Posts Tagged ‘stop’

Coming Down Masonic, Bike Riders have Five Choices on Which Way To Go at Fulton – Which Would You Choose?

Thursday, February 1st, 2018

IDK, I’ll guess I’ll say that I don’t understand what the SFMTA is doing with Masonic for what, the past couple of years or so?

So, for the still inchoate “transformation” of the 3000 feet of Masonic from Fell on up to Geary, are people still riding their bikes on the sidewalks?

Well, Hell to the yes. And as a matter of fact, now more than ever.

So for instance, the northbound block between Grove and Fulton has bus stop that drivers just ease on over to. You’re going want to be on the absurdly wide sidewalk on this block of Masonic. (I guess when it’s all done, buses will just stop in the slow lane. And somehow this won’t create traffic during the Morning Drive. Somehow.)

Now take a look here, coming down the hill approaching Fulton. Where will you end up after you cross?

7J7C6831 copy

  1. The “fast lane” of Masonic. Potentially legal, but NOPE.
  2. The slow lane. Also potentially legal, but also NOPE.
  3. The bus stop. Well, it leads to the bike lane further south, but that’d be silly. NOPE
  4. The bike lane. Usually peds are in it, instead of the crowded sidewalk, so MAYBE.
  5. The already-crowded sidewalk. You could squeeze between the new garbage can and the vehicle(s) what are seemingly always there on your right. MAYBE.

7J7C6838 copy

I’ll tell you, I never go on the sidewalks of Market, but I always go on the sidewalks of Masonic, or at least on some blocks of Masonic, depending on traffic, conditions, etc. Go figure.

Anyway, you should too. My advice. Until the current morass dries out a bit, or rather, until the long-promised “transformation” of Masonic…

[And oh yes, if you continue on down towards Fell, I’ll tell you to take Central or Ashbury instead of Masonic, depending on your final destination. Or consider the sidewalk, depending, of course, upon traffic and whatnot.]

More Trouble for Our Hidebound SFMTA: Its Magic Cure-Alls, Traffic Circles, are Causing Problems on Euclid These Days

Monday, January 8th, 2018

These things are new. Some don’t like them, for various reasons. Anyway, these changes on Euclid have generated boo-coup calls to 311, and what’s new this week is that non-SFMTA members of Our City Family are looking into them, like today, at City Hall.  Perhaps crosswalk lines could be moved, that kind of thing.

That’s the update.

Ah, late 2017:

Capturjkjkoiuh1 copy

7J7C4823 copy

Euclidian geometry:

7J7C4824 copy

7J7C4825 copy

7J7C4827 copy

Hammer’s Doing Well for Himself

Thursday, December 28th, 2017

One time I had a peek at Hammer’s Driver License. I was wondering, “MC Hammer or just plain Hammer, or something else?” IIRC, it was just plain “Hammer.”

I saw Hammer one time at 2 Embarcadero Center, when he was getting sued over something, and then another time on a JetBlue flight – he had three seats all to himself in the far back row. That was JB’s version of First Class, I thought.

20171224_120505 copy

They sell this 3M wall hook stuff at Costco. I got it on sale. It’s super duper sticky.

So, as stated, Hammer’s Doing Well for Himself.

The Brand-New Traffic Circles of Euclid Avenue – Going in Right Now – Hey, How Come the SFMTA No Longer Allows Neighbors to Vote on These “Improvements?”

Friday, December 15th, 2017

Well, last part first. Our SFMTA used to allow residents living near the sites of proposed traffic circles to have a little mini-election. The problem with that was that the SFMTA got its ass handed to it when all the “trial” circles it had just installed on Page and Waller got voted down, by like a three to one ratio, in five separate votes.

Guess what, the SFMTA Project Manager, the Lord of these rings, whose job it was to push this unwanted project through, was “sad” due to this result.

Anyway, flash forward to 2017 and now some neighbors in Jordan Park are finally just encountering construction of these ring things, and man are they pissed. They’re calling 311 to register their vote (in a different, less effective way).

Here it is, as laid out in October 2017:

Capturjkjkoiuh1 copy

And here’s how things look today:

7J7C4823 copy

Euclidian geometry:

7J7C4824 copy

7J7C4825 copy

7J7C4827 copy

I guess the idea these days is that residents are supposed to petition the SFMTA for changes in their area, but this looks like a so-called “area-wide” traffic clamming (I just can’t myself to use the actual Orwellian word that’s popular these days, you know the one for sometimes unpopular projects) project to me, as opposed to being a “block by block” project.

I don’t get it man.

But I’ll let the SFMTA explain, as seen live on their site today. What do you make of this, Gentle Reader?

WHY IS TRAFFIC CALMING ONLY IMPLEMENTED NOW ON A BLOCK-BY-BLOCK BASIS?

Previously, the SFMTA used to consider traffic calming from an “area-wide” perspective. The area-wide process was developed as a way to look at multiple locations in the same neighborhood together, to consider traffic calming from a community perspective. The boundaries of area-wide projects were drawn to incorporate all residential streets between arterials, major collectors, and/or commercial streets. However, the process was viewed by SFTMA staff and residents as being time-consuming and resulting in unpredictable construction timelines. Often times, the more complex and expensive measures recommended through an area-wide planning process were not constructed, and the long timeline often resulted in changing community priorities that weren’t reflected in the area-wide traffic calming plan. Finally, due to the fact that the area-wide approach to traffic calming tended to involve only the most dedicated members of a community, many believed that the area-wide process did not necessarily reflect the views and concerns of all neighbors.

A resident-driven, block-by-block approach to traffic calming that relies on a data-driven approach ensures that resources are allocated to those streets in which demonstrated speeding and traffic-related concerns exist, and where there is broad resident acceptance for traffic calming.”

So I really don’t get what the SFMTA is saying here, what with the passive voice and the lack of examples given. What kind of people are “the most dedicated members of a community?” Is that an insult? A compliment? IDK.

Hey, are they going to take out some of the stop signs on Euclid? IDK.*

Anyway, there you have it.

*That was the problem with the circles on Page, for example – the taking out the stops signs part. You could hear a car coming from a block away. As a pedestrian, it was paralyzing, ’cause you didn’t know what the driver would do. Like would the driver do a California stop and proceed cautiously, or simply treat the circle like a chicane and come through at 25 MPH?** So I’d just wait until I couldn’t hear any cars coming from a block away in both directions and only then cross over Page. I much prefered the regular four way stops. (And I think the whole idea was so that bike riders wouldn’t have to worry about getting tickets for blowing stop signs.)

**Oh, I just came across this, in the less ideological part of the Streetsblog, you know, in the Comments section: “As a pedestrian, the Page/Waller circles were ‘unsuccessful’ because I defacto had to yield to cars. As a car driver, the things were frickin great because I didn’t have to stop and could blast through at 25MPH. /s Are you actually out-and-about in this city, or are you just reading about it in Dutch traffic manuals?

Where Would You Stop for Pedestrians if They Were in the Crosswalk Here? – You’ll Never Guess – One Simple Trick

Friday, December 8th, 2017

A simple question:

7J7C3196 copy

Now here’s the view from the other side of the street. You’re supposed to stop at these shark’s teeth, as seen from the other side of the street – they didn’t even make it into the photo above:

7J7C3198 copy

This absurd result has been brought to you by your local SFMTA.

I forget where on Cali this is, but imagine it’s at 11th and California, same deal.

It Takes A Village … of SFMTA Workers to Paint “Stop Lines” on Fell Street, In the Wake of a Recent Accident

Tuesday, October 31st, 2017

As seen this AM:

7J7C1383 copy

They must be repainting the worn out crosswalk, right?

7J7C1375 copy

Well, maybe not:

7J7C1376 copy

This is the result – brand new stop lines for drivers:

7J7C1379 copy

I don’t know how right-on-red will work here. Maybe you’re supposed to stop twice, once at the stop line and once at the actual crosswalk.

Here It Is: Your New, Lower Capacity Masonic Avenue, with a Median and Twee Streetlamps

Tuesday, September 26th, 2017

(We’re gonna rock on down to ‘Sonic Avenue, and then we’ll take it higher.)

Looking north from Hayes. The medians will end up with trees, and looks like a few easier-to-see traffic signals as well:

7J7C0316 copy

Looking south from Hayes. The median ends early here, perhaps in deference to the SFFD’s nearby Engine 21 on Grove, IDK:

7J7C0317 copy

IDK if these trees will survive:

7J7C0319 copy

Here are your old-school streetlight amenities. I guess this is meant to please area homeowners. (The similarly brand-new, old-school benches down the hill aren’t really working out, oh well.)

7J7C0322 copy

Here’s what looks to be a bus island with a bike lane on the right side. MUNI buses will simply stop in traffic, leaving this part of Masonic with one lane:

7J7C0337 copy

Here’s your reverse angle, looking towards Fulton:

7J7C0342 copy

Old sidewalk and trees to the right, new sidewalk added in the middle, new bike lane further left, and then the new median:

7J7C0343 copy

And there you have it.

Opposition Meeting for the 5-Unit Development Proposed at 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton on Oct. 3rd, Page Branch Library

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Background is here and here.

Meeting info is here:

Group: Save SF Open Space
Event title: NOPA community meeting on Grove Street Construction
Event purpose: This is a neighborhood meeting to discuss the construction project at 1846V Grove Street
Meeting Location: Park Branch of San Francisco Public Library, 1833 Page
Time and Date: 7:00-8:30 PM on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

Contact info:

SaveSFopenspace@gmail.com

Capturefgdfgffff (1)

Opposition Organizes Against the 5-Unit Development Proposed for 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton – A “Landlocked” Parcel Near Masonic

Thursday, September 7th, 2017

There was a meeting about this proposal, which was under the radar until a couple weeks ago. Now, it’s a heavy blip, so it won’t be able to sneak into the ‘hood the way The World’s Smallest Burger King snuck into a 990 square foot parcel on 9th Ave back in the day.

Anyway, here it is, and if anything the width of the 3.5 foot wide panhandle part has been dramatically exaggerated in this official map:

Capturefgdfgffff

The time to have built here was a century ago IMO.

I don’t think it’s going to work out but that’s JMO…

The Craziest Frisco Infill Development Scheme Ever: Five Units with Just 3.5 Feet of Frontage – At 1846 Grove AND 1815 Fulton

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Presenting 1815-1823 Fulton Street aka 1846 Grove Street – it’s that large parcel that prolly should be part of the backyards of people who live on the block bounded by Fulton, Masonic, Grove, and Ashbury in the 94117. But it’s not, so the plan now is to have this land used for five new units.

Access will be just to the right (east) of Bistro Gambrinus along a 100(!) foot path what’s just 3.5 feet wide.

Captureuhuhuh copy

This was the old plan, with just four units. The lot looks like Oklahoma with the panhandle part pointing upwards:

36d559246e69668bdc66bc8dc9a81534.jpg.max800 copy

So, how do you get your furniture in? Through the 3.5 foot wide access canyon on Fulton. I guess it’s wide enough, but how would get materials to the site? And forget about a garage, right?

Man, when the neighbors find out about this, well, some of them will not be pleased, I promise you.

Hey, if you want to yammer about this plan, come to the Page Branch of your San Francisco Public Library on September 6th, 2017 at 7:30 PM for the mandatory Pre-Application meeting. I’m sure they’ll have plans for the current proposal.

This is Masonic. The back fences of these places are the eastern edge of the access path:

7J7C8904 copy

Oh here it is – this is your view from the sidewalk of Fulton. This is all the frontage you get to share with four other units:

7J7C8908 copy

Existing gate:

7J7C8911 copy

Fulton again:

7J7C8913 copy

And a wide angle view:

7J7C8914 copy

Now let’s go around the block to what I’m guessing is 1846 Grove. I suppose this area wouldn’t change:

7J7C8920 copy

I don’t know what else could be done with this parcel. So I suppose this plan would be the highest and best use. But I’ve never seen anything like it.

Here’s something from 2006, when the plan was to use the Grove side for access:

Capturedfsddgdd

Dear Mr. Teeters: Planning Department staff has reviewed your letter of December 15, 2005, requesting a determination of the procedural requirements for development of an interior lot with a 3’-6” wide pedestrian access to Grove Street. Both proposed schemes involve the construction of two structures of two dwelling units each. Scheme A keeps the lot as it is, while Scheme B subdivides the lots. I have made the following determinations.

1. Scheme A requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A conditional use application under Section 209.1(g) to develop more than two units on the lot. • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification

2. Scheme B requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A variance under Section 121 for the lack of street frontage • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification • Application for subdivision through the Department of Public Works.

This application does not need to be initiated or complete prior to Planning Department approval, however approval will be conditional on subdivision approval.

UPDATE: Early indications are there will be some opposition, to say the least:

ALERTALERTALERT