Today’s Headlines

  • Sup. John Avalos Protests SFMTA’s Choice of Bus Ad Wraps Over Sunday Meters (SF Examiner)
  • 24-Year-Old Drunk Driver Crashes Into SFPD Cruiser Near 16th and Valencia, Runs (SF Appeal)
  • More on “MonkeyParking” App: Letting Drivers Pocket Revenue From Parking Demand (SFGate)
  • Uber Files Defense in Wrongful Death Suit Over 6-Year-Old Sofia Liu’s Fatal Crash (SFBG)
  • As Taxis Dwindle, SFMTA Plans Ads to Promote “Flywheel” Taxi App Instead of Rideshare (SF Examiner)
  • Sup. Wiener Wants Tighter Regulations for AT&T Utility Boxes Installed on Sidewalks (ABC, SF Examiner)
  • Car Dealership Site at Market and Van Ness to Be Sold to Condo Developer (SFGate)
  • “What Does San Francisco Still Need?” SFGate Suggests Some Transit Expansions
  • SF Examiner‘s Former “Man Vs Muni” Reporter to Race Bike+Caltrain Vs Car on Bike to Work Day
  • GJEL: Is Berkeley Starting to Fall Behind SF and Oakland in Building Bike/Ped Safety Improvements?
  • Dublin: A Regional Leader in Transit-Oriented Development? (SF Magazine)
  • Pacifica’s Shuttle Service to Devil’s Slide Coastal Trail Seeing Growing Ridership (SF Examiner)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • jonobate

    Dublin is hardly a leader in TOD. They’ve taken advantage of their recently added BART stations to add housing, but mostly for people driving to BART.

    The 2008 station access study reported that 9% of passengers got to Dublin/Pleasanton by bus, 4% walked, 1% biked. Everyone else used a private car in some way or another. I doubt things have changed much since then.

  • murphstahoe

    Sure they have. They built another station with another giant parking garage!

  • coolbabybookworm

    I read recently that Dublin/Pleasanton has the highest rate of bike theft in the BART system. Improving bike parking and security (as well as access) could easily shift some of those modes by quite a bit. My coworker’s bike was stolen from the station on his first week of bike commuting and went back to driving the following week.

  • Caleb

    Unfortunately, the roads around the station are a nightmare for biking. Sure, the Iron Horse Trail leads north from the station and seems quite safe, but to the south is a wilderness of myopic planning: wide, highway-like roads surrounding massive lagoons of parking. Intermittent, token bike lanes in the gutter. Further south, the Iron Horse Trail continues but getting there requires a labyrinthine detour that challenges the nerves.

    And if you try out vehicular cycling in the area, perhaps a sociopathic lawyer will run you down in his mercedes:

  • coolbabybookworm

    I completely agree. I go to the Fremont station on occasion and there aren’t even sidewalks to access some of the entrances! Let alone bike infrastructure. A few hundred thousand dollar to a few million dollar projects (pennies compared to other capital projects) could really make a big impact on reducing vehicle use and parking demand for BART.

  • jonobate

    Last I heard they were working on completing that gap in the trail, and should be done by now. However, I was there at the weekend and saw no sign of trail construction.

  • Gezellig

    Daly City BART and its environs are also often comically absurd to arrive at on foot/bike. You really see how in the more outlying stations (Daly City was once the end of the line) they designed them under the assumption no one would ever ever walk to them unless they really, really had to.

  • aslevin

    Is there a good reason that SFMTA should be promoting traditional taxis instead of offering competitive grants for the public purposes (making sure to pick up people with disabilities), ensuring reasonable regulation for all (e.g. insurance) and not favoring a specific business model?

  • Jame

    Dublin does have sidewalks on the up note. And many of those newer developments on Dublin Boulevard are almost walkable. There is a good amount of amenities in the vicinity, but they are still in car oriented strip malls. It definitely beats its neighbors in terms of active transport. But it is still car first development. They didn’t make it very radical in terms of being people first.

  • Kevin

    Sophia Liu.

  • aslevin
  • Mario Tanev

    I think it’s because the city can’t regulate Uber at all. It’s purely at the state level. If the city could regulate them (and charge them fees), the city would feel differently.

  • p_chazz

    The Iron Horse Trail should have been a LRV line. It’s wasted as a bike/walking trail.

  • EastBayer

    Maybe this was sarcasm, but the Iron Horse trail isn’t strictly meant as a transportation corridor. It’s an important recreational facility. I don’t use it – I find Foothill/San Ramon Valley/Danville Blvd to be reasonably good routes (though the actuation in San Ramon is infuriating) – but a lot of families do.

  • Prinzrob

    The majority of the Iron Horse Trail extension is finished, but the connection just south of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is taking longer than expected. It should be done this summer.

  • p_chazz

    Not sarcasm. Just think if people could have taken light rail from Walnut Creek / Concord to jobs in Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park. What a missed opportunity. There is no reason it couldn’t have been both a transportation and a recreation corridor like the Ohlone Greenway in Berkeley.

  • TN

    p_chazz is referring to the fact that the “iron horse” trail is the former Southern Pacific Railroad right of way which the company abandoned.

    My recollection is that at the time the East Bay Regional Parks District acquired the right of way, there had been talk about running rail transit there. I think that the thought was that there was not the possibility of doing so in the believable future. Given how long it has taken to get the e-BART extension going on Hwy 4, this was probably realistic.

  • murphstahoe

    I will wager a huge sum of money that more people would ride a bike from Walnut Creek/Concord to jobs in Bishop Ranch on that trail than would take such a light rail line.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    Avoiding “reasonable regulation” IS the non-taxi “business model”.

    Add a phone app, add transit lane misuse, subtract insurance, subtract ability to navigate without eyes full-time on GPS, subtract all awareness of other road users, subtract ability to pick up/drop off legally and safely, … It’s Transformative Out of the Box Business Model of the New Mobile Economy.

  • jonobate

    Absolutely. I don’t think land use around Iron Horse is dense enough to support a light rail line, and using the ROW for a BART extension would not be desirable due to noise and aesthetic impacts on the surrounding properties. BRT on I-680 with seamless connections to Dublin/Pleasanton and Walnut Creek is the most sensible option, and this is apparently what BART is pursuing.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    I can tell you’re trying to convey some sort of point with the “clean record” business, but what could it be?

    FYI I spent months on crutches with partial recovery after three years as a result of the reckless actions of a taxi passenger.

    Thanks to regulation (insurance!) of the taxi business, I am less badly off than if some oblivious GPS jockey in a random black hire car had whacked me. And god only knows they’re trying: the sudden stops in traffic, swerves to the shoulder, random U-turns, etc, etc, ought to make any cyclist in SF fearful of any black passenger car. You don’t really have taxis in the suburbs, so perhaps the idea of any hire car is a novelty?

    Of course there’s plenty of bad taxi action on the streets, just as with all road users, but hour for hour of exposure my experience is that professional drivers are more professional than random motorists, and that taxi drivers are hugely less of a threat than the Uber fly-by-nighters. And again note: I have sustained a severe tax-related injury.

  • 94110

    For hire cars are a luxury in the suburbs (I’m thinking Parkside when I say this, not outside San Francisco). Embracing technology has allowed ride share companies to dominate in the western part of San Francisco.

    Everything I see seems like the taxi industry brought this on themselves. I’d love to see them make the fixes (more taxis, more coverage, mobile booking, following the laws) they need to compete rather than a legislative knee-jerk reaction (though I’d agree on insurance fixes).

    As a counterpoint (empirical, one data point), while driving I once had a vehicle do a right turn in front of me causing me to have to brake hard to avoid a collision. At the next light the taxi driver next to me motioned for me to roll down my window. He said “you should have hit him. He would have been at fault.” That’s not the kind of economic calculous I want anyone to be doing while driving.