![_Whitney Houston, 48, Has Died [Updated]](http://sfist.com/assets_c/2012/02/whitney-houston-dead-2-thumb-250x250-693364.jpg)
SFist Photo: Octavia Boulevard Betterment - It's On!
Could it be? Yes it could. Something's coming, something good.
Ah yes, once again with what some consider an urban planning disaster, Octavia Boulevard. This glorified freeway offramp was sold to voters as a way of turning our little burg into the "Paris of the West." Now, it's known by some for its "living streets" full of stranded buses and idling cars, and also, of course, its bicycle accidents.
But things could be getting a little better after the guvmint starts to take some action. Like this Monday for instance. Supervisors Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, and Ross Mirkarimi have joined together to draft this resolution calling for the installation of a median island. If there are no right turns allowed at this location, then there's no reason not to have a raised median. Right? Members of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition are sure to be there at City Hall to support this idea (and a few others as well). It's on!
An update, after the jump
This thread was more intended to be about the raised island rather than the suckiness, or lack thereof, of the boulevard/freeway concept that's been implemented. Those "Safe Hit" posts have proven effective. They are the number one reason why illegal right turns are down so dramatically. The problem with them as a permanent solution is that an island would be more effective and longer lasting. Nat Ford told us that city and county people were looking into unintended consequences of constructing an island, but what could they possibly be? Hang out there an hour or two during the morning rush and then you tell us. Drivers who run over the posts will be less likely to run over an island. If right turns are going to be illegal there as they currently are, then the costs of an island would appear to be more than outweighed by the benefits.
Of course the boulevard concept should be compared with the old Central Freeeway, but how does it compare with the other alternatives considered? The Octavia decision was a choice to put congestion on surface streets rather than on a freeway or freeway ramp. It's not clear how the current situation benefits any group of people, such as pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, or MUNI passengers. Perhaps aestheticians are happy overall.
Commuters need to go over, under, or through Market. A tunnel under Market would run into trouble with the local water table and cost $$$$ as well. Perhaps tearing down the whole Octavia freeway spur is an option that voters will consider in the future? That might be considered a Pareto improvement at some point.
Anything wrong with having a red-light style camera taking shots of license plates of illegal turners?
The thing about colored bike lanes is an idea. This particular intersection might benefit from that. The benefits of increased driver awareness could very well offset any possible negative effects of cyclists losing situational awareness or developing a false sense of security. Any concerns about bikers being much less likely to look over their shoulders or less likely to signal when in colored bike lanes wouldn't seem to apply here.
Of course a few of the illegal turners are lost visitors overjoyed at the prospect of finding the superslab so tantalizingly close. Most are drivers are well aware of the alternative onramps but would prefer not to wait in line with the congestion of all those idling vehicles on Octavia, or Oak, or Page or Haight. The onramp at Octavia spends most of its time bereft of traffic, even during the rush hours. Go take a look. Illegal turners want to save a couple, or five, or ten minutes - these people are the main problem. The island is not a cure-all, but its addition will help the situation, it would so appear.