<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Well, my point was not at all "this
is a burden to motorists" but "this is a crash waiting to happen."
Multiple crashes actually, since at least one has happened. Sorry
I didn't make that more clear. My concern is safety, perceived vs
actual, for cyclists here, and the concern that the crashes will be bad
given cyclists' speeds with the downhill and prevailing tailwind, and the
general sudden-ness of motorists' movements which are illegal.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The street could be designed to position
the likely manageable number of right turning motorists per signal cycle
out of cyclists' ways if we were allowed to do so. Movements from
a right turn lane right against the curb would be just as slow, and more
predictable.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">And breaking the law, traffic or otherwise,
especially if the law seems silly or unnecessary, is certainly human nature.
I'm sure nearly every person on this list does it on a regular basis.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Brinkman, Cheryl"
<Cheryl.Brinkman@McKesson.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces@livablecity.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">11/03/2005 12:39 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Carfreeliving@livablecity.org</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Carfreeliving] BoS Land
Use -- Market/Octavia freeway ramp</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Oh poor drivers! Having
to push their widdle foots on the gas pedal for a few more seconds to get
to the other legal freeway on-ramps. Let's charge them ten bucks to get
on and off and see how they like that. They'll be wishing for the
days of a few extra blocks to drive.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Sorry, I know I know: Sarcasm
helps no one.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">As I mentioned at the BOS Land
Use yesterday, there are some cars making illegal right turns onto the
freeway - but they have to do it pretty darn slowly because the turn is
greater then 90 degrees, and they end up in the left lane of the freeway.
It's not a fast turn, and so is less dangerous. Those law breakers
are less likely to hit someone going slowly. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">The no right turn onto the freeway
is a burden only for drivers who start their trips in the 3 blocks of Market
street between Duboce and the freeway. Everyone else can turn on
Duboce, improving the flow on Duboce probably would help, it's not a transit
or bike route as was pointed out yesterday.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Why is still considered acceptable
for cyclists to have go to the bike route street (sometimes many blocks
away) to feel somewhat safe, and peds to have cross three times to
get across "no ped Crossing" intersections to make things faster
for cars - and facilitate "traffic flow", but making cars
drive a few blocks further to facilitate ped and bike safety is some odd
hardship?</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Breaking traffic laws is not human
nature, it's learned behavior due to a lack of enforcement and a sense
of entitlement, and the fact that many drivers are single moders. They
ONLY drive. I don't think it's pointless to try and make conditions
better through design. It may be an uphill battle, but what isn't?</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">So, what was the upshot of yesterday's
agenda item? I had to leave before the end.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Cheryl</font>
<br>
<br>
<hr><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> Mike Sallaberry [mailto:Mike.Sallaberry@sfgov.org]
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:59 AM<b><br>
To:</b> Carfreeliving@livablecity.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [Carfreeliving] BoS Land Use -- Market/Octavia freeway
ramp</font><font size=3><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Josh, I don't think you are accurately conveying what may happen if the
turn is allowed by saying that there will be "hundreds of cars queuing."
That won't be the case, especially if there can be improvements made
to Duboce to make that a better route for freeway-bound motorists.</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Unfortunately, it looks like the decisions which lead to the current No
Right Turn at the intersection fail to acknowledge human nature and the
limitations of what facilities and enforcement can accomplish. Designing
in a way counter to these realities is pointless. It would be like
installing a "Bikes walk bikes across crosswalk" sign at the
Fell-Masonic path crossing.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Mike<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=42%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Joshua Switzky <Joshua.Switzky@sfgov.org></b>
<br>
Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces@livablecity.org</font><font size=3> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">11/02/2005 09:21 AM</font><font size=3>
</font>
<td width=57%>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td width=13%>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td width=86% valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">A P Thornley <apt@thornley.com></font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Carfreeliving@livablecity.org</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Carfreeliving] BoS Land
Use -- Market/Octavia freeway ramp</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=49%>
<td width=50%></table>
<br></table>
<br><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2><tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
the right turn is even greater than a bike or ped issue -- it's about<br>
encouraging and facilitating the use of Market as a freeway on-ramp. If
the<br>
right-turn movement is allowed, this won't be one or two incidental cars<br>
and hour, this will be hundreds of cars queuing on market street that<br>
aren't there now, that will not just back up across the bike lane, but
into<br>
the travel lane, and onto the F-line tracks. All these cars now use Duboce<br>
(not a transit route, not a bike route), and have been doing so for 50<br>
years. Why invite all these cars to stay on Market for two or three more<br>
blocks and queue on Market Street, where the impacts are 100 times greater?<br>
-j<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A P Thornley
<br>
<apt@thornley.com
<br>
>
To <br>
Sent by:
Carfreeliving@livablecity.org
<br>
Carfreeliving-bou
cc <br>
nces@livablecity.
<br>
org
Subject
<br>
[Carfreeliving]
BoS Land Use -- <br>
Market/Octavia
freeway ramp <br>
11/01/2005 11:01
<br>
PM
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Good people of all modes, but especially you Pedestrian Advocates --<br>
<br>
Tomorrow (Weds 11/2) the BoS Land Use Committee will be hearing from<br>
DPT and others on the Market/Octavia freeway ramp, a status report,<br>
what's dangerous, what needs fixing. The banned right turn off EB<br>
Market onto the freeway has been made by some into a bike lane issue,<br>
but much more than that it's a pedestrian issue -- no matter where<br>
the bike lane is positioned (against the curb, to the left of a turn<br>
pocket), pedestrians are imperiled by the fast downhill careless turn<br>
onto the freeway (the most common pedestrian injury/fatality? seems<br>
like there's a superlative statistic I've heard about fast turns and<br>
injuries) . . .<br>
<br>
So it'd be great to get a few eloquent pedestrians up for comment at<br>
tomorrow's meeting. It starts at 1:00 pm (City Hall, Room 263) but<br>
the Octavia Market Freeway item probably won't come up till an hour<br>
or two into the meeting (it's #5, the last item):<br>
<br>
http://sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=13956<br>
<br>
And if you can't come, please send Sup. Dufty a note<br>
(Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org) . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
Use your bell,<br>
<br>
<br>
--Andy--<br>
<br>
<br>
==== from the SFBC Bike Bulletin, pardon any repetition =====<br>
<br>
LAND USE COMMITTEE HEARS MARKET/OCTAVIA/FREEWAY CONCERNS WEDS 11/2<br>
<br>
The new central freeway ramp at Market and Octavia has been open for<br>
almost two months, but that gnarly intersection is still missing some<br>
key safety features to help assure pedestrians and cyclists of safe<br>
passage along the street. This Wednesday (11/2) the Board of<br>
Supervisors' Land Use Committee (1:00 pm, City Hall, Room 263) will<br>
conduct a hearing on the Market/Octavia freeway ramp, what's been<br>
done so far and what's left to do. We'll be there to emphasize the<br>
city's commitment to keeping Market Street a transit/ped/bike space<br>
and not a freeway feeder route, and ask that colored bike lane<br>
pavement be installed across mouth of the freeway, as recommended in<br>
the Board's August 2004 resolution banning the eastbound right turn<br>
onto the freeway. (You may notice that a new bike lane has been<br>
striped along a key block on eastbound Market St. near the new<br>
freeway ramp, but it's not a colored bike lane as it should be to<br>
draw more attention to this tricky area.)<br>
<br>
Please come to this hearing if you can, and contact Supervisor Dufty<br>
(Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org) and let him know that you want colored bike<br>
pavement ~now~ as part of the safety treatments for this intersection.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Carfreeliving@livablecity.org mailing list<br>
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF<br>
To unsubscribe:<br>
mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe<br>
or, for all options, go to:<br>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Carfreeliving@livablecity.org mailing list <br>
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF<br>
To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe<br>
or, for all options, go to:<br>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org</tt></font><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=2><tt>_______________________________________________<br>
Carfreeliving@livablecity.org mailing list <br>
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF<br>
To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe<br>
or, for all options, go to:<br>
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org</tt></font>
<br>