Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

  1.  

    FactCheckSF

    Where did you happen to hear that? See page #7 in the PDF Aaron linked to …

    Yearly membership for Bay Area Bike Share was presented in a range from $75 – $90.

    NYC’s CitiBike yearly membership is $95 (plus tax).

    Bay Area Bike Share pricing will be less than NYC.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  2.  

    Briana may west

    Daddy, my birthday was 2 weeks ago.. U missed it… But u did not miss it in my heart. Dad u you r the best. Ever! When you died a lot of people have been out of my life .. But u r always in my life. All I have is my baby brother Blake. And gramma Janice and u daddy I love u a lot….

    Lots of love… Briana West :) )

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Driver Arrested in Death of Los Gatos Cyclist
  3.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Well, it sure does look like it was there. I don’t know why I’m not remembering it. I thought the “draw your own design on the skirt guard” was nice for the kids, and I liked the “put a sticker on the map where you want a bikeshare station” activity.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  4.  

    FactCheckSF

    Actually, they had a Capital Bikeshare bike there so that people could examine it and ask questions. Quite a few people were checking it out. (It’s in the corner of the photo)

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  5.  

    mission resident

    SFMTA is pushing for increased revenue generation. This is documented. Thus the SFPark experiment, whose primary purpose is financial, Paul Rose’s spinning notwithstanding.

    That’s why I’m cynical of Karen Lynn Allen’s plan for community input. It’s a nice one, but it simply does not matter what format SFMTA uses or does not use to solicit community input. It will say what it needs to say to avoid things like lawsuits, but in the end it’s all about money.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  6.  

    Cali Wilson

    Car sharing can reduce pollution as well as traffic from the roads. It is economical too.

    Thorncrest Ford

    May 31, 2013
    in response to SFMTA to Designate Hundreds of Curbside Parking Spots for Car-Sharing
  7.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I have now had occasion to go seven different SFMTA board meetings or community input meetings. I found them tedious, annoying and almost a complete waste of my time. Almost. If I hadn’t gone and the issue I cared about fallen through because not enough interest was shown, I would’ve kicked myself. So I go. And yes, it’s totally unfair to folks who have to work or feed their kids dinner or do any number of tasks that have a lot higher daily priority than waiting an hour to speak two minutes at a SFMTA meeting. I think the idea is people will be happier with whatever outcome if they’ve had a chance to expression their opinion. To vent. I think this perception is entirely misguided. They are no happier after venting if the decision is not what they want. In fact, they may be even more pissed. I don’t exactly know how to make people happy about a situation that doesn’t go their way, but our current system isn’t it.

    I’ve made suggestions below (in response to biking in SF) of how the SFMTA could go about doing outreach and gaining feedback in a manner more efficient and less time consuming on everyone’s part, as well as less likely to end up in shouting wars. It too will not result in universal happiness. And it too might still result in you waking up one day to find your on street parking spot gone.

    I don’t envy the SFMTA. Over the next couple years a lot of cars and parking are necessarily going to disappear in the NE part of the city, kind of like an insane game of urban musical chairs. And a lot of people are going to be really, really, really pissed. Especially those who didn’t realize the game was going on at all.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  8.  

    Pontifikate

    I heard they’re going to charge more in SF than they are in NYC.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  9.  

    Ryan Brady

    Yeah, I reconsidered shortly after posting that and tried to delete it, but it just deleted my name. Ah well.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  10.  

    Bruce Nourish

    Good lord, finally. The old one seemed like vintage 1998. It also looks like the system map has finally been updated to correctly reflect all the service changes the old one merely mentioned in the footnotes.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Getting Around on the New SFMTA Website
  11.  

    SteveS

    Why would anyone expect SFMTA management to be interested in getting more people to ride Muni? They have no incentive to do so and many incentives to do the opposite: they do not recover their cost on any passenger on any route, and their budget is not tied to ridership level. More passengers just means more complaints and requires work to increase capacity. Better to do the bare minimum to keep the politically powerful placated, pay lip service to transit first, and let potential customers with high expectations who would demand quality service and accountability switch to other modes. And the politically powerful here are the unions, to some extent the bike coalition, and large capital projects which offer politicians opportunities for cronyism and graft, not transit users.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  12.  

    Brian

    Ryan,

    It’s not about whether someone thinks the pay is “reasonable” or about what it costs to live here. It’s simply a matter of what that job goes for elsewhere.

    And if it is true that private bus drivers make much less than Muni, then something is wrong with Muni because it is over-paying.

    And that is money that cannot go into equipment, repairs etc.

    One obvious thing that slows down Muni is the number and frequency of stops. Seems like it is often one stop per block. Why? Can people really not walk the 200 yards that would mean just four stops per mile instead of (what feels like 15)?

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  13.  

    Brian

    Karen,

    I’d agree that SFMTA (and the city in general) should not be inlfuenced because of people making noise at a meeting.

    Although it’s the Polk St. folks who are making the noise in this case, most city meetings that I have attended, it’s been the “activists” and “progessives” making all the noise. Are you sure you are equally unfazed on those occasions?

    In fact, my main beef with these meetings, and the endless procession of speakers wanting their “two minutes of mediocrity” is that normal people don’t show up at meetings because they are busy. But “activists” seem to have unlimited time to pursue their agenda’s, and therefore get their way more often.

    How do you do out-reach to the average person who doesn’t follow all this stuff but then wakes up one day to find his parking gone or a meter outside his home? It happens.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  14.  

    Anonymous

    Frankly, I don’t think anyone is handling the situation correctly. I don’t think that community meetings should be the only considered input on the project (I hadn’t heard about any meetings until this one). I don’t think that woman should have gotten up in front of the crowd to voice her grievance when there was clearly a forum for her to do so directly with the supervisor. I think the reason they didn’t open it up to public forum was precisely to avoid a shouting match. And I don’t think the crowd should have berated her for her concern; some obvious facts would suffice.

    But it’s really not a matter of “who shouts the loudest.” As I mentioned, in this meeting, the loudest shout was “Get rid of ALL of the parking!” and that isn’t even being considered as an option. The option is weather to include the parallel parking in addition to the diagonal spots, and they will include more if they get the clearance from the fire department.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  15.  

    Anonymous

    Funny, the bike has the exact same internal hub and drum brakes that my bulletproof commuter bike built in 1998 came with, and which is still going strong today.

    In general I’d say it looks good, but I don’t know why they didn’t add a cheap rear rack so one could bring their own panniers and use it for grocery-getting and more. That front rack isn’t going to hold much.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  16.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    I was kind of disappointed they didn’t have any sample bikes or docking stations at the open house yesterday. After all, the roll out is supposedly in August, not all that far away. I could’ve viewed everything I saw as a pdf without the trip to City Hall.

    The system vendor is Alta, the same company doing the NYC bike share roll out right now. Let’s hope they get the bugs worked out of Citi Bike in time to focus on ours.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  17.  

    Anonymous

    Reading the Leap shuttle bus story (runs from Marina – Financial District during rush hour and costs $6 each way) it struck me: most of the transport innovation in SF is about avoiding MUNI. Corporate buses, Car-sharing, ride-sharing, in-city jitneys & shuttles, bicycling, electric-bicycling, walking, scooters — these are the recent or revived innovations expanding our transportation network. Muni, with a few exceptions, is stuck in neutral. What each of these modes share is an ability to get swiftly and directly to one’s destination — something few forms of MUNI provide. My point is this: there’s a lot of talk about reliability, frequency, and maintenance of Muni, but almost nothing about cutting trip times down to rivaling car travel. Without that sort of speed, I don’t see how we will get the healthy or the wealthy onto Muni’s system in any sort of sustained way. Maybe the SFMTA directors don’t want an increase in MUNI patronage for fear of not being able to provide that capacity? It sure seems like they don’t want new riders.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  18.  

    Mario Tanev

    “skirt” is close, it’s called skirt-guard :)

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  19.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Biking in SF asked me how the SFMTA should interact with the public. I replied. The SFMTA actually spends quite a bit of money right now holding endless community meetings that resolve nothing and create antagonism. My proposal would actually be cheaper. Neither approach would create universal consensus and make everyone happy, but since that’s basically impossible, it’s not clear why they should try.

    Already 40% of Mission households don’t own cars. More people are moving into the Mission. Parking lots and parking spots are being replaced by housing, parks or parklets (or a new market!). In five years there won’t be a surface parking lot, gas station, or any one or two story buildings within a half mile of either Mission BART station. They will all be snapped up and turned into four or five story condos, most with ground floor retail.

    Whatever the SFMTA does, I would expect car ownership in the Mission to get significantly more expensive over the next three years and the number of non-car owning households to soar. But the Mission will also become a cleaner, quieter, safer, greener, more family-friendly place to live. Some will welcome this; some will despise it. I don’t think there’s any stopping it. Energy issues alone are going to push density and livable urban centers. The far-flung suburbs is where the decay will happen the next two decades at least.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  20.  

    mikesonn

    Sold. Now give me more stations and bikes ASAP!

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  21.  

    David

    “Sea Foam” looks a lot like Bianchi Celeste. http://bit.ly/117AyWj

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Meet Bay Area Bike Share
  22.  

    Anonymous

    Maybe for the CFO that’s the case, because it’s his job, but SFMTA is public and its motivations are not inherently or currently financial nor should they be.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  23.  

    mission resident

    Cute. But this ignores the fact that SFMTA’s biggest problem and motivating factor right now is revenue. They don’t have enough and desperately need more. The CFO has made this clear. Thus the push to deploy as many meters as quickly as possible, jack up fees and fines, hire more parking control officers, etc. … It’s all to feed the beast. The rest is for show. Even if they did everything in your nice little letter, it’d still be putting lipstick on a pig.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  24.  

    murphstahoe

    Driving a vehicle that sits on a track is a low skill job. Until someone pulls out a knife on your vehicle. Or your train derails. Or there is a system wide meltdown and you need to figure out how to communicate to passengers and help resolve the problem. Or there is a suicide on the tracks in front of you.

    Pushing the button, $1. Knowing which button to push, $64,999

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  25.  

    Anonymous

    Our society is so messed up–if this man had actually hit and killed a pedestrian crossing the street there, he almost certainly wouldn’t be arrested.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  26.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Dear San Francisco Citizen,

    We at the SFMTA would like to clarify both our community input process and the guiding principles that we apply whenever we undertake city planning.

    The SFMTA is strongly interested in what the citizens of San Francisco think of the job we’re doing and the projects we propose. We want you to be well informed, and we want your feedback! However, we also don’t want to fan the flames of uncivil public discourse. So we will communicate to you about proposed future projects in three ways: 1) websites with all relevant proposal information (including diagrams and mock ups) and an ever-expanding FAQ based on your questions, 2) public meetings in the vicinity of the project with exactly the same material (the meetings will be informational only, no public discussion) and 3) postcards to every household within a mile of the project location that gives both the website and the public meeting where more information about the project can be found.

    We will receive questions, critiques, and other feedback from you in these ways: 1) leave a comment on our project website, 2) send us an email, 3) call us and leave a voice message, or 4) send us a letter. Whether you love or hate the project, we promise we will read/consider every word you communicate to us, and we will even collate all comments by supervisory district and send them onto your city supervisor so he/she knows the sentiments of his/her constituency. However, your comments must include a name, address and, in the case of the web comment, a valid email address. We will never publish your name with your comment, but we need to make sure you’re an actual resident since folks living in Modesto or Pacifica or Pittsburgh should probably not be the ones to determine how San Francisco can best meet the needs of its citizens.

    Now, as to guiding principles. It is our job at the SFMTA to do what is best for the common good–to determine what kind of streets, transportation and neighborhoods will best allow the citizens of San Francisco to be healthy, happy and prosper. To tell the truth, figuring this out is not always an easy task. We have to consider the technical, the statistical, the economic, the mechanical, the topographical, the geological, the aesthetic, and the qualitative, mix them all up together, and come up with something that works. We will inevitably have both successes and failures but we strive for constant improvement, as well as creativity, competence and true caring about the lives of our citizens. In addition, we have to think about not only what works for today, but also what will work best 3, 5 and 10 years from now since often our projects take that long to manifest and are expected to last even longer.

    What we do know is that the city is constantly changing and is sure to change some more. What we do know is that if humankind continues to burn fossil fuels the very future of life on our planet is endangered. We also know for certain that tens of thousands of people are moving to San Francisco, especially the NE quadrant, in the next two years, and that many more thousands are likely to move here over the ten years after that. Transportation patterns that have worked up to now in San Francisco simply won’t work in the future. Because they require so much space, private automobiles are especially unsuited to densely populated cities, not to mention the damage they inflict on human health, the environment and our climate.

    If you live in the NE quadrant and own or drive a car, you are likely to see changes over the next three years that will make car driving less convenient and other modes of transportation more convenient. It is likely this will seriously annoy you, if not downright infuriate you. You may even feel San Francisco is not the place for you anymore. We are sorry in advance, but anyone who pretends we can do otherwise–either a pandering politician or your indignant neighbor–is either kidding themselves or trying to con you. Though we really do want to hear your suggestions and feedback, there may be times when what is best for the greater good of San Francisco as a whole is not the same as what is most convenient for you personally. So tell us what works for you, what you think is smart, what you think is dumb, what tweak you might make to a design, what we are completely overlooking. You will help us build better, build stronger, build wiser. But we can’t not change.

    With love,

    The SFMTA

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  27.  

    mission resident

    Your first comment made wonderful sense. This one is, at best, misinformed. Admittedly I don’t know much about the LH people, but as far as RPP, you can’t just ask for it and get it. You need to be deemed worthy by the all-knowing and all-powerful SFMTA. Last year they issued a “clarification” of their parking management policies (actually new policies to justify all the parking meters they want to put everywhere) in which they declared RPP an inappropriate tool for any neighborhood that is not low-density and residential (basically, Pacific Heights). Here in the NE Mission I’d love to have RPP – great for the residents, great for eliminating commuter parking. But no, SFTMA wants to put in 25 cents/hour meters (sending a message to the commuters: come on down and park here!).

    It is unfortunate that being loud and rude is the only tactic that seems to have any effect with some agencies. Being logical, well-reasoned and rational certainly does not work.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  28.  

    Ryan Brady

    I meant what I said. Agriculture is not a low skill job. Factory work is not a low skill job.

    Driving a vehicle that sits on a track is a low skill job.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  29.  

    Andy Chow

    I don’t consider blue collar jobs as low skill jobs, since many people here with college degrees do not have the skills to perform those jobs. What these jobs require is vocational training outside the traditional higher education framework, and that the working conditions are harsher than white-collar office environment.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  30.  

    @jdbig

    The District Attorney’s name in Solano County is Donald A. du Bain. He’s an elected official and theoretically will respond to constituent dissatisfaction with a felony charge and imprisonment contingent on $15k bail.

    Email for Solano County District Attorney:

    Telephone for Vallejo office:
    707-553-5321

    *Disclosure, I have no special info or connection to this issue other than the SFChron and KCRA stories, just shocked at the reports.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  31.  

    @jdbig

    how do we help this guy? Civil disobedience certainly should have a price (if, for nothing else, to ensure it still means something) but a felony charge is awfully excessive!

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  32.  

    biking in SF

    Your points and analogy make sense. How do you suggest one works with the public then? As far as I can tell, everyone that has a preferred travel mode in mind – except maybe transit riders, for some reason – throws a tantrum when they don’t get everything they want. And that’s what the politicos hear – the loudest voices.,

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  33.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Dr. Ace, I’m very sorry that people were rude at the meeting. There is no excuse for such behavior whether one is pro or anti-parking. However, the SFMTA has created this horrible dynamic by allowing such behavior to dictate their policies. When project planning is determined not by greatest good (or rationality of any kind) but by whichever side brings the rudest, most obnoxious, belligerent force to bear, then that is what people will do. I especially blame Reiskin backing down (“going back to the drawing board”) on Polk Street after being intimidated by such behavior at a “community” meeting. Just as in the case with Bevan Dufty and the Noe Street plaza, he rewarded and encouraged these tactics and made them the de facto way to kill a project in this city.

    What is the point of these community meetings? If they are just to inform, then that should be stated up front. But then the SFMTA should never delay, change or kill projects based on who shows up or how much they yell. They certainly should not gauge community support of a project by attendance at these meetings (which they clearly do.) If a large yelling crowd gets the SFMTA to do what you want, (if, in fact, yelling is the only way to get the SFMTA to do what you want, and reasoned discourse falls on deaf ears) then people will yell.

    Honestly, it’s like dealing with children. If you reward tantrums, kids have tantrums. It should hardly come as a surprise.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  34.  

    guerilla_crosswalk

    Also, police arrest a Vallejo man for painting a crosswalk:

    http://www.kcra.com/news/cops-spraypainter-tells-police-intersection-needed-crosswalk/-/11797728/20367740/-/bn3o3yz/-/index.html

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  35.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    These blocks of LIberty Street are entirely residential.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  36.  

    guerilla_crosswalk

    Also, police arrested a Vallejo man for painting a crosswalk

    http://www.kcra.com/news/cops-spraypainter-tells-police-intersection-needed-crosswalk/-/11797728/20367740/-/bn3o3yz/-/index.html

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Today's Headlines
  37.  

    Roy Crisman

    Unless, of course, they had tried to participate in a RPP but a local business claimed hardship and the modified RPP doesn’t cover the area directly outside their front door so they are excluded.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  38.  

    Anonymous

    I was at the meeting, and here is what happened: A presentation was given, and then we were asked to dispense with chairs and talk to representatives at their respective informative posters. One elderly woman requested that she get to ask her question in front of everyone, rather than speaking directly with the SFMTA representative more privately as suggested. People in the audience interrupted her, mocked her, and were generally very rude. I was quiet embarrassed and ashamed to be a member of the no-parking contingent at this meeting. It seems that the no-parking contingent was much more represented and vocal than the one woman wanting to keep the parking.

    I still think that the ‘best case scenario’ includes retaining at least 10 of the diagonal spaces near 21st St, even though most of the attendees at this meeting said “Take them all out!” This was the first meeting I had been to regarding this project, so I’m not sure what attendance looked like at previous ones.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  39.  

    mikesonn

    I’m sure ENUF was there as well.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  40.  

    murphstahoe

    Karen – “A couple of folks wearing “Save Polk Street” T-shirts were also spotted at the meeting.”

    This has evolved beyond hyper-local issues. Anyone with a hyper-local beef about parking is now running around town protesting every project because of the fear (perhaps not unfounded) that any project that removes parking will set a precedent that will impact their own locale.

    I can’t necessarily blame them, I do the same thing. The difference being that I probably ride down that street that merits the safety improvement, the Save Polk Street folks probably never heard of Bartlett Street until last week.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  41.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Once again we find people who have refused to participate in the residential parking permit program complaining about loss of parking when they won’t take the simplest of steps to improve parking availability through a nominal yearly fee. It was true with Fell/Oak Street, with NE Mission, and with lower Polk. The neighborhood blocks of LIberty Street between Dolores and Valencia have, quite intentionally, refused to be part of any surrounding RPP and as such have created a tight little donut hole of free parking that is constantly choked with people in cars jockeying to park there. (I’m surprised any of the residents drive at all since it must be nearly possible to park when they return home.) Hence their constant battle against reduced parking supply (or housing without parking) in adjoining areas for fear there will be even more parking pressure on their blocks.

    Of course this is a ridiculous, failing strategy. Putting a price on parking to discourage people from storing little-used cars on the street and discouraging out-of-neighborhood freeloaders would do far more for them. That they would argue against activating a community space near them that will decrease crime and improve surrounding property values is doubly insane.

    Get a clue, folks. Being a non-RPP neighbohood surrounded by RPP ones INDUCES ALL SORTS OF EXTRA PARKING DEMAND IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. Anyone who lives on a non-RPP block in San Francisco should basically be banned from whining about parking supply whatsoever.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles
  42.  

    murphstahoe

    at which time they shut them…

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  43.  

    Ryan Brady

    BART operators actually look out the window to see if people are running for the doors.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  44.  

    Ryan Brady

    Exactly, and it looks like the salary caps out at around 75k. For decades of service, I think that’s fairly reasonable, even if it is a low skill job.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  45.  

    Anonymous

    There’s nothing insane about people making 65K and receiving healthcare and retirement for a full time job in San Francisco.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  46.  

    murphstahoe

    I’d rather invest in the one BayArea transit system that works well – BART.

    How timely a comment with the current BART meltdown…

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  47.  

    Andy Chow

    Right now it is easier to create a privately run Muni alternative than to eliminate some unproductive Muni stops to speed up service. Although the city don’t endorse or license such operations there are regulatory gaps that some companies have taken advantage of. It seems like given that Muni can’t get its act together it might as well try not to actively prevent others to provide a Muni alternative.

    What Muni needs is a political will to get some of the basic improvements done, and should consider contracting out some of the operations to provide better management and supervision. I think people would appreciate a Muni that runs according to published timetable.

    May 31, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  48.  

    Andy Chow

    BART has an advantage with dedicated tracks. Other than that, BART isn’t really better than Muni in terms of customer service and how much their employees get paid. Unless there’s a political will to greatly expand the system, BART is just one transit route through San Francisco, which has and needs many more transit routes.

    May 30, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  49.  

    wonkster

    I think an hour is a unit that “everyone understands.” And of course I don’t think that it would make sense to “write down everyone’s name and day and time of delay and consequences, etc.”

    My point – which you seem to have completely missed – is that attaching a wild ass guess dollar figure to these delays doesn’t really tell us anything.

    If my lawyer friend and a Starbucks employee are delayed by an hour getting home from work on the same 1 California bus it doesn’t lead to any economic loss that can be measured by their hourly economic output at work. It means they lost an hour of their free time (i.e., their life). Trying to put it into a dollar figure for “lost productivity” is just an attempt to reinforce some argument that he cost of the delays is X dollars compared to the cost of paying to prevent the delays (presumably less than X dollars).

    If someone doesn’t get home in time to put their kid to bed it sucks. If someone gets to work late it sucks too. But putting a dollar figure on all of the lost time is just a gimmick and feeds into the idea that everything in life can somehow be quantified in economic units.

    May 30, 2013
    in response to Neglecting Muni Costs the Economy at Least $50 Million Per Year
  50.  

    Aaron Bialick

    Another clarification from Scott Wiener’s office: “Under our ordinance, anything taller than 6″ would be an obstruction. A parked car, pole, tree would be an obstruction, a mountable bulbout or concrete sidewalk would not.”

    May 30, 2013
    in response to Mission's People-Friendly Block on Bartlett Faces Fire Code, Parking Hurdles

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14