I'm furious because MUNI wasn't running today. Buses are stopped on Market Street, where the police have cordoned off the section between 5th and the Embcardero; this stretch of Market St. is arguably the cornerstone of the surface transit in the city, where the 38 Geary, the 21 Hayes, the 5 Fulton, and all of the Haight/Page St buses (6, 66, 7, 71), as well as the tourist-friendly F Market all run.
To add insult to injury, after walking down Market to the Ferry Building to catch a Wharf-bound F, I found that the obstruction had moved with me, and that the F was stuck as well.
The city decided to shut down all of the downtown transit area as part of the Walk for Life, an anti-abortion fundraising event, and the accompanying pro-choice rally (question for later research: how can men advocate against abortion?). The choice not only disrupted transit for merrymakers and shoppers alike, but curtailed many cross-town routes and left buses in the lurch just north of Market St. No signs were posted ahead of time, warning of the disruption. Aside from the inconvenience, I think it was poor judgement on the city's part to allow a march (or parade) licence to the various groups, and to allow a few thousand to disrupt the activities of many.
... On the other hand, were our lives not disrupted, we may not be aware of the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade (aside: polish dancing shoes, as Chief Justice Rehnquist looks poorly), nor would we understand the importance that people attach to this issue. Of all the places to hold an antiabortion rally, why San Francisco? (Antiabortion marchers were bused in; pro-choice activists cycled along the protest route.)
What is the role of the city in allowing a single group to take over a public thoroughfare? This was an important issue during the Republican National Convention in New York City this past August, when protestors were denied the right to assemble where they wished. I understand the "right to peaceably assemble" means not just that you're law-abiding and whatnot, but that you're not inciting others, not driving them to frustration through inconsiderate civil disobedience. Doesn't make sense to corral all protestors et al. into Civic Center, though.
Man, I'm mad at the city and MUNI for not handling this better.
The San Francisco government's web site has some information on protests in the city:
... the appropriate ratio of police officers to protesters does not have a straightforward answer, and neither Seattle nor New York uses any type of formula. In this regard it does not appear that either of these cities has a superior policy than that in San Francisco. Third, with respect to crowd control, the SFPD may want to investigate New York's use of "pens" to contain demonstrators and Seattle's use of "force multipliers" (trained volunteers used to multiply the police force) to determine if they are appropriate for San Francisco.
Will Toni finally ditch Dirk, her abusive, controlling boyfriend? I'm on tenter hooks! (Really!)
Alleluia, I drank coffee today. After five days (!!) of not, not because I didn't want to (boy oh boy did I), but because my stommick hurt too damn much to permit it. And it tasted good. The early-morning shift at the café made a nice watery espresso ("americano", everyone pointed out) for me, and it went down wonderfully.
In order to travel 5km in San Francisco, when time is a premium, do you
a) hail a cab
b) walk
c) hop a bus
d) take light rail
e) drive a private car
Well, the answer is (b): walk. Not only are (a) cabs in short supply (and expensive), private cars expensive to own and operate, but I had a trick answer in there: (d). There's no light rail. I hardly call four southern routes and one rustic 9mph shuttle "light rail". To get from my place in the Lower Haight to a soon-to-close cinema in the Richmond, I spent 75 minutes on two buses, during which time I could easily have walked from Point A to Point B.
I'm re-reading Michael Frayn's Headlong, a mischevious and enjoyable story about a man who becomes obsessed with his land-rich neighbour's art collection. Is is a Brue(h)el?, he wonders. And the book is richly in the present tense, even as the action shifts from the present to the recent past to the more-distant past: Frayn artfully uses simple language to build his story. By contrast, Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent is another problem altogether, a confusingly-written legal thriller which takes place in an uncomfortable present tense. The verbs switch sometimes into the perfect, but overall the narrative has little sense of its place in the time of the book. And the story, too, is disappointing: the vocabulary feels stilted, overly-researched, pretentious. Not the legal jargon, but the characters' language. The author's attempts at vernacular amount to little more than stereotypical jive-talkin' (without the ultimate apostrophe, even: jive talkin he would have written).
Bleagh, I lost this entry because of kerberos. Specifically, because the backend server for this blog engine couldn't talk to the frontend: their clocks had skewed. For kerberos, which depends on a 5-minute window (which in itself is kind of hokey, if you ask me), this didn't hold water. The webserver refused to coöperate, and I had to manually reset the clock yesterday. In the mean-time, the POST had expired from my machine's cache. Grumble.
The post was about the relative cost of traffic infrastructure in Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco. Per mile, the 2km Caltrain extension weighs in at an order of magnitude more ($1.5 bln) than the $180 mln/mi Seattle light-rail; Phoenix is developing a multimodal approach, which includes long-term traffic planning, highways, and a possible light rail.