A very nice walking bird:
Posts Tagged ‘spur’
If the SFMTA Wants to Ban “Private Vehicles” from Making Most Turns onto Market Between 3rd and 8th, What About Drivers with Handicapped Placards?Tuesday, June 16th, 2015
Get up to speed here.
So “Safer” Market Street is going to ban “private vehicles” including Lyft and Uber-type vehicles, but does that include rides with properly-displayed handicapped placards?
IDK. It seems our SFMTA doesn’t want to deal with this issue.
(Actually, it seems our SFMTA deals with embarrassing issues discussed on the SFMTA website by simply deleting webpages/URLs as soon as members of The Public link to them. Boy, it sure seems that way lately. But moving on, moving “forward” as they say.)
Oh look info about the SFMTA not located at the official SFMTA site – so here’s a link I cite without worrying that it will go bad within 24 hours:
• Bob Planthold: Taxi drivers say they can travel where Muni goes as stated by City Charter. The City will need investigate this. Also broader phrasing is needed regarding disability because “Red & Blue Placards” cannot be restricted.
Read the whole thing, if you want. It’s about all the plans the SFMTA has for this area.
So, is the SFMTA going to ban drivers of private vehicles with handicapped placards from turning onto Market at most places between 3rd and 8th?
Serious question. I think they are…
The Empire Strikes Back: UBER Does NOT Appreciate Getting Banned from Turning Onto Market from 3rd to 8th Streets – PetitionThursday, June 11th, 2015
Our SFMTA wants to ban TNC’s from turning onto Market at most places between 3rd and 8th, so now UBER, for one, is fighting back with a petition from Uber drivers.
Anyway, here’s the nut graf in the Uber petition:
“If the traffic restrictions are imposed, driver partners will be forced to take longer, more complicated routes to pick up or drop off passengers — increasing congestion around Market Street and making it more difficult, more time-consuming, and dangerous for riders to get from place to place.”
I think they’ll get to the goal of
10,000 [UPDATE – now it’s set to 15,000] electronic “signatures” with a quickness, seeing as how they seem to clocking about 50 supporters per minute now.
All the deets:
Over the last several years, Uber has become an integral part of San Francisco’s transportation ecosystem — with thousands of residents and visitors relying on ridesharing services to get them to all corners of the city. Ridesharing has been embraced and supported by the California Legislature, Governor Brown, and several State agencies. What’s more, UberPOOL and similar ridesharing services are taking cars off the road, reducing congestion, and making huge strides toward making San Francisco’s roads safer.
But now we need your help. As the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) revisits its rules for the types of vehicles allowed on Market Street — your ability to take an Uber from Market Street is at risk — and we need you to speak up in support of ridesharing services like Uber.
NEW SFMTA RESTRICTIONS THAT WILL IMPACT YOU:
→ Taxis on Market Street – APPROVED
→ Buses on Market Street – APPROVED
→ Ridesharing on Market Street – DENIED
Market Street is a major artery of the city, and shutting off access to ridesharing services, where an overwhelming majority of residents choose to live car-free, is counterproductive and dangerous. Ridesharing services a significant and increasing share of the transportation puzzle here, and cutting off riders and driver partners from this main artery will only increase gridlock around town while forcing you, the riding public, to criss-cross busy streets and corridors to get to your ride or destination.
If the traffic restrictions are imposed, driver partners will be forced to take longer, more complicated routes to pick up or drop off passengers — increasing congestion around Market Street and making it more difficult, more time-consuming, and dangerous for riders to get from place to place.
Sign the petition and tell San Francisco’s leadership that TNCs need to be included in their rules for Market Street!
THE PETITION LETTER
[Your personal message]
[Your first name] [Your last name] from zip code [Zip Code]
Dear [Recipient’s title] [Recipient’s name],
I urge you to not to single out TNCs like Uber, and ensure that they have the same access as taxis to pick up riders along Market Street. Ridesharing has become a core part of the way people get around the city and I support giving San Franciscans more choice for transportation options along Market Street. Your inclusion of TNCs will give people like me more transportation choices downtown, provide an equal playing field for all transportation options, and improve safety for riders and drivers alike.
Again, thank you for considering the collective voice of thousands of San Franciscans who want more choice in transportation options on Market Street.
“SFMTA vs. Lyft and Uber Drivers” Continued – Let’s Hear Why the SFMTA Wants to Stop You From Turning onto MarketThursday, June 11th, 2015
This was my stab at things yesterday – also coming out yesterday was this:
Let’s take a look to see how “safety sells” pretty much whatever the SFMTA has wanted to do the past quarter-century, with my comments in ALL CAPS, you know, for the benefit of those all-important mobile readers:
“This is focused very clearly on safety,” said Tom Maguire, director of the Sustainable Streets Division of the SFMTA. “This is about how we can get out this summer and find ways to save lives this summer.”
WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. I’LL CONCEDE THAT THIS MOVE WILL HAVE US ENDING UP WITH FEWER CAR VS. PED ACCIDENTS ON MARKET STREET BETWIXT 3RD AND 8TH. BUT IS TOM MAGUIRE SOME KIND OF SUPERHERO, A SPIDERMAN SAVING LIVES (PLURAL!) DURING THE END OF SUMMER 2015? ABSOLUTELY NOT. SORRY. HOW MANY LIVES WILL TOM MAGUIRE ACTUALLY SAVE THIS SUMMER? ZERO. ABSOLUTE ZERO. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING. SORRY.
“…lively and entertaining urban boulevard, it is also dangerous.”
WRITER JK DINEEN HAD THE CHANCE TO USE THE BOGUS PHRASE “HIGH-INJURY CORRIDOR” AND HE DIDN’T GO FOR IT? I’M SURE IT’S IN THE MATERIALS HE HAS AND I’M SURE THE SFTMA WOULD LIKE HIM TO USE THIS NEW CATCH-PHRASE, BUT HE DIDN’T. MMM…
Roughly half of these collisions happened at or near an intersection.
WELL, I SHOULD HOPE THAT MOST ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS GETTING STRUCK HAPPEN NEAR INTERSECTIONS. I MEAN, PEDS GENERALLY DON’T BELONG IN THE STREET OUTSIDE OF INTERSECTIONS, RIGHT? ALSO, NOTE THAT WRITER JK DINEEN IS UNAFRAID TO USE THE TERM “ACCIDENT” – THIS TOO GOES AGAINST THE CURRENT SFMTA PLAYBOOK. “COLLISION” IS THE PREFERRED WORD THESE DAYS. BOTH WORDS WORK, OF COURSE.
The package of traffic improvements, known as Safer Market Street…
THESE MOVES CERTAINLY ARE CHANGES, BUT WE DON’T KNOW YET IF THEY WILL BE ACTUAL “IMPROVEMENTS” RIGHT? WHAT’S A NEUTRAL, NON-ORWELLIAN TERM FOR OUR SFMTA’S “IMPROVEMENTS?”
Vision Zero, an effort to eliminate traffic deaths by 2024.
INSTEAD OF “AN EFFORT,” HOW ABOUT “AN _INSINCERE_ EFFORT,” CAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT’S CERTAINLY THE CASE HERE?
“Our approach to Vision Zero is not to wait to save lives when we have tools to prevent these collisions and we know how to implement them,” Maguire said.
IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PED DEATHS IN SAN FRANCISCO, LET’S SAY, FOR CALENDAR 2014, MOST OF THOSE DEATHS WERE THE FAULT OF THE PEDESTRIANS THEMSELVES, PER THE SFPD, RIGHT? SO, WHY NOT MAKE AN “EFFORT” TO ENFORCE THE CVC UPON THE NOTORIOUSLY ILL-BEHAVED PEDESTRIANS OF MARKET STREET RIGHT NOW? THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE THE EFFECT OF SAVING LIVES OVER TIME, SO WHY IS SFGOV WAITING? OH, BECAUSE OF POLITICS, I SEE. ALL RIGHT. AND OF COURSE, WE’LL NEVER GET TO ZERO TRANSPORTATION DEATHS, ON A STRETCH OF MARKET OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, BUT PED ENFORCEMENT IS THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT. THE FACT THAT THE SFMTA IS SO AFRAID TO MENTION ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE IS TELLING.
The reduction of traffic turning onto Market Street will cut down the chance of someone getting seriously injured or killed by a turning vehicle, say SFMTA officials.
AGREE. POINT CONCEDED, CHEERFULLY
It will mean smoother and faster sailing for city buses…
UH OH. _FASTER_ BUSES? IS THAT WHAT WE WANT, SAFETYWISE? IDK. HEY, WHAT PERCENT OF ACCIDENTS ON THIS STRETCH OF MARKET INVOLVE MUNI OR SFMTA-REGULATED TAXICABS? IS IT FORTY-SOMETHING PERCENT ALREADY? LOOK FOR THAT PERCENTAGE TO RISE…
“Motorists would still be free to cross Market Street. Taxis — but not Uber or Lyft”
HERE WE GO – HERE’S THE POINT OF “SAFER” MARKET STREET. IT’S ABOUT FUCKING WITH THE TNC’S. HOW MANY TENS OF MILLIONS HAVE THE SFMTA LOST DUE TO UBER, LYFT AND THE OTHER TNC’S? IDK, BUT A LOT. THERE WILL BE SOME SHORT TRIPS THAT SIMPLY WON’T WORK WITH UBER ANY LONGER. NOT IF YOU WANT TO DRIVE LEGALLY ANYWAY. WHY DOESN’T THE SFMTA ALSO BAN TAXIS FROM MAKING THESE VERY SAME TURNS, IF THE SFMTA IS SO MUCH ABOUT SAFETY? MMM…
Speak of the Devil, here’s some anti-TNC, pro-SFMTA taxi propaganda, courtesy of your SFMTA:
“Local opposition subsiding”
WELL, I DON’T KNOW. HAS ANY POLLING BEEN DONE OF THE CURRENT USERS OF MARKET STREET? SO I DON’T KNOW HOW SUBSIDED THE OPPOSITION IS. I’LL TELL YOU, OBJECTIONS TO THE SFMTA’S “DOWNTOWN CORE” TRAFFIC BLOCKADE DURING RUSH HOURS IS STILL PRETTY STRONG, WELL OVER 50%.
Susie McKinnon, executive director of the North of Market/Tenderloin Community Benefit District, said at first she was worried that the changes would push more traffic into the Tenderloin…
WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT WILL. VISITORS COMING UP 6TH STREET WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT AT MARKET, SO WHERE ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO GO BUT THE TWITTERLOIN, RIGHT?
…force unregulated car services such as Uber and Lyft off of Market Street.
I WOULDN’T CALL TNC’S UNREGULATED, BUT THAT’S JUST ME. _LESS_ REGULATED, CERTAINLY, BUT NOT UNREGULATED, IMO. AND WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH SAFETY? FASTER TAXIS AND FEWER UBERS = SAVING LIVES OVERALL? WE’LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.
Eva Behrend, a spokeswoman for Uber, disagrees: “Market Street is a major artery of the city…
…and cutting off riders and driver-partners from accessing this thoroughfare will increase gridlock around town…
…with no improvement to safety.
WELL, THE POINT IS TO “SAVE LIVES” “THIS SUMMER” ON FIVE PARTICULAR BLOCKS OF MARKET STREET – WE’LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE THE EFFECT UPON OVERALL SAFETY ON MISSION, HOWARD, FOLSOM, THE REST OF THE TWITTERLOIN, AND ALL THE REST OF SAN FRANCISCO.
AND PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH TOM MAGUIRE AND EVA BEHREND ARE IN THE SAME BIZ – THEY’RE BOTH IN THE ABUSE-WORDS-ENOUGH-AND-THEN-YOU’LL-GET-COMPENSATED-WITH-SIX-FIGURES-A-YEAR-PLUS-BENEFITS CLUB…
SFMTA vs. Lyft and Uber Drivers: Forget About Turning Left or Right onto Market Betwixt 3rd and 8th – Orwellian SMSWednesday, June 10th, 2015
Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline here.
This is the Safer Market Street proposal, which used to be a part of Better Market Street? Hey, is SFS a kind of “chop shop project,” the likes of which is the SFMTA’s excuse for not doing anything until it gets a more massive project implemented? And it’s to support “Vision Zero” 2024? (That. of course, is the promise of absolute transportation safety. It will fail only after the terming our of our Interim Mayor and all the Members of the Board of Supervisors. Not a single promoter of Vision Zero actually believes we’ll get to zero transportation deaths, / injuries on or near Market Street or anywhere else in town, within nine years, or ever at all…)
Now here’s what I’m talking about not being able to make turns – all those red arrows show what you won’t be able to do anymore:
Will TNC drivers be banned? Hells yes! That’s the plan last I heard. Will taxi drivers be similarly banned? No, the SFMTA wants to promote taxis and the SFMTA hates, just hates, TNCs.
Note that when the SFMTA calls this proposal a proposal, that means it’s a done deal.
Note that when the SFMTA calls a street a high-injury corridor, it means that the street is a corridor, which is, of course, “a (generally linear) tract of land in which at least one main line for some mode of transport has been built.” Would the SFMTA care to ID a similar number of low injury corridors about town? No? That’s ’cause if a street has a low number of injuries, it isn’t a corridor at all. So, that means that high injury corridor means plain-old corridor. Moving on…
To this – look, the SFMTA has invented, in the Year of Our Lord 2015, a device called a “sign,” ’cause, you know, drivers is stupid.
“WAYFINDING SIGNS Driving on Market Street can be confusing for residents and visitors alike. Wayfinding signs help drivers “find their way” to specific areas while on the move. To avoid confusion while driving through this area, we want to ensure signs pointing to destinations are easily visible and understandable for drivers to safely navigate through the streets. Signs will be posted on streets surrounding Market to give drivers enough time to plan their approach. Special attention will be given to popular destinations, including off-street parking and major roadways. Using iconic San Francisco destinations and simplistic designs, these wayfinding signs would help keep cars moving and enhance the City’s unique visual identity.”
And did you catch that? Why should our SFMTA use a simple word like “simple,” when it can use a $5 word like “simplistic,” you know, facile? Does the SFMTA really mean to crittercise it’s Brand New Thing? IDK.
That was the wind-up, now here’s the pitch:
“The City is one step closer to Vision Zero pending SFMTA Board Approval of the Safer Market Street project.
Market Street is the City’s premier civic and commercial corridor hosting hundreds of thousands of people arriving by means of transit, walking, biking or driving. More bikes travel down Market Street than vehicles, making it one of the busiest bikeways west of the Mississippi.
High collision rates, however, also make Market Street a high-injury corridor, with four of the top 20 intersections for pedestrian-injury collisions and the top two intersections for bicycle injury collisions. Safer Market Street is one of over 24 Vision Zero projects being expedited to address the recent spike in fatalities along high-injury corridors such as Market Street. The proposed changes, including a package of turn restrictions, the extension of existing transit-only lanes and supplemental safety treatments, will help the city reach its Vision Zero goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities by improving safety conditions for all users.
The team recently submitted its environmental documentation to the planning department and completed its third round of outreach, in which it met with community organizations and concerned property owners to inform them of the proposed changes and address any questions or concerns.
Years of analysis and outreach to the community have informed the proposed changes and pending the approval of the SFMTA Board of Directors June 16, 2015 construction can begin within the month. The turn restrictions would be unveiled as a package once complete later this fall.
Question or concerns please contact Kate Elliott at firstname.lastname@example.org
Date, time and location of SFMTA Board of Directors Meeting:
City Hall Room 400, June 6, 2015 1:00 pm
1 Charles B. Goodlett Drive
San Francisco, CA 94102
This one from SPUR – San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association is hard to believe:
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten, Farrell, and Weese 1966)
And here’s the actual document itself, from our California Historical Society at 678 Mission Street:
Here you go, under “Issue B”
Click to expand
It’s, as always, the prospect of a “provincial” SF versus a world-class SF. What SPUR wants is to take tax and fee payer money and give it to … SPUR, so it then can advocate spending more tax and fee payer money on whatever flavor of the month development program its members stand to make money from. Why does SFGov give any money at all to SPUR?
What’s actually changed at SPUR the past four decades, aside from them saying that the UR in SPUR no longer stands for “Urban Renewal?”
What a horrible organization.
This was the the cause of a lot of the problems the other day – the light at Sloat and Great Highway flashing red. So traffic backed up into Lake Merced:
In most towns, the cops would care about something like this, but in SF it’s up to the SFMTA to care, and it doesn’t really care, so bike riders heading north didn’t know where to go – they went all over, on the sand, on vegetation, on the sidewalks. and lane-splitting was an option as well:
These guys heading south had to pick up their road bikes and carry them for a while after being forced into the sand:
Speaking of which, this MUNI bus looked abandoned in the dunes. I think operators park them here to allow car drivers to use the traffic circle to get back to the intersection, cause, you know, its wheels are to big to get caught in a little sand, right? Well…
…this ride here got totally stuck in a just a little sand. It was sad. (Photos altered to protect the embarrassed.) Help seemed to be far far away as cars behind got blocked in the circle:
Do you need to hang a left to get a nice free parking space? Sure, what’s a few lanes of stalled traffic?
And then there’s just your normal Great Highway, with horrible pedestrians in between crosswalks…
…and improperly in crosswalks:
And there’s the sand again, always the sand:
Or no sand – I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t dream of ever being on this side of the line, but perhaps that’s a quarter century of SF County living talking, IDK. So really, you don’t want to use that bike lane up there, or that other one to the right of you, huh? OK
And the live aboard RVs – they’ll get hidden away come nighttime of course.
That’s life out west, where every day is Do What You Feel Day.
SPUR, the Urban Renewal people, have a plan to “renew” this area. IDK, they’ve had a pretty bad record over the years and decades, right? And they seem to love SFGov’s current Willie Brown orientation.
Anyway, they have a roadshow to sell people on their ideas. You should check it out sometime to see the promised Bright New Future, the promised New Gold Dream.
That same year, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten, Farrell, and Weese 1966)
The genesis of urban renewal, from a couple decades before:
The presence in the Western Addition District of a high proportion of negro and foreign-born families presents a special problem. As was pointed out earlier, about 26% of the population in this District consists of Negroes, and another 9% Japanese, Chinese, and other foreign nationalities. In view of the characteristically low income of colored and foreign-born families, only a relatively small proportion of them may be expected to occupy quarters in the new development.
Hey SPUR, don’t just do something, stand there.
Horrible SPUR Organization Supports the Billion Dollar “Prop A 2014,” But How Did “Prop A 2007” Work Out?Thursday, October 23rd, 2014
Work with me here, people.
“…the strengthening of the MTA’s independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. A.
But here’s how things worked out IRL:
Muni’s mismanagement of Prop. A may hurt future funding tries by Will Reisman
Where the SFMTA’s Prop. A money has gone by Will Reisman
Now here we are in 2014. Here’s what SPUR, those horrible people behind Redevelopment, is saying about Prop A 2014:
“The city has done the hard work to gather stakeholders, assess needs and prioritize transportation expenditures.”
So, handing a blank check to the SFMTA for it to waste has something to do with “hard work?”
Hey SPUR, what about Prop A 2007? Weren’t you all wrong, so very wrong, about that?
So why would you expect Prop A 2014 to work out any better?
The SFMTA’s Secret Plan to Kick Lyft and Uber (But Not Taxis!) Off of Market – It’s Called “Safer Market Street” and It’s Coming Next YearThursday, August 7th, 2014
So apparently, the SFMTA is working on a plan to ban cars from parts of Market Street while still allowing them to cross over Market Street?
It’s called “Safer Market Street.”
Will kicking cars off of Market Street betwixt Montgomery and Eighth make Market “safer?” I don’t know. (But if the SFMTA wants to propose kicking buses and taxis off of Market, well then that certainly would make Market safer, IMO. )
I don’t know why we allow the SFMTA to do whatever it wants without getting something in return. Like, OK SFMTA, we’ll let you spend all this money on the porked-up Central Subway project, but in exchange, you’d have to bring MUNI up to the level of a mediocre big-city transit system.
Anyway, it’s easy to get tripped up with all the Orwellian names the SFMTA comes up with, like Great Streets! and “Livable” Streets and Safer Market and Better Market, but see if you can figure the words you can see below.
First up, a rep from the local government-subsidized urban renewal outfit uses the word pilot as a verb, because that’s the lingo:
“Lawrence Li (SPUR): Can you pilot some of these auto restrictions?
Some auto restrictions were piloted in 2009 and have since then become permanent. We do not
plan to pilot auto restrictions at this time due to environmental review constraints. However,
there is a separate project, independent of Better Market Street, called Safer Market Street that
is looking at implementing some auto restrictions between 8th and Montgomery potentially as soon as next year. The public kick-off for that project is planned for later this summer.”
And here’s a way for the SFMTA to stick it to the man, to fight back against those TNC’s by supporting cabbies:
“Kevin Carroll: There are private autos operating as taxis such as Lyft, Uber, etc. Will they be
allowed to drive on Market Street with these auto restrictions in place?
No. These services are subject to the private vehicle restrictions and would not be allowed on
Market Street with these auto restrictions in place.”
That’s all I know. Like I said, it’s secret, more or less, for now.
All the deets, after the jump.