Posts Tagged ‘resolution’

Now MUNI’s Running Ads That Support UberX Taxi Service? Apparently, Uber is “Better Faster Cheaper”

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

Here’s what the SFMTA is saying this week, that UberX is “better faster cheaper” than SFMTA’s regular taxis:

And here’s the SFMTA’s other ad on this topic:

“All right, here’s the new side-of-the-bus ad from our SFMTA, the slowest large transit agency in American history (And I’m srsly on that one. Can you name me one slower? OK then.)

“Do You Know What You’re Getting Into?”

Click to expand

By the numbers:

1. Trained drivers with extensive training [And people say bloggers talk funny!]

2. Proper insurance [A low blow! But yes, SFMTA, you have a valid point here.]

3. Your support of local San Francisco drivers. [Some yes, some not]

4. Driver background checks. [Meh.]

5. Safety and meter inspection [Meh.]

6. Formal process for dispute resolution [Meh.]

OK, now how old are you, SFMTA? Not too old but old enough to have been in charge of this:

Was this SFMTA-licensed driver trained with extensive training to, IDK, investigate fires before people die?

Apparently not. How many fares have Lyft drivers killed?

Speaking of which, what about  the sad case of Julie Christine Day, who was last seen alive leaving the Bubble Lounge on Montgomery?

One of your vaunted, extensively-trained, fully licensed and insured drivers started up his fully-inspected meter and then immediately set about murdering his fare, right, SFMTA?

So, what the Hell?

All right, SFMTA, you might have some good points about Lyft and Sidecar and Uber (look for the orange rear-view window cozies, I’m srsly) and the illegal limos and the out-of-town taxi drivers making illegal pickups in the 415.

But you are biased by your 50% tax on taxi medallions, among other things.

So let’s mark this effort as yet another failed initiative from the SFMTA.

Harsh: Our SFMTA Uses Bus Ads to Attack Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar – Six Reasons Why S.F. Taxis are Better Than Ridesharing

Monday, June 10th, 2013

All right, here’s the new side-of-the-bus ad from our SFMTA, the slowest large transit agency in American history (And I’m srsly on that one. Can you name me one slower? OK then.)

“Do You Know What You’re Getting Into?”

Click to expand

By the numbers:

1. Trained drivers with extensive training [And people say bloggers talk funny!]

2. Proper insurance [A low blow! But yes, SFMTA, you have a valid point here.]

3. Your support of local San Francisco drivers. [Some yes, some not]

4. Driver background checks. [Meh.]

5. Safety and meter inspection [Meh.]

6. Formal process for dispute resolution [Meh.]

OK, now how old are you, SFMTA? Not too old but old enough to have been in charge of this:

Was this SFMTA-licensed driver trained with extensive training to, IDK, investigate fires before people die?

Apparently not. How many fares have Lyft drivers killed?

Speaking of which, what about  the sad case of Julie Christine Day, who was last seen alive leaving the Bubble Lounge on Montgomery?

One of your vaunted, extensively-trained, fully licensed and insured drivers started up his fully-inspected meter and then immediately set about murdering his fare, right, SFMTA?

So, what the Hell?

All right, SFMTA, you might have some good points about Lyft and Sidecar and Uber (look for the orange rear-view window cozies, I’m srsly) and the illegal limos and the out-of-town taxi drivers making illegal pickups in the 415.

But you are biased by your 50% tax on taxi medallions, among other things.

So let’s mark this effort as yet another failed initiative from the SFMTA.

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.

San Francisco’s Twin Peaks – Where New Year’s Resolutions Go To Die

Friday, January 1st, 2010

January 1, 2010 has been a bad day weather-wise, but that hasn’t stopped vigorous San Francsicans from scaling the heights of Twin Peaks.

Another peak-bagger crests the highest part of San Francisco: 

And this is their reward. There are two major bridges somewhere down there in the murkiness:

Click to expand

Have a great 2010!

Supervisors Mar and Campos vs. the Nativist “Californians for Population Stabilization”

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Oh my, San Francisco Supervisors Eric Mar and David Campos are going to get into it with the NPG/ZPG/Immigration Reduction crowd at this afternoon’s weekly meeting of the Board of Supervisors. To get up to speed on this brouhaha, click here and see the offending video ads from Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS).

Profoundly nativist, certainly. Racist? Well, as always, You Make The Call. (I mean, the bulk of the people we’re talking about here aren’t coming from Europe, that’s for sure.) A vote on this matter is on the agenda and CAPS is trying to pack the chambers with their supporters right now - we’ll just have to bide our time to see how this one turns out.

See how much sense this absurd YouTube spot makes to you. (Them immigrants don’t have two hands and two feet like us fine Americans, apparently….)

Today’s screed from the nativists. Enjoy:

“San Francisco Supervisors Play ‘Race Card’ in Response to TV Spot Linking Population Growth and Environmental Degradation

Supervisors’ Position is at Odds with Legendary Environmentalists, Including Gaylord Nelson and David Brower

San Francisco Board of Supervisors members Eric Mar and David Campos are attacking a Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) ad campaign connecting population growth to environmental degradation. Mar and Campos have scheduled time for the Board of Supervisors to consider a measure condemning the ads today, Tuesday November 10th.  CAPS will deliver the latest research regarding population growth and its effects on our environment to the Board of Supervisors prior to the meeting.

Mar and Campos’ position is at odds with a plethora of research and a long list of legendary environmentalists including the founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson and the Sierra Club’s first Executive Director, David Brower. “Often, when someone doesn’t have the facts on their side, they resort to name calling,” explained Diana Hull, Executive Director of CAPS. “Obviously, this is an emotional issue for Mr. Mar and Mr. Campos but as community leaders, they should know better. In America, we welcome all viewpoints.”

The ad campaign makes the point that the number one factor driving U.S. population growth is immigration. Further, when immigrants come to America, their carbon footprint expands to four times what it was in their home countries. The ads suggest that curbing immigration isn’t the solution to global warming but it’s a start.

Along with many highly respected environmentalists, both Gaylord Nelson and David Brower highlighted immigration-driven population growth as a major factor affecting our environment. The 2008 CIS study on which CAPS’ ads are based is the latest in a litany of research reinforcing the common sense conclusion that population growth affects our environment. CAPS’ calls to Mr. Mar’s and Mr. Campos’ offices to introduce them to the research and the facts went unreturned.

“There are many daunting issues facing California and the San Francisco area, so I’m surprised that Mr. Mar and Mr. Campos see this as the best use of taxpayer time,” commented Hull.  “With 12% unemployment and families having trouble putting food on the table, it seems like job creation would be a better use of the Board of Supervisors time.”

This attack on the ads comes just hours before the campaign is scheduled to conclude.  However, based on the positive feedback CAPS received from San Francisco residents, Hull is considering bringing the ads back to the San Francisco area.

For more information about CAPS or to view the ad campaign, please visit www.CAPSweb.org