclists. The intersection works.

    New signals are pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster. THIS IS SFMTA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Failure is ALWAYS its own reward. As long as some contractor makes out doing make-work it’s all good.

    Oh and for comparison, 23rd/Church a whole block away functioned perfectly without a traffic light until that was stupidly added a decade ago. Now it is a regular obstacle for the Muni J line while providing no benefit of any type to any road or sidewalk user.

    The only problem is with 24th/Church are the bat shit insane high floor ADA platform monstrosities. And as we all have heard from Jamison Wheeler, high floor trams (high floor! post 1980! WTF?) are A Number One Ace OK Bring It On TEP TEP TEP.. In fact, we need to install full-length high-floor platform “stations” on 24th … somehow. And if not, remove the stop TEP TEP TEP TEP TEP TEP TEP.


    Andy Chow

    It is just as if not more regimented to live in single family housing, drive to work, shop at big box stores, eat at chain restaurants, and have multiplexes be the only entertainment option. Isn’t this already the case in ex-urban towns like Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield. Isn’t all those regimented lifestyles (where you shop, what you see, what you eat) all decided by some small gang of corporate executives?



    I’m sure we can come up with a solution. We can’t hold improving out streets hostage to a design that prioritized, and hence was built around, motorized transit.

    Worst-case, you can create a plaza where only buses can slowly go through, kind of like this (only smaller and with buses instead of trams):



    You can make a request to the Sustainable Streets Division at MTA. All you need is 100 signatures from your neighbors for them to review your request. That or you can email Eric Mar’s office.


    Jym Dyer

    ☼ A little more info in this more recent writeup:

    Also, a really spiffy fashionable “Save Us From The Freeway” hat that really ought to come back into style.



    I’m sorry. I’m “pro-bicycles” or what have you, but this idea of converting 1 of 3 lanes into a bicycle lane is simply idiotic. I drive a car daily to work and take the San Jose Ave. exit. The backup on this road was already pretty gnarly with 3 lanes, but now with 2 lanes, it has gotten worse. I can only imagine how horrendous the traffic will be once school begins…. To make matters worse, in the 1+ months since this change occurred, I’ve only seen 1 or 2 bicycles using the new bicycle lane!


    Jym Dyer

    It astounds me that people think just saying an acronym that looks like a two-syllable word is making an argument. “NIMBY” was actually coined in an attempt to disparage people who didn’t want toxic waste dumped on them, the implication being that we shouldn’t question that it needs to be dumped somewhere, so why can’t these selfish, selfish people do their part?

    So somebody’s called somebody NIMBY, now what? Can we get past the dumb name-calling and talk about the reasons for opposing or supporting this or that project?


    Fran Taylor

    My neighbor who lives on York, a few blocks away from me, posted this comment on the CBS site (CBS story didn’t mention that chase was going the wrong way down Cesar Chavez):

    “I live right next to the crash scene and am dismayed that police would think it was a good idea to chase a car down the wrong side of Cesar Chavez. My friend’s truck was totaled and the 20+ neighbors who came out after the police put their guns away were convinced that the passengers were killed. After putting their guns away the police stood around waiting for the fire fighters and ambulances, who also took their time getting the people out of the car. Then, they were put in the back of the ambulance where the ambulance didn’t leave for a while, suggesting the passengers were dead.”



    I am about to ride a bicycle to a meeting, following the directions of the Planner Overlords. Regimented!



    Cars will increase their speed at the intersection. Goodbye 5 mph, hello 35 mph.

    Fortunately we have the cars double parked waiting to get into Whole Foods and the SFPD parked in the 48 bus stop to calm the street.



    Makin’ shit up. Citation needed. You’re simply lying about the nonexistent “studies” which you’re jabbering about.



    sigh. It’s been obvious for a long time that Geary should have center-running light rail with exclusive lanes from Point Lobos all the way to Gough Street, and a subway the remaining 1 mile from there to Market. (Merge with the main Muni subway or the 3rd St / Central line, I don’t care which. Or in a pinch just terminate under Union Square.)

    I do not know why SF is so hostile to actually building this. Instead, we see ever-more-watered-down bus lane proposals.


    Jeffrey Baker

    The suit against Plan Bay Area is funded by the same people who erected all those illegal billboards along I-580 east of Castro Valley. They use all the same dog-whistle words in their press releases, like “stack and pack”. My favorite sentence from their press release announcing the suit last year was this one:

    “In this planner’s dream environment, everyone would complacently agree to a regimented lifestyle, living in multi-family housing, and walking, bike-riding, or taking public transit to work.”

    Stack and pack!!!



    I agree with you as that is probably the second most used intersection on that strip (first would be 37th ave and Balboa). It is a dangerous crosswalk as the cars from both sides of the intersection creates blind spots.



    Yes but it adds distance to the crossing. Instead of straight, you have to detour a bit to the new crosswalks



    “Also less friendly to pedestrians.”

    Not really, in well designed roundabouts pedestrians only have to cross two slowed-down traffic lanes separated by a traffic island. Sure, they have to detour a little, but that’s outweighed by not having to wait at lights.



    It is certainly the case that the J almost never has to wait for a car stopped in front of it at that intersection. I live 2 blocks away and take the train daily. I also walk through this intersection daily. Watch the death toll climb for people without cars. Cars will increase their speed at the intersection. Goodbye 5 mph, hello 35 mph. And now when 30 people off board the J they are supposed to wait for the light? Too bad bad-planning is ruining one of the last “walkable” neighborhoods. I like to walk and bike through calm intersections, not the motorized traffic nightmare this will become. Another pathetic victory for motorized vehicle speed.


    Dark Soul

    Obama is in this article? Where?


    The Tittle says “Bus Stops and Crosswalks: Does Mayor Lee Care Where His Car is Parked?”, The Car is parked?

    Do you guys see pic in the Train that is running & using the new Seating Program. Look at the people sitting on those Single Chairs on the side it seem to be very uncomfortable and unsafe.

    The Unsafe Seating and it would be best it remain the same seating format for the trains without the program to make safe.