Why if this is true does the MTA’s November 2010 report to the federal government acknowledge that only 10.5% of  today’s daily riders of the 8x, 30 and 45 lines be using the Chinatown subway station by 2030?

Nolan said that the MTA Board played an important role, but a limited role.

He went on to complain that directors were opposed to the budget, but few voiced their concerns.

If the role of the directors is limited, then what is the proper forum to express their concerns so that the product before them reflects their concerns? And what’s the point of talking to the hand when you can just vote no and be out of the farce, home to your family sooner?

Under such a scenario, doesn’t the fact that Nat Ford believes he works for Gavin Newsom really trump the fact that Newsom has never called Nolan, given that Nolan feels the board’s role is so limited?

Nolan’s undisguised glee over the opportunity that the fiscal crisis presents to do what would take years of study smacks of the Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine, DIsaster Capitalism [1]. Whether reasons were offered up or not, 3 votes against declaring a state of emergency was remarkable.

Government is supposed to be run with checks and balances. And old drunk Irish secretary for multiple commissions once told me that there are only two kinds of commissions in this town, those where the commission runs the staff and those where the staff runs the commission. Clearly the MTA is the latter even though the voters called for the former, Nolan expressed precisely as much.

The only way to stop the Mayor from bleeding the MTA dry for his own political purposes is to distribute power over the MTA equally between the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. If we’re going to have politics, then let’s at least have some balance.

-marc
[1] http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Honestly, he will wait until the last minute to submit it, knowing he is beaten but that he can delay those bike lanes just a few more days by continuing to finesse process over results. America!

Whenever someone introduces a riff with “Let’s be honest,” I know a crock is going to follow. Why is it that whenever anyone questions the safety of cycling, cyclists immediately change the subject to the dangers involved with cars. I’m 66 years old and have traveled many miles on cars and buses, and I have never even been involved in any kind of an accident either as a driver or a passenger. On the other hand, hardcore cyclists like Robert Hurst and John Forester tells us that if you ride a bike for any length of time, you’re going to have some spills and falls that have nothing to do with other vehicles—spin-outs, equipment failures, a pothole, etc.

The city acknowledges in its bike documents that cycling accidents are under-reported by at least 20%. I suspect it’s more than that, since the city has no reliable system for reporting such accidents.

Let’s be honest, the most unsafe way to get around is in a car. Unsafe for you, unsafe for your passengers, unsafe for your neighbors-turned-speedbumps.

Riding a bike really really fast is inherently dangerous too, though less so than driving really really fast. So, I suppose, is running full tilt through a crowd. Those are all dangerous ways to get around.

Riding a well-functioning bike calmly, walking, jogging, pushing baby strollers, etc. are among the most safe ways to get around that exist.

I have every confidence that the proposed projects will make biking safer and easier.

“And I think the number one problem that the bike coalition people tell us is that some people are not riding because they’re afraid, they’re scared out there, the dooring and all that stuff. But if we can almost double the number of bike lanes and all these amenities for bicycles, I think that’ll help move us towards the transit first city.”

People should be afraid to ride a bike in SF; it’s an inherently risky way to get around. The delusion is that, once the Bicycle Plan is completely implemented, riding a bike here will be safe. It will be interesting to then hear the SFBC’s explanation for the fact that people continue to be injured while cycling.

It’s irresponsible for public officials and the SFBC to encourage the Safe Routes to School idea on streets that they admit are now dangerous for adult cyclists.

And then you have Shahum’s vision of the future on city streets: she wants traffic to be safe and slow enough for seven-year-olds to ride bikes on city streets!

http://cybre.net/pub/prope.pdf

Read the claims that were made about political independence by the Board of Supervisors, SPUR, the SF Chamber of Commerce, the SFBC and the Republican Party.

Ask yourself if you could serve on the MTA Board of Directors, read the text of Section 8A of the Charter, and come to the same conclusions as Director Nolan does.

What language could be put into the charter which would express the will of the Board of Supervisors and proponents of Prop E and be legally binding on appointees?

And kudos to the late Sue Bierman who got this one right. Don’t blame me, I voted against Prop E in 1999.

-marc