Today’s Headlines

  • Drivers Injure Woman at 25th and Utah (CBS), Man Outside Broadway Tunnel (KTVU)
  • Drivers Collide With J-Church Trains on San Jose Ave Trackway (BW), at Church and Market (KTVU)
  • New Bay Area Bike Share Owners Promise 7,000 Bikes by 2030 (CBS)
  • Disabled Parking Placards Cost SF $22.7M Last Year (SFGate)
  • Van Ness BRT Federal Funds Threatened Because SF Arts Commission Dislikes Shelter Design (SFBay)
  • C.W. Nevius Sticks Up for a Condo Owner Who Has to Pay a Parcel Tax on His Parking Space (SFGate)
  • SF Cabbies Say Business Hasn’t Dropped as Much as SFMTA Reported (SF Examiner)
  • Willie Brown: “Ride-Share” is Not Sharing; Western Bay Bridge Bike/Ped Path is a “Great Idea” (SFGate)
  • Golden Gate Bridge to Close to Cars for Weekend in January; Buses, Bikes, Peds Still Allowed (SFGate)
  • Oakland Airport BART Parking Lot to Charge $1 a Day (SFBay); Airport Shuttle Workers Strike (KTVU)
  • Driver Kills Blind Berkeley Man, 47-Yr-Old Mithaq Salem, Crossing the Street for Daily Prayers (ABC)
  • You’ll Never Guess Who Hosted the SF Bicycle Coalition’s Winterfest (Twitter)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • AJ

    So it’ll take Bay Area Bike Share 17 years to accomplish what NYC did in 2-3 years? Fail.

  • Mario Tanev

    Regarding Van Ness shelters.

    Are you kidding me? First, the wave shelters don’t protect very well from the elements. But how can it be acceptable to have no shelters whatsoever? How could SFMTA even agree to something like this? With the cowardice on Sunday meters, and such shenanigans, I do have to say that those who doubt SFMTA’s competence, focus on the ridership and good will have a point.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    Yeah, and I don’t even understand why it should. If they’re promising to double the number of bikes in New York, that’s already way more than 7000 bikes, isn’t it?

    7000 in 16 years is less than one new station per week.

  • Bruce

    In fairness to Nevius (and the man he mentions in his article), it is silly that a single parking space should be taxed as a separate parcel, at the same rate as a much larger condominium. Certainly parking spaces should be taxed, but the law (which causes the parking space to be classified as this man’s “second home”) should be fixed so as not to be punitive to people in situations such as this.

  • A little more regarding those Van Ness BRT shelters. The included rending shows what the proposed Van Ness BRT “High-quality stations”, which – sigh – are literally the wavy-roofed shelters minus the roofs. Also minus the roof support where the NextMuni signs are normally mounted and they don’t show where the ticket vending machines would go.

    For the full presentation here is a link to August agenda and materials for the August SFMTA Advisory Council meeting. Much of the presentation regards accessibility, which – sigh – does not include level boarding. By making stations less accessible and slowing boarding for what could well be decades to come, the TA is minimizing capitol and maintenance costs. The new vehicles to be acquired for Van Ness BRT will all be low-floor though.

    http://www.sfmta.com/calendar/meetings/citizens-advisory-council-meeting-august-7-2014

  • Bruce

    Why didn’t they go with something like the Stonestown/SF State or T-Third station roofs? I thought the idea of BRT was to provide a light rail-quality experience, minus the rail.

  • Or what about simply a different color treatment like Market Street’s yellow ones?

  • Bruce

    You’re right, Aaron, I never would have guessed who hosted Winterfest.

  • thielges

    Does anyone know why the Arts Commission rejected the original shelters? The Arts Commission serves a purpose though it is odd that they can hold up a large transit project on aesthetic grounds.

  • p_chazz

    NYC is a much larger metropolis than SF. Also Citigroup spent $41 million over six years to sponsor Citi Bike. I don’t think SF has a comparable sponsor. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Bruce

    I mean that the light rail stations along the M and T lines have a more substantial feel to them, in part because they have a roof that covers the entire platform. Why shouldn’t that be the case along Van Ness?

  • If it’s another residence, he should list it on AirBnB or sublet it.

  • Weren’t the “wave” shelters also supposed to have solar panels (which would have been flat and unaesthetic, or contoured and prohibitively expensive)? Besides letting the rain/wind in, they always felt like a bait and switch to me.

  • Bruce

    I think a handful around the City do have solar panels. But you’re right, they were all supposed to have solar panels, and they are too tall to protect from the elements.

    But hey, you get what you pay for, right?

  • Apologies, I wasn’t very clear. I really meant that if they aren’t going all the way with a custom design (which I’m completely with you on) why not just use the existing wavy roof design (like it or hate it) in a custom color?

  • I’m so disappointed that for a flagship transit project that’s been 25 years in the making (part of the four-corridors projects approved 1989) the experience of waiting during bad weather will actually be worse.

  • Mario Tanev

    It’s not just bad weather though. If there are no rooftops, there is no shade, there are no good seating options. Just because San Francisco doesn’t get snow, it doesn’t mean that riders should be sold to advertisers for promotional schwag (which is really what these shelters are). The wave shelters as designed are not very useful, but still more useful than what’s being discussed for the BRT.

  • Jim

    Aside from the MTA/SFAC design competition, the city isn’t pay anything or much for the shelters. Maintenance and construction is all being paid for by Clear Channel. There was a clause in the advertisement contract that allowed Clear Channel to opt out of including solar panels due to financial or technology limitations.

  • Bruce

    That’s my point. The City isn’t paying for them, so we can’t really complain too much about them.

  • murphstahoe

    There is the opportunity cost of using that piece of sidewalk for a shelter that doesn’t give shelter….

  • jd_x

    Yes, this is pathetic. And I don’t even care about 2030; we need to know what the plans are for the next *few* *years* first. It’s like they are distracting us from the fact that the system is being developed way too slowly and poorly given that SF is one of the top cities for bicycling (and wants to be way better in the near future).