Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Kristof Didrickson

    they do! they’re busy hoovering up all that broken glass and industrial detritus in e oakland…

  2.  

    David

    It’s about time! Telegraph has been a dangerous sea of line-less pavement for months. If one did see the very thin white lines that had been sketched out, they would have most likely been killed by cars that just drove down the street whichever way they wanted anyway.

  3.  

    David

    The Mission is not bike friendly. The bike lanes on Valencia are full of double-parked cars. Anecdote: Last time I biked down Valencia I nearly got hit by an Uber driver who decided to drop off someone right in front of me.

    If one could reasonably bike down Valencia without fear of getting hit by a car or stuck behind one parked in the bike lane, then I would agree that the Mission is bike friendly. But for now I don’t, so she raises a valid concern.

    P.S. Folsom is several blocks to the east of Mission, so I don’t think that counts as an alternative.

  4.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    I don’t recall the exact location. I will have to scout it out on my way home. I barely survived, and that was after barely surviving the new bike lane on Broadway.

  5.  

    Prinzrob

    Have you reported those via http://www.SeeClickFix.com yet? The city is very responsive to pavement issues reported there, I’ve had hundreds of potholes addressed this way, often just within days of reporting them.

  6.  

    eean

    When there’s a vote for a bond it is a vote to both issue a bond and also a property tax to pay for the bond. It’s a tax hike. It’s an important tool that local governments have to raise funds.

    I’m not even sure it’s possible to raise a new property tax and use that money directly. California, eh?

  7.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Fixing roads is pretty clearly an operating expense. If you can’t pay for the repairs out of your steady-state tax receipts, what makes you think you can instead pay the principle and interest on a bond for the repairs? It only makes sense if you think that road repairs are behind schedule, that you _could_ pay the repairs in a steady state if they were not behind schedule, and that you have no other _capital_ expenditures (schools etc) you’d rather use the cheap money to build.

  8.  

    jonobate

    My “personal bias” (more accurately, personal opinion) is shared by the 63% of people at the community outreach events who voted for the option that would remove half of the parking from Mission St. Only 13% voted for what was actually implemented.

    https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2016/14_mission_outreach_survey_boards_updated.pdf

  9.  

    eean

    good luck getting 66% of Contra Costa county to vote for a gas tax. Hell I doubt Alameda would. We can’t have nice things like that.

  10.  

    eean

    I wouldn’t call fixing a road an ‘operating expense’. I mean it will be fixed for the duration of the bond.

  11.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    They don’t need a bond, they need someone to issue an enormous fine to the utility company that dug the holes and filled them two feet deep with tar.

    Edited to add: and bonds to pay operating expenses are a terrible idea.

  12.  

    Scott Mace

    How about instead of floating bonds, a Bay Area-wide tax on driving or gasoline or both? And tie it to the weight of the vehicle using the streets.

  13.  

    eean

    They are putting up a major bond in November to do road work. Vote for it!

  14.  

    Chris J.

    This comment doesn’t make any sense. Why would someone want to take their car “with them”? And it’s just as easy to walk a block after parking a car as it is to walk a block with a bike (even easier actually, because they wouldn’t have the bike to deal with).

    This isn’t really about drivers walking versus bicyclists walking though. Bicyclists can and will still legally bike on Mission. For bicyclists it’s about safety. From the original quote in the piece:

    she also complained about the lack of bike lanes. “It’s not safe,”

  15.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    We also have a new bike lane striped on Broadway between Caldecott Field and College Prep. The lane was created by painting the gutter, which is 2 inches deep in gravel and broken glass. Do you know if the city plans to ever sweep that? Does the city of Oakland even own a street sweeper?

  16.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Seriously. On Telegraph between 40th and 51st at this very moment there are two giant sinkholes big enough to destroy a bicycle, dismount a motorcyclist, or bend a car’s wheel. I thought the city would have learned more from having to pay out millions in claims from recent road injury lawsuits.

  17.  

    mx

    Caltrain’s woes got a link, but we’re not going to mention the N’s meltdown yesterday during the morning commute? I’m all for promoting transit, but we have to acknowledge when our transit systems fail (all too frequently around here) and hold the responsible agencies accountable.

  18.  

    Scott Mace

    Meanwhile, there will be no photo opp today for the thousands or millions of potholes and crumbling blocks of pavement in Oakland streets.

  19.  

    Mike Jones

    Telegraph is already much nicer to walk along, with traffic following sedately in a single line (northbound only yesterday).

  20.  

    Prinzrob

    So exciting, I can’t wait until it’s done! The protected bikeway segment is from 20th to 29th Streets, by the way, not 21st to 27th. Buffered, non-protected bike lanes are also being implemented south of there from 20th to 16th, and additional bikeway are coming soon to Clay Street to complete a connection between Telegraph and Jack London Square.

  21.  

    Bob Gunderson

    I love you too, Sebra!

  22.  

    Joe Linton

    #freshkermit (hashtag coined by Streetfilms Clarence Eckerson)

  23.  

    RichLL

    However you phrase it. the point is that the East Bay bridge span was a replacement. It did not add new vehicle capacity, and in fact very few road projects do. Even the Doyle Drive project is still just 6 lanes as before.

    The only major project that adds capacity is the new Caldecott Tunnel bore.

  24.  

    RichLL

    It’s a lot easier to get off your bike and walk a block than it is to find a parking space a block from your destination. You can take a bike with you, but not a car.

  25.  

    RichLL

    The 26 Valencia bus was not removed when the bike lanes were installed, but some years later and for a different reason – passenger numbers were low and the 14 was only a block away.

    I echo the suggestion of others to move the express buses to SVN and put the slower buses on Valencia which is where the most people are

  26.  

    RichLL

    (2) is a much better idea, and in fact Mission is split into two one-way sections closer to Van Ness. Why not?

    If Calle 24 don’t like the red carpet they will hate your number (1) – it’s a non-starter

  27.  

    RichLL

    “our streets are utterly dominated by personal cars which undergrounding public transit does nothing to address”

    Interesting and presumptive phrasing there. The purpose of improving transit is not to get rid of cars, but rather to provide a better alternative to them.

    So putting transit undergrounds makes transit better while also improving things for cars. A win-win, as the saying goes.

    It doesn’t all have to be that making the one better entails making the other worse.

  28.  

    RichLL

    I know a few people in the city who will take trains, i.e. BART, streetcars and CalTrain, but who feel uneasy and uncomfortable about taking a bus. It’s not just that taking a bus connotes a lower rung in society, but also that several of the city’s bus lines are scary, most notably and relevantly here – the 14.

  29.  

    RichLL

    Given that the merchants are complaining that business is down because access is harder, taking away more access doesn’t seem like an acceptable solution.

    Parking isn’t “storage”. It’s access. And it’s metered so nobody is staying for long. Roads exist not just to allow cars to move but also to enable them to stop when they reach their destination.

    But I love how the unrelenting demands to take out parking always precede it with the word “just”, as if it’s really simple with no downside.

  30.  

    sebra leaves

    We understand that the red color is a gang color, so most people in the Mission avoid it. This is like a huge graffiti tattoo on the street. (Love the art, Bob.)

  31.  

    City Resident

    Muni is rapidly improving – as these Mission Street lanes, hundreds of brand new buses, and many other transit system upgrades demonstrate.

  32.  

    jonobate

    There is a very simple solution to this issue – remove the parking from the northbound side of the street. This gives you enough space to paint the northbound lanes the same as the southbound lanes, with one transit lane, one general traffic lane, and no forced right turns. The traffic will flow better, the buses will move faster, and the street layout will be more consistent and legible.

    There are three street functions being traded off here – transit vehicle movement, private vehicle movement, and private vehicle storage. In the current design, the first two are suffering for the sake of the third, which should be the lowest priority of the three. The loss of parking on one side of Mission can be mitigated through better parking management in the rest of the neighborhood.

  33.  

    City Resident

    I agree that many foreign transit agencies with their technical professionals in charge are often much better run than our local transit agencies. But unions really shouldn’t be the fall guys in this battle. A fear of change to the car culture status quo and a populist supervisor are the nemesis of progress in this battle, which was ostensibly already won after the decade-long planning process was completed.

  34.  

    Dexter Wong

    I gather from these comments you want more subways, but they take time and money. BART started when I was in elementary school and didn’t start running until I was almost out of high school. The city has a long-term plan for more subways but it seems you don’t want to wait. Do you have a bias against buses, like the anecdotal Southern California banker who always rode Pacific Electric trains to work until they converted his line to buses. Considering buses to be beneath him, he then drove to work.

  35.  

    Henry

    I would highly avoid considering moving *any* transit lines onto South Van Ness. I’m sure most of the riders on the corridor routes do business or work along the Inner Mission corridor and would be affected by this change. However, I should point out that South Van Ness is used as a pull-in/pull-out route for the 14 and 49 for runs originating/ending from their respective outer terminals.

  36.  

    murphstahoe

    That explains a few things

  37.  

    Kieran

    What’re you talking about?? Unless Muni tore down the trolley wire that is on South Van Ness between 26th st in the south all the way to the north where South Van Ness turns into Howard st after crossing 13th st and under the Central Freeway, the 14/49 could operate perfectly fine on South Van Ness.

  38.  

    Dexter Wong

    What are the shit projects to you?

  39.  

    SF_Abe

    “SVN to Mission is a trivial walk”

    Great! So we’re agreed that people who choose to drive to Mission Street can take South Van Ness and walk the last two blocks– no big deal. Glad we settled that.

  40.  

    Jimbo

    ok. great. lets get started. we ahve the highest city budget per capita in the US. save the money from shit projects and focus on high impact projects

  41.  

    Dexter Wong

    Thank you for reminding me about BART using Muni’s right-of way. I remember using my Fast Pass to travel on BART to CCSF, but now to use BART with your Fast Pass costs $13 extra.

  42.  

    Jimbo

    i had my 1st concussion on a mountain bike ride at annandel. best mtn bike ride in norCal

  43.  

    Dexter Wong

    Frankly, prior to 1949, there were two streetcars that ran down Mission, the 14 to the cemetaries and the 40 to San Mateo (but age and traffic did them in).

  44.  

    Dexter Wong

    Where are you going to get the funding for new subway that runs all the way down Mission to Daly City? It is hard already to keep BART in one piece and you want to spread the pie even thinner?

  45.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Now that’s a “progressive” idea!

  46.  

    KWillets

    Why repeat the mistakes of the past? We need a 2-decade long plan.

  47.  

    roymeo

    Oh please. I know you can argue better than setting up crazy afterthought limits like that.

    We replaced one earthquake hazard with an overly complex, untested design, just as Boston’s Big Dig (and BART) attempted to turn untested innovation into a long lasting piece of infrastructure.

  48.  

    gb52

    Totally agree. Thank you for bringing some logic to this discussion.

  49.  

    gb52

    Buses have their role in transit and essentially we already have a rail line under mission. We probably couldn’t build another MUNI line above BART, but what has been talked about is building infill stations along market to make BART more of a metro system.

    That said, the real problem we have is that nationally we underfunded transit. That includes road maintenance and transit, and the reality is that we aren’t changing or adapting fast enough. Besides, cars do not need to dominate every street and the reality is that as much as the merchants want a parking space in front of their business, a person driving is likely to have to park blocks away regardless. People really need a better understanding of where their patrons are coming from and how to better manage the parking that already exists. (no more unlimited time handicap parking placards and workers should not park where customers are likely to park). Parking is not an infinite resource. There is a cost to society and sadly, I never hear enough about businesses attracting people on transit and people in the neighborhood (the people that really make these businesses work).

  50.  

    gb52

    I know there are a lot of issues with creating a center running busway, but it’s going to be the best solution. The problem being that you’d need to build boarding islands and remove parking in those locations. The point of this project was to have low cost improvements, and they’ve done that. Consequently they’ve also removed all the double parked cars and trucks (that pissed off a lot of people… the same people that complain about the buses that slow them down).

    I’d love to see a total makeover but this gets transit moving faster, sooner. The other part of this is stop consolidation which gets buses moving and reduces leapfrogging.

    People will always complain, but this needs to be given a chance to work. I agree Pedestrians need to be given a leading interval, and turns need to be monitored such that the turn queue does not overtake the bus lanes.