Today’s Headlines

  • Most Polk St. Merchants Seem Unequivocally Committed to Car Parking (ABC)
  • Muni to Pay $900k to Widow of Reporter Who Was Killed by N-Judah Operator (SF Examiner)
  • BART’s “Common Sense Approach” of Lifting Bike Bans Working Well So Far (KALW)
  • Variable Parking Meter Pricing for Ball Games In Effect Around AT&T Park (CBS Local)
  • How CEQA Can Be Abused to Favor Parking Spaces Over Bike Lanes (CA Economy)
  • SF Examiner: Centralized Dispatch Would Help Solve Taxi Woes
  • Pittsburg Allocates More Money Toward Future eBART Station (CoCo Times)
  • BART to Closie Some Entrances at Embarcadero, 12th and 19th St. to Replace Security Grilles (BART)
  • Adorable Foldable Tricycle Stolen From an Inner Richmond Garage (Bikes and the City)
  • Witnesses Saw Walnut Creek Drivers Being Reckless Before Big Crash (CoCo Times)
More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    Here’s a post about SFs 40 year anniversary as “transit first” and failure to meet rhetoric with action:

    It ALMOST makes me want an autocratic mayor with a vision instead of a bumbling buffoon like Ed Lee or Gavin Newsome (for the record, I’d rather have a third alternative, like John Avalos for example).

  • Joel

    Avalos would insist that all the TIDF should go toward affordable housing.

  • Anonymous

    Avalos has done a lot, for cycling in particular, in SF as a supervisor. Even the recent fight for the TIDF vs. affordable housing fund issue was a win for everyone involved.

    But I hope your hyperbolic statement doesn’t stop people from reading the article that has nothing to do with Avalos and everything to do with the utter failure Ed Lee has been at leading San Francisco into a thriving transit first future instead of a congested car centric city.

  • Peter M

    Next week Muni is getting rid of the one trip a day 80X line and making changes to the departure times of most of the expresses:

  • mikesonn

    The building that Twitter uses has a Caltrain shuttle, by the way.

  • It is a good article. I too don’t understand why safety issues like daylighting intersections in high pedestrian areas like the Wiggle require “community process.” Will 30 months of community design meetings where people scream and yell they won’t give up parking magically make unsafe intersections safer? I too can’t comprehend why no progress has been made on Oak St. I also don’t understand why the SFMTA waits for dense, crowded neighborhoods to request RPP zones when wild parking dysfunction clearly abounds.

    Is the SFMTA timid and foot-dragging not due to incompetence but by design? Is “community process” not about democracy and civic involvement but rather a cynical way to prevent any change that might threaten the prerogatives of an entrenched few? Are our mayor and other politicians bumbling, or do they receive large campaign contributions and promised endorsements from people who benefit tidily from the status quo? I just don’t know.

  • Joel

    ” Is “community process” not about democracy and civic involvement but rather a cynical way to prevent any change that might threaten the prerogatives of an entrenched few?”

    You pretty much hit the nail on the head. This came out just today:

    Part of the problem with San Francisco’s political and civic engagement is the way supervisors are elected. Those candidates who say as little as possible about specific issues are rewarded because fewer groups will oppose them. That’s how we end up with folks like Jane Kim, who was a relatively unknown quantity coming into the board. Now it seems she is out to lengthen the community engagement process (or as I like to call it the “NIMBY appeasement process”) just because West SOMA residents demand that San Francisco be kept in a time capsule. I would expect her to use the same backwards approach for transportation and open space as she using for development. SF politicians are ultimately rewarded for sticking with the status quo.

  • Biking goodness in Malmo, Sweden: