so let's propose that as a carve out, perfectCivil Bear said:cal83dls79 said:
There are about 8 parking spaces on Telegraph after Dwight to campus and I've never considered parking there. Is this an issue?
I've been able to park in the loading zone spaces on Telegraph when they open up at 6pm on Thursday night game days.
City of Berkeley may ban cars on part of Telegraph
9,613 Views |
101 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by stu
OaktownBear said:
As for the handicap ramps, I'm pretty sure that is state law. It is definitely not a San Francisco thing.
San Francisco has its own ADA czar who wants equal access to literally everything (like wheelchair access to every park picnic table, all park trails paved, etc.). When ever there is a construction project, all paths of travel to the facility must be ADA accessible, including the surrounding curb ramps. But apparently unbeknownst to SFCity, the majority of them are constructed by the private Contractor, not government workers.
I agree. The main benefit is to create a less crowded avenue for public transportation (buses, trolley and taxis). I didn't quite understand what the big deal was to restrict private vehicles (unless you're an Uber or Lyft driver) Market was never the best way to get into and through downtown. I think the only time I've used Market in the past 10 years was to get to Beale St in order to return to the freeway from a parking garage on Fremont. The reduction of traffic has been pretty drastic and does seem to make it a little safer for pedestrians to walk down Market as less vehicles make right turns onto cross streets.OaktownBear said:
I don't know where the idea that Market Street is being closed for bicyclists came from, but it just isn't true. The main reason was to facilitate Muni. The second reason was to cut down on the traffic fatalities mostly to pedestrians. They are also going to widen the sidewalks for pedestrians.
I don't know about picnic tables. I guess I'm not getting the issue on curbs. Every curb in my neighborhood was changed to wheelchair accessible a long time ago. That is ubiquitous. It is not unique to SF.Civil Bear said:OaktownBear said:
As for the handicap ramps, I'm pretty sure that is state law. It is definitely not a San Francisco thing.
San Francisco has its own ADA czar who wants equal access to literally everything (like wheelchair access to every park picnic table, all park trails paved, etc.). When ever there is a construction project, all paths of travel to the facility must be ADA accessible, including the surrounding curb ramps. But apparently unbeknownst to SFCity, the majority of them are constructed by the private Contractor, not government workers.
As an aside, I found when I was a parent of young children that were still in strollers the handicap ramps were a godsend.
I certainly don't think we should pave the wilderness to make it wheelchair accessible, but I don't understand the objection to requiring new construction to be ADA compliant on all paths unless there is a really good reason for exception
I'm big ADA proponent don't get me wrong. My great uncle lost use of his legs working for the power company here in Maine. He was a stalwart for ada before it was a term That said I've worked for RE investors as well so I see both sides.
I don't mind the ramps either, but those dang truncated domes / detectable warning pavers can p me off sometimes trying glide over them on my skateboard!OaktownBear said:I don't know about picnic tables. I guess I'm not getting the issue on curbs. Every curb in my neighborhood was changed to wheelchair accessible a long time ago. That is ubiquitous. It is not unique to SF.Civil Bear said:OaktownBear said:
As for the handicap ramps, I'm pretty sure that is state law. It is definitely not a San Francisco thing.
San Francisco has its own ADA czar who wants equal access to literally everything (like wheelchair access to every park picnic table, all park trails paved, etc.). When ever there is a construction project, all paths of travel to the facility must be ADA accessible, including the surrounding curb ramps. But apparently unbeknownst to SFCity, the majority of them are constructed by the private Contractor, not government workers.
As an aside, I found when I was a parent of young children that were still in strollers the handicap ramps were a godsend.
I certainly don't think we should pave the wilderness to make it wheelchair accessible, but I don't understand the objection to requiring new construction to be ADA compliant on all paths unless there is a really good reason for exception
As someone who is (hopefully only temporarily) disabled, I totally appreciate ADA and many of the requirements. That being said, when there are officials who go nutso around it, it makes my blood boil. Case in point: when the municipal courts in SF were being renovated some years ago, they had to move into temporary quarters. The head of the city ADA insisted that all of the benches (for judges) be wheelchair accessible. At the time there were NO disabled judges. The court clerk noted that the move was only for 6-9 months and the likelihood that ALL OF the judges would become disabled in that time frame was slim. She offered to make 3 or 4 of the benches wheelchair accessible in case someone broke a leg or a disabled judge was appointed. No dice. It was all or a lawsuit. Cost the city around $500,000 extra.
UrsaMajor said:
As someone who is (hopefully only temporarily) disabled, I totally appreciate ADA and many of the requirements. That being said, when there are officials who go nutso around it, it makes my blood boil. Case in point: when the municipal courts in SF were being renovated some years ago, they had to move into temporary quarters. The head of the city ADA insisted that all of the benches (for judges) be wheelchair accessible. At the time there were NO disabled judges. The court clerk noted that the move was only for 6-9 months and the likelihood that ALL OF the judges would become disabled in that time frame was slim. She offered to make 3 or 4 of the benches wheelchair accessible in case someone broke a leg or a disabled judge was appointed. No dice. It was all or a lawsuit. Cost the city around $500,000 extra.
The Law does not require that. They should have opted for the lawsuit. Probably would have been cheaper and even if not, sometimes you have to establish precedent. Obviously the guy is just going to threaten lawsuits in every situation.
Telegraph used to run through campus. People complained when they put up those barricades under Sather Gate. Then they complained when Telegraph stoped at Bancroft creating Sproul Plaza:
OaktownBear said:UrsaMajor said:
As someone who is (hopefully only temporarily) disabled, I totally appreciate ADA and many of the requirements. That being said, when there are officials who go nutso around it, it makes my blood boil. Case in point: when the municipal courts in SF were being renovated some years ago, they had to move into temporary quarters. The head of the city ADA insisted that all of the benches (for judges) be wheelchair accessible. At the time there were NO disabled judges. The court clerk noted that the move was only for 6-9 months and the likelihood that ALL OF the judges would become disabled in that time frame was slim. She offered to make 3 or 4 of the benches wheelchair accessible in case someone broke a leg or a disabled judge was appointed. No dice. It was all or a lawsuit. Cost the city around $500,000 extra.
The Law does not require that. They should have opted for the lawsuit. Probably would have been cheaper and even if not, sometimes you have to establish precedent. Obviously the guy is just going to threaten lawsuits in every situation.
I recall that instance. It was the same CCSF ADA czar that wanted to pave all the trails, etc. IIRC, the other option was to not raise the judge benches. No dice.
This is the problem with appointing activists to head regulatory agencies. The rules only get more and more restrictive.
Man I drove through there today and it was great!
I thought the "seeing both sides" argument had become cliche, wow
SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
delete
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
Asia and Europe have great public transit systems compared to the U.S. so it's not an apples to apples situation to compare against
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transit
Asia and Europe have great public transit systems compared to the U.S. so it's not an apples to apples situation to compare against
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transit
CaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
The longest distance I've had to walk has been from Willard. Paid $20 at an elementary school above College. That's the easy part. Could spend more time reading SF city, and I say that with all due respect...but he probably has no clue as it relates to strategies on how to get in and out of games since the 60s .
HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
That's because they have great public transit systems compared to Asia and Europe
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
Asia? I'm in Tokyo now, public transit here is fantastic. Seoul is good too.
Manila and Mumbai are a different story.
sorry, my post was very unclear (it actually said the opposite of what I was trying to say...I edited my original post to correct)calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
That's because they have great public transit systems compared to Asia and Europe
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
Asia? I'm in Tokyo now, public transit here is fantastic. Seoul is good too.
Manila and Mumbai are a different story.
Yeah, I've been to Tokyo probably about 30 times. It has fantastic public transit, and so do many other Asia and European cities I've visited.
Some posters were comparing the berkeley or SF or the bay area (not sure which exactly) to euro cities. I was trying to say they can do things because they have excellent public transit, but we do not. Therefore what works for them may not be as practical for us.
And yeah, Mumbai does NOT have good public transit. They have been building a new subway system for years, but it seems no where close to finished. Also, even when it is built, not sure if it will greatly improve the horrible traffic in central Mumbai
Why do you say that? I didn't stop coming to Berkeley for Cal games just because I graduated in the 1960s. I grew up taking the Key System trains to Cal games when I was in high school, as my high school provided ushers for one section at Memorial. When I have lived in San Francisco, which is most of my life, I drove my car to Berkeley, parked it, and walked to games. Through the many years I held season tickets, I drove to the games. I gave up my season tickets when my companion for games bought a home in Reno. He used to live in Sunnyvale and he drove to my house, and then I drove us to Berkeley for the game. We never had trouble finding parking in Berkeley. Finding parking is not the problem. Finding parking close to the stadium or the arena is the problem, and I admit I avoid the problem by being able to walk and enjoy the walk through Berkeley to games. For football, I parked on Northside, as far away as Virginia or Cedar, and the noon walk through the tree lined streets with all the leaves changing colors, and falling, and the anticipation of the game growing as we joined other walkers, and talked about the game, brought back memories of when I went to games as a kid with my dad, and Cal had Rose Bowl teams. We both stopped going to football games, because of the uncertainty in game times, and more and more night games. And as you know, it is damn cold in Strawberry Canyon in the Fall, for us seniors at least. You young whippersnappers can tolerate the cold, and more power to you. Go Bears!
For basketball, we had season tickets and we always were able to find street parking west of Oxford, and bit north, of University, a walk of only a few blocks. About 10 years ago, we stopped driving to Berkeley for games, not due to any parking problem, but due to the traffic driving to the Bay Bridge from San Francisco. That traffic has gotten so heavy with the increase in population and cars in the Bay Area. They spend billions of dollars on a new bridge, demolish the old bridge, and still the traffic necks down from 5 lanes on US101 to 3 lanes at the entrance to the bridge, and then goes back up to 5 lanes on the bridge, the same problem we have had for many years, and they failed to address it. Entering the bridge from city streets is near impossible at rush hour to get to games. The other day, I was to pick up a friend at her office on the Embarcadero, and on Folsom street, I had to wait for 6 or seven signal changes to get across each intersection. It took me a couple hours to reach her office, a distance of about 4 miles.
Last year, I was to meet a friend at Jack London Square for lunch, which in 1975 would take me about 30 minutes. This time, I allowed an hour and a half, and I still arrived 30 minutes late. So if I go to any games now, football or basketball, I take BART to Berkeley. It is a long trip, and I'd like to have the convenience of my car to drive and get home much quicker. For a 7;30PM or 8PM game, taking BART to the city, I usually don't arrive home until after midnight. Driving will get me home at least an hour earlier. But I'm not willing to get stuck in traffic driving to the game, to have the luxury of driving home afterward. There are just so many more people and cars now, that the engineers who plan freeways and streets are always at least 20 years behind what they should have planned. And they were saying that in the 1960s. They are much farther behind now.
For basketball, we had season tickets and we always were able to find street parking west of Oxford, and bit north, of University, a walk of only a few blocks. About 10 years ago, we stopped driving to Berkeley for games, not due to any parking problem, but due to the traffic driving to the Bay Bridge from San Francisco. That traffic has gotten so heavy with the increase in population and cars in the Bay Area. They spend billions of dollars on a new bridge, demolish the old bridge, and still the traffic necks down from 5 lanes on US101 to 3 lanes at the entrance to the bridge, and then goes back up to 5 lanes on the bridge, the same problem we have had for many years, and they failed to address it. Entering the bridge from city streets is near impossible at rush hour to get to games. The other day, I was to pick up a friend at her office on the Embarcadero, and on Folsom street, I had to wait for 6 or seven signal changes to get across each intersection. It took me a couple hours to reach her office, a distance of about 4 miles.
Last year, I was to meet a friend at Jack London Square for lunch, which in 1975 would take me about 30 minutes. This time, I allowed an hour and a half, and I still arrived 30 minutes late. So if I go to any games now, football or basketball, I take BART to Berkeley. It is a long trip, and I'd like to have the convenience of my car to drive and get home much quicker. For a 7;30PM or 8PM game, taking BART to the city, I usually don't arrive home until after midnight. Driving will get me home at least an hour earlier. But I'm not willing to get stuck in traffic driving to the game, to have the luxury of driving home afterward. There are just so many more people and cars now, that the engineers who plan freeways and streets are always at least 20 years behind what they should have planned. And they were saying that in the 1960s. They are much farther behind now.
I can't argue with anything you said SF. My advice is this:
- if you take a car to the game stay on the south side and go via Telegraph. Heading up College or University is a nightmare
-look for free street spots before Parker around Willard.
- park at Willard
-if 65 or older cross over college to the elementary school and pay $20, this cuts down on the elevation change
- I am also aware of shuttles to the stadium from the university managed lots
But as far as access goes Memorial is easily the most accessible stadium I've been to.
- if you take a car to the game stay on the south side and go via Telegraph. Heading up College or University is a nightmare
-look for free street spots before Parker around Willard.
- park at Willard
-if 65 or older cross over college to the elementary school and pay $20, this cuts down on the elevation change
- I am also aware of shuttles to the stadium from the university managed lots
But as far as access goes Memorial is easily the most accessible stadium I've been to.
I always find something on the street, never further than in front of Clark Kerr, but I am told Underhill has a Shuttle. They also have a sign hat says basketball only parking, but according to a friend who often parks there, there is never anyone there to turn him away and he just buys a couple hours and is fine.cal83dls79 said:
BI can't argue with anything you said SF. My advice is this:
- if you take a car to the game stay on the south side and go via Telegraph. Heading up College or University is a nightmare
-look for free street spots before Parker around Willard.
- park at Willard
-if 65 or older cross over college to the elementary school and pay $20, this cuts down on the elevation change
- I am also aware of shuttles to the stadium from the university managed lots
But as far as access goes Memorial is easily the most accessible stadium I've been to.
Hell, if I still lived there I'd pick up SF city and get him to the stadium shuttle service.
The church lot at Dana and durant is usually$10. $20 for some games. Get there early. I never have a problem parking on the street around the old ticket office but I get there around 5 pm when everyone is leaving
Thanks for the advice, but I should have been more clear or forthright. If I drive, I prefer parking on Northside, and avoid Southside. I found the Southside walk was kind of boring, and I preferred the lovely roads of Northside, and the camaraderie of Cal fans walking with us. The last few games I went to, I took BART, because BART is light years easier for me to access from my house than the entrance to the Bay Bridge. I exit BART at Downtown Berkeley, cross Shattuck and catch the shuttle to the stadium. I like the camaraderie with Cal fans on the shuttle bus, too.cal83dls79 said:
I can't argue with anything you said SF. My advice is this:
- if you take a car to the game stay on the south side and go via Telegraph. Heading up College or University is a nightmare
-look for free street spots before Parker around Willard.
- park at Willard
-if 65 or older cross over college to the elementary school and pay $20, this cuts down on the elevation change
- I am also aware of shuttles to the stadium from the university managed lots
But as far as access goes Memorial is easily the most accessible stadium I've been to
Also, I'm not an invalid. I love hills. They keep me in shape. I walk 3 miles a day, much of it in San Francisco hills. Yesterday, I had to take my car to a garage for repairs, and walked a mile down Mission Street (very slight slope), took a bus to the stop nearest my house, and found the the City had fenced off the usual access to my neighborhood, for the purpose of making the grounds around the bus stop more beautiful, and I had to walk several blocks out of my way and up several steep hills to get home. Later in the day, I reversed the process, and walked down to the hills to the bus stop, rode the bus, and walked the mile back to the garage to pick up my car. Then I drove to the Park, and took my usual walk which included three more steep hills, a total of 9 for the day. I eat hills for breakfast, and if they ever become something I can't or don't like to do, getting to Cal games will be the least of my problems.
Thanks again for the advice, and Go Bears!
I live in Forest Hill, with detatched homes, hills and narrow streets that are so archaic, with lots of blind intersections and blind curves, you would not be allowed to build them today. I have lived in Noe Valley, and in the Richmond, but I'm a native, as were my parents, so I am quite familiar with all our neighborhoods, and you should not assume someone living here knows little about neighborhoods other than their own. I was born in the Haight, and lived in Cole Valley for my first 16 years. I learned to ride a bike in Cole Valley, and I first learned to drive a car in Cole Valley. That streetcar stop you mentioned at Stanyan and Carl is where I boarded the N car many hundreds of times, with cars parked along side it, with many passengers exiting and entering, and none complained about it in those days. Is it possible that the streetcars are wider, and the cars may be wider too, making it cumbersome to get on and off now? You want to have a sidewalk boarding platform? I suggest instead that you lobby MUNI for more compact streetcars (and buses, while you are at it) MUNI buys the biggest, longest, most uncomfortable vehicles I've ever seen.HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
Asia and Europe have great public transit systems compared to the U.S. so it's not an apples to apples situation to compare against
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
You sound like a fairly recent resident of our town, because you seem to have scant appreciation for how this city grew and was designed and redesigned to accommodate the needs of the residents, which are many. Since you live in Cole Valley, take a walk down any street there. How many buildings have garages for cars? I grew up mostly on Willard Street, above Parnassus. I first lived in a basement apartment of a house with no garage. We later moved across the street to a 7-unit apartment house with no garages. I can remember only 5 or 6 buildings with garages out of maybe 45 buildings on that block of Willard. My point is that your Cole Valley was not built for cars. It was built for a population who mostly walked or rode public transportation to work or school, with small percentage who drove cars. We had a car, as my father's job demanded that he travel to constructions sites from his office during the day. MUNI was very convenient in those days, and people walked a lot more than they do today. I drive through Cole Valley today, and every square foot of parking space is occupied.
UCSF was a small school and hospital in those days, and the Chancellor lived in a little house on our block. Over the years UCSF has made a massive expansion in land, buildings, and thousands of new employees, patients and students, many who drive cars, ride bikes and walk. It has put tremendous pressure on Cole Valley residents, to find housing and parking, and adequate bus service, along with increasing congestion of the streets. If you look at older neighborhoods, like Telegraph Hill, lower Nob Hill, in much of the early Mission district, there are very few buildings with garages.
As Americans became more affluent, many more wanted their own car. When I went to high school, only 3 or 4 students had a car. San Francico's population remained steady for several decades at about 680,000. As years went by we reached a point where most students expected their parents to give them a car. In the 1960s, ten speed bikes became all the rage, and the city was inundated with a big influx of cyclists, many of them wanted to commute to work. In the mid 1990s, Mayor Willie Brown opened the China Basin area to development, and the expansion of UCSF continued into that area. Huge skyscrapers were built downtown bringing more workers and population. Today, our population is 879,000, almost an increase of 200,000 in a couple of decades. Along with this, the City has acceded to the demands of High tech workers, and allowed huge company commuter buses onto our streets. Those who choose to ride bicycles on our streets and pedestrian sidewalks and paths (illegally, I might add) has also greatly increased in number. Now that so many citizens choose to order things online, delivered to their door, has added a large number of delivery trucks who need to use our streets. The Post Office is so over whelmed with packages to deliver, that they are now delivering packages by trucks on Sundays. The Mayor recently announced that there are 30,000 more cars on our streets, due to the many people coming to the City to make a living by driving for Uber and Lyft. And they would not be here if we had a better public transit system, and better taxi service (which is abysmal and expensive). So there is a need for Uber and Lyft for a segment of the population.
The point I am making is that this City has a finite shape and size, and the width of roads can not be expanded unless we force our citizens to give up their cars, or force pedestrians to give up their sidewalks, or force property owners to give up front gardens or move their buildings back further from the street. The City can only expand so much without trampling the rights of someone or some group. You say it is preposterous that so much space is dedicated to car usage. Car drivers have been driving on these streets for ages. Now you want to co-opt an entire lane to bicycles. To remove one lane of a three or four lane street and make it a bike lane, would turn that street into a parking lot for cars, while you cyclists sail on through, especially at rush hour. Those streets you mentioned can barely handle the vehicle traffic they carry now, and in 5 or 10 years, they will become near-parking lots, with or without you taking a lane away and give it to bicyclists. Car drivers would think your proposal preposterous, I'd guess.
You have the Progressive city government on your side, because much of what they seem to be doing is to make it harder for motorists to drive in the City. They are trying to make it easier for the handicapped to move around and access buses, etc. But the process is moving slowly. You need to understand that motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, along with the new kids on the block, the scooter drivers, must some how learn to share the congested roads and sidewalks we have. We all have our own desires, selfish desires, I might add. Why should your wanting to cycle to work be more important than the motorist who wants to use his car to get to work?
You mentioned risking your life cycling to work downtown on shared roads. Do you know of what used to be a pedestrian path which ran the length of the Panhandle? That path has been taken over completely by cyclists, especially at rush hour. Recently, an invalid friend of mine wanted to go over the Haight street for lunch, and we got onto that path, and you talk about risking your life as dozens of cyclists blew by us at speeds up to 25 mph, I'd guess. Very unpleasant. There are signs on many footpaths in the Park, saying "No cycles allowed", but many cyclists pay no attention, and a minority of them takes pleasure in terrifying pedestrians there. There is so much crime in the City, and so few police, that they haven't the time to police motorists and pedestrians sufficiently anymore. BTW, the handicap access ramps at intersection corners are designed for invalids, not for someone pushing a double stroller, which is the tiniest minority of pedestrians. And they are not designed for bicyclists to hop up onto the sidewalk, where it is illegal for them to drive, but it is perfect for them to do so.
I suggest you work with motorists, rather than vilify them. Work together for solutions and bring them to the Traffic planning department meetings, to the Board of Supervisors, to the Mayor. Organize. If you want to convince motorists to be on your side and grant more space for bicycles, one way to do it would be to show you are serious and willing to compromise, and stop breaking the law when you ride a bicycle ( not you personally, but the bicyclists who seldom stop for a red light, and never stop at a stop sign, using blowing right through it, and then wonder why a motorist is "raging") BTW, there are many raging cyclists around who think they own the road too. Years ago, dozens of cyclists got together and formed "Critical Mass" and blocked downtown streets as a protest, which worked more or less, as they got some more bike lanes, but in the long run alienated more motorists, especially when they provoked fights. I was driving in the Park one day and two cyclists were standing by the roadside. I thought they might want to cross the road, but they were stopped and engaged in conversation and not looking at me. So I started to drive. As I passed them, the woman, who had a baby in a basket on the handlebars (when I ran a bike shop, I never sold those baskets and tried to discourage parents from buying them) started into the road without looking. I was already past her and not a danger to her. The traffic ahead stopped, and I stopped. The husband cycled up to me, and motioned for me to roll down the window to talk. I did and he punched me in the face, saying I had nearly killed his son, and he took off. I never was closer than 20 feet from that baby boy. Talk about raging drivers. I see incidents of raging cyclists all the time. I understand the paranoia. As a cyclist, I've been hit twice by cars, and went to the hospital both times. As I pedestrian, I've been hit by a car once, and hit by cyclists twice. It hurt. The City is a dangerous place, and we all have to learn how to live here, share our streets, and look out for one another. Good luck to you.
It's also been hurtful to cities when not done correctly, in fact one you cite, Denver, is a good example. One of my favorite college towns, Eugene, basically killed what was once a lively dowtown by making it into a Pedestrian mall (the opening of a nearby regional mall didn't help). It has yet to recover (and this was 40 years ago).mbBear said:Commenting on Climate Change in this context is ridiculous. Creating a "pedestrian only" part of a street happens all over the country, and is often helpful to businesses as well as overall pedestrian traffic. Ask Santa Monica or Denver.Golden One said:Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviateoskidunker said:
Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.
Oh, and I hope that driving a block or two further doesn't stress you out too much.
Having said that, I actually like many of the moves to encourage biking in San Francisco and Berkeley, for instance, on Bancroft switching parking lanes with bike lanes, thus protecting the bikers, while not really changing the capacity for the cars. Some of it takes a while to get used to, and it's understandable that change causes annoyances with people.
I have driven a motorcycle most of my adult life. I understand the dangers that go with it, but I'm telling you, in this area where the sun shines more than it rains, there is no better way for getting around. I live in the Sante Fe neighborhood of Oakland (basically were Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville all meet) and from my house to downtown San Francisco, during rush hour, is literally less than 20 minutes door-to-door, including parking. That's not doing anything illegal or crazy, but just being able to avoid the jams, zoom across using the car pool lane and having easy parking. My office is in Santa Clara (by Intel). 42 miles door to door. On the motorcycle it takes me 45 mintes no matter what time i leave. In a car if i went during rush hour (which i wouldn't) that drive is easily 1 3/4 hous long. When I do have to car in then, I leave ridiculously early (5AM) or wait until after traffic dies down, 9:30AM or so and then have to make sure i get out by 2PM or I'm stuck there post 7PM.
When I got to any event at Haas, from walking out my door I am inside Haas in 15 minutes.
Anyway, cities change...
Quote:
I grew up mostly on Willard Street, above Parnassus. I first lived in a basement apartment of a house with no garage.
You grew up one block over from what I think is one of The City's most beuatiful hidden gems, Edgewood Avenue. An absoluely beautiful brick lane that ends at the Mount Sutro interior green belt on the south and has spectacular views of USF and the Golden Gate to the north... and in the Spring is particularly beautiful when all the plum treets are in bloom, as this photo shows just a few days ago.
calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
That's because they have great public transit systems compared to Asia and Europe
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
Asia? I'm in Tokyo now, public transit here is fantastic. Seoul is good too.
Manila and Mumbai are a different story.
When is the last time you were in Mumbai? I am there four or five times a year and the new metro systems they are putting in will be a game changer. I believe it's scheduled to be completed in 2025. Right now one line is working, which carries some 300K people a day, but four other lines are under construction. They are also building a new international airport, which will GREATLY relieve the congestion at the current airport, which amazingly is dead center in the middle of the city. It is the busiest airport by frequency of flights... it's a single runway airport and they handled 1000 flights a day.. insane.
Pune's metro is actually ahead of schedule with a stop right by our HQ so that will be really interesting to see how it works (if they would only extend out to Hinjewadi).
Why do you think the pedestrian mall in Eugene killed the lively downtown scene? Was it because motorists and maybe cyclists could not access downtown as easily?TheFiatLux said:It's also been hurtful to cities when not done correctly, in fact one you cite, Denver, is a good example. One of my favorite college towns, Eugene, basically killed what was once a lively dowtown by making it into a Pedestrian mall (the opening of a nearby regional mall didn't help). It has yet to recover (and this was 40 years ago).mbBear said:Commenting on Climate Change in this context is ridiculous. Creating a "pedestrian only" part of a street happens all over the country, and is often helpful to businesses as well as overall pedestrian traffic. Ask Santa Monica or Denver.Golden One said:Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviateoskidunker said:
Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.
Oh, and I hope that driving a block or two further doesn't stress you out too much.
Having said that, I actually like many of the moves to encourage biking in San Francisco and Berkeley, for instance, on Bancroft switching parking lanes with bike lanes, thus protecting the bikers, while not really changing the capacity for the cars. Some of it takes a while to get used to, and it's understandable that change causes annoyances with people.
I have driven a motorcycle most of my adult life. I understand the dangers that go with it, but I'm telling you, in this area where the sun shines more than it rains, there is no better way for getting around. I live in the Sante Fe neighborhood of Oakland (basically were Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville all meet) and from my house to downtown San Francisco, during rush hour, is literally less than 20 minutes door-to-door, including parking. That's not doing anything illegal or crazy, but just being able to avoid the jams, zoom across using the car pool lane and having easy parking. My office is in Santa Clara (by Intel). 42 miles door to door. On the motorcycle it takes me 45 mintes no matter what time i leave. In a car if i went during rush hour (which i wouldn't) that drive is easily 1 3/4 hous long. When I do have to car in then, I leave ridiculously early (5AM) or wait until after traffic dies down, 9:30AM or so and then have to make sure i get out by 2PM or I'm stuck there post 7PM.
When I got to any event at Haas, from walking out my door I am inside Haas in 15 minutes.
Anyway, cities change...
As for the bike lanes and car parking lanes switching places, we've done on the Main Drive in Golden Gate Park, and I think it is fraught with danger. First of all, the road is a little too narrow for this. It has narrowed width of the driving lanes in each direction, so than the large delivery van drivers are often over the centerline on their way to and from the museum. With the cars now parked in a lane between the driving lane and the bike lane, the drivers and passengers of parked cars must look carefully to see if a car is approaching on the left or if a bicycle is approaching on the right, to avoid opening the door and causing an accident with a car or a bicycle on the right. When I was young and had my first bicycle, my parents made me take traffic lessons offered by the owner of a bike shop on Stanyan, and he said one thing a bicyclist has to look out for is someone opening a car door in your face, and you don't have enough time to react before hitting the car or the person stepping out of the car. So in Golden Gate Park, all three lanes are so narrow, it shortens the reaction time. Another problem is there are stop signs and crosswalks for pedestrians at several places along the main drive. With an average-size vehicle,legally parked just short of the crosswalk, and a pedestrian walking in the crosswalk in front of the vehicle, such a vehicle can block the view of the pedestrian from drivers of cars and bicycles. Most car drivers will stop or at least greatly slow down for the stop sign, but most bicyclists are not used to slowing or stopping for stop signs, and they will blow right through the stop sign if they don't see the pedestrian. I am in the park nearly every day, and I have seen many times where this has happened. It is a poor design, and the planners should eliminate some of the parking spaces near the crosswalks, so the drivers and cyclists will have a clear view of the crosswalks. Trying to get all bicyclists to obey the vehicle code is a battle we lost long ago, to the peril of the pedestrian.
A former supervisor of mine used to commute by motorcycle from the East Bay to Genentech in South San Francisco, and one morning before 6AM he was in the carpool lane nearing the Bay Bridge toll booths, when a driver at a high speed suddenly crossed 3 lanes to get into the car pool lane. He never saw my supervisor, broadsided him and he was killed instantly. There are great advantages to the motorcycle, but it is dangerous. Drive carefully.
TheFiatLux said:Quote:
I grew up mostly on Willard Street, above Parnassus. I first lived in a basement apartment of a house with no garage.
You grew up one block over from what I think is one of The City's most beuatiful hidden gems, Edgewood Avenue. An absoluely beautiful brick lane that ends at the Mount Sutro interior green belt on the south and has spectacular views of USF and the Golden Gate to the north... and in the Spring is particularly beautiful when all the plum treets are in bloom, as this photo shows just a few days ago.
FiatLux,SFCityBear said:TheFiatLux said:Quote:
I grew up mostly on Willard Street, above Parnassus. I first lived in a basement apartment of a house with no garage.
You grew up one block over from what I think is one of The City's most beuatiful hidden gems, Edgewood Avenue. An absoluely beautiful brick lane that ends at the Mount Sutro interior green belt on the south and has spectacular views of USF and the Golden Gate to the north... and in the Spring is particularly beautiful when all the plum treets are in bloom, as this photo shows just a few days ago.
Many thanks for the photo. Edgewood has changed little over the years. The only difference I see is all the cars parked on the street now. There were practically no cars parked on the street when I used to play there in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, 20 years ago when I had the need to visit either of my parents in the hospital, I was able easily find all day parking on Edgewood, and take a footpath down the mountain to the hospital below. Today, the parking is limited to 2 hours, i believe.
Our first home was on Edgewood, in a bright but cold and damp studio apartment at the far end of the street. Our neighbor, Harry Ross was head of the Water Dept. When I was 3, we moved to another less damp and cold basement apartment (which had rats) down on Willard. I hung out a lot on Edgewood. One friend up there, John Ralson, went to Cal with me, and he had a job in charge of handing out all the test tubes and vials for the chemistry students at Cal. Another close friend was Pete Ruff, who lives and Cameron, and sends me pictures of whenever the old Edgewood Avenue gang gets together. We snuck into yards and picked cherries. An eldery lady we called Aunt Rose would always welcome a young visitor with a piece of her homemade pies. We never snuck into her yard and picked any fruit, out of respect for her. We played a lot of basketball at a hoop in the street. The Inman boys, Tom and Rich, were outstanding ballers. Tom played for Lick Wilmerding High, averaged about 35 points a game, and got a special award from the AAA as all-league, even though Lick was not a member of the AAA league. A couple years later, his brother Rich played for Lowell and made All City, with a lot of games where he scored over 40 points. It was truly an idyllic neighborhood for all who lived there and those of us who were welcome visitors. .
hmmmm ... mumbai and pune must have changed a lot in six months if you think their public transit is goodTheFiatLux said:calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
That's because they have great public transit systems compared to Asia and Europe
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
Asia? I'm in Tokyo now, public transit here is fantastic. Seoul is good too.
Manila and Mumbai are a different story.
When is the last time you were in Mumbai? I am there four or five times a year and the new metro systems they are putting in will be a game changer. I believe it's scheduled to be completed in 2025. Right now one line is working, which carries some 300K people a day, but four other lines are under construction. They are also building a new international airport, which will GREATLY relieve the congestion at the current airport, which amazingly is dead center in the middle of the city. It is the busiest airport by frequency of flights... it's a single runway airport and they handled 1000 flights a day.. insane.
Pune's metro is actually ahead of schedule with a stop right by our HQ so that will be really interesting to see how it works (if they would only extend out to Hinjewadi).
HoopDreams said:hmmmm ... mumbai and pune must have changed a lot in six months if you think their public transit is goodTheFiatLux said:calumnus said:HoopDreams said:
When ever I hear the comparison with European cities, I have the same thought...
That's because they have great public transit systems compared to Asia and Europe
The biggest problem with the Bay Area is the absolutely shameful public transitCaliforniaEternal said:SFCityBear said:
I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.
My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.
We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.
I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.
I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.
My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.
I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.
There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.
Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.
Asia? I'm in Tokyo now, public transit here is fantastic. Seoul is good too.
Manila and Mumbai are a different story.
When is the last time you were in Mumbai? I am there four or five times a year and the new metro systems they are putting in will be a game changer. I believe it's scheduled to be completed in 2025. Right now one line is working, which carries some 300K people a day, but four other lines are under construction. They are also building a new international airport, which will GREATLY relieve the congestion at the current airport, which amazingly is dead center in the middle of the city. It is the busiest airport by frequency of flights... it's a single runway airport and they handled 1000 flights a day.. insane.
Pune's metro is actually ahead of schedule with a stop right by our HQ so that will be really interesting to see how it works (if they would only extend out to Hinjewadi).
I said will be. in 2025.
Amazing how these OT ramblings always come back to CalmBball!TheFiatLux said:HoopDreams said:
hmmmm ... mumbai and pune must have changed a lot in six months if you think their public transit is good
I said will be. in 2025.
SFCityBear said:FiatLux,SFCityBear said:TheFiatLux said:Quote:
I grew up mostly on Willard Street, above Parnassus. I first lived in a basement apartment of a house with no garage.
You grew up one block over from what I think is one of The City's most beuatiful hidden gems, Edgewood Avenue. An absoluely beautiful brick lane that ends at the Mount Sutro interior green belt on the south and has spectacular views of USF and the Golden Gate to the north... and in the Spring is particularly beautiful when all the plum treets are in bloom, as this photo shows just a few days ago.
Many thanks for the photo. Edgewood has changed little over the years. The only difference I see is all the cars parked on the street now. There were practically no cars parked on the street when I used to play there in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, 20 years ago when I had the need to visit either of my parents in the hospital, I was able easily find all day parking on Edgewood, and take a footpath down the mountain to the hospital below. Today, the parking is limited to 2 hours, i believe.
Our first home was on Edgewood, in a bright but cold and damp studio apartment at the far end of the street. Our neighbor, Harry Ross was head of the Water Dept. When I was 3, we moved to another less damp and cold basement apartment (which had rats) down on Willard. I hung out a lot on Edgewood. One friend up there, John Ralson, went to Cal with me, and he had a job in charge of handing out all the test tubes and vials for the chemistry students at Cal. Another close friend was Pete Ruff, who lives and Cameron, and sends me pictures of whenever the old Edgewood Avenue gang gets together. We snuck into yards and picked cherries. An eldery lady we called Aunt Rose would always welcome a young visitor with a piece of her homemade pies. We never snuck into her yard and picked any fruit, out of respect for her. We played a lot of basketball at a hoop in the street. The Inman boys, Tom and Rich, were outstanding ballers. Tom played for Lick Wilmerding High, averaged about 35 points a game, and got a special award from the AAA as all-league, even though Lick was not a member of the AAA league. A couple years later, his brother Rich played for Lowell and made All City, with a lot of games where he scored over 40 points. It was truly an idyllic neighborhood for all who lived there and those of us who were welcome visitors. .
What a lovely post. I can in my mind see the damp studio apartment because I had looked at a couple places at the end of Edgewood a couple of lifetimes ago :-) My first place in San Francisco was on Downey Street, between Frederick and Waller. A street so small if you blinked you would miss it. It was the mid-80s, I was 19, I think my share of the rent for a legit two bedroom place was $400. We had a great kitched in the back, with a stoop and staircase where we had a small gardern and a view of the Golden Gate Bridge... Coffee in the morning was a favorite of mine. There was a school across the street with basketball court. It was a sunny happy street. There used to be a great grocery store market on the corner of Frederick and Ashbury, don't know if it's still there. My next store neighbor was Edo de Waart's son, Boris (i can't believe i can remember that), so we would always get free symphony tickets, which was pretty cool. I was taking time off from school then and working downtown... i would take ether the N Judah (I used to love coming out of the tunnel), the 33A ( I think) over the hill, or the 5 Haight... just depending on my mood. On the weekends would have brunch at Dish (on the corner of Haight and Masonic), would go to Cha Cha Cha for dinner (we thought was soooo cool) and get the hugest burritos at the place next to Cha Cha Cha... walk to the park, go to the Kezar Club even tho i wasn't of legal age, and the Other Side comedy club, when they were a huge thing, and watch relative unkonwns like Jay Leno!
Even though i was sort of lost in the world at the time, I remember it with fondness, being a happy time with just the right amount of melancholy.
I think one of the magical things about San Francisco is that everyone when reflecting on their younger time there says "It was such a great time to live in The City..." which in my mind probably means this is a great time to live in The City if we're lucky enough to be around in 20 years to hear people who are living here now say that :-)
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Get Great Reviews from Big Game Visitors
by Jim McGill
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics