Another dumb idea from Mirkarimi
Last year Supervisor Mirkarimi won my Dumbest Idea of the Year award for proposing to eliminate the traffic underpass at Fillmore and Geary.
He's the leading candidate to win that award again for embracing the idea of converting Fell and Oak Streets into two-way streets:
He's the leading candidate to win that award again for embracing the idea of converting Fell and Oak Streets into two-way streets:
Converting Fell and Oak back to two-ways "would be fantastic," said Mirkarimi, "but at the very minimum, in the areas that also intersect Fell and Oak, like Masonic, that's exactly what we're trying to aim towards, is significant traffic calming, and I think the MTA has yet to produce any substantive answers."
Labels: Anti-Car, Panhandle, Ross Mirkarimi
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:18 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Yet another Pedestrian - not a cyclists - a pedestrian - was killed on Fell this week. Moving traffic is that much more important? If you say so, that's your opinion, but understand this is why you are vilified by the majority of people who have heard of you, because you use obstructionist tactics to prevent safety and livability improvements - because YOU like how it is here. You, and a dozen other crackpots.
Unfortunately, a majority of city residents hasn't heard of me. That bike nuts like you vilify me I see as validation. The successful litigation on the Bicycle Plan was an "obstructionist tactic"? Then why didn't Judge Warren and Judge Busch just throw our suit out of court? The answer: because it was obvious that the city was deliberately breaking the most important environmental law in California, the California Environmental Quality Act. You write as if there is some other way I've "obstructed" any of the other bogus "improvements" the city wants to make to our streets and neighborhoods. Could you list some others?
It sounds to me like that young woman tried to dash across Fell Street outside the crosswalk and had the bad luck to be hit by a car she didn't see. I too am a daily pedestrian in this part of town and often cross Fell and Oak Streets on foot. Obviously we all have to be very careful doing that. So screwing up traffic on Fell and Oak is justified because people who jaywalk on those streets get hit by cars? Bullshit. The city can't make it 100% safe from anyone, especially people who make risky decisions around traffic, including you and your bike nut comrades.
The lawsuit had a 100% chance of winning, and a zero percent chance of changing the eventual outcome. By my definition, that is obstructionism - utilizing the law not to change the outcome but to delay it.
Another fact-free comment from a know-nothing bike zealot. If only everyone would have consulted Murphy before the litigation, we all could have saved a lot of time and money! Your problem, Murph, is that you don't know what you don't know, which is characteristic of all know-it-alls. Any experienced lawyer will tell you that you never know what a judge or a jury is going to do, regardless of how good you think your case is.
Nor was the outcome---actually, the process isn't over yet---as expected, especially by the city's bike people. From the start, the SF Bicycle Coalition and many bike people commenting on my blog sneered at the very idea that the Bicycle Plan could possibly have any negative effect on the city's environment. As it turned out, the EIR on the Plan showed that our fears were completely justified, since it showed that implementing the Plan will indeed have "significant unavoidable impacts" on city traffic on a number of busy streets and at least nine Muni lines. And that's negative impacts, not positive impacts.
The results of the EIR roused the people on Second Street to oppose the city's plan for that busy street, causing the city to back off and negotiate an alternative with the residents of Second Street.
In short, the city now knows how the Bicycle Plan is going to impact traffic and Muni; they can't plead ignorance when the backlash against bike nuttery begins as the Plan is implemented. Before the successful litigation, the city could pretend that the Plan would have no effect on city traffic.
And we're going to challenge the adequacy of how grossly inadequate the EIR is in many respects, and Judge Busch will have another opportunity to send the city back to the drawing board if he agrees with us.
"Judge Busch will have another opportunity to send the city back to the drawing board if he agrees with us."
Not - "decide there should not be bike lanes" but "send back to the drawing board". Bike improvements will happen. You are just delaying them until the bitter end because you are a bitter old coot.
"You are a bitter old coot" - now there is a statement that is not fact free!
You are obviously incapable or unwilling to deal with the specifics of the Bicycle Plan, so why should anyone take you seriously? With you it's still about "improvements"---which is whatever the SF Bicycle Coalition wants to do to our streets---and "obstruction" of these noble ends. Well, bullshit. You haven't read the EIR on the Bicycle Plan, which Busch will have to do, so what makes you think you have a useful opinion on the issue?
murph: You haven't indicated in your posts how turning Oak and Fell into two-way streets would have save this woman's life. I don't even see how this would be good for bicyclists.
Although this type of accident is not typical of the area, what is typical is for progressives to find a radical and hugely expensive solution without any evidence that it would make a bit of differance.
Yes its sad that that woman lost her life, but using the death of that woman to push an anti-car agenda is cynical at best and abhorrent behaviour at worst.
It's pretty simple. Cars driving slower are less likely to kill someone than cars driving faster. Fell is currently designed to promote speeds not sensible for a dense mixed residential/retail area. Specific to cyclists, reconfiguring Fell would be good in that cyclists would no longer have to maneuver around the half dozen cars parked in the bike lane waiting to fill up at the ARCO station.
The statement that Fell/Oak is unsafe can only be supported by facts - in this case a very clear fact that someone died. It would be far more abhorrent for us to ignore that her death was made more likely because we were unwilling to improve the safety on our streets.
Everything is simple to the simple-minded. From what's known about this woman's death so far, she apparently was jaywalking across the street from behind a parked car and got hit by a car she didn't see. We're all taught from an early age to look both ways before crossing. Jaywalkers getting killed on city streets is not unusual. The notion that the city must somehow make its streets perfectly safe for everyone---reckless pedestrians and suicidal cylists---regardless of circumstances is just dumb, which is why Mirkarimi and you support it.
Another dumb idea from Mirkarimi, can't wait until his term is up and he leaves the City. It appears the young woman who died on Fell last week was running against a light, unfortunately this happens quite a bit in SF. And why exactly do we need a bike lane on Fell St? Get off your ass and bike up Hayes or Fulton Street.
Yes, now that the Murk is married and soon to be a father, maybe he'll head to the burbs like Daly. Mirkarimi has collaborated on more damage to the city than I thought possible in five short years---the Rincon Hill condos for the rich; the Market/Octavia Plan (40-story highrises at Market and Van Ness!); and the despicable sell-out to UC on the old extension site. Not to mention all the "improvements" now underway with the Murk's blessing on Divisadero. And the looming implementation of the Bicycle Plan, which the city knows is going to screw up traffic.
Only a moron would ride a bike on Fell Street, especially given the nearby alternatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home