Today’s Headlines

  • Caltrans Endorses the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Protected Bike Lanes (PFB)
  • Happy Walk to Work Day — Press Conference Outside City Hall at 10 A.M. (SF WeeklyHoodline)
  • SFPD Chief Talks Ped Safety at Elementary School (ABC, CBS), SFPD and Avalos in Ingleside (CBS)
  • Driver Critically Injures Three-Year-Old Boy on Bike at Fulton and 43rd (SFGate, KTVU 12ABC)
  • Congestion Pricing Coming to Treasure Island (SocketSite)
  • MTC Committee Approves Funds for East Bay Bike Share (SF Appeal)
  • SFBC, Chamber of Commerce: Keep Sunday Meters (SFGate); Matier Thinks It’s All About Money (CBS)
  • Now in SF: “RideScout” App Lists Your Options for Getting From Point A to Point B (TechCrunch)
  • Why Potrero Hill Residents Opposed Muni TEP Changes in the Area (Potrero View)
  • Judge Denies Punitive Damages for Driver Who Crushed Two Boys on Menlo Park Sidewalk (Almanac)
  • Belmont Council Postpones Approval of Ralston Ave Plan for More Public Outreach (SM Daily Journal)
  • As San Jose Looks to Make Diridon Station More Walkable, SAP Arena Wants to Double Its Parking (PTA)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • aslevin

    SAP Arena isn’t proposing to increase their own parking – they are proposing to double the amount of parking required for everyone building in the Diridon Station Area

  • CamBam415

    Here are two articles from Marin…

    San Rafael Police take bike training (I wonder if the bike police are increasing in size or if this is just back-fill?):

    Homeless Man Crashes his bike riding on Hwy 101:

    What’s even more head scratching about the incident, is that there is a Class 1 bike path from Corte Madera to Mill Valley adjacent to SB 101, right where this guy was. I wonder if he suffers from a mental illness that impaired his decision making?

  • CamBam415

    RE: Bike Share

    Glad to see bike share is coming to the East Bay. I won’t use it but think it can be successful (wish they had it in my day at Cal!). Tucked in that article is the comment about the lagging performance along the Peninsula. Given, that bike share needs scale to work, at what point will BABS redistribute the bikes to better locations? I hate that local politics is hampering BABS with the regional approach. If SF is getting 90% of the use with 50% of the bikes, move more bikes & stations to SF… BABS can go back to the fringe markets (such as RWC) once it has reached scale in areas with more potential. Based on the SF Appeal article, BABS might be redistributing the bikes, but what is taking so long?! 🙂

    Second, I hope the lessons from the Peninsula are learned for the for the East Bay roll out.

    Here was the comment from the SF Appeal article:
    “In the lagging areas, the MTC intends to conduct a more thorough analysis to see if the conditions are met for a successful implementation. Bike share systems work best when stations are about a half-mile apart, according to the report, so that people can comfortably get from one destination to another under the half-hour time limit.

    Redwood City, which has averaged only 0.09 trips per bike per day, is looking into how to redeploy its system for greater success.”

  • Kevin J

    Did the Potrero View really publish a story about legitimate TEP concerns?

    Could it be there’s a community interested in constructive dialog with MTA? Where’s Sebra bitching about parking?

  • aslevin

    A significant part of the problem in RWC is that the locations are nearly useless. They are close together in a small walkable downtown. Meanwhile, there are multiple big employers and office parks that are 1-2 miles away.

    Currently, 14% of Caltrain riders take a bike onboard, mostly for that last mile connection. The trains are crowded. It would be helpful if some people who take a bike on board could use bike share instead, but that only helps if the bikeshare station is where people want to go.

  • CamBam415

    Yeah that makes sense and I don’t know RWC at all. But still, with SF getting 90% of the use and only 50% of the bikes, SF will get more use out of the bikes & stations.

    I agree that RWC and other Peninsula cities need & will benefit from BABS, but with scarce resources we should allocate the bikes to where they will get the greatest use (also, we should consider what will cost BABS the least… I am guessing with regional/satellite locations it is much less cost efficient for BABS to service those stations compared to stations located in a dense area).

    Long term (3-5 years?) once BABS is ubiquitous in the core markets (SF for sure, maybe SJ and the EB?) and is broadly recognized as a valuable transit resource and its funding isn’t as volatile, than we can come back and build out the secondary markets, such as RWC.

  • aslevin

    On the other hand, BABS hasn’t event tried yet to get stations sponsored by employers and office parks. They were waiting until they got one big brand name sponsor (like Citibike). I don’t know if they changed this.

    There’s been a lot of discussion about how to improve Caltrain capacity – and this seems like one of the cheapest ways to do that.

  • CamBam415

    I totally agree that BABS should be in places like RWC and that it is a good way to add capacity to Caltrain; I just don’t that with BABS very limited offering it should be there now, while starving SF of bikes that would get significant use.

    If an office park wants to pay to provide a station for its tenants, that seems reasonable (and I’d think it would lead to higher rents for the landlord); privately funded additions to BABS can have their own allocation.

    As far as I know BABS is still actively looking for a title sponsor… one would think with all the Fortune 500 companies in the Bay Area, it wouldn’t be hard to find a sponsor! Wells Fargo, Google, Apple, Levi’s, Oracle, SalesForce, Intel, etc.

  • EastBayer

    The every half mile is a curious finding. Paris, Washington, and New York have stations spaced approximately every 300 meters, which is much different from a half mile. It looks like BABS attempted to use a similar rule, but with so few stations, the density just didn’t matter as much.