As seen headed to Haight-Ashbury, with a special lady friend.
Stay thirsty, my friends
On the one hand, the millionaire NIMBY’s of the “Alamo Square Historic District” literally cry about tourist buses and band together to ban them from Hayes Street, but on the other hand, they say “fuck you” to those who use and reside upon neighboring Fell.
This is the result – problem solved (for us millionaire property owners, anyway):
Then what they’ll say is, “Why don’t you start your own Historic District?”
It’s human nature to band together to work on a common goal, you know, the way the anti-vaccination crowd does – there’s fraternity there, there’s sorority.
But sometimes you lose perspective. That’s the price.
Seen here being towed backwards up Oak and then up Clayton. One assumes this front wheel drive car has a dolly attached:
Anyway, this is how I see Autoreturn – they don’t really return cars as much as take them away.
Hey look the new SCHEDULE OF FEES, effective yesterday. What’s really out of whack here is the “Administrative Fee” of $266. This is how our inefficient, money-hungry SFMTA earns its money – by charging a fee on top of the money it already makes on the cars it tickets and has towed. Is this the highest administrative fee charged of all of America’s 3000-some odd counties? Yep. Why’s that? Well, it’s to pay the salaries of the Parking Control Officers that the SFMTA already makes money off of, oh well.
Here’s Spencer Brown’s recent experience with AR. But, as stated, the real profiteer here is the inefficient, money-hungry SFMTA.
SF ought to kill this fee entirely.
Presenting the “Discolyft theme car”
I’m guessing this Lyfter doesn’t moonlight for Uber…
Here it is picking up…
..and then heading out:
(Perhaps I’m jumping to contusions here, not seeing any ID / front license plate here.)
I’ll tell you, the use tax alone for this rig would be a killer, and then you factor in the notorious Large Mercedes Benz Depreciation Penalty, and then how are you making money?
I suppose you could make a little bit, but man, I don’t see How It Would Make Sense to Operate This Giant Mercedes Benz as an Uber or a Lyft.
You know what “Vision Zero” 2024 is about? It’s about “comfort.” Check it – lots of hits, huh?
The problem with comfortable pedestrians, is that they become overconfident pedestrians.
And that might be all right on a flat stretch of the “traffic sewer” known as Post Street…
…but as you get more comfortable with this game, you move on to hilly Masonic and this is where people get hit and this is where people die:
Who set up this arrangement, with a very popular Trader Joe’s with a very small parking lot on the left with a ready supply of free street parking on the right? SFGov, the same outfit that is promising to beat Sweden to a “Vision Zero” level of zero transportation deaths by more than a quarter-century, mostly by simply saying that’s what will happen, or that’s what might happen.
And speaking of which here’s the news of the past week – here’s an 8-figure settlement that arose from SFGov not competently performing its job re: traffic safety and here’s a 7-figure verdict that arose from the vaunted SFMTA’s vaunted taxi system.
If the SFMTA wants to eliminate transportation-related death and injury, it will need to eliminate transportation. To think that it has an an one-in-a-billion chance of attaining its ostensible goal by 2024 is to engage in fantasy.
1. Well, here’s the news:
“The paint crew began restriping at Hyde Street in preparation for the turn restrictions yesterday (June 23rd), just a week after board approval. The paint crew will continue their work through July along with the sign and meter shops, to install the turn restriction signage and loading zones respectfully. It is expected that the work for the turn restrictions, loading zones, and painted safety zones will be complete by early to mid-August. The signs will be bagged until all are complete, at which time the turn restrictions will go into effect, and will be enforced by SFMTA parking control officers and SFPD.”
I can sort of see how the SFMTA is able to enforce CA’s “block the box” law, as the drivers cited are literally parking in intersections, sometimes for as long as a minute.*
But, I can’t see how the SFMTA is going to be able to “enforce” the coming turn restrictions on Market Street.
What am I missing here?
Is this simply the clumsy SFMTA talking bad agin? We’ll see.
2. And since we’re here at the above link, look at what the SFMTA considers an example of a “news article” – it’s some dude on Medium. What the SFMTA means to say is here are some news articles plus links to fawning supporters, those who’d never pointy out that we operate the slowest, least-efficient big-city transit system in America. I mean how wude for ppl to say that, right?
3. Ah, what else. Hey, SFMTA! Why not now ban SFMTA taxis from making the turns you just banned Uber, Lyft and the other TNC’s from making? Hear me out – we’d be doing it for safety. And actually, the actual position of Uber and Lyft is that taxis should be similarly banned from making these restricted turns. SFMTA board members complaining about the “nightmare” of enforcement should be placated – if you see a taxi making this turn, give it a ticket just like you do with all the other cars. Easy peasy. Oh what’s that, you don’t want to, you’d have to change some rule? Well, then why not do that? Don’t you care about safety?
4. And, what else. Oh yeah, what about handicapped drivers? They’ll be getting four new spaces to park on Market betwixt 3rd and 8th (or between 8th and 3rd, as most people like to phrase it, so I guess my brain’s not hooked up right) but then they won’t be able to make the turn onto Market to get to the spaces? Or, maybe you can make these turns? But then you’d be in a private vehicle, right? I don’t get it. The SFMTA of 2014 wasn’t afraid to discuss this issue, but the SFMTA of 2015 is, apparently.
5. And hey, what about MUNI’s accidents along this stretch of road? Let’s find the stat here, direct from the SFMTA. Oh what’s that, Gentle Reader, is your link busted too. Well, who busted it – the SFMTA itself? Why’s that? In fact, the info on that web page is gone forever from SFMTA.com – it’s down the Memory Hole, Comrade. So let’s go way back, via the Wayback Machine:
“Between 2012 and 2013, there were 162 reported injury collisions on Market between Van Ness Avenue and Steuart Street, including 2 fatalities. 33% of collisions involve Muni.“
So, help me out here. What percentage of vehicles on this part of Market are MUNI vehicles? I’m thinking it’s way less than 10%. (You ever wait for the outbound buses? Just count the number of cars and taxis and cyclists what pass you by.) And yet, a third of the collisions involve MUNI? Hey SFMTA, don’t you have a problem here? Hey SFMTA, aren’t you yourselves a part of the problem?
*Now this is kind of stupid, as SFGov is profiting off of an intersection that it’s in control of, an intersection near the foot of Bush Street what’s managed, by SFGov, poorly, IMO. Nevertheless, the oblivious suburbanites heading home shouldn’t be blocking the box light cycle after light cycle.
As seen from Geary – look, it’s a parking lot game like what you can play on your iPhone
A normal town would deal with this, but Frisco don’t, oh well. (If you’d like to make a go of putting back to use the very unused building at the northeast corner of Geary Divis, be my guest – a Honey Baked Ham sto’ was its last use, years and years ago.)
(Hey, was this one of the HBH stores what OJ Simpson had an interest in before The Real Killer stabbed OJ’s ex-wife and the stud who drove the white Ferrari (license plate L84AD8) that OJ paid for? I know not.)
And oh, there was a fire station here? News to me. Leaving you with the still-cited case of Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal.2d 486 (1940):
“The plaintiff had been employed for about seven years at a firehouse located in a residential district on the northerly side of Geary Street between Scott Street on the east and Divisadero Street on the west. About 6:35 P. M. on September 29, 1937, the plaintiff stepped from the northerly curb in front of the firehouse, with the intention of crossing the street at that point for the purpose of going to a store on the southeast corner of Geary and Divisadero Streets. There was no crosswalk at the point of crossing selected by the plaintiff. There were established crosswalks and stop signs at both intersections. A pole with a lighted street lamp stood about two feet east of the point where the plaintiff entered the street, and the doors of the lighted firehouse remained open. The plaintiff wore a dark blue uniform. He stopped behind a parked car which was to the west of him. There were no parked cars to the east for a distance of about 75 feet. He looked to the east and at a distance of 135 to 150 feet observed the lights of the defendant’s car in the traffic lane on the north side of the car tracks approaching at a speed of about 20 to 25 miles an hour. He proceeded safely as far as the northerly rail of the westbound car tracks and stopped again to permit another westbound automobile, which had passed the defendant’s car and which was moving at a high rate of speed, to pass in front of him. Before proceeding he observed the defendant’s car again, and saw that it was swerving onto the westbound car tracks and coming directly towards him. He stepped back but before he could clear the defendant’s path he was struck by the right front fender of the vehicle.”