Is this what “Smart Mobility” is, FoMoCo?
Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline.
This ‘splains tings:
I’ll tell you I’m not a cop, so I couldn’t name you the numerous CVC violations I witnessed Fast and Furious over the course of about 20 seconds going from Market Sutter Sansome and then across Bush and then she lost me. Everybody has different standards for what’s appropriate driving, but geez, man. (It’s the electric assist what encourages this, IMO.)
Adrian founded Green Tiffin in fall of 2013 in San Francisco, although the idea seed was planted early in his childhood.
Now where was I? Oh:
– Guaranteed base hourly pay + delivery incentive
– Zip through San Francisco hills with Green Tiffin electric bicycles
– Look sharp in our delivery coat
– FREE healthy and sustainable lunch on workdays
– A pathway for development
– A fun and fast-paced working environment
I’ll tell you, a cab company in Frisco used to have a “racing” system of dispatch where the closest driver would be assigned a fare but others were free to swoop in to get there first – this was to prevent cabbies from lying too much about how close they were to the customer. Anyway, one time two cabbies working for the same outfit crashed into each other trying to win this game so that ended the racing system of dispatch.
And now Green Tiffen.
I’ll tell you Green Tiffen, I don’t think you’re on a “sustainable journey.”
I’ll tell you, Hollywood just doesn’t get our local parking rules:
Anyway, this is a large production, with many people and vehicles on site today near our Rose Garden
Of course, RPD has Rangers on site, but they’re sitting around far away near Stow Lake. And really, the requirement to have them is more of a jobs program than anything else. (So as long as Hollywood pays RPD’s high fees I don’t think a Park Ranger cares what they do – nobody’s likely to try to enforce rules on our paying guests.)
So the “creatives” from Los Angeles County feel put upon because they have to pay big bucks to work in a very expensive place* and then our locals resent the Angelenoses’ general cluelessness.
And it’s like, “We’d be better off in Vancouver,” and I’m like yes! Maybe you all would be…
*NBC’s Trauma was like this. Filming on location was an attempt to make it special but that meant that it couldn’t survive with anything less than yuge ratings
Market in the Financh is down to just one lane, in parts, these days, right? So you can’t just stop and wait for your fare to come down an elevator, right? Frisco aint Tracy, CA, right?
After getting yelled out by Bike To Work Day, Uber driver from the South Bay scooched on over enough to let more people squeeze by.
It’s just not possible to legally pick riders up like this, sry.
On It Goes…
And here’s the SFMTA’s official defense.
Anyway, the innocuous posts have been replaced, officially. The average driver would typically infringe upon the neutral zone at the very least and that’s not the case anymore…
I’ll tell you, I don’t have the balls to just park a ride on Market and then sass the SFMTA mounted sergeant(?) PCO’s what show up, but somebody at Sprig does, apparently. And no ticket was issued? Man, that’s lucky. (Delivering anything anywhere near the Financh is HARD, certainly.)
Can’t recall seeing two SFMTA employees on bikes at the same time, in all my years. You know, as Obama said at a fundraiser up in Pac Heights about rural Pennsylvanians who “cling” to their guns, our SFMTA clings to its cars and free parking spaces, oh well. Every SFGov agency is like this – they’ll agree in principal to get rid of / reduce their rides, but then when it comes time to actually do that, they’ll be all, “Well don’t count this car. It’s essential. Take away cars from Some Other Agency.” Poor poor SFGov, so addicted to cars it is…
The basic idea is to take out one of the four lanes of Fell and one of the four lanes of Oak along the Golden Gate Park Panhandle from the Baker Street DMV to Stanyan and turn them into dedicated bike lanes.
You don’t need to even look at the report to know that this idea is “feasible” – obviously, our SFMTA can do this if it wants to:
But why does the SFMTA want to do this? This is not stated in the report.
As things stand now, you can ride your bike on the left side of the left lanes of Fell and Oak, or on the right sides of the right lanes of Fell and Oak, or in any part of any lane of Fell and Oak if you’re keeping up with traffic (but this is especially hard to do heading uphill on Fell), or on the “multi-use pathway” (what I and most people call the bike path) what winds through the Panhandle.
So, why not widen the bike path again, SFGov? It used to be 8 foot wide and now it’s 12 foot wide, so why not go for 16 foot wide? (Hey, why doesn’t our SFMTA simply take over Rec and Park? You know it wants to.)
My point is that it would also be “feasible” to somehow force RPD to widen the current bike path (and also the extremely bumpy, injury-inducing Panhandle jogging/walking path along Oak) independent of whatever the SFMTA wants to do to the streets.
Anyway, here’s the news – check out page 12 of 13. No bike rider (or what term should I use this year, “person with bikes?” Or “person with bike?” Or “person with a bike?”) is going to want to sit at a red light at a “minor street” when s/he could just use the bike trail the SFTMA figures, so why not just allow them to ride on Fell and Oak without having to worry about traffic lights at all? And the pedestrians? Well, you’ll see:
“Minor Street Intersections
The minor cross-streets in the project area from east to west are Lyon Street, Central Avenue, Ashbury Street, Clayton Street, Cole Street, and Shrader Street. Each is a consistent width of 38’-9” curb-to-curb with 15-foot wide sidewalks. All of these streets are discontinued [Fuck man. How much colledge do you need to start talking like this, just asking] at the park, each forming a pair of “T” intersections at Oak and Fell streets. The preferred control for the protected bike lane at these “T” intersections is to exclude it from the traffic signal, allowing bicyclists to proceed through the intersection without stopping unless a pedestrian is crossing the bikeway. Due to the relatively low pedestrian volumes at these intersections, it is expected that people using the protected bike lane [aka cyclists? aka bike riders?] would routinely violate the signal if required to stop during every pedestrian phase, creating unpredictability and likely conflict between users on foot and on bicycles. This treatment also recognizes that in order to attract many bicycle commuters, the new protected bike lanes would need to be time-competitive with the existing multi-use path that has the advantage of a single traffic control signal for the length of the Panhandle.
Excluding the protected bike lane from the traffic signal requires installing new pedestrian refuge islands in the shadow of the parking strip. The existing vehicle and pedestrian signal heads currently located within the park would also need to be relocated to new poles on the pedestrian refuge islands.
Implementing these changes would cost between $70,000 and $150,000 per intersection, and require the removal of approximately four parking spaces per intersection. Over the eleven minor-street “T” intersections along the Panhandle (excluding Fell Street/Shrader Street which which has been discussed separately), the total cost would be between $0.9 and $1.5 million dollars and approximately 48 parking spaces would be removed.
This design introduces a variety of benefits and compromises [“compromises!” Or maybe “costs,” as in a cost/benefit analysis?] for pedestrians crossing to and from the park at the minor intersections:
– Pedestrians would be required to wait for gaps in bicycle traffic to cross the protected bike lane (which may present new challenges to people with low or no vision). Design treatments for the protected bike lanes (e.g., stencil messages, rumble strips, signs) should also be considered to clearly indicate the necessity of yielding to pedestrians to people on bicycles.”
WTF to that. By the numbers:
“Walker’s Paradise – Daily errands do not require a car.”
But they DO require great fortitude, right?
“Rider’s Paradise – World-class public transportation.”
Is this a joke? I think they’re talking about MUNI.
“Biker’s Paradise – Flat as a pancake, excellent bike lanes.”
Uh, the Twitterloin is as flat as a pancake what’s been tilted up a ways. And I don’t know where “excellent” anything comes from.
This just goes to show how a monomaniacal focus upon Just One Thing can end up having some people, particularly out of towners, missing the forest for the trees…