Today’s Headlines

  • After Woman’s Death (Appeal), Supe Campos Calls Hearing on Parks Vehicle Use Policies (SFGate)
  • More on the Van Ness BRT Approval (SF ExamSFGate, CBS, KTVUSFBG); SF Examiner Backs it
  • Central Subway’s “Connectivity” Funds Predicated Upon HSR That May Never Come (SF Weekly)
  • BART Labor Negotiating Meeting Called Off Due to Apparent Scheduling Conflict (CBS)
  • BART Creates Video Showing Bike-Toting Commuters How to Be Courteous (SF Weekly)
  • Stanley Roberts Shows BART Ticket Scammers in Action at Powell Station
  • BART Eyes Alameda for Future Station Location (Alamedan)
  • SFPD Can Now File Collision Reports With a Phone App (SF Appeal); Muni+ App Not So Good (Diaries)
  • Western Cesar Chavez Street Construction to Put a Temporary Squeeze on Traffic (Mission Local)
  • SFSU Students Designing Spots for Park(ing) Day (Xpress); Xpress Paper Calls for Transpo Subsidies
  • The Greater Marin: Bay Area Bike Share Should Allow Intercity Docking
  • Does CA’s 3-Foot Bike Passing Bill Need Teeth, or is Its Importance Symbolic? (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    Is it really true that intercity bike share is not allowed or was this just a case of user error (docking the bikes is much harder than it has to be)? I have asked both the bike share people and VTA and they specifically said that intercity is allowed, though you are subject to overage fees past 30 minutes.

  • Anonymous

    BART should be showing that video on the platform

  • A lot of nuance from the piece was lost in the snippet. It SEEMS like BABS doesn’t allow intercity docking, but since it’s based only on one test, it’s still not CONFIRMED that it doesn’t. I argue that it should, and the reasons why that’s a good idea.

    If it already does (and we don’t know if it does or not) then the point is moot.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve heard reports of people interchanging bikes between Palo Alto and Mountain View, so I don’t think it’s a design decision to segregate the bikes by city.

  • Anonymous

    Just noticed that BABS has changed their FAQ. “All San Francisco bicycles must stay within San Francisco. However, members may use non-San Francisco Bay Area Bike Share bicycles to travel to other cities that are part of the Bay Area Bike Share network.” http://bayareabikeshare.com/faq

  • Agreed, the card scammers would have to find a new scam.

  • Agreed, the card scammers would have to find a new scam.

  • Agreed, the card scammers would have to find a new scam.

  • Agreed, the card scammers would have to find a new scam.

  • • SF Weakly doesn’t go for niceties like “how to be courteous” so much as pretending to be edgy by calling bicyclists “space-hogging pricks” (see caption on photo of bicyclist making appropriate and courteous use of space).

    The problem with their narrative is that it doesn’t reflect much in the way of reality. There is a limited area where bicycles are allowed. That area is near the door, and those seats fill up while there are plenty of other seats available. Is it unreasonable to ask those people to move?

    The area is also favored by people who stand oblivious, eyes and ears glued to their phone. Is it unreasonable to ask them to stand someplace other than the clearly-marked Bicycle Priority Area?

    The space in question is 1) top-priority for the handicapped, then 2) the only space for bicycles. Most people know #1 but are oblivious to #2, which should be no surprise: For the last few decades I’ve heard BART announcements be very clear about #1, but instead of #2 it’s the usual admonishments against bicyclists.