Today’s Headlines

  • SFPD Issued 126 Tickets in Ped Safety Crackdown on Van Ness, Folsom Wednesday (SF Examiner)
  • Meet the “Free the Streets” Coalition (Plus: Shots of the Green Polk Contra-Flow Bike Lane) (KTVU)
  • Woman Assaulted, Pepper Sprayed by Men Who Stole Her Bike (KTVU)
  • Muni 30X Bus Engine Catches Fire at Howard and Main, No Passengers on Board (SF Examiner)
  • An Interview With SF’s New Citywide Planning Director, Gil Kelley (SF Business Times)
  • On Average, SF’s Lower Transpo Spending More Than Makes Up for High Housing Costs (Bold Italic)
  • Oakland Airport Connector Poised to Cost BART $10K Per Passenger (SFGateTransFormTransbay)
  • GJEL Looks at Oakland’s Telegraph Avenue Proposals for Parking-Protected Bike Lanes
  • Golden Gate Transit Bringing Wi-Fi Back to Its Buses (Marin IJ)
  • Santa Clara County May Fast Track Transpo Tax on Ballot After Polls Show Strong Promise (Mercury)
  • Cyclelicious Looks at Where Strava-Using Cyclists Shop Using “Global Heat Map”
  • KQED Looks at What California’s New “Active Transportation Program” Means for Bike/Ped Funding

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • murphstahoe

    Reading those OAC stories just makes me cringe thinking about the Central Subway. It doesn’t seem very hard (to me) to quickly be able to look at these projects and think “good project” (Caltrain baby bullet work in 2000, SMART) or “money pit” (OAC, BART to SJ).

    I can’t seem to figure out how the money pits keep getting built and the good projects don’t. Is this the road to becoming Richard Mylnarik where you simply figure out the Golden Rule – the person with the Gold makes the Rules in order to give as much Gold as possible to his friends?

  • jonobate

    Political transit boosters, at their worst, support all transit projects regardless of merit simply because transit = good. Technical fanatics, at their worst, hate all transit projects because they don’t conform to their exacting and arbitrary standards of how things should be.

    There is a healthy middle ground in between those extremes that is inhabited by most people who are concerned about good transit. We can and should oppose the bad projects (OAC, BART to SJ) while supporting the good-but-imperfect projects (SMART, Caltrain electrification).

  • Andy Chow

    I would recommend Carl Guardino to pursue it in 2016 and in the mean time come up with a process with public participation to come up with a funding list in 2016. Santa Clara County never had a chance to plan right when all sales tax proposals were developed in the back room and the development of the project list and priorities were kept in the dark.

    Guardino tried in 2006 and it failed and only barely passed in 2008 (with the largest liberal turnout ever). If the process isn’t followed you will lose potential allies, and the 2014 timing will not help.

  • david vartanoff

    The money pits are structured to benefit voting blocks/big donors rather than end users. Best thing BART could do is donate OAC to Port of Oakland which ioperates the airport. Meanwhile AC Transit should aggressively field bus service when the present bus is abolished to force us onto the amusement park ride.

  • p_chazz

    The same goes for HSR, only with a few more zeroes on the end.

  • voltairesmistress

    I think the naysayers are wrong about both the Bart to San Jose and the Oakland Airport Connector. Both projects will lure many current non-users of transit who find using multiple transit systems per trip daunting and unpredictable. There is a somewhat justified bias against relying on buses that use the same lanes and roads as car traffic. I believe a lot of people want a direct, uncomplicated, car-traffic free route to the airport or work. These projects go a ways toward that. I, for one, will more likely book flights out of Oakland, if I can take Bart and a gondola type ride, and avoid the bus. I currently take Bart to SFO for its reliability, especially in rush hour times.