Today’s Headlines

  • Central Subway Now on Schedule and Under Budget, Says Controller Audit (SFGate)
  • Alley Plaza Opens on Annie Street Next to SPUR, at Mission Near New Montgomery (Curbed SF)
  • More on Van Ness BRT Approvals (SFBay); CBS Reporter Barbara Taylor: “The Losers are Motorists”
  • Costs for MTC’s New Headquarters in Rincon Hill Jump Another $32 Million (SFGate)
  • CA Supreme Court Denies Challenge to “Transit-Friendly” Parkmerced Redevelopment Project (SFGate)
  • Facebook Shuttle Drivers Unionize to Demand Higher Pay (KQED)
  • Uber Executive Tracked Journalist’s Movements in NYC, Against Company Rules (Biz Times, Examiner)
  • Golden Gate Bridge Car, Bus, Ferry Traffic Increase as Economy Booms (Marin IJ)
  • Some Find Walnut Creek’s New Pedestrian Scrambles Confusing (KRON)
  • Traffic Violation Crackdowns on Peninsula are Apparently Reducing Injuries (People Behaving Badly)
  • Caltrain Clips Bumper of Car Sticking Past Crossing Gate in Menlo Park, Causing Delays (Almanac)
  • Bike/Ped Bridge Over Hwy 101 in East Palo Alto Enters Design Phase (Palo Alto)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • shamelessly

    Van Ness BRT: “The losers are Motorists”
    …and the winners are everyone who’s ever said “I’d take MUNI more often if it was faster and more reliable.”

  • Since the Van Ness BRT project has been watered down to the point where it no longer meets the definition of Bus Rapid Transit, I’m going to assume the “R” now stands for “Regular.”

  • Mario Tanev

    BRT is a good catchy eye-opener that a bus doesn’t have to get shitty treatment. But certainly if BRT takes 20 years for 2 lines, even in watered-down form then I worry that tying improvements to BRT is the wrong approach.

    Transit only lanes, traffic priority and so on can apply to many lines, currently not classified as BRT: 14, 30, 5, 22. Why wait until they are classified as BRT?

    Further our LRT has poorer treatment than BRT because of mixing with traffic. All LRT lines could gradually get the BRT treatment.

  • Mario Tanev

    Motorists don’t lose. The people throughput will be same or improved, with some of them (those on BRT) experiencing world-class service. Unless you consider motorists who have switched to BRT for its faster service losers.

  • david vartanoff

    Actually it is bOGUS Eapid Transit. Which is to say that by watering it down but not cutting the cost more money may be transferred to the vendors and consultants which is clearly the priority of public spending.

  • Andy Chow

    How is it watered down when it has dedicated and separated center lanes?

  • Dedicated lanes are a step in the right direction, but there’s quite a bit more to BRT than that.

  • Andy Chow

    Off boarding ticketing…yes
    Signal priority…yes

    The only thing missing is level boarding, which frankly there are no good solutions for. I don’t know if you’ve visited any of the American BRT lines that have level boarding, but I recently rode on one. Unless you think Muni should have a dedicated fleet traveling only on a dedicated corridor, and take away space inside the bus to store bikes rather than exterior bike racks, there’s no need to have “level boarding” which isn’t much more beneficial (you will be wrong to assume that you’ll get a rail like or elevator like access if bus and platform are at the same height). Low floor buses only have a one step gap compared to the 3/4 step gap with most Muni buses.