What happened to the six-month trial?
The "trial" referred to in the title is contained in Board of Supervisors' Resolution 0508-04, carried by then-Supervisor Gonzalez, that called for banning a right turn onto the new freeway ramp on Market St. across from Octavia Blvd. Gonzalez carried the resolution on behalf of the SF Bicycle Coalition, which of course thinks that even marginally safer streets for cyclists should trump all other considerations in the city. Hence, motorists driving toward downtown from upper Market St. are prohibited from making a right turn directly onto the new freeway ramp and must wind their way through the South of Market St. neighborhood to get on the freeway. The city even installed a permanent-looking bulb-out to discourage motorists from making the sensible right turn. But the text of the resolution says that the no-right-turn ban is a six-month trial, after which the Department of Parking and Traffic "shall report its findings to the Board of Supervisors at the end of that period." It's now been a year, and still we haven't seen any DPT report, and my request for information to Supervisor Mirkarimi has been ignored. In short, the whole "trial" story was evidently a lie and the no-turn ban was intended to be permanent all along.
Some background here, here, and here.
Labels: Octavia Blvd., Traffic in SF
posted by Rob Anderson @ 10:22 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I've taken a look at some of the history here, and I re-read 0508-04. You are absolutely correct when you state that the DPT was supposed to study the area for six months and report its findings. We are six months overdue on this, and something should be done.
However, I don't see anything in the resolution itself about a trial period. The resolution does say that the DPT "shall make adjustments to and shall implement any additional traffic control devices and signage as necessary to maximize the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists through the intersection." To me, it sound like the whole thing is pretty permanent, and that the DPT is responsible for tweaking the solution.
I've seen comments by people who called for a trial period, but it doesn't look like that idea made it into the actual resolution.
You are right that the resolution doesn't actually use the word "trial," but that seems mostly a semantic issue. We can agree that what we need to see is what, if any, data DPT has gathered since the freeway ramp opened up and whether DPT reported "its findings to the Board of Supervisors at the end of that period."
Hey, Anon, get a dictionary, and why don't you tell us why/how the lawsuit is "frivilious"[sic] and what is has to do with local "buisness"[sic] owners?
Indeed! The person responsible for prohibiting right turns onto the freeway hails from the shallow end of the gene pool!
Post a Comment
<< Home