Posts Tagged ‘central’

UC Berkeley Professors Took Away Part of Our Retrofitted Central Freeway – And Now, UC Berkeley Students are Coming for the Rest of It – Octavia Boulevard is Good?!

Tuesday, March 6th, 2018

Via Eric Fisher, who’s Everywhere You Want To Be, we see, among other items, this proposal for what’s left of our Central Freeway:

Captureukyuk copy

Read the first sentence – it’s ABSOLUTELY WRONG* about how great the failed Octavia Boulevard flows.

“Octavia Boulevard has demonstrated how it has been able to handle as many cars as the former Central Freeway, without causing undue congestion and delay”

Sorry kids!

*For lots of reasons, but I guess a few of the major ones have to do with it beginning / ending at Market Street (as opposed to letting Market flow by allowing north-south traffic on the Central Freeway to go over Market. Octavia Blvd itself is a traffic bottleneck (as evidenced by the almost always traffic-free on-ramp just south of Market and also by the generally traffic free part of westbound Fell starting at Laguna) AND Octavia Blvd also creates bottlenecks on your east-west streets such as Haight, Page, and Oak. And of course the OB is mostly just two lanes as opposed to the three lanes of the former Central Freeway. Say what you will about planning and whatnot, it boggles the mind how anybody could think that first sentence could possibly be true IRL. But don’t trust me – ask corporate shuttle bus drivers. Ask ’em if they might possibly prefer a way to pass over Market during the Evening Drive. I’ll tell you, outbound Central Freeway never ever backed up, and inbound well sure, at the light on westbound Fell at Laguna, sure it backed up a bit, but the backup was on the freeway, where it belonged.)

The Parking Man Cometh … to Paint Red Curbs on Fell from Baker to Shrader – Perhaps 20 Spaces Eliminated – SFMTA Hearing Feb 2nd

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018

[UPDATE: I myself don’t read this SFMTA notice as a wholesale elimination of parking on the north side of Fell, As Seen On Reddit. (That kind of action would be much easier for the SFMTA to describe – they would just come out and said that.) IRL, this is going to be a bit of red paint here and there AFAICS.]

Here’s one of the PUBLIC HEARING notices just posted all over the western Fell street area:

20180123_135955a

Of course there was the fatal accident on Fell at Baker last year – that could have something to do with this effort.

Apparently, parking in between crosswalks will be eliminated, at least on the north side of the Panhandle / the south side of Fell Street.

At first I thought that these areas might get used for UBER and Lyft pickup and drop off, but they’re on the wrong side of the road. Anyway, dropping your friend off in the Panhandle will be easier after all the red paint gets put down, sometime later this year…

“8. ESTABLISH – TOW-AWAY, NO STOPPING ANYTIME
A. Fell Street, north side, from Baker Street to 17 feet easterly (extends existing 10-foot red
zone)
B. Baker Street, east side, from Fell Street to 5 feet southerly (extends existing 3-foot red
zone)
C. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Lyon Street to 49 feet easterly (prohibits
parking within “T” intersection)
D. Lyon Street, west side, from Fell Street to 12 feet northerly
E. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Central Avenue to 39 feet easterly
(extends existing 7-foot red zone to prohibit parking within “T” intersection)
F. Fell Street, north side, from Central Avenue to 10 feet easterly
G. Masonic Avenue, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
H. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Ashbury Street to 38 feet easterly
(prohibits parking within “T” intersection)
I. Fell Street, south side, from Ashbury Street to 10 feet easterly
J. Ashbury Street, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
K. Fell Street, south side, from Clayton Street to 10 feet easterly
L. Fell Street, north side, from Clayton Street to 10 feet easterly
M. Clayton Street, west side, from Fell Street to 11 feet northerly
N. Fell Street, south side, from western crosswalk at Cole Street to 38 feet easterly (prohibits
parking within “T” intersection)
O. Fell Street, south side, from Cole Street to 10 feet easterly
P. Cole Street, west side, from Fell Street to 10 feet northerly
Q. Fell Street, south side, from Shrader Street to 10 feet easterly
R. Shrader Street, west side, from Fell Street to 9 feet easterly”

Capturekyhukyguk

It Begins: Rec and Park Finally Gets Around to Painting Crosswalks onto the Panhandle Bike Path – But Who Has the Right of Way?

Friday, September 22nd, 2017

Here you go – this is this morning:

7J7C0199 copy

And here’s the result. Crosswalks are laid out all the intersections this multi-use path has with Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon, as I was just talking about a couple days back.

7J7C0235 copy

So, who has the right of way at these intersections – is it bike riders or peds? Well, IDK. I know about the arguments, I just don’t know the answers. (Is this bike path a “wilderness trail?” I’ve heard that one, from an in insurance company trying to deny coverage.)

Anyway, I’m thinking that about 25% of the peds have quite deficient situational awareness on this path (including two of the three workers seen above) and about 15% of the bike riders are stereotypical jerkwads who “knows my rights” and go a bit too fast. When these two subsets meet up at these unusual intersections, accidents happen, oh well.

We’ll see how this goes. (One hopes our RPD could put up a little signage about a speed limit and who has the right of way, if that’s not too bold for RPD to consider…)

7J7C0243 copy

7J7C0255 copy

7J7C0261 copy

7J7C0260 copy

Rec and Park’s New Sign in the Panhandle Directs Tourist Pedestrians AWAY from the Multi-Use Path Abutting Fell

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Let’s pay off on that headline right now.

Looking east from Stanyan:

7J7C9727 copy

Enhance!

7J7C9728 copy

Oh here we go: Bikes to the left, peds to the right, see?

7J7C9729 copy

Now I say tourists ’cause locals already know that they can tread upon “the bike path” in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle.

The real solution would be to widen this path what functions as a sidewalk for the south side of Fell, but for some reason, our RPD SFMTA SFCTA DPW alphabet soup don’t want to do that.

(And their next step will be to add painted crosswalk-type lines on the multi-use path where it intersects with what would be the sidewalks of Shrader, Cole, Clayton, Ashbury, Central, and Lyon if it weren’t for the existence of Golden Gate Park, the better to avoid any more bike v. ped accidents.)

Anyway, for better or worse…

Pop-Up Ford Motor Company Bikeshare Rental at Fell and Central – Vandalized Already – Where Can the Next Station Go?

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Here it is:

7J7C8033 copy

The SFMTA or somebody experimented with this part of this part of Central by putting long-lasting,  downtown-style hash marks on the ground, as if they were going to put meters here. But these spaces are gone now, of course:

7J7C8034 copy

Here’s a post, from a protester, one supposes:

7J7C8035 copy

(I’ll tell you, this is an amateur effort. I don’t think this is the way to organize after missing your chance before installation. Perhaps you might get some palliative cliches from London Breed’s office (but I wouldn’t address her as a mere Supervisor, oh no), but the other two literally get paid to promote corporate bike rental / advertising in Frisco.)

Here’s the vandalism, on the Ford part. It’s already been cleaned as best as you can expect from the basically minimum-wage (15% over minimum – hardly “living wages,” as was promised and as is still claimed) workers:

7J7C8036 copy

La mise-en-scene:

7J7C8037 copy

There was conflict online as well. Some of it looked like this:

Capturesdfgsddfdf

That discussion of bicycle activists vs. area locals went on and on, oh well. I’m not sure how the Ford Motor / Motivate crew went about doing its vaunted outreach, but it seems to have been pretty minimal. I think the Bay to Breakers people have put a lot more effort in, by way of comparison, with less at stake.

Anyway, the Ford Motor people are out there, scouting more locations. The next location after this certainly won’t be at Hayes and Cole, which was Ford’s original choice. Apparently, about ten locals yammered about this and that was all it took to get Ford to back down. Of course, that was before installation.

Now, feverish with victory, the residents of Hayes and Cole are discussing where the next Ford Motor station should go, to fill in the network. I think the suggestions were John Adams campus of CCSF at Hayes and Masonic, USF, the Panhandle, and maybe St. Mary’s, I forget. But they sure as Hell don’t want anything like the above anywhere on the far end of Hayes Street.

It wouldn’t take much for Ford to take its half-assed, minimal notice and turn that into actual notice, if it wants its expensive marketing effort to be less controversial…

Just Another Day in the Great Central Valley: TRUMP – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Wednesday, June 28th, 2017

You don’t see this kind of thing in Frisco…

7J7C4486 copy

Neighborhood Minutiae: STOLEN, CADILLAC EL DORADO – How To Get Your Caddy Back

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

The only posting on the Panhandle Community Board currently:

7J7C4048 copy

How the SFPD Gets Its Man – A Brief Foot Chase in the 94117 – Red and Blue Lights Race Through the Panhandle

Friday, June 9th, 2017

And when I say through the Panhandle, I mean through the Panhandle, as Fell is a one way the wrong way. So let’s use the multi-use trail to get to Central from Masonic:

7J7C4031 copy

Looks like it worked:

7J7C4038 copy

Yes it did:

7J7C4042 copy

FIN

According to Target, Valentine’s Day Season Starts on December 26th – Just Look at All These Heart-Shaped Boxes

Monday, January 2nd, 2017

And then after this, it’ll be Love Day to get ready for.

Is  this what St. Valentine would have wanted, this kind of horning in on St. Nicholas?

As seen at Frisco’s City Target Central in fucking December, 2016.  Bah!

20161228_180825-copy

(Humbug)

A Crazy New SFMTA Plan to Allow Bike Riders to Run Red Lights on Fell and Oak in the “Panhandle-Adjacent” Area

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

Here it is: The “Fell and Oak Streets Panhandle-Adjacent Bikeway Feasibility Study”

The basic idea is to take out one of the four lanes of Fell and one of the four lanes of Oak along the Golden Gate Park Panhandle from the Baker Street DMV to Stanyan and turn them into dedicated bike lanes.

You don’t need to even look at the report to know that this idea is “feasible” – obviously, our SFMTA can do this if it wants to:

captureghghhhh-copy

But why does the SFMTA want to do this? This is not stated in the report.

As things stand now, you can ride your bike on the left side of the left lanes of Fell and Oak, or on the right sides of the right lanes of Fell and Oak, or in any part of any lane of Fell and Oak if you’re keeping up with traffic (but this is especially hard to do heading uphill on Fell), or on the “multi-use pathway” (what I and most people call the bike path) what winds through the Panhandle.

So, why not widen the bike path again, SFGov? It used to be 8 foot wide and now it’s 12 foot wide, so why not go for 16 foot wide? (Hey, why doesn’t our SFMTA simply take over Rec and Park? You know it wants to.)

My point is that it would also be “feasible” to somehow force RPD to widen the current bike path (and also the extremely bumpy, injury-inducing Panhandle jogging/walking path along Oak) independent of whatever the SFMTA wants to do to the streets.

Anyway, here’s the news – check out page 12 of 13. No bike rider (or what term should I use this year, “person with bikes?” Or “person with bike?” Or “person with a bike?”) is going to want to sit at a red light at a “minor street” when s/he could just use the bike trail the SFTMA figures, so why not just allow them to ride on Fell and Oak without having to worry about traffic lights at all? And the pedestrians? Well, you’ll see:

“Minor Street Intersections

The minor cross-streets in the project area from east to west are Lyon Street, Central Avenue, Ashbury Street, Clayton Street, Cole Street, and Shrader Street. Each is a consistent width of 38’-9” curb-to-curb with 15-foot wide sidewalks. All of these streets are discontinued [Fuck man. How much colledge do you need to start talking like this, just asking] at the park, each forming a pair of “T” intersections at Oak and Fell streets. The preferred control for the protected bike lane at these “T” intersections is to exclude it from the traffic signal, allowing bicyclists to proceed through the intersection without stopping unless a pedestrian is crossing the bikeway. Due to the relatively low pedestrian volumes at these intersections, it is expected that people using the protected bike lane [aka cyclists? aka bike riders?] would routinely violate the signal if required to stop during every pedestrian phase, creating unpredictability and likely conflict between users on foot and on bicycles. This treatment also recognizes that in order to attract many bicycle commuters, the new protected bike lanes would need to be time-competitive with the existing multi-use path that has the advantage of a single traffic control signal for the length of the Panhandle.

Excluding the protected bike lane from the traffic signal requires installing new pedestrian refuge islands in the shadow of the parking strip. The existing vehicle and pedestrian signal heads currently located within the park would also need to be relocated to new poles on the pedestrian refuge islands.

Implementing these changes would cost between $70,000 and $150,000 per intersection, and require the removal of approximately four parking spaces per intersection. Over the eleven minor-street “T” intersections along the Panhandle (excluding Fell Street/Shrader Street which which has been discussed separately), the total cost would be between $0.9 and $1.5 million dollars and approximately 48 parking spaces would be removed.

This design introduces a variety of benefits and compromises [“compromises!” Or maybe “costs,” as in a cost/benefit analysis?] for pedestrians crossing to and from the park at the minor intersections:

Pedestrians would be required to wait for gaps in bicycle traffic to cross the protected bike lane (which may present new challenges to people with low or no vision). Design treatments for the protected bike lanes (e.g., stencil messages, rumble strips, signs) should also be considered to clearly indicate the necessity of yielding to pedestrians to people on bicycles.”