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.

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.

MTA Really Wants -- But Can Get By Without -- Fell & Oak Signs, According to SFgo Manager

Cathal Hennessy, Deputy Director of the SFgo program for the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA), conceded after a long and heated neighborhood meeting last week that the controversial message display signs on Fell and Oak streets are not crucial to the success of the system.

Both Hennessy and Jack Fleck, city traffic engineer, had already described to the neighbors the most important components of the SFgo program. Fleck explained, “The primary and biggest part of SFgo is infrastructure replacement.” Many of the city’s current traffic signals and corresponding technology date from the 1950s, according to Fleck, and an upgrade of the system was necessary to apply computer technology to traffic management. Hennessy added that an underground network of fiber optics connect with upgraded signal lights and new overhead traffic cameras to funnel information to a central communications center. From this command post, MTA expects to manage traffic to reflect conditions on the city's streets.

“The fiber optic cables are already in place at Fell and Oak, and they are essential links to other locations in the city,” Hennessy said in a separate conversation after the meeting. With this essential component of the system already secured, Hennessy reluctantly agreed -- with a nod and a "yes" -- that dismantling or moving the Fell and Oak signs would not cause a major disruption to the program. He stressed that the work was already under contract, but shrugged at the suggestion that contracts are re-negotiated all the time.

During the sixty minute discussion at a meeting of the North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) last Thursday evening, both Hennessy and Fleck emphasized that the purpose of SFgo has always been to help implement San Francisco’s “Transit First” policy through better traffic management. Yet Hennessy also told the group that the Fell street sign had a different purpose. And it had nothing to do with transit priorities.

“The primary message for the Fell Street sign is to tell about garages that are full at the de Young and to direct motorists seeking parking to alternatives like the UCSF garage,” Hennessy said referring to the underground garage in Golden Gate Park that serves visitors to the de Young Museum and the California Academy of Sciences. He explained that the MTA wants to keep museum-goers from circling streets in the Inner Richmond and Inner Sunset in search of parking when the concourse garage is full.

No one in the audience dismissed the "full garage" message, but they objected to the Fell street location being used for that purpose. Several neighbors complained that the SFgo sign would be a distraction to motorists exactly at the point where drivers need to be most alert to bicyclists and pedestrians. The Fell and Divisadero intersection is already hazardous with entry and exit to the ARCO service station regularly blocking the bike lane and sidewalk and with motorists' tendency to speed once they clear Divisadero. Others complained that the SFgo signs added a visual blight to the Divisadero Corridor which only this week the city began to tear up for physical improvements and visual enhancements. None of these comments appeared to have any impact on the MTA representatives. Hennessy, who introduced himself as a NOPA resident and cyclist, simply declared, “These signs are not distracting.”

Michael Smithwick, long-time Alamo Square resident, voiced some of the strongest sentiment against the Fell street sign, but he also offered a solution. “Put the sign at the off ramps of the freeway.” Smithwick suggested that motorists using Fell to get to the deYoung Museum and the Academy of Science are primarily coming off the freeway and that was when they should receive a “garage is full” message because then they would have a real chance to change their route.

The SFgo sign on Oak street just west of Divisadero was equally criticized by the neighbors. Michael Khavul said he hoped to develop property at Baker and Oak streets into a mixed-use complex but the SFgo sign would effectively prohibit it. “We are looking to have twelve bedrooms that will face that sign, (but) we cannot have anyone sleep there with those signs.” MTA regulations prohibit placing SFgo signs outside any second or third floor windows, and the managers chose the sidewalk along the Dept. of Motor Vehicles building with that in mind. Apparently MTA did not consider the impact on any new development at the site or existing buildings across the street.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has already objected to the Oak Street sign, according to his aide, Vallie Brown, who attended the NOPNA meeting. He told the MTA “no way,” she said, but apparently the MTA took little note of his objections. Brown explained, “We found out when you did about the sign going up on Oak Street.” Earlier in the day Mirkarimi told Streetsblog that “Nobody’s made a good case to me on Oak at all.”

The bottom line for the neighbors. No one objects to SFgo plans for infrastructure upgrades, the underground fiber cables, the above-ground traffic cameras, or the communications center. But the Fell Street sign creates a traffic hazard instead of preventing one, and it could better serve its real purpose – the garage parking issue – at a different location. The Oak Street sign would provide traffic messages, but few outside the traffic management world of MTA believe it will provide an essential service.

And the surprising thing is, one of SFgo's directors believes the program will do just fine without either sign.

For previous posts on SFgo in NOPA and Alamo Square, see these for 9/18, 9/17, 9/14, 9/09, 8/11