Today’s Headlines

  • BART Unions Announce Second Strike (SFGate, Examiner, SFBG, CBS 1, 2, ABC)
  • SF Appeal Lists Transit Alternatives; Business Leaders Warn of Productivity Costs (SF Appeal)
  • Mission Local Breaks Down How SF Compares With Other Cities on Double Parking Enforcement
  • CityFix Shares Insights from the Recent Shared-Use Mobility Summit in Berkeley
  • CA DMV Cracks Down on Disabled Parking Placard Abuse Across the State (NBC)
  • 90-Year-Old Menlo Park Driver Jumps Curb, Pins Twin Boys Against Wall (NBC, SFGate, Merc)
  • $417M Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore to Open Next Month for Car Commuters (SFGate)
  • Berkeley Approves Model Car-Lite Apartment Development (Berkeleyside)
  • Oakland/Alameda Posey Tube Has a Long Way to Go to Become Bike/Ped-Friendly (Alamedan)
  • Ferry-Riding Drivers Complain About Proposal to Charge for Parking at Larkspur (Marin IJ)
  • San Jose Bike Party Strives for Zero Waste, Raises Funds for Public Bike Repair Stands (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Ryan Brady

    They should cordon off a lane on the bay bridge for bicycles so people without cars can get to work that way.

  • 94103er

    Duplicated link on #2 (SF Appeal)

  • mikesonn

    East Bay folks are freaking out that the carpool hours are being extended. There would be a riot if a lane of the bay bridge was made transit or bike only.

  • Caleb

    Motorists might riot… but then again, they probably wouldn’t show up unless the parking was free.

  • Anonymous

    Cyclist dead, Division/Bryant, collision with MUNI

  • bourbon

    There is NO double parking enforcement in SF. “bike lanes” are actually fancy parking spots for anyone in a motorized vehicle who has to unload some stuff or who happens to want a latte.

  • Jesse

    Wasn’t the the bay bridge exclusively buses on the upper section for a spell?

  • mikesonn

    When first built, the bridge was Key System trains on the lower deck w/ trucks and upper deck was bi-directional (6 total lanes) private autos.

  • Jesse

    But now it’s jammed and stalled every day with cars, so I guess it’s a success?

  • mikesonn

    I’m sure someone can do the leg work and find the exact numbers (I’m too pissed off after those poor kids and now another cyclist killed on our car-centric streets), but pretty sure the Bay Bridge had a higher capacity w/ the Key System.

  • Anonymous

    But you know, every time anyway tries to speak up about double-parking, suddenly it’s all about all the disabled people and emergency vehicles that need to be able to do this. Because as anybody who cycles knows, *nobody* double-parks who isn’t handicapped or an emergency vehicle (actually serving in an emergency, as opposed to say, getting donuts).

  • gneiss

    “No criminality suspected…” Even the lawyer representing the family of the victim can’t think of this as anything else except a tragic accident.

  • Eric Fischer

    The Bridge Railway peak was in 1945, with 26,469,000 transbay rail passengers (plus 8,457,000 on buses). The upper deck carried 58,875,000 people in cars. (Numbers from the 1948 Additional Toll Crossings report.)

    The total is pretty close to the number of annual vehicles crossing now, but I don’t know what the average number of people per vehicle is.

  • mikesonn

    So total people crossing now is probably higher then, maybe use a 1.2 multiplier since most are single occupancy. Thanks for the numbers, Eric.

  • bourbon

    They should have turned the old bridge into a bike way and park.

  • Anonymous

    Current stats from BATA is 45m vehicles per year, one direction. I’m guessing your 1945 stats are for both directions, so yes, roughly double the number of people are using the bridge. Doesn’t tell you much about train vs. car efficiency though.

  • Andy Chow

    Carpool lanes are 24 X 7 in Southern California. The only advantage I see with peak only carpool lanes is to cut down on congestion for solo drivers during the shoulder peak hours. During midday and late night, the extra lane isn’t necessary and only encourages speeding.

    It would be hard to have a transit lane on the Bay Bridge since buses enter the bridge from different directions and can exit the bridge from either side of the road. You will have to put in some pretty fancy flyovers to connect with different carpool lanes from different freeways to that transit lane.

  • Good numbers. The Key System wasn’t running at capacity, and according to the Modern Transit Society that capacity was greater than all modern Bay Bridge use plus the BART tunnel. (Alas, the MTS website has bitrotted away.)

  • @Caleb – Perhaps we can organize a rally for them in a place with lots of parking. Once they start the rallying, they’ll just be stuck in traffic. (That’s pretty much how the “Car Critical Mass” event went, years ago.)

  • mikesonn

    or the bus just merges in and out, but I’d hate to step on your private auto toes. please forgive me.

  • Ted King

    Re : BART Strike #2
    The union reps have left their brains at home on a couple of those work rule issues.
    1] E-mailing the pay stubs
    Why not have the unions give all of their members an e-mail account on a union domain and provide their members with a printing station at a union hall ?
    2] Electronic reporting
    BART has long been touted as public transit that’s been modernized with the latest technology. [ROFL break] If union members are having problems with the reporting software then the union should step up with suggestions or actual fixes. Plus, the union should be actively partnering with BART and the local community colleges as to suitable training so that their members can earn promotions in rank or additional skill pay.

    Now, if the problem is that BART‘s software developers are lamers then that’s a horse of a different color. Since BART is a public agency they should publish a demo video of the software in question for public comment. The FUBAR’d software project for the California court system of recent memory is a case in point.

    P.S. I’m a techie who’s been influenced by Doc Smith’s book Subspace Explorers (Wikipedia article). The principle of enlightened self-interest (aka PESI) is very applicable here.

  • Andy Chow

    I think the unions would be adopted to change if the price is right. The un-productivity is a perk to some people and they don’t want to give up their perks for free.

  • Ted King

    There’s a point in foot-dragging where it could be called low-grade sabotage. E-mail (e.g. PROFS on an IBM mainframe) has been a part of my work environment since the mid-1980’s. I’ve also had an account on Compuserve at one time while my parents, both non-techies, had accounts with AOL. Typewriters are niche products these days and fax machines are fading.

    BART has an obligation to the public to be as efficient as possible. That’s part of what we pay for in taxes and fares. I’ve humped my share of paper – reams and cases of cut-sheet, boxes of fan-fold, and a few rolls (IBM Copier II and fax) besides. PAPER SUCKS !

    If the sticking point between the union and BART is BART‘s choice of e-mail software then name it. Let’s see if they are using decent software or a flaming kludge. Let’s also see a copy of the SOP for routine reporting. IIRC California has Sunshine Laws on the books – so BART has to open its proverbial kimono on these points.

  • Andy Chow

    It takes time and space for a bus to change 5 lanes safely (if transit lane is placed on one side of the bridge). Also, when the rest of the lanes are congested, it can be dangerous entering into a transit/HOV lane with vehicles operating at much higher speed. That’s why HOV lanes in Southern California limit access to certain locations (unlike the Bay Area where cars and enter and leave HOV lanes anywhere).

    If a bus needs to 1/3 of the distance on the both spans of the Bay Bridge to get to the transit lane from the opposite side of the bridge, the transit lane wouldn’t be very effective It would be underused and buses still get stuck in traffic.

    Most effective transit/HOV lanes have dedicated on/off ramps

  • mikesonn

    You are over complicating the issue as to make it a non-starter. Put the lane on the right side of the bridge, on/off on that side, allow the bus to use the shoulder during commute hours, no reason to build huge flyovers, etc. We can make this work, just have to get past the knee jerk reaction to over complicate everything.

  • Andy Chow

    There are four entrances to the Bay Bridge toll plaza (I-80, I-580, I-880, West Grand). The I-80 and West Grand have HOV/bus toll plaza bypass on the north (right side) and the I-580 and I-880 have the bypass on the south side. AC Transit has transbay routes running from all four entrances. Putting a transit lane only on one side would either force the other buses to change 5 lanes or render it useless for those routes.

  • mikesonn

    So a couple routes can’t use it, but more than a couple can. Or we take those AC routes and change up their bridge approach. Either way, we need a transit only lane on the bridge, a 2nd BART tube won’t happen for 30 years, we can’t wait that long for more transit capacity across the bay.

  • Andy Chow

    Not just a couple of routes, but a bunch of routes:

    I-80 – C,F,FS,G,H,J,L,LA,LC,Z

    I-580 – B, CB, E, NX, NX1, NX2, NX3, NX4, NXC, P, V

    West Grand – NL

    I-880 – O, OX, S, SB, W

    Making them to use a different entrance adds travel time which is counter-productive.

    There’s a consultant report that suggests to use contra-flow bus/HOT lane in the AM direction:

    Ramps need to be added to allow buses from any direction to enter that contra-flow lane.