No Way Subway

Perspectives : KQED Radio – No Way Subway –’s Bob Feinbaum describes why the Central Subway would be a loser for San Francisco.
discussion with Quentin Kopp and SFMTA on Central Subway.
The Subway to Nowhere


On June 29, 2012, the House passed their version of the Department of Transportation funding bill by a vote of 261-163 – House Approves the Fiscal Year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Funding Bill
Legislation holds the line on spending while targeting investments for transportation systems and housing programs Americans need the most.
MCCLINTOCK (R-CA)  AMENDMENT NO. 13 prohibits funds for phase two of the “Third Street Light Rail Central Subway” project in San Francisco. The amendment was adopted on a vote of 235- 136.

Next Steps in Legislative Process – The legislative process continues in the U.S. Senate and ultimately the Senate/ House Conference Committee—where the fate of the Central Subway will be debated for several months. and San Franciscans will better inform the process in Washington.

Growing Non-Partisan Opposition to the Central Subway – Increasingly, opposition to the Central Subway Project has become non-partisan—with growing awareness of its meager transit benefits, higher costs, poor design, and the financial drain on citywide Muni. The Central Subway is draining $500 million of state/ local funds from Muni—triggering service cuts, crumbling infrastructure, higher fares/ fees/ rates/ tickets and more parking meters.  Democrats, Republicans and Independents are opposing the Central Subway Boondoggle.  In the Senate/ House Conference Committee, more Democrats will oppose the Central Subway, as details of data falsification, funding ineligibility and violations of funding legislation are revealed.

Quicker Jobs Now – Instead of a tiny 1.6 mile, $1.6 billion subway, $500 million of existing state/ local funds can be poured into the citywide Muni system and the broad bottom base of the economy—with massive local jobs.  San Francisco’s economy can be jump-started with hundreds of miles of beautiful transit-priority streets—energizing cafés, restaurants, retail, services, business corridors, neighborhoods…

The California Transportation Commission approved $61 million of High Speed Rail (HSR) Connectivity Funds for the Central Subway despite its elimination of the T-Line’s loop to the Market Street Corridor and Transbay Terminal. The Central Subway has compromised HSR’s credibility. (according to

MTA has been accused of falsifying data to justify the Central Subway and conducting an expensive misinformation campaign.

Related links:
House passes 51B Transportation-HUD spending bill for 2013
Documented true facts on the Central Subway – Quentin L. Kopp
North Beach residents angry about Central Subway construction plans
The Central Subway – Tony Gantner’s site
Project Funding Project
Save North Beach from central subway


Parking suggestions for Potrero Hill and Dogpatch

Comment on : Stop Parking Meter Installation of Potrero Hill

How about this thought to help alleviate the situation: It’s time for Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) to take back their property on Iowa Street (23rd to 25th) from their tenant who is making noise & pollution and harboring people who live their and, I suspect, make nightly raids on cars with interesting-looking stuff left visible on their seats.

One: The proper use of that space might be a CalTrains parking lot, like they have at stations all along the Peninsula, where they charge a few bucks a day for commuter – riders parking there while at work, or whatever.

Two: Have MTA install two or three-hour parking limitation on surrounding streets, so commuters are motivated to use that lot.

I turned a petition into the MTA some months ago, signed by those wanting Indiana Street (23rd to 25th) to be parking time controlled–ought to check in with the City to find out if we’ll get a hearing to advocate for this change.

We have no knowledge about this particular property, but the idea of CalTrain other public transit services providing parking for their riders is a suggestion we support, and the kind of plan San Francisco officials should embrace as a balanced transit approach instead of the biased approach taken by the SFMTA.

Hail A Fellow Human, Not A Taxi With “SideCar” – The New P2P Uber

By JOSH CONSTINE : – excerpt

You need a ride, someone else has a car and could use the cash, SideCar is the app that will bring you together. New instant peer-to-peer rideshare-finding app SideCar turns anyone into a taxi / Uber driver, and it’s supposedly legal because you technically volunteer to pay at the end. Today it emerges from beta for iOS and Android in its first city, San Francisco…

SideCar is a real-time ridesharing community that connects drivers with spare seats in their car to passengers who need instant rides across the city, via a user-friendly proprietary smartphone technology. It helps drivers because they use their own car and help cover the costs of maintenance – all while meeting people in the city. Meanwhile for passengers it makes it easy to get a ride, cheaper than alternatives, and gives them a unique personal interaction.


Lane change for bicycle projects in San Francisco

By: Carolyn Copeland : Sf Examiner – excerpt

…As recently as 2005, The City was focused on making it easier for cyclists and autos to share space. A study from the early 2000s led to roadway markings with the arrows above a bicycle, commonly referred to as a sharrow. San Francisco began marking streets with the sharrow in 2005…

The bike lane projects, which can be controversial when they replace a lane of traffic or parking spaces, are expected to continue. Work is planned on three blocks of Oak and Fell streets, along with on Cargo Way, Cesar Chavez Street, Eighth Street and John Muir Drive…

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner

How Can On-Site Carsharing Have the Best Environment for Success?

PRNewswire-USNewswire : – excerpt

SAN JOSE, Calif., June 28, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Mineta Transportation Institute ( has released its newest peer-reviewed research report, Residential On-Site Carsharing and Off-Street Parking Policy in the San Francisco Bay Area. This research investigates the current practice of on-site carsharing and the associated parking standard changes from the perspective of three key groups – building developers, carsharing service providers, and local policymakers. This report is the first half of a two-part series on parking policy. The principal investigator was Charles Rivasplata, Ph.D., in close coordination with Zhan Guo, Ph.D., Richard Lee, Ph.D., David Keyon, and Luis Schloeter. The free 64-page report is available for PDF download from

Dr. Rivasplata said, “Based on interviews with 15 carsharing stakeholders, we identified major factors contributing to the relative success or failure of on-site carsharing programs. In general, the service has been well accepted by developers, planners, and service providers as a way of reducing parking demand and expanding local carsharing markets. However, despite the success of carsharing there is a clear gap between on-site carsharing programs and off-street parking standards, and between on-site carsharing programs and carsharing business operations.”… (more)

In the case of San Francisco, most of the city is not high density, though that is the argument the SFMTA uses. They base their data on studies and plans for development that was planned but not yet implemented due to the economic downturn, that most experts expect to continue for a number of years. The major dispute SF residents have with SFMTA is that their programs do not address the conditions residents are dealing with today.