Ed Reiskin & London Breed Ensure Hysteria-Based SFMTA Decisions to Flourish

Think removing two bus stops on the same block is a no-brainer and is in the best interest of all transit users?  Well, you forgot where you live.

As my vast audience of faithful readers is well aware, Dearest District Five often has harsh and richly deserved criticisms for the SFMTA.  Whether they are recklessly wreaking havoc on the world economy by eliminating the profits of Apple, Ferrari, and Disney AND crushing the dreams of children—and during the holidays, no less!  Or destroying the economic vitality of the entire San Francisco Bay region and pooping on the grave of William Hammond Hall by completely ruining Golden Gate Park, they often seem to believe that they can and should make changes to our city, which is clearly ridiculous.

We were cautiously optimistic that the changes proposed in the Transit Effectiveness Plan (TEP) would be sufficiently watered-down and compromised away after a series of public meetings.   Because when it comes to making decisions in San Francisco, everyone's opinion matters, even when it comes down to removing two bus stops on the same block.  So when the SFMTA wants to make even a minor seemingly sensible change, they make sure they get the input of every single person in San Francisco and pay close attention to the loudest and most incoherent people on the planet.   And boy, did they do a great job with that here on a project close to both the block of Hayes street between Masonic and Central has not one, but two bus stops.  Yes, it is possible to walk from one bus stop to the other without ever crossing a street.

Which one should we remove?  Should we even remove one of them?  Why don't we ask everyone in the micro-community!

Ed Reiskin, the head of a transit agency that employs engineers with transportation engineering degrees from such laughable institutions as Cal Poly State University SLO, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Cornell Unversity, UC Santa Cruz, and the University of Washington did what a true leader does: he turned to the community to make decisions for him.  Specifically, the crazy community.

Removing two stops on the same block should never be an independent decision by the transit authority. 

Like clockwork, the task of removing a bus stop, like the 70% of them that aren't even to the SFMTA's standards, it quickly turned into a SFSS (San Francisco Shit-Show) and all kinds of crazy came out of the woodwork, mainly those who delusionally believed that they could be negatively affected by the removal of a bus stop.  The most active party in this case was the owner of Central Coffee, which has thwarted bus removal time and time again.  This time they successfully whipped up hysteria by claiming that the entire bus line would soon be terminated if ONE OUT OF TWO BUS STOPS ON THE SAME BLOCK were eliminated.

The SFMTA is extraordinarily receptive to any kind of hysteria-based conclusions.  Even from sub-par coffee shops like Central Coffee. Image via SFCitizen

A SFMTA official was asked about the logic behind keeping two stops on the same block and they said, "we just want to make sure that people who don't have any concept of how transit works, or should work, gets a say in the process.  Even though we know it needs to be removed, we rely on the loudest and craziest people to make these decisions for us.  Other transit changes like adding an extra stop to the already stop heavy Van Ness BRT, nixing a complete raised bike lane on Polk Street, and slowing down the upcoming Geary BRT in the interest of car parking along the upcoming Geary BRT have all been scrapped in the interest of a few angry & misguided residents.  Because why on earth would we want to rely on best practices in the field, the expert analysis of our own staff members, or even our own agency's empirical experience?  No, the best people to make decisions about transit planning are those whose minds are pure, who have not been tainted by experience or education."

SFMTA always makes sure to have billions of meetings with angry loud individuals so they can water down perviously approved plans from engineers & experts, like the scrapped Polk Street bike plan.

Bob's Commentary: It cannot be overemphasized that Ed Resikin did a great thing here.  When faced with a deluge of identical email parroting the same nonsensical talking points such as this:

 "YOU CANNOT TAKE OUR BUS LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  REMOVING THE SECOND STOP IN A BLOCK WILL DIRECTLY RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WE CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR NEFARIOUS PLAN TO ELIMINATE OF THE MOST HIGH-TRAFFIC BUS LINES IN THE CITY BY MAKING A SMALL STEP TO IMPROVE IT AND BRING THIS PART OF THE LINE UP TO YOUR OWN STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!" 

Did Ed exercise leadership?  Did he respond to each message with a careful explanation of SFMTA's own evidence-based policies and the time and cost savings that would be involved?  Did he note that the stop in question is literally without shouting distance of two other stops and on the same block with one of them?  Did he assure people that removing one stop is not foreshadowing the removal of an entire major bus line?

The answer, dear readers, is no.  No, the SFMTA director of transportation did not take an opportunity to engage with his community and exercise leadership in explaining a decision made falsely controversial by outright lies.  He simply rolled over and allowed a loud liar with access to a photocopier and the tired bus riders who saw a scary sign to make city policy.  And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing.

Ed Reiskin is ~all about~ improving Muni, except when it comes to removing bus stops within 300 feet of each other. 

As you may have noticed from Ed Reiskin's email above, there is still, sadly, one unnecessary gatekeeper between the people's transit planning and the real world.  We can only hope that the MTA board doesn't allow logic or basic common sense to enter into this situation.  If you worry that the MTA board will recklessly and foolishly remove the second bus stop in a single block, you can contact them to register your outrage: MTABoard@sfmta.com.  Until next time, keep loving your city so much it can never, ever change.

Sunnyvale City Council Votes to Support 'Fuck You BRT Buses You're Stuck in Traffic With us' Plan

"Think we're going to make your bus trip any faster by dedicating lanes?  Screw that. You're going to be miserable with us."
Photo: Andrew Boone

Most people will agree that El Camino Real is a REAL traffic nightmare (see what I did there?!)  City council members listened to a plan to convert 2 of the 8 lanes dedicated to moving or parking cars to actually moving large groups of people.  They were then told that the Bus Rapid Transit plan could cut transit rider's trips nearly in half along the length of El Camino Real and encourage more drivers to get off the roads.  Council member's jaws dropped at the thought of such a wacky and outlandish plan to fix congestion by seeking alternate modes of transport. When someone suggested that self-driving robot cars would fix the congestion issues at some point in the future squeals of delighted and high-fives soon followed.

All 8 lanes are needed to move and store cars.  Sorry everyone else, traffic means that traffic has to stay!

A few council members said that they shouldn't invest in a proven transit solution because self-driving cars at some point in time are going to make it irrelevant.   Instead of dedicated bus lanes, the council voted 4-3 to have “mixed flow” lanes along a corridor that would include "improved bulbout” bus stops. "This way the buses can stop at these bulbouts enrage drivers behind them who have to stop, and then when the bus leaves the bulbout they're fucked in traffic with the rest of us." said one grinning city council member.

Give up 1 lane of traffic each way for thousands of other people?  Uhhh... yeah I don't think so.  We'll wait for robot cars kthxbye.
image found here.

Despite the fact that over 30 percent of all trips within a mile of their destination are taken by car, the council voted to pass a standing resolution, "1.3 Subsection F - U: Bike & Ped Upgrades" to keep sidewalks narrow and have bikers "duke it out between moving and parked cars like the rest of us motorists."  This would also ensure that no one get the dumb idea to actually walk or bike along the stroad and stick to trusty motorist transit until the robots arrive.

Part of the plan is to extend "mixing zones" to bikers in the form of uneven pavement between parked cars, right turn lanes, and swift moving cars.
images courtesy: Janet Lafleur - http://ladyfleur.bike

Shelby Winters understands the issue all too well as she commutes back and forth by car each day and loses more than 10 hours a week stuck in traffic. "Oh god it's always a nightmare with the crashes", she exclaimed, "the stop and go traffic is just soul crushing.  I just wish they could do something about this without changing anything that in any way impedes my ability to use every lane on El Camino Real".

After the meeting was over, the city council gleefully drove their cars into traffic, knowing that they probably solved a problem with robot cars in the not-so-but-might-be-distant future.

Robot cars will eventually fix this traffic problem.
original picture by Andrew Boone

SFMTA Board of Directors Nearly Mistook San Francisco for a City at Polk Street Meeting

SFMTA Board of Directors hearing crazy stories about the 85% of people who get to Polk Street without a two ton machine that runs on dinosaur juice.
image via Fitz The Reporter

On March 3rd at City Hall, the Board of Directors were rattled when they had to face the idea that San Francisco might not be a sprawling suburb.  Mayor Lee's political buffer was tasked with deciding if one street, in all of San Francisco, wouldn't have car storage.  As citizens weighed in on the plan for the 8 millionth time in 3 years, the Board of Directors got mixed signals that perhaps, just perhaps, San Francisco was actually a compact pedestrian-rich, multimodal city.

SF Board of Directors passed a "Bike Improvements" that any suburb would be moderately proud of!
image found here.  

What started as a complete Vision Zero style street with buffered bike lanes and priorities to movement other than cars, it soon devolved into a bike plan suburbia could find appealing. The Board of Directors heard horror stories that people might lose their way of life if forced to park on the 99.999999% of other street in SF that have car storage.

One person complained,"I'm too obese to bike" and went on to say that her husband also can't walk but oddly can't get a disability placard. There was also a concern for the elderly and other groups of people who should control tons of metal at high speed but are incapable of walking 2 blocks or taking the bus.  The Board of Directors sympathized for those who lived in the compact city of San Francisco, but couldn't operate outside of the single driver and parking paradigm.

“I’m not saying other things aren't important, because clearly they are — safety is paramount,”said Gwyneth Borden ,"but we cannot forget what makes San Francisco San Suburbcisco —slogs of parking on the roads and tons of motorist traffic.”
Gwyneth Borden. Image: SFGovTV

The Board of Directors fulfilled their duty as a political buffer between Mayor Lee and the public continued to listen for four hours.  They made sure to be silent for a few seconds when a death or injury was mentioned and then quickly moved back to parking concerns.  They knew they could could take comfort in the fact that the mayor had already made backroom deals with many of the merchants, thus solidifying a bike plan on the simple premise that parking belongs on every single street of San Suburbscisco.  Fortunately, the initial bike plan was whittled away by a favor to his optometrist who got one free block of bike lane removal. His gardener also gets to veto one of the crosswalks, and his mustache groomer received six blocks at a 55 mph speed limit.

Ultimately the Board of Directors approved a "Solomon Solution"which strikes a balance between the people getting hurt and killed on the street with the convenience of those doing the maiming.  Once the plan was approved, the Board of Directors jumped in their private automobiles and skidded back home, congratulating themselves on a job that any car dependent suburb would be proud of.

What do these streets in Portland, New York, Seattle all have in common?  They're things you'll never see on Polk Street.

Vision Impaired Mayor Lee Still Seeking "Balanced Eyewear"

Mayor Lee's 13th time at the optometrist to seek "balanced eyewear" that "everyone will like."
image found here. 

As mayor of San Francisco, Lee has a lot of important decisions to leave to others, and eyewear is no different.  As Lee's personal driver parked into one Drs. Hiura & Hiura Optometrists god given parking spots (devoid of dedicated bike lanes) he said, “Everyone else is the expert. There's so many issues to balance when it comes to choosing eyewear, and I just want to make sure I embrace a decision that I had nothing to do with.”

Some people argued that Mayor Lee is wasting everyone's time as he already agreed to a standard eyewear design long ago and even touted it in many of his speeches.  He promised long ago he would  prioritize the safety of the eyewear above anything else.  Others argued, "Look, you can't have everything in one pair of glasses here, and you're going to have to make a decision. Not everyone is going to be happy and as the mayor you need to accept that. Just pick the one that's the safest!  Stop being a non-mayor, mayor!"

With the advice of everyone, especially those having tantrums, Mayor Lee is leaning towards the "Zero-Vision" model.  

There was an audible gasp at the eyewear unveiling.  Some people questioned if he really thought the safety was the number one priority.  Others said that that an eyeglasses company kept calling his office and lobbying him to demand for a different prescription and so he had it changed. When asked about his opinion on the glasses, Mayor Lee explained,"I can’t have a particular position on which eyeglasses I want, except to endorse the most balanced approach because there’s issues with prescription, design and safety that should not be in conflict. We shouldn't promote the prescription strength over aesthetics or whatever the loud constituents want.  I think they’re all going to be important."  People started scratching their heads when they heard the mayor's "word soup."

As the mayor left the optometrist and dashed into his free chauffeured car, he said, "I can't comment right now on the eyewear design.  All I know is I'm sure as hell not getting here by riding Muni or biking. That's for photo ops."

When you have vision problems, make sure to drive on over to Drs. Hiura & Hiura Optometrists.  Park in one of the few spots that sustains all of their business.  

Nanny State Laws Enacted for Cyclists and Basketball Players

In Steve Rubenstein's punny article "Some bicyclists are hardheaded about mandatory-helmet law" (did you get that part, hardheaded?! Hahahaha *wipes tear)  he goes to great lengths to show how foolish someone would be if they didn't wear a helmet leisurely riding a bicycle in a city.   He doesn't address ~probably~ fictional places like "Malmö" where there are allegedly 310 miles of dedicated bike lanes that are separated by a divider and up a level from car traffic. In the 10 years from 2003 to 2012, the city has seen only 16 cyclists killed in an accident involving a car.

Where are your bike helmets Malmo?  You don't even really exist!
image found here.

Steve' and his group Citizens Advocating Reasonable Suggestions ('C.A.R.S') say, "Getting a helmet onto a grown-up bicyclist’s head isn’t a no-brainer, even though the saving of brains is the idea." Oh god did he just say that?!  Brilliant!  Read the entire article for a whole slew of zingers like this.  Steve gleefully avoids discussing other weird countries that don't have the same kinds of problems that the United States has with cyclists for some unknown reason.

I don't care if bikers have an incredibly low injury and fatality rate Amsterdam!  You should go to jail for not wearing a helmet!!!
image found here

Officials began to realize that it's a lot easier to enact nanny state laws and blame everything on helmets than to build infrastructure.  "Helmets are an inexpensive way of putting the onus on the person who got struck by a 2 ton vehicle traveling at high speeds" said Sergent Gary Walker, as he sped off in his tank-like cop car.  

Bicycle advocates, and anyone who understands simple statistics, warned that helmets could actually have an adverse affect on cycling safety.  They cited several articles that showed the more bikers who were out on the streets, the safer they became, so helmets could actually reduce the amount of people biking on the streets and make everyone less safe. They also said that if we're going to make cyclists wear helmets then why not make basketball players, since the sport is the most dangerous in the country.

Just put a helmet on it, duh.

Concerned mothers and aunts soon began asking "why are WE THE TAXPAYERS paying for this special interest groups private playgrounds? The basketball courts put in public parks take away parking AND have to be paid for by funds that the BASKETBALL PLAYERS won't chip in for!?! The basketball lobby clearly has infiltrated parks & rec departments all across the county! How many basketball injuries go unreported each year? ITS THE NUMBER THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!"

As soon as officials heard this information, they immediately called for helmets to be worn by every basketball player.  Anyone found not wearing a helmet would be a charged $200 fine.  Basketball players have not taken these suggestions very well and said that it would make people less inclined to play basketball.  Some basketball fans have cried out that they don't want to see their favorite player in a helmet.

Oh enjoy the novelty now, but these will be mandatory soon!
image found here.

News of this reached all the way up to the NBA, which then issued a statement in retaliation. Hey, did you know"35,200 people died in US traffic accidents, plus there were about 3.8 million crash injuries requiring medical attention."  If you think that basketball or even cycling injuries is a big deal, how are you even allowing people to drive, much less without helmets?"

The best way to prevent a fraction of the 35,000 deaths in the United States? More like nanny state bullshit!
image found here.

"C.A.R.S" lashed out saying, "this ridiculous burden on motorists would be difficult to enforce and would lead to a lot of unnecessary citations."  They also claimed that this might turn more people off to driving if they're forced to wear a helmet, and what would they do then?!  C.A.R.S. made more reasonable suggestions, like mandatory helmets for pedestrians and banning them from most city "stroads".  

Officials Send Strong Message to Motorists: 'Don't be Drunk When You Drive Like a Drunk'

Driver who sped and killed was checked for drugs and alcohol, then sent on her merry way.  This sends a clear message: Don't be drunk, because you could have done the thing you just did, drunk.
image found here

Over 30,000 people in the United States perish as a result of auto crashes, and one third of those accidents are the result of drunk driving.  The other two-thirds are the result of behaving drunk while driving.  Police all over the country test people after they've been involved in crashes to send a strong message,"if you recklessly speed, run through a red light, or otherwise endanger pedestrians, you better not be drunk when you do it."

Driver jumps a curb and hits five children near Queens School, gets a breathalyzer.  He didn't have any alcohol in his system when he disregarded the safety of others.  No charges.
image found here.

San Francisco makes certain their reckless drivers are sober.  Evidence supported that Muzaffar was completely sober when he was checking his phone and making a fast right turn in his SUV, failing to yield to 3 people, killing 1 and seriously injuring the others. Investigators found there was no cause for charging Muzaffar with gross negligence as a felony, because he wasn't intoxicated.   So the lesson is clear, don't be drunk when you behave drunk or you'll pay dearly.

Muzaffar is very lucky to have been driving recklessly and without any care to the personal well-being of others, sober, or he could have gotten a worse sentence.
image found here.

All over the country, Police, District Attorneys and Judges are working tirelessly to make the streets free of impaired motorists.  They hope that some day we'll live in a world where we're only struck and killed by impatient and distracted drivers who are fully aware of what they're doing, and get away scot-free.  

Bob Gunderson's Street Breakdown

Everything you wanted to know about streets but were too dumb to ask.