Panhandle at Masonic Sees 50% Increase in Cyclists Over Three Years

No one cycles past Mariana Parreiras without getting counted

One morning last August BIKE NOPA interviewed Central Avenue neighbor Mariana Parreiras about counting bike traffic on the Panhandle Path at the Masonic Avenue intersection. She was working as a summer intern for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and assisting with the annual bike count. The survey provides a snapshot of bicycling in the city and compares numbers of cyclists and other trends from year to year. Now we know the number of cyclists Mariana tallied on the multi-use Panhandle Path.

The Masonic and Panhandle intersection experienced a 50% increase in number of bicyclists since 2006, a jump from 152 to 228 riders. The percentage is similar to the 53.5% increase found at the other study sites in the city over the same three-year period. Bicycling proponents note that the counts swelled even though a court injunction prevented any new bicycle improvements (for example, bike lanes, bike parking, or painted lanes) in the city.

The bike count at the Panhandle catches the 8am to 9 am bike to work crowd. It would be interesting to get the numbers on the return trip at the end of the day. Further east along the popular Wiggle bike route, the number of cyclists at Fell and Scott streets soared with a 84.7% increase since 2006. With so many cyclists travelling west on Fell Street between Scott and Masonic at the end of the workday, advocates are urging a look at a bike lane along that stretch. That prospect might be especially appealing to pedestrians who sometimes find sharing space with cyclists on the Panhandle Path a bit risky.

No need to tell Mariana how busy the Panhandle Path can be

No Criminal Charges in Fell Street Pedestrian Fatality, Yet DA's Office Finds "Fault was Split, Fault was Joint"

• 
  See related post here about SFPD pedestrian stings at dangerous NOPA intersections.
  
  

Memorial to Melissa Hope Dennison on Fell Street

The San Francisco District Attorney’s office will not file criminal charges against the motorist who struck and killed Melissa Hope Dennison while she was crossing Fell Street last September. Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Brian Buckelew told BIKE NOPA in an interview last Friday that the DA’s office determined that “a criminal case could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.” However, Buckelew added, “There was fault split between the driver and the pedestrian; the fault was joint.”

Melissa Dennison, 24, of San Francisco was a recent San Francisco State University graduate, according to friends who spoke with the San Francisco Examiner (Sept. 16. 2009) after she was killed on the morning of September 15^th. She died at the scene. The driver of the vehicle that struck her is a 19 year-old man who was driving his Honda Civic to work from his home on the Peninsula. His mother accompanied him.

Dennison’s death occurred at a time when North Panhandle and Alamo Square residents were renewing their efforts to persuade the city to slow the frequently speeding traffic on Fell Street. The Fell and Broderick intersection is also just a block away from the still-standing freeway-style SFgo sign that neighbors objected to as a potential visual cue to motorists to increase their speed on the residential corridor. As reported in Streetsblog, bicycle and pedestrian advocates are now urging the State of California to enact “vulnerable road user” legislation that will increase penalties when a motorist carelessly or inattentively drives and injures or kills a pedestrian or cyclist.

“Not a Hit and Run Case”

“This was a really tragic accident,” ADA Buckelew said. He prefaced his remarks by noting “it’s my understanding” and then explained that this was not a hit and run case. “The driver drove around the block and perhaps panicked, but then he returned.” The driver’s passenger, his mother, explained the delay in returning to the scene to an officer in a statement given after she and her son were taken to SFPD Park Station for questioning. The officer wrote in the SFPD Incident Report, “As they got to the intersection of Broderick they believed they hit a person after the window caved in. She repeatedly asked to him to go back to the scene while they made several trips around the block.”

Motorist’s Speed a Factor

Buckelew said the motorist was travelling at a speed that was “less than originally thought,” referring to media reports on the day of the crash that Dennison had been struck with considerable force by the motorist. (The Incident Report concludes that the “force of impact caused Party #2 (pedestrian) to be propelled into the air with upper part of body contacted the right front windshield and hood of vehicle #1 (the driver).” But the ADA later stated, “I believe in the report speed was a contributing factor” that prompted the decision that the “fault was split” between the motorist and Dennison.

The driver, in his statement to SFPD, estimated his speed as 35 to 40 mph, and he noted that, as he approached the intersection, “the light had just turned green.” The speed limit on that section of Fell Street is 30 mph. An SFPD officer who arrived at the scene soon after the crash noted in the incident report that “it was still dark with overhead luminated lighting.”

Against the Light but in the Crosswalk?

Buckelew said Dennison “seemed to dash” into the street although the light was green for westbound Fell Street traffic. Although the ADA first stated that Dennison “was not in the crosswalk,” he later qualified that assessment by noting that the driver of the vehicle that hit her was the only witness to state Dennison was outside the crosswalk. “The driver put her just outside the crosswalk; she was close to the crosswalk,” Buckelew concluded.

However, the driver’s statement included in the Incident Report appears to contradict that conclusion. “Prior to the intersection of Broderick Street, he (the driver) observed the light had just turned green and a SUV stopped in front of him at the intersection. To avoid from making contact, he turns into lane 3 (the far right lane). He does not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk and hits the pedestrian and keeps going.” The SFPD officer who wrote the narrative for the report also refers to “Party #2 (pedestrian) walking northbound in the crosswalk.” In addition, the incident diagram included in the report, shows the driver had entered the west-side crosswalk and that Dennison was in the crosswalk travelling toward the north side of Fell. The diagram does not show a specific point of contact. It should be noted that the investigation of the crash continued after the initial accident report was filed. The driver of the SUV did not remain at the scene or give a statement to the police.

Factual Diagram, SFPD Incident Report, Collision at Fell & Broderick Streets

SFPD representatives did not indicate whether a re-enactment of the collision had been staged as part of the investigation. But, in a few brief moments, the driver noted that the light had “just turned green,” he entered the intersection at 35-40 mph, and the pedestrian had already reached the far right lane, more than 2/3 of the way across the width of the street. Had Dennison started crossing the street, in or very close to the crosswalk, at the very end of her right-of-way light?

The right-of-way (determined by the traffic signal and pedestrian crossing light) is more important for determining fault than whether the pedestrian was in the crosswalk. Manish Champsee, president of WalkSF, has emphasized that California state law states that an intersection need not be marked to be considered a crosswalk. And, as SFPD Lt. Lynn Tomioka told Streetsblog on the day of the collision, “Whether she was in the crosswalk or not, the driver needs to proceed with caution.”

“Very, Very High Blood Alcohol Content”

Laboratory tests undertaken after Melissa Dennison’s death found that she had “very, very high blood alcohol content,” according to Buckelew. The ADA did not indicate any similar findings for the driver.

“A Delay in Evaluation”

Melissa Dennison was killed on September 15^th. Captain Teresa Barrett of SFPD Park Station explained that “when there’s a hit-and-run case, it goes from the station to downtown.” The initial statements from witnesses were taken at Park Station, but the investigation was conducted primarily by the Hit-and-Run unit. Inspector Laurie Caddigan of the unit explained that investigations of cases such as this can sometimes continue for several months and include an autopsy and full medical report. For this case, Caddigan told BIKE NOPA on December 8^th of last year that the department’s legal division “was going to make some reports,” but her unit’s investigation was completed.

Brian Buckelew told BIKE NOPA that “there was a delay in evaluation” in this case, and he indicated that the responsibility of both parties (“fault was split, fault was joint”) was the cause of extensive examination and consideration within the District Attorney’s office.

Conclusion

Two parties – a motorist and a pedestrian – crashed in a tragic incident on Fell Street. The actions of both are judged at fault, to unstated degrees. The pedestrian died. The motorist may have suffered emotional distress from the collision, but he will not be penalized or fined and his license will not be suspended. At least not in criminal court proceedings. Even his name has not been revealed. Perhaps this sad and unfortunate event on NOPA streets will spur the discussion of new legislation for "vulnerable road users" as a means of authorizing consequences for a motorist when a degree of fault is determined.**

For several weeks following the death of Melissa Dennison, friends maintained a memorial at Fell and Broderick streets.

* Contact Information:

• Public Affairs, District Attorney’s Office: (415) 553-1751
• Public Affairs, SFPD: (415) 553-1651; SFPD District Stations info here
• Record Room (to request a SFPD Incident Report, once the case is closed: (415) 553-1386

** For a review of vulnerable road user legislation, see this article at the site of the Virginia Bicycling Federation.

"Better illegal and safe than legal and dead": Masonic Avenue sidewalk cyclist

Travelling up Masonic

In front of the San Francisco Day School

Bicyclists who ride on Masonic Avenue sidewalks do so as a last resort, according to several who posted comments following yesterday's BIKE NOPA story about riding on sidewalks in the city. A study conducted by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency found that 30% of cyclists (13 of 43) passing through the Masonic and Golden Gate Avenue intersection rode on the sidewalk. The percentage made the NOPA intersection the second highest of the three dozen sites included in the study. The bike count was undertaken on an August day last year between 5pm and 6:30 pm.

"Masonic is the only street in the city which I regularly ride on the sidewalk - and only in the uphill direction. Riding in the street there is some of the worst in the entire city -- and the sidewalk is plenty wide to acomodate bikes and pedestrians." mfogel

"I'm part of the better illegal and safe than legal and dead sidewalk riding crowd. I've been riding in the City for over 20 years and for the past few years I've switched to the sidewalk on Masonic heading uphill to Geary. I had too many scary encounters to ride in the street." Cheryl

"I think this street corridor is one of the biggest problems city-wide." Philip Peter

"I commute on Masonic daily and it's still treacherous. The cars get the light on Turk and keep their momentum going past the 25 mph sign hidden by the trees. On Monday morning when the parked cars are cleared, it's even faster. The Allowed Full Use of Lane sign is placed at O'Farrell after the damage is done. It's also way above sight level. I hate taking the sidewalk there which is uneven and terrible to ride on, but I do, only place in the city I do." James Farinacci

Although the SFMTA study counted bicyclists at the intersection of both Masonic and Golden Gate Avenue, there's little doubt that the incidence of sidewalk bicycling occurs almost exclusively on Masonic since Golden Gate is flat, smooth, and has a striped bike lane.

On the northeast corner of the intersection is the San Francisco Day School, and children, parents, and staff frequently use the sidewalks and crosswalks. But one of the teachers at the school has no problem with the sidewalk cycling.

"I teach at that corner. I've never seen a bicyclist riding carelessly on the sidewalks of Masonic. ... Almost all cyclists who use the sidewalk are going uphill which is slow work. I've also never seen a pedestrian get upset with such a bicyclist, because it's so obvious to everyone that riding on the street would be really scary." Diane

Fix Masonic, the neighborhood group that has advocated for safety measures on the corridor for years, continues to urge the SFMTA to use available, dedicated funds to assess neighborhood sentiment about a re-design of Masonic. A few of the BIKE NOPA readers have already expressed theirs.

Riding on the sidewalk: "that's not a good solution, compared to removing a traffic or parking lane, and putting in some real (painted GREEN!) bike space." mfogel

"It would be nice to have a physically separated, bi-directional bike lane on the east side of the street that connects logically from the Panhandle, through the weird overpass business to Laurel/Presidio Heights." Philip Peter

Masonic Ave: Sidewalk Riding for Safety

Safer than biking on the street at Masonic and Golden Gate

Illegal biking or safe use of a wide sidewalk along a dangerous street?

Not much bike space on northbound Masonic Avenue

No better on southbound Masonic either

Golden Gate Avenue at Masonic Avenue registered the second highest percentage of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk during the 2009 Bicycle Count conducted by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). During the evening traffic rush (5 pm to 6:30 pm) on an August workday, 30% of cyclists (13 of 43) rode on the sidewalk.

The SFMTA study also notes that Golden Gate and Masonic are both signed bike routes with bike lanes. But that’s only partly right. Golden Gate has a striped bike lane; Masonic does not. Golden Gate’s bike lanes, at least between Parker and Divisadero, are what cyclists in other parts of the city work for: they’re wide enough on smooth surfaces.

Masonic is a different story. There’s no bike lane, no sharrows, and little space to “share the road” with motorists. The three block stretch between Turk and Fulton Streets has steep inclines, and drivers regularly race up the hill northbound or rush down southbound to make the lights. The posted 25 mph speed limit appears to have had negligible impact since the neighborhood group FIX MASONIC pushed to get it dropped from 30 mph. In fact, the current design of Masonic offers next to nothing to cyclists, except for the posted bike route signs.

The SFMTA study does not indicate the direction cyclists were traveling, but it’s safe to assume that Masonic sidewalks are the ones that get the peddlers. “The bicyclists are trying to be safe,” a school crossing guard observed yesterday afternoon while helping pedestrians cross Masonic and Golden Gate. “Masonic has very little space for cyclists, especially north of here.” In the ten minutes I observed traffic at the intersection at 3:30 pm, four cyclists rode along the Masonic sidewalk at the intersection.

Why do bicyclists ride Masonic – either the street or the sidewalks -- and take the risk on the street or breaking the law on the sidewalk? For the same reason that motorists drive Masonic: it’s the primary north-south route through this part of town, especially for travel between the Fell-Oak corridor and Geary Boulevard. The Anza Vista neighborhood breaks up the usual street grid, as does the Panhandle Park.

The San Francisco Day School is located at the northeast corner of this intersection with one of its entrances on Masonic. The bicyclists riding the sidewalk in front of the school pose at least a theoretical threat to the school kids, staff, and neighbors walking nearby, especially if the cyclists indulge in reckless, erratic riding. But a careful biker riding slowly and cautiously poses little problem given the larger-than-usual width of the sidewalk.

Bicycle riding on sidewalks is illegal for adults in San Francisco. But then, bike riding on through-streets that the city designates as bike routes but fails to make safe for cyclists is unwise for most peddlers. The SFMTA weighs in on the issue of sidewalk biking at this and other locations. According to the report, “SFMTA will continue to monitor sidewalk and wrong-way riding, as well as work to implement additional bicycle safety and education campaigns on these two behaviors.” One might wish for something a bit more bracing and innovative like traffic and street designs that serve all users of Masonic Avenue.

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."

NOPA VELO Snags More Media Coverage

Rick and Lenore setting up the ride at Central Coffee, Tea and Spice

Nice to see the interest in NOPA VELO's inaugural ride, not only by cyclists but the local media. Sunday's ride got a mention in SF Appeal with a comparison of our ride to Critical Mass and received a great write-up with more pics from the ride in the blog San Francisco Citizen.

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.