Corporate Bike Rentals in the Mission

Open letter to the Mayor Breed and District Supervisors Cohen and Ronen:

Re: Corporate Bike Rentals in the Mission

We just got word that Motivate/Lyft is planning to install GoBikes on the southwest corner of Utah and 25th St. where there is a school and a Healthy San Francisco building. The East Mission Improvement Association, residents and nearby neighbors oppose this installation and request that the Board of Supervisors stop further installations of GoBikes in the neighborhood around General Hospital, where both neighbors and hospital employees are struggling with difficult problems on the street and violent behavior has escalated.

We understand that the SFMTA CAC passed two motions last week that will be presented to the SFMTA Board that detail important changes in the “shared bike program” that they would like to see considered. Please review these prior to approving more station installations.

There has been a huge backlash against corporate takeover of public streets in the Mission, there have been at least three public meetings to discuss the loss of public access to curb space, and more are anticipated.

Sincerely,

Mari Eliza

Download document SFMTA CAC motions
or read them online

Send letters and comments to the Mayor and Supervisors. Contacts are here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/san-francisco-officials/

 

Advertisements

Lime adds more drama to SF’s e-scooter saga

E-scooters can really rile people up — whether it’s cities trying to contain the onslaught of the mini motorized vehicles, or celebs such as actor-turned-venture-capitalist Ashton Kutcher fighting for their rights at a tech conference, it seems we are a nation divided.

And sometimes, it’s the scooter companies that can get all hot and bothered.

Take Lime, for example. Last week, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency shut down any aspirations the scooter-share company had of operating in the city, instead giving two newer companies, Scoot and Skip, permits to test scooters within the city for the next year…

About five minutes before the panel, titled “Scooting Through Regulation,” which would have featured Emily Warren, head of policy and public affairs at Lime, Sanjay Dastoor, Skip’s CEO, and SFMTA official Tom Maguire, a Lime spokesperson issued a statement explaining that Lime would not attend the panel… (more).

‘Eroding the Confidence’: SF Mayor Breed Blasts Muni Officials For Flawed Service

By Sam Brock : nbcbayareanews – excerpt (includes video)

One day after San Francisco Mayor London Breed blasted the Muni director in a letter, accusing him of “eroding the confidence” of riders in the system, the mayor took a ride on Muni and continued her criticism.

Breed said Tuesday you can’t push people to use public transportation and then have the transit not work. From widespread delays in service to the recent death of a construction worker, Breed said she’s fed up, and her concerns are echoing through City Hall… (more)

SFMTA Board reacted to the Mayor’s threats and the public’s outrage by ignoring it.

First, they ignored public request to limit the Geary BRT Red Lanes to Muni and taxis only, and retain some popular bus stops.

The Board approved recently unveiled plans to allow non-public transportation corporations access to Transit only Red Lanes.  Liz Brisson, SFMTA’s Project Manager for the Geary Project, claimed the definition of a bus is a vehicle transporting 9 or more people. This is news to many people who opposed the non-Muni vehicles at the meetings. When was this definition written and why was this intent not explained in previous presentations of the Geary BRT plan?

Were the Supervisors aware of this when they approved Phase I of the Geary BRT?

Will this new information be factored into the case against Phase II of the Geary BRT currently under litigation, or will City Hall settle the case rather than continue to fund the legal battles of this devious department?

Not only did we learn that Transit only does not mean public transit only, but, we also learned that the claims of time savings in the red lanes is not supported by factual analysis of existing red lanes. Perhaps we now can see the reasons why that may be the case. It seems that all red lanes are not created equal. It seems that the only time pubic transit only applies is when the lanes are “protected” inside a physical barrier. Otherwise you must read the signs to determine who is allowed on the red lanes. This begs the question, why paint the lanes red when the color is meaningless? Who is making a profit off this paint job?

After the startling bait and switch revelations and the Geary BRT approval, the Board went into private session for Ed Reiskin’s job review. As expected, the Board ignored the Mayor’s comments on the Director’s poor leadership and mismanagement of contracts.

The SFMTA Board commended Ed Reiskin on his work with the department, failed to scold or reprimand him for any of his mistakes or misdeeds, included those he admitted to, and announced their continued support for his leadership of the disgraced department.

What will our Mayor do about this rogue board and department that insults our intelligence by repeated attempts to deceive us? Will she appoint a strong new Director to the Board to replace the recently departed one hired by the department to handle the public through public outreach? Will the Board of Supervisors hand the decision over to the public in the form of a Charter Amendment? Will our Mayor support this option? You may want to weigh in if you have an opinion. Contacts with City Hall are here:  https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/san-francisco-officials/

REALATED:

Private buses have driven in city ‘transit-only’ lanes for years — with the city’s blessing, and in spite of the law

By Joe Eskenazi : missionlocal – excerpt

… Does it make sense to allow private buses or other such vehicles in red carpet lanes — or not — on a Byzantine, lane-by-lane, project-by-project basis? If you’re a transit layman, you’d probably say “no.” And, it turns out, if you’re a transit expert you’d say “no,” too…

The city’s administration of its “transit-only” lanes has only grown more haphazard and opaque in the past dozen years — not that the citizens who came out Tuesday to yell about the Geary Rapid Project (or, quite possibly, the commissioners they were yelling at) ever realized this was happening…

But is it legal? That’s confusing, too… (more)

 

Should private shuttles be able to use Muni-only lanes?

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

MTA says yes — but the public can weigh in Tuesday.

San Francisco transit planners have been working for years on a proposal to create bus-only lanes on Geary Boulevard. It’s called Bus Rapid Transit, and the idea is that – since we (unfortunately) don’t have a subway line underneath the Geary corridor, we can do the next best thing by creating lanes just for Muni.

Time the traffic signals right, keep cars out of the way of buses, and people can ride faster from the Richmond and the Western Addition to downtown…

The plan comes up for discussion at the MTA’s meeting Tuesday/21 – and there’s a twist…

Activists have discovered that Muni’s current proposal would allow not only Muni buses but private shuttles, like Chariot and the Google buses – to use the city’s public transit-only lanes.

Environmentalist and transit advocate Sue Vaughan (who has also written for 48hills) asked at an MTC Citizens Advisory Committee meeting in July whether private shuttles would be allowed to use the BRT lanes. MTC staff didn’t have an answer at that point – but a series of follow-up emails obtained by Vaughan show that the department believes under current rules, any private company that runs a bus with a capacity of more than ten people (including the driver) would count as “transit” and would be allowed on what were originally described as Muni-only lanes… (more)

The national press has been covering the anger and actions against privatization of public streets for years. SF Board of supervisors passed Ordinanace 180089 to give voters some control over access to curbs. There hearings on the horizon along with the Controller reports we have requested for months.

What does SFMTA do? Blame Muni for the slowdown and hand over more traffic lanes to private enterprise, not covered by the ordinance. while spending hours of staff time developing an elite program for corporate e-bikes, and deserting vast numbers of Muni riders during the largest transit crisis in years.

Must the public demand the removal of Reiskin and a vote on a Charter Amendment to roll back SFMTA autonomy to get relief? Will Mayor Breed appoint a strong new MTA Board Director to the current regime at the SFMTA Board, who will return Muni’s attention to making Muni an attractive reliable functioning option?

You can only pretend the emperor is dressed for so long. It is hard to take a bus that does not arrive to pick you up. It is past time to replace the leadership at SFMTA.

RELATED:

Letters to SFMTA Board:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/private-transit-not-belong-dedicated-bus-lanes/

https://metermadness.wordpress.com/red-lane-experiments/private-transport-should-not-be-allowed-to-use-transit-only-lanes/

 

 

SFMTA Pulls 180 on Costly McAllister Traffic Circle

By Nuala Sawyer : sfweekly – excerpt

Step aside, needles and poop! Traffic circles are here, and San Franciscans are not happy.

Officials from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are backpedaling on an ill-fated traffic circle installed in a residential neighborhood earlier year. The $80,000 circle was installed at McAllister and Steiner streets this spring and is already scheduled for removal — which is another $40,000…

For the past few months, the circle has caused immense confusion for drivers; it doesn’t operate like a normal roundabout, which runs on a first-come, first-serve basis. Instead, two stop signs on Steiner block traffic and give a bus flying down McAllister or a cyclist huffing and puffing up it the right of way through the intersection.

According to neighbors who live along the route, drivers of 5-Fulton buses have been preemptively leaning on their horns as they approach Steiner just in case a car misunderstands the circle and blindly cuts out in front of them… (more)

Here is a perfect example of why we need to overhaul the SFMTA. Too many mistakes and too much wasted taxpayer dollars are going down the drain. Why should the voters support any more money for a failed system? We don’t need faster moving buses. We need a reliable transit system. The Board of Supervisors needs to listen to the operators and maintenance crew and skip the long lunches and meetings with management if they want to find out what the problems are.

SF supe calls for hearing to investigate citywide Muni delays

By : sfexaminer – excerpt

Muni service has slowed to a crawl citywide, and now one supervisor wants answers.

At the Tuesday meeting of the Board of Supervisors Supervisor Vallie Brown called for a hearing into Muni slowdowns that have affected more than 30 routes across The City.

“Not a day has gone by that I haven’t heard from my constituents about the issues we’re facing with Muni, that it’s not reliable, and that there are not enough buses,” Brown told the San Francisco Examiner in a statement… (more)

Good start for the new supervisor. Hope we can see some action from the rest of the Board to stop the new projects until they finish the ones they have going now. They should drop all unnecessary projects and put some on hold while they figure out how to move the riders who need to get to work every day. We don’t need high tech gadgets and data. We need low tech buses and trains that run on a regular schedule we can rely on.

RELATED:
Video Interview with BATWG Chair Jerry Cauthen
Some suggestions for solving the problem that may interest our resaders.

130 affordable housing units result of land transfer between SF agencies

: sfchronicle – excerpt

A proposed property transfer between San Francisco agencies that could yield up to 130 new affordable housing units was approved Wednesday by the Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee…

The MTA’s Board of Directors passed a resolution supporting the sale of the lot in 2012. Two years later, the agency struck an agreement to sell it to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, which has long sought to develop the site for 100 percent affordable housing…

As part of the agreement, the SFMTA would sell the parcel to the mayor’s housing office for $6.15 million. As a so-called enterprise agency, the SFMTA — like the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission — is allowed to buy and sell its own properties. Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development would cover $2.5 million worth of transfer costs. The remaining $3.65 million would come from the city’s affordable housing fund…

Developing the windswept lot into housing will cost an estimated $96 million. To pay for it, Hartley said the city would contribute around $35 million, with the remainder coming from low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bond debt and additional state credits that the developers, Related California and the Mission Housing Development Coalition, can apply for… (more)

Since the city owns the land one would assume the city determines who the developers are. They are just in the process of transferring the land. How do they already have developers picked out and who and when was this determined? Some will remember that a company called Related is a luxury condo developer who owned Motivate, the bike share company that recently sold GoBike to Lyft. Do we see a pattern here?

As many San Francisco residents are being displaced by newcomers with a different set of interests and morals, is it time for the citizens of this city to ask some tough questions about how their city is being managed and for whom?  Is it just a coincidence that the same names pop up repeatedly in every city contract? Are you represented by in the non-profit groups showing up at every city hall meetings begging for exclusive privileges?

 

Lyft’s Big Bike-Share Buy Is About Ruling the Streets

By Aarian Marshal : wired – excerpt

Today, Lyft announced it has acquired North America’s largest bike-share operator, Motivate, for a reported $250 million. The move comes just three months after archrival Uber took over Jump Bicycles, a smaller and flashier dockless electric bike-share company, for $200 million. And thus, the urban transportation wars click into a higher gear, as the fight moves to the bike lane…

In a blog post, Lyft said it would take over Motivate’s technology and corporate functions, including, critically, its city contracts...

On its face, the acquisition of Motivate—which will be rebranded Lyft Bikes—makes a ton of sense. Ride-hailing companies are nervous that vehicles like cycles and scooters will cut into their business by giving people cheaper, traffic-free options for making short trips through dense areas. So instead of fighting these new modalities, the ride-hailing giants bought them out…

That could be the sort of advantage Lyft needs to dominate transportation across the city landscape, no matter your mode of choice. If, that is, it can answer a few pesky questions.

Relationships

Motivate has decade-long agreements with some of America’s biggest cities, including Boston, Chicago, New York, the District of Columbia, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of those (including New York, the Bay Area, and Boston) are exclusive, meaning no one else is allowed to operate a bike-share in the area…

Lyft says its acquisition won’t affect Motivate’s existing contracts.

But is that true? Uber also took a close look at Motivate before Lyft cut the check, and a source familiar with those negotiations says Uber worried those contracts left room for cities to renegotiate or even cancel exclusivity if control of the company changed hands…

 A spokesperson for the Bay Area’s transportation authority did not respond to specific questions about its contract with Motivate. …

it’s not crazy to think Lyft could use this new real estate to build what urban transportation nerds have dreamed about for years: “mobility hubs,” where riders switch between a bike and a car and the public bus and the subway. Could a station be a place to charge electric bikes and scooters and maybe even cars?…

Keep your eyes on the corners—and, of course, the limits of Motivate’s contacts, which probably limit what Lyft can do with these spaces... (more)

NOW is the time to DEMAND A PUBLIC HEARING.

ENUF already! Demand they stop removing pubic parking now. This is Airbnb on the streets. Merchants and residents are already having problems with delivery services with the curb parking that we have left now. We cannot afford to loss more curb parking.

Who is on the public’s side? Ask your supervisor and those running for the office in November what they plan to do about the privatization of our streets and the private contracts being signed by the SFMTA. Some supervisors have already taken a stand on our side. Thank them and ask them how you can resolve parking problems using Ordinance #180089.

RELATED:
GoBike expansion fuels neighborhood conflict as Lyft plans bikeshare growth
GM Preps for Robo-Taxis in San Francisco
City report says Uber and Lyft are hoarding vital transit data

 

 

 

 

Your Amazon deliveries don’t just magically appear at your door

: wbfo – excerpt (includes audio track)

IMG_3030

How do you want your mail delivered? US mail truck is forced to park on the sidewalk on a bike path in order to deliver the mail to a Market Street address. Photo by zrants.

In the gig economy, it seems like no task is specialized. Regular people can do pretty much anything as long as they can download an app and pass a background check. That’s how easy it is to deliver packages with Amazon Flex, the e-commerce giant’s ever-expanding delivery program where you can pick up packages at a warehouse somewhere and deliver them right out of your car. While it may be easy to get hired, the work itself is a bit trickier. The Atlantic’s Alana Semuels decided to give it a try, and ended up finding out a lot about what the gig economy runs on. Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal talked with her about what went down on her first day on the job. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation… (more)

How do we solve the parking problem for the delivery services for the US mail and all the other delivery services we have added to our new on-demand lifestyle. If we don’t want go to shop in the local stores, or cannot find what we want in the local stores and have no choice but to buy it online, we are creating a need for more parking, not less. We have reached a tipping point and cannot afford to lose any more parking.

Removing street parking is leading to more double parking, and complaints about stolen packages are on the rise. To add insult to injury, the SFMTA is still taking public parking off the streets and double parking is on the rise. How do we stop the parking removal program while we figure this out?

Join your local neighborhood association of residents and mecrhants to work out a system that works for your neighborhood. Find out about Ordinance 180089 and the Charter Amendment threat hanging over the SFMTA, should they not listen to the public.  Leave a comment here if you need help connecting with your local group.

New Format for SFMTA Engineering Agendas

Changes are coming to the SFMTA. Thanks to the Board of Supervisors for hearing our complaints and insisting on changes in the department by passing Ordinance 180089. As we stated earlier the Supervisors anticipate working with the public at earlier stages of SFMTA projects to deal with problems before they get to the final stages of implementation. This week we have the rollout of a new public notice systems including the agenda formats. We anticipate new public notice systems to be going up on the streets as well.

After years of complaints about notices and the difficulties of reading them, the SFMTA has finally taken our complaints to heart and figured out an easier to read format for their Engineering Agendas that document and describe the street alterations and parking changes they are planning for the public to read and respond to.

In order to respond to items on this agenda, you pretty much have to attend the 10 AM Friday Engineering hearing or take your concerns to your Supervisor. This is one step in the chain of events that may result in changes you disagree with. Here is the latest copy of the “improved” version of the Engineering Hearing agenda. Here is a link to this week’s Engineering agenda. One improvement is the Districts are now noted, making it easier to see your areas of concern, and each project is now numbered and taken as a separate item.

There are supposed to be new street signs with better more easy to understand information as well. Let us now if you see the new signs how they work by commenting here. Are they properly placed and is it easy to read and follow the instructions on how to respond?