HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2010, 3:09 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 4,861
BART has three weeks to address FTA concerns about the Oakland airport connector. From today's Chronicle:

Quote:
BART gets 3 weeks to fix airport connector plan
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 28, 2010


The Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted 11-5 to give BART three weeks to satisfy the concerns of the Federal Transit Administration, which last week threatened to withhold $70 million in stimulus funds allotted to the $440 million, 3.2-mile automated rail link between the Oakland International Airport and the Coliseum BART Station.

If BART cannot get federal approval for a plan to complete the necessary studies by Feb. 16, the commission will hold a special meeting and reassign the money to Bay Area transit agencies, which are cutting service, raising fares and laying off workers. The FTA must approve any Bay Area plan by March 5 for the region to get the money.
Rest of the article at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA1H1BOENS.DTL
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2010, 6:39 PM
maybetoday's Avatar
maybetoday maybetoday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 18
Quote:
Muni looks at some of the deepest service cuts ever
Rachel Gordon, Michael Cabanatuan, Chronical Staff Writers
Friday, January 29, 2010

San Francisco Muni riders face the prospect of some of the deepest service cuts in the agency's history, resulting in longer wait times and more crowding.

The staff-crafted proposal to trim costs and boost revenue will get its first hearing at City Hall this morning before the Municipal Transportation Agency governing board.

If approved, almost every line would be affected. Even the heavily used workhorse routes, such as the 14-Mission, the 1-California and the 38-Geary, would run less frequently. Late-night service - 1 to 5 a.m. - would be slashed in half, meaning buses would show up every 60 minutes. Service would end earlier on more than a dozen routes.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0e1mmKk4n
See SFMTA's proposal here

Perhaps it's time I buy a bike. Forgoing a few months of Fastpasses would pay for a decent used bike. If only I had the space to store a bike.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2010, 7:09 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
I got the following email. I'm out of town and can't go but maybe other will want to:

Quote:
Dear Community Leaders and Transit Colleagues,
The SFMTA Board of Directors confronts a challenging budget situation for both the current fiscal year and the next two-year budget cycle. After layoffs and other cost-cutting measures that began last November, the SFMTA still faces a current-year $16.9 million shortfall.
The solutions before the Agency and those impacted by its decisions are both painful and unpopular.
Proposed solutions include:
• Reduced frequencies and shorter service hours for Muni
• Muni fare increases and parking fee and fine increases

Your opinion counts. Please attend one of the following meetings to learn more and to provide public comment.

FY 2010 Focus
Town Hall Meetings, One South Van Ness Ave. @ Market St., 2nd Floor Atrium
Saturday, Feb. 6 - 10 a.m. to noon
Tuesday, Feb. 9 - 6 to 8 p.m.

SFMTA Board Meeting, City Hall Room 400
Tuesday, Feb. 16 - 9 a.m. (public hearing and possible Board action)

FY 2011-2012 Focus
Town Hall Meetings, One South Van Ness Ave. @ Market St., 2nd Floor Atrium
Wednesday, March 10 - 6 p.m.
Saturday, March 20 - 10 a.m.

SFMTA Board Meetings, City Hall Room 400
Tuesday, March 30 - 2 p.m.
Tuesday, April 6 - 2 p.m. (public hearing and possible Board action)
Tuesday, April 20 - 2 p.m. (public hearing and possible Board action)

If you cannot attend one of the meetings, visit www.sfmta.com for details or send an e-mail to sfmtabudget@sfmta.com or call 311.

Sincerely,

Judson True
Communications Manager
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2010, 8:27 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by maybetoday View Post
Perhaps it's time I buy a bike. Forgoing a few months of Fastpasses would pay for a decent used bike. If only I had the space to store a bike.
For $400, you can buy a brand new commuter bike, helmet and lights that will likely last you five years, minimum. Used bikes are even cheaper. Maintenance is fairly cheap--$15 to have someone replace a flat tube (at Box Dog), $50 for a new chain--and rare. Most months I spend absolutely nothing on my ride. My bike is now 2 years old and reliably gets me where I'm going, fast, whenever I need to get there. On the other hand, $400 will get you a piddling six months of Muni-only FastPasses, or worse, five sad months of the in-town BART+Muni pass. Reliability and speed are, of course, sold separately.

People at the MTA meeting are tweeting that it's very crowded and noisy. I hope they seize the fucking room.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 8:12 AM
jamesinclair jamesinclair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I suspect in the minds of the SF Port people, a "ferry" crosses the Bay while a "water taxi" takes people from one point on the shore to another point on the same shore. Your view of it makes more sense, however (nobody ever accused the SF Port management of having good sense).
Yeah, I just want to add that Im all for the extra transport, but calling it a water taxi is simply misleading.

It's like saying MUNI is adding new supertaxis (buses)

Im sure there's another appropriate word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 2:56 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Bay Area transit projects get federal dollars
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-01) 20:43 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Muni's Central Subway and its Van Ness Avenue rapid bus project, plus AC Transit's bus rapid transit project, each will be awarded tens of millions of dollars in federal funding today.

The Department of Transportation will award Muni $20 million for the Central Subway project, which is to run from Fourth and King streets to Chinatown. The Van Ness project will get $15 million. AC Transit's project, to run from San Leandro to Berkeley, also will get $15 million. The money will come from the highly competitive New Starts and Small Starts programs, which help fund major transportation projects.

The $1.6-billion Central Subway would travel at street level from Fourth and King to the Interstate 80 skyway, then underground to Stockton and Jackson streets, with stations near the Moscone Convention Center, Union Square and in Chinatown. Construction is expected to begin this year with service starting in 2018.

The Van Ness project would add dedicated bus lanes, stations, ticket machines and traffic signals that give buses priority on a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard streets. It is expected to cost $120 million, with construction starting in 2011 or 2012. Service would begin a year later . . . .
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNMR1BR59K.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2010, 12:05 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Project is right up SoMa’s alleys
By: JOHN UPTON and JOHN UPTON
San Francisco Examiner
February 5, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Vibrant alley life could soon replace the filth that overwhelms some narrow lanes in SoMa.

Ambitious plans this year to overhaul alleys between Sixth, Folsom, Seventh and Howard streets by adding streetlights, trees, crosswalks, modern paving and traffic-calming devices advanced Tuesday when some construction spending was approved.

The project aims to improve pedestrian and cycling access in the densely populated alleys while discouraging heavy automobile use.After construction from March to September, similar alley improvement efforts will begin between Fifth and Sixth streets . . . .

Improvements planned for northern Sixth Street:

•Raise crosswalks at intersections to slow traffic and create continuous sidewalks

•Texture paving to resemble bricks

•Add trees

•Add streetlights

•Add public art

•Have parking on alternate sides of one-way streets to create winding path for motorists

•Create car-free pedestrian plaza at Minna and Russ streets
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Proj...#ixzz0ei28espb


Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/0...free_plaza.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2010, 6:15 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
441,000 parking spaces in SF . . . in a city of 800,000 people plus thousands more on workdays. It's harder to park than I thought.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 9:43 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
FiveTen Represent!?!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stinson Beach, CA
Posts: 6,021
High-speed rail could skip San Francisco-to-San Jose route

SILICON VALLEY -- The California High Speed Rail Authority is thinking about potentially abandoning the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of its proposed high speed rail line -- saying running 200-mile-per-hour bullet trains through the Peninsula might be politically impossible.

The authority is instead floating a new idea, which would have the train line begin in San Jose, instead of San Francisco.

The authority is still trying to figure out how to run high-speed trains down the Peninsula.

They're looking at either elevated tracks, underground tracks or so-called "stacked trains" -- where the high-speed rail line would run either above or below the local Caltrain line.

The authority says starting the line in San Jose would be easier legally and financially.

They stress that the idea is still in its infancy, and has not yet been fully examined.

http://kliv.com/High-speed-rail-coul...San-Jo/6349554

Leaving out SF makes the entire NorCal leg of the system useless.
__________________


"It's raining game in Northern California"

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 10:06 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY/Bellevue, WA
Posts: 3,732
^Where are these people getting this? The Authority has said no such thing, and it wouldn't even be allowable without a new proposition to overwrite prop 1A. They seriously think that passing a new statewide proposition to fund HSR from SJ to LA has a better chance of happening than dealing with a few NIMBYs in Palo Alto?

I'm sure that the "source" used by KLIV is an intern at most, and more likely, someone who doesn't even work at the Authority. Probably the Menlo Park newspaper or something.

The fact that the article mentions "200 mph trains running on the peninsula" even though that has NEVER been proposed by anyone (125 mph would be the limit between SF and SJ) is telling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 10:20 PM
LtBk LtBk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 451
From the posts I read in this thread and elsewhere, you think a liberal city and region will have a good transit, but it seems to be the opposite. Can SF and the Bay Area do anything right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 10:34 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
FiveTen Represent!?!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stinson Beach, CA
Posts: 6,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBk View Post
Can SF and the Bay Area do anything right?
Yes, we make lots of money.

LOL
__________________


"It's raining game in Northern California"

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 12:23 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20,237
Eliminating San Francisco from the SF-LA HSR system is an idea so stupid I don't even know where to start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:10 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,673
This idea is absolutely ridiculous. These people need to be silenced for even bringing it up.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:24 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quentin Kopp seems to be behind a lot of this and I must say I don't understand it. It's like he is taking revenge on his former home town for some reason. What did we do to him?

Frankly, I think if they didn't initially build the part of the system between SF and San Jose, it would inevitably get built anyway (and cost more when it does). It's so obviously an essential part of the project. One wonders what percentage of passengers would want to use the system if it did not go city center LA to city center SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:32 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBk View Post
From the posts I read in this thread and elsewhere, you think a liberal city and region will have a good transit, but it seems to be the opposite. Can SF and the Bay Area do anything right?
We DO have good transit. Just not as good as we need and want, or as good as the rhetoric of our politicians tries to convince us we have. San Francisco in particular has a legal "transit first policy" and yet transit is not supported or given priority in so many ways that it could be (e.g. as simple a thing as why are commercial trucks allowed to double park blocking bus routes?). But its still better than all but a couple of other US cities making SF one of the few cities in the US where it's very feasible to live car-free (I do it and many of my friends do it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 9:48 PM
TheRealRocWill's Avatar
TheRealRocWill TheRealRocWill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
well this is a shocker ....

Feds deny $70 million in stimulus money for BART rail extension to Oakland airport
By Denis Cuff
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 02/12/2010 08:41:38 PM PST
Updated: 02/12/2010 10:42:19 PM PST

BART's plan for a rail extension to the Oakland International Airport was dealt a major blow Friday when the federal government denied $70 million in economic stimulus funds for the project because of concerns it may discriminate against low-income and minority residents.

In a blunt letter, the Federal Transit Administration said it was pulling the plug on the grant because BART cannot possibly meet deadlines for a required analysis to determine whether the $492 million project has discriminatory impacts. The study is required for major transit projects to get federal funds.

"I am required to now inform you that the plan is rejected," Peter Rogoff, administrator of the federal agency, wrote in a two-page letter to BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger.

Dugger could not be reached immediately for comment, and a BART spokesman said Friday night the agency was preparing a response....

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14393883
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 12:03 AM
LtBk LtBk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
We DO have good transit. Just not as good as we need and want, or as good as the rhetoric of our politicians tries to convince us we have. San Francisco in particular has a legal "transit first policy" and yet transit is not supported or given priority in so many ways that it could be (e.g. as simple a thing as why are commercial trucks allowed to double park blocking bus routes?). But its still better than all but a couple of other US cities making SF one of the few cities in the US where it's very feasible to live car-free (I do it and many of my friends do it).
Than why bothering have transit first policy if the city can't improve it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 2:36 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealRocWill View Post
Feds deny $70 million in stimulus money for BART rail extension to Oakland airport
By Denis Cuff
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 02/12/2010 08:41:38 PM PST
Updated: 02/12/2010 10:42:19 PM PST

BART's plan for a rail extension to the Oakland International Airport was dealt a major blow Friday when the federal government denied $70 million in economic stimulus funds for the project because of concerns it may discriminate against low-income and minority residents.

In a blunt letter, the Federal Transit Administration said it was pulling the plug on the grant because BART cannot possibly meet deadlines for a required analysis to determine whether the $492 million project has discriminatory impacts. The study is required for major transit projects to get federal funds.

"I am required to now inform you that the plan is rejected," Peter Rogoff, administrator of the federal agency, wrote in a two-page letter to BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger.

Dugger could not be reached immediately for comment, and a BART spokesman said Friday night the agency was preparing a response....

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14393883
Oaklanders should have voted for Obama. Oh wait... they did!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 8:51 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,673
I don't think the lost cause that was the BART airport connector is such a big deal, it's not like it's absolutely essential. They should just reallocate the money for some other more important cause. Losing it period, now that would be a disappointment.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.