Parts is parts, North of the Slot this time
Parts is parts, one supposes:
A little history here first. This was the Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria delivery map from a decade ago:
As you can see, the project-y parts of the Western Addition and Potrero Hill were no-go areas 24-7, while the Uptown Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street Corridor areas were no-go areas after dark.
Back then and even now, this kind of map is nice and legal, believe it or not. So, in Frisco, if a cabbie refuses to take you to The Projects (or even to The Avenues), s/he is guilty of a misdemeanor called Failure to Convey, but if a pizza deliverer refuses to bring food to the projects, well, that’s A-OK. Moving on….
To this, the map that’s been used for most of the past decade – it’s pretty much the same thing:
And now here are the current maps – first for the Mission Bay location on King Street:
Wow, this is much improved. The 6th Street part of the Twitterloin is back on the map as well as Potrero Terrace and Potrero Annex (those are per Jay Barmann – I am not familiar with these terms as I’ve never really been to the Potrero PJ’s area, the place where former Mayor Art Agnos got shot).
Of course it could be that Amici’s never delivers to these places – maybe it’s up to the individual drivers who are working at the time, IDK. Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with this map, you know, per se.
And now we come to the current map for the Marina District Amici’s:
Realize that there are smaller federal housing projects included in this map, but the areas carved out still include a broad swath of the Western Addition and, of course, the SRO-laden Northern Twitterloin containment zone.
So there you have it – redlining in San Francisco circa 2015.
I haven’t seen one of these for a while:
Complete with a five-on-the-floor shifter…
This effort appears to be similar to the SFMTA’s attempt to add traffic signals on Haight at Scott and Pierce.
This isn’t the worst example of NIMBYism, but I’d say it’s fairly alarmist, fairly absurd.
I’ll just say that, generally speaking, it’s generally harder to get around town these days by car, by bike and by MUNI, compared with ten or twenty years ago. Part of this has to do with our newer, absurdly-wide sidewalks, designed for pedestrian “comfort.”
And yet, most ped and cyclist deaths in San Francisco involve fault from the peds and cyclists. Here’s 2014:
“The Police Department found that in the 17 pedestrian deaths, drivers were responsible for eight and pedestrians were responsible for nine. Bicyclists were responsible in all three instances when they died.”
(I should do a video on how to be a pedestrian in SF. It might involve some jaywalking but it would also involve extreme alertness on behalf of peds. You see, the way to prevent a lot of ped deaths in SF would be to get inside their heads to see what’s going wrong.)
IMO, the SFMTA should leave McAllister alone and then start taking out as many bus stops as politically possible.
I’ll tell you, not that many cyclists pass by Broderick and McAllister compared with Scott and McAllister, it seems, owing to geography. So looking at McAllister and Scott, it seems that the lights will be timed against cyclists using FULTON DIVISADERO MCALLISTER eastbound as an alternative to the already-overcrowded Wiggle route to get from the Golden Gate Park Panhandle to the Financh.
So for my own selfish reasons, I’d prefer that MUNI not make these changes, but who am I to stand in their way? What the MUNI people are saying is that we’ll all be better off overall, and 40 seconds each way each day will add up to millions of seconds, eventually.
In conclusion, meh. If MUNI wants to put in lights, we should let them do it.
I guess this is part of San Francisco’s “bikes and transit first policy?”
Click to expand
There was a time when San Francisco would avoid putting up street signs with the number 13 on them. Those times are over…
These cyclists stopped for peds at the prior stop sign, and I thought, “These are pretty polite cyclists,” because, you know, most of the time cyclists don’t stop for peds and/or stop signs.
So then here’s the next stop sign, where the peds stutter-stopped for fear of being hit by the very same cyclists:
Moving on, further into the park, with the very same cyclists, to see this woman, who was totally blocking the bike lane with her body and two open passenger doors. She was oblivious. Then she notices what she’s doing so she goes back to shut the rear door…
…and then the front door as the cyclists wait:
This place is a mess. Many long-time cyclists now avoid using JFK. Is this what the all-seeing all-knowing SFMTA wanted? IDK. Oh what’s that, cycling in San Francisco is going to increase six-fold by 2020 (I’m seriously, this was the goal, this was what was “expected” by local pols not too long ago), so we need to accommodate all the new traffic? But what if that huge increase doesn’t materialize and then you lose a significant chunk of the pre-existing riders?
(Any survey from the SFMTA showing broad-based support for these changes isn’t a real survey.)
Moving on, to this. Where else in the world do they put a kink into double yellow lines.
Why do this? Is this “good design?”
Why not have a single dashed line? (I know that the SFMTA has its reasons, but in other locations these double yellows would be seen as a cue that encourages speeding.)
In short, the restriping of JFK is a mess, a continuing mess, one that was spawned by the SFMTA for ideological reasons.
“I cannot imagine that any survey demonstrates that most people like the new lanes. I’ve read dozens and dozens of comments and the vast majority feel the same way as I do, which is that these lanes are dangerous for everyone. And what about emergency vehicles? How do they pass when motorists cannot pull to the right? This past Saturday, 4/20, a fire truck got stuck in traffic at the eastern end of JFK. Traffic backed up in both directions. It was utter chaos. And Jesus, does it make the road look ugly or what?”
“My primary observation on the new bike lanes is that separating them somewhat from the vehicle traffic lanes seems to have been a signal that cyclists should ride a bit faster and ignore the stop signs and pedestrian crossing rules. I find them much more dangerous as a pedestrian. I have taken to holding an arm out when crossing any road in SF to signal my intent, but I am nearly struck daily by cyclists.”
Wow, a person made a post trying to help out incoming San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Director Noah Budnick by getting the word out about an apartment hunt
And check it, the poster is just like me, as he doesn’t agree with with everything the SFBC does AND he thinks the SFBC is an effective advocacy group.
And here it is:
“While I don’t agree with everything SFBC does, it is certainly the most effective advocacy group I’ve ever belonged to. And here’s a way to help them: by finding their new director, who is moving here from the east coast, an apartment in San Francisco. I know xx#xers care a lot about bicycle advocacy, and we all know that finding an apartment here is a bloodsport where knowing tenants and landlords is a definite advantage, hence this message.
• Close to a BART stop
• Two bedrooms
• Less than $3,000/month
If you have any leads, please email me and I’ll make the connection.”
The kicker is that NY Noah wants his crib to be in SF and he wants it to be close to a BART stop.
(IDK, these requirements rule out Crackton as an option.)
I think I’d advise young Noah to lower his expectations, but who knows – it’s in any event smart to get the word out.
This was the first of many replies:
“Awwwww, he’s adorable. I hear Daly City is nice…”
Now lately, the SFBC has stopped boasting of its increasing membership, because lately membership is way down – thousands of people have decided not to re-up. Now why is that?
Now you tell me – which is a bigger problem to solve? Is it:
1. Finding a “nice” 2-bed close to BART for $2K-something in 2014; or
2. Finding 2K-something more people to join the SFBC AND then get them continue paying dues, year after year.
That’s a toughie.