Posts Tagged ‘pedestrians’

Abbey Road 2017, If Abbey Road were Filled with Frisco’s Distracted Pedestrians

Monday, April 3rd, 2017

Poor bike rider had to slow down and go around this gaggle, which crossed about 20 seconds early* (or 30 seconds late depending on how you look at it.)

This is fairly typical.

7J7C9553 copy

I am not an elected official and I don’t work for an agency headed by somebody who can be fired by an elected official, so my thinking is unaffected by ze politique.

So I won’t ever tell you, “Gosh darnit, I gotta believe that we’ll achieve Vision Zero 2024 under the leadership of [person who appointed me/person who could unemploy me in about five minutes].”

*So I’m saying they didn’t enter the intersection under a green or even a flashing red DON’T WALK**.

**Starting across when you see the DON’T WALK is still illegal behavior in Cali, but not in NYC, where DON’T WALK means SURE, GO AHEAD AND WALK these days due to a recent change…

The Poorly-Designed Intersection at 4th and Market Compels Pedestrians to Queue Up in the Street

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017

Thusly:

7J7C9440 copy

For some reason, north-south travel has been prioritised here, so people going along Market have to wait wait wait at a red light for no real reason than, IDK, the laziness of those at MUNI, who can’t be bothered to adjust the timing of the signals to reflect ongoing construction?

Looks that way.

Ppl respond by waiting in the street, as seen above, or jaywalking, when they see that nothings really going on during their long long red light…

The Golden Gate Bridge People Think You Drive Your Bike Too Fast on Their Sidewalks – Here’s How I Can Tell

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

One word, babe: Radar

7J7C7259 copy

This sign is a sign of things to come.

You’ll see…

Sidewalk “Bulb Outs” Embolden Already Overconfident Pedestrians – “Vision Zero” vs. Risk Compensation

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

This is typical:

7j7c3728-copy

The reply to the thoughtless, repeated use of the novel term “Vision Zero” is this.

Do we really want “comfortable,” confident pedestrians? Really?

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.”

Horrible Frisco Pedestrians – 13 Seconds Too Late, or 13 Seconds Too Early? – Zero Enforcement for These Jays

Friday, August 19th, 2016

7J7C0699 copy

Word on the Street: “BIGGER BUSES COMING TO THE 5R FULTON [LIMITED] RAPID” – Is This a Good Thing?

Wednesday, July 27th, 2016

IDK, man – 60 foot buses on McAllister?

Muni Forward: Bigger buses coming to the 5R Fulton Rapid

They’ll be like the Mammoth Car from Speed Racer, non?

downloadfsfsddd copy

They’ll be just like this monster:

800px-San_Francisco_MUNI_7201-a copy

Hello, Backwards MUNI. Hey, what are some of the downsides of this plan? Oh, none, none at all? Well, that’s reassuring. But hey MUNI? What about your Only In Frisco “work rules?” Are those a part of MUNIFORWARD? Oh they are, but you just don’t want to deal with them? OK. OK fine.

Anyway, here’s the “big” announcement:

20160725_155749 copy

These big monsters look more comfortable on Mission, just saying:

IMG_9678 copy

On It Goes…

Our SFMTA Wants to Claim It’s Increasing Parking Up at Twin Peaks, But It’s DECREASING Parking – One Simple Trick!

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

What the SFMTA’s Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project is a gonna do is get rid of these, these people from the top of Twin Peaks, particularly on busy dreaded sunny days, like this one:

7J7C0776 copy

Most of the tourists on top of that twin came from all the cars you can see on the left side. But all that parking is gone now, so tourists aren’t going to go to the top of Twin Peaks as much anymore.

What’s that, “good,” you say? Well OK, but why doesn’t the SFMTA just come out and say that? Instead, we get this:

Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project Frequently Asked Questions – April 8, 2016 version:

Will any parking be added or removed? No parking is being proposed for removal. Today, informal (illegal) parking takes place at the center of the Figure 8 and occasionally in the outer lane of the roadway. This project will formalize parking at both the center and south intersections, increasing the number of available stalls. Parking in the travel lane will no longer be possible.

So they’re not “removing parking,” they’re simply blocking cars from getting to the parking spaces? And you can’t park on the side of a highway in CA anymore, is that correct, really?

So the real answer to the question Will any parking be added or removed is:

Yes. Hell yes.

But who are these people so uncouth and “informal” that they think they can park their rental cars on the side of the road and walk up a hill for a look-see? Just fucking tourists, that’s all. And it’s not even the same ones day after day and year after year – it’s a constant flow of new people from all over the Bay Area, California, ‘Mericah, and The Rest Of The World. Those are the people the SFMTA and the Rec and Park (RPD – it’s Frisco’s name for the Parks and Recreation Department) are getting rid of, at least on busy days.

As with most things in Life, there are trade-offs. Our SFMTA wants to deny that, oh well (at 2:10)…

Come See the 1979 “White Night Riot” Reenacted at City Hall – ABC’s “When We Rise” Miniseries to Disrupt Traffic Friday Night

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

Here’s the background and here’s your traffic advisory

CITY-HALL-STREET-CLOSURE-Davies-Herbst-1 copy

It’ll be just like when they shot that Milk movie…

go8f8860a

…except without Sean Penn

2243733740_1d55fb5cbc_o1

A Few Beefs with the SFMTA’s Marketing of Its Plan to (Somehow) “Increase Access” to Twin Peaks

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

Here you go:

Making Room to Enjoy Spectacular Twin Peaks by Aaron Bialick
Friday, April 15, 2016

But the SFMTA isn’t really making anything is it?

Access by foot and bike is pretty limited, the road that loops around the mountain top in a “figure 8” is underused by car traffic and the loop’s intersections are confusing.

OK, well, “access” by foot and bike will still be “pretty limited” after the SFMTA completes the scheme it came up with, right? And let’s take a look at that road, on a dreaded sunny day:

7J7C0776-copy

Now, would you say that the east (left) side of this figure 8 is “underused?” No, not at all!

car-free access

Hey, is being “car-free” a good thing? Like is it as good as being something like herpes-free? One wonders.

On Tuesday, the SFMTA Board of Directors will consider approval of a pilot phase…

This means that the SFMTA is going to do what it wants to do, with the little bit of money it can scrape up to enact its ideology.

The project was shaped with community feedback…

First of all, there’s no community up there atop Twin Peaks. Second of all, if there is, it’s tourists (international, national, regional, and local) and this plan cooked up by the SFMTA is about as anti-tourist as one could imagine.

We’d also create legitimate parking spaces at the center and south intersections to address the illegal parking that already occurs.

WHAT WHAT? So all these People With Cars, the hundreds of People what congregate up there sometimes, they’re parking on the side of the highway “illegitimately?” So it’s legal but it doesn’t comport with SFMTA ideology? Or maybe it’s illegal, but our SFMTA hasn’t seen fit to put up signage what explains things nice and clear for visitors who don’t really have a good handle on English? And so all the scores of places where people park now and, indeed, the past century, all of that was not and is not “legitimate?” Whoo boy.

So the plan is to decrease access IRL and advertise this paint job (that doesn’t add ANYTHING) as one what will “increase” access.

Will that cost anything? Yes.

Will it cost the vaunted SFMTA anything. No, not really. Just a bit of paint…