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.

Greater Livability With More Block Parties: How San Francisco Can Encourage, Not Just Regulate, Neighborhood Events

San Francisco, with all its neighborhoods and micro-communities, hosts relatively few block parties, just 73 in 2007. The events that do occur contribute so much to the vitality, social cohesion, security, and livability of neighborhoods that we might expect city leaders to promote block parties and streamline the approval process. In fact, livability advocates are working with city departments to do just that.

The San Francisco Great Streets Project is currently developing a framework for how San Franciscans and city departments can work together to improve our streets and our livability in the process. The project is a collaboration of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the Livable Streets Initiative, SPUR, and PPS, the Project for Public Spaces. San Francisco's Livable City is also contributing to this effort, bringing Sunday Streets know-how into the mix. Great Streets Executive Director, Kit Hodge, explains, "We're working on ways to incentivize block parties in San Francisco."

This year the North Panhandle neighborhood sponsored its annual block party on Lyon Street, a Fourth of July party on Golden Gate Avenue, the BIKE THE BLOCK party on Grove Street, and an upcoming Halloween Party on two blocks of Grove. Not bad for a 30 square block neighborhood: four car-free events opening streets for walking, playing, biking, music, and games. As a result of preparing for these parties, neighborhood event organizers have developed a good working relationship with the MTA office responsible for reviewing applications and granting permits.

My first involvement with the process was to organize NOPA’s BIKE THE BLOCK party in September. The experience was positive and Cindy Shamban, Special Events Coordinator for the MTA and my primary staff contact, was friendly and helpful. Yet the overall process might have been confusing and frustrating if I had not been familiar with city departments from previous experience.

Below are my own observations and suggestions for improving the system; some of these are considerations also detailed by the Great Streets project* in their review of the permit process:

• Most importantly: the city should actively encourage and welcome block parties. Its websites and printed material should guide people through the permit process and every step of the application and permit process. The process now suggests an old-guard Parking and Traffic culture tempered by helpful staff. The initial contact online, however, makes applicants feel that the city will consider our request if we really must have a block party but only if we jump every hoop just right. And beware anyone who misreads or misunderstands – they may forfeit their residency (or so it seems). The process relies far too much on all caps, bold print warnings such as “FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION FULLY…INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS…WILL RESULT IN REJECTING…” Lighten up, MTA, it’s a block party not an assault on a city street! There are ways to enlighten residents about city regulations without leaving them feeling intimidated, confused, or repeatedly rolling their eyes.

• MTA needs a more welcoming website overall. Maybe it’s just me, but the black-and-white slash design seems harsh and off-putting for an agency whose mission is to inform about transportation and encourage new modes of travel.

• Make the block party section of the MTA web site easier to locate. Fortunately, others told me who to call at MTA and where to find the info needed. If you know to search for sfmta.com, you can find your way to block parties sooner or later, but a Google search will be frustrating.

• Separate the block party information from the larger, more complex events on the site. No one needs to know how to apply for something like the Bay to Breakers when they only want to open one neighborhood block for a car-free event. One of my first questions was, “What? I have to provide proof of $1 million insurance coverage for a block party?” (Answer: no, but you have to ask, presuming you aren’t discouraged enough to stop there). The filing document runs 14 pages and covers events of all sizes; the info for block parties specifically might require half as many.

• Reduce the filing fee. The city can get serious about promoting and encouraging block parties by not charging from $150 to $450 for them. Staff time is required for reviewing applications, answering questions from applicants, adding the request to a committee hearing, sending out notices, etc. But the application itself is just 2 to 3 pages and one-block parties do not require much oversight. There’s not much equity in a system that requires block party applicants to pay as much in filing fees as those who sponsor much more complicated and time-consuming income-generating, multi-block street fairs or music festivals.

• Again, reconsider the tone of information. How many times do citizens need to be told that they must abide by the instructions and file “a declaration under penalty of perjury”? Evidently, any time they post or remove a “Notice of Public Hearing” on the block. Does this still feel like a fun event?

• Evaluate instructions about the No Parking Signs. Applicants might want to post “No Parking/Tow Away” signs on the block, but the requirements and procedures for doing so are confusing and some are not explained adequately. Event sponsors might easily be uncertain about the differences between having a permit and being registered with the police, about posting the no parking signs but not acting on them without police registration, etc.

The Great Streets Project is studying whether a private organization might help advise block party applicants and relieve the MTA of some of the responsibility, especially if the city decides to more actively promote neighborhood events. New York set up such a service with BlockpartyNYC, an online resource that guides anyone interested in block parties through the city permit system and offers tips for staging a successful event. Transportation Alternatives (TA), the premiere New York livability advocacy organization, sponsors the service. Julia De Martini Day, Planner/Advocate for T.A., explained that BlockPartyNYC also helps promote individual events, and more than 100 organizers have listed their parties since the site began in 2008. T.A. encourages others to see the potential of block parties to advance livability goals, and it awards mini-grants to event organizers who want to develop livable streets campaigns for their neighborhoods.

In preparation for this post, I telephoned MTA’s Shamban and asked what she thought the agency might do to make the process easier for applicants. She paused and I think she chuckled before she answered. “I think our process works really well. Once you’ve done it once or twice and have become familiar with it especially.” I imagine the process has worked well enough. Applicants sooner or later figure out what must be done, and, if they're not shy about making repeated inquiries by phone, staff will readily provide the information needed. But the “well enough” status for the past won’t suit the near future when San Franciscans – hopefully with the robust endorsement of the city – envision more blocks “open” for new uses rather than simply “closed” to car traffic. The first suggests more encouragement; the second reflects status quo regulation.

* Thanks to Jeremy Shaw, Great Streets Project intern, for providing background information about efforts to streamline the city’s permit process.

Divisadero Renewal: Day One

The Grove Street intersection took the first hit...in a good way...as part of the reshaping of the Divisadero Corridor. This morning work crews began tearing up the pavement for the street renovation that city planners and neighbors have discussed and planned for years. It will be a bit of a slog through the rest of this year and into the next, but everyone expects a much better neighborhood thoroughfare as a result. Even Kentucky Fried Chicken seems to think so (see photo) with "Grove...Now Twice as Good."

Divisadero Work Begins Monday: Next Chapter of "Comeback-kid story"

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi nailed it when he described the revitalization of Divisadero street as a "come-back kid story" already underway. Long before the planning for a "Great Streets" makeover of the prime north-south corridor was completed, neighbors helped preserve landmark buildings and support new and old businesses. Their persistence primed the pump for the structural change being launched next week.

Who remembers the battle to keep Burger King out of the historic landmark building on the NE corner of Fell and Divisadero? Neighbors in NOPA, Alamo Square, Lower Haight, and Cow Hollow battled the burger chain and the city Planning Department for the sake of historic preservation, environmental protections, and local, non-chain operations. The neighbors won before the Planning Commission, and the Madrone Lounge flourishes at the corner now.

The city's Entertainment Commission was shocked, pleasantly so, when many of these same neighbors supported the expanded liquor-serving hours and hours of operation for Club Waziema on Divisadero between Fell and Hayes. Waziema was one of the neighborhood's friendly meeting places, and neighbors wanted it to thrive and enliven that block.

And then there was the battle over the Central Freeway, that contentious issue that visited the ballot three times until finally the configuration that prevails today was approved. Alamo Square and NOPA still contend with the frequent speedway driving on Oak and Fell, but the anti-freeway action helped invigorate neighborhoods further east and calmed the traffic a bit as well.

Expect inconvenience as Divisadero gets its makeover: periodic reduced parking, slowed traffic with side streets taking more of the burden, and a temporary disruption of daily patterns. The work is expected to continue through 2010.

Support the local merchants even more. Here's the chance to help our Divis merchants continue business almost-as-usual. But why settle for that? How about helping our local businesses thrive during the revitalization? Say hello to the Dept. of Public Works crews while you're at it.

Find out more:

• the Divisadero project overview and the construction flyer
• the city's Great Streets Program
• today's Examiner article about the "rehab" of Divisadero

Tube Times Takes Bike Pulse

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) publishes a must-read 14 page quarterly newsletter for everyone who wants to keep up to spin on a more livable and safer city for us all (especially those using alternative transportation).

The Summer 2009 issue of Tube Times is now out and available. For a good read, download here and check these articles:

• the Great Streets Project that hopes to transform city streets into havens of safe, attractive, centers of civic life;
• the SFBC Good Roads Campaign that seeks smooth, safer rides for cyclists;
• the wildly successful Sunday Streets program with 3 more car-free streets this summer;
• the winning design for new bike racks on Treasure Island

and really a whole lot more.

If you're a cyclist, take note: SFBC membership pays for itself. Get discounts all over town for bike repairs, bike rentals, and bike equipment and goods from other other city essentials like cafes, carshares, bakeries, and Rainbow Grocery. Take care of yourself and your bike and join today.

My bias: joining SFBC has been a great experience for me and I wrote the article above on Good Roads in this issue of Tube Times.