We thought the point of ”free Muni” for Chase Center ticket holders was for them to ride the Muni with the public, not to remove Muni from the public for the exclusive use of Chase Center ticket holders, yet, that appears to be what is happening.
People on 16th Street are watching your almost empty bus whiz by their bus stop without stopping, while you are waiting for the bus that got re-routed to supply the free ticket service for Chase Center customers.
You might ask the Mayor if that is what she had in mind when she applauded the program to give free Muni rides to Chase Center ticket holders.. Did she expect the ticket holders to “share” Muni rides with the public, or was she aware of SMTA’s plan to remove Muni buses from public access to provide an exclusive ride for ticket holders at Chase Center?
Next time the government comes asking for more Muni money (like Propostion D on the ballot now) consider who is benefiting from the funds when SFMTA is handing over pubic property for the exclusive use of private enterprises. If the public agencies want to coddle the private enterprises they are partnering with, they should get the money out to them, not the taxpaying public.
Why should we fork over more money for Muni when SFMTA is cutting public access to our streets and cutting Muni service to the paying public?
We suggest that people who object to this use of public property and funds vote against all new taxes and bonds that support public transit until there is a reverse in the trend to privatize public property and public services. The last thing we need is a class system approach to public transit. Vote NO on D.
That’s the vision for San Francisco’s burgeoning bike rental industry.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency on Tuesday released permit applications for more companies to provide “dockless” or “stationless” bikeshare in The City, citing soaring demand for the service.
The announcement means the number of bikeshare bikes on the street could soon nearly quadruple to 11,000, according to the SFMTA. The agency plans to announce who will be awarded permits by July…
In that April 28 letter, Lyft President and co-founder John Zimmer argued that the company “invested millions of dollars to install bike station infrastructure” that resulted in “losses that were incurred in reliance upon the Grant of Exclusive Rights.”
Zimmer invited SFMTA to a “dispute resolution process” through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and asked that “San Francisco refrain from taking actions that would prejudice” those proceedings, including “soliciting or accepting new permit applications from other operators.”… (more)
Why don’t the bike share companies rent some of the empty storefronts that are popping up all over town instead of casually parking them on sidewalks and streets. Just rent some storefronts and act like regular bike rentals. What is the point in having them clutter up the sidewalk when they could rent storefronts and let people drop them there. They will be a lot safer than on the streets.
By Joe Firtzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt
Workers voted 35-24 to join the Transport Workers Union of America
Those little blue Ford GoBikes are now officially union-backed bicycles.
Bay Area Ford GoBike workers voted to join the Transport Workers Union of America in an election, Thursday.
The workers voted 35-24 to approve unionizing, according to the TWU, which released the results Friday morning.
“The ultimate act of democracy in a workplace is joining a union. By voting to join the TWU, San Francisco’s bikeshare workers have greatly strengthened the economic security of families,” said TWU international President John Samuelsen in a statement.
Ford GoBike maintenance workers are employed by Motivate LLC, a spinoff of the former company Motivate, which was bought by ride-hail giant Lyft last year. Lyft operates Ford GoBike but the unionized workers are not Lyft employees, though the announcement also comes on the heels of Lyft debuting its stock on the public market…(more)
Not so fast. There is a lot of interest in turning contractors into employees. Now that they are union workers, that might happen rather soon. It is just a matter of time before the radical new tech corporations become part of the old school and they are looking out of the next big thing that will replace them.
What’s next at SFMTA? Tomorrow is your chance to call into KQED Forum and ask Ed Reiskin some of those questions you have been wanting to ask regarding the state of the SFMTA and his roll in making it what it is today. Ed is scheduled to be on KQED Forum Friday, March 8 at 10 AM and you may call in with questions at: 866 733-6786 or email the Forum program: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Joe Fritzgerald Rodriguez :sfexaminer – excerpt
Bike stands on Bryant Street are emtpy in the day. Staff fills them at night.
Members of San Francisco’s transportation board have asked transportation staff to delay the installation of a Ford GoBike station in Glen Park, citing a lack of neighborhood outreach…
Ford GoBike’s expansion has been slowed citywide by the concerns of neighbors and San Francisco’s elected officials, the San Francisco Examiner reported previously. Recently, however, that freeze-out has begun to thaw: The Marina District will see its first two Ford GoBike stations installed in March, for instance.
There are 152 Ford GoBike stations in San Francisco right now with about 1,900 available bikes, but a full planned build-out would place 320 stations and 4,500 available bikes in The City…(more)
Thanks to the people who showed up to speak on this subject at the SFMTA Board meeting today. At a time that Muni is failing in its efforts to gain ridership and keep their buses and trains running on schedule, it pains the public to see so much SFMTA staff time and energy being put into supporting a corporate giant like Lyft, who owns the GoBikes now. Why are city employees spending public dollars and energy to force this corporate giant down the throats of the citizens who oppose it?
Lyft should hire lawyers and the public attorneys should support the efforts of the citizens who pay their salaries. How much did this hearing cost the public today? How many staff hours went into the preparation and presentation and how much was spent developing the reports and statements in behalf of the corporate giant?
Transportation officials are considering a tax on Uber and Lyft rides in Los Angeles County, saying the Bay Area tech companies don’t pay their fair share to maintain public streets and exacerbate congestion in a traffic-choked region.
The ride-hailing fee is in the early stages of discussion at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, along with more than a dozen other strategies to manage congestion and fund transportation projects before the 2028 Olympic Games.
Metro’s board of directors are scheduled to vote Thursday on whether to approve a study of the ride-hailing tax. The directors also will consider approving a study on congestion pricing, which would analyze the effects of converting more carpool lanes to toll lanes, taxing drivers on the number of miles they travel, or charging a fee for motorists to enter certain neighborhoods… (more)
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — After being closed for seven years, a portion of Stockton Street in downtown San Francisco reopened Thursday, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency officials announced.
Stockton Street between Geary and Ellis streets had been closed for construction of the underground Central Subway, which is set to connect riders from the South of Market neighborhood to Chinatown…
“Stockton Street is a major commercial artery and bus route that brings life into the heart of District Three,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said in a statement. “For many residents in Chinatown and North Beach, this throughway also represents equitable and undisrupted access to downtown jobs and services…
The SFMTA has committed itself to building this vital link between two of San Francisco’s most iconic communities… (more)
“The SFMTA has committed itself to building this vital link between two of San Francisco’s most iconic communities.”
How about reopening Mission Street to rebuild the vital link between two of San Francisco’s other most iconic Latino communities? Isn’t the cultural historical character of the Mission as important as any other in the city or do we detect a hint of discrimination against the Mission? Tear down the wall on Mission Street. Remove the barriers to trade and commerce in the Mission.
Uber has become a subsidized alternative to the public-transportation systems that it claims to support.
Last September, Uber rolled out a rebranding campaign. A new television commercial showed car doors being flung open and the young and the old crowding in, flying out, and ending up in a small open-air mercado or at a lake. Though there were a few drivers, the image presented was of ceaseless, liberating mobility for passengers, anywhere in the world. Uber changed its logo, too, to a demure sans-serif display—white against a black background, its only flourish a modest pair of mirrored stems attached to the “U” and the “b.” This was a significant change. Since 2016, the phone app and the stickers that identified Uber-enabled cars had enjoyed an image designed partly by the co-founder and then-C.E.O. Travis Kalanick: a circle bisected with a cord, placed against the background of a colorful tile. When tilted ninety degrees counterclockwise, some design and technology journalists noted, it looked unmistakably like a human bent over and seen from behind.
The era of what has been referred to as Uber’s “asshole” logo happened to coincide with the company’s longest stretch of bad press, including multiple reports of sexual abuse inside the company and by its drivers. In 2017, the company’s investors ousted Kalanick. His successor, Dara Khosrowshahi, has made considerable efforts to improve the company’s image in advance of a likely I.P.O. this year. Last October, Khosrowshahi, like many corporate leaders, pulled out of a summit held by Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, in Riyadh, following the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. (Uber still benefits from vast infusions of Saudi funding.)… (more)
The start of a new legislative session inevitably brings calls from industry for lawmakers to authorize privatizing state highway projects through so-called “public-private partnerships.”
That would be a mistake.
Proponents claim multiple benefits such as cost savings and efficiency. But they fail to mention that previous highway projects in our state built with the same scheme they seek have not delivered as promised.
In fact, they are marked by taxpayer bailouts, cost overruns and bankruptcies.
Let’s take a look at the record…
People who want to hand public highway projects over to private interests claim that cost overruns are the responsibility of the developer, not taxpayers.
On a local level, SFMTA and their enterprise partners have taken over large swaths of public space in various public/private enterprises that are hard to pin down. It is extremely difficult for the public to access information on the financial details of these agreements, though many attempts have been made. Ask the taxi drivers how their medallion investments have turned out or the firm that financed them. What we end up with is privatization of public property. Rarely does the enterprise benefit the public. If anything, the public/private enterprises become an easy way to hide disbursement of funds from the public.
It appears that Governor Newsom is giving up on the largest boondoggle in recent memory that was supposed to be a public/private enterprise but never caught the imagination of any big money investors. He is suspending High Speed Rail, limiting it to the area that has already been built. Putting the rest of the project on ice. It seems that no one really expects that train to bring in the billions it will take to break even.