Posts Tagged ‘Rant’

Driver and Writer CW Nevius Goes on a “Rant” Against the “Militant” Pedestrians of SF – Do They Have the Right to Jaywalk?

Friday, January 31st, 2014

Here’s the latest effort from CW Nevius, who’s taking a break from being spokesman for San Francisco’s right-side-of-the-aisle  political faction to go on a “bit of a rant” against local pedestrians. But what’s up with this?  

“Even when they are in the right, I worry about them. When the traffic light countdown gets to five or six, they step confidently into the crosswalk — which is their right…”

But pedestrians don’t have “the right” to do so. It’s agin CA law – check out V C Section 21456,* which is dealt with by Rule #3 of the Five Rules for Pedestrians.

Don’t you have an editor, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have an editor, and plus, editors cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a fact checker, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have a fact checker, and plus, fact checkers cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a photographer, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, photographers cost money. So all your observations, we’ll just have to take your word about them. OK fine. BTW, [sarcasmmode ON] nice stock photo you’ve got there, Neve. “Cause a stock photo taken in the People’s Republic of China, you know, from more than a thousand li away, well, that really illustrates how “militant” and “freaking nuts” San Francisco peds are, huh? [sarcasmmode OFF]

And oh, BTW Neve, the peds of SF aren’t militant, not at all. Try to find a different word for what you mean.

Of course you’re new in town, I get that. Sure, welcome to San Francisco, Neve.

But you’re doing a half-assed job doing your half-time gig.

You need to try harder.

*”Walk, Wait, or Don t Walk

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:

(a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.

(b) Flashing or steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.

Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.”

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Central Subway “Poses Graves Risks to MUNI” – Plus, a MUNI Rider Rant

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

1. Here’s what’s first up:

“SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 27, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today issued the following statement through his campaign for Mayor of San Francisco on a Board of Supervisors resolution expressing support for the controversial Central Subway project. Herrera published his 11-page issue paper on Sept. 8 outlining his opposition to the project as currently conceived on the basis of extensive evidence. The campaign issue paper detailed Herrera’s rationale for why the Central Subway project has ceased to be a prudent investment; why it will not improve MUNI service; and why it does not fulfill the objectives of a modern citywide transit system.

Herrera’s conclusion mirrored findings of the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, whose July report after a seven-month investigation concluded that the Central Subway project was “too much money for too little benefit,” and should be redesigned.

The following is Dennis Herrera’s statement on the Board resolution today:

“Reasonable minds can disagree, but I strongly believe that the roughly $1-billion-per-mile cost of the Central Subway cannot justified by its purported benefits. As currently designed, it poses grave risks to MUNI’s financial stability and will adversely impact transit riders citywide. I respect the views of Board members who support the project, and I think we can all agree that the enormous costs and risks of this project to San Francisco taxpayers deserve a serious, substantive discussion about its relative merits. I welcome that debate, and hope it is one all the mayoral candidates will have in this election season.”

Herrera’s issue paper on the topic, entitled, “It’s Time to Rethink the Central Subway.”
http://herreraformayor.com/issues/central-subway/ 

OK, fine.

2. Now, let’s hear from a MUNI rider, who also has some thoughts on the horrible, politically-motivated Central Subway.

Read the whole thing from John Murphy right here. An excerpt:

“Supervisors -

I am dismayed to hear your commentary regarding the Central Subway in the Board of Supervisors today. Certainly it has become a political football as we all know.

Full disclosure – in my opinon, there are better options for rider service than digging a tunnel. However, I think a well designed tunnel has a lot of benefit that might scale to larger solutions, so I cannot oppose the idea of such a tunnel.

However, if this subway does get built I feel it is imperative to move the Union Square station to connect directly at Powell. If we spend “over a Billion” dollars on this project, we must do it properly, otherwise it will not draw the support that will get us the money to extend the system further.

The transit dependent citizens of Chinatown – and transit dependent citizens of other neighborhoods – will be done a huge disservice if the subway goes in as it is designed. Every Saturday AM I ride the BART from the outer neighborhoods towards the East Bay. It is absolutely packed with senior citizens from Daly City who are headed to Chinatown, and whom transfer to the 30 at Powell Street Station. The reverse trip is also very common. Those people deserve a legitimate connection from BART and MUNI Metro to the Central Subway – not a series of escalators and a long walk to Union Square. The Central Subway supporters claim that the Union Square/Powell connection does exist, but as a reference the “combined” station will resemble the “Chatelet” station in Paris, which is used as a connection primarly by confused tourists who have yet to realize that the connection is worse than going above ground and walking to your destination.

This echos Supervisor Chu’s call for outer neighborhood connectivity – the current design reduces that connectivity! The average age of the riders I see on those trains is well over 60. In theory the 30 Stockton will still exist, but the operations funding needed to run the Central Subway will reduce the ability to run that line at frequency….”

I learned a thing or two there, didn’t you?

I mean, I just don’t understand how on Earth the Central Subway, as it’s proposed, makes sense.

3. Do you know that after they cancelled the Bridge to Nowhere, Sarah Palin went ahead and built the $26,000,000 connecting road anyway? It’s called the Road to Nowhere.

See it? They were going to build a Golden Gate Bridge so people in town could get to the airport on a road instead of on a ferry. The bridge was going to go in right at the lower right of the photo:

 

Click to expand

Why should the federal government fund projects that can’t get financed on a more local level?

Oh well.