Posts Tagged ‘scott’

Historic Photo, 1834: Young Abraham Lincoln Gets Detained by Mounted Constable on Lower Haight Street

Monday, May 12th, 2014

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Or maybe this is a youthful activist who can’t admit to himself he just violated a section of the almighty CVC:

Click to expand

Take your pick.

(At least he didn’t endorse Ed Lee for Mayor, the way a certain local bicycle coalition did…)

If Only the Corner of Scott and Fell had Bike Lanes, Then People Wouldn’t Ride on the Sidewalk!

Thursday, April 24th, 2014

Whoops:

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?

A #21 Hayes High Atop the Hayes Street Cut – If You Can’t Afford a Tunnel – If You Think Hayes is Steep Now…

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

The sidewalk shows how steep Hayes was before The Cut:

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.

Happy Birthday to the “Hayes Street Cut” in Alamo Square – 100 Years Old – Less Climbing for the #21 Hayes Bus

Wednesday, February 12th, 2014

If you look at Hayes betwixt Pierce and Scott, you can see why the Hayes Street Cut exists.

And then you Google it to reveal:

“Hayes Street Cut: In order to re establish direct car service to the Hayes Street district north of the Panhandle* it is necessary to provide a lower grade between Pierce and Scott Streets And by a cut of 15 ft across the plateau at Pierce Street the maximum grade may be reduced from 14.6 to 10.9 (See Fig 72) which is within reasonable limits for electric equipment If a terraced arrangement is used with half the cut in the roadway and half in the walkway the cost for retaining walls will be considerably less than if the cut is extended full depth between property lines.”

Click to expand

And here’s the San Francisco Call from 1910:

“All matters connected with the proposed Hayes street cut were put over until next week. The committee received the works board’s report that the improvement would cost the city $54,000.”

Now of course many parts of SF have been regraded over the years, but what makes the Hayes Street Cut the Hayes Street Cut is that the City accommodated the already partially-developed area. Nobody wanted to mess with private land south of Hayes. So people figured regrading the street while leaving the sidewalks mostly intact was the cheap solution. Terracing = less digging.

Here you go, the HAYES STREET PROFILE:

(I’ll note that the HSC makes the annual Bay to Breakers fun-run** easier on the competitors, as you can see.)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAYES STREET CUT!

*We use the phrase NoPA these days, except that back then “north of the Panhandle” meant the area farther west, not that the real estate ladies of the 94117 would give a care about that.

**Hayes Street is NOT the highest part of the B2B course, despite what the MSM tells us every year. In fact, the highest part of the B2B is on JFK Drive at the foot of Rainbow Falls in Golden Gate Park. The More You Know…

The SFMTA Renames Lower Haight as “The Wiggle Community” – Calls for SFPD Crackdown on Bikes, Return of Hated Traffic Circles

Wednesday, July 17th, 2013

[UPDATE: Now let's hear from famous Jim Ross:

"I lived on Scott Street, between Oak & Fell during the last traffic circle experiment. Was nearly hit four or five times walking to Haight Street for coffee. That is a very residential neighborhood, one reason it is good to bike through. But also, a bunch of pedestrians should not have risk life and limb to cross the street…"

Indeed, Jimbo! Pedestrians wanting to cross Page would hear a car coming from a half-block away. What should they do? Would the drivers slow down? The peds wouldn't know. Very bad!  All this so that Page could eventually become a "Bicycle Boulevard?" All this so that cyclists wouldn't have to worry about getting tickets for California stopping? Ridiculoso!]

Here it is, from our incompetent SFMTA:

Wiggle Community Open House

You know what, SFMTA, do you know what you should be “passionate” about? Do you know what your primary function is? It’s to operate the fucking transit system.

So how well do you think you are you doing, SFMTA? Do you think you all are doing a spectacular job? Really?

So why not this, why not say, “We’re the SFMTA, we’re MUNI and we don’t do a very good job these days but we have a pot of money to spend on the Lower Haight and we think this kind of project would be a good use of taxpayer money.” You know, as an introduction, to build credibility with your audience.

Anyway, let’s get to a few of the more glaring issues with the so-called “Wiggle Community,” fka the Lower Haight.

Oh, here we go:

Click to expand

Let’s read the boxes here:

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

OMFG, SFMTA, WTF? The intersection of Page and Scott doesn’t have “heavy” vehicle volumes. NOT AT ALL. Also, it’s a simple four way stop. It’s not “confusing for everyone.” WTF are you smoking, you SFMTA hippies?

“Heavy vehicle congestion from drivers using Scott as a cut-through to Fell and Oak.”

OK, as stated, Scott Street just doesn’t have heavy vehicle congestion. Hey, SFMTA! Do you know about the ongoing, daily disaster you all created called Octavia “Boulevard?’ Well guess what. It has “heavy” vehicle congestion. As does Oak, which routinely backs up going all the way up to freaking Alamo Heights. As do other streets intersecting with Octavia due to how the lights are timed. What color is the sky in your world, SFMTA? And what’s a “cut-through?” Is it street? I think it is? How about this, SFMTA, you all name me a street and then I’ll make a up a name for the surrounding area and I’ll call it a “community.” How about the “Ashbury Southern Heights (ASH) Community?” Then, I’ll critercise all those mofos who use the southern part of Ashbury Street to “cut-through” my made-up “community.” And then I’ll blame ALL “congestion” on people who don’t live in the “community.” That’s what you’re trying to do here, SFMTA. Every street in SF is a “cut-through,” using the phrase the way you all use it.

“Haight Street has buses and commercial activity, and is less comfortable for biking.”

Biking isn’t necessarily “comfortable,” SFMTA. And it never will be. I know you all are addicted to spending money, but this rationale is exceptionally weak. It’s right up there with using “transit justice” to justify the wasteful nine-figure Central Subway subway to nowhere project in Chinatown.

“Bicyclists don’t yield to pedestrians, particularly in the downhill direction”

Well, yeah, that’s right. Like Haight and Pierce, for example. I’ll tell you, I’m surprised the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition branch of the SFMTA would allow a publication to come out what talks about enforcement actions and what has a photo of an SFPD officer. I guess this is the SFMTA throwing a bone to the peds?

Anyway, read through the whole seven pages for more SFMTA boners.

Speaking of which, the SFMTA is back with the traffic circles.

All right,about a decade ago, the very same SFMTA was dead-set on putting traffic circles in the Haights, specifically on Page and Waller. The SFMTA said it had numerous studies praising traffic circles. The SFMTA said that “the community” wanted traffic circles. The SFMTA was wrong. The SFMTA had a vote by the neighbors and it lost by about a three to one margin – all 11 proposed traffic circles got voted down. Anyway, the plan was to have them become gardens or whatnot. So, for the SFMTA to list unsightliness as the first reason for the SFMTA’s failure, well, that’s a little disingenuous, IMO. So the reason the SFMTA can now claim it has “installed traffic circles with success and community support” in the Richmond District recently is that the SFMTA didn’t allow a vote. If the SFMTA allowed a vote on any particular traffic circle, the SFMTA would lose. So, no more voting, bingo bango.

This is horse doody:

“Traffic Circles Then & Now
In 2003, the SFMTA experimented with removing stop signs and installing traffic circles at several locations along Page Street. Many residents complained that the circles were unsightly and deprioritized pedestrians, and they were removed. However, in recent years the SFMTA has installed traffic circles with success and  community support, using improved outreach, design, and signage.

Are there places in the Wiggle where you’d like to see traffic circles today?”

Is the SFMTA saying that it has “improved” the design of traffic circles the past ten years? Perhaps they’ve done research on the number pi? Perhaps they’re thinking traffic ovals? Traffic ovoids? IDK.

Anyway, just because you lie about stuff, that doesn’t mean people will necessarily believe you, SFMTA.

Ah, mem’ries:

“Subject: Page St. Traffic Circle Hearing TOMORROW
From: joshua@sfbike.org
Date: March 17, 2004 1:30:06 PM PST

“Dear SF bicyclist,

The 9-month long Page and Waller Traffic Circle Pilot program is coming to a
close, and the Department of Parking and Traffic is holding a public hearing
TOMORROW, THURSDAY MARCH 18TH to hear from residents and users of the
street. This is your chance to voice ideas, concerns, and opinions about
this traffic calming experiment. Each of the 11 proposed circles will be
voted on by residents living within a block, and voting will conclude March
25th. The circle receiving the highest percentage of votes (over 50%) will
be installed on a permanent basis, with consideration for others that also
receive 50% or more of the vote.

The meeting will be held:

6:30pm-8pm this Thursday, March 18th
Park Branch Library
1833 Page St. at Cole

The SFBC supports the concept of the traffic calming circles, but shares the
concerns of many other residents and neighborhood groups, including Walk SF
and the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, that:

1) there was not sufficient neighborhood outreach or involvement prior to
circle installation

2) more education and public outreach is needed to users of the street to
convey safe and legal behavior at the circles

3) pedestrian right-of-way is being compromised with the current circle
design

Although we don’t think the current design is perfect, we are encouraging
our members and other residents living along the Page and Waller corridor to
VOTE YES to give the circles a chance to be improved upon.

BICYCLE BOULEVARDS

Given the right education, signage, and enforcement, we believe the circles
will benefit the neighborhood and cyclists by being the first step toward a
true bicycle boulevard on Page St.

A bike boulevard is an innovative bicycle facility that is often applied to
residential streets that parallel major arterials. It consists of three
design elements:

1. stop signs placed only on side streets to give priority to the boulevard

2. traffic circles installed in at least some of the intersections to slow
cars down to 10-15mph while allowing bikes to maintain momentum

3. diverters, barriers or forced turns that prohibit automobile through
access on the bike boulevard while continuing to allow cyclists,
pedestrians, and emergency vehicles through.

A bicycle boulevard treatment applied to Page St. could dramatically reduce
the volume and speed of traffic, and reduce or eliminate stop signs, making
bicycling along Page much easier, safer, more efficient and pleasant. It
would not “close” the street to cars- drivers would still be able to access
every point along Page, but using this neighborhood street as an auto cut
through would be a thing of the past.

Although the DPT is not considering a full bicycle boulevard currently,
Thursday’s meeting will be a good chance to voice your support for this
concept, and build support among local residents.

You can find out more about bicycle boulevards at:
http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/ii1e.htm

DPT’s web page on the circles is at
http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13573

Because of vocal opposition to the circles, it is particularly important for
people to come and speak at the hearing about the benefits of traffic
calming and a bicycle boulevard along Page St. For more information,
contact me (using the information at the bottom of this e-mail).

TALKING POINTS FOR THURSDAY’S MEETING

- There are problems with the implementation of the circles, but the concept
is good. We need better signage (yield to peds pop-up signs, and stops
where appropriate)

- A full bicycle boulevard (including side street stop signs, circles, and
diverters) will dramatically reduce car traffic on this residential street,
prioritizing the street for cyclists and pedestrians.

- Vote yes on the circles!

Thank you for supporting YOUR Bicycle Coalition and an improved bike
network!”

Painting the “Russian Embassy” of the Western Addition is a Biiiiiig Job – A Freaking Decayed Giant – Start at the Bottom

Friday, June 7th, 2013

Here’s the quote, from the 1960′s:

Up at Fulton and Scott is a great shambling old Gothic house, a freaking decayed giant, known as The Russian Embassy

And here she is now, getting one shade of muddy green replaced with another:

Click to expand

It would take me all summer to paint this monster

UPDATE: Apparently, someone spray painted “NO PERMIT PARKING IN ALAMO SQUARE” on the side of this hulk last month. As opposed to just hanging a sign? Would a frustrated, car-owning Alamo Square NIMBY do that to a house as an ironic punishment or did the owners themselves do it? It’s a  mystery. Haighteration, the Lower Haight Blog, has the latest on the issue of the SFMTA’s horrible horrible permit parking scheme.*

*I’m eligible to pay MUNI $104 per year for a permit but I don’t believe in the system so I don’t buy the permit. I’m sure the SFMTA would love to jack up the cost  to like $1000 but they can only charge a “fee” based on expenses. I believe that the “expenses” included the pay, benefits and retirement of 15 Parking Control Officers / meter maids but I don’t know that for sure. Quite sneaky to do that, SFMTA.

Here’s How the “Drop Charge Against Petrelis” Blogspot is Dead Wrong About Attempted Bathroom Penis Photo Taking

Thursday, February 7th, 2013

Here’s how the “Drop Charge Against Petrelis” Blogspot looks at things:

“Page 5 of the transcript illustrates how the DA’s office frames the taking of a photograph: “The conduct in this case amount to a gross invasion of privacy.” Let’s get real! While Michael’s action can be seen as an annoyance, the innocuous photograph hardly warrants such an overblown mischaracterization.”

But here’s the reality, from the webpage entitled “peaking-at-wieners-wiener-in-city-hall”

“Of all the luck an activist could ask for in terms of an impromptu run-in with an ambitious homosexual politician of the Democratic persuasion. My new camera was ready for use in the second floor men’s room at City Hall on Friday afternoon when I walked in. Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”

If Michael Petrelis is unapologetic then he’s forcing the DA’s office into a prosecution.

Any money “wasted” on this action is on M. Petrelis and not on SFGov.

Simply, M Petrelis is not being oppressed by SFGov.

So this kind of thing is absurd:

“Needless to say, as an independent blogger who frequently displeases the powerful and politicians with access to law enforcement agencies that create legal hassles for me, I stand in strong solidarity…”

Just saying.

A Few Questions for Blogger Michael Petrelis of the Petrelis Files re: the Scott Wiener Bathroom Incident

Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

So, let’s see here.

1. The idea of taking a photo of Supervisor Scott Wiener’s weiner in a bathroom was good  because…

Because why? I don’t get it.

2. Making a federal case (potentially, eventually), a cause celebre, out of this incident is helpful because…

Because why? I don’t get it.

And you say you “allegedly” attempted to violate Section 647(j)(1) of the California Penal Code because, like, you don’t know what you actually did and why you did it?’

Isn’t that the kind of thing criminals say?

I think so.

Here’s what you should do, you apologize.

You say:

1. I’m sorry for what I did. I got carried away over the whole nudity ban thing (or whatever it was) and I did something I shouldn’t have. I won’t do anything like that ever again; and

2. You say it like you mean it, whether you mean it or not.

And if you had done that already, then we wouldn’t be here with you wasting your time and the time and money of other people, like taxpayers ‘n stuff.

Just saying…