SFPD Park Station Renews Pedestrian Stings, Juggles Traffic Watch with Crime Trends

Pedestrian stings for infractions like this at Divisadero and Fell streets

Motorists who ignore crosswalk right-of- ways might get more than a few seconds shaved off their daily travels as SFPD's Park Station undertakes pedestrian stings at the district's worst intersections for the offense. Officers posing as pedestrians will target and ticket motorists who enter a crosswalk ahead of pedestrians, try to nudge the strollers to move faster, or nearly clip them from the rear. The Fell/Masonic and the Divisadero/Fell intersections will get special attention following complaints. The renewed operations will begin this week.

SFPD periodically monitors the crosswalk connecting the western and eastern parts of the Panhandle Path at Fell and Masonic, but anyone using the path or the streets observes intrusions at the crosswalks throughout the day and night. Problems occur at the east-west Divisadero and Fell crosswalks when motorists partly or completely block pedestrians while they await signal changes.

Park Station Captain Teresa Barrett explained to BIKE NOPA that the pedestrian stings are sometimes interrupted when traffic cops assigned to the district get directed to other operations. Recent diversions include crime trends in Golden Gate Park, robberies, and the all-district alert leading up to the verdict in the Johann Mehserle trial. Barrett said she expected the pedestrian stings to continue on an ongoing basis.

Lower Divisadero/NOPA Next Up for City's New Bicycle and Shop Incentives

After a successful first month in Hayes Valley, I Bike SF is coming to the Lower Divisadero and NOPA neighborhood. During the month of June, several local businesses and bicyclists from all over the city will participate in a win/win promotion. Patrons who bike will find a range of discounts at restaurants, cafes, bars, and all kinds of shops that post the I Bike SF sign at the entry or in windows. By showing their bike helmet or bike lock (update: make that "bike lock key"), cyclists might get 10% off purchases, a buy-one-get-one-free offer, free dessert with purchase of an entree, happy hour discounts, or something even more creative. Local merchants who participate in I Bike SF get lots of free promotion of their business by the city and local organizations during the month-long run.

BIKE NOPA recently spoke with Mari Hunter, the intern who developed the program for the Mayor's Climate Protection Initiative, at the Matching Half Cafe, one of the NOPA businesses set to participate in the program. "There's lots of carrot and no stick involved," Hunter said about I Bike SF. "We simply encourage bicycling and promote local businesses at the same time."

Mari Hunter promoting I Bike SF in Lower Divisadero/NOPA

Five merchants in Hayes Valley found the program so beneficial that they want to be year-round participants, according to Hunter. One Hayes Valley business -- the popular restaurant Supenkuche -- embraced the program so much that it placed the I Bike SF discount on its menu. Hunter thinks local businesses find I Bike SF really easy to join. "They can say yes right away without having to go to corporate headquarters for approval."

Eleven businesses along lower Divisadero -- from Haight to Turk -- and on Baker Street have joined the program and will be ready for anyone stopping by with a helmet or bike lock. Hunter expects more to participate early in the month as word spreads along the corridor, and she thinks Divisadero businesses might be even more successful with the program given the area's high bike traffic and several bike lanes.

Hunter helped develop I Bike SF with lots of dedication but no budget. "I'm effectively a volunteer," she said, "but we've received some money from different city departments." The list of collaborators for the program is daunting: the Mayor's Office, SF Environment, the Municipal Transportation Agency, the Office of Small Business, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Hunter reported that all the organizational reps had been "really excellent" to work with. "They pipe in where they have the most experience."

For a full listing of all the participating businesses, check the I Bike SF website June 1st. Merchants can contact Mari Hunter at 415-554-6556 and at Mari.Hunter@sfgov.org .

The Curious Case of the Divisadero Islands: Risky Pedestrian Crossings in New Design?

At Turk Street: The "refuge" juts out into walking space on the inside

At Fell Street: pedestrians have to negotiate around vehicles or, sometimes, step into oncoming traffic lane to use the crosswalk

At Page Street: In what pedestrian design scheme does this make sense?

They were meant to increase safety for pedestrians using the crosswalks on Divisadero, but the pedestrian islands or refuges that are part of the recent makeover of the Divisadero corridor make little sense with few exceptions. Nor do they conform to the city's code.* Instead the islands sometimes jut past the inside line of the crosswalk or float in the middle of the crosswalk blocking easier passage. It's no news that motorists often stop in the crosswalks for signal changes, thus blocking pedestrian passage. With the current island or "thumbnail" refuges, walkers are often forced to negotiate around the intruding vehicles and proceed outside the crosswalk just to cross the street.

BIKE NOPA reader Jeff Gibson first wrote about the odd array of crosswalk islands as a guest contributor on May 4th. He compiled the several anomalies and sent them to the Department of Public Works with a request for an explanation. Kris Opbroek, DPW's Great Streets manager for the Divisadero project, explained that the configuration at Fell Street was a safety measure to protect pedestrians from motorists turning left from Fell. But Opbroek was unable at the time to explain the great variation of traffic island placements along the busy corridor. Gibson is still waiting for a reply about those.

San Franciscans live with oddities in the physical environment all the time, but the obstruction of pedestrian passage -- in crosswalks, no less -- is more than a quirk to endure. Unless there are solid traffic and safety design justifications for each of the variations, those that pose an unnecessary risk need to be changed.

What happened here? Unless there are some good reasons for the peculiarities of these island placements that have yet to be explained, the other possibilities are disturbing:

• City staff provided the contractor with unclear directions and designs for the crosswalks
• The contractor, Synergy Construction, cut corners with the designs or misread them in its desire to complete the project on time or ahead of schedule
• The city conducted inadequate supervision of the work
• City inspectors -- or their supervisors -- noticed the problem but decided to let it pass

Perhaps we're missing something that explains the curious case of the Divisadero islands. Jeff Gibson and quite a few pedestrians crossing the neighborhood's primary business corridor would like to know.

* Better Streets, San Francisco, Chapter 5.0, Guide: Street Design, pages 122 - 124.

Excerpts:

• Raised thumbnails should be provided on the intersection side of refuge islands. Ideally, thumbnails should be located outside of the crosswalk.
• To accommodate turning radii for large vehicles, the thumbnail may need to be within the crosswalk or have a mountable outside edge. Mountable thumbnails should be built so that pedestrians are discouraged from standing on the thumbnail itself (for example, by using cobbles or other uneven paving materials.

New Divisadero With Inconsistent Crosswalk Design: Does SF Need "Great Crosswalks" Standards?

When motorists intrude into crosswalk: Divisadero and Fell Streets

BIKE NOPA note: Reader Jeff Gibson has conducted an impressive analysis of the new crosswalk designs along the Divisadero corridor. He focused on the pedestrian "refuges" or islands meant to give individuals a safe haven in the middle of wide streets. He is especially concerned that crosswalks like the east-west crossing at Divisadero and Fell actually remove full crossing space from pedestrians and that walkers often have to scramble around vehicles to walk through the designated passage. Individuals using wheelchairs or who have difficulty with curbs might find this situation more hazardous than before. Jeff agreed to share his review with BIKE NOPA readers. The descriptions and photos that follow are from his email message.

*****

I've photographed each crosswalk on Divisadero from Haight to Geary. I can't discern the guidelines under which these crosswalks were designed. There are a variety of configurations so it's obvious no single standard was applied -- not a bad thing necessarily but the logic for some of these designs escapes me. Below are a series of photos with my comments.

photo #1: looking East across Divisadero at Fell, from the SW corner

This prompted my initial query to Kris Opbroek @ DPW (Great Streets Program manager for the Divisadero improvements). I asked why the pedestrian pass-thru at the median was less than half the width of the crosswalk. Her response was that this was a safety feature to protect peds from left turning traffic (from Fell onto southbound Divisadero).

*****

photo #2: one block South, looking West across Divisadero at Oak from the NE corner

Here we have the exact same situation as at the Fell / Divisadero intersection: a one way street with cars in the left lane able to turn left onto Divisadero. Yet this crosswalk has no thumbnail and peds have the full width of the crosswalk from curb to curb. Why the inconsistency?

*****

photo #3: Divisadero at Oak (same intersection as #2), looking East from the SW corner

There is a thumbnail here where one wouldn't expect it, at least in the context of safety issues expressed by Kris Opbroek. Traffic on Oak is one way heading East, so there is no possibility of left turning traffic from Oak onto southbound Divisidero (the only scenario in which a thumbnail would come into play). Was this thumbnail supposed to be placed in the north crosswalk at this same intersection? (see photo # 2).

*****

photo #4: Again one block further South, looking East across Divisadero @ Page, from the SW corner

Here we have what I call a "floating" thumbnail. Is there some sort of design criteria that says a pedestrian pass-through must be no wider than 5 or 6 feet? (I actually did not measure, but they all looked to be the same width no matter the placement / configuration). Why could this thumbnail not be placed at the left margin of the crosswalk? Indeed, if these thumbnails are supposed to be a barrier against car traffic I don't see the wisdom of having half the available crosswalk space between the thumbnail and moving traffic.

*****

photo #5: looking East across Divisadero at Turk, from the SW corner

Here the thumbnail extends a bit outside of where the left crosswalk line will be painted, but the median somehow gets pulled to the left to extend into the pass-through. Why? As I said before, it seems the designers operated under the idea that pass-throughs can only be X number of feet wide and not an inch more. Another example of this can also be seen in photo #3. Very curious.

The examples above represent only a few of the intersections from Haight to Geary. Most to me have design quirks that have me wondering what the planners were thinking. Thumbnails, for example, appear in a variety of positions in various crosswalks, and the crosswalks at Fulton and O'Farrell are narrower than the rest. Given that every square inch of the final design was thoroughly considered, I wonder why the crosswalks turned out the way they did. There are of course far more egregious examples of poor pedestrian design throughout the city, but with the inclusion of Great Streets principles in this particular project, I would have expected better. Perhaps we need to ensure that "Great Crosswalks" criteria are integral parts of Great Streets.

Proposed Mitigations for MTA's Fell/Arco Plan: One, Maybe Two, Might Be Feasible

Spaces not large enough for most vehicles without blocking driveways

Five parking meters on north side of Fell: important for Divisadero merchants

Arco access designed for two distinct entries and exits

Arco situated at prime Fell and Divisadero intersection

Analysis

As reported earlier, the MTA has proposed a set of safety measures to address the dangerous traffic conditions on Fell Street near the Arco gas station and Divisadero Street. The city's plan includes posting a sign to warn motorists to not block the sidewalk at the Arco entry, striping the existing bike lane so it is more visible, and creating a curbside queue along the west-end of Fell for motorists waiting to get gas. The last measure involves removing four parking spaces in front of residences and two others between the Arco driveways. At an April 2nd MTA hearing about parking removal, the hearing officer issued a continuance and directed MTA staff to consider five primary mitigations for their plan. The feasibility of adopting these measures is considered below; only one, perhaps two, holds much promise.

• Limit the no-parking period to specific hours rather than the current 24/7 proposal. This mitigation appears to be the most feasible as a compromise, although it has drawbacks. A few neighbors have proposed an effective period of less than 24 hours, perhaps from 9am to 9pm, for the six parking spaces. But leaving out the morning commute hours for those who travel Fell to get to jobs exposes them to the same risks that exist now. Opponents to a shortened time period offer two arguments against it: changing motorists' behaviors with variable traffic designs during the day is difficult and late night hours are risky due to limited visibility in the darkness.

• Implementation of a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) area for the block of Fell between Scott and Divisadero. Adding this block to the current RPP system will be difficult and time-consuming. MTA regulations require that a new candidate block must be contiguous with an existing RPP area. The nearest RPP areas are 2 1/2 blocks away at Scott and Haight Streets and another at Divisadero and Page, 2 blocks distant (see map). More than 50% of the residents on the Fell block as well as on the linkage blocks would have to petition to join the existing RRP area. Once a petition is submitted, a fairly extensive review begins.

• More outreach to Arco operators and management to engage them in a solution. Several neighbors at the April 2nd MTA hearing complained about extraordinary efforts by the city to accommodate a safety problem caused by Arco. But MTA staff and city attorneys -- as well as Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi -- have reported several attempts to engage Arco without a satisfactory response.

• Elimination of the parking meters on the north side of Fell near Divisadero. Five metered spaces are currently in place: 2 for 30 minute periods, 3 for regular time periods. Removing meters runs counter to the city's attempts to preserve existing sources of revenue and secure new funds. While nearby neighbors might appreciate five more non-metered spaces, merchants on the busy and increasingly popular Divisadero corridor will likely take exception to the plan for reducing turnover in parking for customers.

• Close access to Arco from Fell altogether and permitting Divisadero access only. This proposal seems to hold promise except Arco would likely resist it as much as possible. The current configuration of the pumps at the station serves the two different entries with easy access, but that arrangement would have to change for all vehicles to enter from Divisadero. Currently it is very difficult to maneuver from the Divisadero access to the pumps at the Fell side. With the current popularity of its low gas prices and lined-up customers, Arco has little motivation to undertake such a change. Adding more traffic and congestion to Divisadero runs counter to MTA's efforts to improve Muni travel times on primary bus routes. And it's not clear the city wants to pursue this option for various legal, political and regulatory reasons.

A Closer Look at the Existing Residential Parking. At the MTA hearing, 12 San Franciscans who travel on Fell Street -- in cars or on bikes -- supported the safety measures including the parking removal. Five neighbors opposed it. Previous to the meeting 41 individuals notified MTA of their support; no one registered opposition. In addition the North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association board of directors supported the plan on a trial basis.

Those against the plan at the MTA meeting reported their observation that the area already lacked adequate parking and could not afford to lose more spaces. But, in effect, hardly anyone in the greater neighborhood can even use the parking in front of the residences just east of Arco. These four spaces are sub-standard in length and are large enough only for a mini-size vehicle; anything larger would block one of the driveways. As a result, the only neighbors who can use the spaces are the specific residents who live in those few buildings since they are allowed to park in front of their own driveways.

The fact that the spaces proposed for removal primarily serve just a few residents does not mean that parking should be removed, but it does provide some perspective on a problem that has no easy solution. As several supporters of the MTA proposal noted at the hearing, "Parking is not a right, but safety is." At some point, public safety for all road users in San Francisco must be weighed against the real difficulties for a few Fell Street residents who would lose parking spaces and for a neighborhood that might experience tighter parking.

MTA staff have not yet revealed their own assessment of the proposed mitigations or whether they are considering other options. They are certainly aware of the basic consensus among all westside neighbors: the current situation is dangerous and something must be done. Staff will likely present their review of proposed mitigations at an upcoming, not-as-yet scheduled follow-up public hearing. Nearby residents will be notified of the hearing, and the information will be posted on BIKE NOPA and other sites.

Divisadero Deserves Better Than This

Eyesore along revitalized Divisadero corridor

With all the city-wide buzz about the much-improved Divisadero corridor and its smooth pavement, roadside enhancements, Sunday Farmers' Market, and new parklet, the ragtag, graffiti- marred billboard that looms over the Grove Street intersection seems a throwback to a less-well-cared for thoroughfare.

The problem billboard has been reported to Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, both to the company's corporate headquarters and its Oakland office. A representative of the company told BIKE NOPA that she thought someone would take a look at the situation within the next two days. How about a pro-bono display advertising the Farmers' Market or the Divisadero Art Walks or the upcoming Sunday Streets through the neighborhood?

Seen While Biking: Fewer Street Trees

Sometimes it's a win some, lose some proposition. With the happy prospect of new trees along the Divisadero Corridor, NOPA nevertheless lost five on Fell one block away. Seems sewer replacement work is required on the north side of Fell just west of Broderick, and the towering Ficus made the job too difficult.

Divisadero doesn't have anything over Fell when it comes to skinny sidewalks, and these five trees did appear awfully cramped in the little space allowed them. And now they're gone; only stumps remain as evidence of their once leafy presence.

The city is responsible for trees planted along Fell, and perhaps new street trees will be planted once the below-ground work is completed. Seems awfully empty there now....and perhaps noisier without their buffering effect.