Today’s Headlines

  • Problems with New BART Train (NBCBayArea, KTVU, BizTimes)
  • Praise for new BART Cars (SFWeekly)
  • Judge Dismisses BART from Homeless Lawsuit (SFExaminer)
  • UN Investigator Appalled by Bay Area Homeless Situation (Curbed)
  • Developer’s Affordable Housing Plans (MissionLocal)
  • SF’s Modular Housing Plans (SFChron)
  • Mortgages and Bay Area Housing Prices (BizTimes)
  • Updated Map of High Rises Going Up in SF (Curbed)
  • More on Saturday’s Castro Car Crash on Sidewalk (Hoodline)
  • Taxis Ousted from San Rafael Transit Center (MarinIJ)
  • Commentary: Lobbyist Argues Against Bridge Toll Hike (EastBayTimes)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA, national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • mx

    Thanks Eric. That’s a fascinating map that I’ve never seen before.

    Yes, not all of Tract 305 would be upzoned under SB 827, as some potions are too far from Forest Hills or 20-minute Muni service, but some areas are.

    And it’s important that your map specifically shows the Census-reported c ommute mode share. jonobate’s argument is that increased non-commute car trips are acceptable as long as people use transit to commute, but it’s clear that there would be many areas of the city upzoned under SB 827 where people have demonstrably chosen not to commute by transit, and I fail to see how putting more housing there will not lead to significant increases in VMT. It seems like fairly widespread experience that feeder bus service on 20-minute headways to Muni Metro is insufficient for many people to choose transit.

    To some extent, the city can try to combat that with maximum parking requirements, which I gather would still be permissible. That only really works after street and off-site parking are saturated though, which isn’t the case in many less-dense neighborhoods.

  • Eric Johnson

    It took several google searches and a lot of wasted time on the US Census site (source of the data) before I stumbled on that map. It has even more information than I knew when I posted the link. It’s quite interactive. For example, that tract has 9.1% transit share. Interesting is that no tract in SF has more than 32% share. That latter really surprised me. Of course we should consider walking and biking too (it’s Streetsblog, after all).

  • mx

    The numbers seem roughly consistent with the SFMTA
    Transportation Decision Survey, which has 43% private auto and a 26% transit mode share (commute and non-commute), citywide (public transit for just 23% of trips by SF residents).

    The income data in that survey is interesting to me as well. Transit had a 34% share for those making <$75K, but just 18% for those reporting incomes over that. That would also point to greater development of market rate housing resulting in increased VMT.

    https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports/2017/Travel%20Decisions%20Survey%20Summary%20Report%202017_Accessible.pdf

  • Eric Johnson

    I sorted by transit share and thought I was looking at all 195 tracts, not just the first 100. So the 32% I cited is actually about the median.