Today’s Headlines

  • Mission Street Motorists Mad About Transit Lane (SFChron)
  • SFMTA Works on New Tech Shuttle Plans (Hoodline)
  • Muni May Withdraw from North Carolina Transit Conference (SFExaminer)
  • More on More Muni Service (SFist)
  • Editorial: Build the Caltrain Extension to Transbay! (SFExaminer)
  • Woman in Crosswalk Hit by Motorist at Hyde and McAllister (Hoodline)
  • More Details on Mixed Use for Van Ness and Post (Hoodline)
  • More on San Bruno Hit and Run Victim (SFGate)
  • Menlo Park Considers Wide Bike Lane on Oak Grove (AlmanacNews)
  • California High Speed Rail Project is About More than a Train from LA to SF (BizJournal)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA
Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA

  • Ted King

    The leg from 30th to Duboce is somewhat slow, but the leg from Duboce to Embarcadero is underground and a lot faster. If one is headed for Van Ness or Civic Center it’s a wash – but going further East one gets a time savings.

  • murphstahoe

    That analysis ignores the issue of reliability – the J may be coming, it might not be. 24th/Mission will have a BART train every couple of minutes during the day.

  • SF_Abe

    Then, RichLL, let me speak to you in a way that I hope will be more familiar.

    Why not just make it so that you have to drive on the street for two blocks in order to get from 280 to 101? So that at no point can you go directly from one to the other? It might not be that difficult, but it’s a bone-headed way to build a transportation network.

    Muni should go directly to BART stations– not just get within two blocks. And it certainly shouldn’t become less connected for the convenience of people who choose to drive.

  • mx

    The Högertrafikomläggningen. An amazing word for “everyone stop driving on the left side of the road and let’s now all carefully start driving on the right please” (really it’s something like “right-side traffic reorganization” but still pretty amazing to fit all that in one word).

  • chetshome

    “And as a driver I do not see how I am “externalizing” any costs.”
    You make it very clear every day in your comments that you don’t understand this widely accepted reality.

    “The reality is that motorists are subsidizing everyone else..”
    And since you don’t understand, you declare the opposite to be reality. QED

  • RichLL

    Correct, I don’t understand. And the fact that someone claims that their opinion is a “widely accepted reality” and that “you don’t understand” does not in fact provide any factual, statistical, inferential or evidentiary basis for believing what you assert.

    Nor does glibly appending “QED” at the end

    The only “widely accepted reality” that I understand is that we all pay for the upkeep of roads via general taxation, for the very good reason that we all benefit from having an efficient working system of roads.

    But the cost of that burden is mitigated for all by the fact that certain classes of people pay additional taxes, fees and costs to actually use those roads (drivers).

    Now, I’m not complaining that cyclists get a good deal. Good luck to them. But when a cyclist argues that he is subsidizing a driver, that appears to be an illogical supposition.

  • RichLL

    Abe, I agree that’s ideal. But if I understand p_chazz’s idea correctly, then the suggestion to put the buses on SVN was to speed them up.

    So it’s at least possible that bus riders might prefer a faster journey and then a one (not 2) block walk to BART. Rather than a slower trip and a shorter walk at the end.

    On the few occasions that I have had the misfortune to take the 14 or 49, I was thrilled to get off. Personally I’d gladly trade a short walk for a few less minutes on them.

  • Ted King

    Ah, the gentleman doesn’t have an AmEx phone with the NextBus app on it.

  • murphstahoe

    One car J in 27 minutes. One car J in 28 minutes. One car J in 29 minutes

  • murphstahoe

    Skeevy: Adjective – containing brown people

  • murphstahoe

    You claim motorists subsidize everyone else.

    Prove it. With citations.

  • RichLL

    Wrong, it was jd_x who made the claim without any evidence, so it is his job to prove that claim.

    Until then the default has to be that his claim is invalid. If you can demonstrate otherwise, and impeach my logic, then please do so, Otherwise we will assume that you cannot.

  • RichLL

    You know, if you are going to play a race card you should at least first check that the debate is actually about race.

    In this case, it was not.

  • SF_Abe

    It’s a two-block walk (not 1). That’s a fact.

    If we’re actually serious about speeding up the 14 and the 49 there are plenty of ways to do that without moving them away from the street they serve. We are not actually serious about speeding up those buses, though– we are serious about preserving private auto access to every inch of public space, no matter the effect it has on Muni.

    This notion that Muni can only be improved in some ways by reducing service in others is ludicrous– especially when motorists shriek and wail when they are asked to make even the smallest of sacrifices, and the city eventually backs down.

  • chetshome

    “But the cost of that burden is mitigated for all by the fact that certain classes of people pay additional taxes, fees and costs to actually use those roads (drivers).”

    No one is claiming that maintenance of roads doesn’t benefit society. Roads are useful. A central purpose of this blog is to discuss how to best design, use and pay for it. You’re asserting that personal auto drivers mitigate for all their costs through additional taxes, fees and costs. I assert that it is widely accepted that you are wrong. Here’s one example:

  • chetshome

    You wrote this specific claim: “The reality is that motorists are subsidizing everyone else”

    Do you have any citations for that assertion?

  • RichLL

    Again, as stated, the claim I was responding to cited no data, so I didn’t either.
    In any event, data is irrelevant unless we first agree what we mean by “subsidizing”. In my sense it means that drivers are paying more than non-drivers. you might have a different view and therefore end up with a different conclusion

  • RichLL

    I didn’t say that “personal auto drivers mitigate for all of their costs”. And we’d have to first agree whether drivers should pay 100% of the costs of roads when non-drivers benefit from them as well.
    What I said was that non-drivers have to pay less for roads than drivers, and so the latter are subsidizing the former.
    An analogy might help. I pay the same taxes as you for public schools but then I pay again for my kids to go to private school. So I am paying more for education than those whose kids attend public school and those who don’t have kids at all, but who still benefit from an educated populace.
    Your argument seems to be that you’re not sick so you shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare

  • RichLL

    Ha, it’s only 2 blocks if you count Capp Street. Throughout this thread and topic the convention has been adopted that a block is between the major N-S street e.g. SVN, Mission, Valencia etc., and not the little alleys and side-streets inbetween.
    As for improving Muni, I think I speak for most people in this city who drive (which is most people in this city) that we are not willing to give up our cars on the hope and promise that Muni will become a wonderful alternative if we do.
    You need to fix Muni first and then and only then we talk about fewer cars. The voters do not pre-pay for performance

  • chetshome

    You wrote it–what did you mean? what is the evidence you can cite to support it?

  • chetshome

    You’re ignoring the external costs of personal auto use. (non-personal use has external costs too, but also has different benefits). A driver pays some extra tax/fees, but not as much as the costs; that means they’re being subsidized. Those costs include, for example, pollution, traffic delaying public transportation, traffic deaths and injuries, loss of public space (for parking) for other uses.

  • Rob

    ‘data is irrelevant’
    ‘drivers are paying more than non-drivers’

    so you say, data is irrelevant and drivers are paying more than non-drivers. you are a troll.

  • SF_Abe

    “Ha, it’s only 2 blocks if you count Capp Street.”

    It’s a street, ain’t it? You have to cross it, dontcha?

    “You need to fix Muni first”

    That’s what these reds lanes are for, and they are working. Muni can’t be “fixed” without getting it out of the gridlock caused by you sitting alone in your car. It’s time for you to take responsibility, Rich, for the effect your choices have on the rest of us.

  • murphstahoe

    What I said was that non-drivers have to pay less for roads than drivers, and so the latter are subsidizing the former.
    An analogy might help. I pay the same taxes as you for public schools but then I pay again for my kids to go to private school.

    This is not an analogy. You are paying for public schools that you don’t use, that’s a subsidy. If you pay for roads that you do use, but you pay less than the costs incurred by your use of said roads, you are being subsidized.
    Then again, you know that.

  • RichLL

    The fact that Capp Street bisects the block does not mean it is any further to walk. I thought that was obvious.

    “Block” is not a precise term so let me rephrase. It’s a very short walk.

  • RichLL

    But how do you measure those costs? The total cost of the road divided by the number of drivers gives you are artificially high number, which you cannot reasonably expect to be paid only by drivers.

    Fixed costs should be paid by everyone. The incremental and marginal costs of one extra car on the road is the number you need, and I cannot see that being higher than the fees and taxes a driver pays.

    And don’t even get me started in the way sales tax is applied on the same car every time it changes hands.

  • chetshome

    Just because you personally don’t understand something doesn’t mean its opposite is true. People do research to try to understand and measure the costs. Here’s an example:

  • SF Guest

    You write you don’t object to motorists who opt for free or low-cost parking if it’s readily available; you only object to those looking for free or low-cost parking when they can pay for parking at a garage instead of circling the blocks.

    Your stance is street parking rates should be more in line with private garage rates. Since SFMTA parking fees cannot automatically increase which includes charging for evenings and weekends while there are private garages charging $5/hour perhaps it should be the owners of the private garages who should reexamine their fee structure if their garages remain 1/4 full.

    In either case it does no good to hold motorists in contempt for making money-saving choices while making the personal choice to drive a private vehicle.

  • Flatlander

    San Francisco is long past the point of win-wins. We need to choose our priorities (and we have – Transit First, Vision Zero) and act accordingly.

  • gneiss

    Actually, the SFPark program was designed to manage parking demand so that there would always be 10% of spaces available on any given block. Prices were adjusted for time of high demand as well, particularly in the area around AT&T Park where during game days, parking demand is quite high.

    The owners of parking garages are asking market rate for their garages. One only has to walk around the area in SOMA during game days to see how much demand for parking there is, and how garages adjust their prices to compensate for that demand.

  • dat

    It happened to me three or four times.

    My skin starts to crawl every time still.

  • Kieran

    I have had this idea for years and it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone else suggest it…Put the 49 Van Ness-Mission bus onto South Van Ness!! That’d easily make things more efficient for the 14 local bus that stays on Mission…Here’s how I’d re-route the 49 through the Inner Mission-Both inbound and outbound 49s would turn off Mission at 16th st, stopping at the 16th st BART station. From there, they’d take South Van Ness. The southbound 49s going to CCSF would take South Van Ness until 26th st, then taking 26th st to Mission, while the northbound 49s headed to Aquatic Park would turn right onto 25th st from Mission and left onto South Van Ness, followed by turning left onto 16th st again before turning back onto Mission st and heading north.

    The 49 would stop every 2 blocks on South Van Ness- So for a northbound 49, it would stop at 24th and SVN to drop riders off a block away from the 24th st BART station, then at 22nd, 20th, 18th and 16th sts. That would make the 49 much faster going through the Inner Mission. All Muni needs to do is make more bus shelters, do community outreach, post a route change and there ya go-much faster 49 service. Also putting the 14 R onto SVN is a good idea, while the 14 local can stay on Mission. The 14 R could share the stops I listed above with the 49. Mission st through the Inner Mission is way too narrow and crowded for 3 bus lines which all use 60 foot buses to efficiently traverse.

  • p_chazz

    Great minds think alike, Kieran! I take it that you mean the southbound 49 would turn left from Mission to 16th then right on SVN, while the northbound 49 would turn left from SVN onto 16th and then right on Mission? I see your point about serving the 16th BART Station, but the turns would slow it down. That’s why I favor having the route stay on South Van Ness all the way from Market to Cesar Chavez. But I think either approach would be an improvement. I also like your idea of having stops every two blocks.

  • SF_Abe

    And if you would care to look a little earlier in this very thread, you will see why I make the distinction. Allow me to copy+paste for the short-term-impaired:

    “The distances are similar, but walking from Mission to South Van Ness requires crossing at least one more intersection (not to mention the alleys between Mission & Capp and Capp & South. That could mean having to wait for a light to change and missing a bus (a common inconvenience) but it also means more chances to get hit by a car, which is a life-altering tragedy. It’s not simply about the increased distance someone will have to walk.”

    We have to consider more than just distance when creating a transportation *network*

  • RichLL

    Like I said, it really depends on the assumptions made.

    I understand the issue very clearly. Your assumptions are flawed and unrealistic

  • RichLL

    No evidence has been cited either way. We haven’t even agreed on what assumptions might underlie that “evidence”

  • RichLL

    Then lets the voters decide, including the 3/4 of them who own at least one car

    “Transit First” and “Vision Zero” are just slogans. People like the sound of them, and vote for them, but that doesn’t mean they want ever more screwing around with cars

  • RichLL

    Crossing Capp Street is trivial. Non-issue, and certainly not worth inconveniencing tens of thousands of bus riders and drivers

    And nobody will get hit by a car is they walk carefully.

    Sorry, I’m not buying it – the buses should be on SVN

  • chetshome

    You continually refuse to cite any evidence and ignore any evidence provided to you.

  • mx

    The voters did decide. First of all when they put “Transit First” into the City Charter in the first place. And more recently in November 2014 when Measure L, which sought to restore car-centric planning and parking policies, was defeated 63%-37%.

  • Kieran

    Yup, you’re right, p chazz..I mean that the southbound 49 would turn left onto 16th st from Mission and right onto SVN while the northbound 49 would turn left off 16th and right onto Mission. Ya know, I’m really surprised Muni didn’t do this route configuration back in the 80s..That would’ve saved decades worth of traffic jams in the Inner Mission..

    Yea, either of our ideas would work, whether the 49 would turn onto 16th or just take SVN straight from Market, it’d save thousands of people money and time. It’d be great if Muni saw this and actually put it into use because this is one of the few extensions where barely any construction would be needed in order to implement it. Though that’s obviously asking for a helluva lot..

    I’m glad we think alike with this idea that utilizes nothing but common(though more like uncommon these days) sense.

  • SF_Abe

    Nope. Moving the buses is what will inconvenience bus riders.

    Most of the people who visit Mission Street get there without a car. On what planet does diverting those people make it easier for them?

    Divert private autos to South Van Ness (or literally ANY other street) and leave The 14 and 49 where they do the most good– on Mission, connecting directly with BART. (With the space recovered from auto lanes and auto parking we can even add good bike lanes.)

    “And nobody will get hit by a car is they walk carefully.”

    Hey, look– another objectively false (and eloquent to boot) RichLL statement! People, even the ones who walk carefully (whatever that means) are hit by cars. It happens three times a day just here in SF.

    So let’s tally this up: one untruth about the number of blocks you propose to divert people, and a whopper about how people don’t get hit by car drivers unless they have it coming. Have you said anything accurate here? I guess you spelled Capp Street correctly…

  • RichLL

    And I don’t see any evidence from you. And in any event this isn’t just about evidence even assuming that you had any. It’s about assumptions.

  • RichLL

    No, the voters decided on a cute slogan. They didn’t decide to make their lives hell so that a 3% modal share can sing Kumbayah while they ride to the promised land

  • RichLL

    Look if you are scared to cross a small street like Capp then you probably should not be out without your mom.

    SVN to Mission is a trivial walk and certainly less than a lot of interchanges at supposedly “networked” transit systems.

    And I never said a pedestrian who gets in an accident “had it coming”. Who is lying now?

  • Flatlander

    I guess you weren’t around for the disastrous Measure L, and the successful increases in Muni funding. Yet, no matter what voters say, motorists insist that they are the silent majority…

  • chetshome

    posting this for the third time in this conversation. have you read it yet? You make it about evidence when you make assertions –people want to see the evidence supporting your assertion. You never post any.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.