B2B at 100: Eight Neighborhood Groups Take Lead For Fun, Safe 100th Year Race

Representatives from eight neighborhoods along the Bay-to-Breakers route are setting the course for a successful and less contentious race and after-party in the centennial celebration next year. Presidents of the District 5 neighborhood associations developed strategies to counter this year's problems that range from outreach and promotion to a central command center and more extensive enforcement.

The group also wants to take a look at the economics of the race and the negotiations for the race permit. They have stepped-up their involvement in event planning after what many consider a disastrous after-party that trashed several neighborhoods. "There needs to be an action plan for either controlling or abating the after-party," Jarie Bolander, president of the North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA), said. "It can no longer be left to neighborhoods to fend for themselves when so many problems overtake the event."

The associations call for a city-wide task force that includes all stakeholders including elected officials, city department heads and the chief of police, race managers and sponsors, race participants, and neighborhood representatives. The local representatives developed several proposals for the task force to consider:

• More involvement by SFPD District Captains, as well as the Chief of Police, with a central command center and an "on the ground" focus that directs resources to hot spots
• Prepare for the after-party as if it were a protest with visible paddy wagons along the course and with resources staged throughout the day not just until the end of the race
• Trained volunteers to "observe and report" illegal or dangerous activities to the police
• Possible sealing off of the race from side streets from Fillmore to Stanyan streets
• Promotion of the event to warn that infractions will result in fine
• Opening the permit negotiations now conducted between the Mayor's office and race manager AEG to more public review before the proposal is submitted to the city's hearing committee
• Opening the books on profit and loss of the Bay to Breakers
• Placement of port-o-potties off the course on neighborhood streets
• Reduction of the environmental impact with major reduction of trash along the course

The local leaders presented their recommendations to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi last week and obtained his support of the process. "It's clear that Supervisor Mirkarimi shares our concerns and will help us in any way possible," Bolander wrote in a summary of the meeting. "We have seen that when Supervisor Mirkarimi is part of the process positive outcomes happen." Mirkarimi was closely involved with planning -- and setting limits on activities -- for the 2009 race, but pulled back from this year's event. Following the troubles with the out-of-control after-party this year, the supervisor's office said AEG had not consulted with them.

The neighborhood leaders are not alone in urging a re-thinking of B2B with involvement across the city. BIKE NOPA spoke with Supervisor Bevan Dufty about his district's experience with the Castro Halloween party that was discontinued after violence disrupted the event in 2006. District 5 leaders frequently cite what happened with Halloween in the Castro as a harbinger of what could befall Bay to Breakers. "It's so pleasurable the last two years (in the Castro at Halloween)," Dufty said. "There's not the huge drinking party, but you can walk on the sidewalks and streets and be with friends and have your party that way." Regarding the Bay to Breakers, Dufty commented, "I do believe this is a multi-district issue. I think the stakeholders need to make a comittment to make their voices heard and be part of the process."

The neighborhood groups believe they have initiated that process in an effort to protect neighbors from unsafe conditions, bring all stakeholders together, urge positive solutions to current event problems, hold responsible parties accountable, and make the 100th Bay to Breakers a phenomenally fun event for everyone.

The following organizations are participating in the B2B planning:

• Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association
• Divisadero Merchants Association
• Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
• Lower Haight Merchants and Neighborhood Association
• Haight Ashbury Improvement Association
• Buena Vista Neighborhood Association
• Cole Valley Improvement Association
• North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association

Jarie Bolander requests that anyone who wants to get involved with making the 100th Bay to Breakers "Fun for Everyone" to send an email to b2b@nopna.org

Check here for previous stories in BIKE NOPA's series B2B at 100.

$100 Award for Winning Logo in Divisadero Farmers' Market Competition

Anyone inspired to get into the logo design trade, take note: the Divisadero Farmers' Market is looking for you. Dmitrius Spartos, manager of the ever-more popular Sunday market at Divisadero and Grove, wants to usher in spring and summer with its own new logo. The design contest runs through May 30th when the winning entry will be selected. Contact Spartos here or by phone: 925-825-9090. Time's running out. Competition will be judged by the end of this week. And an extra jolt to creative juices and the pocketbook: the winning entrant will receive $100.

Fell, Oak Streets SFgo Signs Are Down and Out

From this ....on Fell Street

to this...all that remains of Fell Street Sfgo sign

Early Saturday morning the SFMTA removed the much-maligned SFgo "freeway-style signs" from Fell and Oak Streets near Divisadero. A contracting firm lifted, dismantled, and drove the sign standards to storage at the City Yard on Rankin Street. Neighbors in the North Panhandle and Alamo Square districts strongly objected to the placement of the "message display boards" (SFMTA's preferred description) nearly as soon as they were erected last summer, as noted in this first SFgo post last August. NOPNA and Alamo Square Neighborhood Association (ASNA) representatives worked with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's office and with SFMTA Traffic Engineer Jack Fleck and his staff to negotiate the removal of the SFgo signs.

"This is a great day for the neighborhood," cheered former NOPNA President Leela Gill when told of the sign removal Saturday morning. Gill and many other neighbors objected to the SFgo posts for several reasons as outlined in previous BIKE NOPA posts. Residents felt the design of the signs -- so similar to freeway message boards, if not the same size -- would give drivers one more visual cue that fast driving is expected. Others also felt the signs were completely counter to the revitalization of the Divisadero Corridor still underway through the neighborhoods. Most recently, the city capped the street lights along Divisadero to give a softer glow and more attractive look -- in stark contrast to the previous cobra-head design lights and the SFgo standards as well.

The Oak Street sign was abandoned by SFMTA relatively early during the protests, but the Fell Street sign was erected partly to advise motorists heading toward Golden Gate Park museums when the Concourse Authority garage is full. Inner Sunset residents have been frustrated by the traffic congestion as museum-goers sought street parking in their neighborhood. Supervisor Mirkarimi's office expects to negotiate a plan involving SFMTA, the neighborhood associations, and representatives from the Concourse Authority, the Academy of Sciences, and the deYoung Museum to place an experimental, portable street-level message board to advise motorists where to seek alternative parking when the Concourse garage is full.

A personal note: Thank you to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and his aides Vallie Brown and Jeremy Pollock for their research, receptivity to the neighborhoods, and persuasion with SFMTA on the SFgo issue. Thanks also to SFMTA staff: Jack Fleck and SFgo Program Manager Cheryl Liu and Assistant Manager Cathal Hennessey for their responsiveness and willingness to find alternative solutions. And, most importantly, to everyone from the Alamo Square and North Panhandle neighborhoods who signed petitions, attended meetings, and sent emails to have the SFgo signs removed. Much appreciation to this morning's "eyes on the street", Christian Nguyen, who alerted BIKE NOPA of the SFgo action.

Supervisor Mirkarimi Proposes Pilot Project for Fell Street Traffic Management

Fell sign to be replaced by street-level, portable display sign

Oak Street sign not needed, city looking to store it

A street-level, portable message board will replace the freeway-style SFgo sign on Fell Street in a pilot project proposed by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. The project is expected to be a joint undertaking by the MTA, the Concourse Authority, the Academy of Sciences, and the de Young Museum with input and monitoring from the Recreation and Parks Department and nearby neighbors. The trail effort will address the traffic congestion caused by museum-goers travelling by car who seek alternative parking when the Concourse garage is full.

Representatives from the Golden Gate Park institutions, the MTA, Recreation and Parks, and west-side neighborhood associations met at City Hall January 29^th in a meeting organized by Mirkarimi’s office. (Note: NOPNA, ASNA, and Cole Valley were present; I was one of two NOPNA representatives). Following a review of current efforts to deal with the traffic problems, the supervisor told the group of his plans for the pilot project. “I will ask the museums to share the costs and will ask the MTA to establish metrics and assess the impact.” Jack Fleck, MTA Traffic Engineer, estimated on the spot that the project would cost about $20,000 year with the MTA providing the sign and labor.

The museum representatives at the meeting did not object to Mirkarimi’s suggestion of financial support, but neither did they voice agreement. When asked about the timeline for initiation of the project, Mirkarimi said the prep work will be undertaken in February with answers from all parties by March 1^st.

Initially, the museum representatives expressed some resistance to further involvement with the traffic issue. An Academy of Sciences representative questioned, “What’s under our control?" She added that determining traffic and parking solutions were really “outside of our expertise.” Patricia Lacson, Director of Facilities for the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco which includes the de Young, commented, “We’ve really made a lot of effort on this already.” And, in fact, both institutions have undertaken measures to encourage visitors to use transit and bicycles, including entry discounts for those traveling by MUNI or bike, transit discounts to employees, helping finance the inter-park shuttle, and staff time directing traffic.

Museum parking managers are especially frustrated by visitors who expect free parking or the easiest of directions to alternative parking. “It’s almost as if they just want to hand us their car keys,” remarked one Concourse representative. The concourse staff has tried to direct motorists to the nearby UCSF parking garage, but the few streets and turns involved seems to boggle the minds of out-of-town visitors. Museum and garage staffers have found it much easier to direct visitors to the free parking along the Great Highway and then use of the shuttle. “We tell them to turn and keep going until you get to the ocean,” one director explained.

But neighborhood representatives countered it was hardly efficient or environmentally wise to encourage a few extra miles of travel when the UCSF garage was so close. And, indeed, it is ironic for an institution like the Academy of Sciences, one of the “greenest” buildings in town, to encourage the less environmentally friendly parking option. Mirkarimi weighed in on the discussion, commenting, “It makes more sense to direct people to the UCSF garage and not depend on “free parking” as an expectation for visitors.”

NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors are not affected by the traffic congestion related to the museum-goers, and would not be involved in the discussions if the MTA had not erected the SFgo sign on Fell Street last August as a means to alert motorists when the Concourse garage is full. Neighbors found the signs near Divisadero – and a second one on Oak Street – too intrusive with a “freeway style” design likely to encourage motorists’ to speed even more on the corridors.

When the SFgo sign standards come down – by April according to the MTA, as reported here yesterday – NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors’ immediate concerns will have been met. But a portable sign will be placed on Fell, and traffic problems elsewhere in District 5 certainly have an eventual impact here as well. For now, in the assessment of NOPNA board member Dan Nguyen-Tan, the other representative at the City Hall meeting, "We're pleased to hear that Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and the MTA are committed to removing the permanent signs."

MTA To Remove SFgo Signs on Oak/Fell by April; Says Lessons Learned from Little Outreach to NOPA, Alamo Square

Not for NOPA: SFgo on 10th

The SFgo signs erected on Oak and Fell Streets near Divisadero last August will be removed by April following intense objections by NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors and resistance by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. Cathal Hennessey, assistant program manager for SFgo, told BIKE NOPA in an interview that the signs “will come down by April, at the latest, that’s the end of the contract.” The fate of the Oak Street sign standard had been determined several weeks earlier, but the structure has remained. Hennessey earlier reported that the MTA was seeking storage space for the SFgo signs, although they hoped to use one of them on 19^th Avenue.

The Fell Street sign will be on its way to storage as well. Mirkarimi told a City Hall gathering January 29^th that he “will advocate to remove both permanent signs.” Hennessey had already stated that the agency will respect the decisions by the supervisor and the neighbors regarding the two controversial freeway-style signs.

Hennessey also commented that SFgo, a unit of the MTA, had learned the importance of better neighborhood outreach as a result of its experience with the District 5 neighborhoods. “We’re improving our outreach, and we’re not going forward without residential support,” he said. Prior to erecting the Oak and Fell signs, neighbors were informed of SFgo plans by official nearby postings that only mentioned "variable message displays" were planned for the two locations. When neighbors found what the "displays" were "freeway-style signs" planted along the traffic corridors already notorious for speeding, they quickly mounted a campaign to bring them down.

SFgo has previously reported support for its “variable message display” signs in more commercial areas of the city. Currently there are signs in operation on 9^th and 10^th Street in SOMA (as reported here). SFgo also hopes to erect similar signs on 19^th Avenue and Bush Street, among other locations, but not before consulting with neighborhood associations and district supervisors and gaining their agreement.

Supervisor Mirkarimi: Concourse Authority and Golden Gate Park Museums Must Step Up to Help Solve Traffic Problems

One option for Sfgo at the DMV site on Fell Street: not as bad as this

photo-shopped version. See below and our apologies to MTA SFgo staff.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi told representatives of District 5 neighborhoods that the Golden Gate Concourse Authority, the California Academy of Science, and the deYoung Museum should be sharing responsibility for finding a solution to the traffic congestion caused by overflow crowds and limited garage parking. "They have to help us with alleviation of this problem," Mirkarimi said. "They haven't stepped up yet." He added that the three organizations wanted the city to erect the SFgo signs to alert motorists when the concourse garage is full, but "they don't help with the cost."

Mirkarimi's comments came toward the end of a Monday afternoon meeting held in City Hall with representatives from five neighborhood associations.* The group gathered to review "alternative options" to the unpopular SFgo signs that first appeared on Oak and Fell Streets last August. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) Traffic Engineer Jack Fleck, SFgo Manager Cheryl Liu, and Assistant Manager Cathal Hennessey presented the different ways of retaining some version of the SFgo program on Fell Street. They proposed moving the current Fell sign further west alongside the Department of Motor Vehicles near Baker Street, and they suggested a more decorative pole rather than the smooth, harsh "freeway style" treatment.

The real differences appeared with the size of the message board and the placement on the pole:

• one option has the board cantilevered over the parking lane and 18 feet high
• the other possibility mounts the board at the center of the pole just 10 feet high

An improvement for both is the reduction in message board size. The previous model -- and the type used in SOMA -- is large enough for four lines of text; the options above permit only two lines and are less intrusive as a result.

The change that no one would likely object to is the decorative design. We previously suggested here that the DMV site would be an unsightly welcome to Panhandle Park. Even with the reduction in size of the message board sign, the location still seems a poor choice. (And the NOPNA Board of Directors oppose having the SFgo sign anywhere on Fell Street). The other pole with the message board would be placed in the middle of the sidewalk. (Good luck getting ADA clearance, and is't it a bit ironic that a Transit First city might block a sidewalk with a traffic pole?) But don't dwell on these options. The third option is the one likely to be adopted on an experimental basis.

A portable sign much like what appears for special traffic situations was proposed for the DMV site. It has the advantage of being less intrusive and can be used as needed, but its visibility may be blocked by vehicles and it requires one parking space. The sign would be configured for wireless operation and to display variable messages. Mirkarimi judged the portable sign as the only one that would work for the situation at hand.

Much of the discussion among the neighborhood reps centered on more creative solutions to the traffic congestion problems. Susan King of Livable City and a Haight resident, Michael Smithwick of Alamo Square, and other neighbors suggested a range of possibilities including a surcharge on Academy and Museum tickets, a prompt to request text messages about available parking when ordering tickets online, and a pre-paid Muni fare attached to each ticket purchased as ways to increase revenues and encourage transit use.

Others pointed out that neither the Academy nor the deYoung encouraged members to use the Culture Bus when it was still operating. Although the Academy website still advises visitors that "parking is located throughout Golden Gate Park and the neighboring areas," online visitors are strongly encouraged to use Muni or the park shuttle. Patrons who walk, bike, or take public transportation are given a $3 discount.

Supervisor Mirkarimi announced that another meeting would be held next month. That gathering, he said, would include representatives from the Concourse Authority and the museums. "They should have been here today," he said, "we will ask them to be here before January."

A few other items:

• Observers have previously commented that placing a SFgo sign on Octavia Street at the exit of the Central Freeway might be more useful and appropriate. The MTA has judged this location too distant from the Concourse destination to capture motorists' attention and suggest it would fail to alert drivers approaching by Gough Street.
• Richmond District representatives declined participating in the meeting because the Concourse traffic and parking problem was not a significant issue for them.
• Craig Dawson stressed how congested Inner Sunset blocks were more and more of the time, not only when the concourse garage is full but whenever JFK Drive closes. While NOPA and Alamo Square deal with motorists who are often speeding on their way to the park, Inner Sunset neighbors cope with drivers traveling at slower speeds endlessly looking for parking and clogging their neighborhood.
• MTA proposes removing the Oak Street SFgo sign and placing it on 19th Avenue near Ortega Street.
• A request to others at the meeting: please do comment and add more details on your very good ideas for dealing with this problem.

* In addition to NOPNA, the other organizations represented at the meeting were the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association, Cole Valley Improvement Association, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, and the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Association.

NOPA Meets: Yes on Sunday Streets, No on SFgo, Let's Talk on Fell/ARCO Tangle

A North Panhandle view: a balance to the streets talk at NOPNA meeting.

More than 60 NOPA neighbors gathered last night to consider a range of livability and transportation issues. The bottom line on the hot agenda items:

• enthusiastic support to bring next year's Sunday Streets celebration into the neighborhood
• big thumbs down to the SFgo signs, both of the freeway-style signs on Fell and Oak
• "not so sure with so many options" judgment on MTA's plans for the Fell/ARCO traffic mess

The November meeting of the North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) offered a packed agenda for members, visitors from the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association (ASNA), and reps from city agencies and various non-profits.

Deemed the big draw of the evening, Cheryl Brinkman of Livable City graciously awaited her last-on-the-agenda speaking slot. She told the audiience how much Sunday Streets organizers are looking forward to having a route through NOPA next year. Although it's too early to confirm actual streets and dates for the walk-bike-enjoy-the-streets celebration, Brinkman did confirm September was the month for the NOPA area ride. "Yours will get the best weather." A call for how much support exists for the proposal brought a round of applause.

The unpopular SFgo signs discussed extensively here already (search "SFgo") received little attention, but NOPNA Board President Kevin Rafter restated the association's stance. After confirming that the Oak Street sign will come down, he commented on the Fell sign. "NOPNA's position is that we should not have a sign there at all." Can't get much more clear than that.

Mike Sallaberry, Associate Traffic Engineer for the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) tackled the problems with Fell Street at the ARCO station. Sallaberry and his MTA colleague, traffic engineer James Shahamiri, distributed a two-page list of eight different options (with pros and cons for each!) for how to manage the often conflicting needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists at this busy spot. Sallaberry first developed these options more than two years ago -- an indication of MTA's awareness of the conflicts here on Fell. None of the eight options are clear and obvious standouts for implementation, but even in an imperfect traffic engineering world, choices must be made with the daily safety risks at the site.

Sallaberry emphasized two important considerations for any discussion of this block of Fell Street:

• nearly every width on that block is already at its minimum, so there is no chance to narrow -- or widen -- a travel lane, a bike lane, a parking lane, or a sidewalk.
• immediate implementation of several possible options must wait until after the court injunction against the Bicycle Plan is lifted.

He also noted, in a handout, that the long-term option might be "to encourage a different land use on that lot with a different (or no) driveway design." The other short-term possibilities include the three that received the most attention:

• Remove three or more parking spaces in front of the ARCO driveway "to create a lane for ARCO-users to wait to the left of the bike lane". The pros: motorists would be more likely to wait outside the bike lane as well as the travel lane and it would be cheap and easy to install. The cons: residents may oppose and the parking lane would be more narrow than ideal for turn lanes and motorists would likely move into the bike lane to make the turn into ARCO.

• Create a two-way bike lane along the curb by moving parked cars away from the curb by 5 feet, or, alternately, remove all parking on southside Fell and build a two-way bike path. Pros: cars would block the vehicle lane and not the bike path; cyclists might feel safer with this physical separation from moving vehicles; and a two-way path also improves the east-bound bike traffic, encouraging cyclists to use it rather than Oak Street. But the cons: two-way paths "have design and safety challenges" (the handout did not explain these further); parking changes would likely be opposed but might be mitigated by opening other nearby spaces; and motorists still might block the driveway at ARCO.

Michael Smithwick of ASNA strongly encouraged MTA to devise a plan that was equally sensitive to pedestrians and bicyclists. Smithwick's proposal was featured in this earlier post; it entails (a) a bike lane where it is now but with a permanent structure (a tree, a bike rack) right before the ARCO driveway blocking any passage by vehicles, and (b) flexible barriers separating bike and vehicle traffic. Motorists awaiting their turn at ARCO would have to remain in the travel lane. MTA suggests that the trouble with a proposal like this is that motorists might still block the driveway and barriers make it more difficult for cyclists to leave the lane when necessary.

Almost everyone agreed that signs advising motorists to do or not do something at this location would be ineffective. The deft phrasing of traffic engineer suggests, "The effect of signage on adusting behavior is limited."

Next steps: MTA reps will consider the input from the NOPNA meeting and then propose further discussion with "stakeholders" before settling on a final plan. The fact that MTA originally proposed bringing one proposal to the NOPNA meeting and then presented a review of eight without stating their own strong preference suggests that they clearly listened to the concerns and ideas put forward by NOPNA, ASNA, and SFBC. Marc Caswell, SFBC Program Manager and NOPA resident, is the Bike Coalition's point person on the Fell Street challenge. We look forward to updates from him and the MTA to move the Eight Options to One Solution.

For those readers who want even more detail, check here for a PDF of the full document of various options. Note: this is not an official MTA document and is not posted on the MTA web site. But, after distribution last night at the NOPNA meeting, it's now public. (And, it presents a good overall analysis).

Politics Bounces SFgo Sign Along Fell Street

UPDATE 2:30 pm Monday: Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's office has decided to delay delivering a recommendation to the SFMTA regarding where the SFgo sign on Fell Street might be located. In a conversation this afternoon with NOPNA board member Larry Griffin, Vallie Brown, an aide to Supervisor Mirkarimi, said they needed more time to research the SFgo matter. Previously, as noted in the post below, the Supervisor's office had expected to recommend a site for the Fell Street sign to the MTA this Wednesday. Since learning from SFgo staff last Friday that Mirkarimi "strongly encouraged" placement of the sign along the DMV lot on Fell, NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors objected to what appeared to be a "rush to recommend" without consulting neighbors. Another NOPNA board member, Dan Nguyen-Tan, suggested in a message to Mirkarimi earlier this afternoon that a meeting of all interested parties be convened to craft a solution for the traffic conditions on Fell Street including the role and location of the proposed SFgo sign.

**********************************************************

Political maneuvers by city transportation officials and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi’s office may determine the next location of the freeway-style SFgo sign on Fell Street, leaving NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors out of the site-selection process once again. But a push-back is coming from neighbors who don’t want their streets stuck with the SFgo eyesore at the entry to Panhandle Park.

The new developments occur even as neighbors celebrated the decision to remove the SFgo sign from Oak Street near Broderick. Last Friday Cheryl Liu, SFgo Project Manager, informed BIKE NOPA that the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) had decided to remove the message display sign on Oak “based on community input” and a meeting with Sup. Mirkarimi on September 30. That decision leaves only the Fell Street sign, recently installed next to a gas station just west of Divisadero. Liu also wrote that MTA was considering moving the Fell Street sign to a different location, perhaps along the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) property on Fell between Broderick and Baker.

Previously MTA took the brunt of neighborhood criticism for placing the SFgo signs near the Divisadero Corridor. NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors objected to the lack of community outreach by the agency and the inappropriateness of both the signs and the locations. To its credit, the MTA will remove the Oak sign. But they seem to be shifting responsibility for finding a new home for the Fell St sign to Sup. Mirkarimi. And, for some reason, his office appears poised to make a decision with little community outreach.

“Supervisor Mirkarimi strongly suggested that we consider moving the Fell Street sign to a location next to the DMV, and we are looking into that possibility,” Liu explained in her message to BIKE NOPA. She added that the staff will consider neighbors’ comments “prior to installing any sign,” but the suggestion was clear that the DMV site was the supervisor’s idea.

Last Friday Mirkarimi’s aide Vallie Brown said the staff would likely propose a new location for the Fell sign by Tuesday this week, and that the supervisor would likely make a recommendation about the sign relocation to the MTA on Wednesday. What the supervisor’s staff has apparently not allowed for during its rushed two-day research is any community input about whether the SFgo sign should be placed on Fell at the DMV. NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors learned of the proposed DMV site from the MTA not from Mirkarimi’s office, and three to four days is hardly enough time to gather input about a location no one had previously considered. Although Brown said the DMV site was not a “done deal,” she did not propose any other location for the sign.

Neither NOPNA nor ASNA, the neighborhood associations, suggested SFgo locations further west of Divisadero. The groups proposed instead that the Fell sign be moved closer to the off-ramps of the Central Freeway where it might be more effective in alerting motorists when the Golden Gate Park Concourse Garage is closed. But Mirkarimi and the MTA are also hearing from the California Academy of Sciences, and from Inner Richmond and Inner Sunset neighbors, according to Brown, and they want a “garage advisory” sign placed on Fell somewhere between Masonic and Divisadero. Supervisor Mirkarimi must balance differing concerns among his constituencies, and he may believe that the removal of the Oak sign and the relocation of the Fell sign are enough of a nod to NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors while the DMV location still gives the Academy and residents west of Masonic what they’ve lobbied for all along. But does anyone really want a SFgo sign, or something like it, at the entrance of Panhandle Park?

Rather than rush to a Wednesday recommendation, why not avoid the likely opposition from NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors by opening the discussion with effective community outreach? Remove the Oak and Fell signs and encourage all the neighborhood constituencies, the SFgo staff, and other interested parties to consider all the options and work toward a consensus.

Is This Better? SFgo on Fell at DMV Site

Photoshopped depiction of SFgo at DMV

Should the SFgo sign now looming over Fell near Divisadero be moved a block further west along the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) lot? Admittedly, the accompanying image has been photo-shopped to approximate what the freeway-style might look like at this site. While the photo might not be scaled just right, compare it with the untouched pic of the current SOMA SFgo signs. Not so different.

Current SFgo sign on 9th near Howard

DMV driveway on Fell St

Moving the sign away from Divisadero lessens the safety hazards at that intersection, lessens the impact of a freeway-style sign on the revitalized Divisadero corridor, and perhaps reduces the impact on future housing developments. But the proposed location along the DMV appears to present a different set of problems, or, in some cases, simply shifts them further down Fell Street:

• an SFgo kind of sign placed too close to Baker Street could distract drivers and create a hazard for bicyclists just as they cross Baker to access the Panhandle Path or as they leave the Panhandle to take Baker for a connection to Oak and the popular Wiggle bike route.
• the mid-block DMV driveway already poses a hazard for motorists and cyclists with drivers trying to leave or enter the fast moving Fell traffic;
• a location closer to Broderick but still along the DMV lot is possible but would be directly across the street from two and three level Victorian residences with a view of the ungainly structures;
• does anyone really want a sign like this positioned just before the century-old eucalyptus trees greet visitors to Panhandle Park?

The SFgo sign standard on Oak Street is also along the DMV lot and will be removed as a result of neighbors' opposition. What makes the Fell Street side of the DMV any less objectionable?

MTA to Remove SFgo Sign on Oak Street, Considers Moving Fell Street Sign

The Municipal Transportation Authority has decided to remove the freeway-style SFgo sign placed on Oak Street after NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors strongly objected to the structures and questioned their purpose. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi also objected to the Oak Street sign and obtained the decision to dismantle it in a September 30th meeting with MTA staff. Cheryl Liu, SFgo Program Manager, announced the decision Friday afternoon in an email response to a request posted on BIKE NOPA for answers to questions regarding the program.

MTA is also considering moving the SFgo sign on Fell Street, possibly to a location next to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on Divisadero between Baker and Broderick. That move, according to the MTA, was "strongly suggested" by Supervisor Mirkarimi. Vallie Brown, aide to Mirkarimi, said this afternoon that she and another staffer are researching other sites for the Fell sign as well.

"We're researching everything," Brown said. "We're looking at several sites and different designs for a sign so that it would be more fitting to a residential area." She assured neighbors that the DMV site was "no done deal." She expects to get recommendations to Mirkarimi by Tuesday of next week, and she thinks the supervisor will decide on his proposal to MTA for the sign the following day.

Given the high level of interest expressed by NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors as well as by livability, pedestrian, and bicyclist advocates throughout the city, we are posting the full text of SFgo's response.

Highlights from the answers include:

• the SFgo effort is part of a broader Fell and Oak infrastructure project begun ten years ago;
• current infrastructure upgrading will permit a more sophisticated implementation of the city's Transit First policy;
• MTA states that it is "completely open to suggestions and recommendations from neighborhoods and stakeholders" and is "willing and ready to make adjustments and compromises if justified";
• MTA provided samples of messages expected to be displayed on SFgo signs, including public service announcements, traveler alerts, statewide Amber Alerts, and notices of street closures, and parking options.
• Bicyclists and pedestrians will benefit from reduced driver frustration once motorists are informed of traffic delays; increased bicycle data collection on Fell at Divisadero will help MTA develop future bicycle safety enhancements;
• MTA conducted research on the design of the SFgo signs for a size large enough to display messages;
• MTA believes the signs along Fell and Oak provided "a good balance between maximizing functionality and minimizing adverse neighborhood impacts."
• MTA asserts that they followed "current protocols for disseminating information" about the project before the start of construction.
• MTA will work with any developers of property near the SFgo signs to determine possible negative impacts of the display messages.

The MTA document does not reflect upon whether the "current protocols" for notifying the neighborhoods was adequate or even decipherable (the notice only mentioned "variable message displays"), but the agency emphasizes in the document a willingness to "learn more about NOPNA and ASNA's concerns, and look forward to reaching a mutual compromise that will allow us to maximize this transportation investment."

The neighborhood associations in NOPA and Alamo Square launched a campaign against the Oak and Fell signs earlier this week. With the announcement from MTA today that the Oak Street sign will be removed, the groups have achieved one of their two objectives. Neighbors expect to discuss prospects for the Fell sign in the days ahead.

"No on SFgo" Campaign Launched in NOPA, Alamo Square

Neighbors on both sides of Divisadero have united in opposition to the two freeway-style signs that the city recently placed on Oak and Fell streets. Both NOPNA and the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association (ASNA) sent letters of protest to Nathaniel Ford, Executive Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA), the SFMTA Board of Directors, and the SFMTA Traffic Engineer Jack Fleck. In addition, the associations have urged District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to do all he can to get the Oak Street sign removed and the Fell Street sign relocated to a more effective and less dangerous site. NOPNA and ASNA leaders asked their members to express their opposition to the SFgo signs by email or letter to the SFMTA authorities and to Mirkarimi. A petition against the signs is also being circulated. (Note: I have been an active participant in the development of the campaign against the placement of the two SFgo signs at Fell and Oak).

ASNA President Ben Allison wrote to Mirkarimi that SFMTA conducted “no advance outreach whatsoever to our organization or our members on this issue.” In his message to the SFMTA director, Kevin Rafter, President of NOPNA, wrote, “Our neighborhood is outraged that these signs are going up, as was voiced in our neighborhood meeting on September 17 where we had over 80 people in attendance.” As noted in a previous post, SFMTA notified nearby residents of an upcoming hearing concerning the proposed signs with a brief mention of “variable message displays.” The notice included nothing about freeway-style signs or electronic traffic messages.

Rafter stated NOPNA’s fundamental disagreement with the SFMTA staff position that the signs will increase safety. “Rather, we predict that they will distract drivers from watching the road and provide a subtle signal that Fell and Oak are extensions of the 101 freeway.” Both NOPNA and ASNA believe the signs will “encourage speeding and put bicyclists, pedestrians, and children more at risk.” Neighbors' concerns were heightened two weeks ago when a pedestrian, Melissa Dennison, was struck and killed by a motorist on September 15th while she crossed Fell just west of the SFgo sign standard. A memorial to Dennison has been placed at the site.

Ironically, the SFgo conflict coincides with the start of the city’s makeover of the Divisadero Corridor with bulbouts, repaving, new street trees, and more attractive street lamps. Allison of ASNA objected to what his organization considers the negative impact the signs will have on this revitalization. “We also feel that the installation of these signs completely contradicts the extensive community planning that took place leading up to the current construction on Divisadero to help make the area feel less like a freeway and more like the neighborhood commercial district and dense residential zone that it is.”

The leaders of the joint campaign recognize that Inner Richmond and Inner Sunset neighbors are concerned about unwanted traffic clogging their streets as motorists seek parking when the Golden Gate Park Concourse Garage is full. (SFMTA acknowledged at the September 17 NOPNA meeting that the primary purpose for the Fell Street sign is to advise drivers of the status of the garage in the park). But NOPNA and ASNA believe the freeway-style sign should be moved to the off ramps of the Central Freeway to give motorists “maximum advance notice” of the garage status when they will more have more options for routes and parking. During the NOPNA meeting, SFMTA representatives said they would consider relocating the Fell sign and a sign that would fit the neighborhood aesthetic better. Since that meeting, Cheryl Liu, SFMTA manager of SFgo, confirmed that her office will respond to the list of questions previously posted here on behalf of concerned neighbors.

ASNA and NOPNA proposed other alternatives as well to the Fell street sign including the use of mobile/temporary signs, developing overflow parking detours at the entrance of the garage when full, developing permanent non-electronic signs that directs traffic to the nearby UCSF garage when needed, and discouraging park visitors from seeking neighborhood parking by granting residents free neighborhood parking permits.

Supervisor Mirkarimi’s office is encouraging neighbors to offer suggestions and comments on the SFgo signs as well as their concern about speeding on Oak and Fell, according to his aide Vallie Brown. “Ross is looking at this as a much bigger picture with traffic calming, bicycle and pedestrian safety, traffic on side streets, and the influence of Market and Octavia traffic,” Brown explained. But when asked if the supervisor would request a hold on the Fell and Oak signs until a big picture analysis was completed, Vallie deferred comment. Instead she emphasized that they first needed to study all the factors involved. “It’s not like MTA has come to our office with SFgo information and briefed us on this. We were left wondering, ‘How did these signs suddenly appear?’” Mirkarimi intends to convene a meeting with the directors of SFMTA and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority within the next few days to discuss SFgo and the larger traffic and safety concerns.

One proposal advanced by NOPNA and ASNA was apparently tried but then dropped. Brown explained that the California Academy of Sciences placed mobile signs to advise motorists when the concourse garage was full, but the institution found the signs very expensive. “The Academy told us ‘we can’t afford these signs,’” Brown said. Instead the Academy pressed the city to erect signs similar to the SFgo standards, financed with local and federal funds.

None of the neighborhood groups want a return to the Central Freeway ballot wars that pitted western residents against North Panhandle, Alamo Square, and Hayes Valley neighbors in three separate electoral skirmishes. Leela Gill, former president of NOPNA, expressed a hope that with the help of Mirkarimi, the MTA “will hear our suggestions and work with us to come up with a win-win solution for everyone.”

NOPNA and ASNA request that everyone who believes the Oak and Fell signs are inappropriate, ineffective, visually offensive, or dangerous voice their sentiments to Supervisor Mirkarimi and to SFMTA representatives:

nathaniel.ford@sfmta.com ; jack.fleck@sfmta.com ; mtaboard@sfmta.com , and ross.mirkarimi@sfgov.org . For more information on the opposition to the SFgo signs, search “sfgo” here at BIKE NOPA and at sf.streetsblog.com .

Beyond NOPA: SFgo Signs Across the City; Mirkarimi Worked to Get Fell Sign Placed

NOPA and Alamo Square aren't the only neighborhoods slated to get SFgo signs. Franklin and Gough are next in line for the freeway-style SFgo standards and LED message displays, according to Cathal Hennessy, deputy manager of the traffic management program of the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA). During last week's North Panhandle neighborhood meeting, Hennessy told the audience that the signs currently operating in SOMA as well as the not-yet-operational Fell and Oak signs are simply the "first installment."

"In time, yes, there will be other streets," Hennessy responded to an inquiry from the audience. "We're barely ten years into the project. Next to get fiber and signs are Franklin and Gough." The SFgo rep was referring to the underground fiber optics that link upgraded traffic signals and new above-ground traffic cameras with a traffic communication center. Asked whether Pine and Bush would also get signs, he replied, "We already have fiber on Bush."

SFgo signs are already up and operating in SOMA at four locations: on 9th near Howard, on 10th at Mission, on the Embarcadero just south of Mission, and on King east of 2nd. In an email to a NOPA neighbor, SFgo director Cheryl Liu wrote, "The signs in SOMA have been well-received."

Also from the NOPNA meeting:

The money game. The city's current infrastructure (signal lights, traffic cameras) date from the 1950s. Jack Fleck, San Francisco traffic engineer, explained the financial aspect of the SFgo program: "To get federal funding for transit and other projects, we have to use cutting-edge technology, not our 1950s system." He added, "SFgo allows us to apply for funding; it helps us get in the money game." Current funding for SFgo comes from Prop K, the ballot measure approved by city voters in 2003 to fund transportation improvements.

----------------

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's office helped get the SFgo sign placed on Fell Street. Vallie Brown, an aide to Mirkarimi, told the audience at last week's North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) meeting, that the District 5 supervisor has been working with Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, and Haight residents since 2006 to address the impact of motorists seeking on-street parking when the underground garage at the Golden Gate Park Concourse is full. "The motorists seeking parking in the neighborhoods - when the garage is full - causes safety hazards because drivers are not paying attention as they drive the streets," Brown said. She referred to the 2006 Concourse Traffic Calming Plan that detailed neighbors' request for one sign on Fell and another on 19th Street.

Fell at Masonic was the first choice for an SFgo sign to alert museum visitors with a "garage is full" message, according to Brown, but the neighbors later decided it should be placed in NOPA at Divisadero because "that's where the bottlenecking starts."

Brown said Mirkarimi convened a town hall meeting four months ago. "They discussed having one electric sign close to Divisadero, but the only messages could be the garage is full and safety messages like 'watch for bikes' and 'watch for pedestrians.'" Brown concluded, "Our office has been working on that basis since 2006." In response to criticism about the signs at the NOPNA meeting, Brown said other locations for the Fell sign might be possible but "a huge number of neighbors have worked on this for several years."

While Supervisor Mirkarimi's office worked closely with his westernmost constituency on this issue, his staff apparently neglected to inform his NOPA and Alamo Square constituents about plans for the SFgo sign in their neighborhood. Neither NOPNA nor the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association (ASNA) were notified by Mirkarimi's office, according to NOPNA president Kevin Rafter and ASNA Transportation Committee Chair Michael Smithwick. MTA also did not inform the two associations; instead, as required, notices of a hearing were posted near the new signs, but the obscure description -- "variable message displays" -- hardly informed residents of the actual structures proposed.

As noted in our previous post, a solution to this traffic calming conflict was proposed at the NOPNA meeting. Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, Haight, NOPA, and Alamo Square residents might all support a display sign if the standard were placed at the end of the Central Freeway to alert museum visitors of the status of the garage in Golden Gate Park. ASNA's Michael Smithwick suggested the freeway sign was not only more appropriate at the freeway but that location is where the information would be most helpful to motorists on their way to the park.

SFMTA Outreach on SFgo: Difficult to Do Less

SFMTA likely fulfilled the minimum requirement for informing the public of its intent to install "variable message sign displays" along the Fell and Oak corridor. If the requirement allows obscure descriptions that fail to adequately advise the public (and gives them little reason to attend hearings), then SFMTA's public notices cannot be faulted on content.

From the sidewalk on Fell street looking up at the towering signpost that arches over the street, "variable message sign displays" reads a bit differently. Let's be more clear. These displays are the planned 5 ft high by 9 ft wide LED yellow light signs that will be perched 17.5 feet above ground for a total height of 22.5 feet. Power boxes will be installed behind the LED panel. And as the photo indicates, the new displays are part of "freeway-style" standards erected on the sidewalk along Oak and Fell just west of Divisadero.

The limited description SFMTA used for the freeway-style signs is important because these were the words used in the public notices posted near the Fell and Oak SFgo locations. Perhaps NOPA and Alamo Square neighbors might have attended the the public hearing convened by the Director of the Dept. of Parking and Traffic on January 30, 2009 if the notices actually described what was planned. (First they would have had to notice the 8.5" x 14" public notices posted on a few sites on Fell and Oak for these sufficed for "outreach" to the neighborhoods).

But even if neighbors had attended the January hearing, they would have read in the agenda that the "variable message sign displays" were intended for a "parking guidance system project" on seven streets including Fell and Oak. Today SFMTA staff present the project as "traffic management" or "traffic calming" measures. Are they talking about SFgo or SFpark or something else? It's difficult for neighbors to be clear on the concept with such obscure, limited, and conflicting descriptions. (The SFMTA Board of Directors also held a hearing on January 6, 2009, but notices and descriptions for the public were similar to those for the later hearing).

About six years ago, the Dept. of Parking and Traffic conducted some real public outreach about SFgo with a specially convened meeting attended by representatives of various neighborhood organizations. The program was explained, its merits were described, and the audience provided its feedback. Michael Smithwick, long-time Alamo Square resident and chair of the Transportation Committee of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association, attended the focus group session with DPT. "Most in the group gave it a big thumbs down," he recalls. And he was more than a little surprised by the DPT publication following the session that described the wide support from neighborhood reps.

SFMTA and SFgo did not initiate the public discussion planned for this upcoming Thursday as part of the North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) meeting, but neighbors will now have the opportunity for the discussion that many feel should have occurred before the signs were erected.

Now that we know what "variable message sign displays" would actualy look like in our neighborhood, let's consider with SFgo whether NOPA and Alamo Square are a good fit for the program.

Note the new location for the NOPNA meeting:

Poleng Lounge, 1751 Fulton, between Central and Masonic, across from Lucky's.

The #5 Fulton stops 1/2 block away from Poleng.

Be creative for bike parking (the lack thereof is not SFMTA's fault).

7 pm meet and greet; 7:30 pm meeting starts.

Everyone welcome and Poleng is always a treat.

Blog note: Tomorrow's post will be "Ten Questions for SFgo" (no time for more writing tonight).