Category: Parking

  • “EV Phobia” – Battery anxiety

    This story from the WSJ on Wednesday came to mind as I was sitting in front of shiny, new 220 Park building listening to the band at Burlingame on the Ave. this weekend.  Aside from realizing that the Carr McClellan building needs a paint job and something to cover the grimy HVAC system on the roof that we never saw before, I thought back to the big hole for the multi-level parking below 220.  

    SEOUL—The uproar over a Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle that burst into flames in South Korea this month wasn’t only about fire safety. Outrage emerged over the lesser-known Chinese battery maker, Farasis Energy.  Now South Korea has a fresh proposal to ease public anxiety: advising carmakers to voluntarily divulge what brand of battery sits inside their EVs.

    Such information isn’t generally public knowledge globally, despite the importance EV users place on battery life and driving range. At the same time, lithium-ion batteries—should they catch fire—burn at far higher temperatures than fires in conventional gas-powered cars and are uniquely challenging for firefighters to tackle.

    The Aug. 1 blaze unfolded in an underground parking lot, which are common in the densely populated country. It incinerated around 40 nearby cars and scorched around 100 others. Some apartment complexes have considered barring EVs from underground lots. Local governments are exploring whether public charging stations shouldn’t charge EV batteries beyond 80% capacity, to reduce the risk of fires. Local media described the country as undergoing a sudden “EV-phobia.”

    The stories about e-bikes bursting into flames are pretty common mostly due to using way off-brand batteries.  But when a $67K Mercedes lights up 140 nearby cars, that is a different problem.  I hope someone is looking at this–whether it's 80% charges or no charging or some other idea.  And one hopes Central County Fire is aware although from what I read there isn't much they can do at the scene besides let it burn out.

  • ECR: How is this maneuver legal?

    Change is afoot for our beloved El Camino Real as the Axe man cometh for the Eucs.  The city e-newsletter notes that pothole repair on a systemic level (as opposed to when someone calls) as "Caltrans is currently completing pothole repair work on El Camino Real, between Howard Avenue and Sanchez Avenue. Work will take place daily, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. One lane will remain open in both directions, but drivers should expect delays."

    One thing that will have to change as 91% of the Eucs get cut down, huge swaths of pavement get dug up at one time, trenches get dug for power/phone lines and drainage piping is the commercial parking habits of various truck drivers.  It's not just Amazon, UPS, FedEx, et al.  Check this guy out resupplying Walgreens!  There's a city lot right there, but hey, let's just shut down half of northbound ECR for half an hour or more.  How is that legal?

    ECR illegal loading

  • RWC: We don’t need no stinking parking!

    I mentioned this front-page Daily Post article in yesterday's edition to a couple people and they just did not believe me.  So here's the proof.  What can the developer and the city of Redwood City be thinking?   They have already made a mess of downtown RWC, but apparently they aren't done yet.  178 units get 6 parking spaces.  You must have a lot of faith in renters relying on Uber, Lyft and Waymo.  Could it happen in B'game?  Let's hope not. RWC apartment

  • Bumpingame: Taking the car out of Carmelita Ave.

    One way to get people griping less about California Ave. is to roll out another project unpopular with drivers.  While the aversion to the California conversion is on-going (just mention it at the grocery store!), the multitude of new speed bumps on Carmelita east and west of ECR is jarring drivers' senses–and common sense.  A review of the accident history via the Crimegraphics tracker on the city website doesn't yield nearly enough incidents to cause speed bumps to multiply like rabbits there.  Is the city trying to take the "car" out of Carmelita Ave.?  Shall we rename it Melita Ave.–a main thoroughfare from H'borough to Bumpingame?

    The Sunday SF Comicle had a front-page piece titled Drivers feel under siege with S.F. limits.  It described some senior drivers' anxiety over the navigational mazes being implemented as "improvements".  It's more than just banning cars on Market St. or so-called "Slow streets".  And it's not just in EssEff.  I like to pick up the pink Financial Times (of London) sometimes and was amazed to see a Letter to the Editor from a guy in Oakland under the headline Why the nanny state is partly to blame for US road carnage!  He writes:

    Meanwhile, endless reconfiguration of America's streets and pavements by traffic engineers who dream of "Amsterdam in Santa Monica" has cluttered once open roadways with mountains of superfluous signage and millions of plastic bollards; new parking arrangement, often in the middle of the street, bicycle paths switched to different lanes every other corner; and elevated bulbs wherever possible–all designed to slow traffic under the guise of creating bike and bus-friendly streets.

    The addition of all this visual noise impedes every driver's view, making it ever harder to see that bicycle or pedestrian while elevating the stress.  Alas, too many American drivers have reacted to these safety-related distractions and stressors by developing the habits of road rage.

    So don't just blame the culture of freedom that Americans enjoy for the roads mayhem.  At least some fault is due to the nanny state at work, killing us softly with safety enhancements.

    George P Csicsery

    Zala Films, Oakland, CA, US

    My guess is Mr. Csicsery has been to Bumpingame recently.  My wishlist is to take out at least half of the new speed bumps on Melita Ave. and put a moratorium on any more as well as on the cheesy plastic bollards and floppy mid-crosswalk signs that are already looking beat after just a few weeks.  Then bank the money to pay for another police officer to catch scofflaw drivers.  While we're at it, let's check what all of these "improvements" are doing to police, fire and ambulance response times…..

    Driver confusion letter

    Hat tip to a local wag for the name Bumpingame.

    Bumpingame2

  • Parklets on the chopping block?

    Parklets arrived in B'game about four years ago as we noted here.  They were a good idea at the time and helped keep some of our local eateries in business.  That was then, this is now as the city council moves to reign them in.  I don't think many people believed they would still be around four years later and that the $250 per month "cleaning fee" would be insufficient to actually keep the areas around the parklet clean.  That is just one issue.  The impact on street parking, visibility for safe driving (the Rocca parklet being exhibit A) and visibility for storefronts adjacent to the parklets are also drawing council attention.  I would add one more.  The businesses that didn't cover up the orange hydro barriers are contributing to the Make Burlingame Ugly Again (MBUA) trend along with cheesy plastic bollards, floppy crosswalk signs, perpetually empty newspaper boxes, signage overkill, et al.  Add you least favorite street detritus here _____________________.  The Daily Journal is reporting on the council meeting where all of this was discussed

    Originally, the parklets were a vital function of maintaining restaurant business during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’ve become overbearing for retailers who make important contributions to the city’s sales tax, Mayor Donna Colson said. 

    “I don’t want to jeopardize our balance with hard businesses and restaurants, which are also fun, but are frankly destroying the [Avenue] right in front of the restaurants,” she said. “It’s pitch black, filthy, dirty, they’re not covering the cost, we can’t keep it clean. … I think it’s just a matter of balancing it.”  Currently, 30 parklets in the Burlingame Avenue downtown and the Broadway Commercial district are occupying 63 parking spaces, with 13 extending beyond their business frontages.

    The proposed new rules will likely gut the program.

    Under the draft ordinance, roofs, trellises and tent shade structures will not be allowed and structural elements will not be allowed to extend beyond the top of the walls to allow for better visibility to adjacent businesses. Curb gutters must be kept unobstructed and furnishings cannot be stored in the parklet when not in use.

    Without roofs, the heaters will be much less effective on cold days and diners will be much warmer on sunny lunch hours.  Moving everything out and back in each day probably will motivate restaurants to pull the parklet plug.  We will know by October when the new rules kick in.  It's fun to see the DJ use Bgame in a headline though I prefer it with the apostrophe.

    Parklet rules

    Hyrdo barriers orange

    August 2024 Update:  The new rules went into effect at the end of July and many parklets have been removed.  The city notes that we are down to 14 active parklets complying with the new rules.  In other news, the FLiRT variant of Covid is increasing to seriously high levels in the Bay Area at this moment.  Here is a photo of a parklet being disassembled.

    UnParklet3

     

  • EV charging ahead with preferred parking spots at Walgreens

    The news is all pointing to a deceleration in EV sales as car companies' losses per EV pile up and consumers start to really question the benefits of going electric.  People who don't worry about the high initial costs or the lengthy payback (some estimates put it at 7 years) have bought their EVs already.  We are now approaching the trough of adoption while waiting for cheaper versions, longer range and more charging stations.  These trends haven't stopped B'game from going full speed ahead with 16 new charger spaces downtown.  The latest swap of fully public spaces to preferred parking for EVs in need of a boost is coming to the public lot (K) between Walgreen's and Safeway.  This is a busy lot for much of the day and early dining evening.  Per the Daily Journal piece

    The City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with negotiations on a contract for Tesla to rent the parking lot space from Burlingame, although councilmembers said they’d like to see details on lease and fee rates as well as plans for signs that would delineate the chargers as usable for all electric vehicles.  Tesla has said they will pay a monthly rent of $6,000, and everything will be free to the city, including installation.

    Let's go easy with the F-word (i.e. "free").  It's only "free" if $6K per month covers the lost revenue of the 19 spaces lost.  That's about $315 per month or about a dollar a day per space.  My math says these new charger spaces are far from "free".  

    After Beach inquired about the leasing agreement and rental cost, Tesla Supercharger Project Developer Caitlyn Hanner said the company would require a 10-year lease minimum but could provide a rent increase of up to 3% a year.   Installation of the Tesla superchargers would create a loss of three parking spots.

    Ten years with a very modest rent escalator is quite a deal.  There are about 57 spaces in Lot K now.  Three will be taken for the e-infrastructure, so about 30 percent of the lot is planned to be preferred parking for EVs.  As the DJ article notes, several council members are Tesla owners and others own other brands which these new superchargers will accommodate.  Did we just witness a conflict of interest that should have caused recusals on the vote?   Just kidding.  But it would have made a great April Fool's Day post.

    Maybe the time has come to require chargers to also pay for the parking.  EVs already skirt the gas tax and they inflict more wear and tear on our roads than gas cars due to their higher weight.  I will tag the "Friends with benefits" category as well since this looks like a sweet deal for a few people and the car companies.

  • Broadway: Planners gotta plan

    For the Here We Go Again file:  the Daily Journal is reporting on the "Broadway Specific Plan" meeting held last week with more color than usual since it seems the reporter went to the meeting (as opposed to watching council happening on-line afterwards):

    A grand vision of plazas, parklets, mixed-use development and possible parking changes for a revitalized Broadway in Burlingame met reality at a Jan. 17 community workshop where concerns were surfaced about the retail thoroughfare’s existing character and limitations.

    I'm not sure which grandees came up with the grand vision, but apparently it did not go over well with attendees:

    “The consideration is, you’d have to ask people, do you want a second Burlingame Avenue at this location?” building owner Dave Simpson said. “No!” some in the crowd chorused in response.

    The negative comments on the DJ website under the article are even more brutally pointed and draw in the prevailing dislike for the mess that has been made of California Dr. which we track here.  Some of the comments are even negative about the decade-plus reworking of the Avenew that I think came out well, but Broadway is clearly a different street and many would like it to proudly remain so.  Comments about rising rents after "upgrades", lack of space for gathering places and especially the traffic flow from our F-rated Broadway intersection are everywhere.

    Some very smart commentary notes that if there are plans to change traffic flow on Broadway, they need to expand the planning scope to include the two nearest parallel streets – Lincoln and Carmelita.  Very true, but likely to bring out even more boo-birds.  I spend quite a bit of time on B'way and like the ambiance.  But let's face it.  Planners have to plan.  Perhaps we can start with the always-wise question:  What problem are we trying to solve?

  • Crosswalk Safety: 2024 changes bring “daylight”

    The SF Chronicle is highlighting a new law that prohibits parking within 20 feet of all crosswalks regardless of whether the curb is painted red or not.  It went into effect Jan 1.

    The cleared space makes it easier for people in cars to see pedestrians approaching the crosswalk — an idea known as daylighting.  For pedestrians, daylighting means that they don’t have to venture into the intersection and peek around parked cars to see whether they have a clear path to cross. The San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency has begun issuing warnings for violations of the new parking law, though the agency and others across the state cannot issue fines until 2025.

    Under California’s new law, if the curb is painted red near a crosswalk or intersection, drivers should follow that distance, even if it is less than 20 feet, the same way parking is currently enforced. But if there is no paint or signage, drivers should follow the 20-foot distance, wherever they are in California, according to SFMTA.

    It's a state law so it applies here in B'game as well.  When broadly enforced by Parking Enforcement this will likely be a sizeable number of parking spots taken out of service all over town.  Not that it's a bad idea, it just has consequences.  I've been reviewing the laws around crosswalks and pedestrians since I walk through the ECR-Howard Ave. crosswalk to Safeway and the Avenew regularly.  It's treacherous.  I've nearly been hit several times and have seen others experience similar close calls.  Part of the issue is how wide Howard is there.  Because of the shape of the southern curb, it gives drivers the impression that it's six lanes wide.  The fact that it is five lanes wide, and drivers are focused on northbound ECR traffic as they turn left onto Howard, puts this crosswalk on my list of "keep your head on a swivel" spots.

    Howard at ECR

  • No space, no worry…just park it.

    We haven't had a bad parking post since July 2022 – not because there hasn't been any bad parking behavior.  Sometimes I see it but don't get the photo and other times it slips my mind due to other more pressing matters.  This bad parking example was noted by the guy who was parked next to me at Safeway.  He was just shaking his head and packing up his groceries.

    But hey, if your handicapped space is already taken, just create your own space!  Ignore the cross striping and the No Parking marking.  If it fits, park it.

    Parking folly

  • California Ave: Navigating the maze

    You can think something will look bad and it turns out fine–or vice versa.  Now that the reworked lanes on California Ave. are nearing completion the street appears to be a mess.  Never mind that there was nothing wrong to begin with, but now people are finding all of the poorly designed features.  We covered the accident inducing tight left turn at Broadway to go south on California and the Oak Grove situation last month here.   This week I parked briefly at one of the scarce spots on the west side of California to jump out and get a photo.

    I swear I did not wait around for 20 minutes to get this photo.  It literally happened right as I walked between two parked cars on the east side (which also seemed more dangerous than before).  Some driver either got confused by a "lane" to his right of the line of parked cars or he just thought why troll for an open spot in a traffic lane when there is the nice "bike lane" available?  Luckily he went by me pretty slowly since there wasn't a lot of room to spare.

    With Caltrans closing El Camino for whole days at a time (today "traffic will be diverted onto the 1200 & 1300 blocks of Balboa Avenue and 1500 & 1600 blocks of Sherman Avenue, Easton Drive and Hillside Drive." from 7am to 4pm) you can bet California is seeing some overflow.  The concrete islands that are painted yellow with little reflective signs already have tire marks all over them.  People are figuring out what a mess it is including our emergency personnel.  One has to wonder how to fix this.  In the meantime, everybody be careful out there.

    Driving in the bike lane

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026