Today’s Headlines

  • Skateboarder Killed by Driver ID’d as Arman Lester (Exam); Driver Hits Man After Argument (Weekly)
  • SFMTA May Revive “Don’t Block the Box” Campaign in SoMa in December (SF Examiner, ABC, SFBay)
  • N-Judah’s Sunset Tunnel Rehab Begins Friday, Buses to Substitute Over Weekends (Hoodline)
  • Ideas From Market St Prototyping Festival (CityLab); More From Castro Street’s Makeover Party (HL)
  • SFPUC Employee Blows Whistle Over New Broadway Tunnel Lights Being Too Bright, Inefficient (KTVU)
  • The Unusual Fang-Josefowitz BART Race (48 Hills); BART’s Third-Highest Ridership Ever Friday (Exam)
  • Funds Shifted to Cover Bay Bridge Cost Overruns (CBS); GG Bridge Cable Work Delayed (Marin IJ)
  • Mill Valley Starts Building Roundabout on Bike/Ped Path Just Two Months After Child Injury (Marin IJ)
  • Oakland’s Broadway Streetcar Proposal Draws Interest From Developers (SFGate)
  • San Jose’s Pedestrian Death Toll Rises to 36 This Year (NBC)
  • CA Could Test a Vehicle Miles Traveled-Based Tax Program by 2018 (Roadshow)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Prinzrob

    Bike East Bay hands out lights to help people on bikes deal with the Daylight Saving Time change. More important info in the written but not video report, Oakland is just a couple months away from a cyclist fatality-free 2014.

  • Wow, is L deceptive. Just went and voted. For L, all it says on the ballot is “Shall it be city policy to change parking and transportation priorities?” It doesn’t say from what to what. Heck, I almost voted for it. Whatever San Francisco’s parking and transportation priorities might be, they surely promote car driving, pollution, congestion and danger for bicyclists and pedestrians. Yes, those priorities need to change!

    As our city gets denser and all our transportation options strain and creak under the pressure, there probably isn’t one person in a hundred in San Francisco who thinks this city is doing a fantastic job with transportation. Who is thrilled to be packed like sardines on Muni? What bicyclist adores swerving around double-parked cars into travel lanes with oblivious, texting drivers? Who is delighted to be hit in a crosswalk by a left-turning car?

    There is little doubt that pretty much everyone would like serious change. The question is what kind of change will actually help our city function better. As written, L measures desire for change, any change, no direction specified. I would guess 1 voter out of 10 might actually read the pamphlet to get a functional understanding of what the measure is about. After all, this ballot was ridiculously long, stuffed as usual with all sorts of abstruse state and local issues that almost put one into a coma just perusing them.

    I predict L will pass. I predict it won’t matter. Every person who moves here inevitably drives the utility of car driving and car-ownership lower. Nearly every surface parking lot in the NE quadrant will disappear, forcing downtown commuters and shoppers to transit. Young people choking on student loans will ride bikes at increasing rates out of necessity. Falling median incomes mean lower-income people will shed cars to survive. I predict within two years the majority of folks clamoring for L will be car-free (and griping about the state of Muni and bike lanes) or they will have moved to the suburbs.

  • Gezellig

    Some renderings of the new Mill Valley roundabout:

    It will connect to the new cycletrack along Sycamore:

    The ultimate solution to the Mill Valley path is probably widening it and demarcating clear and separated bike and ped channels, along the lines of this:

    Minneapolis Greenway

    Ohlone Greenway

    Also, a lot of the Mill Valley-Sausalito path lacks lighting! I really noticed that yesterday due to the time change.

  • Prinzrob

    I thought you were exaggerating, but I looked up Prop L on the sample ballot and you are exactly right, that is literally all it says. Is it legal to have something this vague on the ballot? Even Prop L opponents want to “change” parking and transportation policies, just not in the direction that the supporters want. This stinks sooooo bad!

  • Ryan K

    As a person who supports L, I can tell you I was pretty taken aback by the verbal description on the ballot. Not even sure who composes the text there – I had assumed some city employee did the summarization but I really don’t know.

  • murphstahoe

    Pretty sure they come from the sponsor of the bill.

  • All Props are No until they show:
    – The only way to do this is via a Prop and not through the legislative channels.
    – There are no loopholes, side-effects, unmentioned beneficiaries. (You probably have to read the voter’s guide “against” to get this.)
    – The Prop is spot-on correct enough that it’s totally cool that the
    legislative bodies can’t tweak, fix, or amend; it takes another prop to

    After those bars are cleared, consider the content of the Prop itself.

    Big policy changes that stay in effect for years and years and can only be changed by another Prop makes it very hard to tweak as observations of the results and changes in society happen.

    All the more reason to vote by mail–you can sit down with a beer, a browser, all the voting info and make a well reasoned decision before all the propaganda mail starts arriving.

    Vote early; vote naked.

  • Nathaniel Ford Redmond

    Just to be clear, opponents of Prop L didn’t want to “change” transportation priorities. The Transit First priority planning has been written into law by way of the Charter of San Francisco since 1974. Prop L aimed to remove that from the Charter.

  • Nathaniel Ford Redmond

    Sample ballots are not the best way to understand propositions, read the whole legal language of the proposition if you really want to be informed about it. For San Francisco it’s on the Department of Elections Website as well as the Legistar, a place you can see ALL legislation that is before the city and Board of Supervisors. Prop L was to change transit priorities for car drivers and against public transit and biking.

  • Ryan K

    If so, that was really stupid of them!