Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    The Overhead Wire

    It’s official, I am voting NO for any money they ask for on the ballot. It’s true that he knows nothing and cares nothing about non auto mobility in this city. So why give him money to bait and switch later.

  2.  

    rickbynight

    Exactly. Free Muni on Sundays! :P

  3.  

    rickbynight

    Hear, hear. Something’s amiss, especially since I saw from previous meetings where Sunday meters were mentioned, but not voted on, many members seemed to be in favor of them. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with these scenarios, as unfortunate as they are. This is not how leadership works.

  4.  

    Tom

    Don’t they need an Environmental Impact Study first?

  5.  

    rickbynight

    I think you’d be surprised how many actually pay. I’ve witnessed the same behavior, and when a fare inspector comes on, the vast majority have passes. Muni saw no noticeable drop in ticket box revenue when they started allowing back door boarding. Proof of payment isn’t a bad system, and people who want to get around it will get around it…and sometimes get caught.

  6.  

    Leeross

    I am just beyond frustration. This is my Post on SF Gate

    The only way San Francisco will be a public transit, pedestrian, bicycle
    friendly City is to discourage people from driving. How do you do that? Make
    drivers pay. Well, obviously Mayor Lee, a career bureaucrat hoisted into
    office, has NO vision whatsoever except keeping his ear to the ground and doing
    whatever it takes to get re elected. So when Mayor Lee trots out his bicycle on
    May 8 for Bike to Work Day I will just scoff at the cynicism of this Mayor

  7.  

    gb52

    Please ride the bus, see the fare inspectors, watch that the VAST MAJORITY pay, or already have a pass. Then understand how proof of payment really works.

    Also, I’d suggest that you hire more fare inspectors, but equally ticket all the drivers that park in bus zones, or how about all those cars that just let someone sit in the car so they can stay in a parking spot as long as they want and without paying? Or well instead of ticketing pedestrians, try ticketing cars that block crosswalks, that fail to stop, or that speed through our streets. Please open your eyes.

  8.  

    Kevin J

    I really don’t know how SF got its pro-transit reputation. We were so far ahead in Portland. To come here and discover that liberal, hippie-filled San Francisco was under a court order against adding bike lanes?

    Once that order was lifted it took how many years before a bike lane was put on Oak? And just three blocks, is San Francisco really this pathetic?

  9.  

    sfhayes

    If the City has to do an EIR for a bike plan, why not an EIR for abolishing parking charges. The whole process makes no sense.

  10.  

    jd_x

    This is such BS. Transit-first my ass. I’m so tired of all this irrational behavior that completely ignores any science. This kinda of fantasy is no different than climate deniers.

    You know, there has always been something that bugs me about this whole issue. And that’s this idea that it’s not okay to get revenue from cars taking up valuable real estate in the city. Why is that somehow not a perfectly reasonable and legitimate expectation? Why do we always have to deny that somehow is not okay? Sure, a big part of the reason for meters is to cut cruising times and increase turnover, but why do we have to pretend like it’s not important to also be simply charging cars for taking up an absolutely ridiculous amount of space and otherwise putting wear and tear on the roads (not to mention all the other negative externalities of cars). I just think it’s absolutely ridiculous that we don’t acknowledge the huge elephant in the room here. I mean, since when do people have to justify MUNI fares with some reason other than it’s to raise money to pay for the program? If we actually fully accounted for all the damage caused by cars, all we have to say is, “Motorists need to pay for their damage, and that’s it” and from this falls metering, 24-7.

  11.  

    Nicholas Littlejohn

    SF is so backwards! When can we vote Ed Lee out again and get a bicycle mayor like Portland had?

  12.  

    Mike

    Maybe MUNI should be a little more proactive in actually collecting fares on their buses. I swear I feel so stupid paying myself when I see person after person “sneaking” into the back doors and not paying or showing they have a valid pass.

    What happened to the program to only allow entry in the front of the bus? They try that for all of 3 months or something?

  13.  

    Kevin J

    Ed Lee needs to get his head out of his ass if he thinks I’m voting to give him more money for parking while he jacks up Muni fares.

    How about we all refuse to pay for Muni on sunday?

  14.  

    the_greasybear

    Good question. Allowing a lot of double-parking during Christian church services but not at other times and places is certainly a questionable government practice.

  15.  

    the_greasybear

    To all those who took interest and part in the long, laborious city process of gaining Sunday metering, I apologize. You deserve better.

    I apologize for your mayor, whose mayoralty is itself borne of and stained by deception about his true political ambitions. I apologize for his equally duplicitous political calculation to insult your intelligence with the ludicrous claim free Sunday parking will somehow win transit bond votes from the cars-first & cars-only crowd. You deserve better.

    I apologize for your dithering, impotent MTA, so covetous of never-ending debate and eternal, exhausting process–yet eager as always to surrender your best interests at the drop of a hat. Any hat, anywhere, any time, every time. You deserve better.

    I apologize for the City’s blatant bias and double-standards, that the arguments made for free parking are never advanced for free Muni on Sundays. You deserve better.

    Most of all, I apologize your interest and involvement in the workings of city government, and your attempt at making the city objectively better for the greatest number of residents, was nullified for no good reason. I hope it hasn’t burned you on the very idea of civic involvement–although I wonder if the mayor isn’t secretly hoping for that kind of outcome. In any case, you deserve better.

  16.  

    Justin

    Another example of SFMTA lack of courage of taking a stand on what works. As I said at that meeting that it is very outrageous to do away with Sunday metering just to satisfy the political needs of mayor!

  17.  

    Mike Fogel

    Is the SFMTA vulnerable to a lawsuit because of its willful failure to enforce parking restrictions against churches that operate service on sundays?

  18.  

    Mario Tanev

    After what I saw today, I don’t think the board members (Brinkman, Ramos) acted based on pure fear for their jobs. It seemed like they were looking for the least of all evils, and were trying to rationalize their actions.

    Two scenarios seem plausible to me:
    1. The mayor explicitly threatened to fire them, appoint new ones that will toe the line, then pass the proposal anyway. A rebellion would undermine progressive transportation in the long run since the replacement would be more in the mold of Nolan and Lee.
    2. The mayor threatened to not support the funding measures unless this passes, which would of course doom the funding measures to death (though they seem dead anyway). Unless he was bluffing, then this would have been a tough choice. The funding measures are unlikely to pass, but getting them passed is surely more important than Sunday meters, and having the mayor’s support, is not sufficient, but necessary.

    Regardless, however, this is an example of the worst in government. The biggest reason why voters seem to mistrust SFMTA is the back-dealing that results in things like the Culture Bus, Twitter Bus, syphoning of funds by work orders and so on. This is yet another example of back-dealing that will only lower confidence in SFMTA.

  19.  

    KWillets

    After the way they’ve managed the city’s parking stock, I’m sure to trust them with hundreds of millions of dollars now.

  20.  

    jdock

    ““We are here because of our concerns about fair and equitable treatment,” said Reverend Keva McNeill from El Bethel Baptist Church on Golden Gate Avenue at Fillmore Street”

    No, actually, Rev, you’re looking for special treatment because you’re a church. GG Ave @ Fillmore is probably one of the easiest places in the city to get to via MUNI bus. Maybe suggest some humility to your congregation in the form of riding the bus with the rest of the unwashed masses.

  21.  

    jamiewhitaker

    Even better, folks who drive into the City on Sundays will delay buses, increase traffic congestion related air pollution that shortens lives, and decrease potential business from parking spot turnover without contributing any nickels or dimes to the City’s SFMTA while local residents either pay for it by stuffing themselves like sardines in even more crowded public buse, spending 15 minutes looking for a parking space to free up, or paying additional rent for the GO Bond (50% can get passed through to tenants, y’all) and/or another 1.35% on the VLF. Add this to the stance against congestion pricing, and we seem about as environmentally minded as Calgary, Alberta when it comes to air pollution and trying to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

  22.  

    Jesse

    “Some of the best political minds” to come up with such an innovative idea as… a bond measure. And “instead of nickel and diming our residents” we’ll just sock them with a 500 million dollar bond to pay off with interest for the next 30 years.

  23.  

    jamiewhitaker

    Yes, kudos to Cristina! Probably the only one who is not a charter member of the “Flat Earth Society”

    Well, fuck it, let’s get rid of event pricing and evening hours 6pm-10pm Monday through Saturday only for parking meters in SoMa around AT&T ballpark too while we’re at it. That’s some discriminatory shit it they don’t have the nads to go citywide. Why nickel and dime only SoMa residents? (sarcasm, sorta)

  24.  

    Aaron Bialick

    Ah, yes, that’s right! I corrected it.

  25.  

    Mario Tanev

    Correction: Cristina Rubke said she thinks the proposal is a mistake, unapologetically. She didn’t offer an amendment because it was obvious it won’t pass. Perhaps the only adult in the room. Kudos to her.

  26.  

    Bruce Halperin

    Great. Now when those transportation funding measures fail at the polls we’ll be left with nothing. Well, nothing but more double parking and congestion.

    Backward doesn’t even begin to describe how wrongheaded this is.

  27.  

    mikesonn

    Disgusted isn’t a strong enough word. “Ed Lee has great political minds”? Puke.

  28.  

    Sean

    And SF moves backward. Lee has got to go.

  29.  

    twinpeaks_sf

    I think it’s mainly just by virtue of the fact that cops are people, complete with nested opinions and biases. Perceptions are what need to change – and this applies to everyone. Why is it so safe to ride a bike in the Netherlands (or even Portland)? Yes it’s infrastructure, but people also sympathize with with each other more. They could see themselves on a bike. That’s really not the case here.

  30.  

    Affen_Theater

    Contrary to popular myth, San Mateo Co. never voted against joining BART. See: http://www.bayrailalliance.org/question/why-didnt-we-get-bart-through-san-mateo-county-in-the-1960s-when-it-was-cheaper

  31.  

    jonobate

    They passed the budget…

  32.  

    Kevin J

    Maybe this is a sort of threat. Mayor Lee is telling us, “If you want transit, you’re going to have to pay pass his bonds” because he’s making it clear Muni’s existing funding dedicated to driving.

    But no way I’m voting for anything if parking goes unmetered and SFMTA refuses to put in a northbound bike lane on Polk. Whatever the idiots at the SFMTA might think, I ride in both directions.

  33.  

    Tony

    I’d rather take transit to all those places.

  34.  

    the_greasybear

    Great read. I recommend it highly to everyone.

  35.  

    Andrew Samuelsen

    Planned Larkspur connection to ferry is pretty poor. It makes people walk 1,000 yards on a pedestrian bridge to get to the ferry. The reason is Larkspur is blocking the rail crossing Sir Francis Drake Blvd. This station needs to be done correctly, and that means it needs to provide a seamless connection between the rail and ferry. The rail needs to open its doors within 50 yards of the ferry boarding. There is plenty of room, but would need to remove some parking spots. This is a critical part of the project that impacts the effectiveness of the entire system.

  36.  

    Sean

    Rose Pak is Mayor.

  37.  

    mikeo

    No bias at all in this city.

  38.  

    Bryan Goebel

    Confirmed: the meeting will be televised. SF Gov 2 as usual.

  39.  

    Bryan Goebel

    SF Gov TV hasn’t answered my tweet, and I also left a phone message, but the SFMTA is saying they were told it would be televised.

  40.  

    murphstahoe

    Is this meeting not going to be on sfgovtv???

  41.  

    murphstahoe

    Bicyclists shouldn’t be riding on the sidewalk – they should be riding on the narrow lanes of the fulton 500 speedway next to parked cars.

  42.  

    twinpeaks_sf

    In case you missed the latest PBB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSeBplVRWa0&feature=share&list=UU1Qc4Ql_FAcXrv4KR97VaGw&index=1

    Equivalently old man as the “jay-walker” above runs a stop sign and gets off with just a warning. But isn’t he oh so cute..

  43.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Yes, a great summary of San Francisco’s incendiary convergence of contentious issues and the roller coaster history that led to it. Probably every citizen of San Francisco should not be allowed to vote on any upcoming city proposition until they’ve read it. (Kidding, kidding.)

  44.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    We built a bridge that wasn’t designed to get wet?

  45.  

    murphstahoe

    I wonder the same. Is it some simple political calculus that enough voters will go “yay free Sunday parking” and vote for the bonds? I don’t get it.

  46.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The Bay Bridge corrosion thing seems like a big problem. Every rainy day when I cross the bridge on the bus I see guys scrambling around trying to dry things out. Even today, several days after the last rain, they have portable blowers installed to ventilate the box sections of the suspension span. Signature span, indeed.

  47.  

    94110

    One thing I really don’t understand is why the mayor says this would support passing the bills. If MTA doesn’t need this ten million dollars, then they sure don’t need to tax me.

  48.  

    Thomas Rogers

    This Techcrunch piece on the housing/tech crisis is pretty epic:
    http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

  49.  

    Kevin J

    Since you’re playing make believe, I support sunday metering because it improves literacy, whitens teeth, and makes birds sing.

  50.  

    Bruce Halperin

    Free meters CAUSE congestion and lower turnover, because people have to circle longer to find parking. (The SFMTA’s own data shows that cruising time to find a parking space has been cut by about half since Sunday metering began.) And free parking attracts more drivers in the first place – some people will choose to take transit if they have to pay to park. If you want to reduce congestion, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, delays to Muni, and “bad smoke”, then you should be AGAINST free meters.