Today’s Headlines

  • SFCTA Looks at Old Transportation Plans to Create “Four Corridor Plan” (SF Exam)
  • Warriors Arena Plan Calls for $60M in Transportation Improvements (SF Gate)
  • Planning Dep. Considers Zoning for More Housing Around Market/Van Ness Transit Hub (Biz Times)
  • CBS Video Shows Scooter Rider Accelerating Through Intersection and Crashing Into Jaywalking Jogger
  • Photo Catches Commuter Buses Halting 33-Ashbury Line at Haight Street (Hoodline)
  • Haight St. Reconstruction Causing “Unprecedented Number of Gas Leaks (ABCHoodline)
  • BART Train Fills With Smoke at 24th Street, Likely Due to Bad Breaks (CBS, SF Exam)
  • Twin Peaks Gas Station Lease Extended by at Least Five Years (Socketsite)
  • Activists Want More Studies on Tech Shuttles’ Impacts on Congestion and Displacement (Mission Local)
  • GJEL: Bike Yield Law Would Allow Police to Focus on Dangerous Behaviors
  • Berkeley Man Severely Injured By Driver at I-80 Off Ramp (SF Gate)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • david vartanoff

    Indeed Geary needs a subway. Given how badly Muni has designed the Central subway, BART is the default. A route should branch from the existing Daly City station, coming under 19th thence through GG Park joining the Geary trunk line to head downtown. The Geary trunk should go at least as far as the VA facility. On the east end the Geary trunk (should be 4 tracks east of 19th to facilitate express service) should cross under Market offering transfers to the existing route and then turn under the Bay.

  • kceem

    Stop making sense!

  • timsmith

    Minor correction: the Four Corridors plan is an existing document from the 1990s (I believe). It’s one of several previous transit plans being presented.

  • Andy Chow

    Bad breaks –> bad brakes

  • Andy Chow

    Some people is suggesting that because San Mateo County pulled out from the BART district in the 60s, BART isn’t under Geary today. While they may not actually blame San Mateo County for the current state of transit today, I think that there other facts to consider for what they appear to imply:

    1. Original BART bond was approved because of strong support from San Francisco, while support was reduced in East Bay counties. If San Mateo and Marin counties stayed, the more likely that such bond would have failed.

    2. After voter approval, the BART program was facing budget shortfall. BART dropped subway conversion between Sunset Tunnel and Market Street and between West Portal and St. Francis Circle, as well as underground turnaround for Muni Metro. If these conversion took place there would be no doubt that Muni Metro would operate much more effectively. Some elements like Muni Metro turnback was eventually constructed.

    3. Muni streetcars were running on Geary until 1957 and had been the most productive streetcar routes in SF, even with a 2 person crew. May be if SF had not be obsessed with automobiles or at least wait until the BART plan becomes more mature, Muni might have kept the rail line and at least be in a better position for Muni Metro-like subway conversion, or provide faster surface service with large capacity LRVs.

    SF cannot blame San Mateo County for tearing down the streetcar line, and should not really expect other counties to essentially subsidize subway construction. These days every jurisdiction prioritizes their internal needs. SF considers Muni a much higher priority than Caltrain for example. May be a regional government would’ve remixed and prioritized funding (like VTA in Santa Clara County taking tax monies from Palo Alto and spend on BART in East San Jose) but that always has been a struggle.

    http://www.streetcar.org/what_might_have_been_geary/

  • Ken

    “Commuter Buses Halting 33-Ashbury Line” — well, one bus. Because its undercarriage got caught on the pavement. Not on a curb… *on the pavement of the street*.

    How does that happen? Is there a certain clearance vehicles need to drive around SF? Are the SF roads not to spec?

    To me this seems like a story about how SF’s road infrastructure has problems. But of course it’s spun as tech bus demonizing.

  • Andy Chow

    Unless and until there’s a general political attitude for high density growth in the west side of SF, such subway ideas that you talk about isn’t really feasible. The Sunset and the Richmond aren’t Mission Bay or SOMA, or even the Bay View.

  • Rob Poole – Please do not use the epithet jaywalking unless you are directly quoting someone else, which you are not, on item 4. CBS at least put the word in quotes in its headline, knowing that it was misused.

  • murphstahoe

    San Francisco is not Europe!

  • murphstahoe

    Dude – have you seen how many times the buses have tried to drive down some 24 percent grade in Noe Valley and then SHOCK! bottomed out at the bottom of the hill?

    There are some narrow roads and hills around here and those roads are not spec’ed for giant buses or semis. Pretty simple