Today’s Headlines

  • Muni Gets Low Grade in Citywide Survey (SFExaminer)
  • Minor Caltrain Derailment in San Jose (MercNews, Fox2)
  • Marin Looking at Better SMART Train Connections (MarinIJ)
  • Electric GoBikes Due Back in June (SFChron)
  • Port Approves Tentative Agreement for New A’s Stadium (SFChron)
  • S.F. Tourism Chief Sees Improvement in City Cleanup (SFChron)
  • Neighbor’s Weigh Poop Tax to Clean Up Dolores Park (SFChron)
  • America’s Endless Addiction to New Roads (Curbed)
  • Letters: The Real Reason Cities Don’t Use Red Light Cameras (MercNews)
  • Commentary: Did Mid-Market Tax Break Work? (SFChron)
  • Commentary: Mom’s Want Action on Climate Change (SFExaminer)

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

  • As a 19-year city resident and transit rider I absolutely get a kick out of those random nationwide surveys of “the best transit systems” where Muni lands somewhere in the top. Then there’s reality.

  • I’m all for a new A’s stadium but the port location is bad for transit. The longer the distance to a station and/or bus connection discourages transit use.

    The Nationals built their stadium next to the Navy Yard Metro station. Twins next to light rail. Giants next to light rail. Atlanta? In the middle of nowhere forcing almost everyone to drive. Cities should require major venues like this built adjacent to transit.

  • david vartanoff

    absolutely agree. A’s new stadium should be where the current one is. BART, Capitol Corridor serve the location.

  • Re: the Muni low grade article…I’m really getting tired of people ragging on the L-Taraval project and its plan to remove stops to speed service. This isn’t a bus line. It’s a light-rail line and shouldn’t stop every two blocks. It’s bad enough that it runs in mixed traffic which slows down the system.

  • david vartanoff

    Yes a few stops should go, but the real issues are stop signs, and auto interference. Skipping a few stops will not push the cars out of the way.

  • sf in sf
  • thielges

    Try using San Jose’s or Sacramento’s (or almost any city other than NYC or Chicago’s) transit system and you will see why Muni comes out on top. It is all relative.

  • I guess by “relative” you mean comparing several crap transit systems to see who is worse rather than the top of the heap. Relative or not, we are the ones suffering in SF.

  • Try riding the bus on a daily basis and then come back with an informed opinion.

  • Treating light rail like light rail and not a streetcar is part of the problem and solution. If Muni wants to operate surface routes like a streetcar system then it would be better for the agency to ditch streetcars and replace with buses which are able to start/stop faster. The bus substitution along Taraval a few years ago made for a much faster ride to West Portal even with the existing stops.

    Unfortunately, for many lines, shared lanes with traffic are unavoidable especially now that some lanes are removed and replaced with bike lanes forcing more cars to share the roadway with trains and buses. (I’m not dissing bike lanes, just making an observation.) Signal priority has been batted around for decades and we’re still not seeing it become a real priority.

  • Flatlander

    Interesting that so many low-income residents (i.e., the people who use transit) seem to disagree with you. People in NYC also complain about their transit system.

  • People everywhere in the U.S. complain about their transit systems whether it’s bus or rail. I’ve heard BART riders on the platform whining that the next scheduled train is in 5 minutes. Clearly, they haven’t waited for a Muni train.

    What you fail to capture is that many low-income residents ride transit because it is their only option and cannot compare it to other modes of getting around like ride hailing or driving. For the record, riders come from all socioeconomic backgrounds which negates your claim that low–income residents are the people who use transit.

    As I suggested to sf in sf…ride the bus (or train) on a regular basis and then report back.

  • crazyvag

    The city could require enough parking for only 1000 or so attendees, making parking cost 6x the cost of a single ticket, so even a family of 4 will take transit, or including the cost of AC Transit / BART / Ferry free as part of each ticket.

  • Flatlander

    It’s cute how you assume anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t ride Muni. Higher income folks would complain about transit if there was a subway portal in their basement that took them directly to work with no stops between.

  • Equally as cute as you making assumptions about higher income folks. Take more than 2 seconds to read what I wrote…all I said is for you and sf in sf to ride Muni on an ongoing basis and then report back. If you ride Muni all the time and your experience has been better than terrible then by all means share that and share what makes it so pleasant.

  • p_chazz

    The problem is that there is nowhere to go before or after the game. It’s an old school stadium that is an island in the middle of a parking lot, in the middle of a light industrial/lower income, high-crime zone. These days, cities want sports arenas downtown, so people going to the event will spend time and money before and afterwards shopping and dining.

  • p_chazz

    If the stadium can’t be built next to transit, transit should come to the stadium. There should be a T-shaped streetcar that would connect the West Oakland, 12 Street City Center and Lake Merritt BART Stations, connecting Howard Terminal and Jack London Square.