Skip to content

Recent Comments



    To be fair the BART tunnel between Glen Park and 24th Mission isn’t flat (it climbs) making building a 30th street station much more expensive and difficult since you’d have to build a new section of tunnel and then a station. Of course BART could do it if there was the political will to do it which is short in both SF and BART.



    The Alum Rock station was planned next to a highway? Thats idiotic, it eliminates half your walk shed


    Jake Wegmann

    Let’s end federal subsidies for freeway construction. Then we can talk.



    I don’t think federal funds should be used for local projects. If that means lower taxes, so be it. Or more income redistribution. Why can’t the station be funded with development revenue?

    Federal money for projects comes with strings attached that may not be optimal for the situation. For example, CAHSR is hampered by onerous federal regulations (FRA regs, Buy American, etc) that would not be present for a private or state-funded system. VTA does not have a good track record considering how terribly awful light rail is.



    So let’s see. San Jose should send funds to the feds, but should not get funds from the feds, those funds should go to non-economically beneficial projects elsewhere?

    Your argument only works in a world where there are no federal funds.



    Well of course the pedestrian was cited. He threw the first punch. Cars are people too.


    Davide Vieira

    Stop by sometime when out riding your bike. The area is anchored by a landmark hundred-year-old Manueline Gothic Catholic church built by Portuguese immigrants with recycled timbers from the Portuguese Pavilion at the Panama-Pacific Exposition of 1915 in that now smaller city up north. The church is one of the most photographed, sketched, and painted buildings in San José. Southwest featured it in an ad. Even the non-religious can appreciate beautiful architecture, can’t they?

    Stop by sometime. Or visit it online at:



    If the stations are so economically beneficial, they shouldn’t need federal funds. San Jose has a median household income of $80,000, even more for surrounding cities. If they are not worth it, they shouldn’t need federal funds. I fail to see why this is so bad. Maybe VTA will be more frugal with its money.


    Upright Biker

    And trying to imagine that a project called “Five Wounds” will be commercially successful defies the non-religious imagination.



    Here is another recent one in which the pedestrian was cited:

    12:33pm 2900 Blk Diamond Malicious Mischief
    A confrontation between a pedestrian and a vehicle owner resulted in an arrest. It started when a pedestrian, walking in the crosswalk toward the Glen Park BART station, said he was cut off by a vehicle making a left turn from Diamond onto Bosworth. As the vehicle passed, the pedestrian punched the left rear fender with his fist. Hearing the fist strike, the vehicle owner stopped his car and got out confronting the pedestrian saying, “you just damaged my car”. The pedestrian responded saying, “so what”, before entering the BART station. The confrontation continued inside the station with several punches being thrown between the combatants. Ingleside Officers Curry, Bernard, Lim, Uang, Baldovino, Hopkins, and Sgt. Walker responded to the call of a fight in the station. After separating and interviewing the combatants, the pedestrian was given a citation for malicious mischief and released. Report number: 140961984



    tiny dick syndrome is a menace



    Cool story bro


    Upright Biker

    What’s scariest is the signage that suggests that it’s somehow _more than OK_ for bikes to ride on the roadway.

    It’s not. Those signs have to go before someone gets killed.



    There is no reason to build a station in Santa Clara. Period.



    Me too. That tunnel is *ridiculous*.


    Upright Biker

    Ooof. I still get shivers from remembering my one horrifying experience riding on the roadway in the Broadway tunnel.

    I chose to spit on their windshield vs. keying when I caught up to them at Powell, as a malicious destruction of property conviction would likely be deleterious to my civic standing.

    I also now ride on the sidewalk through that passage.



    I once nearly got run off the road there by some asshole in a BMW going about 50 MPH. Came within inches of me.

    Then there was the time when I took the lane in the Broadway Tunnel (eastbound/downhill) when a guy going about 60 MPH honked at me from behind and passed me with a 1-inch gap. I chased him down (he had to stop for the red at Powell) and got so angry I nearly keyed his car. Now I ride on the sidewalk.



    While not excusing the violent behavior, I observe that nobody likes to be told what to do, especially when the person doing the telling is not in a position of authority. I have been routinely cursed at, and in one occasion spat upon when I have politely told bicyclists that riding a bike on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk or taking a bike on the BART escalator is not allowed.


    Upright Biker

    Happened to me on 2nd Street recently. Can’t wait for the semi-protected bike lane to go in there.



    I’m sure that the Alum Rock station will be built right after the planned 30th St. Glen Park infill station in SF is done.



    Looking at the newer BART extensions (Colma, Millbrae, Dublin/Plesanton), these are ridiculously over-engineered. Who holds BART accountable for these decisions, if not the County Funding agencies.

    But let’s face it. The Santa Clara VTA has never designed our built a thoughtful transit service. They build political compromises.


    Charles Papanek

    Out of curiousity I tracked down renders for the 2 cut stations and you’re right on the money. (scroll down a bit)

    The blurb for Alum Rock is just hilarious and renders look more like a museum than a BART station. Santa Clara isn’t as bad but still way overcooked.



    The list of reasons San Jose sucks just keeps growing and growing.


    The Overhead Wire

    Even cutting those stations doesn’t make up the difference. Also, I guarantee you they were over-engineered something aweful. More concrete caverns



    The fact that VTA can’t distinguish between Alum Rock (necessary) and Santa Clara (duplicative waste of money) is really concerning


    Ken Neville

    The driver is almost always to be blamed in the situations this article is discussing, having made an intentional decision to enter an intersection that cannot accommodate them.


    Ken Neville

    Spend a few weeks on a bicycle next to these drivers and you’ll be reaching for something a little more substantial than an air horn to arm yourself with.

    Only in the rarest of circumstances does confronting the driver result in a positive outcome, regardless of the tone taken when confronting.


    Dave Moore

    I said I’m amazed he’s amazed.



    So you’re saying, it’s ok if scooters use the bike lanes?

    The bike lane is called a “BIKE LANE”. You might not like it, but it’s a fact.


    SF Guest

    “It’s a mystery as to why the SFMTA and SFPD don’t routinely ticket drivers for blocking intersections, but the SFMTA is at last looking to launch an targeted enforcement campaign next month.”

    This reaffirms my belief the SFMTA is out of touch with the core values it had when it was known as the DPT and wasn’t revenue first. Back in the day DPT regularly had PCO’s direct traffic at busy intersections especially during commute hours and the holidays. With few exceptions that’s almost non-existent now.

    Safety first is a core value and that should include the PCO’s directing traffic at busy intersections the way they did it before.

    It’s all too transparent to have PCO’s merely stand at intersections without directing traffic waiting to issue citations when their primary job is to facilitate traffic at busy intersections.

    I have seen PCO’s direct traffic around accidents at least, but that doesn’t explain why they stopped this practice at busy intersections.

    If Supe. Kim would like to see the “same level of responsiveness around this important issue” then she would support my idea as well. With the passages of Props. A & B there’s no reason why the SFMTA can’t do its job it formerly did.

    [Ed Reiskin -- I hope you are reading this]



    “The roads *were* designed for cars.”

    Yep, nobody disagrees with this. But that doesn’t mean it’s right, especially moving forward. Just because something isn’t the status quo doesn’t mean it is wrong.

    And cyclists are small percentage exactly *because* we designed our roads for cars at their (and pedestrians’ and public transit users’) expense. So it’s absurd to claim that this is a popularity contest when the current paradigm has tremendously biased the system to favor one mode.

    And let’s be clear: this isn’t about who is mad. This is about who is getting killed and injured and the incredible destruction being leveled on the environment of which excessive driving (which is what rush hour traffic in SOMA is) is one the largest contributors. Again, this cannot be a popularity contest (especially one rigged for one outcome) if we are ever going to get ourselves out f the hole we have dug by prioritizing the motor vehicle at the expense of all else.


    Dave Moore

    While I can understand your frustration, I don’t get how “it’s amazing how bicycle lanes get absolutely no respect by anybody; it’s insane how they are considered just the bottom of the bucket, the users of the road who nobody designs for (except as an after-thought)”.

    The roads *were* designed for cars. You might not like it, but it’s a fact. Cyclists *are* a small percentage of road users. Again, you might not like it, but it’s a fact. You’re asking for space to be taken from the majority and given to the minority. You might find justifications:
    - cyclists have N% of trips but only M% of space
    - with more space there will be more cyclists
    - cyclists don’t pollute
    - cyclists take cars off the street

    I could argue with each of these, but it’s beside the point. You are asking people to give something up. You can be mad that they won’t, but amazed?



    It’s not about the number of wheels, but whether you are self-powered or not.

    I gotta say, it’s pretty obnoxious when scooters take the bike lane. They spew their exhaust all over me and often come zipping up and by way too fast. it’s illegal for a reason. And it’s amazing how bicycle lanes get absolutely no respect by anybody; it’s insane how they are considered just the bottom of the bucket, the users of the road who nobody designs for (except as an after-thought, i.e. your traditional bike lane squeezed between parked cars and moving cars) and nobody cars about. This has got to change.



    And it’s amazing that people put themselves through this every day. I’ll never understand it.

    Get out of the car, people. What does it take to realize that this mode of travel will never be efficient, safe, or relaxing in a dense urban environment like SF? If you live too far from work and/or for whatever legitimate reason you can’t take public transit, bike, or walk, then it’s time to consider a move, either your job or your home.

    I don’t know why people subject themselves to this nonsense, but that’s their business. However, subjecting everybody else to it, especially those trying to move through the city using public transit, bicycling, and walking, is unacceptable. I can’t wait until the paradigm shift comes where cities realize that we need to stop encouraging the private car as a form of transit.



    Great idea, but wouldn’t it be susceptible to people manipulating videos?



    Exactly my thought as I bicycle past them all (while having to be extra careful they don’t run me over in their inattention). It’s amazing to me that people put themselves through this day in and day out … and that’s not to mention the inconsiderate nature of shutting down streets, polluting the air, and just making the streets miserable for all others. It really is a sickening sign of an anachronistic mentality that just won’t die, even in the face of so much evidence that this method of transit is horribly inefficient, dangerous, and destructive to a city’s livability.



    Yes, this is pathetic. And I don’t even care about 2030; we need to know what the plans are for the next *few* *years* first. It’s like they are distracting us from the fact that the system is being developed way too slowly and poorly given that SF is one of the top cities for bicycling (and wants to be way better in the near future).



    The report on drive-thru prayer brought back memories of reading about the predecessor of the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County. Rev. Robert Schiller started conducting services for large numbers by renting a drive-in movie theater for Sunday mornings, inviting his congregation to worship in their cars.



    well duh, yeah, of course! When ur thumpin’ along in ur whip (2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse FTW baby!), u best believ my convience comes first, crosswalk or not!



    >> Thur, Nov. 20th, 7 – 9 PM

    (forwarded from Larry Ames):

    Lincoln Ave, San Jose “Road Diet”

    meeting by Councilmember Oliverio and WGNA,

    at Willow Glen Elementary (Lincoln and Minnesota) (in the Cafeteria)

    [learn about tentative plans for a pilot program to improve
    Lincoln Ave. in Willow Glen by adding a central left-turn lane and bike

    One can imagine many questions:

    Will car traffic flow more smoothly with left-turns out of
    the way? Will pedestrians feel safer crossing the street? Will
    people enjoy visiting Lincoln Ave shops without driving so much? Will
    local streets be impacted by cut-through traffic? What section of Lincoln
    will be in the program, how long is the program, when and how will it be
    implemented, … “The Devil is in the Details”!]


    Bob Gunderson

    Make sure to put all your griping and complaints into this comments box so you truly make a difference



    “And prioritize [your own] safety over speed and convenience.”

    Fixed it for you



    There is the opportunity cost of using that piece of sidewalk for a shelter that doesn’t give shelter….



    That’s my point. The City isn’t paying for them, so we can’t really complain too much about them.



    Aside from the MTA/SFAC design competition, the city isn’t pay anything or much for the shelters. Maintenance and construction is all being paid for by Clear Channel. There was a clause in the advertisement contract that allowed Clear Channel to opt out of including solar panels due to financial or technology limitations.


    Mario Tanev

    It’s not just bad weather though. If there are no rooftops, there is no shade, there are no good seating options. Just because San Francisco doesn’t get snow, it doesn’t mean that riders should be sold to advertisers for promotional schwag (which is really what these shelters are). The wave shelters as designed are not very useful, but still more useful than what’s being discussed for the BRT.


    Jamison Wieser

    I’m so disappointed that for a flagship transit project that’s been 25 years in the making (part of the four-corridors projects approved 1989) the experience of waiting during bad weather will actually be worse.


    Jamison Wieser

    Apologies, I wasn’t very clear. I really meant that if they aren’t going all the way with a custom design (which I’m completely with you on) why not just use the existing wavy roof design (like it or hate it) in a custom color?



    I think a handful around the City do have solar panels. But you’re right, they were all supposed to have solar panels, and they are too tall to protect from the elements.

    But hey, you get what you pay for, right?



    Weren’t the “wave” shelters also supposed to have solar panels (which would have been flat and unaesthetic, or contoured and prohibitively expensive)? Besides letting the rain/wind in, they always felt like a bait and switch to me.