Today’s Headlines

  • SF Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, Vision Zero Coalition Release Progress Report on First Year of Efforts
  • City Truckers Mandated to Watch Safe Driving Video as Part of Vision Zero (CBS, KTVU, ABC, SFBay)
  • Tom Ammiano and His Driver Recovering After Being Hit By Driver Fleeing Police (SF Weekly)
  • Map Shows How Much of SF is Accessible By Transit From Any Neighborhood (CityLab)
  • Chronicle‘s Matier and Ross: Transit Ridership Down Despite Subsidies (Maybe Due to Car Subsidies?)
  • Car-Share’s Curbside “Street Presence” May Make it More Successful (SFGate)
  • Sidecar to Deliver Packages With Its Passengers (Biz); KQED Shares Experiences of Lyft, Cab Drivers
  • Planning Dept “Strongly Supports” Car-Free Condo Development Plans at 7th and Bryant (SocketSite)
  • Renters Pay a Premium for Housing With Shorter Commutes (SFGate)
  • Driver of Stolen Car Tries to Run Over Police Officer on El Camino Real in Santa Clara (NBC)
  • San Mateo County Police Target Distracted Drivers, “Jaywalking” Near Daly City BART (ABC)
  • Two Lawsuits Filed Against CAHSR by Citizen Groups, Local Governments (ABC)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Jeremy

    From Matier and Ross: “Millions have been pointed at bike lanes and the Central Subway to San Francisco’s Chinatown, while heavily populated corridors such as Mission Street and Geary Boulevard remain bus-only afterthoughts.”
    Do they not know that BART runs down Mission? Such a sad attack on the new subway.

  • Interesting map about how much of the city is accessible to any given neighborhood by transit. I did it for my centrally-located neighborhood (northern part of Noe Valley) and thought the results pretty accurate for daytime hours when Muni runs fairly frequently and if there is no horrible snafu/meltdown. About 5% of the city is within 15 minutes of me by transit, and about 40% is within 30 minutes. But then I thought about what is available to me by regular bike, electric bike and by driving. (15 min/30 min)

    Transit: 5%/40%
    Regular bike: 15%/50% (going), 10%/30% (returning home–I live up a big hill)

    Electric bike: 25%/80%
    Driving: 30%/90%

    But the driving figures do not include parking and walking to my destination. If I include those, the numbers are closer to 10%/50%. And this is during non-congestion hours. During congested hours, if I include parking and walking to my destination, driving drops to 5%/40%, comparable to Muni, although the map would look quite different. (Granted, Muni is likely somewhat slower during those hours,too, and would likely be 4%/30%.) In the evenings, the Muni schedule backs off to the point transit becomes 2%/25% for me.

    I don’t think most people realize that for trips under 2 miles, biking is hands down the fastest way to get around in this city unless a *big* hill is involved. And that an electric bike gives you basically the same or better mobility speed than a car.

  • murphstahoe

    The M&R story – where has the population growth been focused in the Bay Area? New housing in Antioch will have a near zero transit share because there is no transit. Is the population growing faster in places with – or without transit.

  • Guest
  • Andy Chow
  • Pretty funny to conflate the paltry amount spent on bike lanes with the $1 *billion* spent on the Central Subway. In terms of money, the two do not even occupy the same universe.

    The new, short, Central subway, sadly, is money poorly spent, mostly due to the huge expense and poor design/location of the stations due to having to tunnel so deeply under existing Muni/BART lines in order to cross Market. That billion dollars should have gone to light rail down Geary, with an underground segment from Van Ness to Market, putting a full third of the city within 20 minutes of BART and downtown. (Chinatown and SOMA, being within a mile of BART, already have excellent access.)

    In the years to come, San Francisco will heavily regret this. By then Willie Brown will be dead and Rose Pak will say she never thought the Central Subway was a good idea in the first place.

  • theqin

    To be fair, the 30 and 45 busses are also extremely crowded between Market and chinatown. As I understand it the central subway was a bargaining chip used to allow business leaders in chinatown to accept the teardown of the freeway along embarcadero.

    The money spent is not an either or scenario, the vast majority of the money comes from the FTA new starts program.

    In general there has been little opposition to the central subway during its planning, in fact a station at washington square is not even part of the initial segment due to concerns about opposition by north beach residents.

    Market/Geary/Van Ness is a much longer route and as a result potentially quite a bit more costly than the central subway.

  • the_greasybear

    Precisely. Because of rampant NIMBYism in the urban inner Bay Area, the vast majority of new homes have been built out in areas that were either always poorly served by transit–if they were even populated in 1991.

    It would be interesting to compare per capita transit usage in 1991 with per capita usage in 2015–for only those areas that were populated in 1991. I doubt it dropped 14%.