Today’s Headlines

  • SF Dept. of Public Health Creates Interactive Online Map of Pedestrian Deaths and Injures
  • Man Critically Injured by Driver at Market and Van Ness (SF Appeal)
  • SF Examiner Gets Behind the Central Subway
  • High Gas Prices Push People to More Bicycling in California Cities (AP via Merc)
  • DPW Begins Work to Green Median on 19th Avenue (SFGate)
  • Fell and Oak Bikeways Up for Approval at SFMTA Board Tomorrow (SF Exam)
  • Palo Alto to Consider “Moratorium” Forcing Downtown Developers to Build More Parking (PA Online)
  • Success of SF Sports Teams Drives High BART Ridership (SF Appeal)
  • Presidio Parkway Enters Second Phase of Construction (SF Appeal, CBS 5)
  • Woman Hit, Injured by Caltrain at 16th Street (SFGate)
  • NBC Bay Area Investigates Deaths on Rail Tracks
  • Hayward Woman Killed by DUI Motorcyclist (CoCo Times)
  • BART Delayed for 90 Minutes by Man Walking Into Transbay Tube (SFGate)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • mikesonn

    Not sure why the Examiner (which has been really good on transportation issues lately) felt the need to come out in favor of the CS. And to be honest, it wasn’t even that well written, though I do agree all these law suits are about 6 years too late. Like all crappy transportation projects, once the holes start getting dug, there isn’t much to do to stop them (which is why SFMTA started tearing up the streets long before the federal funding was secured – placing the cart well before the horse and forcing the fed’s hand in a way).

  • Mario Tanev

    I am not a fan of the Central Subway, but the 1.4 Billion price tag on Doyle Drive gives me pause. Why is there no vocal opposition to that project? The reason I despise the Central Subway is because it benefits motorists more than it benefits riders (the alternative is a transit-only Stockton and transit-lanes on 4th St). But Doyle Drive doesn’t benefit transit riders at all, yet, where is our opposition? 

  • Mario –

    I take Golden Gate Transit twice a week, and it requires a functioning Doyle Drive. A lot of goods are shipped on Doyle Drive. It isn’t like they decided “hey let’s just add a lane to this chunk of road” – it was seismically unsafe.

    Add into the mix we got a lot of useful improvements to the Presidio by tearing down the old Doyle Drive and I don’t see any value in complaining about this project.

    The obvious example to complain about is the fourth bore to the Caldecott Tunnel, which adds capacity on that route in the reverse-peak direction on a route which is served directly by BART.

  • mikesonn

    Doyle Drive didn’t add any capacity, btw. Not that it would matter, there are choke points on both ends. The old road was about to fall down, so I guess it was an “eh” project.

    And Murph’s comment on the 4th bore is correct. Where the hell are those cars going to go once through the tunnel? East Bay highways are already a parking lot. What a waste.

  • Anonymous

     The Doyle Drive project more than doubled the width of the freeway, so saying that it “didn’t add capacity” is silly. Even if it isn’t striped for additional lanes now, it may well be in the future. Of course there are choke points on both ends, but I wonder, now that the freeway is a done deal, whether we will start seeing proposals to “alleviate” them.

    And sure, there are other improvements being made in the Presidio, but the increased size of the freeway is a big negative which is only somewhat mitigated by the positives (like the underground section).

    I for one would have been happy to keep a retrofitted Doyle Drive. The improvements around it could still be made.

  • Andy Chow

    The late transit advocate Norman Rolfe was one of biggest opponents to the Doyle Drive replacement:

    In the advocacy business, we like certain projects to build, some not be built, and some be built differently. But for some that are supposedly to be on our side, they won’t go to bat to address our specific concerns late in the process, but let us go for the sake of “jobs, jobs, jobs.” The other alternative is to join the Teabaggers/Howard Jarvis folks, which you will lose the other projects that you support.

    The lesson is to get projects be planned right in the beginning, and be willing to give suggestions to make bad projects less awful (which I think is the hardest).

  • mikesonn

    “But for some that are supposedly to be on our side, they won’t go to bat to address our specific concerns late in the process, but let us go for the sake of “jobs, jobs, jobs.” ”

    Who are you talking about? SPUR?

  • Anonymous

    I am not a fan of the Central Subway, but the 1.4 Billion price tag on Doyle Drive gives me pause. 

    Concern Trolls are so adorable!

    Exactly the same people who said — correctly — that the PBQD mafiosi profiting Central Subway will be a fiscal and operational catastrophe were opposed to the Doyle Drive boondoggle.

    And not surprisingly, exactly the same people profiting from and astroturfing for and fronting for Doyle Drive (exhibit A: SFCTA chief for life José-Luis Moscovich; exhibit B: every politically juiced construction/”engineering” company; exhibit C: paid-up shills like SPUR) are those who do the same for the Central Subway.

    So, thanks for your concern.  And welcome to San Francisco and to the internet!  You must be new in order to be so unaware of all local history.

  • Guest planner

    From a traffic capacity standpoint, the new half-built Presidio Parkway seems to operate fine.  The use of reversible lanes on the parkway makes a lot of sense.

    Could someone please tell me why we are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to double the width of the highway?  It is plenty wide right now.  Life goes on without the provision of wide shoulders on right and left sides of both directions.

    The money would be much better spent putting the entire roadway underground, with half the width.

  • Mario Tanev


    Ok, maybe I am not aware of the history. I am referring to the current Central Subway opposition (Kopp, Peskin, Save Muni), for which I see no Doyle Drive equivalent. But perhaps it’s because Doyle Drive is in a more advanced stage.My “concern” was that transit projects are easier for the public to oppose than highway projects due to the modal bias. That’s why, even though I am not a fan of the Central Subway, I don’t want to encourage transit haters. I feel that transit advocates are more critical of transit projects, than drivers are critical of auto projects. The reason I think is that transit operates in a fiscally constrained environment, whereas drivers have gotten all the spoils historically, so for them excess or bad planning (Caltrans) is not a concern.

  • Sprague

    The new Doyle Drive will have a total of seven travel lanes (4 eastbound and 3 westbound), one more lane than the structure it is replacing.  I don’t see how this extra capacity will not induce more auto trips.  Of course, the new Doyle Drive has many positives, like making the Presidio an even nicer place.

  • Andy Chow

    The Teabagger/Howard Jarvis folks don’t react the same way with highway spending as with transit/rail spending. The environmental/transit advocacy alone isn’t strong enough to stop bad projects. You get a better chance at stopping transit projects if you align yourself with the Teabaggers.

  •  The more appropriate comment on Doyle? Why not save money, tear it down and they can go through the Presidio. I mean if the cyclists should use Page and Hayes instead of the much simpler Fell Street…