Posts Tagged ‘cole’

Which Inspires More Protest: A 54-Bed “Lockdown Mental Ward” at Hayes and Shrader or a 20-Bike Rental Station from Ford? – See Petition for a 49 Square Block FordGoBike Ban

Wednesday, March 7th, 2018

Let’s see if I can pay off on that headline, but I’ll tell you, it’s not even close.

There’s this, at St. Mary’s – it inspired nary a peep of any protest, AFAIK.

But then there’s this, a neighborhood petition against a proposed FordGoBike rental station, also at Hayes and Shrader right across the street from St. Mary’s – it would convert five current parking spaces into a leased bike rental station. There are many Martin Luthers in this nabe, with the hammer and the nail at your door. Go ahead and read:

7J7C0193 copy

See that? Petitioners are looking for a DMZ, a DeMotivateinternational* Zone, not less than seven blocks in any direction from Hayes and Shrader. You see? ‘Cause they just chased away another proposed station at Hayes and Clayton just last year, and they don’t want the Ford ppl coming with yet another proposed station anywhere close by.

I’ll tell you a story. Back in the 1990’s, (Old) General Motors went and spent six figures to pay for a playground, pretty close to Hayes and Shrader in Golden Gate Park. Here’s what happened – defacement of the letters forming the name of one of GM’s divisions, with extreme prejudice:


See that – the signage marring was the response to too much corporate advertising for locals to handle, even though all GM did was to buy us a playground.

So that’s the environment that these corporate types from Michigan and New York don’t seem to understand. ‘Cause here they come, and then this happens, on Hayes Street as it happens:

Capturedfurtuh copy

Do you see the similarity here, the reaction to marketing efforts from America’s #1 and #2 automakers?

Of course, Ford has some supporters, but they tend to be people who think it’d be a great idea to ban cars from Frisco altogether.

Isn’t it ironic?

Dont’cha think?

(‘Cause that’s the whole idea, of FoMoCo marketing cars to young people, who, you know, are hard to market to.)

In conclusion, large new mental ward MEH, small corporate bike rental station HELL NO.

This has been your Hayes and Shrader Update.

As to the future, well, IDK which side will win. As for our SFMTA, it’s all:

“…We (SFMTA) do not issue permits for bike share stations in front of buildings where the residents and/or property owners object.”

Or at least that’s what one of their senior planners said last year.

We’ll see…

*The operators of our local short-term bicycle rental monopoly. They used to be known as Alta Bike Share, but that name got wore out, owing to labor issues, among others. 

The Parking Man Cometh … to Paint Red Curbs on Fell from Baker to Shrader – Perhaps 20 Spaces Eliminated – SFMTA Hearing Feb 2nd

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018

[UPDATE: I myself don’t read this SFMTA notice as a wholesale elimination of parking on the north side of Fell, As Seen On Reddit. (That kind of action would be much easier for the SFMTA to describe – they would just come out and said that.) IRL, this is going to be a bit of red paint here and there AFAICS.]

Here’s one of the PUBLIC HEARING notices just posted all over the western Fell street area:


Of course there was the fatal accident on Fell at Baker last year – that could have something to do with this effort.

Apparently, parking in between crosswalks will be eliminated, at least on the north side of the Panhandle / the south side of Fell Street.

At first I thought that these areas might get used for UBER and Lyft pickup and drop off, but they’re on the wrong side of the road. Anyway, dropping your friend off in the Panhandle will be easier after all the red paint gets put down, sometime later this year…

A. Fell Street, north side, from Baker Street to 17 feet easterly (extends existing 10-foot red
B. Baker Street, east side, from Fell Street to 5 feet southerly (extends existing 3-foot red
C. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Lyon Street to 49 feet easterly (prohibits
parking within “T” intersection)
D. Lyon Street, west side, from Fell Street to 12 feet northerly
E. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Central Avenue to 39 feet easterly
(extends existing 7-foot red zone to prohibit parking within “T” intersection)
F. Fell Street, north side, from Central Avenue to 10 feet easterly
G. Masonic Avenue, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
H. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Ashbury Street to 38 feet easterly
(prohibits parking within “T” intersection)
I. Fell Street, south side, from Ashbury Street to 10 feet easterly
J. Ashbury Street, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
K. Fell Street, south side, from Clayton Street to 10 feet easterly
L. Fell Street, north side, from Clayton Street to 10 feet easterly
M. Clayton Street, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
N. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Cole Street to 38 feet easterly (prohibits
parking within “T” intersection)
O. Fell Street, south side, from Cole Street to 10 feet easterly
P. Cole Street, west side, from Fell Street to 10 feet northerly
Q. Fell Street, south side, from Shrader Street to 10 feet easterly
R. Shrader Street, west side, from Fell Street to 9 feet easterly”


It Begins: Rec and Park Finally Gets Around to Painting Crosswalks onto the Panhandle Bike Path – But Who Has the Right of Way?

Friday, September 22nd, 2017

Here you go – this is this morning:

7J7C0199 copy

And here’s the result. Crosswalks are laid out all the intersections this multi-use path has with Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon, as I was just talking about a couple days back.

7J7C0235 copy

So, who has the right of way at these intersections – is it bike riders or peds? Well, IDK. I know about the arguments, I just don’t know the answers. (Is this bike path a “wilderness trail?” I’ve heard that one, from an in insurance company trying to deny coverage.)

Anyway, I’m thinking that about 25% of the peds have quite deficient situational awareness on this path (including two of the three workers seen above) and about 15% of the bike riders are stereotypical jerkwads who “knows my rights” and go a bit too fast. When these two subsets meet up at these unusual intersections, accidents happen, oh well.

We’ll see how this goes. (One hopes our RPD could put up a little signage about a speed limit and who has the right of way, if that’s not too bold for RPD to consider…)

7J7C0243 copy

7J7C0255 copy

7J7C0261 copy

7J7C0260 copy

Rec and Park’s New Sign in the Panhandle Directs Tourist Pedestrians AWAY from the Multi-Use Path Abutting Fell

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Let’s pay off on that headline right now.

Looking east from Stanyan:

7J7C9727 copy


7J7C9728 copy

Oh here we go: Bikes to the left, peds to the right, see?

7J7C9729 copy

Now I say tourists ’cause locals already know that they can tread upon “the bike path” in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle.

The real solution would be to widen this path what functions as a sidewalk for the south side of Fell, but for some reason, our RPD SFMTA SFCTA DPW alphabet soup don’t want to do that.

(And their next step will be to add painted crosswalk-type lines on the multi-use path where it intersects with what would be the sidewalks of Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon if it weren’t for the existence of Golden Gate Park, the better to avoid any more bike v. ped accidents.)

Anyway, for better or worse…

FORD, INTERRUPTED: Residents of This Building Simply VOTED DOWN a FoMoCo GoBike Rental Station, No Vandalism Required

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

Michigan-based Ford Motor Company and/or its “partner,” New York-based Motivate, International (FKA Alta Bicycle Share), decided to put an 80 foot long “bikeshare” station/ Ford ad on the street right here:

Capturekjhhhh copy

Here’s your StreetView:

7J7C8350 copy

Those four parking spaces on the left there are where FoMoCo was highly motivated to take over. I think it would have cost them something like $5000 per space and that money would have gone to our SFMTA.

But that aint going to happen now.

Why? Well, there was a vote, of sorts.

Representatives from all the units in this 12-unit building registered their opposition to Ford, except for one unit. No matter how you count it (and I’m not exactly sure if there are any unoccupied units now), that was a 90%+ vote against Ford.

Also, other locals opposed the Ford station, and of course, you can imagine that the first floor small business owners also opposed Ford. But go and ask them if you want, I don’t care. (Actually, this is a touchy issue still, and I’m sure that some of these locals just want to put this issue behind them.)

Apparently, the “outreach” what Ford/Motivate lauds themselves for was quite minimal, but obviously even just one posted notice that was actually seen by at least one resident was all that was required to get the ball rolling and our SFMTA, to its credit, honored this vote.

(Our SFMTA, of course, doesn’t exactly want people to come at them with opposition to their long-planned and expensive plans. A while back, they hosted some plebiscites for some ridiculous “traffic circles” plopped into the middle of intersections on nearby Page and Waller and, well, our SFMTA got its ass handed back to it, losing something like by a three to one ratio at all locations. Oh, and the Project Manager for this absurd plan was “sad” to hear this result. And the upshot is that the SFMTA doesn’t host votes like this anymore.)

Anyway, the People spoke and Ford went away – there was no vandalism at all. You didn’t have business owners talking to the MSM making national and international news about opposing Ford. Just saying.

Now, where should the Big Blue Oval put its corporate marketing instead, you know, instead of having an empty part of the grid, as with 24th Street now?

Suggestions were:

Golden Gate Park Panhandle


John Adams Campus of CCSF

St Mary’s


These proposals would make the SFMTA miss out on its $20k+ fee/tax, but I don’t think anyone would mind with these locations. I mean, the bike path is right there in the Panhandle, right?

Now, some from New York, Chicago, Palo Alto, Dearborn etc have a lot of “gripes” about the residents of the San Francisco Bay Area lately. But what if the Ford Motor Company / Motivate people tried to make sure that they give actual notice to residents BEFORE they put up these bike “share” rental stations / Ford ads? This way, residents wouldn’t wake up one morning all surprised.

Just an idea.

Pop-Up Ford Motor Company Bikeshare Rental at Fell and Central – Vandalized Already – Where Can the Next Station Go?

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Here it is:

7J7C8033 copy

The SFMTA or somebody experimented with this part of this part of Central by putting long-lasting,  downtown-style hash marks on the ground, as if they were going to put meters here. But these spaces are gone now, of course:

7J7C8034 copy

Here’s a post, from a protester, one supposes:

7J7C8035 copy

(I’ll tell you, this is an amateur effort. I don’t think this is the way to organize after missing your chance before installation. Perhaps you might get some palliative cliches from London Breed’s office (but I wouldn’t address her as a mere Supervisor, oh no), but the other two literally get paid to promote corporate bike rental / advertising in Frisco.)

Here’s the vandalism, on the Ford part. It’s already been cleaned as best as you can expect from the basically minimum-wage (15% over minimum – hardly “living wages,” as was promised and as is still claimed) workers:

7J7C8036 copy

La mise-en-scene:

7J7C8037 copy

There was conflict online as well. Some of it looked like this:


That discussion of bicycle activists vs. area locals went on and on, oh well. I’m not sure how the Ford Motor / Motivate crew went about doing its vaunted outreach, but it seems to have been pretty minimal. I think the Bay to Breakers people have put a lot more effort in, by way of comparison, with less at stake.

Anyway, the Ford Motor people are out there, scouting more locations. The next location after this certainly won’t be at Hayes and Cole, which was Ford’s original choice. Apparently, about ten locals yammered about this and that was all it took to get Ford to back down. Of course, that was before installation.

Now, feverish with victory, the residents of Hayes and Cole are discussing where the next Ford Motor station should go, to fill in the network. I think the suggestions were John Adams campus of CCSF at Hayes and Masonic, USF, the Panhandle, and maybe St. Mary’s, I forget. But they sure as Hell don’t want anything like the above anywhere on the far end of Hayes Street.

It wouldn’t take much for Ford to take its half-assed, minimal notice and turn that into actual notice, if it wants its expensive marketing effort to be less controversial…

North of Panhandle Area REJECTS Losing Four Parking Spaces for a Ford Motor Company GoBike Station – And SFMTA is Cool With That

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

I’ll tell you, I was unaware of this issue:

“To Hayes/Cole and Panhandle Residents: Thanks to all who signed our letter, telephoned, emailed and spoke at the SFMTA hearing on Friday 6/17/2016. SFMTA Senior Planner Heath Maddox confirms that they will NOT site a bike dock at Hayes and Cole Street. From his email:

‘…We (SFMTA) do not issue permits for bike share stations in front of buildings where the residents and/or property owners object. Motivate will need to find another spot in this grid square.”

Way to activate and organize and engage neighbors!!!”

So let’s see here, all this reminds me of:

  • The recent campaign to prevent Google buses (from the actual Google) from stopping at the #21 Hayes bus stops at Clayton;
  • The campaign to prevent Facebook buses from continuing to use a stop at Hayes and Masonic (so it got moved to Fell and Masonic, and of course, a ton of people along the three affected properties complained about that, but obvs not enough); und
  • The campaign (operated by minimum wage workers hired temporarily off of craigslist by an area coffee kingpin) to “save” one of two SFMTA bus stops on the same side of the same short block of inbound Hayes between Masonic and Central

I don’t exactly get this standard from SFMTA Senior Planner Heath Maddox – if people object to the SFMTA doing something, then it won’t do it? I don’t think that this is the actual standard IRL.

On the other hand, if you yammer enough at the SFMTA, it just might take away parking spaces from those who don’t know how to yammer as well, you now, those poor souls who live just a few blocks away.

Some would call this democracy.

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.”

Unusual Lyft Ad: “DISTINGUISHED SOCIETY OF PEOPLE WHO GET IT” – An Appeal to Flattery ala Charles Manson

Friday, April 22nd, 2016

First. let’s talk Cole Street, where Chuck Manson use to live, win friends, and influence people.

Second, let’s move a few blocks over to Masonic, also in the 94117, to see this Mansonesque appeal to flattery:

7J7C3549 copy

(Hey, what are Lyft drivers supposed to think about after seeing this, you know, when they themselves are “sitting in traffic, looking for a place to park [or just giving up and parking illegally], and sweating monthly car payments?”)

All right, welcome to the Lyft Family, you good-looking, “clued-in” Gentle Readers you.

Jurassic World, 94117 – NYCHOS WEIRD LORDS – Oh, So That’s What the Inside of a Dinosaur Looks Like

Thursday, August 6th, 2015

Bam, it’s NYCHOS all up in your grill:

P1290258 copy