Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Joe Brant

    Or with the Dumbarton rail project (whose funds were diverted to the BART Warm Springs extension), trains could have been running directly from Stockton to San Francisco by now.


    Joe Brant

    Why not just add more ACE trains or improve feeder bus service rather than extend expensive metro rail miles out into the brush?



    I didn’t know about LAVTA’s staff there, thanks, but either way the conflict regarding Haggerty redirecting multiple projects to boards he is on is weird.



    As long as the locals agree with what I want, I think we should listen to them in the interest of diversity.



    So its a soft policy and enforcement depends upon the identity of the offender, offended and enforcer.


    Jeffrey Baker

    This is a little misleading. LAVTA has hardly any staff because the operations are contracted to private companies. I guess it’s true that they have no rail planning experience but it’s also true that BART will never make a rail connection with ACE, so in that sense bus planning experience is the thing to have.



    “In an interesting twist, the money will go to Livermore Amador Valley
    Transit Authority, a small southern Alameda County bus system that has
    12 employees and no rail experience — and where Haggerty also chairs the
    board of directors.”



    Jeffrey Baker

    Seriously the editorial quality on that article leaves much to be desired. BART wanted to connect to ACE in downtown Livermore, and the government of Livermore approved this plan, but the people of Livermore revolted, because they are racist neaderthals.



    BART to the Central Valley…

    Seriously, folks? First, that area needs to reconsider its development in general…low-rise tract homes and strip malls aren’t the answer. Second, Livermore wants nothing more than to put BART in the 580 median rather than connect the system with downtown Livermore and ACE. Third, BART needs to focus on improving the current system before it keeps expanding into the hinterlands. Finally, if any expansion is built, the funds need to be spent on a second tube, infill stations and a line under Geary/19th Ave.



    Obviously, your sources are religious fanatics and psychotics.



    If we lag behind 3rd world nations, explain the I-phone and the internet.


    Steven Rappolee

    I have been blogging about “Tunnel arbitrage” can many agencies share tunnel and tunnel boring costs? Can many agencies share infrastructure capital costs and lend or differ costs to one another?



    Remember when the US was known for its innovation, now we lag behind third world nations. Time to leapfrog everyone with new tech.



    apparently so has this Black pastor






    You’ve obviously fallen for con-man Trump’s propaganda.



    Meanwhile, high speed rail is all over Asia and Europe.







    not true






    sebra leaves

    There was no turning point on Taraval. If anything, the SFMTA Board won more opponents in that neighborhood by ignoring the requests of thousands of Muni riders and merchants and residents to start with a test and ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE RESULTS PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION.
    The turning point may come soon as many vote to oppose that Board.



    Good work, G.C.!



    you are most correct Trump does not support multi-billion crony capitalist giveaways



    This is why Eric Garner is still alive, he flashed his black card.



    Ya, take the train every day, it is loud, crowded, and bumpy. These improvements can’t come too soon.



    The hyper-loop does not exist anywhere … it’s a pipe dream.



    You suspect? Why not get tuned in with some actual facts about the project?



    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, the pig Trump doesn’t support HSR or alternative energy.



    I get what you’re saying..I felt the same way until I thought “Why don’t they build another transbay tube?” I searched awhile ago and found articles like the link below.

    I dunno if you’ve realized this but there’s been talk on a 2nd transbay tube which connects to the future HSR/Caltrain tracks at the new Transbay Terminal. That way Caltrain could operate into the East Bay, Amtrak could stop at the Transbay Terminal and possibly operate into the South Bay and BART could share the new tube with HSR,Caltrain and Amtrak.

    I personally see a tube with 4 or maybe 6 tracks. 6 tracks could be better. BART would need its own tracks due to its wide gauge while HSR, Caltrain and Amtrak would share tracks. In this article, the new transbay tube hooks south from the 980 corridor to the Jack London Square area, going underneath Alameda with a stop in Alameda, then it juts west towards the new Transbay Terminal.

    In the map, on the East Bay side BART joins with the Amtrak/Caltrain/HSR tracks in most likely a remade 980 which would be a car-free ped/bike boulevard and having tunnels for these different train lines. Amtrak would also need to be electrified in the way Caltrain is gonna be for this to get pulled off, not to mention plenty more billions of dollars to build it which would actually be worth it if it were done.



    please read the article and watch the videos before posting. none of the videos advocate parking next to a striped bike lane to unload passengers. the videos describe bike lane markings, ask drivers to be mindful of people biking and suggest places to load / unload passengers to avoid conflicts with people biking and points out that passengers should exit on the curb side to avoid dooring a passing cyclist. Nowhere is there a reference to parking adjacent to a bike lane to load / unload passengers.

    the videos are short and quite good. watch them.


    citrate reiterator

    This is a tautology: of course passing unsafely is unsafe, by definition. A more relevant question is how much extra risk is borne by a cyclist exercising a reasonable amount of caution, who merges in and out of traffic because of a double-parked car blocking the way. Your contention seems to be that it’s zero — which I find very unlikely considering that lane changes are a frequent source of car collisions, that drivers are often advises to avoid frequent, unnecessary lane changes, and that drivers are usually better at noticing cars vs. bikes. If this increased risk is nonzero, then it follows that allowing double parking in the bike lane makes it less safe for cyclists, on average.


    citrate reiterator

    No, I’m saying that Lyft and Uber (and other private drivers) are not *mandated* to provide paratransit and accessible services in the same way that cabs are (and indeed a much smaller proportion of their vehicles are accessible).



    RichLL: “the reality is that marginalized people are less likely to be harassed out of fear that they will play a minority card, race card, gender card, gay card or whatever.”



    citrate reiterator

    It’s “enforced” in plenty of other transit systems to the same degree that it would be here (i.e., it’s official policy). But of course that “enforcement” doesn’t mean that the Gestapo hustle you out the door and into a detention center if you cough too loudly: quiet car rules are enforced primarily by social norms, and then by conductors asking the offender(s) to either be quiet or take a different seat. I’ve never seen a situation develop in the quiet car where it escalated beyond that (though I have seen people ejected from trains for really egregious behavior).


    citrate reiterator

    lol, that is not even close to what either of us is arguing. And it matters that this girl was Black because that law is seldom enforced period, and so the question of why it was enforced in this case fits into a larger pattern where law enforcement tends to be more aggressive and to use excessive (sometimes lethal) force against people of her ethnic group. I think it would be a worthy goal for the criminal justice system to treat all suspects with the same respect and deference as they currently treat white middle-class men.

    FWIW, whether “broken windows” works at all is questionable (see e.g. ). That doesn’t mean any “quality of life” policing is necessarily bad or pointless — some amount is probably good in its own right — just that the real-world evidence that broken windows nucleate more serious crime is lacking, and that it should be performed equitably.



    Obviously anything can happen but, even so, sitting patiently behind a double-parked vehicle is safer than darting out into traffic and hoping to get away with it



    Of course, but you can certainly increase your risk by unsafely pulling out to pass because you are impatient, lazy or petulant.



    I would not presume to know what someone else is talking about. But yeah, I’m a libertarian on most topics but also support zero tolerance policing. Go figure.



    Good point, not much. I work in aviation and fly all the time. We get major complaints particularly from customers who pay 5K or more to fly first class and then get stuck next to a kid crying and puking.


    citrate reiterator

    Being on the road at all is a risk. You can’t possibly be 100% safe on the road because you don’t control others’ actions.


    citrate reiterator

    Typically in this type of collision there is more than one vehicle involved. Even if you are a perfect driver, you can’t control what the person driving another vehicle might or might not do. As long as you are on the road you are therefore not 100% safe, and once you get below 100% we’re again talking about rates.



    Irrelevant as usual. citrate is talking about expectations, not rules.
    Still ironic, coming from the messiah of double-parking!



    The question is what would she have done in a plane?



    No but what it means is that the kind of cyclist with bad judgement who might make a dangerous maneuver because of a double-parked vehicle is more likely to make a flawed maneuver in any other situation as well.

    And yes, if you pass when it isn’t safe then the resultant argument is probably your fault, absent special circumstances. I do not believe that the double-parked vehicle in such a situation is typically held liable and, in fact, is free to drive off if not directly involved in the accident



    I hope those lights display in all colors instead of being discriminatory and lacking full diversity.



    Surely those who died weren’t skilled enough to be riding in traffic.


    Donovan Lacy


    Are you saying that everyone is able to identify and avoid all risks when passing. That would make everyone omniscient. I know that you are responding to a lot of different threads on this board but, I think you might want to rethink that last statement.

    Based on that logic any time there is a collision when someone is passing it would be their fault, given that “it is 100% possible to pass an obstruction with 100 safety, as long as you are patient and wait until it is 100% safe”.



    Amen to this editorial.


    Corvus Corax

    Hear, hear! If the people who made that rule would just once try taking a bike on the escalator, they would realize how easy and safe it is. But of course, they don’t even ride BART, much less bike.