Today’s Headlines

  • Bulb-Outs, Push-Activated Ped Signal Being Installed on Sloat Blvd. Where Girl Was Killed (Lowell)
  • Beyond Chron Urges SF Leadership to Follow NYC’s Lead Towards Becoming a Bike-Friendly City
  • SFBC Thanks Polite Wiggle Riders; Stanley Roberts Looks at How Many Drivers Give 3 Feet on Market
  • SPUR Takes a Detailed Look at the Plan for Van Ness BRT
  • Everett Middle Schooler: The Mission’s Problems Are White People and Muni (Uptown Almanac)
  • Embarcadero BART to Be Disrupted During Deep Cleaning (SFGate)
  • Former CA Senator: BART’s Governance is “Broken” (KTVU); Is BART’s Wage Offer a Raise at All? (EBX)
  • East Bay Express: Watered-Down CEQA Bill Will Go Some Way Toward Curbing Frivilous Lawsuits
  • The Dubious “Safety”-Focused Marketing of SUVs That Can Easily Kill Children (Cyclelicious)
  • Center for Investigative Reporting: Earmarked Traffic Fine Revenues Go Up Without Gains in Safety
  • Palo Alto Unveils Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program (PA Online)
  • Novato to Hold Workshop on SMART-Oriented Development on North Redwood Corridor (Marin IJ)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    “We need a single train agency in northern California that would run ACE, Caltrain and BART,” said Perata.

    Perata makes a nice populist statement from some googling he cobbled together, but forgot the Capitol Corridor if you *only* are talking trains. The Cap Corridor shares tracks with Caltrain and ACE, and connects to BART.

    Of course, singling out the the three “train” agencies is also pretty lame – as if there is something magical about agencies that solely run vehicles on 2 rails. If we are going to merge agencies, there is no reason that should be mode dependent.

  • Jim

    With that beacon signal being install on Sloat, will the pedestrian still be at fault if they choose not to press the button to activate the ped signal?

  • Anonymous

    Part of the High Speed Rail plan is to unify ACE, Capital Corridor and the San Joaquins as a Northern California unified rail service. These services would fit well together, as they are all lower frequency routes for travel between the Bay Area and other regions, rather than high frequency routes for travel within the Bay Area.

    The Caltrain mainline (SF to Tamien) should merge with BART in order to provide frequent, coordinated electric rail service circling the bay, with one fare system. This would help improve Caltrain to rapid transit standards, and improve coordination where the two services interact (Millbrae/SFO, and in the future Transbay/Embarcadero and Santa Clara).

    Caltrain’s Gilroy to SJ service should be run as an extension to ACE or Capital Corridor, for similar reasons.

  • Anonymous

    But why ignore VTA light rail? Or whatever buses?

    The best reason to slough off Gilroy service onto the Capitols or ACE is to shed the money losing segment and shore up Caltrain’s budget 🙂

  • Anonymous

    Politics. If you add VTA to this agency, you’d also need to add Muni, because SF wouldn’t accept a regional transportation system run from San Jose. And then you’d need to add all the other county transportation services in the region covered by BART/Caltrain (i.e. AC Transit, SamTrans, County Connection, Tri-Delta, Union City, Wheels) some of which are very suburban and wouldn’t appreciate SF’s need for transit investments and high frequency service, or SF’s desire to implement congestion pricing, for example.

    I think the Bay Area is too multipolar and diverse in character (urban/suburban/exurban) to support a single agency for regional and local services along the lines of New York’s MTA or London’s TfL. Keep the regional agency to regional services only, and you mostly avoid these issues. You might want to have the regional agency run regional express buses to cover gaps in the BART/Caltrain network – seems to me this is one function the county based transit agencies don’t handle very well right now.

  • Glad to see Palo Alto is considering a residential parking permit program. My son has a friend who lives in Hayes Valley and works steps away from the Caltrain station in Palo Alto. He’s a twenty-something young healthy male who drives every day to work and parks on Palo Alto neighborhood streets because he perceives biking in San Francisco to be too dangerous. Every day he spends ten minutes hunting for parking in Palo Alto and then walks ten minutes or so to work. This results each day in a commute that takes longer and is more expensive than biking + Baby Bullet or even Muni (the 47) to Caltrain + Baby Bullet.

    If Palo Alto really wants to reduce the number of cars coming to their downtown, they could take several steps.
    1) They could beg (or even require) any business within a mile of the PA Caltrain station with more than 80 employees to participate in the Go Pass program on Caltrain. It is such an amazing deal–the cost to businesses for a one-year pass is less than the cost of one regular monthly pass that an individual can buy.
    2) They could beg Caltrain to add two more Baby Bullets in the evening, one that leaves PA at 7:06, and another that leaves at 8:06. Many of the techie twenty-somethings go to work late and come home late. I see Google buses roaring down my street as late as 9:30. By not offering late express trains, they are encouraging anyone who works late to drive. (It would also help if Warm Planet stayed open until 10pm so that people coming home late could still get their bikes and not have to bring them with them on the train. It would also help if there were a safe place to store one’s bike at the 22nd street station.)

    3) They could beg San Francisco to make extremely friendly bikeways to Caltrain that even newbie bicyclists would be happy to bike on–specifically down Townsend,7th, 8th, Harrison (to Division), Division, and 4th (to and from Mission Bay.) Unprotected bike lanes that trucks and cars constantly cross and doublepark on (and sometimes drive down!) are not conducive to encouraging most people to try bicycling.
    4) They could close University Avenue to cars between High and Middlefield. I am not kidding. It would transform Palo Alto for the better in ways most Americans can’t even imagine.

  • Anonymous

    Which means that VTA light rail and buses will always be scheduled randomly compared to Caltrain, and the Caltrain riders will stand under the janky underpass of 280 waiting arbitrarily for the 48, and people will be awkwardly sprinting across 4th and King to get a T/N

  • Anonymous

    “that dead pedestrian did not push the button!”

  • Anonymous

    None of those things are inevitable, under any organizational system. Muni and VTA both know how to read a Caltrain timetable.

  • TN

    Re: Center for Investigative Reporting’s breakdown of traffic fine revenues.

    A lot of people have wondered why local police departments aren’t more active in writing traffic tickets. You’ll note that of the $549 ticket that is used as an example, only $100 is the base fine. That $100 is portioned out with some of it going back to the local governments and their police departments. They get none of the rest.

    While I’m sure that every police chief will say that they strive to enforce all traffic laws regardless of the money, I’m sure that if the local governments got more revenue from tickets, that there would be a greater emphasis placed on traffic law enforcement.

  • Anonymous

    Understood, but there is no reward for doing so, nor downside to ignoring it. Sigh.

    Even simple things like the Caltrain Clipper card readers being as far away as possible from the BART gates at Millbrae. So much fail

  • Anonymous

    5) A bike share station in Hayes Valley

  • Anonymous

    “4) They could close University Avenue to cars between High and
    Middlefield. I am not kidding. It would transform Palo Alto for the
    better in ways most Americans can’t even imagine.”

    Absolutely. University has all the makings of an outstanding car-free area. I have no idea why the city hasn’t jumped on this opportunity and has instead let it become a traffic sewer. If nothing else, they could get rid of the angled parking on one side and create enough space for protected bicycle lanes down both sides. Now that would be amazing.

  • Treva

    Jim, if a pedestrian walks out into the street and gets hit by a car, then he would probably be held more at blame, other things being equal, if there was a ped button/light and he didn’t use it than if there was no button/light at all.

    It would basically be jaywalking.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

|
DA Staff to Don Ped Safety Bumper Stickers; SoMa Advocates to Rally for Ped Safety Today (SF Examiner) More on Scott Wiener’s Proposals to Resist SFFD’s Insistence on Wider Streets (SFGate, SF Examiner) Taxi Drivers Use Hearing on Late-Night Transit Options to Rip on Ride-Share (SF Weekly) Mid-Market Businesses and Bicyclists Develop Ideas for Improving Bike Infrastructure […]

New BART Cars on the Way

|
As regular riders are aware, BART trains are quite old. Some have been running for more than 40 years, and date back to when the BART system first started operations in 1973. And although additional cars were purchased in the 1980s and 90s, the average age of a BART train is 30 years. Of course, […]

BART Bond Will Be on November Ballot

|
It’s been one of the most talked about bond measures ever. And now it’s official. Thursday morning, the BART board voted nine to zero to place the “BART Safety, Reliability, and Traffic Relief Program” bond on the November 8 ballot. Voters will be asked to authorize $3.5 billion in general obligation bonds. From the BART […]

Today’s Headlines

|
BART’s original logo, care of the ever resourceful research of Eric Fischer. More than 75 Percent of BART Riders Opposed to Fare Rollback Plan (Examiner, SF Appeal) Hundreds of AC Transit Operators Call in Sick as Part of Protest (CoCo Times, ABC, CBS) John King’s Musings on the Street-Level Urban Transformation in San Francisco (SF […]