Today’s Headlines

  • Neighbors to Protest Tree Replacement for Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (SF Chronicle)
  • Driver, Motorcyclist Crash at Polk and Ellis Streets (Hoodline)
  • Activist Fran Taylor: Don’t Let Police Use Vision Zero Enforcement as an Excuse for Racist Harassment
  • SF Bicycle Coalition Publishes Questionnaire Responses From Candidates in Mayoral, Supes Races
  • More on Captain Sanford’s Ride With Bike Advocates (SF News)
  • Man and His Mules, Roaming to Highlight Car Dominance, Barred From Crossing GG Bridge (SF Weekly)
  • GG Bridge Board Takes Major Step to Build $76M Suicide Net (ABC, Marin IJ)
  • SF Chronicle Columnist: Art at BART Stations Wouldn’t Improve Service and Would Only Get Dirty
  • Breakdown Delays BART Near Glen Park Sunday (KTVU); Toy Grenade Closes North Berkeley Station
  • Drunk Driver in Castro Valley Hits Cop, Breaking His Leg, After He Pulls Over Man on Bike (CBS)
  • CA Senator’s Proposal to Hike Gas Tax, Car Registration Fees Faces Uphill Battle (SF Chronicle)
  • CA Transit Agencies Blocked From Federal Grants Over Employee Pension Rules (Mercury News)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • mike_napolis_beard

    Something something cannot see the forest for the trees.

  • murphstahoe

    You have to love the “San Francisco News” article on Sanford.

    rides alongside “Angry Bikers”!

    “Project Zero”

    Allison Lau is a writer and photographer based in Los Angeles, California.

  • Every time the tree thing happens – and it seems to happen with every project – it saddens me:

    A groups of locals or neighbors who care, but weren’t paying close enough attention earlier, feel left out and disenfranchised. Having the process and rationale explained too late to make a difference doesn’t seem to help, even when it’s City arborists explaining why this is the best move for the long term.

  • Gezellig

    Re: SFBCC’s Candidate Survey, I assume a question mark means a No Comment:

  • Nicasio Nakamine

    I know the rope art at Embarcadero was unspeakably dirty, but I grew to love it. When they removed the art, I was a little sad, but figured they would replace it with something new. Now it’s just a blank wall.

    I don’t understand people who rail against art as unnecessary. Why even live a life without art?

  • Oddly enough, their articles appear in Google search results with a “satire” tag.

  • SFnative74

    I fear the $76,000,000 suicide net on the bridge does zero to reduce the causes of suicide and will instead push people to commit suicide somewhere else, with some (many?) on rail lines like BART and Caltrain.

  • Jimbo

    its really dissappointing about the trees on Van Ness. This city does really a terrible job taking care of and fostering trees. It is especially insulting in this case as they are doing it to put in BRT, which is a terrible waste of money for sucha small benefit. I am a strong advocate of transformative public transit to get people out of cars, but this is not it. Why not save the money to build an underground subway and save the trees? I know a subway is more expensive, but the money could be put aside for future investment. The only reason i own a house in SF is because I didnt go to bars or fancy restaurants, and invested wisely one penny at a time for 15 years post-college. I slummed it up with 3 roomates for most of that time, even though i could afford more. The city needs to learn sacrifice and discipline. And get a freaking heart about killing trees. our canopy is one of the lowest for citiies.

  • Rogue Cyclist

    Cancelling BRT and restarting planning for a subway would take who knows how long. It may not seem like it so far, but BRT is more cost-effective and quicker to build than a new metro line. Van Ness BRT is planned to be completed and ready for service in 4 years. I’d rather have faster and more reliable bus service in the short-term than wait 20+ years for a subway. I see no waste here.

  • lunartree

    Wow tell us more about how you’re better than everyone else. Maybe that’s why you weren’t invited out at bars.

    Also, they’re putting in double the trees, and improving the streetspace! There will be MORE TREES! You’re a true NIMBY because while you claim to be “a strong advocate of transformative public transit to get people out of cars” your actions do not match your speak. Also, just because you enjoyed cheap housing prices in your time doesn’t mean we were all old enough to have had the same opportunity. Let me guess, you’re one of those NIMBYs that fought construction of new housing. You clearly have a lot of cognitive dissonance…

  • I’m not sure that the city doing a good job taking care of and fostering trees is in direct competition with a major traffic change. The first seems like a much broader issue requiring a strategy change that isn’t at odds with minor tactical changes such as this.

  • SF_Abe

    I used to feel this way too, but there is a good deal of evidence that most people who are deterred from jumping do not actually try to commit suicide again– either from the bridge or elsewhere.

    Check out the book “The Final Leap” for more info.

  • SFnative74

    Historically, San Francisco hasn’t had many trees, so it’s not surprising it has one of the lowest canopy coverage among cities. http://burritojustice.com/2009/07/31/know-your-trees/

  • SFnative74

    I’ll check that out. I watched The Bridge and it didn’t change my opinion. It seems intuitive that someone suicidal will find a way to attempt it and if they know the bridge has a net, then they’ll go somewhere else first.

  • Jimbo

    Not sure how what I said implies I’m better than others. I bought a home in SF 3 years ago after sacrificing and saving for 18 yrs post college and grad school. My point has to do more with the city not saving money for big transformative projects, instead of creating bandaids. Not a NIMBY. I’m in favor of the city adding 50k market rate units to push up the supply curve. More trees is great but it doesn’t save these ones. Would you want to kills 100 sick old people in exchange for 200 new healthy ones

  • Alicia

    Would you want to kills 100 sick old people in exchange for 200 new healthy ones

    Trees aren’t people, and we should never equate them.

  • The Van Ness BRT project included full environmental review of potential tree issues. All aesthetic and biological resources impacts are mitigated- nesting birds would be protected during construction, and more trees would be planted than existing. See much more:

    http://www.sfcta.org/van-ness-avenue-bus-rapid-transit-planning-and-environmental-studies

  • thielges

    Odds are pretty good that a subway project would also eliminate the trees, especially if it were done by a combination of bringing all of Geary back to at-grade and cut and cover.

    A subway project will also require significant upzoning along the Geary corridor which is politically difficult right now.

    Replacing BRT with a subway project will at minimum prolong the pain along this corridor and at worst eliminate better transit service for a generation or two.

    Trees have finite lifespans anyways. They’re continuously dying and being replanted all the time. What is more important is that SF’s tree canopy trends towards more cover over the years, not that every planting must be preserved unconditionally.

  • “I am a strong advocate of transformative public transit to get people out of cars, but this is not it. Why not save the money to build an underground subway and save the trees?”

    I’m curious under what circumstances under which you think it would be OK to remove and replace the city’s trees?

    Once finished, Van Ness BRT will improve Muni, pedestrian safety (with the corner extensions and refuge provided by the dual medians), and 20 years from now the number of mature trees on Van Ness will have doubled.

    Something I don’t think many people have considered – for or against, just a small detail – about this is the dual medians will spread out the canopy over more of the street than the single row of trees in the middle.

  • lunartree

    You have to understand that “would you want to kills 100 sick old people in exchange for 200 new healthy ones” is a meaningless comparison.

    Trees are part of our environment. They are not individuals, but single pieces of a whole. I care a lot about our environment, and if we want it to be healthy we have to care about the big picture. It’s humans that will have to bear this change, not nature. Those trees barely represent a blip in time on the scale of nature, but 200 new trees will improve the long term health of our environment.

    It’s much like how the invasive Eucalyptus trees must be removed from certain locations because they choke out native wildlife and present a fire hazard that has been destroying old redwoods. Some people have been fighting this in the name of nature, but they don’t understand what they’re doing. They’re fighting positive change in the name of the environment arguing that shade and nice trees today are worth halting the repair of the damage we’ve done.

  • Jimbo

    Did You ever consider that we are part of the tree’s environment instead of the other way around?

  • murphstahoe

    that must explain all the Australian Eucalyptus in San Francisco.

  • lunartree

    No, but are you suggesting that a single tree supersedes the entirety of nature? What you’re arguing makes no sense. You can’t simultaneous claim to respect mother nature while arguing against attempts to reduce human impact. Those trees are diseased due to contaminants from the roadway. This project will remove the contaminants, reduce the number of cars polluting the area, and replace the street scape with more and more native flora. A tree is like one cell in the whole organism that is nature. If part of your body was diseased you’d certainly want the disease removed. It will grow back, and it will grow back healthier for everyone and everything.

  • Dark Soul

    Some tree does need be removed due safety issue …lately tree been falling off…They can just relocate the trees.

  • murphstahoe

    What’s he’s suggesting is that his comment will get a rise out of you. And he was right!

  • lunartree

    It’s pretty hard to tell the difference between trolls and serious people in this situation. The old hippies of San Francisco fight alongside conservatives these days and it makes no sense. My only guess is they keep this up as a shrouded way to keep their property values expensive.

  • Jimbo

    Can someone explain the definition of a troll on streetsblog? Is it simply someone who disagrees with you? It’s hard to grow as a human just being surrounded by people who completely agree with everything you say. Labeling as the others as trolls makes one a small person. I firmly believe and stand by what I said. I would support saving these trees and saving the BRT money for a subway line on van ness. It does more good for more people and trees in the long run. The city is often much too shortsighted

  • lunartree

    People are calling you a troll because your responses are borderline incoherent. You keep saying the same things regardless of what people are trying to discuss on the matter. You’re dodging questions and only throwing back appeals to emotion that contradict your cause. This combination of disconnection from the reality, your self contradictory statements, and seemingly intentional argumentativeness makes people believe that it’s no possible that you actually believe. Your arguments seem especially unauthentic considering that your position fights for less environmental attention, and to this point you have ignored any comments pointing this out.

    Only you know if you’re being serious right now, but you have not presented any sort of coherent train of thought.

  • SF Guest

    From Wikipedia:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into anemotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    IMO the use of the term “troll” on SF Streetsblog is frequently misused.