Here you go – the arches are decorative-only:
File this one, this post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge under False Arch.
This is typical on a weekend afternoon. On each and every signal cycle
Our incompetent SFMTA could rejigger the timing of the traffic signals at Fell and Masonic and/or Fell and Oak so that careless drivers don’t block the box on each and every light cycle when things are busy, but our incompetent SFMTA don’t feel like doing that right now, apparently.
Did you know that our incompetent SFMTA will rejigger signals at this particular intersection so that “peoples’ feelings won’t get hurt?” It’s true. I’ll get into it after I get around to posting some Fell and Masonic video on the YouTube.
Until that day, Gentle Reader. Until that day…
I don’t know if it was such a great idea to build these bridges and I also don’t know if it’s such a great idea to spend big big bucks to tear them down…
Here’s the latest on this issue, from the SFCTA, below.
If our SFCTA wanted to handle this issue with the least possible effort, then I give it an A+, or a passing grade if we’re grading pass/fail. Another approach would have been to notice another meeting and yada yada.
This project has been on the radar for a long, long time, but I never really paid attention to it until the pedestrian bridges issue came up. If the SFCTA were a person and we took what it said seriously, I’d tell you that our SFCTA is in deep denial on this bridges issue.
(And how much would a BART spur under Geary end up costing, like a billion dollars a mile, like our already-failed Central Subway? Is something like this unreachable pie in the sky? IDK.)
Anyway, here it is:
Here you go, click here and then Control-F for the phrase pedestrian bridge – 26 mentions you will find.
Can you see anything positive at all mentioned about the bridges of J-Town? Perhaps our SFCTA doesn’t think there are any? Or perhaps it thinks it’s writing an advocacy document and so it feels free to lie? IDK.
There were about a dozen people on the bridge when this photo was taken – they’re hard to spot:
And if these bridges aren’t up to standards, well, then why hasn’t anybody sued us over accessibility? Perhaps they are up to standards?
And oh yes, DEAR SFCTA – YOUR QUICK AND DIRTY GEARY BRT PROJECT AIN’T TOO QUICK, NOW, IS IT?
Is this the box what got swiped from the basement of St. Mary’s the other day?
I think it is!
(That’s what some railfan/urbanist/Googler told me, and this particular demographic has ne’er lied to me yet.)
And what’s that, the whole point of this meeting was primarily to be able to tell the FTA that we had a meeting so give us some money money money?
“As the San Francisco Examiner reported, Geary BRT is jockeying for a $75 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration’s Small Starts fund, which may be awarded after public input is taken on the draft environmental impact report.”
And this drive for money is what fuels the SFMTA’s rabid hatred of the pedestrian bridges in the Japantown area on Geary?
Oh, I see!
Gentle Reader, check out any EIR, draft or whatever, then control-F for “pedestrian bridge” and then brace for the haterade. Shouldn’t an EIR, draft or whatever, outline the pros and cons of destroying the ped bridges? And hey, does the SFCTA want to tear down all structures in town what aren’t 100% ADA compliant right now? Oh, no, just these bridges?
(I should say that the SFCTA is already on secret double probation for the disastrous Central Subway and the failing T-Third, among other crimes and misdemeanors.)
On It Goes.
Will the Geary BRT be a good thing? IDK. But certainly, the honest answer to this question won’t come from our SFCTA. (Perhaps we should pay them $75 million to recommend doing nothing and then we’d be better off, IDK. )
As here, on Geary inbound:
And now let’s hear from the SFMTA:
“Don’t Block the Box: enforcement crews will expand the partnership between the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the San Francisco Police Department for “Don’t Block the Box” enforcement violations. This practice has traditionally obstructed intersections on traffic arteries leading up to the freeways. The strategy calls for more parking control officers during the afternoon rush hours. Since the Mayor’s Congestion Management Plan last year, parking control officers have issued 3,514 gridlock citations. This represents a 25 percent increase compared to the preceding five months, and 102 percent since 2014.
The rotating enforcement efforts will be targeted to the following locations: South of Market, 3rd Street, 4th Street, 19th Avenue, Divisadero, Columbus, Fell Street/Oak Street, Geary Boulevard, Geneva Avenue, Harrison Street, Mission Street, Pine Street/Bush Street, and Van Ness Avenue.
You can help!
“Blocking the Box” (driving into an intersection and getting stuck) and double-parking are two behaviors that can have a real impact on street safety. Both of these activities make it harder for other drivers to see pedestrians and for pedestrians to cross the street safely. If we can all commit today to not doing either of these things when we’re driving, our streets will be a lot safer and less congested.”
So, how many of these citations were issued to the SFMTA? Or, how many citations should have been issued to the SFMTA?
You know, just saying.