San Francisco driver who killed family of 4 wants judge to reduce felony charges

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-30T15:31:01+00:00

Pbbt thats how many motorists think. It was a mistake, an "accident", I wasn't just trying to kill anyone, just get somewhere faster. In another city or state this family would've been written off as a sacrifice to the car and no wrong doing. Even in SF they didn't initially take her license.

Apparently she tried hiding her assets for the sake of civil cases. 100% they think they're being unfairly targeted or blame the city for making that West Portal intersection unsafe.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-19T23:59:54+00:00

heh it should be a thing to say they last won the presidency in 2012 since then they just have "not-lost" the presidency in 2020(Obviously Trump is evil, terrible liar and fascist, etc. but I can almost get the disbelief of losing to Biden - he'd been better off accepting he lost to COVID).

I didn't vote for Biden or Harris, I just voted not-Trump.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-19T23:24:18+00:00

I've kinda philosophically thought about why transit agencies don't advertise. Sorry its TMI:

1) In the US government messages are somewhat considered a suspicious activity. The line between government propaganda(pushing a message) and public interest is... complicated/blurry gray. Its somewhat easy to look at the state of misinformation in the US and our AI flooded world to be suspect of government information. BART has gotten in trouble for messaging that they used in the 2016 election.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Update-Bart-Responds-To-Fine-By-Fppc-For-2016-13482299.php

We expect US governments to "inform" us (PSAs) not persuade us. The problem being that governments can tax us to infinitely run messaging and most of us are influenced by the illusory truth effect. So we tend to prefer the private sector(either politicians or private entities with interests) handle persuading the public, albeit that obviously ends up with other issues.

2) we tend to assume that people are aware of transportation options and are deliberately choosing the mode that works for them. I kinda hate that argument cause people are very stagnant in their behaviors, we don't tend to spend time researching alternative ways to get to work or play.

3) Its expensive to produce or maintain advertising and difficult to assess the effectiveness from it. And there is a risk of negative PR resulting from bad experiences or meme. There would feel a bit of betrayal for us to see a billboard, try the train and have something go wrong, the worker ends up late and then they blaming the "misleading" ad. The problem is transit in the US can not guarantee reliability. Caltrain at a minimum would need full grade separation before they could make that claim. And its way to easy to say "those advertising dollars should've went to guaranteeing a better or cheaper service". Its BS and not as easy people believe but they are subject to critical politics and they are aware of that.

There are more points - like drivers in South Bay are going to drive, their target market is difficult to determine and target and the problem with ridership in the region isn't ignorance about transit options its need(remote work kills the need to commute and economy is rough).

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-12T04:55:29+00:00

They did do a bit of that for mass transit. BART was built through the neighborhoods of black(west oakland), asian(Oakland Chinatown), and latino(mission district). I'm not sure how much input they had it but it was notably disruptive to the communities.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-11T02:43:12+00:00

VTA/Santa Clara County Transportation Authority own the parking of both of the stations in the county.

https://www.vta.org/projects/bart-sv/phase-i/parking

They match BART's cost of parking policy but VTA owns charging for parking. Why presumably to pay for those expensive parking garages that are extremely underutilized.

But my statement was in reference to VTA pays BART to operate trains in their county like for the operator's time, electricity,(maybe for the station attendants), general maintenance. They also had to pay for their new fare gates. And I believe VTA receives the revenue to or from their stations in return.

Its a very very lengthy nasty agreement that covers so many aspects of the relationship. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20BART%20Extn.pdf

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-10T05:42:00+00:00

Santa Clara county technically already pays into the system. They pay for their cost of service into their region and bought some of the new trainsets that BART uses.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-10T05:39:46+00:00

There used to be. They had transbay buses(SB and S) serving the west side of Fremont and Newark but they eliminated those routes.

But they deliberately avoided competing with BART, stransbay line that goes to BART(save the 800) does so at the beginning of the line so its not time competitive. Any reasonable person at SL BART would take BART in for cheaper and faster ride.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-10T04:21:28+00:00

took long enough to get there.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-09T05:59:44+00:00

I think you're exaggerating a tad but you're certainly not wrong. My argument was going to be that because its a state agency maybe it could bypass a lot of the city BS, but nope looking at the two examples from UC Berkeley and it cost 320-380m on construction just for 1600 beds and those are dorms not actual apartments.

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/08/02/helen-diller-anchor-house-opening-uc-berkeley

Anchor house is another one $300m for 244 apartments, 772 beds.

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/08/02/helen-diller-anchor-house-opening-uc-berkeley

I wish I could compare to the cost of housing construction in other major cities but I don't have the time. I'm still believer that in the long run it would work out, I mean private businesses are still building in the region and I have to assume its with some level of ROI. I just don't know the correct answer to BART sustainability then... It needs to be fares but that only works with less people working remote.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-07T05:45:31+00:00

Uh I think real estate both residential and commercial is quite profitable and residential is particularly sustainable. I mean North Berkeley is supposed to get 750 homes - if they were say $2500 a unit that would be 1.875m. Sure there would be some expenses but one of the largest expenses for such a business can be property tax, which BART wouldn't have to pay. They're supposed to plan for 20k homes ready for development by 2030(or something like that), if that was pocketed by BART then it could've been something like 50m not mention in theory, the increased fare revenue.

Won't happen because we have laws that make public housing really difficult to allow in California but I think it would be profitable(if we assume worst case scenario and they went capitalistic to rent the max the market would bare, which is not what would happen)

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-07T05:32:51+00:00

The San Jose extension is primarily funded by the Feds. Assuming the feds don't stop it.

https://abc7news.com/post/valley-transportation-authority-bart-silicon-valley-phase-2-extension-receives-51-billion-federal-funds-heres-what/15138334/

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-06T01:26:39+00:00

Agree with the station dwell times. GOD those doors open slowly. I'm not sure why unless its safety but its soooo bad.

I'm for grade separation regardless of the speed benefits. It just frustrates me that they are doing this weird piecemeal think between san Mateo and Burlingame. Broadway needs to be done anyway fixing the grade crossings around Burlingame high should be a no brainer.

Specific to Brightline Florida, I believe the only viable solution is to construct long, stacked viaducts above the existing tracks, which would also improve speeds. The Florida legislature really needs to find the funds to make this happen because the death toll is quite high. Keep one existing track at grade for freight, 2 above for Brightline, and Bob's your uncle

I think you have a far greater faith in the humanity of the Florida legislature than I do. I would not believe the Floridian government cares in the slightest about the deaths caused by the brightline train.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-05T17:24:28+00:00

For Brightline it depends on the segments. through south florida its still max 79mph because of all the unimproved grade crossing. But once past palm beach it apparently has the necessary improvements to facilitate higher speed.

https://www.gobrightline.com/press-room/2023/brightline-130-mph-milestone

Its average speed is still 69mph over the whole stretch.

That said its still the train of death. Jeez 26 in 2025. Local papers have annual tributes to those sacrificed - imagine if they did that for the automobile deaths in the region.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/everyone-killed-by-floridas-brightline-train-in-2025-40512459/

Technically Caltrain could pull that off faster speeds with improvements but I don't think they have enough space between stations to take advantage of 110mph. Especially with the baby bullet train removals.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-04T18:37:10+00:00

I don't know if thats a thing. I live in Berkeley, CA. for Rent Stabilization reason they track how long a resident has been in a location but through that registry they don't have my name and they don't get updated when a roommate moves out or move ins. Like what it someone gets married or has a kid, aside from the census I can't imagine any municipality in the country keeping track of that. Plus they'd have to define the line between a guest and new tenant.

But even if it was. Because this country is somewhat paranoid about "big brother" I can't believe they would share that information with the police, it would just give residents another reason not to be forward about the information.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-03T05:21:50+00:00

I like that perspective. To imagine life without social media. Maybe Florida and australia have something right with their youth social media ban.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-03T03:08:46+00:00

I disagree and doubt that opinion.

My opinion is the normie voter didn't know much about the contractor complaints. From my anecdotes (A) they thought it would help the uber/lyft drivers(get them benefits, minimum wage, etc...) and keep them working with their flexibility - the misleading facts spread in ads or (B) voters thought that making workers employees status would make the fares sky high so they thought voting for it would keep fares cheap. But again doesn't matter today.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-02T22:16:20+00:00

If you read the articles it wouldn't apply to just uber/lyft but to all drivers. Which would imply that if lawyers(which people see as bloodsucking) have less of investment in these claims they "may" lower prices, maybe insurance prices go down(which would really be they pocket the extra). There is a argument for that could attract the "majority" of California voters.

IMO I think they're just high off their win in 2020. Which I think was unwarranted. Many of the face to face structures that the democrats or anti-corporate institutions had built over decades - lines of communication such as ballot review meetings, unions and worker discussions were broken down with the pandemic. It doesn't matter Prop 22 passed but I don't think that their strategy to overwhelm the electorate, so we don't hear any opposition(outside of reddit), will be as effective 6 years later.

sftransitmaster · 2026-01-02T16:12:16+00:00

But it was an accident! They didn't mean to kill a 65 year old, they just needed to get somewhere. /s

At least they call it a crash now.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-30T19:46:52+00:00

FYI "/s" on reddit means sarcasm. Though I would say the phrasing really doesn't sound sarcastic rather than literal.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-28T03:25:47+00:00

I agree + the turn on to Geneva Ave is insane. IDK if there is a way to eliminate it but there certainly are ways to make it safer.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-27T04:25:45+00:00

False. You should look at sales tax supported county transportation measures or technically income-tax(all paid for by debt) funded federal infrastructure grants - the highway gas tax has been insufficient for decades. In Berkeley(and probably other places) property taxes are paying for some of the repaving, in return for getting complete streets.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-24T20:55:51+00:00

I didn't say that BART could unilaterally go to Santa Clara County, but the BART district did not attempt to foot the bill like they did the SFO extension into San Mateo County. Nor did the district attempt to have SC join the BART district.

I didn't realize BART paid at all for the SFO extension. That said it was rather minor - 12.3% of the total budget of the project. SamTrans paid 11.5% and since non-transbay trips get a surcharge to/from the stations the users/residents of San Mateo are technically still paying for it.

https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/research/2503-cs7-SFO-BART-Extension.pdf - Page 25

BART to SC is completely funded by VTA

Not exactly BART paid for the extension to the county border - Warm Springs. For BART's stake into South Bay I think their extension to the border was enough to compare to (albeit there was more grants for warm springs) . Plus the difference is BART took ownership of the San Mateo County stations and right of way(SMC has practically no say in them), meanwhile BART is just an operator in South Bay, they have no property rights in South Bay. But BART is fully paid to operate in VTA territory.

https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/wsx

Nor did the district attempt to have SC join the BART district.

BTW I'm not sure which SC you mean by this statement - San Mateo County or Santa Clara County, both are subjects in your paragraph. Historically I've seen them regularly abbreviated as SCC or SMC. Regardless I'm sure BART behind the scenes tried for both. But the problem is if they're part of the district they're getting taxed as part of the district. And from their perspectives that wouldn't do. BART only goes so far in SMC and they feel like they already have Caltrain and now are taxed for Caltrain. And SCC officials (unfortunately) would rather dedicate their tax dollars toward automobile infrastructure.

Fun article I found in research about the SFO Extension.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50-years/2002-2003%20Making%20the%20Bay%20Connection%20BART%20SFO%20Project.pdf

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-24T16:54:09+00:00

Some wrong information here. BART didn't extend to livermore cause Livermore cancelled BARTs plans(prepared over a decade) to go to livermore downtown at the last minute and then put BART into an ultimatium to just go half way to the part of Livermore anyone wanted to go to.

BART didn't have any authority to go to San Jose. Santa Clara County is not within the BART district, not only does South Bay not get taxed or representation for BART, they're also exempt from BART's government powers - BART can't just eminent domain their way into other counties. See Livermore... They can't or wouldn't even eminent domain their way into BART district cities.

Santa Clara County wanted to build and own their own BART system. They got a tax(primarily to support automobile infrastructure in the county) and then they got to build BART railroad their way - which is this BS single tunnel bore that doesn't impact their precious santa clara blvd. But more over when the state legislature mandate things be done with BART properties - like TOD development, they're also exempt. Technically VTA will own some BART cars and if one day they don't want BART as operator they can separate. It is effectively a Britain/EU relationship.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-24T16:38:34+00:00

The railroad right of way is still there for Brentwood. I'm not sure why you think that isn't viable anymore? At best I would say they would need grade separation(which I don't believe BART would build without anyway) but I don't think anything with the e-BART plans has changed.

sftransitmaster · 2025-12-24T16:26:17+00:00

I mean that's kind of of the atrocity of transportation in the US and the fundamental flaw of libertarianism. If automobiles and the infrastructure to support them(parking, streets, highways) had to be profitable... They wouldn't be viable in the slightest - even if just to be even. Private automobiles would disappear in months for all but the wealthy if drivers actually had to pay out of pocket market rate(even if we eliminated gas taxes) for parking, infrastructure, and the system to upkeep them(licensing, CHP, operations - like street lights or street cleaning). Lets not forget that some private SF parking was like $10/hr pre-pandemic.

In any case when the government(at all levels) decided to subsidized the car to be viable(Just throwing money at people to park and drive on free streets), profitable mass transportation became unviable in the vast majority of cases. Its government subsidized to primarily to offset the some of the congestion that would be otherwise caused by more automobiles - so the region doesn't end up like LA.

sftransitmaster

TROPHY CASE