Today’s Headlines

  • Safety Set Aside to Preserve Taraval Parking (SFExaminer)
  • More on New Muni Trains (SFBay, SFist)
  • More on Double Berthing (SFBay)
  • Mobility Challenges for Bayfront Developments (SFChron)
  • Third Street Bayview Building to get More Parking (Socketsite)
  • Menlo Park Punts Safety Improvements on Deadly El Camino Real (AlmanacNews)
  • More on VTA Struggle with Falling Ridership (MercNews)
  • Man Climbs on Top of VTA Train (NBCBayArea, Kron4)
  • Study Revived on Dumbarton Bridge (SMDailyJournal)
  • Sonoma Marin Train Adopts Rules for Passenger Behavior (MarinIJ)
  • Martinez Comes Alive and May Get Ferry Service (EastBayTimes, MercNews)

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

  • Thanks to Katy Tang for reminding me why I moved out of the Outer Sunset and haven’t gone back since. Great place to go if you’re suicidal, I guess.

  • Re: Taraval parking.

    Yeah, we’re such a progressive city. Once again, parking trumps rider safety. Coming home on the L last night, 6 out of the 10 times we stopped cars kept driving and ignoring the law to stop for people getting off/on the train. But, saving a few precious parking spots on Taraval seems to be worth it. A sensible solution would be to eliminate more than half of the surface stops and put in platforms, but as we all know riders don’t want to walk an extra couple hundred feet to catch a train even it it means waiting on a protected platform and reducing the overall commute time.

    The problem is that neither riders nor parking advocates want to budge. Because of that, the problem will never be solved.

    On a side note, MUNI’s installation of additional traffic lights on Taraval is a step in the wrong direction. It will only add minutes to travel time, not subtract. Way to go, progressive, Transit First San Francisco!

  • ARRO

    Glad to see the residents actually unifying against another one of these SFMTA blunders and that the L Taravel plans are being sent back to the drawing board.

  • Re: double berthing.

    I’ve noticed that trains are now stopping twice on the platform. My inbound train this morning stopped twice at both the Powell and Montgomery stations. Doors opened, people got off, doors closed, train inched up to first position, doors opening, people looked confused, doors closed.

    Outbound double berthing will be a nightmare. The narrow platforms are already packed and people will be scrambling to find out where on the platform their train will stop and open its doors.

    As I’ve stated numerous times before…during rush, run 3-car trains between West Portal and 4th/King. Re-route the M/L so that a single line runs between Balboa Park (M) and SF Zoo (L). Re-route the K/L so that it runs between Balboa Park (K) and 22nd/Taraval (L). In addition, keep Church St. on the surface between Balboa Park and the platforms at Duboce/Church (inbound) and Church/Market (outbound). Run 2-car N trains in the tunnel.

  • I’m going to start a boycott movement, suggestions what the signs and flyers should say? Who would want to help posting them along the corridor?

  • I don’t see how consider a plan which would have both added boarding islands and +13 parking spaces by reconfiguring the corners as a blunder? What do you think would be a more ideal setup?

    I’d like to understand why do parking spaces on Taraval Street itself mean so much to you that you would have fewer overall spaces to go around? Wouldn’t you prefer having a better chance of finding an available parking space?

    What part of that is such a blunder?

  • ARRO

    The blunder here is the inflated budget being allocated to these pet street projects when the agency is having difficulties managing and efficiently running what we already have. I would rather see this sort of funding go into actual infrastructure expansion projects like putting the M Ocean View underground which would have much greater effects of improving transit and safety.

  • Problem: Insufficient availability of parking in a business corridor.
    Solution: Price it right. This isn’t the Soviet Union.

    Instead we throw transit riders under the bus? #AYFKM?

  • Like most things, it makes perfect sense once you understand it. If you’re scrambling to figure out where to board, you don’t understand it.

  • murphstahoe

    “Dumberton Bridge” – Good to see that Streetsblog’s legendary snark is intact.

  • murphstahoe

    No kidding, for the cost of these parking bubble things they could probably underground the K, L, M, AND build a Geary subway

  • PaleoBruce

    > Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware on Taraval Street, said, “We would like to seek safety, but not see boarding islands” built, because Taraval would lose parking.

    Mr. Chow probably doesn’t realize that most his customers are walk in, or transit in, and losing three subsidized street parking spaces will make nearly zero difference. If he doesn’t care about the safety of his customers, why should they care about patronizing him?

  • Consider dropping “pet project” as a criticism, because the L-Taraval Rapid Project was data driven.

    Voters set performance goals when they created the SFMTA. A decade later voters approved additional funding accompanied with a more strongly worded (they weren’t living up to it before either) “transit first” policy.

    Muni riders voted with their feet to make the L-Taraval one of the most ridden lines with a relatively poor performance which put it in the top lines in need of fixing.

    It was reckless drives who made Taraval one of the most dangerous streets in the City for exiting Muni riders and pedestrians. Prioritizing this as one of the streets most in need of fixing.

    For their part, SFMTA pulled from an established and proven toolkit of fixes (riders getting hit getting off: boarding islands, kids getting hit crossing the street to get to school: corner bulb-outs to improve visibility, etc.) which are mandated above them by the BOS, City Charter, PUC, or other laws.

    There are budget issues you should you also be aware of:

    Taraval is schedule to have water and sewer work followed by rebuilding the L-Taraval trackway and foundation supporting it, all of which will require rebuilding and repaving the street in the end.

    Even it money was not specifically dedicated to the project, redirecting it to some other project would mean shutting down the L altogether when the worn out track becomes unusable.

    The SFMTA is one of several agencies coordinating their projects for efficiency and cost savings. And why not rebuild it right since it has to be rebuilt anyway, right?

    Planners had also worked out a plan which mover parking on the effected blocks to the immediately adjacent corners and reconfiguring them to fit an extra 13 spaces in all. That improves your changes of finding a parking space and you would have a better way of finding one by criss-crossing Taraval rather than driving down it.

    In cases where you’ll be circling anyway, you just cross Taraval using Ulloa and Santiago instead of turning onto Taraval. The higher concentration of parking spaces tends to reduce the amount of travel time looking for them compared to parallel parking on a major arterial, where drivers pulling in and out get in the way of through traffic anyway.

    Choosing to build the platforms only after another (inevitable) crash means the SFMTA will have to rebuild streets which were just torn up.

    What’s happening now is a small number of merchants and residents with a very narrow, incorrect view of how parking works would rather have overturned a cost-concious approach that adds parking, improves safety, and speeds up Muni, while reducing congestion on Taraval.

    Does any of that sway to take a second look at the benefits of boarding islands?

  • You are correct. While I’m waiting for my train in the wind and fog (no bus shelter) there are 3 spots in front of the hardware store that people use (and for the P.O. across the street) and most of time no one feeds the meters. Good to know about his stance on rider safety because I will officially boycott his store in the future.

    This part of the hood doesn’t have residential parking stickers so most people who drive to the area park on the side streets.

  • I do understand it, thank you very much. I’m saying that stopping and offloading twice on the same platform is ridiculous. You know for a fact that if this is implemented outbound that people will rush to board Train 2 if Train 2 is what they need to board. It works differently outbound because most riders have to wait for a particular line versus going inbound and already being on a train.

  • Putting the M-line underground is a complete waste of energy and money that should be spent on more sensible and practical upgrades elsewhere in the city where demand exists, like, oh I don’t know, a Geary subway or extension of the CS to Fishermans Wharf.

  • As long as they have a plan to keep people from boarding train 2, it should be good. Otherwise, yeah. Free-for-all.

  • Other than sticks and cattle prods, people will descend on Train 2 like locusts.

    The sign is quite misleading in that it doesn’t say that Train 2 will stop again on the platform. This can create confusion if you’re waiting to board an N or T to Caltrain or Mission Bay.

  • zippy_monster

    Don’t forget that he put up signs in his store and along all the Muni stops rallying against the safety improvements.

  • zippy_monster

    Well, at least Lt. Curtis Liu is gone from the Taraval station. So that’s a plus for pedestrian safety, I guess.

  • zippy_monster

    Do it. Enough of this bullshit.

  • I’m working on it…

    Since this is going to come up over and over, I’m thinking of something modular in two pieces: the fliers “Support [safety/Muni project name]!” accompanied by “I Support [safety/Muni project name]” signs which residents and merchants can post.

    Let’s not punish the many good residents and merchants who support a safer Taraval, just the nasty merchants like Mr. Chow of Great Wall Hardware.

  • shamelessly

    How about old school railroad gates before each stop, triggered by the train’s arrival? =]

  • In this case it’s throw transit riders under the traffic.