Today’s Headlines

  • Mayor Lee’s Photo Op With New Muni Buses Spoiled by Door Glitch (SFGate, SF Weekly, CBS)
  • DPW Orders Removal of Martin Macks Parklet on Upper Haight Street (SF Examiner, ABC)
  • Sup. Wiener’s Reform Bill for CEQA Appeals Process Heads to Full Board of Supervisors (SFGate)
  • Beyond Chron: Supervisors Need to Break Better Market Street “Logjam”
  • KTVU Fields Sound Bytes From Random People on Putting Bike Lanes on Mission Instead of Market
  • Safety Fixes at Market and Octavia May Have to Wait for Funding From Developers (SF Examiner)
  • Curbed SF Summarizes SPUR’s Report on Removing I-280 North of 16th Street
  • Leah Shahum Explains the SFBC’s Approach to Making City Streets Safer (CBS)
  • Argument Over Parking Spot in SoMa Leads to Assault and Robbery (Mercury NewsCBS)
  • Caltrain Service Delayed for an Hour by Man With Knife at 22nd Street Station (Mercury News, SF Appeal)
  • GG Bridge District Responds to The Greater Marin’s Proposals to Manage Parking at Larskpur Landing
  • Hit-And-Run Driver Kills Man on Bicycle on Taylor Avenue in San Jose (Mercury News, KTVU)
More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill
  • Kyle

    Why on earth is Caltrain held up for an hour by a guy with a knife who isn’t even in the station? The FRA demands that we build trains that can survive collisions with a freight train but they can’t handle some lunatic with a knife?

  • Andy Chow

    While I do question the judgement to stop the trains, I heard that person was on an street overpass so jumping on to the track is a possibility.

    I think the trains should be proceeded to Bayshore (where people can walk to the T or other bus lines to downtown). With Caltrain, most of the delays are about an hour long or less before single tracking or full opening. If conductors are telling riders to get off the train and look for alternatives (like taking another train going back, etc), it would only further delay riders because of confusing instruction. Because Caltrain takes a while to turn back a train, dumping riders mid line and turning the train around has not been very effective. Usually by the time it is done at least one of the tracks will reopen.

    Caltrain should use its PA system to better give an estimate of delay.

    Turning back trains should be done if Caltrain can turn back trains as quick as BART or if the delay is expected to take many hours (like having to repair tracks, etc).

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone else here suspect that the 280 tear down is just the latest ploy to direct scarce public money to redevelopment, instead of to real services and reform of public transportation and education? So many ways to invest in muni, Bart, Caltrain, parks, bike lanes, schools, and yet we are told that a broad, busy surface level road will heal the ills created by the 280 skyway; that somehow we can’t knit together mission bay, dog patch, and south of market by any other means. How about providing numerous walkways, bike paths and greenery to bridge over rail yard and under the very high freeway? I think we are being played here – by the mayor, eager developers, SPUR, and naive non-profit advocates.

  • Anonymous

    In the KTVU story on Mission St bike lanes, is the taxi driver who says his company “lets them go” after they “damage his taxis” talking about bicyclists or passengers who open doors in the path of bikes? It’s at the 1:48 mark.

  • Bicyclists. He’s just talking about damage from taxi-bicycle collisions, they’ve already moved on from the dooring-mirrors subject by that point. The implication is that the bicyclists were at fault and caused the damage.

  • mikesonn

    That KTVU story is just video and words put together in random order with no point. How is that journalism?

  • Andy Chow

    Even if the freeway stays, there’s still development potential in the yard area. I think some in the city hall is getting greedier by trying to remove the freeway so there would be slightly more street-level developments. The most expensive part is not the removal of the freeway, but the putting trains underground along the entire stretch. It could set back Caltrain electrification and downtown extension for many years.

    I look at it is how much more money to put trains underground and how much more revenue would be generated by more street level developments because of removal of freeway and putting trains underground. I don’t think it will pencil out.

  • Rents in Noe Valley for a 1 BR condo – $2600/month.

    I have a hard time being anti-development when I read that stat.

    As for scarce public money… presuming that large chunks of land would become new housing, in addition to producing new housing for people to live in, it would be housing that would be sold to the residents or landlords at prevailing market rate, meaning that SF would be collecting property taxes at full value. And this is the best sort of tax – a tax that the payer is voluntarily entering into a personal agreement to pay.

  • Anonymous

    I know it’s “supply and demand” but housing is such a complex and regulated market that increasing supply is hardly a real solution to bringing down the prices, especially when everything being built is being built with a plan to rent at or above current market rates and not with the expectation that the market will go down. Obviously you can increase the number of wealthy people living (or owning, not necessarily living there full time) in San Francisco through development but I don’t understand how you can bring down rental prices without the current development bubble getting popped. Even then, there are a lot of empty/underutilized properties landowners are sitting on until they think it’s worth making enough money off of rather than lowering prices.

    So I would suggest that your “solution” to the problem is actually the problem itself since a lot of the demand for property is being fueled by speculation.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with your sentiment voltairesmistress, there are definitely a lot of well-connected people salivating over the potential money to be made. As someone who lives off of 6th street though, it will be a personal benefit to not have the offramp spewing speeding traffic into my neighborhood. I think a boulevard will be calmer and will lower overall car use in the area. It isn’t the only way, but it would make it easier to access the dogpatch, mission Bay, Portrero, etc. with fewer elevated freeways cutting things up and the speeding traffic they dump into the city.

    In one way, many parts of the city may end up subsidizing this so that the development is concentrated in the NE part of the city, with very little planned for elsewhere.

  • All things being equal, more supply is better than less supply of a coveted good that has low externalities. Housing in SF has lower externalities than housing in Contra Costa County.

    I am under no illusion that SF can build its way to lower prices. I would be a hypocrite if I said that – because I am a firm believer that we can’t build (freeways) our way out of traffic congestion or build (parking garages) our way out of parking issues. If we build more supply, that depresses prices only to the point where the marginal occupant who was leaving SF now decides to stay.

    To me one thing is clear – housing is a much better use for that space than the current usage.

  • Anonymous

    I very much doubt the housing built on that land would pay for the infrastructural changes proposed. There is a lot of land in SE San Francisco that can be redeveloped, a lot of housing too that can be built without these 37 acres of SF’s 30,080 acres. Governor Brown abolished Redevlopment agencies statewide, because they took public funds needed for poor and middle class people’s services — police, fire, schools, health, transit — and funneled them toward economic development that ended up benefitting wealthy investors. He pointed out how much more our tax dollars could do for us, if we applied it to our needs, not some abstract gdp growth overall. To me, this orchestration of support for the 280 tear down stinks. I am disappointed that streetsblog is not more cautious about supporting it. I suggest everyone take a step back before playing the role of mayor lee’s rodeo clowns.

  • Anonymous

    Not sure what “all things being equal” means since that’s not the case and a big part of the problem.

    I’m under no illusion that SF is going to stop or even should stop the development, I just think a lot of things are getting steam rolled and even more things are getting thrown up at too high a price (figuratively). I agree tho that housing is better than a highway, but “housing” is not one thing just like transportation or food are not one type of good. It’s the type of housing that concerns me, all Spur seems to care about is that it’s dense, but there’s a lot more to livability than that.

    Part of it is just the aesthetics, too much shit that costs too much and I’m still convinced no one wants to really live it. I mean, how long did it take to fill 1 rincon hill if it’s even full now? Even the ad for the new rincon hill tower or the terrible video for NeMa is incredibly elitist, that’s not what san francisco needs more of even if people do need places to live.

  • Mario Tanev

    You may be right but one other reason to demolish the freeway would be that coexistence of a high speed train AND a freeway in the same place would preclude trenching (because it would make the freeway unstable), which means 16th St will need to be brought underground, making the neighborhood separation even greater. So, status quo is not possible unless HSR is cancelled.