Posts Tagged ‘paths’

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.”

Both the Jogging and Bicycle Paths of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle Should be Resurfaced and Widened ASAP – JMO – Photo

Friday, January 8th, 2016

Consarnit, back in the day our Panhandle Bike Path was just eight foot wide. But then people started using it more, so it got widened to 12 foot. We should up that 16 foot, why not.

And on the Oak side of the GGP Panhandle, we should certainly redo the crazy wavy surface ASAP, and widening, well again, why not?

7J7C1821 copy

Oh what’s that, you’re waiting to get the irrigation installed? All right, well that’s already been taking a long long time, and one questions why we’re irrigating in the first place, and walkers and joggers are falling down all the time, due to this outrageous neglect from SFGov.

JMO

Well, Here’s What the New Signs in the Panhandle Look Like: “PARK HOURS – 5AM-Midnight – PARK CODE 3.21”

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Apparently, our Board of Supervisors is unaware that the paved path on the south side of the Panhandle, the one that goes along right next to Oak, is NOT a bike path.

Oh well.

   (a)   Persons may enter and use any park from 5:00 a.m. to midnight daily, provided that the Department may set different hours in a permit, contract or lease. This subsection shall not apply to buildings, such as recreation centers, restrooms and clubhouses, or to athletic fields, which may have different hours of operation, as determined by the General Manager or the Commission, as the case may be.
   (b)   Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the Commission may by resolution and at any time set different hours of operation for any park or part thereof, based on operational requirements or neighborhood impacts.
   (c)   No person shall enter or remain in any park without the permission of the Department outside of the hours open to the public as set in subsection (a) or under subsection (b), except that:
      (1)   In the case of Balboa Park, Golden Gate Park, Lincoln Park, and McLaren Park, persons may use a vehicle (including but not limited to a car, truck, bicycle and motorcycle) on the roadway(s) in those parks or walk on paved sidewalks immediately adjacent to such roadways, at any time for purposes of transversing the park only;
      (2)   In the case of the Panhandle, persons may walk or ride a bicycle on the bike paths at any time for purposes of transversing the park only; and,
      (3)   In the case of Union Square, Civic Center Plaza, and Justin Herman Plaza, persons may walk on the paved portions of those plazas at any time for purposes of transversing the plaza only.
   (d)   (1)   Except as provided in subsection (2), a violation of subsection (c) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Park Code Article 10.
      (2)   A person who is found sleeping in a park outside of the hours open to the public in violation of subsection (c) shall not be cited under this section for being present in the park while sleeping. Such a person may be cited only under Section 3.13 of this Code.
   (e)   The Department shall post the hours for each park (1) at the park in a location designed to provide notice to members of the public, and (2) on the Department’s website.
   (f)   The Department shall issue an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor by September 1 of each year providing the following information for the preceding fiscal year: (1) the number of citations issued by the Police Department and Park Patrol for violations of this section and the age and race of individuals cited, (2) the Department’s costs for repairs and maintenance, including graffiti abatement, resulting from vandalism in parks, and (3) the Department’s costs associated with enforcing this section.
   (g)   Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the General Manager and the Commission under section 3.03 of this Code.
(Added by Ord. 265-13 , File No. 130766, App. 11/27/2013, Eff. 12/27/2013)

I Am Become Rob Anderson, #2: So This is How They Restriped the Bike Lanes of JFK Jr. Drive in Golden Gate Park?

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Please point me to something else in the world what looks like this, on JFK westbound in front of the Conservatory of Flowers.

Here’s what you do, you get a car and then drive west from Stanyan.* And then you think, “Why is my body closer to the left side of the road than the right?”

Click to expand

Simply, this is a mess.

Could maybe a traffic engineer take a look at this design? You know, at some point?

Note the absence of a stop line for bikes next to the stop sign. I think that’s on purpose…

Oh well.

*Speaking of Stanyan and JFK Drive, there needs to be a traffic signal at the east end of JFK where it intersects with Kezar Drive. Maybe someday…

Where to Jog in San Francisco: A Map From Eric Fischer Shows the Paths of Runners

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

Well, here it is: San Francisco from the perspective of runners:

Via Eric Fischer