Posts Tagged ‘Ed Reiskin’

In One Photo, How SFGov’s Vaunted “VISIONZERO 2024” Campaign Isn’t Going to Work Out – By 2024 or Ever – An Unfunded Mandate

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

Do I have that right? Like SFGov simply mandated away any and all transportation-related injuries and deaths starting in 2024 and continuing into eternity – that’s SF’s Vision Zero.

Note that this plan will fail only after all incumbents have termed out, how convenient that is.

The thing is that the amount of effort required to even come close to attaining this vision, one that governmental employees are compelled to say they think could actually come true, I mean they have to say it even though there’s no way that they could actually believe, I mean their $300K+ per year pay packages require them to say that, is not even close to being funded.

So this is the kind of thing we end up with:

7J7C8793 copy

Now, is this “improvement” an actual improvement, you know, ’cause some “improvements” are later disavowed by the SFMTA and other so-called improvements don’t actually improve anything? Well, sure, a bigger, better traffic signal. Fine.

But has this intersection now been “transformed” in preparation for 2024 when Frisco will become the only city in the world with a population of more than a half-million to have zero transportation-related injuries? No, not at all.

And is Frisco going to revisit this intersection afore 2024? I seriously doubt it, based upon their scheduling.

So this is it, this one intersection is now Vision Zero 2024-ready.

Except it’s not. And that’s because traffic signals don’t cause traffic accidents, people do.

In almost all of the cases of course.

IRL, traffic accidents are caused by negligence or recklessness. And that kind of thing is what our SFMTA isn’t addressing, not really.

Of course, we could simply ban private vehicles from San Francisco, but even that wouldn’t make the quite impossible Vision Zero possible. And of course banning private vehicles would be quite a heavy lift.

So that’s the state of Vision Zero 2024 from the standpoint of 2017…

Why It’s Completely Absurd for the SFMTA to Claim that Carshare Car Rental Means “60,000 Fewer Vehicles on the Street”

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Here it is, from Hoodline:

“Data also showed that 17% of members got rid of their cars after joining a car-sharing company, with as many as 24,000 vehicles sold. When taking into account people who did not purchase cars because of car-sharing, there were as many as 60,000 fewer vehicles on the street.”

Well let’s call horse-shit on this.

So, when did “car-sharing” get started in Frisco – over the past half-decade? So here are the latest stats for AUTOS registered in San Francisco County, per the DMV.

Capturesdfsrrrrr copy

2011: 380,621
2012: 385,442
2013: 397,238
2014: 403,246
2015: 407,656
2016: 413,147

Do you see a trend here? Do you see registered vehicles going up by about 6000-something cars per year, year in and year out? That’s the trend lately, for whatever reason.

So where’s the supposed “60,000 fewer vehicles” kicking in from the SFMTA’s inconsequential program? Does the SFMTA really think we’d have 473,000 registered cars but for its heroic car “share” car rental program?

Obviously, our SFMTA really doesn’t know what’s it’s doing. So why not have an independent agency assess how effective its policies are instead of this, this Pyongyang-inspired Ministry of Truth stuff coming from SFMTA spokesmodels who are obviously just winging it day by day, DJT-style.

You know, what I’m talking about is having somebody around saying, “Is this really true?”

Or, in the case of attaining the goal of VisionZero 2024, which will somehow, by administrative decree, eliminate all transportation mishap injuries by 2024 and through eternity, “Could this possibly be true?”

An SFPD Crackdown on Drivers in Haight-Ashbury, Lately

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

You never used to see this, regular SFPD patrol cars enforcing traffic laws. Typically, the Motor Patrol (motorcycles) would get you – they’d enforce traffic all the live long day. And if you got a ticket from a regular patrol car, well, you must have really messed up.

7j7c5463-copy

But these are the days of enforcement actions, where the focus is on traffic patrol.

7j7c5412-copy

Hey, does Park Station sometimes go a month or two not handing out a single solitary ticket to a pedestrian or bike rider? Yes, yes it does. Look at their stats. It seems that, in the interest of safety, the SFPD should have those groups ascared of getting a ticket as well. But no, zero enforcement, at least during some months, means zero risk of getting a ticket in the area* and that’s why about half of the ped vs. driver and bike vs. driver accidents in Frisco are the fault of the driver, and the other half not.**

*It varies by station, of course, but the whole city is like this, with bad-attitudes peds all over.

**And this fact is so politically charged that we the public no longer get to hear about the fault of deadly accidents about town. I think that disclosure ended in calendar 2014. These days the focus is upon “mistakes” made by all concerned, but that’s not a safety approach, that’s a political approach. So hearing a non-engineer*** mayoral (politics!) appointee (politics!) talking about his safety organization is a bit a joke, some feel.

***Not a necessity, but it’d be nice.

Who Owns the Streets of San Francisco? This Cleaning Company from Burlingame, Apparently – “CCSI” v. Telstar Logistics

Friday, May 20th, 2016

Here you go – look who’s parking on busy Fulton, smack dab in the middle of the street:

7J7C6144 copy

It’s CCSI, whatever that is. Oh, it’s a cleaning company out of Burlingame? So what gives them the right to park illegally? Is it the orange cones? Or it’s just some technique developed over the years, ala Telstar Logistics?

7J7C6143 copy

Hey, is this kosher?

IDTS.

But it looks like illegal parking is a part of CCSI’s bidness model:

Capturedfgdfgf copy

And the kicker? Ohio plates on the back of the truck.

That’s the kicker.

And at the end of the day, CCSI execs count their fat stacks and laugh at poor poor Ed Reiskin…

MTB Legend Gary Fisher Calls for Ouster of Ed Lee – The Mayor’s Misstep on Polk Street – Small Biz vs. Big Urbanism

Friday, February 27th, 2015

[UPDATE: It begins. The lily-white urbanists vent against Asian-American optometrists on Yelp. JUST ONE STAR FOR YOU, DR HIURA! GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR!]

Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline here.

Here’s MounTain Biking (MTB) legend Gary Fisher on appointed Mayor Ed Lee:

“OUT! This guy can not get away with this, are we this stupid?”

And here’s what GF was riffing on:

SFMTA Cuts Block of Polk Bike Lane Fought by Visionless Mayor’s Optometrist

Now mind you, this is from an “urbanism” advocacy outfit straight outta Park Slope, so I’m sort of wondering why the Mayor’s handlers even let him make off-the-cuff remarks on this topic. Here’s the offending graf, which one assumes is properly transcribed:

“I’ve heard from many different groups,” Lee told Streetsblog. “I know we want to make the streets safer, make it bike-friendly, small businesses don’t want to lose parking for their constituents… I can’t have a particular position on it except to endorse the most balanced approach that they have because there’s issues that should not be in conflict. We shouldn’t promote bicycle safety over pedestrian safety over cars and parking. I think they’re all going to be important.”

First of all, why would you even have your executive speaking directly with activists in the first place? It’s like sending President Nixon out to the Lincoln Memorial at 4:00 AM to talk with the hippies about the Vietnam War. Second of all, Ed Lee can’t even handle a little Question Time at the Board of Supervisors without having the questions submitted in advance and without having an underling type up a reply for him to read into the record, so why would you have him give the bad news to the activists themselves? The StreetsBlog isn’t an SFGov-funded non-profit like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition or the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, right?

And Ed Lee thinks he’s playing it safe with all this talk of a “balanced” approach, but look at what he says – he’s literally saying, “We shouldn’t promote bicycle safety…” Now that sounds like a complete sentence if you quote only that part. But the Mayor’s talking about cyclist safety vs. ped safety, so I’m not sure what he’s talking about. I was thinking the design of the SFMTA-designed “bulbout” at the deadly southwest corner of 6th and Folsom could be an example of this, but I don’t think this was on Ed Lee’s mind. Frankly, I don’t know what the Heck he was talking about.

So all that leaves Mr. Mayor wide-open for castigation. I’m not sure how much pull any one particular optometrist has on the SFMTA (check out this doc – it’s amazing*), but this coincidence allows a reference to SF’s VisionZero 2024 to come into the headline. Ed Lee ends up seeming like an out-of-touch Mr. Magoo:

Capturelkj copy

I don’t know, if you’re pushing a “balanced” approach, but you don’t have an exec who can talk right, because he’s out of practice, because he was appointed to his position so he never really needed to get into practice, it seems foolish to afford advocacy journalists a chance at actual journalism.

But that’s what happened here, on the topic of Polk Street.

Wow.

*Wow, these people with bidnesses in Polk Gulch are mostly American millionaires, but look how they self-describe: 

gffhgg

Click to expand

And what about the poor guy who can only describe himself as “European?” Poor little feller.

And I’ll tell you, I’m shocked at the amount of time SFMTA chief Ed Reiskin has spent on the back-and-forth about a single solitary block of SF when his primary mission should be sweating the details of getting MUNI up to par…

Ed Reiskin Refuses to Comply with the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council, So Let’s Run a Trial on Masonic Ourselves

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

Here’s the Citizens Advisory Council’s recommendation that Ed Reiskin, operator of America’s slowest and least efficient big-city transit system, has refused:

“Motion 140122.01 – The SFMTA CAC recommends that the peak hour restrictions be repealed on Masonic Avenue between Geary and Fell Streets, with the objective to measure traffic impacts on the 43 Masonic prior to the implementation of the Masonic Avenue street design project.”

Why did he do that? Well, because a “success” for him is the SFMTA spending the money it’s been given to spend. So why should he do anything to interfere with that when he’s in the red zone already?

Anywho, you can read what he has to say about a test-run after the jump.

In view of this dysfunction, let’s run a Masonic “streetscape” trial of our own, shall we?

Let’s start here, northbound, on the 3000 foot stretch of Masonic that will soon be changed: 

7J7C0082 copy

See the bus? It’s stopped at a bus stop, let’s imagine. That means that Masonic will be down to one lane inbound, you know, temporarily, during the morning drive. How will this affect traffic, do you suppose? How many minutes will it add to your commute each way, each day? Mmmm…

Since we’re imagining, imagine a large median filled with trees on either side of the double yellow line. Now is that for safety or for aesthetics? The answer is that it’s for aesthetics. Compare that with the SFMTA’s disastrous, expensive, deadly 105-foot-wide Octavia “Boulevard” / I-80 on ramp. Yes, it’s has a vegetated median as well. So, is “safety” the SFMTA’s “number one goal?” No, not at all. Its real goal is expanding its payroll and spending ever more money. So of course if you pressure it to do things you want done, like planting trees in the middle of the street, which, of course, has nothing to do with safety, it will happily comply.

Will any commuters benefit from these soon-to-come “improvements?” No, not at all. These changes are going to slow the commute way down and that will impede people in cars and MUNI buses. Did the SFMTA do any “outreach” to / with commuters? Nope. It didn’t feel like it. The SFMTA prefers to host meetings packed with “urbanists” and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition employees and members. Do these people represent “the public?” No, not at all. Yet the SFMTA claims do have done public outreach.

How will these changes to Masonic, the Great Connector, affect the surrounding area? We’ll just have to wait and see. If, later on, you raise any issues with the SFMTA about the negative effects of all their changes, they’ll be all, well, expand our budget even more and we’ll redo the project again to fix this and that.

Of course, the way to run the trial run would be simply take away all the parking spaces for a day or so, right? So what you’d do is just simply shut down the slow lanes as a test. This alternative would satisfry (mmmm, Satisfries…. R.I.P) at least some of the objections that Ed Reiskin, operator of America’s slowest and least efficient big-city transit system, mentioned.

Would Ed Reiskin want to try this alternative trial? No, not at all. (See above.) Mr. R will be happy to ignore all the complaints only after the tens of millions of dollars have been spent.

Do I think that a bunch of people riding MUNI and driving cars every day, tens of thousands of people, are going say, wow, my commute has really slowed down after all these changes so I’m going to join the handful of souls on bicycles huffing and puffing up this big hill? Nope. Some might, of course, but it won’t be any kind of meaningful number.

And do I think it’s honest for SFMTA employees to tell higher authorities that’s there’s no public opposition to these changes? Nope. Oh well.

All right, that’s the thought experiment. It looks like this one’s going to go like a bunch of other SFMTA-created initiatives, you know, like the ideologically-driven traffic circles,  the absurdly-wide Octavia “Boulevard,” the crazy re-striping of the east end of JFK Drive – they’ll just look at them all and then pat themselves on the back and hand each other awards for these “accomplishments,” these “successes.”

[UPDATE: Oh yeah, a couple people asked me if I approve of this project. And like, I live a block away, but it won’t really affect me, myself, I don’t think. Seems selfish to think now-hey-what-about-me, anyway. What ended up happening  with Octavia is that they really biased the lights in favor of Octavia, so people have to wait to a long time to get across the whole 105 foot width. So maybe it’ll be a 90-second wait to get across Masonic when all is said and done? IDK, it’s hard to predict how much the SFMTA is going to mess things up with this arbor project, this tree planting diversion. So, what will the effects be? Will commuters abandon Masonic? How will they get around instead? IDK]

On It Goes…

Now, as promised, a note from Ed Reiskin, after the jump

(more…)

Horrible SPUR Organization Supports the Billion Dollar “Prop A 2014,” But How Did “Prop A 2007” Work Out?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2014

Work with me here, people.

Here’s what SPUR, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal, promised for Prop A 2007

“…the strengthening of the MTA’s independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. A.

But here’s how things worked out IRL:

Muni’s mismanagement of Prop. A may hurt future funding tries by Will Reisman

Where the SFMTA’s Prop. A money has gone by Will Reisman

Now here we are in 2014. Here’s what SPUR, those horrible people behind Redevelopment, is saying about Prop A 2014:

“The city has done the hard work to gather stakeholders, assess needs and prioritize transportation expenditures.”

So, handing a blank check to the SFMTA for it to waste has something to do with “hard work?”

Really?

Hey SPUR, what about Prop A 2007? Weren’t you all wrong, so very wrong, about that?

So why would you expect Prop A 2014 to work out any better?

Look Who’s Blogging Now: The SFMTA! – Presenting the Brand-New MUNI Blog, “[Slowly] Moving SF [If We Feel Like It]”

Friday, September 5th, 2014

The SFMTA knows it has an image problem, so when it spends our money to make itself look better it needs to acknowledge reality. So what it does is to say, “We’re working on it, we’re trying to get better.” See for yourself here at the new official MUNI Blog.

Compare it with PG&E’s current “We’re sorry we blew up part of San Bruno and killed eight people” campaign or Buick’s “We know we have a horrible brand image that’s been built up over the decades, but please give us another chance” campaign

So here it is, the Moving SF Slowly blog. What do we see here? We see a logo that was released with recklessness. And we see “excellent transportation choices?” What does that mean? Is it aspirational? Does the SFMTA really consider itself “excellent?” I mean, just random chance would have the transit system that you, the Gentle Reader, have be average, on average, or mediocre, right? But MUNI sucks, right? MUNI is the worst big-city transit system in America, right? So where does the “excellent” part come from? I mean, you’re living out there at 42nd and Lawton and what are your “excellent” “choices?” And “The SFMTA is responsible?” Do you think that phrase is in there by mistake? I don’t. IMO, it’s more phoney-baloney, folksy PR bullshit from an official SFMTA spokesmodel. And do the people at MUNI work “tirelessly?” Well, it depends. If you’re talking about the cable car operators who skim fares off of tourists six dollars at a time to “supplement” their already-fairly-large paychecks, well, perhaps you’re right, MUNI flack. And the SFMTA’s PR machine is only starting up now, in 2014? Like, they’ve never tried to start telling their “story” before? I think that’s incorrect. Anyway, check it:

Capturedfggfd copy

And who’s Kristen Holland? Why it’s none other than Nat Ford’s Right Hand Man!

4563853173_0e19af6361_s copy

Or left-hand woman, in this shot anyway.

Hey Kristen, were you at the infamous “snitch” meeting? I think so! How has MUNI improved since then? You know, in some ways MUNI has gotten worse.

All right, we’ll see how this latest PR effort from MUNI goes. One suspects that Proposition A is the primary motive. (Hey Kristen, why would SFMTA Director Bruce Oka oppose giving you another blank check to the tune of a half billion dollars? Why not blog about that?)

Our SFMTA’s MOST DISTRACTED DRIVER? This SF Cabbie is Running FIVE Cell Phones on His Dashboard

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014

Via Thomas Purves:

“Signs we have reached peak-app? Cabbie in SF running 5 dash mounted phones”

Capturefdf copy

Yowzer, what a photo.

All right, your move, SFMTA.

All right, your move, Ed Reiskin.

Big Pimping: SFMTA MUNI DPT CEO Ed Reiskin Approves of This Giant American Apparel Ad – A Lesson in Sexy

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

Click to expand