Today’s Headlines

  • Documents Preparing SFMTA’s Private Shuttle Program for Permanence Worry Litigants (SF Examiner)
  • SFMTA Produces Video to Teach Truck Drivers to Navigate SF’s Streets Safely
  • Transit Advocates Laud Wiener’s Subway Vision (KQED, CBS); 48 Hills: Developers Should Pay for it
  • Muni Bus Catches Fire on Highway 101 Near Cesar Chavez While Driving Out of Service (Examiner)
  • Mission Residents, Merchants Criticize Parklets That Lack Seating After Business Hours (Mission Local)
  • C.W. Nevius Milks the Critical Mass Attacker Incident Again to Call the Ride “Out of Control”
  • 101-Unit Affordable Housing Development at 17th and Folsom Parking Lot to Be Parking-Free (Biz Times)
  • Man Takes Selfie While Lying on BART Tracks, Delaying Entire System for 30 Minutes (CoCo Times)
  • Downtown Oakland Merchants Say Business Hurt By Construction of Non-Plaza at Latham Square (EBX)
  • Alameda Man, 65, Killed By Driver While Crossing Deadly Constitution Way (ABC, SFGate)
  • Sharon Butler, 54, of Brentwood Killed By DUI Driver While Biking (Mercury News, CBS)
  • Lyft Line, UberPOOL is Being Used By Ride-Sharers for Pick-Ups of a Different Kind (re/code)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • jonobate

    There was (apparently) a BART suicide last night at 12th St/Oakland, which snarled the system.

    This morning Market is blocked by police at 10th; cop told me it was a suspicious package.

  • jd_x

    Re: “Sharon Butler, 54, of Brentwood Killed By DUI Driver While Biking”

    Argh. So utterly devastating that this continues to happen; even when bicyclists follow all the rules and use the crappy infrastructure they have been given (actually, in this case, not even bicycle infrastructure but the shoulder:, they still get slaughtered. And then the CHP has this to say in response to the large number of deaths on Contra Costa roads:

    “We’ve had a lot of fatal collisions recently,” Fransen said. “Few have been speed related and a few have been DUI related, so it’s definitely a concern that we have. We definitely want to remind everybody to drive responsibly.”

    Oh, I see: we just need to remind everybody to drive responsibly and all is good?! That’s it? No changes to the infrastructure, laws, or punishment for motorists who break laws and kill/maim people? Just “remember to drive responsibly”? Wow, CHP: you’re really doing a great job out there? This is exactly the problem with our roads, that we act like deer caught in headlights when it comes to making our roads safer and all we come up with is, “Hey everybody: please drive safer.”

  • PaleoBruce

    Re: Scott Weiner’s paying for subway projects. It makes the most sense to use public space on public streets first. Instead of subsidized parking spaces for private automobiles, use the parking lane for transit. The private automobiles can go in new underground garages (which they pay for).

  • jonobate

    The private automobiles can go in new underground garages (which they pay for).

    Who’s “they”? Who pays the cost of construction for these new underground garages?

  • Jimbo

    subways should definitely be built to free up the roads then we can utilize both the roads and the underground tunnel, increasing transit capacity. i would also support removing parking, and adding another 2 lanes for car travel, if we built hundreds of underground garages. but since that won’t happen, a subway is clearly best choice.

  • CamBam415

    The Marin IJ reports that the Blue & Gold fleet has asked Golden Gate Transit to take over commuter ferry service from Tib to SF:

    Sounds like B&G can operate the run just fine, but cannot afford the cap ex to update their aging boats. B&G will continue to operate their tourist routes.

  • Andy Chow

    I think terminal access is also a factor. Blue & Gold runs the Tiburon commuter service to the Ferry Building, whereas other non-commute lines serve Pier 41. Other tenants at the Ferry Buildings are Golden Gate Ferry and SF Bay Ferry. Although Blue & Gold is also a contractor operator for SF Bay Ferry, its service area is intended not to duplicate Golden Gate Ferry.

  • PaleoBruce

    Option 1 = Give free use of public space to private people for private car storage, thereby costing hundreds of $Billions to dig space underground to put the transit road.

    Option 2 = Use the public surface road space for transit lanes, cost essentially free. Have the private people pay for underground parking.

    I don’t follow the logic why we choose option 1.

  • PaleoBruce

    The users of the garages should pay the actual costs of storage of their private property. The surface road public space should be put to the best use, often a dedicated transit lane would be a better public use than private property storage. Building underground roadways (subways) to preserve the subsidized privilege of private car parking in lanes on the surface roads would cost hundreds of Billions of unnecessary tax dollars.

  • If you propose Option 3 = Sit on hands and do nothing for even longer than it takes to do a big dig and then make some sort of minor change, I’m sure you’ll see someone’s eyes light up.

  • baklazhan

    The answer seems to be:

    “That public space is owned by and reserved for motorists, to store their vehicles. If the public wants to use it for any other purpose, they have to compensate the motorists by providing them with alternative arrangements, at no cost to them.”

  • PaleoBruce

    Maybe someday we all will be wealthy enough to become motorists. It is only mooching off the public dole when poor people do it.

  • jonobate

    You haven’t answered the question. Who pays the cost of construction for these new underground garages?

    Building underground garages is expensive – there’s a reason most parking structures go up rather than down. Parking fees cover the operating costs of garages, but not the construction costs. You could recoup the construction costs over (say) a 30-year period by increasing the cost of parking in these garages, but then the parking fees would likely be so high that the garages would be underutilized.

    The high construction cost and risk of underutilization means that it’s unlikely that a private company would take on the risk of building these things and being able to recoup their money over time. So if you wanted this to happen you’d need the city to put up the construction money. Even if the city was able to recover the money over time through user fees, there is no reason for the city to take on the debt required to fund such a scheme when there are much greater priorities.

    A simpler and better approach is to convert parking lanes to transit only lanes, and not replace the lost parking spaces. This has all the benefits of your suggestion (increasing the speed of transit etc) but none of the drawbacks noted above.

  • als

    Hey Jimbo,

    Would you consider removing parking for BRT – or is that totally out in your mind?

    Note the Troll bating….

  • PaleoBruce

    Sorry if I was not clear. The people parking their cars should pay for the fair full cost of parking their cars, enough to repay the cost of building the garages. Putting transit lanes underground is equally expensive, a subsidy to private interests when surface road space is squandered. And, yes, if people using cars paid the full cost of using cars they might instead to choose to use the cheaper surface transit system.

  • jonobate

    Okay. How would you deal with the fact that no private company would see building exorbitantly expensive underground parking as a viable investment?

    I don’t disagree that drivers should pay the full cost of parking their vehicles. I disagree with the idea that we should allow any new parking spaces to be built at all. Parking isn’t a fixed resource, we can and should be reducing the parking supply rather than blighting the public environment with new parking facilities to replace spaces lost to transit projects. Even if they are underground the enterances will be a danger to pedestrians, and the cars traveling to use them will still cause pollution and congestion.