Today’s Headlines

  • Unbelievable: Connecticut Driver Who Killed Young Bicyclist Sues the Victim’s Family (AP)
  • SF Examiner Frames Plans to Increase Transit and Bike Lanes as “Battle to Be King of the Road”
  • Berkeley to Install Speed Tables; The Chronicle Calls It “New Way to Torment Motorists”
  • SFMTA Racing to Find Funding for Central Subway to Meet FTA Deadline (SF Gate)
  • SF Supes to Consider Contract to Repair Damaged Muni Light-Rail Vehicles (SF Examiner)
  • Cable Car Operator Gravely Injured in Stabbing Near Chinatown (ABC7)
  • Mr. Roadshow Needs to Go for a Bike Ride or Two (Mercury News)
  • SF Gets $2.7 Million Grant to Convert Parking Lot into Park at 17th & Folsom (Curbed SF)
  • Under Pressure from Developers Who Paid Fees, San Jose to Consider Lifting Ban on New Parks (Merc)
  • Growing Movement to Connect Health and City Planning in California (Sac Bee)
  • Central Valley School Tells Young Teen He Can’t Fly U.S. Flag on His Bicycle (Fox 40 via
  • Museum Features O’Shaughnessy’s Map of SF’s Street Railways (Market St. Railway)
  • Santa Rosa Avenue Road Diet Would Remove One Lane Instead of Two (Press Democrat)
  • The Voice of NYC’s Subways Lives in Maine and Has Never Taken the Subway (NYT)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Wow, a lot going on in the news today.

    @Speed Tables: All I have to say is “20 is plenty”. (I’d argue 15 mph is MORE then enough for residential streets.

    @CS: Plan on seeing more Muni cuts and fare hikes in the near future. I was thinking the squeeze would happen after it was completed, but looks like we’ll get a taste of the future sooner then anyone had suspected. And if it doesn’t come via cuts and fare hikes, it’ll come in the form of delayed maintenance which is pretty much de facto service cuts.

  • The Chron says: “This isn’t the end of traffic-slowing measures, however. The next step is lowering speed limits, officials said.”

    I believe that would require a change in state law. I hope I am wrong about that, because I also would like to see us imitate Hoboken’s Twenty Is Plenty.

  • pat


    I used to be opposed to the Central Subway, but this has changed in the last few weeks. It’s now becoming clear that Mission Bay really will be a major job center (Salesforce is moving a large HQ there and last week the SF business times mentioned that the VA hospital currently at Land’s End might move to Pier 70). If this is in fact true, it would be a huge shame to not hook up the area directly to BART in an efficient manner.

    Of course, it would be great if this happened with quick transfers at Powell station and didn’t starve the rest of muni…

  • Give LRVs signal prioritization on Embarcadero and 3rd, fix 4th/King (i.e. give transit priority), and enforce existing bus lanes on 3rd/4th.

    “Of course, it would be great if this happened with quick transfers at Powell station and didn’t starve the rest of muni…”

    Sadly, neither of those will happen. It will be a long horrible connection from Union to Powell stations and the cost of operation is going so slash system-wide service.

  • Mick-V2


    Yes, part of the reasoning behind projects like CS is to direct new development towards designated growth corridors.

    And between the light rail extension and the CS, that entire formerly neglected area in the south-east of the city is coming alive. Hooking in CalTrain and maybe even BART to that would continue that growth theme.

    I can recall around 15 years ago, there were no high-rises south of Mission Street. Now there is an entire new city being created, and the center of gravity of downtown seems to be moving south at like a couple of blocks every year.

    Moreover, these are well-paid high tech jobs and the kind of professionals who do those jobs aren’t going to sit on a filthy bus full of homeless people. These are sophisticated people, often from other cities and countries with high class, clean, safe commuter rail systems, and they expect the same here.

    I say: CS – bring it on.

  • Nick

    Re: 100 Miles of new Bicycle Lanes

    I really wish they would complete the current package of bike lanes. Did they intentionally choose 1st year projects that didn’t require major changes to parking or traffic? Or was the whole uproar over lost parking spaces just for standard whining?

  • @Nick – parking was removed for the Townsend Street lanes.

  • Jeffrey W. Baker

    Signal priority would be such a huge win for LRV at 4th. It’s been a disaster ever since the T-Third was inaugurated and those liars that manage Muni have always claimed that the LRV *does* have priority but anybody who stands there for a moment will see that it does not. From 3rd & King to 3rd & Channel the LRV moves at slower than walking pace.

  • Alex

    @Mick So how on earth will shit service encourage development at Mission Bay??

    One car ‘trains’ every ten minutes at most… a ninety degree ‘bend’… no ability to increase capacity. Yeah. That’s a HUGE win over the existing service. Thankfully they’ll pare back the 30/8/9/whatever else might run supplementary service.

  • The Mission Bay association actually already started their own free shuttle service to Powell BART because Muni is so slow. You can pick it up by the Westfield Mall:

  • Question re Central Subway.

    I’ve been reading up for a post I’m working on, and I’m surprised there is no mention in the Chronicle central subway article, or on the Transbay Terminal Project page about potential service duplication/redundancy.

    From what I can tell, Caltrains and HSR will continue underground from 4th and King to the Transbay Center–roughly under Townshend and then up 2nd.

    MTA also seems poised to extend Caltrains north along 4th street, and then subway style up to Chinatown.

    Am I missing something? These seem like cannibalizing/redundant propositions. Would love a counterargument.

    Here’s the post, which has links to the Transbay Terminal site, and compares the relevant maps:

    If someone can set me straight, or offer more resources to check, I’d greatly appreciate it.

  • “MTA also seems poised to extend Caltrains north along 4th street, and then subway style up to Chinatown.”

    MTA is extending Muni Metro north along 4th street, though I’m sure that is what you meant.

    The duplicate service comes in when you look at bus service on Stockton and the CS. I’ve heard (from CS’s facebook page) that bus service will not be decreased, but I’ve also heard (from John Funghi) that service (30/45/8x) will be decreased. If they don’t decrease bus service, where are the cost savings? If they do decrease bus service, what about Marina/Russian Hill/Cow Hollow/NORTH BEACH?!

    Also, your question brings up another good point. Why are we spending $1.6+ B to connect to a station (4th/King) that won’t even be the main SF stop anymore?

  • Thanks, mikesonn–you arrived at what is ultimately the more burning question: why build the central subway into downtown/chinatown thru 4th and King when the Transbay Terminal will be the central hub?