Posts Tagged ‘masonic’

Bowling Pin Juggler Busker, Fell and Masonic

Thursday, October 20th, 2016

Wait for a red light and…


…gather your pins…


…and then wait for your money:


Also seen at Geary and Masonic.


It Was PARK LIKE YOU FEEL DAY at Our Local City Target West: Diagonal White Parking Lines are All What’s Left of Mervyn’s, and Sears

Wednesday, October 19th, 2016

You can pave over white lines, but they have a way of coming back. Confused shoppers didn’t know which lines to obey, on this day:


Bye bye Sears.


Bye bye Mervyns.


Toyota Prius Driver Basically Drives Backwards on Fell in order to Make a Left on Masonic

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

IDK, man, you can get away with this at around 10:00 PM or so, but the proper way to handle things during rush hour is to exit the Chevron on Masonic. Otherwise you end up blocking traffic for a minute or so, and you have all the concomitant honking ‘n stuff. JMO


Let’s hope this Prius driver sees the mistake here…

Physical Graffiti: The Reason Why You Shouldn’t Park Your Excavators on the Streets of San Francisco

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

As seen on Masonic:


Welcome to Frisco:


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.”

It’s Official: The SFMTA’s Rental Car Partner “Getaround” has Turned One Parking Space into Two – One Simple Trick!

Friday, August 12th, 2016

Smart Cars sure are short, huh?

20160808_171340 copy

This looks like Gay Paree, except our version of the Smartcar Four-Two is actually a little longer than what those Europeans use.

Anyway, I don’t know how workable this is day-to-day, but there it is, two cars / one space.

An Algonquin Round Table in the Middle of Masonic – People, GET OUT THE WAY After Minor Fender Benders

Monday, August 1st, 2016

Look at this:

7J7C9731a copy

You can’t do this – it’s agin the law.


Choisissez Votre Objet de Culte: Dear Leader, The King of Pop or Malusine the Twin-Tailed Starbucks Mermaid

Tuesday, July 19th, 2016

What a collection:

20160717_102426 copy

On The Job Training: This is What It Looks Like When a Corporate Bus BLOCKS THE BOX at Fell and Masonic

Wednesday, June 29th, 2016

You don’t see MUNI operators doing this at this particular intersection, but here you go – a corporate bus driver trying to head south on Masonic at Fell. Westbound traffic ended up simply going around the back of the bus, with priority going to your nimbler forms of transpo:

7J7C7858 copy

HONK HONK HONK went the numerous blocked drivers, some of whom were delayed for like a minute and a half, oh well.

I’m not saying it’s easy driving in Frisco. It’s just something that you have to get used to…

The New Corporate Shuttle Bus Terminal on Fell is Now Fully Operational – Oh, It’s For FaceBook? – And a Note About SFGH Naming RIghts

Friday, June 3rd, 2016

Here you go, you can click here and then click some more to learn about the lengthy new corporate bus-only bus stop at Fell and Masonic.

But here’s endgame – an officially marked, new-school bus stop what’s 100-something feet long. And look, it’s for Facebook (among others, presumably).

7J7C6861 copy

But our Teamster drivers from the Central Valley, they don’t seem to want to pull all the way into the stop. I guess overhanging trees are an issue? IDK. So Fell gets blocked a bit for a little while oh well:

7J7C6864 copy

Anyway, that’s that, a mystery solved. But look, just one block away is a bus stop (a famous one ’cause it’s just nine second away from another on this very short block, but that’s another story) what has an ad for Zuckerberg Hospital. So, the nine families who are pissed off about the new bus terminal on Fell can think about how they themselves didn’t buy naming rights for SFGH?

7J7C6867 copy

Oh, the ad’s on the other side of the bus stop, but it kind of looks like this:

7J7C6753 copy

Is this for real – Hey, instead of just buying naming rights, why didn’t we make Zuck pay for the whole thing? I’m thinking he got off cheap.

We could have gotten more money out of the Zucks, ergo we should have. Hey Zuck, why not make a check out for the difference, like what, half a billion, and make it out to SF General Fund and have somebody drop it off at City Hall. (They’ll know what to do with it.) And then you’ll be a pioneering philanthropist instead of being like all the others.

Like, if you’re name’s going to be on the thing like this forever, then you should have paid for all of it, lock, stock and barrel.

Just saying, Z.