BART Passengers to & from SFO Have Bad Manners

This photo just shows the poor manners of BART passengers by leaving their luggage on the train seats and not letting anyone else be allowed to sit on those seats.

I took this picture yesterday (Sunday) on the train heading towards San Francisco International Airport. The trains are a popular option for passengers going and leaving the airport on weekends as most of the seats are usually taken.

In other cases, I have found luggage hogging all the seats in the "quad" area, and on this same train where I took this photo, found a huge piece of luggage blocking the doorway.

Proper manners with luggage is to park your stuff in the open space where wheelchair passengers use or put them in your lap. Here's a photo of people doing it appropriately.

Want to see more photos of bad passengers hogging up space on the train with their luggage? Here's one, another one, oooh another one, and this one is the worst of the worst!

SFO Airport Incentives for Hybrids - Bad Idea Mayor Newsom

If you did not know, San Francisco International Airport is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, even though it is situated away from city borders and next door to South San Francisco and Millbrae.

Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today (courtesy of KPIX news) that alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles rented from the airport will receive a $15 incentive. The incentive is not per day, but just a one time offer regardless of length of rental.

But reporter Jeffrey Schaub noted that while the incentive will reduce the rental cost slightly, it still costs (on average) $15 more per day to rent one of the hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles. So basically... if you rent an AFV/hybrid for more than one day, you are not getting such a bargain after all. In fact, Schaub noted that a conventional fuel vehicle after a week of renting it, you would pay $75 less than getting the AFV/hybrid.

In my opinion... what a bad idea Newsom! Here's my reasons why:

• Mayor Newsom did it too late. If he offered the incentive during the high cost of fuel prices, people would pay more attention. If you rent a car, you will drive it around the Bay Area, and you can literally fry half a tank driving from SF to San Jose (round-trip) on a conventional vehicle with average gas economy. If Newsom offered the incentive during the rise in fuel prices, visitors and business people would rent the hybrid because of it's fuel savings, and after a lot of driving, that slightly higher cost for the car rental would reduce the amount you pay at the pump.
• If you are visiting San Francisco, have hotel accommodations in downtown, and don't plan to go outside of city borders (unless if you can access BART and the ferries) you don't need a rental car. Nothing against the rental agencies; let's all remember that parking your car at at downtown hotel's parking lot will cost you PLENTY. If you plan to rent a car, find a hotel or inn with free parking or street parking (without 2-hour parking zones and meters). Areas in the Sunset and Richmond districts that have inns and hotels offer free parking and usually next to a major Muni line. Seal Rock Inn on 48th and Pt. Lobos offers free parking, and you are just steps away from the 38L, 38AX, and the 18-46th Avenue.
• Smart tourists know the ways to save money on car rentals. You just don't pick-up your car from the airport. You go to one of the rental agencies (a.k.a. "local" centers) to get your car. Go to a fancy hotel, call Enterprise, and like they say, they'll pick you up.
  
• The economy is in a terrible state and people are trying to save money as much as they can. If they can find a cheaper car (a conventional fuel vehicle) and know about it's fuel efficiency, they'll rent it and say, "no thanks" to the hybrid.

So really Mayor Newsom... this is just a PR stunt. The news report states that a representative of one of the agencies said it is a better deal if the city did not enforce this $15 incentive. It looks like the city is not forking any money, just forcing the rental agencies to discount, even though the agencies can simply raise the price $15 to spare its losses.

Lighters allowed on planes?

Is our government really that stupid?

Starting now, you are allowed to bring on your possession, a lighter on your person when going through security screening.

The question I'm wondering... WHY?

Sure, the government says that they collect 20,000+ cheap-o lighters every day and it costs them $4,000,000 a year to dispose, but isn't it just a good idea?

I'm not a smoker, but it seems to just be simple common sense to ban all lighters from your carry-on, but it is OK to put in your check-in baggage, which they have looser restrictions on items like pocket knives.

Now, if you are a smoker, why doesn't our government give $4 million dollars a year's worth of nicotine gum for those who got the cravin' but are not allowed to smoke?

Anyway, it's just simple common sense. Eliminate fire, eliminate the risk of a nasty fire by using hard liquor they sell on-board.

Sometimes it is worth asking yourself, is $4 million worth saving people's lives, I say it is.