Today’s Headlines

  • Ped Injuries Down This Year? (KTVU); More on SFFD’s Irrational Protests Against Bulb-Outs (KTVU)
  • Coverage of the SFMTA’s New Bike Counts (SFGate, SFBG, SF Examiner)
  • Board of Appeals Downsizes Parking-Free 1050 Valencia Condo Project (SFGateHAC, SF Appeal)
  • Muni to Replace Buses on the Nx-Judah Express With Hybrids (SF Examiner)
  • Construction Begins on Dog Park, Skate Park on Caltrans Parking Lot Under Central Freeway (Curbed)
  • Some Sunset Homeowners Looking to Green Front Yards Paved Over for Parking (SF Examiner)
  • SPUR Report: San Jose Needs More Walkable Housing to Become a More Attractive Place to Live
  • Palo Alto, Mountain View Continue to Look at Ways to Minimize Driving With New Developments (PTA)
  • BART Fares to Rise 5.2 Percent to Adjust for Inflation in 2014 (KTVU)
  • No Budging in BART Contract Talks (ABC); AC Transit Labor Dispute Heating Up Again (CoCo Times)
  • Pay-as-You-Drive Insurance Startup Looks to Come to California (ABC)
  • Can California Take on High-Speed Rail Without Feds? (Atlantic Cities)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Mario Tanev

    In his newsletter Scott Wiener says:

    After almost a decade of discussions between the City and Caltrans, I am happy to report that pedestrian and bike safety improvements along San Jose Avenue, between Highway 280 and Randall Street, are coming soon. Known affectionately by many as “the Cut,” improvements to this section of San Jose Avenue will be designed to ensure that vehicles are actually traveling at the posted speed limit. In doing so, we’ll be able to provide a safer, protected pathway for bikes and pedestrians. I convened a series of meetings with CalTrans and the MTA over the course of over a year to discuss these improvements and to plan out how to implement them. Because I was able to secure funding in this year’s budget, these safety improvements should be installed very soon. Along with the MTA and with CalTrans, I will be hosting a community meeting in January or early February to discuss the plan and to collect feedback.

  • Jeff

    I tried asking BART via Twitter, but do you know when the new fare schedule reflecting these fare hikes will be made available?

  • mikesonn

    Can SFBC do some outreach to SFFD? That KTVU piece was hard to watch.

    Bulbouts are not forcing cyclist “more into traffic”. Not to mention that the buffered bike lane on Folsom actually now allows emergency vehicles a full unobstructed (because cyclists can easily get their bikes out of the way, unlike drivers and their cars) lane inspite of vehicle congestion.

  • murphstahoe

    Seriously. Scott Wiener rules. This would be such an easy issue to just ignore and let it be the way it is. While it’s not addressing some huge societal issue, it’s more than just fixing a pothole.

  • Sean Rea

    The SFFD is very out of touch. Until the recent Folsom bike lane improvements, Station 1, aka the DUI Station (Folsom and 5th), would routinely block the bike lane with engines while personal cars were parked inside the station.

  • hp2ena

    This is great. Even with the pseudo-buffered bike lanes now, it is still harrowing to ride on San Jose. Reduce the number of lanes to 2 in each direction, and allow for an adequately-separated bikeway.

    Also, it would be nice to reconfigure the Arlington off-ramp so bikes don’t have to exit and enter San Jose again when heading to Monterey.

  • Jamison Wieser

    Its an odd turn around given how only a few months ago when the SFPD was telling KRON viewers cyclists are supposed to merge into traffic.

    One sergeant even parked in the bike lane to make it absolutely clear the SFPD is dead set on cyclists riding in traffic rather than the bike lane.

    Does SFPD policy now depend upon which television station you watch?

  • thielges

    The SFFD spokesperson was clearly winging it and has little or no knowledge about how cyclists safely navigate through traffic. It is a symptom of a wider issue of how many people just “know” how bicyclists are supposed to ride. You know: bicyclists are supposed to ride as far to the right as possible, tight against parked cars. Or how it is safer to ride on the sidewalk. Not.

    Bike advocates should be careful about responding to the FD’s misunderstandings. Fire fighters are highly respected by the public (and respected a lot more than bicyclists :-). We should diplomatically bring them over to our camp, not chastise or oppose them directly.

  • ladyfleur

    “We noticed what does reduce fire trucks ability to get through the streets is double parking. That is a major problem for fire trucks- not bulb-outs”

    Amen and hallelujah, Scott Wiener!

  • Gocurrey

    San Jose needs more walkable housing to suit the needs of the population they already have. Attempting to lure the more “desirable” classes, while ignoring the needs of the population they have, is practically criminal.

  • mikesonn

    SFBC just tweeted me that they are going to do a ride along w/ SFFD and I think this is the right approach.

    There is no need to go out publicly bashing firefighters (don’t think I suggested that, hope I didn’t).

  • Jamison Wieser

    Your first point got me wondering where the cyclists among the SFPD are? Officers cycle themselves both on and off duty and with the inside perspective. Are they advocating themselves within the chain command? What do they think are the obstacles and opportunities for improvement? What do they think civilians can do that would be most useful?

  • mikesonn

    This is from a couple months ago. What is on the video still? Why a double parked truck!

  • thielges

    Sorry Mike, I did not mean to imply that your tone was negative. It wasn’t harsh at all. I was just thinking back to a similar situation regarding the PD where various bike advocates took general jabs at the police.

  • Guest

    That’s what I’ve been thinking to, glad someone is now making that important statement

  • Demos1

    I wish that Streetsblog (and the comment thread for that matter) would have actually engaged with SFFD’s concerns about turning movements and bulb-outs here instead of preemptively dismissing them. It’s not immediately obvious that this kind of treatment will work well for all road users. I am a transportation professional generally in favor of bulbouts and curb extensions but I don’t think anyone is well served by an echo chamber.

  • aslevin

    Say what??? There have been 24 pedestrians killed in San Jose so far this year. Safer streets are for everyone not just the wealthy.

  • Gocurrey

    Right, that’s exactly my point. San Jose needs to stop doing things to attract techies and other wealthy people, and start doing things that benefit the people that already live there.

    In other words, don’t just build $500,000 condos in walkable neighborhoods. Build affordable housing.

    I’m certain we’re agreeing.

  • Mario Tanev

    Plus, the buffer is only southbound and on the northbound overpass from Monterey. The northbound section to Randall is not protected at all and is harrowing. It’s also hard to get to from Glen Park.

  • murphstahoe

    Making a neighborhood walkable, will increase the value of the housing in that neighborhood. The conundrum – anyplace that is nice and safe becomes “gentrified” and unaffordable. There is no such thing as a $500,000 condo in Noe Valley, SF. When you say “build affordable housing” do you mean build 200 Sq Ft apartments?

    The answer is to make EVERY neighborhood a walkable neighborhood. Until then, the less wealthy will have to live right on Bascom and have to cross 6 high speed lanes to get to the bus.

  • Gocurrey

    Right, I understand that process and agree that the goal should be to make neighborhoods universally walkable – or at least, produce a supply of walkable housing that a approaches demand.

    My point, though, is that San Jose needs to stop trying to lure the techies. They need to start meeting the needs of the existing population. Admittedly, these two goals often overlap. But things should be done because they help current San Jose residents, not as an attempt to lure new rich people (which I personally think is a fool’s errand, but even if it weren’t, it’s not a noble policy goal).

  • murphstahoe

    Now matter how you – or Aaron – parse the SPUR report as “SJ must lure the techies”, I don’t see it. San Jose may have the same advantage as Oakland – being able to improve internally while the loose money is still singularly focused on MUST LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

    I would however posit that there is very useful regional value in getting people who work in your town to live in your town….

  • jd_x

    Well, the comment thread can’t engage with the SFFD unless the SFFD comes here and comments … which I’m pretty sure they don’t do … though I would love it if they did so we could actually try to understand their windshield-perspective logic.

  • jai_dit

    Finally! This is part of my main route to get from my house to anything east of Twin Peaks, and I agree that upgrades are much needed. Very much looking forward to hearing more.

  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea
  • Sean Rea