Today’s Headlines

  • BART Ridership Only Expected to Grow: We’ll Need More Trains, and Maybe Another Tube (SFExam)
  • Red Transit Lane Painting on Church St. Scheduled This Weekend, But Will Probably Be Rained Out
  • Judge to Rule on CA HSR Lawsuits Today, Could Impose Injunction (AP)
  • Planning Commission Approves (SFGate) Or Rejects (SFExam) Cap on Tiny Apartments (Not Sure)
  • It’s the Fourth DUI for Driver Who Struck Cyclist in Mission While Fleeing Police (Merc, SFExam)
  • Bicycling on Sidewalks = Bad. If Only There Were Some Type of Infrastructure For That… (Cyclelicious)
  • BART to Riders: Stop Dropping Stuff on the Escalators (SF Weekly)
  • Some Neat BART Photos From the 70’s (Burrito Justice)
  • Increased Driving Alert: Bay Area Gas Prices On the Decline (SF Appeal)
  • KRON’s Stanley Roberts Revisits Muni Bus Transfer Thieves
  • High-Speed Rail Could Mean Jobs for the Unemployed (Fresno Bee)
  • Two SF Men Find Suspected Stolen Bike on Craigslist, Confront Seller – Live on the Internet (SFist)
  • Sacramento Lowers Car Parking Minimums to Attract Businesses (SacBee)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Joel

    The links to the SFGate and SFExam articles are reversed for the third story.

  • Yep, fixed, thanks.

  • Concerning the multiple DUI driver:  the first DUI her car should have been impounded for six months and her license suspended for the same period of time.  The second DUI whatever car she was driving should have been impounded permanently and her license suspended for a year. The third DUI whatever car she was driving should have been impounded permanently and she should have spent three months in jail and then a year in an alcohol recovery treatment program. Fourth DUI it doesn’t look like there is much car left to impound but she should easily do at least a year in prison.

    Why is that when someone drives like a homicidal maniac through San Francisco they are most often from out of town? (If you’re going to drive drunk, can’t you do it on your own roads, endangering your own family, friends, neighbors, destroying the public property of your own town, incurring clean up costs and requiring expensive police time out of your own tax money instead of mine?)

  • Iskandr

    First DUI carp seized/driver given transit pass AND one year “if caught behind wheel immediate incarceration ” for balance of term.    Second DUI FIVE years no driving and  subject to random alcohol screening as we do to parolees/drugs.  

  • Anonymous

    The BART presentation is worth a look:

    Notably, in the first phase the SFO – Millbrae shuttle is to be reinstated, and the Red and Green lines will run evenings and weekends.

  • Davistrain

    Even with all the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other safety groups, getting repeat DUI offenders off the road seems to be an uphill battle.  My suspicion is that there are significant percentages of “boozehounds” in our Legislature and in our law enforcement and judicial systems, and they can relate to drunk drivers more than they can to bicyclists, who they probably dismiss as fitness freaks and vegan health-food nuts.

  •  I am very glad BART is expanding its service in response to increased demand.  Their Phase 1 and Phase 2 recommendations make a lot of sense, though I strenuously wish they were considering an infill station at Mission and 30th.  Their longer term projections, however, are based on assumptions of strong economic growth that propels both job and population growth in the Bay Area which in turn induces greater BART demand. The limits in this future mostly involve lack of room for more highways, not lack of wealth or resources. In this future congestion drives BART demand and the benefits of digging a second tunnel under the Bay would surely be worth the costs.

    Not to say this future isn’t possible. But they at least should give passing thought to also planning for a different future, one constrained in by a triumvirate of crises– financial, energetic and climate. In this future, we would need to move massive numbers of people in as energy efficient and low carbon a manner as possible, and this largely means electrified rail of some sort. Car use would drop precipitously, so space currently given to cars–especially key, expensive space, like that on bridges–could be reallocated to public transit. As Chris Carlson mentioned in his interview (linked yesterday) on how to get a bike lane on the west half of the Bay Bridge, the cheapest form of infrastructure is re-purposing what already exists. The lower deck of the Bay Bridge could once again carry rail, perhaps freight and BART. Two lanes of the San Mateo bridge could also carry BART trains across the Bay. Looking at the service map in the BART presentation, it’s obvious BART should be expanded to ring the bay. Perhaps on the Peninsula BART could provide “local” service and Caltrain could be the “express” service, with two or three stops similar to Millbrae between San Francisco and San Jose where people could make easy connections between the two systems. Tunnels, being very expensive, should mostly be used in high density areas (like urban San Francisco), but both Caltrain and BART do need entirely dedicated right of ways that do not intermix with local traffic. Given car use will decrease, it would not be all that expensive to utilize a freeway lane or even parts of El Camino so that BART can expand as rapidly and inexpensively as possible should events require it. Using the GG and the San Rafael bridges and some space on Hwy 101, BART could be extended to even Marin relatively inexpensively. The expensive part would be bringing a Marin line to downtown SF.

  • Abe

    Regarding the DUI driver, the Examiner article says she injured “a man who was walking with a bicycle.” If that’s true he was a pedestrian, not a cyclist.

  • I don’t think BART should be the lead agency on a second tube.  It should be a more regional focus such that standard gauge trains could be accommodated perhaps so Caltrain can run through to Oakland and more commuter rail lines could be used.   

  • Bruce Nourish

    I always figured any future tube would be four-bore, with two bores for FRA-compliant passenger trains, and two for BART. If we’re going to spend an exorbitant sum of money to lay a tube, let’s make it worthwhile. 

    I’m not sure why you’d want to extend CalTrain to Oakland. Commuter rail (as it is practiced in the US, with ginormous loco-hauled trainsets) is not a particularly good mode to serve the demand from the East Bay. It’s not a good way to serve the South Bay either; much of the CalTrain corridor (say, north of Mountain View) would be much better off with smaller, much more frequent trains and electric traction — perhaps something like the San Diego trolley, but with four car trains. 

    Commuter demand from the East Bay would be much better served by more BART service, for which the existing Tube is the bottleneck. BART already has plans or proposals for connecting DMU service as far east as Tracy via (either or both) Bay Point and Dublin. I can’t imagine how much more commuter service you could want, or how dupicating BART with commuter rail service improves anything. 

    My idea for the passenger train tube would be for connecting intercity services: Sacramento-SF and giving LA-SF HSR trains a direct connection to Oakland.