Posts Tagged ‘deaths’

San Francisco Had At Least _41_ Traffic Fatalities during the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year – Is This a Record?

Thursday, August 25th, 2016

Here it is, the data from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016:

TRAFFIC copy

BUT, this chart excludes “3 pedestrian light rail vehicle (LRV)-related deaths, which are not routinely reported to SWITRS, to ensure comparability between data,” whatever that means.

I think it means that if the SFMTA runs you over, it shouldn’t be counted as a San Francisco traffic fatality, even though, of course, it would be.

And then, what about deaths from Caltrain? Are those counted? And what about deaths on freeways, like the I-80 and the 101? I don’t think these are counted either.

And what about deaths from regular SFMTA buses. I suspect there’s resistance to tallying all those up, for whatever reason. For example, in 2014, somebody got hit by a westbound #38 bus on Geary near Pierce(?) and that didn’t make it on the official “San Francisco Police Department Summary Reports on Fatal Traffic Collisions” report for that calendar year.

Speaking of which, I don’t think the SFPD makes that report/makes that report available to the media anymore, for whatever reason.

Anyway, that’s at least 41 traffic deaths in one fiscal year – that seems very high. Perhaps it’s the highest ever, IDK.

Mmmm, what if the Dear Leader of North Korea sent word to the Traffic Commissioner of Pyongyang about how all traffic deaths would be eliminated by a certain date in the near future? I’m sure the Commish would say that this goal will certainly be achieved, even though the commish him/herself would certainly know that such a thing is impossible IRL. Otherwise, the commish might get shot, right?

Well, no SFGov workers ever get shot by City Hall, but they act as if risking a promotion is like risking getting executed, so they’re all, “Yes, there’s a chance that Vision Zero will work,” but by the year 2024 and all years after that, forever, seriously? Isn’t there some obligation on SFGov employees to admit that this goal would be desirable, but that it’s, of course, impossible? IDK.

Not saying that Vision Zero, whatever that phrase means, is causing this increase, just saying that Vision Zero, which is basically old wine in new bottles, doesn’t really have an effect on the statistics.

Closing with the news from the Traffic Commission of Pyongyang, NK:

“Goal: Zero Traffic Fatalities by 2024
Goal Status: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2015-16 Result: 38 traffic fatalities

This metric measures the number of traffic fatalities occurring in the City and County of San Francisco. Every year in San Francisco, about 30 people lose their lives and over 200 people are seriously injured while travelling on city streets. Vision Zero, adopted as a city policy in 2014, is San Francisco’s commitment to eliminating traffic deaths on our streets by 2024. Through building better and safer streets, educating the public on traffic safety, enforcing traffic laws and adopting policy changes, we can save the lives of all road users—people who walk, bike, drive, or ride public transit. Achieving Vision Zero requires leadership and commitment from City agencies, elected officials, community stakeholders, the public and the private sector to find the right solutions for San Francisco.”

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)…

Turns Out that SF’s Vision Zero 2024 Scheme is Actually Vision 50, and It’s Already Failed? Take a Look at This Official Doc

Thursday, June 30th, 2016

This document from 2013 is news to me:

Vision Statement: San Francisco is the most walkable city in North America. People choose to walk because our streets are lively and safe. Our actions to make walking more attractive will lead people to choose to walk for most short trips. This in turn will help create an efficient, effective transportation system and improve the health and well-being of our residents. San Francisco’s status as a great walking city will attract visitors and workers from all over the world to enjoy the vibrant street life and build the economy.

Goals: 1. Reduce serious and fatal pedestrian injuries by 25% by 2016 and by 50% by 2021 2. Reduce serious pedestrian injury inequities among neighborhoods 3. Increase walking and reduce short trips (< 1 mile) taken by car by 25% by 2021. 4. Provide high-quality walking environments

Well, I’ll tell you how this worked out – pedestrian deaths are UP, ever so slightly, since this time.

(Hey, does SFGov even count pedestrian deaths involving SFGov-operated streetcars and buses? IDK. In 2014 a pedestrian go hit by a bus on Geary near Baker, but his death didn’t make the SFPD’s annual report. And why wouldn’t SFGov count deaths on a state freeway or “state highway?”)

I’ve WALKed SF more than anyone at City Hall and the WALK SF org for that matter. I’m not optimistic about Vision 75 2016 or Vision 50 2019 or Vision 0 2024 or anything else cooked up by the marketing wizards of SFGov…

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…

Will the SFMTA/RPD’s Car Ban Plan for the East Side of Twin Peaks Increase Access or Decrease Access? Take a Look at This Photo

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

Take a listen, to Phil Matier here.

And then take a look, at what an Ivy Leaguer / Attorney / Former Gavin Newsom Jogging Buddy Who For Some Reason Is In Charge Of Our Park System has to say here:

As he sees it, the plan “increases the recreational accessibility of the area and makes it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.”

As for safety, we’ll have to wait and see. But as for “accessibility,” this is going to be a Big Fat Decrease.

Here’s the east side of Twin Peaks Boulevard as it looks when the parking lot at Christmas Tree Point is all fulled up:

7J7C0776-copy

Where are these people going to go? Not Twin Peaks, that’s for sure. This plan will decrease access, certainly. (Or is the SFMTA going to run a shuttle bus up here? IDTS)

And oh, here’s how Phil Ginsburg attains access himself, using a car:

7J7C1999-copy-450x675

Proposed Figure 8 for Twin Peaks: Let’s See if SFGov’s Half-Ass Overgoverning is Better than Its Half-Ass Undergoverning

Wednesday, February 24th, 2016

“No offense Homer, but your half-ass under-parenting was a lot more fun than your half-ass over-parenting.”

Joe Kukura does a good job here of explaining our SFMTA’s Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project.

Losing one lane of traffic should be no problem, but I don’t know where our tourists will be able to park after the SFMTA gets through.

They kind of make things up on their own now.

7J7C0777 copy

The fourth of July is prolly the busiest day of the year up here, for the fogworks shows you might be able to see some years

7J7C0776 copy

Rec and Park has no idea what it’s doing, as you can see, as per usual. What did they do, just put up some signs and walk away?

7J7C0778 copy

Anyway, that’s the update from the Wild West…

7J7C0741 copy

7J7C0702 copy

7J7C0697 copy

Our MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT is a GO for Mid-2016, Apparently – The Pros and Cons of This Grand Mal Projet

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Here you go, some non-pdf images that ppl will actually be able to find in six months, you know, after this official link will no longer be working, for whatever reason:

masonic1 copy

Y dos:

masonic2 copy

Getting Ready for Construction After a multi-year, community-driven planning and design process to create a safer and better Masonic Avenue, the city is pleased to announce that construction on the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project will begin in mid-2016!

After all the delays, one doesn’t know how the SFMTA knows that it will actually get going. IRL, what the SFMTA is saying here is that it’s PLANNING on getting going in mid-2016 or later. I’d prolly lose any and all exclamation points as well. Also, instead of “community-driven,” I’d read that as SFMTA-driven. As far as safety is concerned, we’ll have to wait and see. The primary effect will be to slow this part of Masonic down down down. In recent years, pedestrian / cyclist deaths on Masonic have been caused by two severely drunk drivers, and one jaywalking pedestrian. So, will this happily-named “Streetscape!” pork-barrel project prevent DUI drivers? Nope, not at all. Will it lessen the bad effects of drunk driving? I srsly doubt it, but we’ll see. And, since this project’s northern border is at Geary, it will necessarily have little to no effect upon jaywalking Trader Joe’s shoppers at the top of the hill area. As far as whether Masonic will become “better,” well that’s debatable. I’ll concede it might be a better street for some. Of course, the SFMTA, being the inefficient political beast it has become, won’t never concede nothing nohow. It won’t even agree to test out how much these changes will slow down traffic, even for one day. What you’d do is cone off the slow lane of inbound Masonic one random morning and then watch the traffic back up and then spend your time explaining away all the consequences. Obviously, the SFMTA doesn’t want to do that, so it makes excuses. Fine. I’d expect nothing else from it.

San Francisco Public Works will be the managing the construction phase and is in the process of hiring a contractor. This project will bring a variety of new features to Masonic Avenue, including a landscaped median, better lighting, an improved sewer system, raised bikeways, bus stop enhancements, and a new public plaza at Geary Boulevard.

It will also take away some things. What are those, SFMTA? Oh, you don’t want to say? OK fine. One of these effects will be a slow down of MUNI on Masonic during the morning and evening drives. But, because they’ll put in some bus shelters, public “access” to transit will be “improved.” This makes no sense. How much will MUNI be slowed? We’ll have to wait and see. And then, the SFMTA will step up a few years later to spend more pork, more of The People’s Money, to “tune-up” Masonic. So that’s a double-win for the SFMTA, even though it’s not clear that the current plan will be a net “improvement.”

These enhancements are all in support of San Francisco’s Vision Zero goal of eliminating all traffic deaths in the city.

This is a simple definition of VisionZero. The complicated version is that, somehow, without really even trying, SF will miraculously eliminate all transportation deaths in SF County by the year 2024 and all in years future. If you acknowledge that this impossible goal is in fact impossible, then there are many positions at the SFMTA for which you’d be ineligible. Oh well.

If you have any questions about construction, please contact Alex Murillo at Alex.M.Murillo@sfdpw.org or 415.558.5296. Parking Management The SFMTA’s recent launch of Residential Permit Parking Area Q has helped keep parking available for local residents and businesses—additional evaluation data will be available in the coming months.

As a general rule, our SFMTA tends to favor Masonic Avenue area residents vs. the current users of Masonic and to a ridiculous degree. JMO.

To offset some of the parking being repurposed…

What would a neutral word be for “repurposed?” Would it be “eliminated?” Yes it would.

by the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project, the SFMTA is evaluating nearby streets for opportunities to increase on-street parking supply and will be engaging the community for feedback.

So, our SFMTA has been saving up its energy to “create” parking spaces exactly at the time it wants to hush complaints of eliminating parking spaces? Apparently. Looking at the map on the second page, some of these blocks would appear to be non-starters. Our SFMTA certainly approves of illegal double-parking  on Central Ave, but this map would make a hash of that, oh well.

These efforts are in addition to the 20 spots already added on Fulton between Central and Baker as part of the separate Muni Forward 5 Fulton Rapid Project.

Our SFMTA boasts of putting in bike lanes on Fulton, and then pushing them towards the center of Fulton, but then come two blocks of 90 degree parking, the least cyclist-friendly thing I can imagine. But this placated residents and that appears to be one of our SFMTA’s Most Important Things.

And on it goes. If you want to read about Masonic, start here and spend all day if you want, I don’t care. Anyway, that’s the update for 2016. Traffic’s going to get a lot worse as soon as parts of Masonic start getting shut down and then it won’t get much better after construction is completed, oh well.

If you have any questions about potential added parking near Masonic Avenue, please contact Maurice Growney at Maurice.Growney@sfmta.com or 415.701.4549. For more information: sfmta.com/masonic MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT N Masonic Avenue Area Proposed Parking Changes Potential Back-In Angled Parking Potential 90 Degree Parking Forthcoming Back-In Angled Parking (Legislated 2012)

Opposition to SF’s Plan to Destroy 26 Healthy Hardwoods at Geary & Masonic: “SAVE OUR TREES From DEVELOPERS”

Monday, August 3rd, 2015

Here’s the word on the street, from fliers posted all over:

P1280808 copy

Get up to speed on the coming ARBOR-GEDDON here.

I’m not sure about the reference to “DEVELOPERS.” SFGov is fixing on taking out two lanes of parking / rush-hour lanes betwixt Geary and Masonic. It’s not like they’re cutting down these trees to put up a condo building.

Here’s the proposal for after these old trees get cut down – it’s another “street art” project, complete with new, transplanted palm trees. Kind of an L.A. look.

Here’s what it looks like now – not an “urban forest” but this stand does have an actual “canopy,” which, of course, is unusual since forests, by definition, aren’t urban.

P1200957-copy

I can’t see anything online yet, but the flier says Judgment Day will be on September 2nd, 2015 – 5:00 PM in Room 416 at City Hall.

Germinator 2: Judgment Day – Interim Mayor Ed Lee Wants to Kill All These Street Trees on Masonic – Public Protests April 27th

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

At first the notices were white.

The Public protested the white notices, so now the follow-up notices are here. They’re yellow:

P1210569 copy

One assumes that tree lovers will show up at this DPW meeting on April 27th and DPW will (sort of) listen to them for two minutes each and then most of the hundreds of sidewalk trees on this 3000-foot stretch of Masonic Avenue will get chipped later on this year.

One assumes.