Powell Street Parklets are Gorgeous & There's Safety Hazards

If you've been on Powell Street lately, you might have noticed the new parklets just south of Geary. This has made it able to expand the sidewalk to ease overcrowding while eliminating most parking spaces.

I'm impressed, San Francisco government, you can do something quite interesting. It's a little disappointing they couldn't expand the sidewalk to cover the entire block; instead, there are still some parallel parking gaps, but it's only for active loading zones, such as the one in front of DSW, and others in front of hotels.

The way it's made is very interesting, there's plants, places to sit, high top tables, and extra space to walk around without that Times Square feeling of being crushed while walking. Even more interesting is the solar panels, but I'm not sure what they do.

Here's some odd observations from the use of the parklets... I've noticed Cable Car passengers waiting at O'Farrell lining up for the Cable Car because of the way the parklet was built near that corner. Um... there's no such thing as a line, unless if you are at a turnaround.

Safety & Tripping Hazards
While I do love these gorgeous piece of works, there's some things they really need to fix.

The above photo is a perfect example. The edge of the parklet is supposed to be level with the height of the curb. In this shot at the northeast corner of Powell and Ellis, this particular parklet is not even with the curb (about four inches at its highest point). That's a definite tripping hazard.

A second hazard as seen in this photo is where you see the brown slabs of wood and the metal parts sticking out. This particular piece is where the solar panels are attached to, but why are the metal parts just sticking out like that? I know it's all about looking futuristic and such, but what will it cost the city in lawsuits?

Lastly, there's also some gaps within the parklets where the safety barrier meets the road. While I don't have a picture of it, those gaps within the parklets has been encouraging people to jaywalk across the street where they encounter no gap on the other side's parklet. It also encourages cars to double park and let passengers off in those gaps, and that means holding-up city traffic and the Cable Cars.

Hopefully the city is reading this and can get the contractors to make some necessary corrections so we have happy tourists willing to come back to the city, instead of injured tourists thinking of visiting somewhere else next time.

It is Inexcusable to Take a Bike on an Escalator

I don't care about how much hate mail I'm going to get for this one today, I'm going to make it very clear...

There is no excuse or "good reason" why you should take a bicycle on any escalator, including ones at BART stations. While I'm at it, I'm going to also include baby strollers too.

You can blab all you want saying that BART is not bike friendly or the BART police and station agents are acting like assholes. Every time I ride a BART escalator and notice a bicyclist holding their bike in front of me, I either have to wait until that moron clears or I keep my distance in case the jackass screws up and it flies down the stairwell. It's just like not wearing a bike helmet and using front and rear lights, you are setting yourself up for a vacation at the morgue or the trauma center at SF General.

It's already common sense wheelchair users should never use an escalator for any particular reason. At BART stations, there's always an elevator or some ADA accessible way to get from the parking garage, the entry gates, and train platform.

So if common sense logic works correctly, if you have any type of big wheels, you should not be using the escalators in the first place. Would you be on roller skates or a Segway and ride an escalator?

Sure, it makes it look easy to get up and down that big set of stairs by simply holding your bike on a moving escalator, but let's see what bad scenarios might happen:

1. As a courtesy, transit station escalators have a basic rule, standees on the right side, and those wanting to pass stay on the left. Bicycles block the entire width of the escalator and makes passing impossible or dangerous.
2. If the bicycle gets wedged in between the width of the escalator (front tire gets wedged on one side while the back tire is on the other), that blocks the entire path of the moving escalator and there could be a large collision of passengers until, hopefully, a passenger on the bottom of the escalator can hit the emergency stop button in time.
3. Normally, elderly people would ride the escalator if they can safely enter and exit, but using it means they don't have to exert as much energy than using the stairs. If the elderly person is standing behind the bike passenger, if the bike rider loses control of the bicycle and falls down the escalator stairs, well, the elderly person is likely going to be seriously hurt. But it doesn't have to be an elderly person, it could be any person of any age.
   

In my opinion, there is no "safe" reason why a bike or any large object should be riding an escalator. Those who do it set themselves up for a civil lawsuit and may be subject to a citation; or if someone gets killed or injured, possible criminal charges (e.g. negligence). People must be responsible for the safe operation of their bicycles, baby strollers, wheelchairs, everything else in between. If I drove a car irresponsibly and hit a person, I'd be blogging in prison.

What are the best ways to get from one level to the other with a bike or other wheeled object? Use an elevator or stairs.

Update 12/28: Some typos pointed out by others; they have been corrected. Kudos to them.

Catching the Muni Bus Illegally Should Not be Rewarded

I believe that if you attempt to catch a public transit bus or train and risk your own life doing so (an act considered against the law), you should not be rewarded with the driver opening the doors and letting you in; instead, the driver should just refuse to let the passenger board.

I noticed this twice in a five minute window during today's commute. One was "rewarded" while the other one was refused service:

• At 36th and Geary, two people ran and crossed against the red light while the driver had her doors closed and was one second from moving the bus (since she had the green light). The driver let the passengers board.
  
• At 33rd and Geary, a lady jaywalked across the street to catch a fast approaching bus less than 100 feet away and stood in the lane waiving her hands like a madman, and the bus passed her because that corner was not a bus stop; the driver also had to weave around her because she was standing in the lane. I even yelled at the lady, "ARE YOU CRAZY? Doing that is like committing suicide!"

In other instances, I've witnessed passengers transfer from bus to train by crossing the street diagonally, simply because the train was there to pick-up passengers.

There should be an official policy with public transit agencies, if you risk your own life or commit an illegal act in an attempt to catch a bus or train, you should never be rewarded with a ride on that vehicle and be refused service.

What's more important? Risking your own life to catch a bus or getting to your destination safely?

Plus, get out of your house EARLIER!

San Francisco Government Broke? Take a pay cut city officials!

As many San Franciscans know, our city government is not doing so great after learning there is a budget shortfall, and it looks like a lot of our city paid services is going to get a nasty cut in funding that will always attack something important, the lower paid employees of those services.

But when you think about this, if for example, the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) takes a 10% cut in city funding to operate, who would you think they would let go? It won't be the administrative or high ranking manager positions, it seems easy for the people in power to cut out the easy people, the hard working wage donkeys that makes about $10 to $15 an hour (not including benefits).

Instead of letting go of the people that make lower salaries, why not chip off the high paid officials, such as elected officials of the Board of Supervisors or the high paid administrative level folks like Police Chief Heather Fong? Why does our tax money fund such HUGE salaries in this city? $100,000 a year salary is plenty to support at least a couple of families who are middle class.

Here's another thing that will piss you off. Why does the Board of Supervisors have the ability to vote for a raise in salary? Most of us have to meet with our supervisor to ask for a raise, all you have to do is just get a damn majority of your own peers. And in the name of greed, I don't think anyone would say "nay." I think it's best to do it the other way: Let the VOTERS vote to elect if the Board of Supervisors deserve a pay raise. If the Supervisor's performance sucks, then NO RAISE.

My solution: Every San Francisco government employee and elected official that makes more than $80,000 a year must take a MINIMUM 10% PAY CUT.

Maybe all the money they collect from kicking that out of their salaries can be infused in a helpful program like FIXING MUNI. Take a pay cut, go scrap your $50,000 luxury cars and use that pay cut money to fix Muni and take the fucking bus like us wage donkeys do on a daily basis.

Or do it the other way, become like ex-supervisor Ed Jew and extort tapioca drink shops.

My Opinion on the San Francisco Zoo Tragedy

The San Francisco Zoo has had some bad incidents in the past years, from an elephant dying, to a lady being mauled by a tiger. Even more tragic is that one man was killed, and two were mauled (and survived) by the same tiger that attacked a keeper. AND THIS WAS ON CHRISTMAS DAY!

Now, this story has hit the national headlines big time, and this story is not going away that easy... OK, maybe in a month, just like the Cosco Busan oil spill incident. Our local news outlets don't even talk about the oil spill anymore.

There's this huge blame game going around, and it always seems that when things get really f-ed up, you always call the best "spin" public speakers and lawyers in the nation to screw around with the story. Lets see what they have to say:

The Zoo: They claim that the tiger was taunted by the three (now possibly four) people that were allegedly involved. They also claim that they had a quick enough response.

The lawyer for the mauled men: They did not taunt the tiger and zoo employees at the nearby cafe refused to let the men hide in the facility.

My analysis: The zoo is responsible for this incident. Regardless if an animal is taunted or not, it is the responsibility of the San Francisco Zoo to build safe exhibits that prevent animal escapes in the first place. For the tiger grotto, the wall was NOT HIGH ENOUGH to repel the animal.

Also, there's word that the tiger had some cement in her claws, which is a sign that somehow the animal was able to climb the wall. I wonder what the condition of the wall is? Was it in good condition, where it is smooth and not possible to break apart so that the animal could not climb the wall? Or was the wall in poor condition, where the wall was not smooth (rocky) or in bad condition, that even a human could do some rock climbing on that thing?

So what's going to happen now?
-- I think that the zoo better be ready to take on a million dollar settlement. The zoo is held responsible for holding a DANGEROUS animal that is their responsibility. They built a grotto that is not high enough, and did not provide quick enough response to evacuate the area and respond to the incident. And now... they are to install a PA system... yeah, could have been installed decades ago; idiots.

I'd fire the entire zoo management for this fuck-up. Especially the guy who's getting paid over $100,000+ a year to "manage" this bullshit facility. Even better, close down the damn place if they cannot pay to maintain the facility. Why waste my tax dollars on a place that is inadequate in the name of safety?

What's wrong with this city?

1. Muni sucks.
2. The cops can't control the lower east side of town.
3. A zoo that is basically unsafe.
4. A Mayor who went to rehab.
5. A Mayor involved in a sex scandal.
   
6. Overpaid city "managers."
7. The 311 operators are operated by a bunch of retards.
8. Things change only when someone gets killed, such as the zoo incident.