Posts Tagged ‘scott’

A Culture Clash: Euro Airbnbers Learn How to Parallel Park, Sort of, on McAllister

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

This was at least the second attempt:

7J7C3070 copy

Transportation in San Francisco certainly can be a hassle for newcomers, and the Euro Airbnbers, well, they’re like super newcomers, they’re fish out of water in SF’s low-rise western suburbs.

But they’re probably better off here in the Western Addition than in pricey Union Square or less-pricey, bedbug-ridden “Near Union Square.”

Here’s How the SFMTA “Manages” Traffic on Fulton Near Divisadero – This Kind of Jam Didn’t Happen Before

Friday, January 30th, 2015

But it happens now:

7J7C2728 copy

Part of the blame has to do with Octavia Boulevard, and of course Fell and Oak aint what they used to be.

Anyway, this is what a “complete” street looks like.

I thought there might be an accident or construction on the other side of Scott up the hill, but no, it was clear as a bell over there.

NIMBY’s vs. the SFMTA: Local Objections to New Traffic Signals on McAllister at Broderick and Scott for the 5 Fulton

Thursday, January 29th, 2015

This effort appears to be similar to the SFMTA’s attempt to add traffic signals on Haight at Scott and Pierce.

This isn’t the worst example of NIMBYism, but I’d say it’s fairly alarmist, fairly absurd.

20150126_165532 copy

I’ll just say that, generally speaking, it’s generally harder to get around town these days by car, by bike and by MUNI, compared with ten or twenty years ago. Part of this has to do with our newer, absurdly-wide sidewalks, designed for pedestrian “comfort.”

And yet, most ped and cyclist deaths in San Francisco involve fault from the peds and cyclists. Here’s 2014:

The Police Department found that in the 17 pedestrian deaths, drivers were responsible for eight and pedestrians were responsible for nine. Bicyclists were responsible in all three instances when they died.” 

(I should do a video on how to be a pedestrian in SF. It might involve some jaywalking but it would also involve extreme alertness on behalf of peds. You see, the way to prevent a lot of ped deaths in SF would be to get inside their heads to see what’s going wrong.)

IMO, the SFMTA should leave McAllister alone and then start taking out as many bus stops as politically possible.

I’ll tell you, not that many cyclists pass by Broderick and McAllister compared with Scott and McAllister, it seems, owing to geography. So looking at McAllister and Scott, it seems that the lights will be timed against cyclists using FULTON DIVISADERO MCALLISTER eastbound as an alternative to the already-overcrowded Wiggle route to get from the Golden Gate Park Panhandle to the Financh.

So for my own selfish reasons, I’d prefer that MUNI not make these changes, but who am I to stand in their way? What the MUNI people are saying is that we’ll all be better off overall, and 40 seconds each way each day will add up to millions of seconds, eventually.

In conclusion, meh. If MUNI wants to put in lights, we should let them do it.

Here It Is, Public Notice for the SFMTA’s Impossibly Convoluted “Area Q” NIMBY Parking Scheme – Meeting Comes Jan 16th

Thursday, January 8th, 2015

You want to see democracy in action? Simply go to all the meetings involving “Area Q” and then push and push and maybe the SFMTA will eventually throw you a bone by including or excluding your block from this or that parking scheme. It’s too late to get started now, but, you know, for next time.

Hoodline has the deets

7J7C2093 copy

Remember, you’re not paying for parking, you’re paying the SFMTA to prevent others, the auslanders, from parking in “your” neighborhood.

Oh, and here’s what doesn’t work – standing betwixt the SFMTA and a pot of money it really wants:

No no, the SFMTA has already decided it’s up for the job of creating and profiting (managing, they call it) from the Q.

Area Q is a done deal, more or less.

Nike is Going to Tow Your Car This Saturday Night If You’ve Parked on Certain Blocks of Gough, GG, Webster, Fulton, Scott, Fell…

Friday, October 17th, 2014

I’ve already made this post, but I’ve just come across the route map for 2014’s Nike Women’s Half Marathon, and if this tiny blog can prevent just one unnecessary tow-job this weekend, well that’s blogesse oblige, mon frere.

Capturehg copy

If I were Nike, of Beaverton, Oregon, I’d refund the $500-$1000 tow fees that a bunch of San Franciscans are going to be getting come Sunday morning, on a case-by-case basis.

If I were Nike…

All the deets on street closures:

(more…)

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.