Today’s Headlines

  • SFMTA Board to Consider Free Muni for Seniors, Disabled on January 20 (KQED, NBC)
  • Muni Working on a Rider Etiquette Campaign (SFGate); Another Driver Blocks N-Judah Tunnel (SFGate)
  • Two Injured in Car Crash at Pine and Franklin Streets (SF Appeal)
  • Mentally Ill Man Who Was Arrested, Then Wandered on to Hwy 80, Sues Over Police Negligence (Exam)
  • Tower Plans Include Street Plaza at Oak & Van Ness (SFGate); Ritual Builds a Parklet on Valencia (UA)
  • PG&E Left Street Lights Dark on Three Blocks of Howard Street for a Year (SFGate)
  • Spinlister: The “AirBnB for Bikes” (SFGate)
  • GG Bridge to Ditch Lane Pole Movers (SFGate); Greater Marin: Third Lane Won’t Fix Richmond Bridge
  • BART Parking Fees to Rise (ABCExam); BART Wants Protestors to Pay $70k for Delays (SFGate)
  • Hit-and-Run Oakland Driver Caught on Video Slamming Into Man in Crosswalk on Fruitvale (CBS)
  • Mountain Lion Killed on Hwy 280 in San Bruno (CBS); Redwood City Driver Hits Restaurant (ABC)
  • CA DMV Issues Drivers Licenses to Undocumented Immigrants (Mercury, SacBee, WaPo, NBC)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • murphstahoe

    They have a classist and sometimes racist mentality that translates to
    closer transit equals more crime and lower property values.

    Fine. Let them drive. Invest money on everyone else.

  • Andy Chow

    The threshold to pass dedicated taxes in California is 2/3. With this threshold you need a compromise that takes account of equity, both geographic and class. Also, drivers generate pollution that impacts low income communities.

    Basically we want to convert drivers to transit, even driving to transit is better than driving all the way.

  • murphstahoe

    “even driving to transit is better than driving all the way”

    only in a vacuum. What else could BART do with that money? Would it return better?

  • Gezellig

    Except for when driving-to-transit yields this.

    The $508 million (<– in 1995 dollars. That's $787 million in inflation-adjusted 2014 dollars) that BART spent on the North Concord extension/station/parking was justified by forecasts of at least 5k riders per day. Yet today it only has about 2500 riders daily, which gives it the dubious distinction of actually being the least used BART station in the entire system despite being on the busiest line and despite having one of the highest station costs.

    North Concord/Martinez is the perfect example of the we-need-to-attract-middle-and-upper-middle-class-drivers philosophy which has been a very expensive exercise in diminishing-returns black-hole expenses for BART over the decades.

  • Gezellig

    Yeah, that’s what I was thinking–that’s not BART’s problem that such people have hangups about transit. Especially given the diminishing returns BART actually gets the more it bends over backwards with resources to entice such (systemwide) relatively small numbers of people.

  • Andy Chow

    For the record I am against most BART extension projects.

  • Gezellig

    To avoid the extension distraction, Orinda and Lafayette stations also employ the same ethos (that of catering to park-and-ride) North Concord does and are original stations. They’re also on the busiest BART line yet have some of the lowest daily numbers (in the 2-3000s daily).

    Whether extension or original station, BART has proven time and again to lose out when it spends lots of money (and land) developing out parking options for surrounding lower-density middle-on-up-income user bases at the expense of all other alternatives or even hybrid alternatives.

    Lafayette: original station, same problems as North Concord/Martinez:

  • Andy Chow

    It was built in an era where environmental issues were not major concerns and where mobility was paramount, and that racism and classism were even more acute. BART was conceived as a way to get around the traffic problem (besides building more freeways in the meantime) so park and ride was a part of the deal.

    At that time we had more urban focused transit including the Key System and a larger streetcar network in SF. The Key System and the Geary streetcars were gone when BART was being planned. Just keeping those to me would’ve been a good thing because we are only able to replace some of that today (like the T line).

  • Andy Chow

    If Muni is actually serious about their graphics standard and is actually consistent about it, I would respect it (for example rail systems like BART, which I wouldn’t even think of using a different color to represent a line). Los Angeles Metro actually has a pretty consistent color scheme for the buses (orange for local, red for Metro Rapid, cyan for express) that reflects the paint scheme on buses (they had blue for express but I don’t think they have buses with express color scheme anymore, so they use orange local buses instead.

    Right now the bus stops are dark grey backgound for all local lines (including F), green for limited, and red for express.

    I think their color scheme is too limited in terms of color range, and lacks contrast where it is needed. Part of the decision for the color is what I think it should be.

    I am taking a wait and see approach as to how to categorize their system and actually stick to it.

  • Even if Muni isn’t using them, here’s their full palette to enjoy.

  • Gezellig

    Yup, that’s the historical background behind it–and thus a lesson learned (prioritizing park-and-ride above all else) in terms of a strategy to avoid going forward.

  • Jame

    And multiple prices. West Oakland is $6.50 to park at!