If the city sees fit to place a gate atop Lombard Street, its wealthy, put-upon denizens can actually quip about barbarians at the gate.
Since no city plan -- let alone one hatched by Muni -- could go awry, we're sure all will go smoothly. But there is this: The MTA Board said no to cars on Lombard but yes to taxis, presumably ferrying the disabled or those too enfeebled to walk the stairs.
Our calls to MTA spokesman Paul Rose and city traffic engineer Ricardo Olea haven't yet been returned. But this prompts the question: If taxis are allowed access to Lombard's hallowed bricks, what bout Uber, Lyft, and other app-based "TNCs"?
Also: What's to keep enterprising cabbies/private drivers from setting up shop atop Lombard and serving as land-based gondoliers for cash-addled tourists who circumscribed the globe to get here and want to drive them some crookedest street?
Two things: The term "crookedest" is somewhat malleable; and, yes, whenever you write a story about Vermont Street, Internet personalities bemoan that "everybody knows" it's crookeder than Lombard.
To address the second point first, the metric shitload of worldwide stories regarding the pending closure of the crookedest street on God's green earth indicates that, perhaps, "everybody" is, too, a malleable term.
Go forth, people. Taxis are standing by.
Update, 2 p.m.: The suggestion to exempt taxis -- and only taxis -- from the Lombard Street vehicle ban is still under review, says MTA spokesman Paul Rose. As to what's to keep an enterprising cabbie from exploiting this exemption, Rose replies there'll be Parking Control Officers on hand. Asked what a Parking Control Officer can do to keep a cabbie from ferrying able-bodied people down Lombard Street, he noted "we're still working out the details."
The Board of Supervisors, incidentally, has allocated $100,000 toward signage and other expenses connected to the pending closures.
