Posts Tagged ‘sfcta’

Why It’s Completely Absurd for the SFMTA to Claim that Carshare Car Rental Means “60,000 Fewer Vehicles on the Street”

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Here it is, from Hoodline:

“Data also showed that 17% of members got rid of their cars after joining a car-sharing company, with as many as 24,000 vehicles sold. When taking into account people who did not purchase cars because of car-sharing, there were as many as 60,000 fewer vehicles on the street.”

Well let’s call horse-shit on this.

So, when did “car-sharing” get started in Frisco – over the past half-decade? So here are the latest stats for AUTOS registered in San Francisco County, per the DMV.

Capturesdfsrrrrr copy

2011: 380,621
2012: 385,442
2013: 397,238
2014: 403,246
2015: 407,656
2016: 413,147

Do you see a trend here? Do you see registered vehicles going up by about 6000-something cars per year, year in and year out? That’s the trend lately, for whatever reason.

So where’s the supposed “60,000 fewer vehicles” kicking in from the SFMTA’s inconsequential program? Does the SFMTA really think we’d have 473,000 registered cars but for its heroic car “share” car rental program?

Obviously, our SFMTA really doesn’t know what’s it’s doing. So why not have an independent agency assess how effective its policies are instead of this, this Pyongyang-inspired Ministry of Truth stuff coming from SFMTA spokesmodels who are obviously just winging it day by day, DJT-style.

You know, what I’m talking about is having somebody around saying, “Is this really true?”

Or, in the case of attaining the goal of VisionZero 2024, which will somehow, by administrative decree, eliminate all transportation mishap injuries by 2024 and through eternity, “Could this possibly be true?”

MUNI on MUNI: “Let the bad times roll.”

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

Reader notes:

– This is a NEW FLYER XCELSIOR XDE40 HYBRID, which of course means it’s a Hybrid Diesel, but the SFMTA would prefer you to imagine that this bus don’t run on diesel. (You know, bad* memories.)

– The registration number matches that of the bus that went offroading in the Panhandle a few years back in an unfortunate accident** involving a driver having some kind of medical event.

Anyway, as promised, “MUNI – Let the bad times roll”

7J7C3997 copy

*Not that long ago, our SFMTA had its own Cosco Busan: SAN FRANCISCO (November 2, 2009) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking action against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency following federal violations of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

**

7J7C1472-copy (1)

Look What Our SFMTA has Done to the Geary / Masonic Hairball – “Such Lovely Trees” have All Been Given the Chop

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Then:

Capturehhhhh copy

Now:

IMG_3971 copy

The Tree People are not happy, even though they’ve been promised replacement trees.

I’ll tell you, I can’t exactly see how it’s even remotely possible that whatever SFGov is doing to “improve” this intersection, plus the 3000 feet of Masonic to the south down to Fell, will “transform” this area, oh well.

Anyway, the large stand of old growth street trees what used to be out in front of 5 Masonic (in the triangle where you can see the light blue Mini Cooper) will get some kind of art installation. Will that be an “improvement?” IDK, I guess, for some people.

In the meantime, things are looking pretty bleak up there at windblown Mervyn’s Heights…

It’s Official: Frisco Now has More Cars, Drivers Than Ever – DMV Sez We Now Have Over 500,000 Vehicles

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Here it is, your brand-new DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ESTIMATED VEHICLES REGISTERED BY COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016

2016a copy

The figure on the right shows our full one-half million vehicles.

cf19b3c98d0cf2fcd16480ee05c1a4586725ac37c090a56f68b8a4716612e6c0

Cf. the data for 2015: est_fees_pd_by_county.

Of course this count includes motorcycles and trucks and trailers, but the vast bulk of that is made of plain old cars, the likes of which the people employed at our SFMTA and SFCTA falsely say are now “disappearing” from the streets of San Francisco.

You want another example? How about something like:

“SFMTA officials said this was due to factors including increased compliance from drivers, reduced vehicle ownership…

Simply, your “urbanist” friends are lying to you, or rather, lying to themselves. IRL, car ownership was going up in Frisco back then and it still is now. (Are repeated SFMTA misstatements like this Trump-style lying or Trump-style incompetence? You tell me. Moving on…)

To this: These DMV stats don’t count unregistered vehicles, and rides owned by many many ppl with out-of state-plates who live in town but don’t feel too groovy about paying any kind of annual ad valorem taxes to the CA DMV, and all the many UBER/Lyfts driven by all those new-to-Frisco drivers (how many, 40,000?) who live in Sac and Tracy and Santa Clara.

And let’s see, what other shibboleths can we… oh, Driver Licenses are up too, see?

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DRIVER LICENSES OUTSTANDING BY COUNTY AS OF DECEMBER 31 OF YEARS LISTED

That’s also brand-new from the DMV. The relevant numbers for Frisco for 2012-2016 are:

2016 copy

(Darn it: My prediction for 2016 was  588,392 instead of the actual 588,228. Close enough.)

But Somebody told you that Young People Don’t Drive Anymore? Sry, Gentle Reader, that’s another misunderstanding. You see, it turned out that the recent recession-related dip in Vehicle Miles Traveled was actually RELATED to a RECESSION.

I’ll cheerfully concede that changes are afoot transportation-wise these days, but I just need to point out that our supposedly all-knowing and all-seeing SFMTASFCTA people have made a lot of mistakes and errors lately. That’s all.

What else. Oh, how about the reason why it still makes sense to own a car in Frisco. Take a look at this character:

11925351_supervisor-scott-wieners-transportation_t69e1c92f

Yes, that’s sanctimonious urbonaut and State Senator Scott Wiener in his aging, gone-to-Hell Nissan. (And of course he won’t cop to this 2016 incident of getting caught and photographed by a journalist while texting in traffic, because, IDK, it would draw attention to his foolishness? But that’s not my point.) My point is that the reason why it makes sense for him to operate this cheap, old, reliable car in Frisco, even though he lives close to transportation and even though he could UBER Lyft everywhere, is because he can drive around for as many miles as he wants for less than $1000 a year, including insurance, registration, gasoline, gasoline taxes – the whole lot. I’m aware of this because I have an aging, gone-to-Hell Toyota that I drive around as much as makes sense. So I can’t see how our existing stock of indestructible Nissans and Toyotas, Cadillacs, Lincolns too, Mercurys and Subaru are going to be obsolete this year or next year or the year after that or the decade after that.

That’s my point.

Look at all these rides in the Sunset for example. This is Frisco in 2017:

7J7C9047-copy

I don’t see how our SFMTA is going to take away these cars, have them whither away, Comrade, only to have some unknown transpo system spring up to remobilitate these isolated souls living way out in the west side. MUNI is a high-cost low-speed system which is run mostly for its employees and is hobbled by union “work rules.” How is that going to change anytime soon?

And UBER Lyft, well the current service offered at current pricing is unsustainable, you know, financially. If you want to tell me how everything’s going to change I’ll concede – sure, eventually things will change. But how are you going to stop Sunset and Parkside residents from going to the nearby malls and Targets of San Mateo County by using the cars they own now and the cars they continue to buy? Our installed base of rolling stock is our installed base of rolling stock – these cars can and will live out their lives for decades more on the Streets of San Francisco. Sry.

PREDICTION: Car ownership and Driver License possession in the City and County of San Francisco will be once again UP to record-breaking numbers in 2017.

For better or worse.

Sry.

Geary: A Tea House Next to a A Tea House Next to a A Tea House

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

As seen way out in the Avenues:

7J7C0369 copy

The middle one there I guess could be described as a dessert house, but they serve an awful lot of tea and they have a teapot as a logo.

(Speaking of Geary, you know, if that Geary “BRT” project is so great, you’d think the local Supervisor would be behind it 100%, but I don’t think she is. Who’s paying for the BRT, do we know that? And how much are they paying, like per person? Seems as if the cheerleaders for this joint don’t know/don’t care. Oh well…)

How Hard is It to Get People to Post “CUT THE GEARY BRT” Posters on Geary? Not Very

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

I haven’t done an inventory, but I saw three of these in three blocks of the inner Inner Richmond the other day:

7J7C8171 copy 7J7C8172 copy

Geary “BRT,” of course, is the plan to replace buses on Geary with … buses on Geary.

(The “R” in BRT stands for the same thing the R in the #38R stands for – RAPID, baby! It’s the phrase of the decade. The SFMTA should change its name to the SFRTA, the San Francisco Rapid Transit Agency. And the SFCTA should be called the SFRCRTRA (San Francisco Rapid County Rapid Transit Rapid Authoritah. And that means that a Geary BART spur (which would be more rapider than buses replacing buses) should/would be called Rapid EXTREME or something.)

As with most federal / state-funded pork barrel projects, there are costs and benefits, and there will be winners and losers.

This “Substandard” Pedestrian Bridge on Geary has a Bright Future in 2017, Despite All Its Haters at the SFCTA / SFMTA

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

One doc the SFCTA had dissed this bridge 23 times, ’cause the SFCTA thinks it will interfere with the Geary BRT project. And this marketing doc here gets into it a bit.

Well it turns out that this bridge will stick around. Look, about a dozen and a half souls were using it last I saw it:

7J7C6671 (2) copy

Anyway, this bridge will slow down the BRT yet they’re still talking about how the “average” #38 round-trip rider will save a half an hour a day. This seems impossible to me. If they said a few #38 riders might save a half hour on some days, well, that’d be more honest, but you can’t expect too much from the SFCTA / SFMTA…

7J7C5123 copy

Seems Reno is Ahead of Frisco, Transit-wise

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

But IDK. I’m pretty sure that Reno, NV doesn’t have dozens of public employees whose sole job is to say how great the local transit system is, the way our local SFMTA SFCTA is set up.

Anyway, there’s this:

img_6044-copy

And this, which looks like a BRT system:

img_6043-copy

I guess what I’m saying is that it appears that Reno’s transit system is run for Reno, as opposed to the employees of its transit system…

Bridge Over the River Geary: Despised by Our SFCTA, Yet Beloved By Its Numerous Users

Tuesday, December 27th, 2016

Hey, how many times do you think our SFCTA could possibly insult this pedestrian bridge over Geary at Webster in just one report? Well, 23 times,* by my count. Earlier, it seemed that the destruction of this bridge was vital for the success of the Geary BRT scheme, yet the SFCTA caved and now the bridge has a new lease on life, Geary BRT or no.

7j7c5123-copy

On It Goes…

*Mostly having to do with the ADA, but lots of things are grandfathered in, as the SFCTA well knows.

A Crazy New SFMTA Plan to Allow Bike Riders to Run Red Lights on Fell and Oak in the “Panhandle-Adjacent” Area

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

Here it is: The “Fell and Oak Streets Panhandle-Adjacent Bikeway Feasibility Study”

The basic idea is to take out one of the four lanes of Fell and one of the four lanes of Oak along the Golden Gate Park Panhandle from the Baker Street DMV to Stanyan and turn them into dedicated bike lanes.

You don’t need to even look at the report to know that this idea is “feasible” – obviously, our SFMTA can do this if it wants to:

captureghghhhh-copy

But why does the SFMTA want to do this? This is not stated in the report.

As things stand now, you can ride your bike on the left side of the left lanes of Fell and Oak, or on the right sides of the right lanes of Fell and Oak, or in any part of any lane of Fell and Oak if you’re keeping up with traffic (but this is especially hard to do heading uphill on Fell), or on the “multi-use pathway” (what I and most people call the bike path) what winds through the Panhandle.

So, why not widen the bike path again, SFGov? It used to be 8 foot wide and now it’s 12 foot wide, so why not go for 16 foot wide? (Hey, why doesn’t our SFMTA simply take over Rec and Park? You know it wants to.)

My point is that it would also be “feasible” to somehow force RPD to widen the current bike path (and also the extremely bumpy, injury-inducing Panhandle jogging/walking path along Oak) independent of whatever the SFMTA wants to do to the streets.

Anyway, here’s the news – check out page 12 of 13. No bike rider (or what term should I use this year, “person with bikes?” Or “person with bike?” Or “person with a bike?”) is going to want to sit at a red light at a “minor street” when s/he could just use the bike trail the SFTMA figures, so why not just allow them to ride on Fell and Oak without having to worry about traffic lights at all? And the pedestrians? Well, you’ll see:

“Minor Street Intersections

The minor cross-streets in the project area from east to west are Lyon Street, Central Avenue, Ashbury Street, Clayton Street, Cole Street, and Shrader Street. Each is a consistent width of 38’-9” curb-to-curb with 15-foot wide sidewalks. All of these streets are discontinued [Fuck man. How much colledge do you need to start talking like this, just asking] at the park, each forming a pair of “T” intersections at Oak and Fell streets. The preferred control for the protected bike lane at these “T” intersections is to exclude it from the traffic signal, allowing bicyclists to proceed through the intersection without stopping unless a pedestrian is crossing the bikeway. Due to the relatively low pedestrian volumes at these intersections, it is expected that people using the protected bike lane [aka cyclists? aka bike riders?] would routinely violate the signal if required to stop during every pedestrian phase, creating unpredictability and likely conflict between users on foot and on bicycles. This treatment also recognizes that in order to attract many bicycle commuters, the new protected bike lanes would need to be time-competitive with the existing multi-use path that has the advantage of a single traffic control signal for the length of the Panhandle.

Excluding the protected bike lane from the traffic signal requires installing new pedestrian refuge islands in the shadow of the parking strip. The existing vehicle and pedestrian signal heads currently located within the park would also need to be relocated to new poles on the pedestrian refuge islands.

Implementing these changes would cost between $70,000 and $150,000 per intersection, and require the removal of approximately four parking spaces per intersection. Over the eleven minor-street “T” intersections along the Panhandle (excluding Fell Street/Shrader Street which which has been discussed separately), the total cost would be between $0.9 and $1.5 million dollars and approximately 48 parking spaces would be removed.

This design introduces a variety of benefits and compromises [“compromises!” Or maybe “costs,” as in a cost/benefit analysis?] for pedestrians crossing to and from the park at the minor intersections:

Pedestrians would be required to wait for gaps in bicycle traffic to cross the protected bike lane (which may present new challenges to people with low or no vision). Design treatments for the protected bike lanes (e.g., stencil messages, rumble strips, signs) should also be considered to clearly indicate the necessity of yielding to pedestrians to people on bicycles.”