[Carfreeliving] Oak and Masonic
Cheryl.Brinkman at McKesson.com
Mon Nov 28 14:59:01 MST 2005
Thanks for the observation Mike. You are right, cars will turn from the
second lane, but I think the parked cars do help slow down the turns
simply by being there and making the turn wider and less "fast looking".
The striping needs to be fixed, and the crosswalk more clearly marked.
If only 1 lane is marked for turns, and the other marked as no turns,
that may help. Both intersections need help, the crossing could be
narrowed on Masonic and an island installed to slow the cars down even
more both at Oak and Fell.
sigh, another half heartedly executed attempt at ped safety that we want
to take away because it was not fully implemented and drivers
Don't interpret that to mean I give up: I don't.
From: Mike Sallaberry [mailto:Mike.Sallaberry at SFGOV.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:08 PM
To: Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] Oak and Masonic
I'm not a fan of double turn lanes, and have removed a few myself, but
something to keep in mind is that many motorists have been treating the
#2 lane (count from the left) as a turn lane even though it is intended
for through traffic only, basically creating the same problems as the
double turn lane design but now with the added unpredictability
associated with illegal movements. It's a similar phenomenon to the RT
issue at Market/Octavia. You can discourage or ban certain movements,
but if there is enough demand to perform that particular movement and no
constant or regular enforcement or way to physically prevent it, people
will break the law.
With or without the second turn lane, there is still two rows of turning
What to do?
Now, please do not interpret this as me supporting this or supporting
that. I think it's an interesting topic and certainly worth discussing,
but given my time constraints, I will probably not send another email on
"Brinkman, Cheryl" <Cheryl.Brinkman at McKesson.com>
Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
11/17/2005 01:16 PM
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
[Carfreeliving] Oak and Masonic
Oak at Masonic used to be a double turn lane from Oak to Masonic. A few
months ago, June I think, the second turn lane was removed - well, the
tow away zone was removed so cars can now park along the left side of
Oak all the way up to the crosswalk. This meant that there is only one
lane of cars turning left across the Masonic cross walk that connects
the two halves of the Panhandle.
This was accomplished after a comprehensive e-mail string to DPT
engineering listing all the reasoning behind improving pedestrian and
bike safety, the fact that the left turning cars simply meet a red light
at Fell, and that Oak street does not appear to be at capacity - cars
come in clumps across all four lanes, but no clump seems to be deeper
then about four or five cars, and of course that the City Charter states
blah blah blah....
Now my lovely "ark here and help slow the cars down"is going be removed
for morning rush hours 7-9 apparently due river complaints and the fact
that the intersection backs up. I did not go out and publicize the
removal of the turn lane to peds and bikes, thinking that perhaps it was
better to fly under the radar and not call attention to it. That was a
mistake I guess, the drivers complained and the peds did not state their
happiness at feeling safer crossing Masonic. Drivers win again.
Would the correct ultimate decision maker be Jack Fleck of DPT
engineering? As usual, I don't understand why driver convenience
trumps pedestrian safety but I want to keep the intersection at one turn
lane only. It really is safer for peds.
Any advise would be welcome.
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
or, for all options, go to:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Carfreeliving