July 6, 2007
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.
|
It might be a bit safer if that dude wasn't lurching out into traffic and frightening children.
Median island sounds good to me. Why not?
I still think a separate bikes only signal is a good idea.
Man, Octavia is the worst. I can't believe the Hayes got hoodwinked into okaying that... the air quality is worse, the noise is worse, the safety has dropped. I'm glad to see that people are recognizing it as a problem but damn, a day late and a dollar short.
It never made sense. Cars need a way to get through SF -- putting cars on the streets doesn't help anyone.
The tear-down of the old freeway was almost sinister... I spoke to people who voted for the tear-down and they were shocked that their offramp was being removed! The measure was worded in such a way that it sounded like only the old, destroyed ramp was being removed, not the active ramp.
[3] The removal of the old freeway and construction of the Octavia Blvd project went to the voters 3 times. It was approved by not just those in the area, but by citywide ballot.
It seems to me that the boulevard, safety issue for bikers notwithstanding, is far better than what was there before for everyone but drivers.
I tend to agree with comment 6 -- for drivers, it sucks not to have a freeway; but for everyone else, it's much better not to have a neighborhood-killing overpass. That giant thing was a deterrent for anything nice ever happening in that area.
Now just add some traffic-calming, and it'll be even better.
everyone in this town get positively WET whenever there's talk of Tearing Down a Freeway. Then they cry when the result is a crappy intersection like Octavia.
Then again, this town has consistently torn up public works and given away stuff we taxpayers pay for to their friends, and then wonder why we have a bloated budget and an ineffective city government. Sucks to be yoU!
I dunno, there's already tons of traffic calming, it's called traffic volume. The real problem is the intersection at Market, and also the fact that the buses can't get through. (Fix: make Haight Street two way with NO turns in any direction, or even buses only except local traffic.)
The overpass definitely had to go, no question.
"consistently torn up public works"
You mean like the Embarcadero Freeway? Yeh we are all crying over that ugly structure being removed
What else are you referring to?
Um... why not just allow right-hand turns? That would take a lot of traffic off the street faster. Would take care of the "stranded buses and idling cars" you complain about.
Seems like a nice compromise. since car drivers had to put up with less freeway and longer drive-times, they could at least be given a common-sense and faster way to get on what is left of the freeway.
There could be a separate light for bikes and peds in the light cycle.
The problem with allowing right turns is that the cars would stack up for blocks during red lights, blocking inbound auto traffic as well as Muni and the aforementioned bikes. It might be a touch safer with a separate bike light cycle (or not because you can't realistically expect bikes to wait for it), but the flip side is that it would cause big delays up Market.
Better for those cars to stack up on Division and Gough.
I'm totally not convinced that that creating a raised island will help cyclist safety at all. Since autos have no problems turning right around the plastic pylons why would a curb with yet another sign change their behavior? The right turn temptation is way too high -- I think motorists will see the freeway, then the sign, then check for cops and make the turn if it's clear. And as I've said before, tha barrier will keep cyclists from checking for cars making the turn, increasing the odds that they get hit by someone making a RH turn (however, fewer turning cars will lower the odds of collision. Who knows what the net result will be. I'm guarantee the SFBC and the supes don't).
It'd be great if we could look to other cities to see how they safely route bicycles through a major highway, but SF seems to be on the leading edge of design for cyclist endangerment so I think we're on our own here. I'll bet there will be a similar accident rate pre and post-barrier if they build this thing and color the bike lane.
"I still think a separate bikes only signal is a good idea.
I think the separate light would help, but it'd sure upset drivers and traffic engineers trying to maximize LOS.
"Um... why not just allow right-hand turns?"?
Because that would mean cyclists losing a battle against car drivers, and it makes driving easier. They claim there's no way to allow right turns without turning Market St. into a parking lot, which I don't buy. (For the record, I've been car-free for a year and bike everywhere.)
Long term the ramp needs to come down if we want to make Market St. more livable and walkable. The current configuration goes against the principles outlined in the Market Octavia Plan.
stupid bicyclists maybe they should take their toys and go away
The obvious solution is to have pop up barriers at the light to keep cars from turning right when the light is red. They could either be the pop up pole system that I've seen in Europe or the anti-flaming- car-bomb ones on the Federal Building.
If a driver wants to turn right when the barrier is starting to pop up, they only have their insurance company to deal with instead of murder charges.
i walk to work every morning and the worst part is trying to cross octavia. the crossing light doesn't give you enough time to cross the boulevard, and cars don't stop.
but i guess it is nice they put those benches in the middle of the boulevards so i can sit and wait for the light to change.
Is there any good reason not to allow right turns onto the freeway from Market? I'm not buying the traffic-backup theory, at least not without giving it a try to actually find out. Not being able to turn right onto the freeway is fucking retarded.
I took a class from the co-designer of the new Octavia Boulevard, so I am biased, but I think that people are criticizing the boulevard without giving much thought to the alternatives. I think that of all the options for this stretch of Octavia, this best serves the goals and aspirations of the city. This entrance to a major freeway would cause backups and traffic regardless of it's design--a bottleneck is a bottleneck. Sure, maybe creating another on-ramp would have squeezed some more auto capacity out of the road, but how is that consistent with San Francisco's focus on transit, pedestrian friendly design, and beautification? I concur with the previous commenter who referenced the Embarcadero Freeway. Sure the new boulevard down there has a lot of traffic, but how many of us really want to re-imprison the Ferry Building? Is Octavia that much different?
While we're at it, can we tear down the Bay Bridge too? I live in SOMA and all the traffic it brings creates a real hazard in this neighborhood as well.
[19] The point is that the traffic has to go SOMEWHERE. The goal is to mitigate the congestion as best as possible.
When the freeway got torn down, the main driver [ha ha] was the fact that Loma Prieta damaged it to the point where it was too dangerous to leave up. Option A was to get ride of the ugly piece of shit which brought property values and life values down down down.
Option B was to rebuild. The Sunset People screamed because they wanted a freeway. I imagine that if they had their way it would have reached to 48th Ave or the Farralon Islands.
Most of the rest of us hated it. There were 3 city wide votes and the blvd won.
As a reminder, SOMA was originally to a great extent commercial/industrial with housing mixed in. It has gradually become very different, but original elements and infrastructure are still there.
When you move next to an airport, you can't complain about noise from the planes.
San Francisco went overboard with the Octavia Boulevard. Cars are not going away. City and Bay Area public transportation systems are woefully inadequate. We are the only major city without complete roadway system that gets cars through its streets efficiently. It's remarkable that this has happened in a community known for creativity & innovation. The amount of space that Octavia Boulevard devotes to the "other-than-cars" category is astonishing. The City needs to develop a relevant transportation strategy that focuses on the reality and role of cars as a HUGE part of our existence.
Dearest Guest 21 who said,
"We are the only major city without complete roadway system that gets cars through its streets efficiently. It's remarkable that this has happened in a community known for creativity & innovation."
YES YES! The reason we put in the boulevard vs. a stinking freeway just like everyone else would have done, is that we are innovative.
The entire concept is a disaster. Having to line up for 10 blocks just to get to make the Turn on Octavia off Fell onto is a nightmare every weekday morning. Its extended gridlock far past where it was before. Then there are those fools who pretend like they dont know who have to be in the right lane and try to do it at the last second the causes all kinds of headaches. They should put up a barrier on the 2 right lanes so you cant change lanes so at least they move at a good pace when there is a green light. Overall a terrible idea, not just at Market but from where the mess starts at Fell.
Why is everyone so concerned about the traffic turning right off market. Have any of you been stuck in the gridlock that is Fell for 10 blocks anytime between 7-9am trying to turn right onto Octavia.
Much more in someone interested in having someone figure out that mess. And to all those drivers who try to move over at the last second pretending you did not know you needed to be in the right lane, you only slow it down. Since your going down a hill, this should be visible to you about 5 blocks before you get to the interesection!
#23 and 24, the problem is that the neighbors on the block of Fell between Laguna and Octavia somehow convinced the powers that be that they should keep their on street parking, ALL OF IT, except for a third of the block rush hours only. Make the right lane tow away no stopping 7 am - 7 pm every day, and the backups are much reduced.
Oh, and Ross got rid of the tow away left lane. Thanks buddy! Real good for traffic.
Most of you seem to be forgetting what the Octavia neighborhood was like BEFORE they tore down the Fell Street overpass. Remember the dark underside of that overpass? The homeless that lived under it? The litter that piled up around and under it. Remember how all the homes around it were constantly in the shadow of that overpass? Depressing, ugly, and a blight.
Now we have a nice street with a somewhat poorly designed, yet aesthetically appealing intersection. What is there now is better for the quality of life of everybody except for auto drivers. Having moved into that neighborhood the same week they tore down the Fell street offramp I have seen the rapid quality of life improvements that this neighborhood has seen.
When that overpass was in place you could literally see a dividing line between downtown/civic center blight, and the affluence of the Castro and Hayes Valley area. That overpass created that line, and with it's destruction the people who live along the Octavia blvd project now have a nice neighborhood to call home.
To those of you whining about an intersection with a bad right turn... get some fucking perspective. If that intersection is all you can see you've lost your way.
It occurs to me that the Octavio intersection is just bad design. If there was an elevated overpass for pedestrians and bikes (you know, a pedestrian bridge like they have over in Marin and other locations where bikes need to get around massive, speeding auto traffic), we could circumvent the need to use the street and the cars could turn whatever way they want provided the signals are timed correctly (you know, green arrows and the like). An overpass on north and south sides of Market Street seems like it could be both inexpensive, relatively, and artistic providing a classic, artfully done gateway into the supposed boulevard that Octavio is supposed to become.
Why is the password recovery system completely broken? No wonder everyone just posts as "guest" these days.
Anyway, the truth is, no amount of freeway space will ever satisfy the selfish SOBs that insist on driving 2 tons of steel around in a crowded urban space.
We should make it even harder for them to get through this intersection. A couple of possible ideas:"
1) Make it a tollway. Keep jacking up the toll until congestion eases.
2) Make the lights red all directions, except for cyclists and pedestrians. There are already a few intersections downtown that do this, so it is not that hard to do.
There are plenty of ways to get around San Francisco that don't involve driving a car. I have lived here for 15 years with no car and do just fine.
To Response #22:
I don't think that the boulevard is strictly a "this or that" situation, meaning the outcome/choice is either the current boulevard or the prior "stinking freeway." I think the issue is looking at transportion from a broader perpective, addressing the needs of people living in San Francisco and people moving through San Francisco ( responder 28 appears only to consider the needs of those living in San Francisco). Therefore, I stand by my original assertion that the present boulevard is not innovative.
Responder 28 appears only to consider the needs of those living in his own apartment.
"An overpass on north and south sides of Market Street seems like it could be both inexpensive, relatively, and artistic providing a classic, artfully done gateway into the supposed boulevard that Octavio is supposed to become."
Not a bad idea, although an underpass or tunnel on the south side might be better. But it'll never happen -- that means cyclists losing their Battle for Market Street (and it'll cost too much money, the EIR will take forever, etc.). Imagine this possible negotiation:
Cyclists: Never! We were there first! We rule the roads!
Motorists/city: It'll be super nice. All passing bikes will be served free Ritual coffee. The beans will ground by forcing passing drivers to ride a stationary bike-powered coffee grinder.
Cyclists: You and your SUV are going to hell.
And so like US troops refusing to leave Iraq, cyclists will for all eternity continue ride through that intersection and occasionally get hit by cars making illegal RH turns when driving around increasingly complex barriers constructed at Octavia/Market.
If anyone is actually commuting *through* San Francisco, utilizing the Octavia Boulevard interchange, they need to have their head examined.
San Francisco's transit policies should primarily be designed to serve the needs of San Franciscans, yes. We are a very crowded city on a peninsula at the far end of a continent. If someone really needs to get through, they can go around.
There are opportunities to get on the freeway for motorists travelling westbound on Market at Duboce, requiring perhaps 2 more blocks of city street travel, and then again at 8th and 10th streets a few more blocks down.
Market running from Guerrero to Gough is a nice downhill grade. Cyclists need to conserve momentum and will tend to do so, an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by another force.
The Octavia Boulevard plan was one of the more racist bits of urban planning to emerge in SF in recent years. In that plan, all benefits accrued north and west of the freeway and all impacts were borne by the neighborhoods to the south and east of the touchdown.
This includes alleyway beautification, reconstruction of the elevated structure between Mission and Market, and street and park improvements. The demographics and economics of ethnically cleansed Hayes Valley do not compare with those of the North Mission.
With Chris Daly conflicted out of the Octavia Market project, there was simply no representation for D6 in this urban planning miscarriage.
What needs to happen is for the freeway to come down at Bryant Street, for transit infrastructure to be put in along the Duboce/13th Street/Division corridor, and for the boulevard to be extended to Bryant.
Had the white progressives who hatched this plan been thinking of who was not at the table, this would have been incorporated into the plan a decade ago. By the time they get around to bringing planning justice to the North Mission, I'm sure that our neighborhood would have been gentrified beyond recognition, just like Hayes Valley.
-marc
I feel like Reagan. "Well, Marc, there you go again."
Obviously you're trolling with your ridiculous claims about race. But your suggestion - stopping the freeway at Bryant instead of Market - was CONSIDERED and REJECTED by the supervisors, as well as many voters who got involved when this proposal came along as a last minute curveball.
On the merits, it's a terrible idea. Between Market and Bryant, the proposed boulevard would cross Valencia (and THINK of the BIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), Duboce, and Mission, with huge volumes of cross traffic on each. Not only the through freeway traffic but also the cross traffic would experience big delays at all hours, particularly the many buses on Mission that are slow enough as it is. (Multiply the current Haight Street delays x 10.)
The current design is not ideal but a whole lot less bad than that.
(Of course a tunnel would be the best, but you can forget that post Big Dig.)
NoeValleyJim was correct that it doesn't make sense to go through SF via Octavia - which is why the mainline of US 101 is not marked there. It's marked to point to Van Ness. For better or for worse that is the way though town. Again barring a Big Dig, that's what we will have for the foreseeable future.
Oh, don't forget that Marc's proposed boulevard would also cross South Van Ness, Folsom, and Harrison. No cross traffic there that needs to get through, no sir!
"The Octavia Boulevard plan was one of the more racist bits of urban planning to emerge in SF in recent years. In that plan, all benefits accrued north and west of the freeway and all impacts were borne by the neighborhoods to the south and east of the touchdown.
This includes alleyway beautification, reconstruction of the elevated structure between Mission and Market, and street and park improvements. The demographics and economics of ethnically cleansed Hayes Valley do not compare with those of the North Mission." -marc
Is it too much to believe that black people also like living in nice neighborhoods and are capable of holding well paying jobs? It seems to much for you to believe marc, I on the other hand believe black people like living in nice neighborhoods. Last I checked the city's rent control laws, and private property laws didn't exclude blacks. As that neighborhood gets nicer their rent will stay the same. As that neighborhood gets nicer their mortgage and property tax will stay the same, but their home value will increase.
But let's not quibble here marc, the only racist here is you.
Just as a point of clarification:
Marc Salomon is perhaps the whitest progressive in the entire city.
As to if it will never happen, I might not agree to a degree. Anything that requires funds and raising them, and then rests with the City to plan and execute may take a great long while to accomplish. But hey, they've done some good things for this City before, no?
Incidentally, I did email the same idea to Bevan Dufty, my Supe, before today's planning meeting. We shall see if it gets any traction and who get's credit for the idea.
TYPICAL SF: first the vocal bicyclist micro-minority INSISTS on making the intersection far less safe for themselves by prohibiting an absolutely obvious and tempting right turn for vehicles (thereby making them drive far longer on city blocks, wasting gas and increasing pollution!), THEN they blame that very design for being unsafe and go as far as suggesting "aha, we told you this freeway extension will be dangerous from the beginning, you should have ended it at Bryant!" - no it would not have been dangerous, have you let Caltrans design properly as they wanted, with that right turn allowed - and stoplight controlled.
The ramp is completely unused for half the time (when the Octavia light is red) while there is always, always traffic idling waiting to get on the freeway - how does that make any sense from the CO2 and global warming point of view, huh?
Making a long turn pocket with a between-lanes bike lane protected by a small curb on *both* sides is too difficult, of course. Well, knowing where the cops patrolling the turn are, I will always make it whenever in the neighborhood, no matter whether the barrier is concrete or plastic - despite being a biker often enough. Because this is just generally outrageous.
i LOVE the raised barriers in europe. ive seen at least 2 cars bashed by them. lets be innovative and consider those seriously, they are INCREDIBLE