Click to expand
Archive for the ‘transit’ Category
But the people at MUNI think you’re stupid, and they want you to like them more, so that’s why they lie.
Hey, what did the SFMTA MUNI dump into San Francisco Bay that resulted in a petroleum spill that rivalled the Cosco Busan’s?
SFGov Installed a New Traffic Signal on Masonic for Just One Cul-De-Sac and They Put It On a Timer? Nightmare on Ewing TerraceThursday, August 7th, 2014
So let’s see here, back in the day a mom living on Ewing Terrace went to an SFMTA meeting complaining about how it took her “20 minutes” to pull out of Ewing Terrace, so because of that a new traffic signal has been installed.
Click to expand
Now that this signal has been lit, there’s no way you can miss it because it stops traffic on Masonic every 75 seconds these days.
THEY PUT IT ON A TIMER?!
What’s so special about this tiny street?
SFMTA, do you realize that you talk about speeding up MUNI, but how’s this going to help? Actually, it’s going to hurt. This light routinely slows down MUNI for no apparent reason.
Is this a temporary thing?
Anyway, they wanted the support of this mom for the new spending the SFMTA wants to do on Masonic, so they’re all oh, this lady wants a light, so let’s throw her a bone and then she’ll be on our side…
I suppose that worked.
Perhaps eventually, this signal will be pedestrian / user activated?
Perhaps eventually, this signal will be automatically switched to green when a MUNI bus approaches using some kind of transit override function?
But in the meantime, it appears that the SFMTA just spent Target’s money to slow down MUNI…
The SFMTA’s Secret Plan to Kick Lyft and Uber (But Not Taxis!) Off of Market – It’s Called “Safer Market Street” and It’s Coming Next YearThursday, August 7th, 2014
So apparently, the SFMTA is working on a plan to ban cars from parts of Market Street while still allowing them to cross over Market Street?
It’s called “Safer Market Street.”
Will kicking cars off of Market Street betwixt Montgomery and Eighth make Market “safer?” I don’t know. (But if the SFMTA wants to propose kicking buses and taxis off of Market, well then that certainly would make Market safer, IMO. )
I don’t know why we allow the SFMTA to do whatever it wants without getting something in return. Like, OK SFMTA, we’ll let you spend all this money on the porked-up Central Subway project, but in exchange, you’d have to bring MUNI up to the level of a mediocre big-city transit system.
Anyway, it’s easy to get tripped up with all the Orwellian names the SFMTA comes up with, like Great Streets! and “Livable” Streets and Safer Market and Better Market, but see if you can figure the words you can see below.
First up, a rep from the local government-subsidized urban renewal outfit uses the word pilot as a verb, because that’s the lingo:
“Lawrence Li (SPUR): Can you pilot some of these auto restrictions?
Some auto restrictions were piloted in 2009 and have since then become permanent. We do not
plan to pilot auto restrictions at this time due to environmental review constraints. However,
there is a separate project, independent of Better Market Street, called Safer Market Street that
is looking at implementing some auto restrictions between 8th and Montgomery potentially as soon as next year. The public kick-off for that project is planned for later this summer.”
And here’s a way for the SFMTA to stick it to the man, to fight back against those TNC’s by supporting cabbies:
“Kevin Carroll: There are private autos operating as taxis such as Lyft, Uber, etc. Will they be
allowed to drive on Market Street with these auto restrictions in place?
No. These services are subject to the private vehicle restrictions and would not be allowed on
Market Street with these auto restrictions in place.”
That’s all I know. Like I said, it’s secret, more or less, for now.
All the deets, after the jump.
It’s the same color blue as the “b” in the ebay logo:
Click to expand
A Case Study of SFMTA’s Controversial “MUNI-COMMUTER” Shuttle Program: The New Stops at Hayes and ClaytonMonday, August 4th, 2014
Here’s what things looked like on August 1, 2014 at a MUNI bus stop that just debuted as a new “commuter shuttle” stop:
I think MUNI meant to say MUNI/COMMUTER SHUTTLES instead of MUNI-COMMUTER SHUTTLES, but who knows.
Note that the small print advises those with Concerns or Complaints to
go to Hell call 311.
Here’s the place, on Hayes at Clayton:
Things were pretty sedate around here before the shuttle program began. (Yes, Hayes is a thoroughfare, as it has the 21 Hayes bus line but that bus doesn’t run as much as the nearby #5 Fulton just to the north or the lines on Haight just to the south.)
Anyway, some of the area NIMBYs are upset, so they started a direct mail campaign and they posted fliers about.
Like here on this rather dirty building, which lost some paint when the fliers came down cause the tape they used was extra strong oh well:
So that’s it – life here is pretty much the same as far as I can tell. I’ve jogged past these two stops, the inbound and the outbound right across the street from each other, four times now, during times when I know that there are hundreds of people milling about the 415 / 628 waiting for dozens of shuttles, and I haven’t seen nothing.
Perhaps the NIMBYs were wrong? Perhaps all good and bad points about life in the 94117 will remain unaffected?
Will This Fall’s Half-Billion Transit Bond Allow Your Landlord to Raise Your Rent, Costing You Thousands? – “Pass-Throughs”Friday, August 1st, 2014
I don’t know.
But check this out:
“Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37…”
All right kids – you do the math. Start with $850,000,000 and divide that up among the denizens of the 415 / 628.
I don’t know how to do that but when I tried, I came up with a $30 a month rent increase for you, Gentle Reader, for the next 7-10 years.
Would the average landlord take the trouble to do a pass-through? IDK. I’m thinking the typical rent-controlled renter in SF doesn’t have to deal with pass-throughs currently. But maybe this big old honking bond would be the trigger for a wave of passthroughs?
Here’s what former SFGov employee Howard Wong has to say:
What does the ballot measure do:
Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.
Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.
If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.
To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.
The SFMTA wants more money, certainly. But the question is what will the SFMTA do for us in order to get the money, right? Otherwise, we’re just shoveling more coal into a broken-down machine. Why not use the bond as a carrot to get the SFMTA to reform?
Perhaps our SFMTA doesn’t deserve this bond?
Anyway, if I were promoting this bond, I’d figure out what the odds are that landlords would pass through 50% of the burden and also how much rents would be increased, on average, and for how long. And then I’d say, well this is what the SFMTA is going to do with your money and this is how much it will cost you, the renter, or you, the owner.
Is this massive transit bond a good idea?
I don’t know.
Bros on Geary:
Vision Zero is SFGov’s commitment to having MUNI bus drivers and other SFGov employees* stop killing pedestrians by the year 2024.
Why can’t the SFMTA just simply stop killing pedestrians right now in 2014?
The World Wonders…
*And, of course, everybody else in the world as well, but your odds of getting killed by one of those billions of non-SFGov employees is infinitesimally smaller than getting killed by an SFGov employee. The SFMTA could take steps right now for safety, steps that wouldn’t cost all that much money, but it simply doesn’t want to.
Look at these poor lost souls on Geary staring towards the west in a futile attempt to spot the next inbound #38 Geary.
You can tell when things get bad at a MUNI stop when people just plop themselves down out on the street on the stop itself.
Is Geary a “livable street?” I have no idea. And actually, it doesn’t matter if this is how the SFMTA does its primary function. Should SFMTA directors be boasting about their junkets to “other cities across the globe?” I don’t think so. Hey, it’s headshot day! Hold it, hold it, hold it, say “cheese!” Snap.
Would SF be better off without the relatively inconsequential “Sunday Streets” program if it could get a functional MUNI in exchange?
I think so.
Would SF be better off without Cheryl Brinkman on the SFMTA board?
I think so.
Here’s another example, from 2012:
SFMTA director Cheryl Brinkman said that she supported the proposal because she has been considering the reverse situation. “How would we defend making parking free on Sundays if we’ve been paying all these years?” she asked rhetorically.
OK fine, but then in 2014 she voted to make parking free on Sundays. Oh well.
And is this true? I don’t know:
Mayor Ed Lee apparently has no concern over conflicts of interests where Ms. Brinkman is concerned. Her husband’s company benefits directly from the North Beach tunnel project, and she has economic ties to the SFTMA and the SF Bicycle Coalition and the other “non-profits” that profit from the city’s many contracts from managing housing to street calming and car sharing.
In any event, the Directors of the SFMTA don’t seem to be concerned at all about making MUNI work better using the money we already give them. The SFMTA doesn’t need more money, the SFMTA needs to manage the money we give it more better. IMO.