Posts Tagged ‘access’

The Ugliest American-Made Car Made Today: Presenting the VPG MV-1, a Ford-Like Taxi in Daly City from Indiana

Monday, September 11th, 2017

All the deets:

7J7C9398 copy

Buy the taxi version, like this (white) Serra Yellow Cab – just $57k.

They tried to make it sporty, but something like an old-school Honda Element would have been a better approach IMO. It’s the rear styling of the MV1 what bugs me. But only a little!

Anyway, it looks like the way a four year old would draw a van, so there’s that.

In conclusion, I saw an ugly vehicle and here it is.

New and Improved? The 2016-Era Speedbumps on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park Now Have More Painted Lines

Monday, April 17th, 2017

So these lines are new, that’s the news.

7J7C0409 copy

I’ve never seen this kind of thing. I guess people were getting surprised by the bumps?

7J7C0477 copy

Frisco remains on the cutting edge of paint engineering, it would seem.

I’ll tell you, I go over these things at a steady 25 MPH, but others slow down to about ten and then speed up again to around 30 only to slow down again a short stretch down the road. That’s the update…

Frisco’s Baker Beach is Untouched by Urbanists, So Far

Friday, March 31st, 2017

This is it.

Timeless, really. A parking lot (or two or three) and a beach.

7J7C9200 copy

I’m thinking it’ll prolly get redeveloped soon.

I’m surprised nobody‘s come up with a plan to institute “dynamic pricing” or a reservation system to increase “beach access,” you know that kind of thing.

On it goes, for now…

Hilarious Official ACCESS INSPECTED Sign in the Richmond Suggests (But “Does Not Imply” Oh No!) Area Biz Meets ADA Standards

Thursday, February 16th, 2017

I’m struggling to see the point of this exercise [but see this link from Richard in the Comments section.]

20170212_144549 copy

What’s that area pols? You “support the ADA” and similar laws in CA, but you hate hate hate the lawyers whose clients sue your constituents under the ADA and similar laws in CA?

That’s not too coherent.

Ever More “Speed Hump” Speed Bumps for Golden Gate Park – What’s the Recommended Speed for These Things?

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Get up to “speed” here.

Here we go – on JFK looking east towards Transverse / Crossover

7j7c3563-copy

And now close to Marx Meadow looking west – this one will be going in soon:

20161102_093204-copy

I guess this one will go almost all the way across JFK Drive:

7j7c3561-copy

And, now closer to 30th Avenue, looking east – this was the first to be installed, now with a new sign:

7j7c3558-copy

I don’t know when I’ll make it back here with a vehicle. IMO, 20 MPH or so is prolly the limit for you. (I had my decidedly non-sporty ride mistakenly set in SPORT mode, but I don’t think it makes much difference on a road regularity as big as this, but I’ll try it again sometime on my ride’s softest suspension setting.)

OTOH, if you have a brand-new BMW M4 GTS, how about 0 MPH as the limit?

And on bikes heading west, IDK. Look out, Jack, is all I can say.

I think the actual speed limit for the bumps is 25 MPH, but that seems too fast for IRL.

Our SFMTA has reported that some drivers go 32-34 MPH on this stretch of JFK and I’m sure these numbers come from someplace real, but I’m also sure whatever stat they’d report has been manipulated for their own purposes, oh well.

On It Goes…

A Brand-New “Near Term Speed Hump” Speed Bump, Installed on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

Here it is:

20161028_121719-copy

These photos are from a few days back, and this bump / hump itself prolly was installed about ten days back. If you hit this thing at 25 + you will feel it, I promise you. My ride was practically made to handle something like this bump with aplomb, and I certainly felt it. Oh, and look, a speedometer system, of sorts:

20161028_121739-copy

Here’s the “near term” language, straight from our incompetent SFMTA.

Humps cause car deceleration without creating the noise, vibration or safety issues associated with their sharper bump cousins.

I’ll tell you, not a whole bunch of drivers go signif more than 25 MPH on the JFK, despite what SFGov might tell you, or imply, with their nonsensical “some traffic travels through JFK at 32-38 MPH type” of stat. Well, sure, some traffic. I go through at exactly 25 which requires a touch of braking on the downhillier parts like near Speedway Meadow. (Hellman Meadow? I don’t think that’ll take for a good long time.) Anyway, if you get on my rear bumper I’ll simply pull over, pretending to get ready to park, and then pull back in after you’ve passed me. But I don’t do that too often.

(If you wanted to decrease illegal “speeding” on JFK, you’d raise the limit to 30 MPH and, conversely, if you wanted to, for some reason, increase illegal speeding on JFK, you’d lower the limit to 20 MPH.)

Anyway, if you want to lower speeds on JFK, you’d put in a brace of speed bumps – that’ll work. Of course, there’d be the noise, vibration, and safety concerns of San Francisco voters, but that will get addressed later, one assumes…

And of course, a few speed bumps is nothing like this recent proposal.

And oh, down Mexico way, if a municipality want to have a nothingburger speed bumps like this, they’d hire somebody to do it one day and then it’d be done the next – it wouldn’t turn into an expensive half-year “project” with countless meetings and endless news releases…

Well-Paid SFMTA Employee Proposes Limiting “Access” on JFK Drive – Westbound Travel Banned, 15 MPH Speed LImit

Wednesday, August 17th, 2016

Here it is:

Capturelkjhlkhlkj copy

(A pay package of about $130k a year (TCOE – Total Cost of Employee), well that’s pretty well-paid for a low-stress job, non? It’s not like being a coal miner or anything. Correct me if I’m way off on this, of course.)

This proposal certainly would reduce traffic, overall, by a very slight amount. It would also increase westbound traffic on Fulton, and Lincoln too I suppose, by a significant amount. But before our SFMTA does that, it should “daylight” every intersection in the Richmond District – that means taking out a parking space or two on every block so that westbound drivers can see southbound peds approaching crosswalks to get to Golden Gate Park.

Actually, it should do that anyway.

Actually, it should have done that before already.

I’m not talking about talking about daylighting, I’m talking about actually doing it. JMO. (I already know the reasons why our less-than-competent SFMTA hasn’t done so by now, just saying.)

Anyway, consider the knock-on effects afore you shut down JFK is all I’m saying…

Our SFMTA Wants to Claim It’s Increasing Parking Up at Twin Peaks, But It’s DECREASING Parking – One Simple Trick!

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

What the SFMTA’s Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project is a gonna do is get rid of these, these people from the top of Twin Peaks, particularly on busy dreaded sunny days, like this one:

7J7C0776 copy

Most of the tourists on top of that twin came from all the cars you can see on the left side. But all that parking is gone now, so tourists aren’t going to go to the top of Twin Peaks as much anymore.

What’s that, “good,” you say? Well OK, but why doesn’t the SFMTA just come out and say that? Instead, we get this:

Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project Frequently Asked Questions – April 8, 2016 version:

Will any parking be added or removed? No parking is being proposed for removal. Today, informal (illegal) parking takes place at the center of the Figure 8 and occasionally in the outer lane of the roadway. This project will formalize parking at both the center and south intersections, increasing the number of available stalls. Parking in the travel lane will no longer be possible.

So they’re not “removing parking,” they’re simply blocking cars from getting to the parking spaces? And you can’t park on the side of a highway in CA anymore, is that correct, really?

So the real answer to the question Will any parking be added or removed is:

Yes. Hell yes.

But who are these people so uncouth and “informal” that they think they can park their rental cars on the side of the road and walk up a hill for a look-see? Just fucking tourists, that’s all. And it’s not even the same ones day after day and year after year – it’s a constant flow of new people from all over the Bay Area, California, ‘Mericah, and The Rest Of The World. Those are the people the SFMTA and the Rec and Park (RPD – it’s Frisco’s name for the Parks and Recreation Department) are getting rid of, at least on busy days.

As with most things in Life, there are trade-offs. Our SFMTA wants to deny that, oh well (at 2:10)…

A Few Beefs with the SFMTA’s Marketing of Its Plan to (Somehow) “Increase Access” to Twin Peaks

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

Here you go:

Making Room to Enjoy Spectacular Twin Peaks by Aaron Bialick
Friday, April 15, 2016

But the SFMTA isn’t really making anything is it?

Access by foot and bike is pretty limited, the road that loops around the mountain top in a “figure 8” is underused by car traffic and the loop’s intersections are confusing.

OK, well, “access” by foot and bike will still be “pretty limited” after the SFMTA completes the scheme it came up with, right? And let’s take a look at that road, on a dreaded sunny day:

7J7C0776-copy

Now, would you say that the east (left) side of this figure 8 is “underused?” No, not at all!

car-free access

Hey, is being “car-free” a good thing? Like is it as good as being something like herpes-free? One wonders.

On Tuesday, the SFMTA Board of Directors will consider approval of a pilot phase…

This means that the SFMTA is going to do what it wants to do, with the little bit of money it can scrape up to enact its ideology.

The project was shaped with community feedback…

First of all, there’s no community up there atop Twin Peaks. Second of all, if there is, it’s tourists (international, national, regional, and local) and this plan cooked up by the SFMTA is about as anti-tourist as one could imagine.

We’d also create legitimate parking spaces at the center and south intersections to address the illegal parking that already occurs.

WHAT WHAT? So all these People With Cars, the hundreds of People what congregate up there sometimes, they’re parking on the side of the highway “illegitimately?” So it’s legal but it doesn’t comport with SFMTA ideology? Or maybe it’s illegal, but our SFMTA hasn’t seen fit to put up signage what explains things nice and clear for visitors who don’t really have a good handle on English? And so all the scores of places where people park now and, indeed, the past century, all of that was not and is not “legitimate?” Whoo boy.

So the plan is to decrease access IRL and advertise this paint job (that doesn’t add ANYTHING) as one what will “increase” access.

Will that cost anything? Yes.

Will it cost the vaunted SFMTA anything. No, not really. Just a bit of paint…

 

Our SFMTA’s Plan to “Increase Access” at Twin Peaks WIll Actually Decrease Access – Trying to Figure the Figure 8

Friday, April 8th, 2016

IDK, man. On the one hand, SFGov promotes the 49-Mile-Drive, but OTOH, SFGov wants to make it more difficult.

Take a look here down below – where are all these cars going to go after this plan gets going?

The plan, advertised as one what would “increase access,” will decrease access, obviously. Parking areas will be decreased by a whole lot. Oh what’s that, that’s a good thing AFAYAC, Gentle Reader? Well, fine – but let’s agree that taking out scores of places for people to park is going to make for a less-busy Twin Peaks, for better or worse.

And hey, are these people glorious Pedestrians / People With Bikes or are they terrible, horrible People With Cars? One simply can’t tell. Some locals walk and bike up here, but I see very few tourists attempting to do so. Mostly they come by tour bus or car, FWICS.

7J7C3442 copy   7J7C3450 copy  7J7C3460 copy 7J7C3463 copy 7J7C3465 copy 7J7C3466 copy

On It Goes…