Today’s Headlines

  • Transit Agencies’ Plans to Alleviate a Second BART Strike (KTVUSF Business TimesCBS)
  • Latest on BART Negotiations (Merc), BART Spending Big Bucks on PR (SF Weekly)
  • Law Prohibiting Transit Strikes Would Face Big Hurdles in CA (CoCo TimesSFGate)
  • Poll: BART Riders Support Tax Increase for Improved Service (SF Examiner)
  • Raised Bike Lanes and Fewer Muni Stops on Market? Imagine the Chaos (Beyond Chron)
  • You Can Now Send Pictures of Your Stolen Bike to @SFPDBikeTheft (KALW)
  • How New Bay Bridge Costs Rose Since 1997 (CoCo), Permanent Bolt Fix in the Works (CoCoKTVU)
  • 5,000 Drivers Per Month Haven’t Been Billed for Golden Gate Bridge Toll Due to Glitch (ABC)
  • Bay Area Drive-Alone-To-Work Rate Dropped From 69 Percent to 56 Percent Over Ten Years (SFGate)
  • Road Diet With Bike Lanes Coming to The Alameda in Berkeley (Berkeleyside)
  • Bill Would Add Seats on CA Transportation Commission With “Sustainability” Focus (TransForm)
  • Road-Raging Driver Arrested for Hospitalizing Bicyclist, Fleeing (Press DemocratMercury News)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Tony

    The Mercury News link for the last story isn’t working.

  • Anonymous

    The Beyond Chon article showcases the worst aspect of ‘progressives’ in the city. The attitude that everything about San Francisco was perfect back when I came here but the city is now being ruined by an alliance of hipsters and cyclists and developers with their cycle tracks and density and efforts to speed up Muni. Conservative, in the true sense of the word.

  • Anonymous

    The author acts as if the exact same types of facilities haven’t already existed elsewhere in the world for a long time with none of the issues mentioned. There are always engineering issues to overcome, for sure, but the whole “chaos in the streets” take is pure hyperbole and not conducive to a balanced solution.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. Plus, I love how the death and injury of cyclists and pedestrians is somehow not factored into their decision process. I mean, if a paratransit vehicle cannot stop not directly in front of the building they need to go to or the driver actually has to pay attention to where they are parking, then by all means, the plan is bad! There is simply no better design than the current design which, as we all know, was carefully planned long ago to make the roads as safe for everyone and as handicap accessible as possible. That’s right, the current design is perfect and there is absolutely no way to improve it.

    What this is is typical appropriation of some other noble cause (usually its helping the disabled or the poor) to defend what otherwise is an indefensible position: I love my car and deny there is anything bad about (nor anything good about those who try to travel in other ways) and can’t handle anybody trying to internalize all the costs of my car-centric lifestyle. These sorts of irrational positions are good news though, because they are a sign of desperation by people who know that the our car-centric culture is unsustainable and that it ultimately must change. They are just clinging on to anything they can to delay it as long as possible.

  • Anonymous

    To be fair, I don’t think the author of that article is necessarily motivated by defending a car-centric lifestyle – he’s a senior and disabled advocate. It’s more a case of change is scary so let’s stick with dysfunctional status quo.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I understand what you are saying. But implicitly, he is defending a car-centric lifestyle since that is, as you point out, the status quo. And heavily so. There are, after all, legitimate concerns to be addressed and clearly the city can’t just slap in a cycle track without thinking it through. But it’s the tone of the discussion that essentially paints anything that improves access of bicycles and pedestrians as bad or somehow not an improvement (there will always be conflicts with bicycles, but the severity of these conflicts goes down an order of magnitude compared to the same caused by cars.

    Instead, this author could frame the discussion much differently, like: “Bicycles are great and encouraging walking and cycling will make this city a better, healthier, and safer place for both the disabled and non-disabled alike. There are of course, concerns with regards to the disabled that need to be addressed and taken into consideration, but as the success of urban design in Northern Europe which fully accommodates bicycles has shown, this can easily be done. I’m just hear to remind the city to do this.” Or something to that effect.

  • It’s almost like real-world evidence is somehow better than the opinion of an uninformed blogger.

  • Anonymous

    You missed the Caltrain agenda pointing out that Caltrain did 53,000+ per day in June, another all time record, doubled ridership in one decade, despite the cannibalization of a good chunk of the potential ridership on the corporate shuttles.

    With bubblegum and bailing wire they have nonetheless slowly but surely, with plenty of missteps, followed the recipe that the public is starting to demand – more and better transportation that isn’t in a private automobile.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    Planthold has been, in effect, sabotaging transit for more than a couple decades.

    He’s a permanent piece of the Advisory Citizenry and nothing will ever change that.
    It’s just the way he is, and just the way this city “functions”.