Posts Tagged ‘sfcta’

How Hard is It to Get People to Post “CUT THE GEARY BRT” Posters on Geary? Not Very

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

I haven’t done an inventory, but I saw three of these in three blocks of the inner Inner Richmond the other day:

7J7C8171 copy 7J7C8172 copy

Geary “BRT,” of course, is the plan to replace buses on Geary with … buses on Geary.

(The “R” in BRT stands for the same thing the R in the #38R stands for – RAPID, baby! It’s the phrase of the decade. The SFMTA should change its name to the SFRTA, the San Francisco Rapid Transit Agency. And the SFCTA should be called the SFRCRTRA (San Francisco Rapid County Rapid Transit Rapid Authoritah. And that means that a Geary BART spur (which would be more rapider than buses replacing buses) should/would be called Rapid EXTREME or something.)

As with most federal / state-funded pork barrel projects, there are costs and benefits, and there will be winners and losers.

This “Substandard” Pedestrian Bridge on Geary has a Bright Future in 2017, Despite All Its Haters at the SFCTA / SFMTA

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

One doc the SFCTA had dissed this bridge 23 times, ’cause the SFCTA thinks it will interfere with the Geary BRT project. And this marketing doc here gets into it a bit.

Well it turns out that this bridge will stick around. Look, about a dozen and a half souls were using it last I saw it:

7J7C6671 (2) copy

Anyway, this bridge will slow down the BRT yet they’re still talking about how the “average” #38 round-trip rider will save a half an hour a day. This seems impossible to me. If they said a few #38 riders might save a half hour on some days, well, that’d be more honest, but you can’t expect too much from the SFCTA / SFMTA…

7J7C5123 copy

Seems Reno is Ahead of Frisco, Transit-wise

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

But IDK. I’m pretty sure that Reno, NV doesn’t have dozens of public employees whose sole job is to say how great the local transit system is, the way our local SFMTA SFCTA is set up.

Anyway, there’s this:

img_6044-copy

And this, which looks like a BRT system:

img_6043-copy

I guess what I’m saying is that it appears that Reno’s transit system is run for Reno, as opposed to the employees of its transit system…

Bridge Over the River Geary: Despised by Our SFCTA, Yet Beloved By Its Numerous Users

Tuesday, December 27th, 2016

Hey, how many times do you think our SFCTA could possibly insult this pedestrian bridge over Geary at Webster in just one report? Well, 23 times,* by my count. Earlier, it seemed that the destruction of this bridge was vital for the success of the Geary BRT scheme, yet the SFCTA caved and now the bridge has a new lease on life, Geary BRT or no.

7j7c5123-copy

On It Goes…

*Mostly having to do with the ADA, but lots of things are grandfathered in, as the SFCTA well knows.

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.”

SFMTA Inspector Pledges “Safe Streets” But Runs Red Lights on Market

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

I guess he sort-of-stopped in the middle of this crosswalk on Market outbound near Jones…

20160725_155044a copy

…like you can see more than one red here, when the light is against you…

Capturelllj

…but a second later he was off again, to wait for the reds at 7th:

20160725_155053 copy

The signals at the goofy intersection of Market, McAllister, and Jones seem to be messed up lately, IDK why. There was a big redesign to make most of McAllister a two-way street in this area and that worked out OK I s’pose but this hasn’t been a good place to be in 2016.

(Note that the anti-pedestrian chains on the north side of the foot of McAllister have been removed, perhaps to fight crime. This place is pretty dysfunctional, of course.)

Anyway, here’s the kicker – the quite insincere I PLEDGE SAFE STREETS bumper sticker on the back:

20160725_155044a

On It Goes…

What’s This, Our Discredited SFCTA Needs to Market Itself As “MoveSmartSF.com” These Days?

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

Apparently

Here’s the ad for MoveSmartSF.com, which is the SFCTA, right?

Click to expand

So what does the com in .com stand for?

Hey, why don’t we disband the SFCTA – is that one of the choices?

New Driving Tax PowerPoint: “Congestion Pricing in San Francisco, Update, September 4, 2013” – Good-Bye “Downtown Core”

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

We were going to get congestion pricing for just the “downtown core” in the Financh, but now it looks like the plan has expanded to the “Northeast Cordon.”

Here it is, straight from the BOMA people.

“$60-80M annual net revenue”

“If direction from policymakers to pursue further, next step would be environmental review.”

Bus Rapid Transit: Our San Francisco County Transit Authority Studies Big-Ass, 80-Foot “Bi-Articulated” Buses

Friday, May 24th, 2013

Here’s your San Francisco County Transit Authoritah in a nutshell:

“Created in 1989, the Authority is responsible for long-range transportation planning for the city, and it analyzes, designs and funds improvements for San Francisco’s roadway and public transportation networks.”

Well, the SFCTA is on the move in 2013, doing stuff like making new webpages, and, among other things, looking at Bus Rapid Transit for the 415.

So that means studying, like er mah Gah, monstrous buses like these rigs straight outta Mexico City: 

Click to expand

Now, would BRT be a good thing for those poor souls living out in the West Bay taking the wretched #38 Geary home every night? IDK. I’ll look into it.

Don’t Miss Today’s Big Meeting About Adding a Bike Path to the Western Span of the Bay Bridge – 5:30 PM, 100 Van Ness

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Via LivaSOMA comes news of today’s big meeting about putting a bike lane on the western span of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge.

It’ll look like this:

Click to expand

All the deets:

“Open House to Unveil Design Alternatives for Bay Bridge West Span Bike/Ped Path Project – December 13 Meeting to Highlight Concepts, Challenges, Opportunities

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m

SFCTA Board Room
100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA

The Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), in partnership with Caltrans and the City and County of San Francisco, has developed several design alternatives for a bicycle/pedestrian/maintenance path project on the West Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and will present these alternatives for public review and consideration at an informational open house on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board Room, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor, in San Francisco.

The open house will advance development of a Project Initiation Document (PID) for what is formally known as the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Bicycle Pedestrian Maintenance Path Project. The PID is intended to update the feasibility study performed in 2001. In addition to featuring design alternatives, the open house will outline key challenges and constraints, project costs, and the development process for the project. The public is invited to view project exhibits and talk with project team members. A presentation will be made at 6 p.m. and at 6:45 p.m.  Please note the same presentation will be given at both times.

The proposed pathway project would extend the bicycle/pedestrian path already being constructed on the Bay Bridge’s new East Span by taking it around Yerba Buena Island and across the bridge’s West Span into San Francisco. In addition to providing a continuous bike/ped route from Oakland to San Francisco, the path project also would provide improved bridge access for Caltrans maintenance crews, thereby reducing maintenance closures on the bridge. Please note that these are preliminary designs and that funding for this project has not yet been identified.

Project materials will be posted to mtc.ca.gov/westspanbikepath after the meeting. Meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Meghan Daniels at m.daniels@circlepoint.com or 415.227.1100 x118.”