Today’s Headlines

  • SFPD Arrests, Cites 71-Year-Old Driver for Killing Man on Sunset Blvd. (CBS)
  • Driver Hits Boy, About 7, in Crosswalk at O’Farrell and Leavenworth (ABC)
  • SUV Driver Flees After Hitting, Critically Injuring Man in Crosswalk and Van Ness and Grove (KTVU)
  • SFPD Continues to Beef Up Traffic Enforcement; Suhr: 95 Percent of Tickets to Drivers (KTVU)
  • Car Parking Banned on Block of Turk in Tenderloin, Drug Dealing and Violent Crimes Plummet (SFGate)
  • SFMTA Has Still Not Moved to Get Cars Off of Market Street (BeyondChron)
  • Japantown, Fillmore Residents Still Want to See the Geary Underpass Filled in (SFGate)
  • People Behaving Badly at Hairy, Traffic-Filled Intersection of Mission, South Van Ness, 12th Street
  • Genentech Commuter Bus Decals Remind People That They Take 120 Cars Off the Road (SFGate)
  • Top 5 BART Stations for Bike Theft All in the Easy Bay, Dublin/Pleasanton is #1 (KRON)
  • How Volunteers Help the East Bay Bicycle Coalition Win Safer Streets (SFGate)
  • After Girl’s Death, Foster City Residents Call for Stop Sign. City Removes Crosswalk Instead (SMDJ)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • thielges

    That Foster City crosswalk removal is classic and shows that city leadership is more concerned about lawsuits than creating a safe walkable environment. Even after removing the crosswalk it is still legal to cross at the intersection so their decision actually reduces safety. But, hey, they get the “following the advice of a design expert” defense if someone else is hit there and sues. What a great gift to the residents of FC.

  • murphstahoe

    Well, it turns out the merchants were right. They took away the parking on that block of Turk, and business plummeted.

  • murphstahoe

    It would sound like they are concerned about having to stop at a stop sign. This harkens to the crosswalk in Cloverdale that has seen a fatality and then a separate incident where 2 children were run over. The public asked for a stop sign. The city council – who never walk around there but drive that road, decided a much more expensive flashing crosswalk that has a lower impact on safety was the way to go.

  • hp2ena

    Now the city should repurpose the space for wider sidewalks and buffered bike lanes!

  • SFnative74

    Regarding filling in Geary at Fillmore, I personally think the expectation of that project knitting the neighborhoods together is very questionable. Compare the intersection of Geary/Fillmore today with Geary/Divisadero. I much prefer the former to the latter, which has 6 lanes of traffic to cross versus two at Fillmore. You can add all the bulb outs and BRT you want, but in the end, you are still spending $50M on a project that forces pedestrians to cross more lanes of traffic.

  • Mario Tanev

    Crossing at Geary is fine, but crossing at Webster is crazy. Filling the underpass, with appropriate bulbouts should make it reasonable to cross, and also allow for safe crossings at other intersections.

  • SFnative74

    I agree – the crossing at Webster is not good and should be improved, but that could happen without filling in the underpass, as was done at Geary/Steiner.

  • Mario Tanev

    The fact that Geary is a freeway in that stretch renders it more dangerous in the nearby intersections.

  • SFnative74

    $50,000,000 could improve a lot of intersections. Imagine a $1M investment at 50 intersections, or $500,000 at a 100 intersections.

  • Mario Tanev

    Your point is valid.

    But clearly the discussion about the underpass is also about neighborhood cohesion, and undoing the division created by redevelopment. They are also discussing redoing the Japan Center to be open to the street. Perhaps some of the money for filling the underpass can come from non-transportation sources.

  • phoca2004

    Without the fill-in, knitting the neighborhoods together is an impossibility. With it, it becomes a possibility. The fill in also would simplify and improve Geary BRT options.

    We need to start thinking outside the constraints of infrastructure that was put in place decades ago to support a freeway build out that never came.

    A strip park with separated bike and pedestrian facilities could line a narrowed Geary boulevard linking Divisadero and Fillmore safely. Between a narrowed boulevard and a central island/station for BRT, the crossing could be transformed into two separate lane crossings.

  • 94103er

    It’s a real bummer that we always have to think of one project being pitted against another. I really hope one day SFMTA will start quantifying how much money streetscape improvements can *save* (calm traffic is distributed traffic, esp. if it increases alternative mode share, after all).

  • SFnative74

    Well, that’s reality in a world with limited funding. Universities love to tell their students to come up with designs assuming funding is not an issue, but funding is always an issue, so we should be smart about our projects and our designs. Citywide pedestrian safety is a concern and funds are limited.

  • Seems to be a bit of council hoping for some Hawthorne Effect, as long as they make a change, people will think it’s an improvement.

    It’s also odd to me that the council voted and THEN found out that every street intersection has a crosswalk (which they call an implied crosswalk), whether or not it is a MARKED crosswalk. 1) They didn’t know it and 2) that new information didn’t have any impact. I wonder if that sort of ignorance would do well in a lawsuit against the city.

    (That map in the article isn’t helpful, since it’s the wrong intersection of the 2 roads in question, is the correct one.)

  • Andy Chow

    It is all about making a statement, making a symbol. The reason the underpass was there was to keep the pedestrian oriented nature of Fillmore. Unless there’s some new highway for cars somewhere else or some kind of a rail project, traffic won’t magically go away.

  • Andy Chow

    “Neighborhood cohesion,” “division,” These feel good words are really easy to throw around but what do they really mean?