If he’s the one I’m thinking about:
Posts Tagged ‘94104’
SFMTA Update: New Market Street Turn Restrictions to be “Enforced by SFMTA Parking Control Officers and the SFPD?”Thursday, June 25th, 2015
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.
Our Inefficient, Money-Hungry SFMTA Wants to Start Issuing Speeding Tickets, But Somehow “They Would Not Be Moving Violations?!”Thursday, May 21st, 2015
Oh, this one’s easy – we’re going to go from zero to Orwellian in ten seconds.
Gentlemen, Start Your Engines:
And here’s your nut graf:
“SFMTA plans to present their proposal to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority later this week. The agency says the citations would not be moving violations, and therefore not reportable to the DMV.”
Now let’s review – Papa Homer, what’s a “moving violation?
“A moving violation is a violation of the law committed by the driver of a vehicle while it is in motion. The term “motion” distinguishes it from other motor vehicle violations, such as paperwork violations (which include violations involving automobile insurance, registration and inspection), parking violations, or equipment violations.”
So, if the parking ticket agency gives a ticket for speeding, it’s issuing moving violations, right? Now tell us more, Wiki:
While some violations, like parking violations, are civil matters involving a vehicle’s owner, moving violations are charged against the actual driver.
Yep. And then there’s this:
The most commonly enforced moving violation, and the overwhelmingly most frequent reason for a vehicle pullover, are violations of the speed limit.
And what’s the motivation for the SFMTA to float this balloon?
Sometimes tickets are used in a speed trap as a form of fundraising.
I don’t use the term “speed trap” myself, but, yes, our SFMTA is obsessed with “fundraising,” certainly.
Examples of moving violations: speeding, which can be exceeding a limit or simply driving an unsafe speed…
Thanks Wiki! And actually, a speeding ticket is the prototypical moving violation, in Frisco and everywhere else too.
Now I’ll tell you, I was surprised earlier this year to see the SFMTA issuing “block the box” tickets, because sometimes the SFMTA DPT shows up at an intersection during rush hour to unblock the box, not to make money from block boxing. And yet, here you go:
This is a DPT PCO in the middle of the intersection of Bush and Sansome shooting fish in a barrel – busting three vehicles, and then she was Gone In 60 Seconds.
And I thought, well, I suppose the drivers here are parked since they’re idling away, motionless, for a long time, so sure, ticket away, SFMTA, even though you’ve timed the lights to exacerbate this situation, but anyway, sure, these are parking tickets, fine.
But if you want to start issuing moving violation tickets, you shouldn’t lie about it. (I’ll tell you, sometimes I can’t tell if the SFMTA lies on purpose or if it just doesn’t know what it’s doing.)
Now, here’s my MODEST PROPOSAL – traffic cameras for pedestrians, mounted over crosswalks. The cameras would record all the peds who jump the light by starting across a second or two early and then a ticket for $100 would get mailed to the offenders after facial recognition ID’s the peds. (Gentle Reader, did you know that most ped deaths last year on the Streets of San Francisco were the fault of the peds themselves? It’s sort of a secret. It wasn’t a blowout or anything, the peds “won” this competition by 50-something percent, vs. the drivers’ 40-something percent, but isn’t it ironic, dont’cha think, that enforcing the vehicle code upon peds, as unpopular as this might be, could reduce traffic deaths more than how SFGov has handled matters up ’til now? Anyway, I’m talking about how the SFPD apportioned ped deaths in SF in 2014. But don’t talk about it, oh no – that might get you transferred to the Airport Detail, srsly. And bonus! Our new ped cams could “also help us as an investigative tool if someone is committing a crime somewhere nearby.” Moving on…)
Of course, the reason why SFGov wants to go Full Orwell is that paying sworn officers to issue tickets is inefficient and expensive. OTOH, an automatic system, backed up by an appeals mechanism to make everything constitutional, could generate tons of money for the SFMTA, like almost as much as its Household Transit Tax fantasy that it would impose on you, Gentle Reader, in a New York minute, if it could. (It’s what Ed Reiskin dreams of at night – your transit tax would be added to your tax returns, easy peasy, what a dream!)
Anyway, I think saying that a moving violation isn’t is worthy of five Orwells, on a scale of zero to five Orwells:
All the way to the bottom,
Maggie SFMTA – you’ve made it!
Of course, the SFMTA could jigger the lights around the neighborhood of Bush and Sansome in a more efficient way, but then this meter maid wouldn’t be able to park her Cushman and then stand in the intersection to generate so many tickets that she has trouble with all the receipt tape she’s generating. See?
Her little machine might have a camera built in, and the GPS and the Wi-Fi and all sorts of things to allow her to bag three rides in one cycle of green yellow red.
Check it. All of these drivers on Bush inbound in the Financh are used to crawling across a San Francisco intersection before the light turns red and then making it out of the intersection before the peds start coming. Except that this is notorious Bush and Sansome, where things don’t work that way.
And then here come the judge – tickets for everybody! It’s like Oprah handing out Pontiacs – YOU GET A TICKET! AND YOU GET A TICKET! AND YOU GET A TICKET!
(Mind you, this is an intersection where it’s quite safe to loiter about, so fret not.)
(Hey, is she recording the Vehicle Identification Numbers of all these rides? I think not. Is that some sort of technicality that will allow you to get out of your ticket after spending hours and hours of time fighting your ticket? IDK.)
Some drivers get stuck, but I’m thinking, well just make the left up Sansome* while you have the chance and then you’ll avoid a painful three-figure citation. But the drivers, then don’t have respect, they don’t see the danger.
And I’ll bet most of them aren’t even aware that they’re getting a citation.
Eventually, the driving culture at this intersection will change** if this woman makes a habit of harvesting money on the Evening Drive each and every day.
I ask you, Gentle Reader, what if the rest of SFGov were as efficient as this PCO?
*Whether it’s legal or not. In this case, that would be a legal turn but even if it weren’t, the chances of getting a moving violation doing that are virtually nil, as opposed to a parking ticket, where the odds are virtually certain.
**In the old days, the SFMTA would tell its PCOs to stop handing out tickets during the Evening Drive and start directing traffic at busy intersections. Those days are over. This woman can pay her salary and fund her generous benefits and retirement package in one or two minutes of her shift. Remarkable!
I don’t know, do you care about stores ‘n stuff?
I thought it would be like a convenience store, but no they sell cell phones and tablets and all kinds of stuff.
Big, in’nt it?
Now, here are your Tar-zhays, in order of size, as best I can figure:
All right, see you there!
Forget About Those “CityTarget” Stores, an Even Smaller “TargetExpress” Opens March 9th at Bush and Sansome – Oh, They’re HiringThursday, February 19th, 2015
Here’s the signage:
And here’s the samwich board on Bush, offering jobs:
And here’s the interior, so far:
Bienvenido a San Francisco, TargetExpress
All the deets:
Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) today announced plans to open two new TargetExpress stores in San Francisco’s Financial District and Berkeley, Calif., in March 2015. Target’s first TargetExpress store opened this year in Minneapolis, and the San Francisco-area stores will mark the first time Target is expanding this format outside the Minneapolis area.
The San Francisco store will be approximately 18,000 square feet and located at the southwest corner of Bush Street and Sansome Street, next to the Montgomery BART station, in the heart of the financial district. The Berkeley store will be approximately 12,000 square feet and located at the southeast corner of Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, next to the Downtown Berkeley BART station, near the main entrance to the University of California, Berkeley.
“From listening to our guests at the two San Francisco CityTarget stores, we know the smaller format of TargetExpress will fit right into the busy San Francisco Bay Area lifestyle and enable us to cater to each community’s needs,” said Kamau Witherspoon, senior director, Store Operations, Target.
Target store teams have spent time understanding each local community to determine the right merchandise mix for each store, so both TargetExpress locations will be customized to fit the individual needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, the Bush Street store will feature a large grab-and-go area with sandwiches, salads, breakfast items like yogurt and mid-day snacks for busy commuters on the go. The store will also include a Starbucks and select items from Target’s Made to Matter collection, which features products from San Francisco Bay Area companies like Annies, Yes To and Method.
The Berkeley store will offer a large selection of grocery items, including produce, dairy, frozen, snacks and beverages to serve the students, commuters and residents of Berkeley. Additionally, both new TargetExpress stores will be stocked with essentials in home, beauty and electronics, including a robust assortment of Target’s owned brands. The stores will also include Target’s popular pick-up-in-store service and a pharmacy.
Target opened the first TargetExpress in Minneapolis in July, and has announced plans to open one in the Highland Park area of St. Paul, Minn. in 2015. A third San Francisco Bay Area TargetExpress will also open in 2015, with a location to be announced in the coming months.
Minneapolis-based Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT) serves guests at 1,925 stores – 1,795 in the United States and 130 in Canada – and at Target.com. Since 1946, Target has given 5 percent of its profit to communities, that giving equals more than $4 million a week. For more information, visitTarget.com/Pressroom. For a behind-the-scenes look at Target, visit ABullseyeView.com or follow @TargetNews on Twitter.