Posts Tagged ‘central’

A Crazy New SFMTA Plan to Allow Bike Riders to Run Red Lights on Fell and Oak in the “Panhandle-Adjacent” Area

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

Here it is: The “Fell and Oak Streets Panhandle-Adjacent Bikeway Feasibility Study”

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.”

Motorized Farming in the Great Valley in 2016 Doesn’t Look All That Much Different Than What It Must Have a Century Ago

Thursday, January 7th, 2016

So you got your crew, your crew conveyance and some port-a-potties out there, and probably some hand tools

7J7C1908 copy

Take out the port-a-potties and the van and this scene could be from 1916 just saying…

How Young People Go To Church in the Central Valley: A Giant Warehouse in Vacaville – THE FATHER’S HOUSE, in Cow Town

Tuesday, January 5th, 2016

Big, in’nt it?

7J7C1904 copy

SFMTA MUNI Stares Down Mental Illness in Front of Twitter HQ – One Reason, Just One, of Why VisionZero 2024 is Impossible

Wednesday, November 25th, 2015

Oh here we go, here’s a 21 Hayes operator at 10th and Market. (Hey, you know the slow and inefficient #21, right? It comes to us, at great expense, via our slow and inefficient SFMTA.)

Anywho, here’s the scene, the driver with a green, the ped with a fierce attitude problem – it’s a staring contest:

7J7C0291 copy

But let’s start at the beginning where Just Do It ambles against the red heading inbound on Market:

7J7C0288 copy

And reaches the safety island. All the other peds stop for their red, but Just Do It doesn’t break stride, oh no. Now, here come the bus:

7J7C0289 copy

What’s the ped’s message here? It’s like go ahead and run me down – make my day. Go ahead and just do it is what Just Do It is saying, more or less.

7J7C0290 copy

While driving, biking or walking about town, I blithely assume that all pedestrians will manifest mental illness. Is that so wrong? I think not, obliviously.

OTOH, our SFMTA considers all peds perfect, perfect people – perfect people who make the occasional “mistake” by purposefully walking into traffic.

And DYK that the cause of most ped deaths last year in SF County was the peds themselves? Our SFMTA seems to ignore this reality. (Do you want to get into this, start talking about vehicle code violations and whose fault is what? I can do it. I have done it, AAMOF.) But Reality doesn’t win you any votes at the ballot box, and it doesn’t make Uncle Sucker want to send us some more sweet sweet pork from DC, so that’s why our SFMTA isn’t interested in Reality.

What will be the consequences for the people today spouting VisionZero 2024 when 2024 comes and the promises of VisionZero 2024 don’t? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Oh well.

If SFGov wants to legislate away all transportation deaths in town by 2024 and into the future, forever, it would need to be able to magically cure all mental illness, and even then it would fail. Really, SFGov would need to eliminate transportation altogether.


When You See, Hear, and Feel Fighter Jets Over Frisco, Most of the Time They’re These F/A-18’s from Naval Air Station Lemoore

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

As seen from the Marina Green, back in aught-13:

7J7C3503 copy

Naval Air Station Lemoore, 93246

And he’s peeling off those dollar bills
Slapping them down
One hundred, two hundred
And I can see those fighter planes
And I can see those fighter planes

Double-Park Nation: Our SFMTA / MUNI is Proud of Its Recent Work Here on Fulton

Thursday, September 10th, 2015

But it shouldn’t be, IMO:

7J7C4288 copy

Oh, what’s that, MUNI – you’re didn’t offer a truck diet to go along with your “road diet?”

How surprising?

Demockracy: A Full-Blown Political Campaign to “Save” a MUNI Bus Stop, Complete with Paid Signature Gatherers – London Breed Fooled

Monday, May 4th, 2015

Get up to speed here by reading down and take a look at Hoodline and StreetsblogSF and here’s the short version about the campaign to “save” a redundant bus stop what’s nine seconds away from another. (And here’s a parody blog post that has a lot of images on this topic.)

Now take a look at this:

Volunteers Needed to Help Us Save the 21 Hayes Muni Line!

Posting ID : A1050191362
Date Posted : 20 days ago
Category : Volunteers

Help us save the 21 Hayes MUNI line! The San Francisco Municipal Transport Agency (SFMTA) is currently in the process of removing bus stops on the 21 Hayes MUNI line. This will result in an increase in the number of passengers at downstream/upstream bus stops, as well as increased pressure on the already overcrowded 5 Fulton line.

We need a group of volunteers to stand at bus stops in two-hour shifts, and inform passengers about the impending changes. Volunteers will be collecting signatures on a petition to tell the SF District Supervisor, London Breed, that passengers of the 21 Hayes and 5 Fulton want to keep the existing stops, which will prevent an increase in the number of passengers at downstream/upstream bus stops, as well as increased pressure on the already overcrowded 5 Fulton line.

Volunteers SHOULD NOT be shy, SHOULD be morning people, and SHOULD be ready to collect as many signatures as possible. A bonus if volunteers are from the Nopa/Alamo Square/Western Addition/Hayes Valley neighborhoods, and/or live near the 21 Hayes line, and the 5 Fulton MUNI lines.


TIME(S): 7AM-10AM on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday mornings (4/15, 4/16, 4/17)”

Capturefhhg copy

So these hyper-enthusiastic people got paid? So they weren’t volunteers at all?

And who’s the mastermind behind these efforts – who’s paying the cash bonuses?

This kind of thing makes a mockery of district elections, IMO.

Anyway, it appears as if the SFMTA will enshrine this useless bus stop tomorrow, May 5, 2015…

Realizing It’s Already Won Its Dispute with MUNI Passengers, Central Coffee Removes Its Now-Redundant #21 Hayes Redundant Bus Stop Flyers

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015

The official decision comes May 5, 2015, but the Central Coffee people know they’ve already “won” on this issue so now they’re acting as they aren’t involved. See?

P1220524 copy

So if the SFMTA wants to eliminate this redundant stop, it seems as if the easiest way to do that would be to cancel the #21 Hayes entirely. I mean it doesn’t make sense to space bus stops nine seconds apart, does it?

The people of Central Coffee might think they’re clever to unnecessarily slow down the 21 in order to make more money, but they’re not.

(And the office of London Breed seems to be out of touch on this one. Apparently, she’s going to get a left-of-center challenger and it would certainly look funny if there have been political donation$ made by the Central Coffee people to interim Mayor Ed Lee or to London Breed – I mean those are the two I can think of. Obvs, you need money to win elections, but this sitch seems to be going over the line. So this is a kind of corruption, or perhaps the London Breed office is out of touch? I’ll tell you, Ross Mirkarimi knew the same very district on a block-by-block basis. Who’s the energetic, hands-on Ross Mirkarimi of London Breed’s office? There might not be one. One wonders if RM and/or Christina Olague insisted upon this redundant bus stop as well. What this does is make a mockery of corruption-inducing district elections.)

End Of Line.

Outrageousness: Vaunted SFMTA Powerless to Remove a #21 Hayes Bus Stop That’s 9 Seconds Away from Another

Monday, April 27th, 2015

[UPDATE: James writes in to remind us all that:

….people could still conceivably email the board at or show up at the shitshow on May 5th.]

Word comes from James, see below.

This is fucking bullshit, man. (A few days later, I actually timed a bus – it took nine whole seconds for the driver to pull out of the stop at Masonic and then start pulling into the one by the coffee shop.)

Here’s the nut graf from the head of the SFMTA:

“Based on community feedback at the SFMTA Board of Directors meeting this week, from Supervisor Breed’s office and by email, we are modifying our proposal for the 21 Hayes. We are no longer recommending removal of the inbound bus stop at Central Avenue.”

So, SFMTA, you’re a part of the problem, right? Do you realize that, SFMTA?

One wonders.

“They arent’ removing the stop. I just got this in my email:

Dear sir or madam:

Thank you for reaching out with your concerns about the 21 Hayes. First and foremost, I would like to make it clear that we have no plans to discontinue the route. In fact, we are planning to increase service during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods to provide greater reliability for customers.

We had recommended removing a couple of stops along the corridor with the goal of further improving reliability on the 21 Hayes. As we work to improve Muni citywide, selective bus stop removal is one of many tools in our toolbox to reduce travel times and create a more efficient public transit network. By optimizing the location of bus stops and reducing the number of stops, we can improve service for customers, reduce conflicts between buses and other vehicles, improve safety for people walking and bicycling, and decrease the amount of time buses spend stopped at stoplights.

We are committed to a thoughtful and community-based process when selecting which stops to remove or relocate. Based on community feedback at the SFMTA Board of Directors meeting this week, from Supervisor Breed’s office and by email, we are modifying our proposal for the 21 Hayes. We are no longer recommending removal of the inbound bus stop at Central Avenue. We will move forward with the recommendation to eliminate the outbound stop at Lyon and to lengthen the inbound stop at Lyon.

These items will be heard by the SFMTA Board on May 5. As always, we welcome and invite public comment. You can find out more about the Board meeting online at

To learn more about how we are improving Muni throughout San Francisco, including major service increases that start tomorrow, visit You can also sign up for alerts specific to the lines you ride.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and for participating in the process to improve Muni service in San Francisco.

Edward D. Reiskin
Director of Transportation
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Here’s What’s Wrong with MUNI: The SFMTA Can’t Remove a Bus Stop That’s 9 Seconds East and 12 Seconds West from Other Bus Stops

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

The SFMTA simply can’t do it. Or it hasn’t done it, not yet.

Here’s the sitch on Hayes – what do you see?

7J7C5664 copy

I see two active bus stops.

Here we go, pulling out of one…

7J7C5669 copy

And pulling into the next, nine seconds later, per the camera EXIF file:

7J7C5671 copy

And look, you can see the next stop too.

The SFMTA knows this is a ridiculous situation, but it’s afraid to talk about it.

Perhaps 2015 is the year that this gets fixed, we’ll see.

(And then after that, there’ll be other stops to remove. I don’t really get why we need lengthened stops on this line, but perhaps this will become clear with time.)