Skip to content

Recent Comments



    The previous commenters weren’t suggesting cutting off car access to the parking lot. They were simply suggesting that the driveways off of Telegeaph be closed, and for the existing, alternate driveways off the side streets be used exclusively to access the lot instead. This would simplify the situation greatly, and increase the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers by removing redundant conflict points and turning movements.



    Do it. Enough of this bullshit.



    Well, at least Lt. Curtis Liu is gone from the Taraval station. So that’s a plus for pedestrian safety, I guess.



    Don’t forget that he put up signs in his store and along all the Muni stops rallying against the safety improvements.



    Other than sticks and cattle prods, people will descend on Train 2 like locusts.

    The sign is quite misleading in that it doesn’t say that Train 2 will stop again on the platform. This can create confusion if you’re waiting to board an N or T to Caltrain or Mission Bay.



    Parallel parking adds friction and slows traffic and removing it for bike lanes should speed traffic up, no? How do we hold someone at the Fire District accountable for lying to the public?



    As long as they have a plan to keep people from boarding train 2, it should be good. Otherwise, yeah. Free-for-all.



    Putting the M-line underground is a complete waste of energy and money that should be spent on more sensible and practical upgrades elsewhere in the city where demand exists, like, oh I don’t know, a Geary subway or extension of the CS to Fishermans Wharf.



    I do understand it, thank you very much. I’m saying that stopping and offloading twice on the same platform is ridiculous. You know for a fact that if this is implemented outbound that people will rush to board Train 2 if Train 2 is what they need to board. It works differently outbound because most riders have to wait for a particular line versus going inbound and already being on a train.



    You are correct. While I’m waiting for my train in the wind and fog (no bus shelter) there are 3 spots in front of the hardware store that people use (and for the P.O. across the street) and most of time no one feeds the meters. Good to know about his stance on rider safety because I will officially boycott his store in the future.

    This part of the hood doesn’t have residential parking stickers so most people who drive to the area park on the side streets.


    Jamison Wieser

    Consider dropping “pet project” as a criticism, because the L-Taraval Rapid Project was data driven.

    Voters set performance goals when they created the SFMTA. A decade later voters approved additional funding accompanied with a more strongly worded (they weren’t living up to it before either) “transit first” policy.

    Muni riders voted with their feet to make the L-Taraval one of the most ridden lines with a relatively poor performance which put it in the top lines in need of fixing.

    It was reckless drives who made Taraval one of the most dangerous streets in the City for exiting Muni riders and pedestrians. Prioritizing this as one of the streets most in need of fixing.

    For their part, SFMTA pulled from an established and proven toolkit of fixes (riders getting hit getting off: boarding islands, kids getting hit crossing the street to get to school: corner bulb-outs to improve visibility, etc.) which are mandated above them by the BOS, City Charter, PUC, or other laws.

    There are budget issues you should you also be aware of:

    Taraval is schedule to have water and sewer work followed by rebuilding the L-Taraval trackway and foundation supporting it, all of which will require rebuilding and repaving the street in the end.

    Even it money was not specifically dedicated to the project, redirecting it to some other project would mean shutting down the L altogether when the worn out track becomes unusable.

    The SFMTA is one of several agencies coordinating their projects for efficiency and cost savings. And why not rebuild it right since it has to be rebuilt anyway, right?

    Planners had also worked out a plan which mover parking on the effected blocks to the immediately adjacent corners and reconfiguring them to fit an extra 13 spaces in all. That improves your changes of finding a parking space and you would have a better way of finding one by criss-crossing Taraval rather than driving down it.

    In cases where you’ll be circling anyway, you just cross Taraval using Ulloa and Santiago instead of turning onto Taraval. The higher concentration of parking spaces tends to reduce the amount of travel time looking for them compared to parallel parking on a major arterial, where drivers pulling in and out get in the way of through traffic anyway.

    Choosing to build the platforms only after another (inevitable) crash means the SFMTA will have to rebuild streets which were just torn up.

    What’s happening now is a small number of merchants and residents with a very narrow, incorrect view of how parking works would rather have overturned a cost-concious approach that adds parking, improves safety, and speeds up Muni, while reducing congestion on Taraval.

    Does any of that sway to take a second look at the benefits of boarding islands?



    > Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware on Taraval Street, said, “We would like to seek safety, but not see boarding islands” built, because Taraval would lose parking.

    Mr. Chow probably doesn’t realize that most his customers are walk in, or transit in, and losing three subsidized street parking spaces will make nearly zero difference. If he doesn’t care about the safety of his customers, why should they care about patronizing him?


    Diego Kast

    my business required UK EEA4 earlier today and located an online service with a searchable database . If others require UK EEA4 too , here’s a



    No kidding, for the cost of these parking bubble things they could probably underground the K, L, M, AND build a Geary subway



    “Dumberton Bridge” – Good to see that Streetsblog’s legendary snark is intact.



    Like most things, it makes perfect sense once you understand it. If you’re scrambling to figure out where to board, you don’t understand it.



    Problem: Insufficient availability of parking in a business corridor.
    Solution: Price it right. This isn’t the Soviet Union.

    Instead we throw transit riders under the bus? #AYFKM?



    The blunder here is the inflated budget being allocated to these pet street projects when the agency is having difficulties managing and efficiently running what we already have. I would rather see this sort of funding go into actual infrastructure expansion projects like putting the M Ocean View underground which would have much greater effects of improving transit and safety.


    Jamison Wieser

    I don’t see how consider a plan which would have both added boarding islands and +13 parking spaces by reconfiguring the corners as a blunder? What do you think would be a more ideal setup?

    I’d like to understand why do parking spaces on Taraval Street itself mean so much to you that you would have fewer overall spaces to go around? Wouldn’t you prefer having a better chance of finding an available parking space?

    What part of that is such a blunder?


    Jamison Wieser

    I’m going to start a boycott movement, suggestions what the signs and flyers should say? Who would want to help posting them along the corridor?



    Re: double berthing.

    I’ve noticed that trains are now stopping twice on the platform. My inbound train this morning stopped twice at both the Powell and Montgomery stations. Doors opened, people got off, doors closed, train inched up to first position, doors opening, people looked confused, doors closed.

    Outbound double berthing will be a nightmare. The narrow platforms are already packed and people will be scrambling to find out where on the platform their train will stop and open its doors.

    As I’ve stated numerous times before…during rush, run 3-car trains between West Portal and 4th/King. Re-route the M/L so that a single line runs between Balboa Park (M) and SF Zoo (L). Re-route the K/L so that it runs between Balboa Park (K) and 22nd/Taraval (L). In addition, keep Church St. on the surface between Balboa Park and the platforms at Duboce/Church (inbound) and Church/Market (outbound). Run 2-car N trains in the tunnel.



    Glad to see the residents actually unifying against another one of these SFMTA blunders and that the L Taravel plans are being sent back to the drawing board.



    Re: Taraval parking.

    Yeah, we’re such a progressive city. Once again, parking trumps rider safety. Coming home on the L last night, 6 out of the 10 times we stopped cars kept driving and ignoring the law to stop for people getting off/on the train. But, saving a few precious parking spots on Taraval seems to be worth it. A sensible solution would be to eliminate more than half of the surface stops and put in platforms, but as we all know riders don’t want to walk an extra couple hundred feet to catch a train even it it means waiting on a protected platform and reducing the overall commute time.

    The problem is that neither riders nor parking advocates want to budge. Because of that, the problem will never be solved.

    On a side note, MUNI’s installation of additional traffic lights on Taraval is a step in the wrong direction. It will only add minutes to travel time, not subtract. Way to go, progressive, Transit First San Francisco!



    Once it’s up and running the T will essentially replace the #15 bus along most of its original route. To save costs, the underground stations will be built to only accommodate 2-car trains, to fit with the current surface platforms. The Folsom/Brannan/2nd/4th platforms are much longer and can easily handle 3-car trains. If MUNI pulled its head out its tunnel it could run the new LRVs from WP to 4th/King as 3-car trains and then phase out the Bredas along the surface portions of the K/L/M.



    I very much look forward to riding the new lanes. And, as is always the case when I feel safe riding my bike, I’m almost certain to discover a new business I want to check out.



    Thanks to Katy Tang for reminding me why I moved out of the Outer Sunset and haven’t gone back since. Great place to go if you’re suicidal, I guess.


    Melanie Curry

    Argh! Didn’t mean to say it was all completed, thanks. Looking forward to watching people adjust to these changes.



    I am not sure the city has any jurisdiction to mandate one-way routes on private property. And DPT cannot ticket vehicles on private land. Removing any vehicular access to a property would probably require financial compensation to the property or business owner.

    This is probably the best design for a bike lane, because it keeps cars and bikes out of each other’s way. However in this case the bike lane might be a little too wide if cars can travel along it.

    There are two cases where this design is less successful. The first is where every property on a street has a driveway or garage. In that case there will be very little street parking to “protect” the bike lane, but much cross-traffic.

    The second is where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. In that case people will spill over from the sidewalk, not to mention the usual problems with shopping carts, skateboards strolelrs and wheelchaits using the bike lane



    Excellent commentary , Apropos , you a a form , my business partner encountered a fillable form here


    Josh Handel

    I second this. The curb cuts on Telegraph there should simply be removed – there’s a curb cut on 24th that can be used as an “Enter Only,” and one on Valley that can be used as “Exit Only.”



    “As of last week, with the changes now complete, there is only one lane of through-traffic in each direction.”

    Thanks for the continued coverage of the Telegraph Ave project, but please note that the installation work was not completed last week, and is in fact still ongoing throughout this and possibly next week, with more paint going down at this very moment, parking delineators being installed, meters and bus stops being moved, etc.

    I personally have experienced very few issues with the facility, biking through this corridor multiple times every day. In fact, it’s the most relaxed biking I’ve ever experienced on Telegraph. I also see drivers speeding less and yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks significantly more than before.

    I think it is important to wait for the whole thing to actually be completed, and give people some time to adjust, before trying to determine what is and isn’t working. However, there is already a lot that seems to be working as planned already, despite the complaints and confusion.



    I remember when everyone was looking forward to the Breda cars when the Boeing-Vertol cars had reached their end of life. Le plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose


    Jeffrey Baker

    The only dangerous conflict I’ve noted since these got painted is that a lot of people want to turn into the popular Korean grocer, these people have to turn across the bike lane, the parking lot is always full, and the drivers don’t want to spring for the meter price I guess, because there’s usually plenty of empty spaces on the street. I’ve already had a couple of people cut me off and then stop cold with their cars across the bike lane.



    Not really. Every time he was up for election he promised to build a Geary Street subway. As far as I’m aware, he never actually did anything to move that project forward. In typical sleazy politician fashion, his promises were only made to win votes.



    Wasn’t James Fang in favor of urban BART lines rather than suburban? Seems like a good guy.



    Interesting that the 3rd Street K/T “streetcar to nowhere” cannot accommodate longer trains because that was the last line to be built. You’d think they would have built that for growth.

    Then again, it’s the least-used line, so maybe it doesn’t matter.



    I’m glad he’s enjoying himself at riders’ expense.



    RE: new MUNI rail cars.

    It’s about time the Breda cars were retired. Broken doors, HVAC issues, etc. However, it doesn’t make sense to skip stations, especially in the Market St. subway. Instead, MUNI should skip surface stations, at least during the commute rush. There’s no reason why the L train has to stop every 2 blocks on Taraval. As for longer trains, this can only happen in the subway and the 4 stations along the Embarcadero. The Third St. line and surface stops cannot handle more than 2-car trains. Forest Hill/WP is maxed at 3-car trains. During rush, MUNI should run the max length in the subway and combine the M/L route. Once the Central Subway opens, combine the K/L during rush, turning back at 22nd/Taraval.


    Rogue Cyclist

    “John Haley, the [SF] Municipal Transportation Agency’s transit director. ‘With more [rail]cars, we can start having some fun, trying some new things.’”

    Interesting way of putting it.



    “but things change very slowly, whether it has a BART brand or not.”
    You’re really obsessed over this separate rolling stock thing, which is fine and we agree so I don’t get why you keep mentioning it, and its not addressing the point I was making about funding and planning.

    ” I don’t think that politicians want BART this bad not to want funding for other transportation projects, especially if they represent areas that aren’t and will not be served by BART”

    What are you talking about? What transit project under SFMTA would take higher precedent over a subway line that covers half of the city? Your argument might’ve made more sense if it were a suburban line (like when SamTrans lost money over the BART-SFO line), but in SF, the popularity and desire for more core BART routes are well-known. BART already serves the Mission, and the new routing would serve Richmond and Sunset. By your logic anyone who’d be against the project are people from the Lower Mission/Bayview area, which wouldn’t make sense because they already got their project (T-Third Street) which was supposed to be a BART corridor to begin with.

    And again, even a reduction in operating costs not even capital projects is likely to occur with the BART line. 38 Geary would see a serve decrease in ridership, along with N, L and M lines. Muni compensates BART for the alleviation on the Mission line, already.

    And you can be hypothetical all you want to, but we know that BART’s highest polling for the new 2016 bond measure is from San Francisco and Oakland.
    Keep in mind, BART hardly serves the city’s populace, yet they’re willing to pay more for BART to modernize. Again, better branding and known popularity. Thats why your HSR comparison earlier was so confusing, they’re not alike politically at all.

    ” The federal government will only fund it (partial funding) if it is planned in phases”
    I’ve said this project would be in phases many times. There’s not going to be some 10 billion dollar BART measure to build everything at once.

    “That mile or two will have to be considered as a separate project, studied, environmentally cleared, and get into funding queue”
    Don’t know why you’re telling this me. I know how phase projects work. I’m spoke about why the Chinatown subway took precedent over a Geary subway, and its numerous flaws. When I said “initial plan”, I didn’t say “phase one”. Chinatown subway is just the 2nd phase in the overall T-Third Street project.

    “This current BART board understands that BART the transit agency and BART technology are separate”
    Right, which is why they’re building with VTA a BART San Jose line with catenary and standard gauge. Right, no, they’re not. While eBART is the right direction, BART is still obsessed with bad technology suburban expansion.

    But in the core? Why? You make the current BART core system incompatible with new urban expansions. You’re also going to force BART to buy new rolling stock for separate urban lines needlessly. It’ll be like New York where particular subway cars can’t run in certain stations.

    “Oakland to SF and beyond on tracks used by Caltrain”
    So you want to make the 72′ system incompatible with new core routes that currently cover the most dense places in the system, just so that Caltrain can run along the same rail in the 2nd crossing? Rather than just building a separate bore? That’s short sighted.

    As I’ve said before since its the subject you’re most obsessed with, I’m not against standard gauge BART. It cuts down on expenses. I’m also in favor of BART absorbing the JPB and administering Caltrain. But within the core, where the lines wouldn’t be as long as suburban routes and primary expenses come from station construct first, subway construction second, a standard gauge BART in the core does really nothing but separate the systems. At least without a system-wide conversion.



    really? flashing LED lights bother you more than drunk driving and texting and driving?


    Anna Marrie

    B.S! Almost all bicyclists also either drive cars or have driven cars. The two safety issues that piss me off are on the bike end. : 1) stop blinding everyone with your stupid flashing LED lights. YES! I can now see you but nothing else. hate that. 2) Mommies and Daddies who cant give up anything in life, including a bicycle built for two (s.heads) or other ill- designed contraptions with BABIES in the carriage whilst blissfully getting a work out, spending “quality” time with the kids,and motoring home (sans motor) from GOOOOOGLE or whereever they store their heads before shoving them up their arses. It’s DANGEROUS. You know it., I know it., and your dead kids will know it when you get blind sided in this overcrowded HILL-RIDDEN death trap of a pedestrian/biking city.

    yikes. okay. I’m done. …. but seriously, it’s dangerous.(and irritating apparently).


    Cyc-lok Ltd.

    We have a new paid solution for multiuser bike storage and can create a community for cyclists., call me for more details +353 599130427



    a guy with a spinning bldae is a guy with a spinning blade…



    Because he likes the bike. We shouldn’t need a shitty beater bikes.


    Andy Chow

    I just I can take you seriously. It seems like you’re either in college or just fresh out of college. I was young before and had big ideas (and still do), but things change very slowly, whether it has a BART brand or not.

    I can assure you that some big BART bond to only pay for a Geary and 19th subway along with 2nd tube co-currently isn’t going to happen. I don’t think that politicians want BART this bad not to want funding for other transportation projects, especially if they represent areas that aren’t and will not be served by BART. Secondly, the federal government will not allow it. The federal government will only fund it (partial funding) if it is planned in phases. The federal government doesn’t want to be in a position of having to bail out when things go wrong, or be sued when having to bail out means cutting transit service.

    The reason that the Central Subway is the way it is because of all the reasons I’ve explained. Politicians need to scale the project small enough so that funding is available for other needs. The federal government want it phased in so to reduce the funding need and keep the risk manageable. Once the plan is approved, you can’t just suddenly add a mile or two just because it seems like a good idea. That mile or two will have to be considered as a separate project, studied, environmentally cleared, and get into funding queue.

    This current BART board understands that BART the transit agency and BART technology are separate, and that BART the agency can and will run trains outside the wide gauge design. That said, there’s no reason that BART could not fund or even operate standard gauge trains from Oakland to SF and beyond on tracks used by Caltrain. In other cities, the main transit agency there operate different train systems that are incompatible (SEPTA, LACMTA, Denver RTD, MBTA, etc). What it matters is not whether there’s a single hardware rail system, but that separate hardware systems work as a single network with single branding and easy transfers. Subway trains in New York City is actually consists of two incompatible networks (one network uses numbers and the other use letters), but everybody knows New York Subway as a single system.


    Roger Rudick

    Thanks for catching this Sojourner. I just double checked with Nick. My bad. It’s $15 million, not $50. And that kind of makes sense. He’s talking about the deepest, most complicated subway stations, like the ones under Market.



    I would vote no. BART is at capacity everyday revenues are as high as ever. The only reason for loses are incompetence. Even though it is public transportation they should be profitable. You don’t reward greed and stupidity. Try au tomating to save money and get rid of the pension moochers.



    (Getting up from floor after fainting) “$50 million per elevator to get bigger ones.” What the F? Unbelievable… 50 MILLION per elevator… and if this is true, several of us need to get into the elevator business. If not a typo/misquote, this is unimaginable. HAS to be wrong. Or BART is blowing huge smoke up our A$$es. I work in the trades, and there are entire buildings than cost $50 mil, with several elevators included.



    Most BART stations do not “connect with anything” and yet are very busy and popular.

    US cities typically don’t do integrated networked transit systems like they have in Europe because the voters prefer piecemeal solutions and moderate government.