Muni's contempt for its passengers 2
As the city fights an ongoing battle against illegal billboards and advertising, it continues to allow ads on windows of Muni buses that prevent passengers from getting a clear view of their city. In spite of paying lip service to the notion that San Francisco is a "transit first" city, in reality Muni passengers are treated as strictly second-class citizens.
Boom or bust, the city never gets around to finding enough money for Muni, which has a chronic budget deficit, the excuse for allowing the advertisements that cover bus windows---they need the money! Only Supervisor McGoldrick questioned the practice shortly before leaving office.
The latest sign of the city's contempt for those of us who rely on Muni: the rush to implement the Bicycle Plan, which, as the massive environmental impact report tells us, is going to jam up traffic all over the city, including the Muni system that already has chronic on-time problems.
Labels: Ads on Muni Buses, Bicycle Plan, Muni
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:21 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
"The latest sign of the city's disregard for those of us who rely on Muni: the rush to implement the Bicycle Plan, which, as the massive environmental impact report tells us, is going to jam up traffic all over the city..."
No, what the EIR says is that there will be impacts.
Of course, if it's true that providing bike lanes increases bike mode-share (which seems to be the typical case), then there will be less car traffic for MUNI to get stuck in anyway.
So, you know-- chill the fuck out.
Just some kind of neutral "impacts"? No, when the EIR says "significant unavoidable impacts," it means negative impacts on Muni, which means it will be slowed down. This will be done based on the completely unjustified assumption that people will be abandoning their cars in favor of bikes. Pretty stupid stuff. But then you bike assholes have never really been interested in Muni; it's all about your juvenile fixation on bikes.
'Slowed down' is not the same as 'jam up traffic all over the city'.
"This will be done based on the completely unjustified assumption that people will be abandoning their cars in favor of bikes."
It's also based on the idea that enough people are already riding bikes that giving them a safer place to do so might make sense.
Even the Bicycle Coalition claims that only 6% of trips in the city are done by bicycle. Is that enough to make traffic worse for everyone else? Of course it's more than enough for the tiny little minds of you fanatics, who are saving the planet from Death Machines, aka automobiles.
"6% of trips in the city are done by bicycle."
Thanfully car nuts like Rob Anderson aren't in a position to deny cyclists the right to bike.
If cyclists were forced into cars that would really screw up the traffic.
6% is a fairly large proportion. It's certainly enough to create a basic network of bike routes for those who are cycling.
Bikes aren't going to screw up traffic, they're going to diversify traffic. System-wide, traffic will flow more freely.
Choking every street with cars is what's really screwing Muni up and is, obviously, the source of traffic jams.
I hate those giant adverts too, but for the first time in the 13 years I've lived here it looks like Muni is taking a positive direction by reducing stops and re-working lines. In a year we might have a useful system again, so I'm willing to live with those billboards if this makes it happen faster.
But another 10,000 cars on the road would make Muni even faster!!!
I'm kind of amazed that someone would dare say that 6 percent of trips are by bicycle! Where's the proof?
The US Census Bureau reports that number as 2.2 percent. Check it out:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-state=dt&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G2000_B08301&-tree_id=3307&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US06075&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
Some people live in fantasy land.
I think you are confusing the city's contempt for Muni passengers with your contempt for the bike people.
Bikes are a form of transportation. Cyclists are able to get around the city and fill transit service gaps because of their bikes. Passengers are able to get farther. We should be supporting potential synergy here, not limiting it. Bikes support and enhance the transit as a form of complementary, not just alternative, transportation.
Yes of course bikes are a form of transportation, but they are not an adequate substitute for Muni, which is the only real alternative to driving in the city for most of us. The "synergy" is already there. Alas, the Bicycle Plan puts the bicycle above Muni in importance.
Post a Comment
<< Home