"My car stays my primary mode of transportation"
The letter below appeared in the Sept. 25 edition of the SF Chronicle:
So Muni's goal "is not to make (cars) the most convenient choice" of transportation in the city ("Cars to take a backseat in S.F." Sept. 22).
Sorry, Muni, that ain't gonna work for me. I have a business to run, and I haven't got time to take three different lines (which don't seem to have any recognizable connection schedules) to get across town to see a client and then have to reverse the process when our meeting is over.
Why should I waste an hour and a half in each direction taking/waiting for crowded and often unpleasant Muni when I can get to my client in 15 minutes or less by car? Should I send Muni a bill for the time I would have to waste using its service? I don't think so.
My car stays my primary mode of transportation.
Barbara Tetzlaff,
Sorry, Muni, that ain't gonna work for me. I have a business to run, and I haven't got time to take three different lines (which don't seem to have any recognizable connection schedules) to get across town to see a client and then have to reverse the process when our meeting is over.
Why should I waste an hour and a half in each direction taking/waiting for crowded and often unpleasant Muni when I can get to my client in 15 minutes or less by car? Should I send Muni a bill for the time I would have to waste using its service? I don't think so.
My car stays my primary mode of transportation.
Barbara Tetzlaff,
San Francisco
posted by Rob Anderson @ 12:58 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
What is the point of reposting this? This does nothing to validate any of your points.
It is in fact right on point. There are thousands of people in SF like Tetzlaff, economically productive citizens who need to drive to do business and live their lives. By trying to make it harder for people like her to function, the anti-car movement---let by people like the moron Nathaniel Ford and Cheryl Brinkman---is going to damage the city's economy.
Ms. Tetzlaff is an Estate attorney. What's economically productive about that ;)
The following letter was this one... which you declined to reprint.
All aboard, bikes
I have been riding Caltrain continuously the last 5 1/2 years from Sunnyvale to San Francisco.
My un-quantified observation is that the rate of cyclist use of the trains is accelerating. One of the primary trains I have been using, northbound No. 215, has a single bike-car and is routinely (80 percent or more of the time) full or over-capacity with the available 40 bike spaces.
Understanding that Caltrain now has significant concerns with meeting operating expenses, its would increase revenue with the simple addition of a second bike car on trains such as this one.
Without Caltrain, I would not have taken work in San Francisco, and I highly value the service. It is my hope that increased bike capacity, resulting in increased fare-box revenue to Caltrain, can improve the service even further.
Wayne Krill, Sunnyvale
I declined to reprint that letter because the topic is driving in San Francisco and the Ford/Brinkman stupidity. I like CalTrain, too, and I hope you and your bike live happily ever after. Have you given it a name yet?
By the way, disparaging how Tetzlaff makes a living is a bit of elitist crapola. She's in business for herself, lives in the city, and pays taxes here. Somehow that's not "economically productive" enough for you, Anon? She's contributing a lot more to the city than a lot of your sneering Punks on Bikes comrades.
"She's contributing a lot more to the city than a lot of your sneering Punks on Bikes comrades."
Actually, because I don't own a car and travel by foot, MUNI and bike I am able to use that money saved and spend it at local restaurants and shops.
If, however, I was forced to purchase a car, pay for upkeep, etc then my wife and I wouldn't have nearly the same amount of expendable income. That means less money into the hands of local business owners and less money into the coffers of the city (which you probably view as a good thing).
"My urine stays my primary drink"
What's the point of this? I agree with you Muni is a disgrace. Clearly if it were not, and if bike infrastructure were better, this woman might no drive. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but it sure seems a logical than despair, no?
"That means less money into the hands of local business owners and less money into the coffers of the city (which you probably view as a good thing)."
You wouldn't have to use "probably" when discussing my opinions if you weren't such a remedial reader, Mike. I've been writing this blog for almost six years now, and I take pride in the clarity of my prose. One of my main arguments against the Bicycle Plan and the anti-car movement in general is that it threatens to damage the city's economy by limiting the mobility of people like Tetzlaff on city streets.
"What's the point of this? I agree with you Muni is a disgrace. Clearly if it were not, and if bike infrastructure were better, this woman might not drive. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but it sure seems a logical than despair, no?"
I don't think Muni itself is "a disgrace," just that its leadership is dumb and, in Ford's case, wildly over-compensated at more than $300,000 a year. Muni works fine for me, but then I'm not in business for myself, pressed for time, and have to get quickly to appointments across town. Muni is still the best alternative to driving for most people in the city. The suggestion that she would/could do business on a bike if "bike infrastructure was better" is just ridiculous.
I think you should take pride in your uncanny ability to cherry pick comments.
I said "less money into the coffers of the city (which you probably view as a good thing)" since you think the city is just a "progressive" fiasco (whatever that means. Might as well call them hipsters since neither word has much meaning).
Yet, you completely ignored the part of my comment in which I state that because I don't own a car and am able to walk, Muni, and bike everywhere my wife and I are able to eat out and shop locally more. Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative of "she's contributing a lot more to the city than a lot of your sneering Punks on Bikes comrades".
Then add in that her car is highly subsidized by property taxes and those not using a car on the streets are over paying for use of the roads. Once again, not fitting your narrative. Which is probably why you ignored that fact when I posted it last week.
Whatever Barbara. That's fine. You can do whatever you like.
I'd just prefer it to not be done on my dime.
I "cherry-pick" comments? I posted your comment as you submitted it. You probably mean that I didn't see fit to reply to everything in your comment. So you and your wife don't own a car and walk, bike, and ride Muni. So what? Everyone who lives here contributes to the economy one way or another. My "narrative" includes the notion that small business owners like Tetzlaff---and tourists, buses, taxis, trucks---need to be able to move more or less easily through our streets. Deliberately jamming up traffic with the Bicycle Plan and the city's plans for Masonic Ave. is dumb and, if the city continues to push these anti-car policies, it's going to damage our economy.
My "narrative" includes the notion that small business owners like Tetzlaff
That letter doesn't indicate she is a small business owner. Is Tetzlaff one of your friends? Are you planting LTTE's now?
Not her first LTTE...
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-11/opinion/22213899_1_bike-lanes-bike-plan-bike-riders
Her letter says she "has a business to run." Whether she is a manager or sole proprieter, the notion that she should have to ride across town on Muni for appointments is still ridiculous. A lot of the city's commercial activity would grind to a halt if all our businesses had to rely on Muni or bikes.
"A lot of the city's commercial activity would grind to a halt if all our businesses had to rely on Muni or bikes."
The perhaps you should direct some energy from your frustrations toward improving transit integration, and improved walking and cycling infrastructure.
Your myopic criticism of the capabilities of non-car transportation does nothing to assist the city's commercial activity.
If the transit systems are integrated commerce can in many cases be conducted very efficiently by transit, ped & bike, leaving the motor transport infrastructure for those purposes appropriate to the mode.
Good parody, Philip. You've even broken some new ground with "non-car transportation" and "motor transport infrastructure for those purposes appropriate to the mode." Ah, yes, one spends a lifetime looking for that "appropriate mode." The "transit integration" dialogue, so to speak, will never be the same.
Rob: "She's contributing a lot more to the city than a lot of your sneering Punks on Bikes comrades."
Rob: "So what? Everyone who lives here contributes to the economy one way or another."
Um, which is it? Your circle logic is truly outstanding! The best part is you usually reference yourself so the contradictions are that much easier to find.
It's both, of course. Some people contribute more than others. I assume business owners contribute more than, say, a bike punk who parachuted into the city recently and is making a living waiting on tables.
Since people are only worth what they contribute economically, where do you fall in?
That's not what I'm saying at all. You're becoming a pest. Unless you start to upgrade your comments with at least some substance, I won't publish them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't "need" to block you, but you keep showing that you have nothing much to say with your carping, fact-free comments. Even Murph's comments had more substance than yours, not to mention your serious reading and comprehension issues.
Drivers vs cyclists paying their share for roads.
Grist article
Referenced Study
Post a Comment
<< Home