Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Josh Handel

    I second this. The curb cuts on Telegraph there should simply be removed – there’s a curb cut on 24th that can be used as an “Enter Only,” and one on Valley that can be used as “Exit Only.”

  2.  

    Prinzrob

    “As of last week, with the changes now complete, there is only one lane of through-traffic in each direction.”

    Thanks for the continued coverage of the Telegraph Ave project, but please note that the installation work was not completed last week, and is in fact still ongoing throughout this and possibly next week, with more paint going down at this very moment, parking delineators being installed, meters and bus stops being moved, etc.

    I personally have experienced very few issues with the facility, biking through this corridor multiple times every day. In fact, it’s the most relaxed biking I’ve ever experienced on Telegraph. I also see drivers speeding less and yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks significantly more than before.

    I think it is important to wait for the whole thing to actually be completed, and give people some time to adjust, before trying to determine what is and isn’t working. However, there is already a lot that seems to be working as planned already, despite the complaints and confusion.

  3.  

    p_chazz

    I remember when everyone was looking forward to the Breda cars when the Boeing-Vertol cars had reached their end of life. Le plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

  4.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The only dangerous conflict I’ve noted since these got painted is that a lot of people want to turn into the popular Korean grocer, these people have to turn across the bike lane, the parking lot is always full, and the drivers don’t want to spring for the meter price I guess, because there’s usually plenty of empty spaces on the street. I’ve already had a couple of people cut me off and then stop cold with their cars across the bike lane.

  5.  

    MrEricSir

    Not really. Every time he was up for election he promised to build a Geary Street subway. As far as I’m aware, he never actually did anything to move that project forward. In typical sleazy politician fashion, his promises were only made to win votes.

  6.  

    DragonflyBeach

    Wasn’t James Fang in favor of urban BART lines rather than suburban? Seems like a good guy.

  7.  

    RichLL

    Interesting that the 3rd Street K/T “streetcar to nowhere” cannot accommodate longer trains because that was the last line to be built. You’d think they would have built that for growth.

    Then again, it’s the least-used line, so maybe it doesn’t matter.

  8.  

    Mark

    I’m glad he’s enjoying himself at riders’ expense.

  9.  

    Mark

    RE: new MUNI rail cars.

    It’s about time the Breda cars were retired. Broken doors, HVAC issues, etc. However, it doesn’t make sense to skip stations, especially in the Market St. subway. Instead, MUNI should skip surface stations, at least during the commute rush. There’s no reason why the L train has to stop every 2 blocks on Taraval. As for longer trains, this can only happen in the subway and the 4 stations along the Embarcadero. The Third St. line and surface stops cannot handle more than 2-car trains. Forest Hill/WP is maxed at 3-car trains. During rush, MUNI should run the max length in the subway and combine the M/L route. Once the Central Subway opens, combine the K/L during rush, turning back at 22nd/Taraval.

  10.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    “John Haley, the [SF] Municipal Transportation Agency’s transit director. ‘With more [rail]cars, we can start having some fun, trying some new things.’”

    Interesting way of putting it.

  11.  

    DragonflyBeach

    “but things change very slowly, whether it has a BART brand or not.”
    You’re really obsessed over this separate rolling stock thing, which is fine and we agree so I don’t get why you keep mentioning it, and its not addressing the point I was making about funding and planning.

    ” I don’t think that politicians want BART this bad not to want funding for other transportation projects, especially if they represent areas that aren’t and will not be served by BART”

    What are you talking about? What transit project under SFMTA would take higher precedent over a subway line that covers half of the city? Your argument might’ve made more sense if it were a suburban line (like when SamTrans lost money over the BART-SFO line), but in SF, the popularity and desire for more core BART routes are well-known. BART already serves the Mission, and the new routing would serve Richmond and Sunset. By your logic anyone who’d be against the project are people from the Lower Mission/Bayview area, which wouldn’t make sense because they already got their project (T-Third Street) which was supposed to be a BART corridor to begin with.

    And again, even a reduction in operating costs not even capital projects is likely to occur with the BART line. 38 Geary would see a serve decrease in ridership, along with N, L and M lines. Muni compensates BART for the alleviation on the Mission line, already.

    And you can be hypothetical all you want to, but we know that BART’s highest polling for the new 2016 bond measure is from San Francisco and Oakland.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38312ac07af497f99f3d2eeeb5aa0f2ecb06e34e5370db8187e41f180bca1e60.jpg
    Keep in mind, BART hardly serves the city’s populace, yet they’re willing to pay more for BART to modernize. Again, better branding and known popularity. Thats why your HSR comparison earlier was so confusing, they’re not alike politically at all.

    ” The federal government will only fund it (partial funding) if it is planned in phases”
    I’ve said this project would be in phases many times. There’s not going to be some 10 billion dollar BART measure to build everything at once.

    “That mile or two will have to be considered as a separate project, studied, environmentally cleared, and get into funding queue”
    Don’t know why you’re telling this me. I know how phase projects work. I’m spoke about why the Chinatown subway took precedent over a Geary subway, and its numerous flaws. When I said “initial plan”, I didn’t say “phase one”. Chinatown subway is just the 2nd phase in the overall T-Third Street project.

    “This current BART board understands that BART the transit agency and BART technology are separate”
    Right, which is why they’re building with VTA a BART San Jose line with catenary and standard gauge. Right, no, they’re not. While eBART is the right direction, BART is still obsessed with bad technology suburban expansion.

    But in the core? Why? You make the current BART core system incompatible with new urban expansions. You’re also going to force BART to buy new rolling stock for separate urban lines needlessly. It’ll be like New York where particular subway cars can’t run in certain stations.

    “Oakland to SF and beyond on tracks used by Caltrain”
    So you want to make the 72′ system incompatible with new core routes that currently cover the most dense places in the system, just so that Caltrain can run along the same rail in the 2nd crossing? Rather than just building a separate bore? That’s short sighted.

    As I’ve said before since its the subject you’re most obsessed with, I’m not against standard gauge BART. It cuts down on expenses. I’m also in favor of BART absorbing the JPB and administering Caltrain. But within the core, where the lines wouldn’t be as long as suburban routes and primary expenses come from station construct first, subway construction second, a standard gauge BART in the core does really nothing but separate the systems. At least without a system-wide conversion.

  12.  

    murphstahoe

    really? flashing LED lights bother you more than drunk driving and texting and driving?

  13.  

    Anna Marrie

    B.S! Almost all bicyclists also either drive cars or have driven cars. The two safety issues that piss me off are on the bike end. : 1) stop blinding everyone with your stupid flashing LED lights. YES! I can now see you but nothing else. hate that. 2) Mommies and Daddies who cant give up anything in life, including a bicycle built for two (s.heads) or other ill- designed contraptions with BABIES in the carriage whilst blissfully getting a work out, spending “quality” time with the kids,and motoring home (sans motor) from GOOOOOGLE or whereever they store their heads before shoving them up their arses. It’s DANGEROUS. You know it., I know it., and your dead kids will know it when you get blind sided in this overcrowded HILL-RIDDEN death trap of a pedestrian/biking city.

    yikes. okay. I’m done. …. but seriously, it’s dangerous.(and irritating apparently).

  14.  

    Cyc-lok Ltd.

    We have a new paid solution for multiuser bike storage and can create a community for cyclists. http://www.cyc-lok.ie, call me for more details +353 599130427

  15.  

    Dan

    a guy with a spinning bldae is a guy with a spinning blade…

  16.  

    Dan

    Because he likes the bike. We shouldn’t need a shitty beater bikes.

  17.  

    Andy Chow

    I just I can take you seriously. It seems like you’re either in college or just fresh out of college. I was young before and had big ideas (and still do), but things change very slowly, whether it has a BART brand or not.

    I can assure you that some big BART bond to only pay for a Geary and 19th subway along with 2nd tube co-currently isn’t going to happen. I don’t think that politicians want BART this bad not to want funding for other transportation projects, especially if they represent areas that aren’t and will not be served by BART. Secondly, the federal government will not allow it. The federal government will only fund it (partial funding) if it is planned in phases. The federal government doesn’t want to be in a position of having to bail out when things go wrong, or be sued when having to bail out means cutting transit service.

    The reason that the Central Subway is the way it is because of all the reasons I’ve explained. Politicians need to scale the project small enough so that funding is available for other needs. The federal government want it phased in so to reduce the funding need and keep the risk manageable. Once the plan is approved, you can’t just suddenly add a mile or two just because it seems like a good idea. That mile or two will have to be considered as a separate project, studied, environmentally cleared, and get into funding queue.

    This current BART board understands that BART the transit agency and BART technology are separate, and that BART the agency can and will run trains outside the wide gauge design. That said, there’s no reason that BART could not fund or even operate standard gauge trains from Oakland to SF and beyond on tracks used by Caltrain. In other cities, the main transit agency there operate different train systems that are incompatible (SEPTA, LACMTA, Denver RTD, MBTA, etc). What it matters is not whether there’s a single hardware rail system, but that separate hardware systems work as a single network with single branding and easy transfers. Subway trains in New York City is actually consists of two incompatible networks (one network uses numbers and the other use letters), but everybody knows New York Subway as a single system.

  18.  

    Roger Rudick

    Thanks for catching this Sojourner. I just double checked with Nick. My bad. It’s $15 million, not $50. And that kind of makes sense. He’s talking about the deepest, most complicated subway stations, like the ones under Market.

  19.  

    1MegaBeast2

    I would vote no. BART is at capacity everyday revenues are as high as ever. The only reason for loses are incompetence. Even though it is public transportation they should be profitable. You don’t reward greed and stupidity. Try au tomating to save money and get rid of the pension moochers.

  20.  

    sojourner_7

    (Getting up from floor after fainting) “$50 million per elevator to get bigger ones.” What the F? Unbelievable… 50 MILLION per elevator… and if this is true, several of us need to get into the elevator business. If not a typo/misquote, this is unimaginable. HAS to be wrong. Or BART is blowing huge smoke up our A$$es. I work in the trades, and there are entire buildings than cost $50 mil, with several elevators included.

  21.  

    RichLL

    Most BART stations do not “connect with anything” and yet are very busy and popular.

    US cities typically don’t do integrated networked transit systems like they have in Europe because the voters prefer piecemeal solutions and moderate government.

  22.  

    RichLL

    Democracy means delegating decisions to a majority, even if that majority happens to disagree with your own personal idiosyncracies, preferences and biases.

    If Livermore wants a suburban station then why would you expect them to listen to someone in SF who thinks they know better?

    The people who will pay the fares are entitled to decide.

  23.  

    crazyvag

    Livermore extension was a good project when it was connecting with ACE in downtown Pleasanton (or was it Downtown Livermore). The new extension doesn’t connect with anything.

  24.  

    crazyvag

    Actually, if you ignore the turns at Embarcadero which are all due to Muni employees, the moving block works efficiently. I’ve seen cars follow each other at slow speeds closely. When two cars are stopped, as soon as first car moves about 10 feet, the following car starts accelerating.

    IMO, the biggest issues are switches on embarcadero. In some moronic setup, the train has to leave the station in order to request a green signal. Then it sits there with doors closed sometimes as long as a minute for a green cycle while passengers desperately bang on the doors. Better drivers will enable to doors to be opened by outside button, but that’s a rare exception.

    This happens on both N & T outbound platforms on 4th & King and on Embarcadero Folsom.

  25.  

    Mark

    SPUR likes to talk about ambitious improvements (which is great), but I really don’t see them doing any actual combat with transit agencies and elected officials to get things moving. Heck, I could have told you 16 years ago when I moved here from the east coast that we needed a second (or third) tube and Geary was in desperate need of a subway, for starters. SPUR, correct me if I’m wrong.

  26.  

    Mark

    BART should worry more about increasing frequency during non-peak hours and weekends to generate ridership outside of the core commuting period rather than 24/7 operations.

  27.  

    Mark

    Double berthing is a joke. All that money testing something to be used at 3 inbound stations in the morning. Today, my train was second in line at all 3 stations…and we had to wait longer because of the train in front. But, I’m glad it’s creating jobs. For example, the overpaid MUNI employee standing on the platform holding a sign telling people where to board. Well, in theory that’s what he should have been doing. Instead, he was checking his phone.

    If we actually had a real grade-separated rail system there would be no need for double berthing and tunnel traffic would be greatly reduced running 3- or 4-car train sets. Instead, we’re basically running streetcars.

  28.  

    Mark

    Yes, in spite of BART pushing for a downtown station, locals feared for the worst and instead favored a sprawl-inducing station miles from downtown. Before long you’ll hear them whining about traffic back ups worse than what they have now and a downtown that no one wants to visit. You reap what you sow.

    Best of the best…a mother stating that her teenage daughter was having nightmares about a train station being built downtown which would bring in all kinds of unsavory elements.

  29.  

    Mark

    I have told my local elected officials to push for better transit. Do you really think that I want to spend an hour on two packed MUNI buses instead of driving 15 minutes? You can.

  30.  

    Mark Gunther

    Why are you commuting on a bike like that? Buy a beat up commuter bike and stop worrying.

  31.  

    Charles Siegel

    Good point. I didn’t notice that.
    I think the graphic wanted us to compare the lengths of the lines, rather than the number of train cars shown on the lines, but they should have avoided confusion by creating a graphic that works both ways.

  32.  

    roymeo

    I think they mean that the top graphic shows a train 50% longer.

  33.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    Directors Saltzman and Raburn are on our side, so there’s some hope.

  34.  

    Rogue Cyclist

    I’m with you on #1 and #3. It would be awesome to do short hops within Oakland. The Livermore extension is the latest wasteful project.

    24/7 service isn’t going to happen without alot more investment.
    http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight

  35.  

    murphstahoe

    Nailed it. Very Trumpian – it’s not an actual threat but someone who wants to kill or alter the project for other reasons will fire up groups of people who are easily duped into believing there is a real threat. In the 60’s it was trivial to pull that off, but clearly it’s still simple to do – people complain about welfare queens getting $20 in food stamps and spending it on Cheetos, but ignore the rampant graft of billions.

  36.  

    njudah

    It was used to great effect in the 1960s to get San Mateo County to pull out of BART courtesy of Bohannon Development (who built the Hillsdale mall and was fearful of people not shopping at his mall but instead in SF). It is stupid as f, but it is a very powerful tool to use and a key part of certain political groups’ power today. When you hear a suburban politician talk about “fiscal responsiblity” he’s really saying “don’t spend money on THOSE people…”

  37.  

    jonobate

    There were definitely statements about “thugs” made by people opposing the downtown extension, specifically by former BART board member now full time busybody Robert Allen, who went door to door collecting signatures against the project. I’m also not surprised to hear that some well connected person had a financial interest in an Isabel/I-580 location as well.

  38.  

    Charles Siegel

    From 24 to 30 trains per hour looks like 25% to me. 24 * .25 = 6

  39.  

    david vartanoff

    If BART wants my vote, several commitments must be made. 1. Honor local transit passes from AC and other agencies on the same basis as Muni. 21. commit to 24/7 service within 5 years. 3. agree not to build further extensions into low density suburbs.

    As to the promised improvements, CTA was able to schedule trains in their State St subway every 105 seconds (basically 30 TPH) with mechanical relay based block signals in the 1950s.

  40.  

    murphstahoe

    100%. This whole canard about “this subway will allow black people to come here and steal our precious bodily fluids” would be goofy 3 decades ago, let alone today. “thugs” have cars anyway.

  41.  

    RichLL

    I don’t know if your thug theory is correct but I did hear that as a reason why Marin didn’t want to come in on the original BART.

    But if BART ran focus groups in the Livermore area asking local residents whether they’d prefer a car-friendly station or a downtown station, then it would not surprise me if a majority favored the former.

    The reality is that there is little in the way of public transit that far out, and there are limits on parking downtown. People are very spread out there, so the number of people who could walk to a downtown station might not be high.

    So you may be correct that it “goes against every regional policy on sustainable growth and transit oriented development”. But in order to get local support and funding for this extension, you really can’t afford to ignore your customers either.

  42.  

    jonobate

    I hadn’t heard that explanation before, but it’s totally plausible.

  43.  

    zippy_monster

    Let’s not forget how well the moving block (CBTC) system works for Muni…

  44.  

    MrEricSir

    Why will the project succeed this time?

    Only time will tell if it succeeds, but it’s far more likely now that James “Broken Promises” Fang is no longer on the BART board.

  45.  

    sojourner_7

    Don’t look too closely, as nothing actually makes sense, except the hope, “give us money”

  46.  

    sojourner_7

    The new cars are already paid for. And 3.5 Billion should buy miles more than a new computer system. That might be 3.5 million? They dream of 1000x that amount. Big Balls for such a screwed up agency. Guess they can ask, but. Just Say No.

  47.  

    murphstahoe

    That was because the guy who owns a bunch of land near the proposed station in the 580 median lobbied to get it put near his land so he can develop it as cookie cutter burbs.

  48.  

    Affen_Theater

    Thief, not robber. Theft, not robbery.

  49.  

    crazyvag

    Also, below the first graphic, there’s a mention of “Enhanced Traction Power”. Does that just mean throwing in an additional substation (one that hopefully doesn’t have those mysterious spikes)? Or does it actually require the better acceleration/braking of the new fleet?

  50.  

    jonobate

    Yeah, that was because NIMBYs in Livermore didn’t want “thugs” from Oakland having access to their downtown. So instead we get a freeway median station that goes against every regional policy on sustainable growth and transit oriented development.

    I really hope this project never gets funded. It’s not worth spending billions just to save Livermore residents 6 minutes of drive time when going to BART. If you need to, build more parking garages at Dublin/Pleasanton BART instead. It’s still bad, auto-centric policy, but it saves several billion dollars that could be used on better projects.