Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    murphstahoe

    I do not care about private vehicle congestion if it reduces trip times for transit users.

    There. I said it. Again.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    I love the idea of never giving private vehicles a green right turn arrow, except for the bus that eventually gets stuck behind them.

  3.  

    Akit

    Finally, they put a left turn lane for buses for the 29-Sunset. Going around the block really sucked. I wish they did this many years ago while I was attending City College and SF State.

    Also, that’s good they put the red lane for the 6 and 71 lines; I wondered why contractors was repaving the road and the 6 bus was forced to go on diesel over the weekend.

  4.  

    Bruce

    Why didn’t they include a boarding island for eastbound buses before either Laguna or Octavia? The inbound stop spacing (on a steep hill no less) will now be a staggering 1,400 feet from Buchanan to Gough. There should have been plenty of room if they took away a few parking spaces on the south side of Haight.

  5.  

    Dark Soul

    I dont blame bus driver or car drivers is the way how the bus stop over there is made without proper space to relief congestion that would speed up the buses and flow to make it safety overall. There was plenty of room to make a sidewalk. (Ok with the bus stop being there)

  6.  

    murphstahoe

    BUSES ONLY LEFT TURN.

    Le sigh. Americans just get dumber and dumber.

  7.  

    Bruce

    Does the left-turn signal at 19th only activate for buses (TSP), or for any vehicle in the lane? Because if the latter then the lane will be abused, no matter how red the paint.

  8.  

    Amanda Clark

    For stations like Fremont, its quite simple (based on extensive experience) that AC Transit and the VTA simply couldn’t handle the people who’d be left out in the event you completely got rid of parking. Its a shitty fact, but for far flung stations like Fremont (and the Warm Springs Extension) you’re going to need parking.

    Now, I tend to believe such parking should be in the form of a garage and not spread out a lot, but that’s another story.

  9.  

    njudah

    and it only took SEVEN YEARS of talking and “studies” to do an obvious fix like the one on 19th. SEVEN YEARS

  10.  

    Jim

    Then the drivers should not be breaking the law by speeding through a yellow light. If drivers make appropriate use of their turn signals and make a proper, safe lane change, they have nothing to worry about.

  11.  

    Raphael Knapp

    It’s a no left intersection so cars have no reason to cut left… My point is that cars need to leave some space for other modes of transportation if we want to improve our beautiful city, make it safer for everyone. Utlimately it reduces traffic congestion as well. Road made only for cars is very 1980s. We have to look at the long term here, not the short term issues. People need to get used to change, otherwise progess can’t ever happen.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    We must compensate for drivers incompetence, don’t cha know

  13.  

    Jim

    Bus drivers put on their hazards prior to approaching every stop. If that doesn’t tell car drivers that there is a stop coming up, then they should retake their driving test in SF. Car drivers should not be entering the intersection anyways if they cannot clear it. Those drivers are the ones putting everyone else in danger.

  14.  

    gary

    Wrong, it’s a lot more dangerous, because that particular spot is just where everyone is trying to make the light before it turns red by speeding up. With a bus stopped there, the drivers behind the bus will try to cut left in front of oncoming cars creating a dangerous situation in a already tight intersection. Cleaner with more visibility? you must be kidding.

  15.  

    timsmith

    Yeah? Are you a professional engineer or planner? No? You’re just a random self-centered driver who can’t see past their steering wheel? Ah, okay, cool, because we totally need more people like that.

  16.  

    SF_Abe

    Because the whole point is to speed up the busses. Cars can sit in their own mess– they’re the vehicles causing congestion.

  17.  

    p_chazz

    So, by your logic we shouldn’t close streets for the street fairs on Castro, Folsom etc., or for Sunday Streets

  18.  

    p_chazz

    Xenophobic much? Maybe you should move to someplace less congested like Montana.

  19.  

    Dark Soul

    They did not bother reducing the area for buses to allow traffic flow..instead they sort of slapped in the sidewalk were the bus stop…causing congestion and danger to others drivers that are behind the bus

  20.  

    Raphael Knapp

    Why would be it more dangerous? You are not providing any reasoning. It does make the bus turns safer and saves riders a lot of time. It also makes the intersection cleaner, with more visibility.

  21.  

    gary

    That bus left turn lane and loading zone just inside the park on 19th will greatly add to the congestion and danger. Bad idea! What idiots.

  22.  

    Prinzrob

    In our Bike East Bay education classes, I’m trying to move the focus from “always stop at stop signs and red lights” to “look and yield to other road users with the right of way at every intersection and crosswalk”. Not only is this a more reasonable ask which more people are likely to comply with, but it also covers a lot of situations that “stop at signs and lights” does not.

    For instance, a pedestrian at an uncontrolled crosswalk has the right of way, but if a person (bicyclist or driver) is only focused on stop signs and signals they are likely to fail to yield. Drivers at a two-way stop do not always realize that cross traffic doesn’t have a stop, but a bicyclist who approaches this intersection with a “look and yield at intersections” mentality is prepared to stop, even though they DID have the right of way.

    I’d much rather people look and yield but not necessarily stop than stop but not necessarily look and yield. In an ideal world, police efforts would reflect this.

  23.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Thanks for calling me out, that’s a very good point! I was thinking of lots (in this case, in Fremont with terrible ped and bike infrastructure and a sea of parking) that potentially have been paid off in terms of construction cost. they could in that case be a source of revenue, though meager and not enough to offset garage loss. As you correctly pointed out, parking is a net loss for BART.

  24.  

    Prinzrob

    I would be surprised if any BART parking lots actually make money, considering how much even a surface lot costs to operate, maintain, police, etc. The parking garages BART is building are even worse. The new one at the MacArthur station will take 30 years to just pay off the cost of construction, even if it is at full capacity every single day. Add in the fact that BART could be making tons more money by repurposing that space for housing or retail, and allocating so much space for parking looks even worse.

    I’m not necessarily arguing that there should be no car parking at BART stations (although the parking free ones in Oakland and SF seem to do just fine) but let’s not kid ourselves that what is provided is a HUGE subsidy to riders who drive to the stations at the expense of all other BART passengers.

  25.  

    Jym Dyer

    @gneiss – I’ve made many pedestrian complaints to the SFPD, but have seen no evidence that even one of them was taken seriously.

  26.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Although it would likely be diverted elsewhere, the money raised from parking fees can also go towards badly needed projects like improving pedestrian and bike access to the stations, bike parking, etc.

  27.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I entirely agree that SFPD should focus on the dangerous behavior of failure to yield, both for car drivers and bicyclists.

    At a four-way stop near my house, I sometimes watch the cars while waiting for the bus. I’ve observed that if there are no other cars at the intersection, 9 out of 10 cars do not come to a complete stop. Half slow to under 5mph. Another 3 slow to 6 – 8 mph. And 1 out 10 blasts through at 10-20 mph. However, if there are other cars in the intersection, almost all cars will stop or slow to less than 2mph. (This is why car drivers do not realize the amount of rolling through stops that goes on. In addition, they experience their own deceleration as a stop when it isn’t.) When I’m crossing the street, 8 out of 10 car drivers, even if they were obviously intending to roll the stop, will immediately stop as soon as they see me. 1 out of 10 won’t even glance in my direction. Another 1 out of 10 will accelerate after seeing me to show they have no intention of letting me delay them a fraction of a second. (This can happen even when I’m nearly in the center of the crosswalk.)

    Why do we have a law requiring complete stops at stop signs?
    1) To create structure to make it clearer whose turn it is at the intersection, and
    2) to create enough dwell time so that motorists are able to make an adequate visual survey of the intersection so that they don’t hit other cars/run over people in crosswalks etc. Both issues are about yielding. (Sometimes there is also a third desired behavior, that of slowing vehicles down, but stop signs are very poor forms of speed control.)

    Bicyclists can perform tasks 1 & 2 quite easily without stopping. On a bike, it is a simple matter to yield by slowing down. I do this all the time, and even cars do this when approaching a pedestrian in a crosswalk that is separate from a light or stop sign. Slowing down works. Sure, sometimes there is enough traffic/ enough pedestrians that a complete stop is necessary to properly yield. But the yielding is what matters.

    On a bike, it is a simple matter to survey and assess an intersection without coming to a full stop because bicyclists do not have blind spots like car drivers and generally approach intersections at much lower speeds. As a bicyclist, I have an entire four way stop surveyed and assessed many seconds before I arrive. (Daylighting intersections and crosswalks helps this analysis, both for car drivers and bikes.)

    The dangerous behavior on a bike is:
    1) approaching an intersection too fast (>10 mph). Bicyclists must slow down at intersections so they have a chance to see and yield to pedestrians as well as other bicyclists and cars that have arrived first.
    2) failing to yield pedestrians that they clearly have had time to see. This is just selfishness and deserves a big hefty fine.
    3) failing to take your turn. This is also selfish and deserves a fine, though less hefty than failure to yield to a pedestrian. (I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve stopped at an intersection to let a car go through that had arrived first, only to have a bicyclist behind me swoop through, forcing the car to slam on its brakes, and delaying my trip even longer.) Roundabouts instead of 4 way stops would significantly reduce taking-turn conflicts.

    If SFPD did a series of failure-to-yield to pedestrian stings for both bicyclists and car drivers, actual dangerous behavior could be addressed. Focusing on behavior that makes no sense to bicyclists is a losing battle. Rolling through a stop sign at 5 mph on a bike (once the bicyclist has ascertained there is not another soul in sight) is not only not dangerous, and it significantly makes biking easier and more pleasurable. The rules of the road, SFPD enforcement of those rules, and our road design should reflect the realities of biking to encourage, not discourage biking because every trip biked saves us all money (fewer Muni or personal car trips to subsidize), it improves the economy ($ spent on autos leave the local economy), it doesn’t destroy the planet or sicken fellow human beings, and it makes the bicyclists making the trip healthier, wealthier and happier.

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    Santa Clara’s problem now!

  29.  

    murphstahoe

    Eating take out food IS a mess

  30.  

    murphstahoe

    Interesting. How many commuters who don’t find a parking spot take BART to work?

    If we make the lots FREE it won’t get more people on BART. We can only serve as many drive-to-BART riders as there are spots. Setting the price so that the lot “just fills” is appropriate.

  31.  

    coolbabybookworm

    That would be nice… unfortunately the last I heard, the money from Oracle’s Howard street shut down goes to pay for the free 4th of July fireworks display. It was either in an sfist or sfgate article.

    For sports events I don’t know.

  32.  

    94103er

    Uh, strawman argument much?

  33.  

    Jamison Wieser

    The way you got me thinking about it here is the city makes a lot of money, but is the money being used to mitigate the problem the event creates?

  34.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    New here? Howard has been closed for Whoracle Whirled for some years.

  35.  

    jd_x

    This is what I feel like anytime there is a Giants game or any other big event in the city bringing mostly outsiders in. Sure, it creates revenue for the city and I’m happy people want to visit, but it’s not worth it when they turn the city into a car-congested madhouse. It’s time that we starting finding ways to get people out of cars and onto public transit for big events. And of course, that will include making our streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists and massively improving public transit, things we already know we need to do. So this is just more incentive to do those things.

  36.  

    jd_x

    “I find it ironic that in this day and age of big data and fighting crime by reviewing statistical models of where and when criminal activity takes place that the police still handle traffic enforcement by responding to “complaints” rather than looking at safety data.”

    Well said. I’ve actually been thinking a lot about this, and it’s amazing the bias the cops have against cyclists and pedestrians. They will say that, when called somewhere, they have to enforce the laws. But that is such BS because I watch cops ALL the time ignore double-parking, illegal U-turns, “gentleman” speeding (5-10 mph over the limit), etc. They try to play the we’re-unbiased-and-must-enforce-the-law-equally card whenever it involves punishing cyclist or pedestrians, but when it comes to enforcing laws against motorists, suddenly they are able to make all these judgement calls and decide which laws to enforce. The cops are just so car-centric (which isn’t surprising since they spend their whole time on the job behind the windshield) that they can’t even think straight and make rational choices about how to use limited resources for the greatest societal good. This is a real problem that must be addressed if we want to get serious numbers of people cycling. My 65 year old mother-in-law who is the slowest most cautious cyclist I’ve ever seen rolls stop signs when nobody is there, and for cops to busting people like her while pedestrians and cyclists are getting run over by completely reckless drivers is a travesty.

  37.  

    CamBam415

    Funny, I’ve never had that issue. Sounds like user error to me: I simply carry the bag from the bottom or bring my own flat bottom reusable bag on a bigger order.

  38.  

    voltairesmistress

    As a resident, I found it absurd today that a multi-lane, major street like Howard was closed for Oracle et al. Felt more like the Mayor had put the City up for sale. And why? So that people attending did not have to cross the street at either end, or walk underground from one part of the convention hall to another? Traffic and transit delays for many blocks all around.

  39.  

    Gezellig

    Yup, though you’re getting pretty off-topic for this site.

  40.  

    jd_x

    Funny to read these comments. It’s all econ 101: supply and demand, externalities, etc. Ultimately, I agree that we need to charge more for parking at Bart because the actual costs to society are externalized in the current price (making the price to park artificially low). But as @jeffreybaker:disqus pointed out, the true cost of roads (driving) are also externalized, so you really need to increase those costs as well. Then, parking at Bart, though more expensive than now, would still be cheaper than driving.

    It’s amazing how distorted our society has become because of all the externalities. Because of these externalities, people are unable to understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. that drinking soda is exacerbating the obesity epidimeic, that plastic bags are clogging our waterways, that driving is leading to climate change and killing the livability of our cities, etc.).

  41.  

    SF Guest

    Has anyone ever brought home hot take-out food in a paper bag? It’s ineffective and invites a mess.

  42.  

    CamBam415

    Yes, excellent point. Parking should absolutely be paid. Other public transit lots charge people to park and it doesn’t impact use (other BART parking lots and GG Ferry in Larkspur, come to mind).

    Additionally, how dumb were the suggestions that BART should text or email drivers that parking is full? Um, hello… distracted driving is dangerous, so why would BART encourage people to ready email/texts while driving?

    The few times I drive to public transit (I typically bike), I know that if I am not there by X time, I need to go straight to an alternative parking lot. I mean who does the same thing at the same time every day and expects a different outcome?!

  43.  

    SF Guest

    I understand this methodology. Not so sure Jeffrey Baker does however.

  44.  

    CamBam415

    Oh no… we tax bad things to discourage their use, that sounds awful (sarcasm). And, to make your point even worse, both soda and plastic bags have high costs to society that isn’t reflected in the purchase price.

    As for what’s next, I am hoping it is fast food, roads and parking lots! Fingers crossed.

  45.  

    Gezellig

  46.  

    SFGuy1930

    I wasn’t saying that “we should have improved bike infrastructure to the exclusion of transit.” I was saying that “Murphstahoe” diatribe about my post being “just a catchphrase of bkie-haters” and “demonizing cyclists as being anti-transit” was uncalled for.

    From the gist of your post, I’ll take away that you agree that MurphTahoe’s post was an unnecessary non-sequitur flame, which I agree with.

  47.  

    Timsmith

    Pricing is designed to ensure lots are about 90% full — enough so you can still find a space, but there aren’t so many empty spaces it reduces ridership (especially since pricing can give people more reason to carpool). If you get too empty, you simply lower prices. Not so complicated actually.

  48.  

    Timsmith

    What? People who use Howard are voters in many cases, so there are certainly major impacts on constituents.

  49.  

    SF Guest

    There’s already a soda tax proposal and a statewide plastic bag ban on the way which means we’ll be paying for paper bags. What’s next?

  50.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    That would only happen because the roads are _also_ underpriced.