Today’s Headlines

  • Man on Bike Injures Woman, 81, and Flees in Alleyway in Mission Dolores (CBS)
  • With City Hall’s Attention, SFTRU Survey Asks How You Would Improve Muni
  • Another Fantasy Transit Map for San Francisco: Muni Subway Criss-Crosses the City (Curbed)
  • Artist Photographs One Muni Rider a Day for 100 Days On His Commute (Muni Diaries)
  • Hoodline Profiles Mojo Bicycle Cafe Owner Remy Nelson
  • Dispatch From Leah Shahum: As Sweden Nears Zero Deaths, “Vision Zero” Leaders Don’t Rest (VZN)
  • Obama Visit, Warriors Parade Could Cause Traffic Delays in SF and Oakland Today (SFGate, NBC)
  • Green Caltrain: Could Congestion Pricing on the Dumbarton Bridge Help Fund Rail Restoration?
  • San Jose’s Lincoln Ave Road Diet Has Increased Bike Traffic By 24%, Foot Traffic By 14% (Cyclelicious)
  • CA Labor Commission Rules SF Uber Driver an Employee, Not Contractor (Biz, NPR, Reuters)
  • CA Officials Release Reports for Six Google Self-Driving Car Crashes Caused By Other Drivers (CBS)
  • Who Has the Tech to Ensure Drivers Are Giving Cyclists Three Feet? Chattanooga Police (Ars Technica)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Chris J.

    A CBS headline finally mentions the person controlling the wheels: “81-Year-Old Woman Struck By Bicyclist That Allegedly Fled Scene In San Francisco”

    But they don’t do the same for cars: https://twitter.com/cjerdonek/status/611945002508271616

  • mx

    An 86-year-old woman in the crosswalk was struck and killed by a driver on El Camino in Menlo Park last night too: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Woman-86-in-crosswalk-struck-and-killed-by-car-6337442.php?t=903d24809f897d7998&cmpid=twitter-premium

  • Surely the bicyclist didn’t punch her!

  • Chris J.

    Of course, the headline says the “car” did it: “Woman, 86, in crosswalk struck and killed by car in Menlo Park.”

  • Kevin Wenderoth

    That fantasy BART map would be so awesome. It’s a shame that a comprehensive metro system like that is a given in major cities in Europe and Asia, but not here.

  • gneiss

    It’s amazing how that system would completely transform the early morning and afternoon traffic that is simply parents getting their kids to the various schools around the city. If you think collectively about the amount of time and money parents are spending with their cars shuttling their kids from their homes to schools, a transportation network like this could pay for itself probably in about a decade, particularly since you could feel assured that children above the age of 10 could get to their destinations on their own. While Supervisor Farrell thinks this time getting his kids to and from schools by car is “the only time he spends with his kids”, many other parents look at it as simply a burden and time sink. This would relieve many of that burden, the same way it does in a place like NYC.

  • the_greasybear

    Alert Alley has no sidewalks at all, Landers has a continuous sidewalk only on the west side, and where they intersect in a “T” there is only a partial sidewalk on one corner that disappears after a few feet. This non-compliant intersection may be very old, but clearly needs work to better protect pedestrians.

  • bike_engineer

    No way could a system like that ever pay for itself. Municipal transportation agencies do not make profits that could even come close to the costs to build any subway through SF.

  • murphstahoe

    It would however, make the public more supportive of it and more likely to support tax measures supporting it, or campaign for general funds towards that system to be increased.

    The tax revenue that goes to a system is part of how the system pays for itself, and it “earns” that money by convincing the government and public to steer money to it. That money is coming from the ridership just like general fund money used to pave/build roads is coming from the users of said roads. People who use the transit system benefit more from that subsidy, heavy drivers benefit more from road subsidy. Roads and transit systems that are seen as not useful will be defunded and go broke..

  • bike_engineer

    I’m not disagreeing with you that your concept is a good idea, I’m just saying the engineering challenges specific to tunneling in those specific areas are extremely cost prohibitive. due to the nature of the soil composition in the more westerly parts of San Francisco, the seismic design and tunneling work could be upwards of $10 Billion probably

  • gneiss

    When I say “pay for itself”, I’m also thinking about the cost to society for each car trip made across the city. I would encourage you to review this article to understand how using transit and not driving would end up saving the city (and people) money over using their personal vehicles for all of their trips. http://movingforward.discoursemedia.org/cost-of-commute-calculator-data/

  • gneiss

    The soil composition in the western part of the city is aeolian and near coastal sand, not compressible soils like what you find in the Marina. Those would not pose particularly challenging engineering requirements to install. In most areas in that part of the city, you could install tunnels using classic cut and cover techniques on roadways, similar to those used for BART and the DC Metro installations, and the 4th Street subway. Here’s a map for your reference: http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/Presentations/San_Francisco_Array/San_Francisco_Array_map.gif

    The areas where more classic tunneling with a TBM or other machinery would be primarily in those places where we have hills, Pacific Heights, Chinatown, Diamond Heights, etc. In those cases, more classic bedrock mining equipment would be used.

    While the cost of developing a system like this would be high, if the city is planning on become more dense, on the order of Brooklyn or Paris, this would pay off handsomely in terms of reducing potential traffic and air quality concerns that would come from a concurrent increase in car use.

  • hp2ena

    These alleyways would probably be better designed as woonerfs. That way, you can maximize the street space for all transit modes.

  • the_greasybear

    And that media bias continues up to this minute:
    “Car slams into 7 people at Vallejo bus stop — 1 dead.”
    As if there weren’t a motorist involved at all. Bias, bias, bias.

  • datbeezy

    With sufficient density, there’s really no amount of transit spending that doesn’t pay for itself. If the NYC Subway had cost, in present dollars, 10 Trillion Dollars, it’d have been worth it. Sadly, with such low densities as there are in SF, that wouldn’t exactly be true.

  • datbeezy

    kind of like i said before – what’s the value of the subway to NYC residents? How much money has been made in real estate by fast, reliable (that is: faster and more reliable than private auto transportation) options in NYC? By the tourist industry, which relies on workers coming from the boroughs into Manhattan?
    I’d wager, over the 100+ years of the subway, that number is in the hundreds of Trillions (with a T) if not even more.

  • bike_engineer

    The annual cost of maintenance and upkeep pretty much meets the annual profits for systems like these

  • jd_x

    Boston spent $22 billion on the Big Dig. And that was not nearly as comprehensive. As people here keep saying: if we realize how much it is worth to us, we can come up with the money to do it. There is nothing overly prohibitive about it, it’s just a matter of willpower and getting people to stop thinking with their kneejerk reaction that the car is the only way to do things in dense, urban areas.

  • murphstahoe

    how dense was Manhattan when the subways were built? How dense will SF be in 70 years?

  • datbeezy

    you are keeping the concept of profits within the transit system. the profit is to every single other industry in NYC is where the real value is. Do you think you can support a crumbling 3-apartment condo in a dangerous neighborhood selling for $2m without the subway? Do you think new york would have remained the financial capital of the country without the subway system? NYC would probably be a lot more Boston or Philly sized without such an extensive system.

  • datbeezy

    Manhattan in 1910 was ~ 2.3 million – more than 2x bigger than San Francisco today; the land area of Manhattan is about 30% smaller. Add it all up, Manhattan then was 3.8x denser than SF today. You’d need to add more than 2 million people to the city of SF to catch up.

  • murphstahoe

    Silly me I thought the subway also went to Brooklyn