Unclogging the Cesar Chavez Traffic Sewer

cc_median_after_small.jpgA 14′ median with trees will be added to Cesar Chavez when the bicycle injunction is lifted

One of the many casualties of the bicycle injunction has been the community led plan for reconstruction of Cesar Chavez Street between Guerrero and the 101.  Over the past five years, community groups led by CC Puede, the Precita Valley Neighbors (PVN), Mission Antidisplacement Coalition (MAC), Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA), and PODER have participated in workshops and charettes that produced a plan to transform a traffic sewer into a livable street with greenery, a bike lane, wide sidewalks, and safe pedestrian crossing times. 

Part_time_bikes.jpgPart time bike lane?

Now that the injunction appears to be just months from being lifted, CC Puede is
optimistic the project will be a triumph of organizing that transforms a traffic wall between two neighborhoods
into a boulevard linking Bernal Heights with the Mission.  The proposed bike lanes on both sides of the street will add connectivity to important segments of the Bicycle Plan, such as the widely used Valencia Street lane.  The new lanes will be full time, too, unlike the measly offering currently on Cesar Chavez.

Though
CC Puede’s Fran Taylor lamented the delay, she found optimism in the
process, arguing "it could be good that it’s taken three years because
people have had time to get use to the project." She noted that PVN was initially concerned that limiting throughput on Cesar Chavez would drive traffic to Precita Avenue.  She  said that there was substantial debate over what would happen with day laborers who often stand on Cesar Chavez waiting for work, though by bringing Day Labor Program organizers to the table, many of the concerns were addressed.

The redesign project was initially championed by Supervisors Dufty, Maxwell, and Ammiano (now Campos) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the MTA, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works (DPW) worked with CC Puede and the community to refine the plan and give it the city’s blessing.  The PUC has delayed the reconstruction of a sewer main beneath the street with the expectation that the bicycle injunction will be lifted soon and the problem won’t become too urgent, though project partners admit that timeliness is essential and the PUC won’t be happy with further delays.

Planning’s City Design Group spearheaded fundraising for the project that is expected to cost $6 million, of which $3 million will come from federal TEA-21 funds, $1.5 million from the PUC, $700,000 from a state grant to Planning and a $400,00 concession from the developer of a new building at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Mission Streets.

Andres Power of Planning described features of the new vision at a recent meeting at PVN:

  • Three lanes of traffic will be reduced to two in each direction
  • A bike lane will be added in each direction
  • A fourteen foot median will be planted in the middle
  • Every corner will get pedestrian treatments, including bulbouts, better crosswalks and storm-water catchment planters
  • The end of Capp Street at Mission will become a plaza and crossing distances will be reduced

Once the injunction is lifted the plan will begin construction immediately.  Power expects the project to be completed within one year, which could be by the summer of 2010.

cesarchavez_median_perspective_fog.jpg
CC_median_proposed_plan.jpg

Photos: Planning Department

  • Marc

    Unfortunately, many groups interested in making improvements to Cesar Chavez while keeping the traffic flow at acceptable levels were shut out of this process. Any talk of keeping all the lanes of traffic was politely ignored. The EIR states that the traffic flow at almost every intersection on Cesar Chavez will be “unacceptable” under this plan. It is likely that car, and truck traffic will thus spill over to 26th Street and Precita, and even add traffic to Cortland, which is the only other street that connects Mission to Bayshore. The Bike Plan has a perfectly reasonable alternative, putting a bike lane on 26th Street. But, as always in San Francisco “PC” appears to be winning out over “evidence” and pragmatism.

  • Marc, how is fixing Chavez by taking out a traffic lane in each direction ‘politically correct’?

    The street was inappropriately widened in the past (it widens east of Guerrero, rather than ‘narrows’ west of Guerrero) and is a death-trap for residents along the corridor and those who pass through it. I’ve seen young children almost get run down in that area twice. Your issue with the ‘acceptable’ traffic flow’ impact does not take into account the fact that some of the current motorists who drive Chavez will now be able to and want to switch to cycling. Is the “unacceptable” flow rate that the EIR mentions based on a LOS standard, or another?

    I used to bike Chavez from Mission east, under the 280, and on to the 22nd Street caltrain station. It scared me every day I did it. A bike lane along 26th St simply does not help with the situation east of the 101 and west of the 280–one of the worst stretches.

    Cortland???

    – Justin

  • Marc,

    You state that “many groups” were left out of the planning process. I know that a lot of outreach was done. Can you list the groups that were left out?

  • Justin – this plan doesn’t seem to be doing anything to the 101 to 280 stretch. If that’s the case, why not make 26th a bike boulevard? Of course, I am not sure exactly how you’d get from Alabama and CC to the other side of 101…

    Marc is correct, Noe Valley/Castro residents use CC instead of Dolores to San Jose because CC exists. Of course, if people from those areas want to get on 101 SB, that’s a little more tricky and is a spot that would back up, and the further North entrance to 101 is a little convoluted as our friends who want to be able to turn right off Market at Octavia constantly remind us.

  • Hey Murph, I’m not sure what the status is currently (I’m not an expert on all the various manifestations of the paperwork and proposals) but I am pretty sure that the section of Chavez from the 101 to 280 is slated for bike lanes — on the SFMTA site for ‘near-term bicycle route network improvement projects’ bike lanes on this section of Chavez are project 5-5, link below:

    http://sfmta.com/cms/bproj/Bicycle_Plan_Projects_000.htm

    I know CC Puede worked hard to get some of the more industrial businesses east of the 101 on Chavez, i.e. Veritable Vegetable, on board with this, presumably because east of the 101 is due for some changes as well.

  • Livable City recommends a 10′ median, which allows for wider sidewalks while still providing for the left turn lane. Widening sidewalks should be a priority on streets like Cesar Chavez, where the sidewalks are narrow and the street is a busy. Wider sidewalks would allow some greenery where it will benefit pedestrians and residents, rather than just the motorists.

  • I whole-heartedly support the redesign of Cesar Chavez. As currently configured, it is unacceptable for pedestrians, bicyclists, and the residents who live along the entire stretch from of the road east of Divisadero. I’ve walked, bicycled, and driven on CC many times, and it doesn’t work particularly well for any of the above. It is extremely hazardous to cross, especially for children or those with mobility issues. If marooned between the east and westbound lanes of traffic, the island is currently the width of my shoulders–not a safe situation when traffic is streaming past, exceeding the speed limit (which it often does).

    The lanes are so narrow that it is not even safe to park on the street, a fact which is attested to by the extreme number of vehicles which park with two wheels on the sidewalk (further impeding pedestrians). Even then, parked cars get side-swiped on average once a month on the stretch near my house.

    When driving, the middle lane in each direction is often backed up by cars making left-hand turns, so it is functionally two lanes in each direction with a turn lane as it is. There is no data to correlate claims that “It is likely that car, and truck traffic will thus spill over to 26th Street and Precita, and even add traffic to Cortland”. Similar claims were made when Valencia street was reduced to one land in each direction, and there has been no corresponding overflow of traffic onto the streets parallel to Valencia.

    As for placing bike lanes on 26th, that will do nothing to get cyclists to the CalTrain station, or DogPatch, or other points east of the 101 interchange (aka “the Hairball”). In fact, for east-bound cyclists, it will create a complicated and dangerous crossing of Chavez. I rode it just this Sunday, and it wasn’t pretty or safe.

    Obviously, I could go on. The street is unacceptable as currently configured, and I believe this plan will make it both pretty and safe, and allow pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles safe passage to and through the neighborhood.

  • Peggy da Silva

    Our business, Veritable Vegetable, employs approximately 100 people and 20 large trucks in the good work of delivering organic fruits and vegetables. We are enthusiastically in support of the traffic calming efforts on Cesar Chavez Street, and only lament that the Planning Department has stopped the process at Hwy 101. We need traffic calming all the way to the eastern end at the Bay. We want the benefits of a “complete street” for our staff people and for everyone who works and lives along the Cesar Chavez corridor. Nothing in this plan is in opposition to our need to travel in the course of our business. Our trucks need good access to freeways and well-maintained streets. Our drivers have no problem following speed limits. Any work to improve the environment in our industrial areas is most welcome. And we hope that businesses such as ours will be able to stay in San Francisco. We face other threats — not traffic calming.

  • @Marc:

    It may seem counter intuitive, but if you support maintaining or increasing traffic flow on C Chav you should support its narrowing:

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=removing-roads-and-traffic-lights

    Have they chosen the wide median option as the final design? I’m with Mr. Radulovich, that real estate could be better used widening the widewalks. That would encourage walking (whereas a median encourages faster auto speeds by providing a buffer from oncoming traffic). It would also make cross times shorter, rather than provide islands in the middle of the street (which, while better than the status quo are no fun to be stuck on during a red light).

  • LOL at my own Freudian typo: widewalks should = sidewalks

  • Instead of a sidewalk in the median, how about a bike trail in the median, with bicycle signal heads?

    Watch out for the Power Broker! aka Dre Dogg

  • What about the “Hairball”? How do we find funding to plan for what is to become of that interchange when it reaches the end of its useful life? Since the Hairball was designed to connect two freeways, and we then didn’t build the “Southern Crossing”, maybe we could work on having a plan in place to build something better when Caltrans is ready. Certainly we can do better than sending westbound trucks headed for SB 101 looping around the gas station at Precita. Maybe bring back the traffic circle that was there before?

  • Robert Moses would be proud, a median that is too narrow for rail.

    Can we do South Van Ness next?

    -marc

  • I like the idea of a narrower median and wider sidewalks. The planted median is pretty but wider sidewalks would be useful. I wonder if it’s a cost issue? And will SF ever put the bike lanes between the parked cars and the sidewalk? Or make a wee curb up to the bike lane from the traffic lane maybe?

  • MrMission

    Marc is correct in stating that many groups were left out of this process. The basic concept has been championed by a few groups that live right near CC, but little outreach has been done to the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g. Noe & Bernal) that will be affected by this change.
    I attended some early community meetings and suggested that the planners at least consider the possibility of making safety and aesthetic improvements to CC but put the bike lane on 26th St. (which is an option under the Bike Plan). However, the planners refused to even consider that option and said that the decision had already been made (not clear by whom). As a general matter, the planning department has been completely unresponsive to any who does not support their current plans.
    As the Bike Plan EIR has demonstrated, implementing this plan will turn CC into parking lot. The planning department claims that they will try to ameloriate the effects by adding left hand turn lanes etc., but they have gotten very far along with this process without doing (or caring about) any traffic studies. The plan will end up negatively affecting the environment and many people’s lives.
    All of this is unfortunate because it would be possible to increase the safety of CC and make it more aesthetically pleasing without eliminating traffic lanes. Unfortunately, installing bike lanes to impede traffic flow is politically correct these days, so the planning department closed its eyes to alternatives.

  • You link Precita Valley Neighbors to Precita.org, but you should know that Precita.org is not affiliated with Precita Valley Neighbors although it does publish news of their meetings. Precita.org is a news site for residents in the Precita Valley area of North Bernal surrounding Precita Park.

  • Weren’t these same complaints raised during the Octavia Boulevard campaign? Octavia is not perfect, but it is better than the fwy that was there previously.

    My understanding of LOS E and F is that at certain times of the day, some motorists will have to wait for the light to cycle through every now and again.

    What is left unsaid here is that everyone who does not drive down CC has to take the hit on liveability in order to shave a minute or two from someone’s commute.

    -marc
    BTW, marcos = salomon, “Marc” = not me.

  • Mr. Mission (a.k.a. Mr. Anderson??), you wrote:

    “installing bike lanes to impede traffic flow”

    in many of our worlds, installing bike lanes makes our traffic flow possible. it’s a compromise, it’s called complete streets — our streets aren’t just for those in noe valley with automobiles.

  • Peter

    Removing one lane in each direction and adding medians may be great for beautifying the street, but is adding a bike lane to a major thoroughfare a good idea for bicycle safety? As someone who both cycles and drives, I’d rather see bike lanes added to streets where car traffic is very low. Along the Panhandle for example, Page Street with it’s clear bicycle markings is much safer and more pleasant than trying to cycle on Oak St., even if it had a bike lane. Also, connecting bike routes is more important than adding them any place you can.

  • Matt H

    This design is a failure to cyclists. There is enough space to put in true, safe bike paths, not bike lanes.

    In American-style bike lanes, cyclists are constantly at risk from car doors on the right and speeding two-ton hunks of steel on the left. They are better than nothing, the argument goes. But does anyone really consider them safe? Which would you rather send your 12-year old to school on?

  • In response to comments about groups and individuals being excluded from the process, the community meetings conducted since August 2005 by CC Puede have always been open to everyone. If 20 people at a meeting think one way, and one person thinks another way, no doubt that person will feel that his ideas are being discounted when the group goes ahead and promotes something he opposes. To listen politely, however, doesn’t mean having to pander to someone determined to hijack a grassroots process.

    The commenter who felt dismissed by Planning may not have realized that he was coming in at the end of countless community meetings, consultations with supervisors and City departments, articles in local newspapers like El Tecolote, Bernal Journal, Mission Dispatch, and Potrero View, and other attempts at outreach. In 2007, CC Puede hand-delivered a letter in Spanish and English to more than 2000 neighbors along the entire Cesar Chavez corridor detailing the process up to that point and inviting participation.

    Naturally, drivers who use streets only to go through a neighborhood will be less tapped in to what is happening than people on foot or bicycles on those streets where notices are posted on poles or store windows. It’s hard to read a flyer about a meeting at 30 mph.

    In addition to the groups already mentioned in this story, the following organizations have contributed to the effort in some way: San Jose/Guerrero Coalition to Save Our Streets, Living Library, Senior Action Network, North West Bernal Alliance, Walk SF, Department of Public Health, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Fix 26, Rolph Park Neighborhood Association, and ACORN.

    The proposed plan isn’t perfect, and critiques of it come from all directions. Ideas range from leaving the street as is and letting drivers continue to terrorize the rest of us to replacing the freeway interchange with a pond and windmill. Comments and criticism will help make the final plan stronger, but wild allegations help no one.

  • As someone who’s lived 50 feet from Cesar Chavez since 2000, I know that this street is a mess, and the recommended changes are way overdue!

    – A sister and brother walking to Flynn School were hit several years ago and one of them missed a full year of school recovering from the injuries.
    – Cars parked curbside get totaled with alarming frequency – my upstairs neighbor’s car was destroyed this way, as was a lovingly restored vintage Beetle (I have the pictures of that one). This is so common that many people park with two wheels up on the already ridiculously narrow sidewalks.
    – Out of control cars regularly hit and damage houses along Cesar Chavez – especially on the section with no curbside parking when that daytime bike line is in effect.
    – 99 times of out 100 when I try to cross in the crosswalk, cars just don’t yield, even though my corner has the “State Law requires….” sign, AND occasional police sting operations nabbing drivers who don’t yield to peds, AND the 25 mph speed sign flashing actual speeds at drivers.
    – I’m a hardy bike commuter with 20+ years of city riding experience, but I almost never dare to ride on this so-called Official City Bike Route – I’ve gotten honked at, yelled at, and just plain threatened by drivers going way too fast.
    – I also have a car, and when I drive I see that traffic would move more smoothly along Chavez if there were left turn pockets so the turners don’t jam up the left lane.

    I’m sick of motorists treating our neighborhood like their personal autobahn. (Speed limit? What speed limit?). Kudos to the Planning Department for having the cojones to put forth a bold approach to fixing Cesar Chavez. The proposed design balances more safety for residents, walkers, and cyclists with drivers’ need to move – in a more civilized way – through the neighborhood. Admittedly I would prefer a separated bikeway, but there are just too many driveways for that, and the street isn’t wide enough for an Octavia-style boulevard.

    Plus, the green median will bring much-needed beauty to this ugliest stretch of the 49 Mile Scenic Drive. I would agree that in addition to a wider median, the sidewalks also ought to be widened. If there isn’t money to do that now (it’s very costly), then the design should accommodate future sidewalk widening.

  • Gillian Gillett

    I prefer wider sidewalks, too. Living at Chavez & Guerrero with 2 young kids, I can say that the combination of high-volume, high-speed vehicular traffic and 8-9′ sidewalks, leading to very wide pedestrian crossings, is hostile and unsafe for residents and drivers. Unlike Market/Octavia, where there was a ~$50,000,000 budget that could accommodate sidewalk widening at approximately $2,000,000 per block (the going rate for sidewalk widening), this project is making the most of the roughly $5,000,000 that comes from leveraging necessary infrastructure upgrades to the City’s sewer system. Improving the e/w transit would be lovely, but the Hairball functions a lot like a Robert Moses parkway overpass.

  • “Weren’t these same complaints raised during the Octavia Boulevard campaign? Octavia is not perfect, but it is better than the fwy that was there previously.”

    That’s debatable, now that more than 45,000 cars a day are coming through the heart of Hayes Valley on Octavia Blvd.

  • “when it reaches the end of its useful life”

    Are you implying it’s ever been useful? I’ve been itching to get the wrecking ball rolling on the “hairball” (I’ve been calling it by a much less printable name) forever! Let’s do it!

  • Gillian Gillett

    By “useful life” I mean the phrase in the sense used by accountants. Caltrans expects the Hairball to reach the end of its useful life – to need replacement due to age, wear and tear – within 10-15 years. Unless we here in San Francisco County have a different plan in place, Caltrans will rebuild/replace what’s there now. The ball is in our court to plan ahead.

  • Dee

    OK, so its definitely great that CC will be greened (I’ll believe it when I see it) and biked, and calmed, and all. I for one thought that the plan for Potrero would be a disaster (and Market Octavia IS a disaster), but Potrero has worked out much better than I thought it would. Traffic flows, but it is calmer, and I think the same will hold true for CC. That said, anyone who thinks we aren’t going to suffer from more surface traffic off of 101 northbound into the city by these measures is smoking the crack available at the CC projects (and no amount of greening is going to move those hideous cesspools of gang banger a-holes). Traffic off of the exits between the 280 split and CC will get much worse, and with Mission Bay the 280 option is going to get bad, too. Just sayin’ to all you mac/meda lock-steppers.

  • Gratuitous insults of people trying to raise their families in the Bernal Dwellings don’t bring much light to the discussion. Several residents in the Dwellings have followed this issue from the beginning and are among the parents seeking safer crosswalks to the Flynn School and Precita Community Center. CC Puede has welcomed their input.

  • M Roth says:

    just kidding,

    spread the love
    not the hate

    your friend,
    -rich!

  • the editor’s note, which appears at the top of this article, was supposed to appear in between the <<>>

    sorry
    -rich!

  • DaveO

    This is not a reduction from 3 to 2 lanes. This is a reduction from 2 to 1 lane. The left lane is a de facto left turn lane at most intersections today and is pretty useless for commuting. This will continue to be the case were this problem to be implemented. Just eliminate or narrow a few sections of the median to allow for some left turn lanes and this will not be a problem.

  • Jeffrey W. Baker

    DaveO: The illustration in the article shows an intersection marked “no turns”. Is there a possibility that this median will in fact have pocket turn lanes where turns are allowed?

  • The plan being presented tonight adds turn pockets at Folsom Street and keeps the current ones at Mission and Bryant. These will also allow U-turns. Left turns will then be prohibited at all other intersections, where they now hold up through traffic and prompt drivers to shoot around cars waiting to turn. The two lanes of moving traffic DaveO refers to will remain.

  • MrMission

    @Fran Taylor: Your comments illustrate my point perfectly. As you admit, the current plan was devised by local neighborhood activists and the planning department. Only once the design was essentially settled upon were there public meetings conducted by the City. Those meeting were not well-publicized and comments from people who had not been part of the original non-public process were not well received. Activists are all about public participation until someone objects and then they accuse people of hijacking the process and wanting to be pandered to. That is rich. If the activitst had actually cared about the public views, they would have reached out to the thousands of people who drive on CC every day — but they didn’t. Instead they worked behind closed doors to get a plan that suits their narrow needs, but does not take into account the needs of the rest of the City.

    Like it or not CC has become a major traffic artery (and everyone who lives there knew it when they moved there). It certainly needs to be made safer and prettier, but it is absurd to ignore the fact that thousands of people drive on it every day. Unfortunately, in the CC process, the needs of those people were almost never mentioned (ensuring a safe and smooth flow of traffic wasn’t even one of the goals of the project). San Francisco does not have any highways through it, so there are going to be streets with lots of vehicular traffic. CC is one of those streets and proper planning would deal with that issue rather than creating a plan that solely caters to the needs of those who live within a block or two of CC and ignores the rest of the City.

  • Dave Snyder

    Turning 26th into a bike boulevard is not an alternative, but a necessary complement, to the proposed reduced-volume, bike lane Cesar Chavez. Yes, traffic will flow more slowly and be more congested more often, at least in the short term. But it won’t divert to 26th if we turn that into a bike boulevard. 26th needs to be a bike boulevard not just to keep diverted motorists off, but also to provide an alternative to the cyclists who prefer a quiet side street to the busy Cesar Chavez, however improved it will be with new bike lanes. The two streets serve two different kinds of cycling needs.

  • How do you publicize meetings to people who see your neighborhood only as a blur at 35 mph? Billboards? Blimps? Skywriters? Stand in the intersection and leaflet them at red lights?

    Complaints from drivers that they are uninformed simply reveal how they regard the affected streets: as a flyover zone. Why should certain streets be designated a sacrifice area to save a few minutes? You can walk from Guerrero to 101 in 15 minutes and drive that distance at the speed limit (25 mph) in about four minutes. How much time are you trying to save by going faster (and the radar gun at Alabama typically clocks in at 30-35 mph), and is it more important than the safety of, say, the students at Leonard Flynn Elementary who cross the street to get to school?

    An interesting thread is emerging from the opponents of the Cesar Chavez proposal: Let’s make the street safer and more beautiful but without changing the traffic configuration. Fine. What is your plan, and where have you been hiding it for the past three years?

  • MrMission

    @Fran Taylor: As you well know, the vast majority of people who are in vehicles on CC are traveling to get onto 101 or to go beyond 101, so walking is not an option. However, the groups who developed the CC project did not care about the needs of those thousands of people — they were focused only on the needs of the immediate neighbors.

    The first public and city sponsored meetings occured less than a year ago; but by that time all the important decisions had been made. Those who tried to represent the interests of the people who use CC daily were ignored (or dismissed by you as “hijacking the process”). In particular, concerns about traffic congestion were not addressed — the planning department merely said they would not be significant (though it had no basis for making that assertion, as it had not done ANY traffic studies).

    My point is not that people should be allowed to fly down CC and endanger children — that is a silly straw man argument that the proponents use to avoid dialogue. However, I am concernd that the CC project will turn CC into something like Market and Octavia — where there is gridlock and huge backups onto the highway. If the CC project results in traffic flowing smoothly at 25 MPH then that would be a great result. However, I have no confidence that will be the result because no one involved in the project seems to care whether traffic flows or not.

    I would be happy to discuss ways of making CC safer and more beautiful without making it a parking lot. Unfortunately, the planning department seems to think that the City’s “transit first” policy means that the needs of vehicles can and should be ignored. And you think that because I failed to participate in meetings of activist organizations that occured 3 years ago, that the views I express in the actual public meetings can be dismissed.

    As I said before, the organizers of this project could have tried to involve all the stakeholders earlier. Instead they chose to ignore the needs of those thousands of people who use CC every day. They should not be surprised that there is now opposition from those people.

  • MrMission

    @Dan Snyder: It is not clear to me why there needs to be two parallel bike routes along the CC corridor. A properly designed bike boulevard as part of 26th St. would certainly be safer and might even be faster for bicyclists than a bike lane along CC. Many of the proponents of the bike lane like it because it will impede traffic flow — in other words, bicyclists become traffic fodder. As a cyclist, that is not where I would want to ride.

    Note that if a bike boulevard were implemented on 26th St. there would still be a need for bike lanes along a portion of CC in order to connect with the paths under the “hairball”. On the south side of CC there would need to be a lane from York to the bike path and on the north side only until Hampshire. There would also need to be bike lanes on York and Hampshire to connect to 26th St. However these could be created by eliminating some parking along those blocks.

  • MrMission: We should communicate directly and clear up some misconceptions on both sides. For instance, I’ve tarred you with the wrong brush if you’re happy to have traffic flow at 25 mph — we agree there. I don’t know how to contact you, so please contact me, and we can at least clear the air:
    frances.taylor@cmpmedica.com

  • Charles Crump

    Good efforts going on here. However, after ten years payin my stupid taxes on over two dozen streetscapes, a reaciton or two, if you don’t mind. On a median this narrow, and in accordance with basic urban forestry strategies, you should keep the trees in the middle of the median. Better chances for tree survival and lesser opportunity for car/tree impact. While you don’t have snow and salt to kill trees, the roots will have a much better environment if centrally located.

  • Peter Smith

    I’m late to this, but I want it noted for posterity — adding a GARGANTUAN 14′ median while _not_ adding cycletracks to this road is pretty much a 10 out of 10 on the ‘Hate Biking Index’.

    At this point, I’m not sure if it’s more insane than it is sadistic.

  • Angry Again

    Hey, how about for starters we go back to naming it Army Street.