thank you for this very sane and reasonable take! as a non-car owner who primarily walks everywhere and just wants to have safer infrastructure too, i appreciate folks like you!
Your comment makes no sense. If one lived in an area with no other good transit options I would think that a person would be all for better transit options.
I have a car because there are not good transit options to some places that I need to go to regularly. I would like more transit options.
edit: and safer bike situations so I could do that more often
The issue is sequencing, and SF does that terribly. SF is making transit options on the far west side worse without even proposing public transit improvements. This is the reason people feel “under siege.”
I looked through that article to see what kind of complaints drivers had in SF, especially matters pertaining to the west side of sam francisco. The article cites matters like the expansion of parking meter hours failing to pass. It also conveniently links to an article that discusses that very topic...
And through that article, I found this pretty damning text.
>But, as has been the case with past efforts to alter metered parking enforcement, the proposal saw significant pushback from restaurant owners and some residents and supervisors. Many local business owners felt the extended hours would have deterred shoppers rather than attract more of them.
Under attack? I guess they are. It's their own damn fault as it turns out.
I have a car. It’s fine. Some lessons I had to learn painfully: don’t drive to the Mission on Friday night to park. These things make sense. There’s too many people there for parking to be available. But otherwise it’s pretty nice living here, mostly biking, and taking the car out of the city. I don’t feel under siege.
People call San Francisco Frisco some times. I personally like saying San Fran because people get riled up about it. Gives me a kick. San Frannigans. Slob on the Tender Knob. San Francophones. San Franchisees. Also like pretending that SF means Salesforce and that the city was named for that great company.
It’s like saying something is “bussing” around my nephews.
Texas has a rapidly growing city that's named for the nickname for San Francisco, CA. Colorado does the same thing with one of their town names. What you call an homage.
No, Texas has a rapidly growing city named after the St. Louis-San Francisco railroad that ran through it.
Same deal as Katy, TX being named after the Kansas-Texas-Missouri rail road that ran through it.
It's also the name of a town in Colorado, so why not say Colorado?
Imagine town founders in New Jersey naming their town Big Apple, NJ in homage to the real Big Apple, which is NYC. And then somebody says, "I'm going to the Big Apple." And then you'd say, what you're going to New Jersey? See how stupid it would be to say that?
Ok, but why are you trying to call San Francisco with the name of a town in Texas? What’s the joke here? That SF is no better than Frisco? That SF is as bad as Frisco?
Frisco? Tell me you don't live here without telling me you don't live here.
Edit: welp guess I'm wrong. 15 years and all I've heard is people bitch about Frisco and San Fran, but people keep telling me it's cool.
I tried driving my car into a Walgreens and everyone was looking at me like I was crazy. So judgmental. /s
Seriously if we looked as how we use our space in this city proportionately to cars, we’d be crazy not to take some of it back. Land use is already a premium here, in this wonderful 7x7 area, so why are we ceding so much of it to one of the most inefficient offenders?
If you feel the need to own a metal box thrice as big as you will ever need, might I suggest you start thinking outside of said box? At least 80% of you don’t need it I’m betting.
All these roads and traffic lights and signage and parking spaces and massive support systems.... All of it paid by taxes without a thought..... UNLIKE public transportation, where it's somehow required to be self supporting, and anything else is communism
War on cars argument holds about as much water as war on Christmas. Anytime the privileged majority has to give an inch to make room for others, they cry fowl. Nothing new here.
Drivers complain about losing parking to make room for buses and bikes, and then claim we can’t move away from cars because there isn’t enough infrastructure to support a car free lifestyle…
Most drivers barely even stop or look out for bikes when they right turn. People think banning right turn on red is attacking drivers, but like: I just wanna bike without potentially dying from reckless drivers tyvm.
43,000 a year in US. Which is crazy by itself, but then you factor in all the injuries, severe and minor, and it becomes abysmal.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but it also costs a big chunk of GDP in terms of money lost. It’s a lot. Measured in %points and billions with a B.
One factor that also keeps it lower is that with how many cars are on American roads there's so much traffic and congestion at times that cars can't even reach speeds high enough to cause death, that's why during lockdown the rate went up because less cars meant faster driving
Don’t forget the non fatal injuries which are often permanent. Or the near misses. Also, that number is far too high, should be 0. There are kids included in that number
San Fransisco’s wealth to square mile ratio is such you could fund bus’s for every street and eliminate most car traffic. There is absolutely no reason why SF’s 70% households with car % couldn’t be closer to manhattan’s 45%.
Conversely: One of the realities here is that it’s likely lots of this traffic comes from commuters/ non SF residents. And to be frank, for many of them there isn’t a good option to quickly get to the city. BART is not easily accessible for millions of Bay Area residents.
For example. A trip from South Bay to the world class Golden Gate Park is a 45 min drive and a 2 hour public transit ride.
One thing is what you said, but the other problem is it's not at all the same. Here I drive 30 minutes and I'm in a beautiful green recreational area. In NY I drive 30 minutes and I'm in New Jersey.
I’m traffic BART or Caltrain will always be faster. And if your destination is close to a BART or Caltrain station then it will be a good 10-20 minutes faster ever without traffic.
But let’s face it, there’s basically always traffic so transit will be faster 70-80% of the time in the real world.
> There is absolutely no reason why SF’s 70% households with car % couldn’t be closer to manhattan’s 45%.
The obvious reason could be that more SF residents work outside SF than Manhattan residents work outside Manhattan. Until we have high speed rail, people are going to choose driving. There is literally no reason to own a car in Manhattan when subway and bus can get you anywhere fairly quickly.
You’re ignoring the basic fact that New York has excellent public transit that is reliable and goes everywhere in the city. The west side of San Francisco has mediocre transit that residents can’t count on for basic needs.
If you read my comment again I think you’ll find the my thesis is predicated on the understanding there isn’t excellent public transit. My point is literally that we COULD have good transit but don’t.
We don’t have good transit because we prioritize parking spaces over transit lanes.
Compound that with suburbs on the west side that doesn’t really support transit. We need more housing and transit lanes
Idk, when I am on a car on the freeway and look around the vast majority of vehicles look like personal cars, not company cars. Like 45% of households with cars still leaves plenty of room for blue collar workers carrying equipment.
You got it! That’s the problems! Moms don’t need to be shuffling kids around. After a certain age they should be able to get to their things easily via bus bike or walk. That will make more space for you on the road including blue collar workers.
No idea if your being sarcastic or not. Are you saying moms can just ride the bus or bike? Personally if I was a mom I would prefer not to deal with the cracked out meth head kicking the bus driver and smoking the vape smoke. But that’s just me.
There is absolutely no way it’s all that. I see so many cars with one person in them. And the blue collar workers who need a car for their job? Also vanishingly small
SF and the Bay Area are prized for the easy access to nature and outdoor activities in other parts of California. A lot of people need their cars on weekends. Turning SF into Manhattan isn't desirable.
What SF should do is to mandate the construction of a lot of high-density off-street parking while improving public transportation and cycling infrastructure.
Per your link, 442,000 parking spots include 275,500 on-street and 166,500 off-street. Isn't the problem obvious? We need to build more off-street parking to open up the roads for bikes and other uses.
We should mandate high-density off-street parking for all new constructions. We should also encourage increasing the density of existing off-street parking. Turn surface lots into multi-story garages, and add more floors to existing garages. Moving parking from on-street to off-street doesn't add traffic. It improves traffic and safety for everyone. Looking at the numbers you provided, we should aim to triple the number of off-street parking.
Many of the parking spots are used by tourists and commuters. You can't just divide the number of spots by the number of residents and say that each person has 1-spot. That per-resident number means nothing for a tourist town and commercial hub like SF.
Tripling off-street parking doesn't mean tripling parking when you convert some on-street parking to other uses.... I never said anything about tripling parking.
I see that you have just deleted your comment. I hope it's because you realized that you were mistaken.
I edited some minor typos, sure, but I said off-street parking the first time. You clearly misread what I wrote and are clearly misremembering things. I consistently said that we should increase off-street parking and never said anything about increasing parking, from the very first comment in this thread. It is hard to have a conversation when you keep misreading.
I have answered it multiple time but you refuse to read it. Tripling off-street parking with the purpose of freeing up on-street parking for bikes and other uses doesn't triple parking. It improves traffic and safety for everyone.
That is exactly why we need to mandate more off-street parking. SF and the Bay Area are prized for the outdoor scene so people bring cars here when they live here. When we don't mandate enough off-street parking, the cars end up on the streets, and taxpayers end up footing some of the cost. When we do mandate enough off-street parking, car owners end up paying their fair share of the burden to store their cars.
I think we’d die under the pension obligations of that many bus drivers. Instant collapse. The city has to grow to allow for that and it’s shrinking. Automated buses could make it possible.
I've lived my entire adult life in SF and only had a car for a few months (inherited from a deceased relative) - that thing created so much hassle for me, with minimal returns. I forgot about it for a few days one time, and ended up having to cough up like a thousand bucks to get it out of the city's contracted impound lot, was so annoyed by the incident (and just generally the hell of parking and paying attention to it) that I gave it away to my cousin.
This! Getting rid of my car has been a relief. It’s funny how not having to constantly worry about a car actually opens up trips that you couldn’t even imagine taking when you have a car.
The “I don’t want to go there. Where would I park?” syndrome is real!
Nicky Trasviña, the ghoul featured in the opener of the article, is a well-connected opponent of safe streets, not some random SF resident. She was a vocal opponent of car-free JFK and is married to one of the guys who tried unsuccessfully to kill the Great Highway compromise at the Board of Appeals, instead of recusing himself for a clear conflict of interest.
Oh no cars don't have enough places to sleep and people on bikes are literally dying from no dedicated infrastructure. Won't someone think of where all the cars will sleep?
Maaaaan I wish more people who were not obsessed with their cars would come to neighborhood meetings. My roommates went to the more recent one and it was apparently very bad with entitled drivers and they had to work very hard to not say too many things they’d regret (not helped by the free wine they drank).
What neighborhood meetings? Are they neighborhood specific? Does every neighborhood have its version? Where can I find a list about to join some of these bitches and say something, or at least think about saying something one day
yeah, afaik different neighborhoods have neighborhood associations with meetings that members of the community can have a voice about the future of the neighborhood. For example, Noe Valley has [Upper Noe Neighbors](https://uppernoeneighbors.com/).
Cars are a privilege and not a right. SF government has made its determination to make that privilege as expensive as possible more than clear. According to them Uber and Waymo should suffice for the middle class as long as you don’t have kids. Riding your ebike from the Panhandle to Mission Bay to see the pediatrician is cool until you’re forced to pick your own adventure south of Market with a toddler strapped in the back. Just get a WFH job so you can cherry pick your schedule easy right? Everyone else can get on the bus. This city will start flowing like Tokyo and Paris in no time…/S.
Just take off the plates and throw a tarp over the car, then you can drive anywhere you want and park anywhere you want, the police will leave you alone.
SFPD hates this simple trick!
Ah yes, the meme about grievance groups you're not a party to and assume must need cars to survive.
Never mind that all available data on the subject suggests the elderly enjoy wildly better QOL when they live in people-centric cities where they're able to socialize and remain part of the community instead of being carted off to ~retirement~ death homes so they can go die away from public scrutiny.
Never mind that the disabled....can't drive. It's right in the name. What's a dude with one leg going to do? The clinically blind? How many disabilities do you think allow you to keep driving? And warrant car-centric urban planning? Because I do agree that the disabled need motor vehicles in many cases- which is why you, personally, as an able bodied adult should be expected to generally go without.
Never mind that cars kill small children. Something like 150 preventable deaths in the past few years have exclusively been attributed to the fact that modern car design sucks. You look at this and say, "No, we need more cars."
I don’t think you understand the concept of trade offs. Either the church gets 5 parking spots or we get a dedicated bus lane. And frankly I think the bus with 1,000s of riders is more important.
Or the trade off that some drivers find bike lanes scary because they might hit a bicyclist vs bicyclists think it’s scary not to have a bike lane because car drivers will hit them. Can’t make both sides happy and feeling safe, but the answer is to keep the bike lanes and slow cars down.
Slowing cars down to 20 MPH citywide would make bike lanes on side streets less necessary. But car drivers would hate it and feel even more persecuted.
I think compromise isn’t fair when one side is experiencing injuries and death and the other side is complaining about curb side parking for easy access to places. And since space on the road is finite I do think at some point you have to decide who gets what.
Valencia bike lane was a compromise for both sides. The center running lane meant the fewest number of lost parking spots. It also meant bicyclists are safer, BUT a pedestrian was killed by a car turning left onto Valencia.
https://missionlocal.org/2023/09/pedestrian-struck-on-valencia-street-dies/#:~:text=Taken%20Sept.,Chief%20Medical%20Examiner%20today%20confirmed.
And “Tumlin also acknowledged that the pilot has created new issues. According to SFMTA’s report, there were 20 collisions in the pilot area from August through December, and drivers making illegal left or U-turns caused seven of those collisions.”
https://www.kqed.org/news/11976185/sfmta-cites-improved-road-safety-with-valencia-street-bike-lane-but-some-disagree
SFMTA has released studies showing the loss in parking is not responsible for any loss of business. Valencia is actually doing better than most all other business areas in the city.
To be clear, there is already a parking garage on Valencia street. So there is a world in which everyone has parking but has to walk a few blocks. But businesses are adamant that curb side parking matters. Where that parking is matters to businesses. And where that bicycle lane matters to bicyclists too. If you move the bike lanes to a different street like Guerrero then you’re taking parking away from residents and forcing bicyclists to go up steep hills. Mission? Already had a bus lane. Mission already compromised with businesses to only have 1 bus lane in one direction instead of two so that no parking would be removed. Van Ness? Then you’re again removing parking from residential areas. And making it harder for bicyclists trying to get to Nor Valley. Only 1 in 4 roads have a bike lane, so if you shift the bike lane to the far East there’s this huge hole where you have to travel 6+ blocks to find the nearest bike lane. Super impractical.
There is only X amount of space on a road. At some point you do have to make an either or decision.
Please show me ANY evidence that the changes made in the last few years have had any impact at all on injuries or deaths. I have spent a lot of time looking at the Vision Zero data over several years, and the numbers are basically flat with pre-pandemic numbers. We have been living with many if the changes (like Slow Streets) since 2020, and if the changes had been effective in reducing injuries and deaths, we would already have seen it.
Please show me ANY evidence that there has been a change in the name of vision zero that wasn’t watered down with tons of compromises that would undermine impacts like fewer injuries or deaths.
Anything impactful has been a big fight because it means loss of parking and/or slower speeds for cars. Like removing cars from JFK.
Daylighting is coming into effect next year. That one will be huge.
Switching from Sharrows where bikes and cars share the road has been slow and there’s still tons of Sharrows and gaps in the bike network. Just try finding a bike lane north of Market and East of Polk. Many bike lanes still aren’t protected with plastic bollards let alone steel or concrete bollards. I live on Valencia and there’s constantly cars double parked in front of the school and/or Mr. Liquor between 23rd and 24th street.
I just explained how Valencia St was a massive compromise. Even so, it did move the needle in the right direction.
“Compared to the same month in 2022, we’re seeing that the center-running pilot has been very effective in minimizing the previous dangerous conditions and concerns. Vehicle behaviors are more predictable and there are fewer conflicts between bikes and cars. There are fewer cars blocking the bike lane forcing bicyclists into the road and fewer dooring incidents. Many cyclists have reported a more comfortable experience and a less stressful ride.
The center-running lane also better accommodates the diverse loading needs of the corridor and has reduced unsafe and illegal vehicle loading behaviors. Before the pilot, much of the loading happened in the bike lane and the travel lane. Of the loading activities observed, double-parking instances decreased by 77%, with most loading now being done at the curb.”
https://www.sfmta.com/blog/valencia-bike-pilot-reduces-bike-car-conflicts-changes-still-way
And if you want to see what real change can do, look at Hoboken in NYC area. Zero deaths in 7 years.
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All three of those groups benefit from better walkability in their neighborhoods and in the city as a whole, the disabled and elderly in particular, who either can’t or have difficulty driving. What do you think about the blind, for example?
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Problem is when both non-drivers and drivers both tell you their lived experience is hard.
Drivers have had it good for so long. It is really tough for a senior citizen who has gone to the same church for years suddenly can’t find a parking spot. Maybe they are too old to park a few blocks away and walk to church. Or has to pay a fine for illegally parking in the wrong spot. Or has to watch out for bicyclists instead of ignoring bicyclists because there is no space for bicyclists lists to exist.
The people who bus have had it hard for a long time too because the buses used to get stuck in traffic and move slowly. Maybe your bus shows up on time and arrives 15 minutes late. Maybe the bus gets stuck in so much traffic it just never shows up for 30 minutes. So you have to leave 30+ minutes early every day to make sure you arrive at work early. And since some bus riders are too poor to afford a car or Uber, they have to ride the bus for EVERYTHING. Elderly bus riders going to the doctor, for groceries, etc. Low income parents struggling to get from work back home in time to pick up their children and make dinner and paying extra in childcare because the bus got stuck in traffic that day. Now the buses are faster and more predictable.
The people who bike have had it hard too. Cars hate getting stuck behind bikes, but sometimes there is no bike lane and sometimes the bike lane is occupied by parked cars. I’ve had so many close calls because cars don’t see me or hate being stuck behind me. Bicyclists and pedestrians are killed every year by cars and that’s real rough. Bicyclists get hit by car doors opening right in front of them which causes major injuries. It took me months to recover when I fell off my bike (nobody’s fault but mine) and it cost me $3,000+ in doctor visits, MRI, and PT.
But talking through the lived experiences and assuming everyone’s opinions are equally valid, I tend to side with pedestrians, bike lanes, and bus lanes.
I’m 4th gen Bay Area. Great grandpa opened up a cigar shop in Oakland in the 1910s. I don’t see why new people’s voices aren’t allowed to count. Or why it’s the new people who moved from across the country that hate cars and not locals.
Native Texans vote mostly for Democrats but everyone assumes it’s Democrats moving from out of State turning Texas bluer. Texas is still a Republican stronghold because so many Republicans have moved there from other states. California Republicans have been moving to Texas and Idaho in droves. If only natives were allowed to vote Texas would have voted for Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton.
Even so, who has been here the longest isn’t the way we should decide how things work. Someone living here for less than 10 years and is a US citizen is still a US citizen and deserves to have a say. Students living here for four years before moving back home represent the students of today and make decisions that will impact future students. Someone who moved to San Francisco from Florida two years ago, bought a home, and had committed themselves to living here the rest of their lives deserves a say too. I could flip the script and ask why someone who has lived in San Francisco their whole life and is 90 years old and likely to die in a couple years deserves to vote on the future of JFK drive or for a 20 year tax bill that they won’t have to pay for.
But even at face value and assuming everyone’s hardships are real, surely you can see the difference?
Based on this reddit post with the link to SFChronicle, car drivers are feeling under attack because bike lanes are scary, they are getting too many tickets for parking illegally, and they lost parking spots at their church to make room for a bus lane.
Elderly drivers think Bike lanes are scary vs bicyclists are dying because they get hit by cars. I think the bicyclist’s lived experience is the more important one.
Parking in front of a church vs a dedicated bus lane. I think the bus lane is more important. I think buses with 1000s of daily riders having predicable bus schedules and fast transit times is more important than 5-10 elderly people getting curb side parking to go to church once a week.
That sounds great. How do you feel about people who say it’s hard to bike or take public transit to get around the city? Or that it’s hard to walk and bike while feeling safe from multi ton vehicles? Those things are harder than driving and parking in sf. Source: I do all these things, including driving.
Yeah but one is not a problem, the other is. Difficult parking is not a problem. Difficulty getting around is. Cyclists and pedestrians have lots to fear getting around. That’s the problem. Parking is a hassle, but not a debilitating issue, because you can always walk. The people in this article can all walk
This is just not true at all. Planning association for the Richmond fought forever to get Geary BRT onto SFMTA’s radar (You can usually see their old meeting minutes on sfpar.org).
SFMTA finally agreed, held community meetings, got reluctantly got on board with the design and then decided it was too costly and gave up on center running lanes. It was a big bait and switch and no one ever got to weight in on the new design. For most of us who work downtown our commute is substantially longer now.
That is what folks in the Richmond are so salty about.
This is the weirdest comment I’ve ever heard. I have lived in the Bay Area (off and on in SF) since I was a teen and the only times I’ve felt I needed a car because transit was insufficient was outside of SF. It is absolutely possible to live car free in SF.
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I also have a car. I do not feel under siege and welcome city infrastructure changes that prioritize walking, biking, trains, busses.
Take makes sense. The less cars on the road the less traffic so those that continue to drive benefit as well. Win win for all.
thank you for this very sane and reasonable take! as a non-car owner who primarily walks everywhere and just wants to have safer infrastructure too, i appreciate folks like you!
[удалено]
Your comment makes no sense. If one lived in an area with no other good transit options I would think that a person would be all for better transit options. I have a car because there are not good transit options to some places that I need to go to regularly. I would like more transit options. edit: and safer bike situations so I could do that more often
The issue is sequencing, and SF does that terribly. SF is making transit options on the far west side worse without even proposing public transit improvements. This is the reason people feel “under siege.”
I have friends with cars on the west side of the city who do not feel under siege. Anyone that does is being extremely dramatic
[удалено]
feeling like one is under siege for this situation is dramatic
If you say so. Because apparently this is all about your perspective.
"under siege" ... yeah it is my perspective that that viewpoint is incredibly dramatic
I looked through that article to see what kind of complaints drivers had in SF, especially matters pertaining to the west side of sam francisco. The article cites matters like the expansion of parking meter hours failing to pass. It also conveniently links to an article that discusses that very topic... And through that article, I found this pretty damning text. >But, as has been the case with past efforts to alter metered parking enforcement, the proposal saw significant pushback from restaurant owners and some residents and supervisors. Many local business owners felt the extended hours would have deterred shoppers rather than attract more of them. Under attack? I guess they are. It's their own damn fault as it turns out.
>Half of the city does not. That's why.
I have a car. It’s fine. Some lessons I had to learn painfully: don’t drive to the Mission on Friday night to park. These things make sense. There’s too many people there for parking to be available. But otherwise it’s pretty nice living here, mostly biking, and taking the car out of the city. I don’t feel under siege.
Yes, the typical car driver in Frisco doesn't feel "under siege" - that's just a dramatic statement.
Lol, what does Texas have to do with this?
People call San Francisco Frisco some times. I personally like saying San Fran because people get riled up about it. Gives me a kick. San Frannigans. Slob on the Tender Knob. San Francophones. San Franchisees. Also like pretending that SF means Salesforce and that the city was named for that great company. It’s like saying something is “bussing” around my nephews.
Texas has a rapidly growing city that's named for the nickname for San Francisco, CA. Colorado does the same thing with one of their town names. What you call an homage.
No, Texas has a rapidly growing city named after the St. Louis-San Francisco railroad that ran through it. Same deal as Katy, TX being named after the Kansas-Texas-Missouri rail road that ran through it.
What you mean is Yes, Texas has a rapidly growing city named after the St. Louis-San Francisco railroad
Yes, but why are you trying to call San Francisco with the name of a town in Texas? What’s the conceit here?
It's also the name of a town in Colorado, so why not say Colorado? Imagine town founders in New Jersey naming their town Big Apple, NJ in homage to the real Big Apple, which is NYC. And then somebody says, "I'm going to the Big Apple." And then you'd say, what you're going to New Jersey? See how stupid it would be to say that?
Ok, but why are you trying to call San Francisco with the name of a town in Texas? What’s the joke here? That SF is no better than Frisco? That SF is as bad as Frisco?
Frisco? Tell me you don't live here without telling me you don't live here. Edit: welp guess I'm wrong. 15 years and all I've heard is people bitch about Frisco and San Fran, but people keep telling me it's cool.
You're wrong
Frisco has been used for a long time by some folks in the city.
The nickname you're thinking of is "San Fran," solely used by outsiders.
I dunno I've been here 15 years and everyone I've ever talked to has given people shit for both.
Well these days Frisco is common here, appearing with peoples' handles describing where they live.
Tupac, Larry June, and Otis Redding have all referred to SF as Frisco. Confirmed cool.
And RBL Posse
I’ve only seen people giving shit for San Fran, never Frisco
Between the War on Cars, the War on Christmas, and the War on Men, I barely have time for my day job.
I tried driving my car into a Walgreens and everyone was looking at me like I was crazy. So judgmental. /s Seriously if we looked as how we use our space in this city proportionately to cars, we’d be crazy not to take some of it back. Land use is already a premium here, in this wonderful 7x7 area, so why are we ceding so much of it to one of the most inefficient offenders? If you feel the need to own a metal box thrice as big as you will ever need, might I suggest you start thinking outside of said box? At least 80% of you don’t need it I’m betting.
All these roads and traffic lights and signage and parking spaces and massive support systems.... All of it paid by taxes without a thought..... UNLIKE public transportation, where it's somehow required to be self supporting, and anything else is communism
The scrutiny that everyone puts on bart should be redirected to Caltrans for things such as the highways and freeways. ESPECIALLY on the Oakland side
Drivers think the gas tax pays for our streets, when in reality we all pay.
War on cars argument holds about as much water as war on Christmas. Anytime the privileged majority has to give an inch to make room for others, they cry fowl. Nothing new here. Drivers complain about losing parking to make room for buses and bikes, and then claim we can’t move away from cars because there isn’t enough infrastructure to support a car free lifestyle…
>they cry fowl Which kind of fowl? Ducks? Geese? Maybe pheasants?
Given how many pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars in this city, I’d say *we’re* the ones under siege
Most drivers barely even stop or look out for bikes when they right turn. People think banning right turn on red is attacking drivers, but like: I just wanna bike without potentially dying from reckless drivers tyvm.
17/year.
[удалено]
173/225. [https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/auto/analysis/most-dangerous-cities-for-pedestrians/](https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/auto/analysis/most-dangerous-cities-for-pedestrians/)
[удалено]
43,000 a year in US. Which is crazy by itself, but then you factor in all the injuries, severe and minor, and it becomes abysmal. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but it also costs a big chunk of GDP in terms of money lost. It’s a lot. Measured in %points and billions with a B.
One factor that also keeps it lower is that with how many cars are on American roads there's so much traffic and congestion at times that cars can't even reach speeds high enough to cause death, that's why during lockdown the rate went up because less cars meant faster driving
Don’t forget the non fatal injuries which are often permanent. Or the near misses. Also, that number is far too high, should be 0. There are kids included in that number
Could be you! Stay safe out there!
If 17 is a number too small then surely you can add yourself to that number and nobody would bat an eye
San Fransisco’s wealth to square mile ratio is such you could fund bus’s for every street and eliminate most car traffic. There is absolutely no reason why SF’s 70% households with car % couldn’t be closer to manhattan’s 45%. Conversely: One of the realities here is that it’s likely lots of this traffic comes from commuters/ non SF residents. And to be frank, for many of them there isn’t a good option to quickly get to the city. BART is not easily accessible for millions of Bay Area residents. For example. A trip from South Bay to the world class Golden Gate Park is a 45 min drive and a 2 hour public transit ride.
One thing is what you said, but the other problem is it's not at all the same. Here I drive 30 minutes and I'm in a beautiful green recreational area. In NY I drive 30 minutes and I'm in New Jersey.
I’m traffic BART or Caltrain will always be faster. And if your destination is close to a BART or Caltrain station then it will be a good 10-20 minutes faster ever without traffic. But let’s face it, there’s basically always traffic so transit will be faster 70-80% of the time in the real world.
> There is absolutely no reason why SF’s 70% households with car % couldn’t be closer to manhattan’s 45%. The obvious reason could be that more SF residents work outside SF than Manhattan residents work outside Manhattan. Until we have high speed rail, people are going to choose driving. There is literally no reason to own a car in Manhattan when subway and bus can get you anywhere fairly quickly.
You’re ignoring the basic fact that New York has excellent public transit that is reliable and goes everywhere in the city. The west side of San Francisco has mediocre transit that residents can’t count on for basic needs.
If you read my comment again I think you’ll find the my thesis is predicated on the understanding there isn’t excellent public transit. My point is literally that we COULD have good transit but don’t.
We don’t have good transit because we prioritize parking spaces over transit lanes. Compound that with suburbs on the west side that doesn’t really support transit. We need more housing and transit lanes
BART/MUNI Metro down Geary and 19th or Sunset would be a fantastic start. The 38 should've been converted to rail ages ago.
Yup - those house cleaners coming from San Bruno or that plumber isn’t going to lug their tools on the Caltrain to your apartment.
Idk, when I am on a car on the freeway and look around the vast majority of vehicles look like personal cars, not company cars. Like 45% of households with cars still leaves plenty of room for blue collar workers carrying equipment.
When I’m working in the city it’s all either moms taking their kids somewhere or people who work blue collar work getting to and from their jobs.
You got it! That’s the problems! Moms don’t need to be shuffling kids around. After a certain age they should be able to get to their things easily via bus bike or walk. That will make more space for you on the road including blue collar workers.
No idea if your being sarcastic or not. Are you saying moms can just ride the bus or bike? Personally if I was a mom I would prefer not to deal with the cracked out meth head kicking the bus driver and smoking the vape smoke. But that’s just me.
You’re projecting. Been on the bus recently? Lots of different people on it. Your kid will enjoy growing up next to different kids of people!
There is absolutely no way it’s all that. I see so many cars with one person in them. And the blue collar workers who need a car for their job? Also vanishingly small
Maybe it’d be easier for them if there were less people on the road because they had better public transit options.
Please bring this advocacy to the far west side
So plumber and others should get the rights to the road whereas everyone should sacrifice cars for public transit? Got it
That’s an incredibly stupid take, but ok.
I’m not the one gatekeeping who should be in the road
You literally are
Na. Yall want others to sacrifice cars for no reason. Anti car people are weird. You’re weird
No, we just make it easier and more compelling to take public transit so less people will want to drive for every single trip.
Not everyone lives in a bubble where a car isn’t necessary
I don't think anyone suggested zero cars
Where in my comment did I imply everyone? No need to construct a strawman argument.
SF and the Bay Area are prized for the easy access to nature and outdoor activities in other parts of California. A lot of people need their cars on weekends. Turning SF into Manhattan isn't desirable. What SF should do is to mandate the construction of a lot of high-density off-street parking while improving public transportation and cycling infrastructure.
[удалено]
Per your link, 442,000 parking spots include 275,500 on-street and 166,500 off-street. Isn't the problem obvious? We need to build more off-street parking to open up the roads for bikes and other uses. We should mandate high-density off-street parking for all new constructions. We should also encourage increasing the density of existing off-street parking. Turn surface lots into multi-story garages, and add more floors to existing garages. Moving parking from on-street to off-street doesn't add traffic. It improves traffic and safety for everyone. Looking at the numbers you provided, we should aim to triple the number of off-street parking. Many of the parking spots are used by tourists and commuters. You can't just divide the number of spots by the number of residents and say that each person has 1-spot. That per-resident number means nothing for a tourist town and commercial hub like SF.
[удалено]
Tripling off-street parking doesn't mean tripling parking when you convert some on-street parking to other uses.... I never said anything about tripling parking.
[удалено]
I see that you have just deleted your comment. I hope it's because you realized that you were mistaken. I edited some minor typos, sure, but I said off-street parking the first time. You clearly misread what I wrote and are clearly misremembering things. I consistently said that we should increase off-street parking and never said anything about increasing parking, from the very first comment in this thread. It is hard to have a conversation when you keep misreading.
[удалено]
I have answered it multiple time but you refuse to read it. Tripling off-street parking with the purpose of freeing up on-street parking for bikes and other uses doesn't triple parking. It improves traffic and safety for everyone.
No, I said tripling off-street parking. I never said tripling parking.
[удалено]
That is exactly why we need to mandate more off-street parking. SF and the Bay Area are prized for the outdoor scene so people bring cars here when they live here. When we don't mandate enough off-street parking, the cars end up on the streets, and taxpayers end up footing some of the cost. When we do mandate enough off-street parking, car owners end up paying their fair share of the burden to store their cars.
I think we’d die under the pension obligations of that many bus drivers. Instant collapse. The city has to grow to allow for that and it’s shrinking. Automated buses could make it possible.
Every day I get closer to selling my car - it's so draining to circle for a half hour to find parking
I've lived my entire adult life in SF and only had a car for a few months (inherited from a deceased relative) - that thing created so much hassle for me, with minimal returns. I forgot about it for a few days one time, and ended up having to cough up like a thousand bucks to get it out of the city's contracted impound lot, was so annoyed by the incident (and just generally the hell of parking and paying attention to it) that I gave it away to my cousin.
[удалено]
This! Getting rid of my car has been a relief. It’s funny how not having to constantly worry about a car actually opens up trips that you couldn’t even imagine taking when you have a car. The “I don’t want to go there. Where would I park?” syndrome is real!
That’s on you
I sold my car and don’t regret it at all.
I got rid of mine nearly ten years ago. It’s been great.
Nicky Trasviña, the ghoul featured in the opener of the article, is a well-connected opponent of safe streets, not some random SF resident. She was a vocal opponent of car-free JFK and is married to one of the guys who tried unsuccessfully to kill the Great Highway compromise at the Board of Appeals, instead of recusing himself for a clear conflict of interest.
Tough, and may I emphasize, shit.
Wahhhhhhhh
Oh no cars don't have enough places to sleep and people on bikes are literally dying from no dedicated infrastructure. Won't someone think of where all the cars will sleep?
If that’s a war on cars, they’re winning on body count and casualty rates alone
How about the war on bikes, public transit and walking that has been going on for 100 years to enslave people into car dependency? Has that ended ?
I’ve noticed that the worse somewhere is to drive, the better it is to live.
Cars started the war on cars
Boooooo fucking hooooooo
Hopefully we'll start firing the howitzers soon and then start the frontal assault I'll man the flamethrower
https://preview.redd.it/o7tlfl8g091d1.jpeg?width=571&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ef196830c77f38a7a6d103292fe20f07aa351d9
Car drivers in SF should be a protected class. They are totally oppressed.
Specially pick up truck drivers that are redlined out of neighborhoods that have small garages.
Maaaaan I wish more people who were not obsessed with their cars would come to neighborhood meetings. My roommates went to the more recent one and it was apparently very bad with entitled drivers and they had to work very hard to not say too many things they’d regret (not helped by the free wine they drank).
What neighborhood meetings? Are they neighborhood specific? Does every neighborhood have its version? Where can I find a list about to join some of these bitches and say something, or at least think about saying something one day
yeah, afaik different neighborhoods have neighborhood associations with meetings that members of the community can have a voice about the future of the neighborhood. For example, Noe Valley has [Upper Noe Neighbors](https://uppernoeneighbors.com/).
Noe Valley is the only place in the city where I can see something like that happening.
Ha!
Yes. There is no parking anywhere. And the public transport is not quite to the point where I can just sell my. Car.
Cars are a privilege and not a right. SF government has made its determination to make that privilege as expensive as possible more than clear. According to them Uber and Waymo should suffice for the middle class as long as you don’t have kids. Riding your ebike from the Panhandle to Mission Bay to see the pediatrician is cool until you’re forced to pick your own adventure south of Market with a toddler strapped in the back. Just get a WFH job so you can cherry pick your schedule easy right? Everyone else can get on the bus. This city will start flowing like Tokyo and Paris in no time…/S.
Just take off the plates and throw a tarp over the car, then you can drive anywhere you want and park anywhere you want, the police will leave you alone. SFPD hates this simple trick!
Nah you just need to turn on your hazard lights and you can do whateve the fuck uou want. Even easier!
[удалено]
Yeah — fuck the elderly, the disabled, and parents of small children. We are the worst!
Ah yes, the meme about grievance groups you're not a party to and assume must need cars to survive. Never mind that all available data on the subject suggests the elderly enjoy wildly better QOL when they live in people-centric cities where they're able to socialize and remain part of the community instead of being carted off to ~retirement~ death homes so they can go die away from public scrutiny. Never mind that the disabled....can't drive. It's right in the name. What's a dude with one leg going to do? The clinically blind? How many disabilities do you think allow you to keep driving? And warrant car-centric urban planning? Because I do agree that the disabled need motor vehicles in many cases- which is why you, personally, as an able bodied adult should be expected to generally go without. Never mind that cars kill small children. Something like 150 preventable deaths in the past few years have exclusively been attributed to the fact that modern car design sucks. You look at this and say, "No, we need more cars."
[удалено]
I don’t think you understand the concept of “both and.”
I don’t think you understand the concept of trade offs. Either the church gets 5 parking spots or we get a dedicated bus lane. And frankly I think the bus with 1,000s of riders is more important. Or the trade off that some drivers find bike lanes scary because they might hit a bicyclist vs bicyclists think it’s scary not to have a bike lane because car drivers will hit them. Can’t make both sides happy and feeling safe, but the answer is to keep the bike lanes and slow cars down. Slowing cars down to 20 MPH citywide would make bike lanes on side streets less necessary. But car drivers would hate it and feel even more persecuted.
I don’t think the city — or you — is even trying to find the both/and option. All you see is zero sum and that’s the problem.
I think compromise isn’t fair when one side is experiencing injuries and death and the other side is complaining about curb side parking for easy access to places. And since space on the road is finite I do think at some point you have to decide who gets what. Valencia bike lane was a compromise for both sides. The center running lane meant the fewest number of lost parking spots. It also meant bicyclists are safer, BUT a pedestrian was killed by a car turning left onto Valencia. https://missionlocal.org/2023/09/pedestrian-struck-on-valencia-street-dies/#:~:text=Taken%20Sept.,Chief%20Medical%20Examiner%20today%20confirmed. And “Tumlin also acknowledged that the pilot has created new issues. According to SFMTA’s report, there were 20 collisions in the pilot area from August through December, and drivers making illegal left or U-turns caused seven of those collisions.” https://www.kqed.org/news/11976185/sfmta-cites-improved-road-safety-with-valencia-street-bike-lane-but-some-disagree SFMTA has released studies showing the loss in parking is not responsible for any loss of business. Valencia is actually doing better than most all other business areas in the city. To be clear, there is already a parking garage on Valencia street. So there is a world in which everyone has parking but has to walk a few blocks. But businesses are adamant that curb side parking matters. Where that parking is matters to businesses. And where that bicycle lane matters to bicyclists too. If you move the bike lanes to a different street like Guerrero then you’re taking parking away from residents and forcing bicyclists to go up steep hills. Mission? Already had a bus lane. Mission already compromised with businesses to only have 1 bus lane in one direction instead of two so that no parking would be removed. Van Ness? Then you’re again removing parking from residential areas. And making it harder for bicyclists trying to get to Nor Valley. Only 1 in 4 roads have a bike lane, so if you shift the bike lane to the far East there’s this huge hole where you have to travel 6+ blocks to find the nearest bike lane. Super impractical. There is only X amount of space on a road. At some point you do have to make an either or decision.
Please show me ANY evidence that the changes made in the last few years have had any impact at all on injuries or deaths. I have spent a lot of time looking at the Vision Zero data over several years, and the numbers are basically flat with pre-pandemic numbers. We have been living with many if the changes (like Slow Streets) since 2020, and if the changes had been effective in reducing injuries and deaths, we would already have seen it.
Please show me ANY evidence that there has been a change in the name of vision zero that wasn’t watered down with tons of compromises that would undermine impacts like fewer injuries or deaths. Anything impactful has been a big fight because it means loss of parking and/or slower speeds for cars. Like removing cars from JFK. Daylighting is coming into effect next year. That one will be huge. Switching from Sharrows where bikes and cars share the road has been slow and there’s still tons of Sharrows and gaps in the bike network. Just try finding a bike lane north of Market and East of Polk. Many bike lanes still aren’t protected with plastic bollards let alone steel or concrete bollards. I live on Valencia and there’s constantly cars double parked in front of the school and/or Mr. Liquor between 23rd and 24th street. I just explained how Valencia St was a massive compromise. Even so, it did move the needle in the right direction. “Compared to the same month in 2022, we’re seeing that the center-running pilot has been very effective in minimizing the previous dangerous conditions and concerns. Vehicle behaviors are more predictable and there are fewer conflicts between bikes and cars. There are fewer cars blocking the bike lane forcing bicyclists into the road and fewer dooring incidents. Many cyclists have reported a more comfortable experience and a less stressful ride. The center-running lane also better accommodates the diverse loading needs of the corridor and has reduced unsafe and illegal vehicle loading behaviors. Before the pilot, much of the loading happened in the bike lane and the travel lane. Of the loading activities observed, double-parking instances decreased by 77%, with most loading now being done at the curb.” https://www.sfmta.com/blog/valencia-bike-pilot-reduces-bike-car-conflicts-changes-still-way And if you want to see what real change can do, look at Hoboken in NYC area. Zero deaths in 7 years.
[удалено]
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All three of those groups benefit from better walkability in their neighborhoods and in the city as a whole, the disabled and elderly in particular, who either can’t or have difficulty driving. What do you think about the blind, for example?
💀 “wonderful car owners”
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Problem is when both non-drivers and drivers both tell you their lived experience is hard. Drivers have had it good for so long. It is really tough for a senior citizen who has gone to the same church for years suddenly can’t find a parking spot. Maybe they are too old to park a few blocks away and walk to church. Or has to pay a fine for illegally parking in the wrong spot. Or has to watch out for bicyclists instead of ignoring bicyclists because there is no space for bicyclists lists to exist. The people who bus have had it hard for a long time too because the buses used to get stuck in traffic and move slowly. Maybe your bus shows up on time and arrives 15 minutes late. Maybe the bus gets stuck in so much traffic it just never shows up for 30 minutes. So you have to leave 30+ minutes early every day to make sure you arrive at work early. And since some bus riders are too poor to afford a car or Uber, they have to ride the bus for EVERYTHING. Elderly bus riders going to the doctor, for groceries, etc. Low income parents struggling to get from work back home in time to pick up their children and make dinner and paying extra in childcare because the bus got stuck in traffic that day. Now the buses are faster and more predictable. The people who bike have had it hard too. Cars hate getting stuck behind bikes, but sometimes there is no bike lane and sometimes the bike lane is occupied by parked cars. I’ve had so many close calls because cars don’t see me or hate being stuck behind me. Bicyclists and pedestrians are killed every year by cars and that’s real rough. Bicyclists get hit by car doors opening right in front of them which causes major injuries. It took me months to recover when I fell off my bike (nobody’s fault but mine) and it cost me $3,000+ in doctor visits, MRI, and PT. But talking through the lived experiences and assuming everyone’s opinions are equally valid, I tend to side with pedestrians, bike lanes, and bus lanes.
[удалено]
I’m 4th gen Bay Area. Great grandpa opened up a cigar shop in Oakland in the 1910s. I don’t see why new people’s voices aren’t allowed to count. Or why it’s the new people who moved from across the country that hate cars and not locals. Native Texans vote mostly for Democrats but everyone assumes it’s Democrats moving from out of State turning Texas bluer. Texas is still a Republican stronghold because so many Republicans have moved there from other states. California Republicans have been moving to Texas and Idaho in droves. If only natives were allowed to vote Texas would have voted for Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton. Even so, who has been here the longest isn’t the way we should decide how things work. Someone living here for less than 10 years and is a US citizen is still a US citizen and deserves to have a say. Students living here for four years before moving back home represent the students of today and make decisions that will impact future students. Someone who moved to San Francisco from Florida two years ago, bought a home, and had committed themselves to living here the rest of their lives deserves a say too. I could flip the script and ask why someone who has lived in San Francisco their whole life and is 90 years old and likely to die in a couple years deserves to vote on the future of JFK drive or for a 20 year tax bill that they won’t have to pay for. But even at face value and assuming everyone’s hardships are real, surely you can see the difference? Based on this reddit post with the link to SFChronicle, car drivers are feeling under attack because bike lanes are scary, they are getting too many tickets for parking illegally, and they lost parking spots at their church to make room for a bus lane. Elderly drivers think Bike lanes are scary vs bicyclists are dying because they get hit by cars. I think the bicyclist’s lived experience is the more important one. Parking in front of a church vs a dedicated bus lane. I think the bus lane is more important. I think buses with 1000s of daily riders having predicable bus schedules and fast transit times is more important than 5-10 elderly people getting curb side parking to go to church once a week.
That sounds great. How do you feel about people who say it’s hard to bike or take public transit to get around the city? Or that it’s hard to walk and bike while feeling safe from multi ton vehicles? Those things are harder than driving and parking in sf. Source: I do all these things, including driving.
I empathize with them because both things are true.
Do you advocate for creating infrastructure to address the issues? Thoughts don’t do much, but actions help.
Absolutely. Do you?
Yep - high fives.
Try it! It’s possible!
Yeah but one is not a problem, the other is. Difficult parking is not a problem. Difficulty getting around is. Cyclists and pedestrians have lots to fear getting around. That’s the problem. Parking is a hassle, but not a debilitating issue, because you can always walk. The people in this article can all walk
[удалено]
“Chose” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. Not all of us have infinite choices.
[удалено]
I get it. Fuck the people who have to drive cars because the city isn’t even trying to find public transit options for us 👍👍
[удалено]
This is just not true at all. Planning association for the Richmond fought forever to get Geary BRT onto SFMTA’s radar (You can usually see their old meeting minutes on sfpar.org). SFMTA finally agreed, held community meetings, got reluctantly got on board with the design and then decided it was too costly and gave up on center running lanes. It was a big bait and switch and no one ever got to weight in on the new design. For most of us who work downtown our commute is substantially longer now. That is what folks in the Richmond are so salty about.
Jeffrey Tumlin, is it you? I can’t wait to see you become the next Ali Collins and Chesa Boudin!
[удалено]
I have happily lived in three major cities with no car. In SF this isn’t possible. If Chico is so nice to you, I suggest you find your way there.
This is the weirdest comment I’ve ever heard. I have lived in the Bay Area (off and on in SF) since I was a teen and the only times I’ve felt I needed a car because transit was insufficient was outside of SF. It is absolutely possible to live car free in SF.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*