Posts Tagged ‘oak’

Toyota Prius vs. San Francisco Telephone Pole, Chapter CCCLXIV

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

Toyota used to build man-sized front airbags for beefy gents such as myself, but those days are over.

These days, airbags are smarter but less powerful.

Anyway, this car fully deployed its airbags on Oak yesterday – let’s hope this local is all right:

Click to expand

Metal SFMTA Sign: “SCOTT ST. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES” – But Shouldn’t It Say “TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS” Instead?

Wednesday, April 16th, 2014

I think so.

I think the SFMTA, which recently “turned its back on your safety,” wants to shut down part of Scott Street

Oh here we go:

“Scott Street will no longer be a convenient route for driving in the southbound direction.”

What the SFMTA is saying here is:

Scott Street will no longer be a possible route for driving in the southbound direction.

Hey SFMTA, instead of all this, why don’t you say what you mean and mean what you say?

Ten Yards of Haight-Ashbury: Four Real Estate Signs and Two Pork Pie Hats

Tuesday, April 15th, 2014

Click to expand

Garage Art on Oak Near Divisadero: The Gluten-Free Hipster Love Story is Gone, Marred by Graffiti – Here’s the Replacement

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014

First it was all like this, a Hipster Love Story on Oak near Divis:

Divisadero Corridor, “keepin’ Divis real.”

That was last year. More recently, somebody put”FUCK YOU” atop that piece using gold spray paint.

(That’s the sort of thing that will get the landowner a fix-it note from SFGov.)

Anywho, it’s all gone now, baby.

Here’s the replacement:

Click to expand

On It Goes….

Cyclists on Oak Confused by New Temporary Bike Lanes at Broderick – One Supposes the Plants are Coming Soon

Thursday, March 13th, 2014

For example:

Click to expand

And the lights on this part of Oak are no longer timed? Is that what the deal was? I don’t think so. Let’s hope the uncoordinated  lights at Baker and Broderick are temporary as well…

The Masonic Avenue Crackdown Continues – SFPD Park Station has a New Attitude to Match Its New Cars

Tuesday, March 11th, 2014

As here, on Oak just past Masonic.

Stopped in the fast lane during the evening drive – not where you want to be:

Click to expand

 

Real-Life Carl Fredricksen: This Homeowner on Oak Street Looks Like the Star of Pixar’s “Up” Film

Monday, March 10th, 2014

Click to expand

Here’s the Proof that the Real Estate Interests of the 94117 Have Given Up on the Mickinley Statue Fence in the Panhandle

Thursday, March 6th, 2014

I’ll tell you, I don’t know why local real estate interests have such sway over what goes on in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle, but that’s the way things are.

And I’ll tell you further, I don’t know why local real estate interests ganged up on the mostly harmless Panhandle Bandshell, but they did, oh well. So that’s the background.

These days, the Eye of Sauron has fixed its gaze upon the east end, upon the McKinley Statue. It wants “period-appropriate fencing” around the whole deal, like this:

As you might remember, there was a big push for The Fence last year, detailed here.

But if you’re trying to get popular support for an iron fence, you have to leave the graffiti on and not even try to clean things up until you get your goddam fence, right?

So the above shows how things looked in the autumn of 2013. I allege that the people who wanted (and still want!) the fence decided to not clean things up in order to better make the case for the fence.

Anywho, the fence concept got put on the back burner late last year, obvs, so this is how the statue looks these days, more or less:

On It Goes…

 

Crystal Pink Persuasion – This is the Very Definition of Sky Blue Pink – On Oak Looking West

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

“He splashed around and scattered the skilligimink color all over the kitchen, and when his mamma and Susie fished him out, if he wasn’t dyed the most beautiful sky-blue-pink you ever saw!

Click to expand

The SFMTA’s New “Scott Street Traffic Diversion” Proposal

Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

Well the SFMTA has a new tack on Scott Street betwixt Page and Fell for this year.

So last year, the SFMTA felt that these particular blocks of Scott were filled with “high speed” drivers “speeding” through the place and the SFMTA felt that the simple four way stop intersection of Page and Scott was “confusing for everyone.” Here we go:

With intersecting bike routes and heavy vehicle volumes, this intersection  is confusing for everyone

In fact, Page and Scott is not “confusing” at all. As stated, it’s a simple four-way stop, about as comprehensible as possible. And in fact, Page and Scott does not experience “heavy vehicle volumes.”

Oh well.

But hey, if you want to say that Hayes and Scott has heavier traffic volume these days, especially during the evening drive, well, we agree on that, SFMTA. Before, this traffic would have been on Divisadero, but recent “improvements” to the DivCo have lessened the DivCo’s capacity.

Here is the result of the “improvements” to Divis:

Anyway

But now it’s 2014 and that was then and this is now. The SFMTA is articulating new rationales for doing what it wants to do. They’re contained in the Scott Street Traffic Diversion.

Let’s check it out:

Motorists who drive through a neighborhood – rather than to a local destination – can cause congestion on residential streets.

WELL GEE, I SUPPOSE THAT’S TRUE. BUT MOTORISTS WHO DRIVE TO A LOCAL DESTINATION – RATHER THAN DRIVING THROUGH – CAN CAUSE CONGESTION AS WELL, RIGHT?

The City proposes restricting traffic on Scott Street to make it more comfortable for residents, bicycle riders and pedestrians.

OK, SFMTA, WHY DON’T WE RESTRICT TRAFFIC ON _ALL_ STREETS TO MAKE _EVERYBODY_ MORE “COMFORTABLE?”

An extra-large bulb-out at Scott and Fell will require all southbound automobile traffic to turn right onto Fell Street; bicycle riders and pedestrians can continue on Scott. This will reduce Scott Street’s appeal as a cross-town route, making it a more pleasant place to walk, bike, and live.

SO YOU WANT DIVISADERO TO BE A _LESS_ “PLEASANT” PLACE?

Access will be maintained to all homes and driveways, and changes will be made to improve Divisadero Street to accommodate diverted traffic.

OH, I SEE, YOU WANT DIVIS TO HAVE MORE GREEN LIGHT TIME AND, LET’S SEE HERE, HAIGHT, PAGE, OAK, FELL, HAYES, ETC TO HAVE LESS GREEN LIGHT TIME. ISN’T THIS KIND OF A ZERO-SUM GAME? WHY SHOULD THE CITY BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THE RICH HOMEOWNERS OF SCOTT STREET?

Changes to Scott Street were initially requested by neighborhood residents unhappy with congestion and idling vehicles.

OK, SO WHAT ABOUT EVERY OTHER STREET IN SF? ARE YOU GOING TO POLL RESIDENTS OF ALL THE OTHER STREETS TO MEASURE THEIR “HAPPINESS?”

Restricting southbound traffic would greatly reduce this issue for several blocks both north and south of Fell Street. Residents who live on Scott between Oak and Fell would have to approach their homes from the south when driving, but would still have access to their driveways and would be able to exit the block to either the north or south.

WHY NOT THIS, SFMTA? WHY NOT SAY THAT ONLY SCOTT STREET RESIDENTS CAN PARK ON SCOTT STREET? I’LL BET THAT WOULD INCREASE THE HAPPINESS LEVEL OF THOSE MILLIONAIRES EVEN MORE. ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT NEXT, SFMTA?

With the proposed traffic diverter, drivers would still be able to park on both sides of Scott Street on the block between Oak and Fell with a U-turn required to reach parking spaces on the west side of the street. The traffic diverter would not remove any parking spaces from Scott Street, though bulb-outs at other locations in the project area will each remove 0-3 parking spaces.

WHY DON’T YOU JUST COME OUT AND SAY HOW MANY PARKING SPACES YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE OUT, SFMTA? OH, THAT’S NOT YOUR STYLE, HUH?

Biking on Scott Street in the southbound direction will be significantly calmer, with fewer automobiles to share the road with.

FEWER BUSES TOO, RIGHT? IN FACT NO BUSES AT ALL. AND YET, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE RIDE ON BUSES ON SCOTT THROUGH THIS SACRED AREA ON A DAILY BASIS. WHAT ABOUT THEM?

Scott Street will no longer be a convenient route for driving in the southbound direction.

BECAUSE IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE, RIGHT? WELL, WE AGREE ON THAT ON, ANYWAY.

For drivers with destinations within the Alamo Square or Lower Haight neighborhoods, either Divisadero or parallel neighborhood residential streets could be used.

WELL THANKS, CAPTAIN OBV!

For drivers currently using Scott Street for longer stretches, Divisadero will be improved to make it the preferred route through the area.

UH, NO IT WON’T. SIMPLY.

Driving north on Scott Street would not be restricted under the proposal, though raised crosswalks and speed humps will be added.

WHAT’S THE SPEED LIMIT ON SCOTT, SFMTA? HOW MANY PEOPLE “SPEED” ON THESE TWO BLOCKS BETWIXT PAGE AND FELL? OH NONE, ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU’LL PUT IN “SPEED” BUMPS ANYWAY, BECAUSE, BECAUSE…?

Because of improvements the SFMTA will be making to Divisadero in conjunction with this project, neighborhood streets such as Steiner, Pierce and Broderick would not be expected to receive noticeable changes in automobile traffic – in fact, some cross-town traffic on these streets may switch to Divisadero as well.

THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY. THIS IS THE SFMTA’s BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN. IF THE SFMTA WANTS TO FAVOR NORTH-SOUTH TRAFFIC OVER EAST-WEST, IT CAN, OF COURSE, BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF EAST-WEST TRAFFIC, OF COURSE. ISN’T THIS A ZERO-SUM GAME, SFMTA?

Changing the traffic signals on Divisadero Street will ensure that the increase in the number of cars using Divisadero will not slow down the 24-Divisadero, and could even improve Muni service in some stretches.

THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY. THIS IS THE SFMTA’s BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN. OH WELL. HEY SFMTA, WHY NOT CHANGE THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON DIVIS RIGHT NOW, IF DOING THAT WOULD BE SO GREAT? SIMPLY, DIVERTING TRAFFIC ON SCOTT WILL NOT IMPROVE BUS SERVICE. SORRY, SFMTA. SORRY TO HARSH YOUR MELLOW, SFMTA.