Todays Headlines

  • Chronicle Calls Sunday Streets "No-Car Bliss"
  • Sacramento Drivers Try Car-Free Challenge (Sac Bee)
  • Hayward Development to Be Nearly Car-Free (SF Gate)
  • UC Davis Study Says Commute by SUV May be Greener Than by Train (AFP)
  • Transform’s Tips to Reduce Driving (Sac Bee)
  • Sick Days Add to Muni Overtime Payout (Examiner)
  • BART Downplays "BART" on New Police Badges, Bay Bridge Contract Behind Schedule (SF Gate)
  • Bay Area Council Recommends $3.4 Billion of Stim Funds to High Speed Rail (KCBS)
  • CAHSR Blog Looks at Rash of Caltrain Suicides by Gunn High School Students in Palo Alto
  • Two Bay-Area Cyclists Killed, One by Car, One by Caltrain (SF Gate)
  • San Jose Boy Hit by Car in Crosswalk Making Strong Recovery (Merc)
  • Press Democrat Profiles 72-Year Old Man Riding Bicycle From Santa Rosa to Seattle.
  • The Feds Are Running Out of Money to Invest in Transportation, Again (NYT, WSJ)
  • Push in Congress to Make Stimulus Funds Available for Transit Service (Yglesias)
  • e

    Looks like the UC Davis paper is really a UC Berkeley paper:
    http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/future_urban_transport/vwp-2009-2/

  • david vartanoff

    And how often do we see an SUV fully occupied? Of course if all six seats are occupied then it is more efficient than an empty rail car deadheading back to pick up another several hundred riders. But, the REAL scenario when I ride BART from Macaethur to Rockridge in the afternoon, 24 is jammed with single drivers as far as I can see.

  • Winston

    The Sac Bee story has a really nice graphic showing how location affects how much people drive. People in the central city drive less than those in the suburbs and those in suburban downtowns drive less than those in other suburban areas.

  • Freeway Revolt

    Someone in Hayward is thinking creatively how to develop that massive surplus industrial property. If he succeeds, Hayward will be far ahead of San Francisco, or any other Bay Area community, in terms of sustainable neighborhood planning.

    Meanwhile, in SF, we have 3 (not two, as the article mentioned) mega infill projects: Hunters Point/Candlestick, Treasure Island, and Park Merced (which is seeking to double its density). While the Treasure Island project has somewhat admirable characteristics (notably a congestion charge to discourage car use during rush hour), the other projects are currently planned with one parking space to every housing unit, unlike Hayward which proposed one to 10. This does not promote car-free households.

    On top of that, thousands of new parking spaces and giant expressways will be built to accommodate the 49ers at Hunters Point. Didn’t San Francisco already have a freeway revolt?