Today’s Headlines

  • 34-Year-Old Man on Bike Injured by Trucker Making Illegal U-Turn at Market and Front Streets (Examiner)
  • Police Report Faults Cheng Jin Lai, 78-Year-Old Man Killed on Bike by Muni Bus, for Own Death (Weekly)
  • Fire Chief, Mayor Respond to Wiener’s Push to Limit Wide Streets (SFGate; CBS)
  • With Giants Fans Packing Trains, SFMTA Struggles to Serve Commuters on T, N in SoMa (SFGate)
  • SF Bay Guardian Praises Warriors Arena Move, Floats Ideas for Use of Piers 30-32
  • What Happens When Warriors and Giants Games Overlap? SFMTA Says it Should Be Rare (CBS)
  • More on SFPD’s “Bait Bike” Program (KTVU); Officer Gets Giddy After Thief Steals One (SF Weekly)
  • SFGate Bay Bikers Shares Peninsula Routes to Try Out on Bike to Work Day
  • High-Tech Sails Could Cut Fuel Use for Transbay Commuter Ferries (SFGate)
  • Bay Bridge Drivers Distracted by Demolition of Old Span Causing Morning Delays (ABC)
  • CHP Finds Man Bicycling in Center of I-80 in West Oakland (SF Weekly)
  • Oakland Community Searches for Hit-and-Run Driver that Killed 68-Year-Old Man on Telegraph (KTVU)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • jonobate

    “P.J. Johnston with the Warriors project said an off-ramp extension is in the works for Highway 280 at Mariposa Street.”

    Umm, what? Is he referring to the I-280 teardown, or this going to be another irrational transportation project implemented due to a personal commitment from Mayor Ed Lee?

  • gneiss

    The fire chiefs argument against narrow streets only applies if those streets continue to have cars parked on them. Without cars, the trucks could easily mount the sidewalks in cases where they needed to squeeze several pieces of equipment past each other.

    What she should be calling for, is banning on-street parking on streets that are less than 26 feet wide and reducing hard sidewalk furniture – that would be a far safer arrangement for narrower streets than calling for wider streets. Instead, we have these ridiculous standards that make it more dangerous most of the time as the wider streets simply encourage faster driving in residential neighborhoods.

  • zoehoster

    Interesting the SFBG says putting the arena at Mission Bay would encourage the teardown of 280. Seems just the opposite – the arena people would rather maintain close freeway access.

  • twinpeaks_sf

    It’s in the works right now, I think. An extension of the Mariposa off-ramp down to 16th St.

  • gneiss

    The primary bike route from the Mission currently travels on 16th Street. Putting an off-ramp extension there will just make that location more unfriendly to bicycling and walking. The city should commit to adding a new offramp *only* if there is funding to upgrade the current bicycle route to run the rest of the way along 17th Street instead of on 16th.

    And by upgrading, I don’t mean just putting some sharrows on the pavement and calling it done. They need to really make it a more friendly street with curb side protected bike lanes and signal priority for people on bikes.

    When you consider that the city and state always cries poverty every time a bike lane or transit expansion is suggested, yet manage to find millions in their budget for a flyover offramp to serve a private sports venue that’s going to see traffic volume increases only intermittently, you really see what their priorities are.

  • I believe you’re talking about adding a city surface street from Mariposa to 16th St right on the eastern edge of the Caltrain tracks.

    Ah, it’ll be Owens St:

    The freeway off-ramp will still stop at Mariposa as it is today, but cars will also have the option of dog-legging to the right onto Owens St to directly get to 16th St. Today vehicles have 2 options: Mariposa to the right (generally on their way to 3rd St) and Mariposa to the left (generally filling Mariposa, Mississippi, and the Pennsylvania ‘short cut’ to get to 16th St and 7th St.)

    Please, for the love of god, don’t call this an off-ramp.

  • twinpeaks_sf

    Indeed, not an off-ramp. Open to any traffic traveling (seemingly in either direction) b/w 16th + Mariposa.

    Better news though – a little bird told me that the extension of 4th St b/w 16th + Mariposa will be for walking, bicycling, (and service vehicles) only. So that’s nice, and clearly not an off-ramp.

  • It’s not an “off-ramp extension”. (see below)

  • Assuming they build according to the 2nd to bottom photo at that link, it should mostly solve the illegal GGP-crossover traffic issue…they’d have to want to drive around some slow sharp turns through the parking lot. Not that it won’t happen, but it’ll just be game traffic brinkmanship.

    The curbs for the new, wider Mariposa St are in place on the north side of Mariposa, and you can see where Owens St will someday be.

  • jonobate

    Okay, that makes a lot more sense – it would be better described as “completing the Mission Bay street grid” rather than “extending the off-ramp”. It will indeed help traffic from I-280 get to 16th St and from there to the new arena, and it will still be a useful part of the street grid if/when I-280 is boulevarded north of Mariposa.

  • jonobate

    Boulevarding I-280 would actually make it slightly easier to get to the arena. Currently traffic from the south would take the Mariposa exit followed by a half mile of surface streets – right on Mariposa, then left on Third. The plan is to end I-280 at Mariposa and replace with a boulevard north of Mariposa. So traffic would still need to take a half mile of surface streets, but they would have an additional route option – north on the boulevard, then right on 16th. Travel time would be about the same, and there would be more road capacity to handle the traffic.

  • That’s “…when I-280 is boulevarded north of Cesar Chavez.”

  • Pretty sure all the plans that have been tossed around involved taking 280 down back to Cesar Chavez.

  • jonobate

    Pretty sure that’s not the case. There were a few specific freeway removal scenarios described in the request for funding for the I-280 study filed by the Planning Dept. I’m too lazy to find it now, but none of them involved removing the freeway as far south as Cesar Chavez.

    The most recent material on this project I can find is here (Feb 2014):

    Take a look at slide 21, for example. It clearly shows the freeway ending at 16th St. (I think 16th and Mariposa have both been proposed as end points.) Personally I would like to see the freeway removed all the way back to the interchange with US-101, but that’s not what is being proposed.

  • You’re right, even the articles I read say 16th St. So either my understanding the entire time is wrong, or you’re in league with the Ministry of Information and have rewritten the past.

    That’s especially funny considering the dogpatch/potrero hill sections of nextdoor blew up with multiple threads about how dire the teardown would make things with traffic coming through our neighborhoods–which would have at least made a bit of sense if we tore down to Cesar Chavez.

  • Something odd, or ominous in regards to this story: I posted a comment on the SF CBS site that wrote an article about this, and received a reply from a reader who called my response “flawed thinking” and went on to call for all bicycle lane funding to go to the SFFD.

    I entered a rational rebuttal to this fellow’s rant with substantiating evidence, but it went into “moderation” according to the site, and was never published.

    Is CBS censoring comments that support Supe Wiener’s narrow streets legislation?

  • jonobate

    NIMBY complaints not making logical sense? Surely not! 🙂

  • rickbynight

    I’m pretty sure many of the alleys in Chinatown do not meet these requirements already. I’m sure they’re “grandfathered in” but come on: if the fire department can’t serve those areas effectively, it’s time to evaluate different fire truck equipment anyway.