Friday, April 03, 2009

Meeting to discuss screwing up traffic on Hayes St.

Why is the Transit Effectiveness Project (below in italics) interested in screwing up traffic on Hayes Street, which is now moving just fine on the one-way, west-bound portion of that street between Gough and Van Ness? Obviously, turning that part of Hayes into a two-way street will slow down the #21 Hayes Muni line, which doesn't seem much like "transit effectiveness."

So what's going on? It's nothing but the latest anti-car attempt by the bike people to make it as difficult as possible to drive in San Francisco. See my earlier post on the issue.

From: SFTEP [SF Transit Effectiveness Project]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009

Subject: Hayes Valley Two Way Conversion Workshop
Learn more about the Hayes Valley Two Way Conversion

The Planning Department and SFMTA invite community members to discuss a proposal to convert Hayes Street between Gough and Van Ness to a two way street.

What: PUBLIC WORKSHOP on Hayes Valley Two Way Conversion

When: THURSDAY APRIL 9TH 2009 @ 6:30 PM

Where: 100 Van Ness Ave (@ Hayes St) 26th floor

Labels: ,

17 Comments:

At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the rationale is to help speed up the east-bound 21, which currently has to jog north to Grove.

 
At 12:21 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

No, it isn't. You need to read the link to my earlier post, wherein bike guy Robin Levitt is quoted as saying that Hayes is "traffic sewer." In BikeThink that means that it's a street that works pretty well for motor vehicles, which is anathema to the city's bike nuts, which is also why they hope to fuck up Masonic Ave. The #21's one-block jog to Grove on its inbound run doesn't delay it at all.

 
At 8:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, this is SO typical SF. Let's screw the many (drivers) to accommodate the few (bicyclists) and to punish those horrid drivers for even thinking of driving one of those infernal machines.

If the transit riders in our "transit-first" city happen to get screwed too in the process, well, that's just the way it goes.

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, and it will screw passengers on the #21 line, too. The bike people only invoke "transit first" as window dressing. It's really Bikes Uber Alles for them.

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Michael Baehr said...

Remind me why that will screw up the 21? Right now, the eastbound 21 has to make an annoying jog onto Grove St. (and can get stuck doing it at Laguna). Making Hayes two-ways over its whole length will enable the 21 in both directions to run on Hayes, where it ought to.

What's so bad about that?

 
At 8:59 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

It's simply untrue that the jog the inbound #21 makes to Grove slows the bus down significantly. But making Hayes two-way betweeen Van Ness and Gough will surely slow down both the inbound and the outbound route simply because all that traffic that moves easily from Van Ness to Gough will slow down once it's a two-way street. For a clue to the motivation behind this, you have to read Gordon's article, which is linked in my original post, wherein Robin Levitt, former member of the SFBC's board of directors, calls that portion of Hayes "a traffic sewer," which is what the bike nuts call any street in the city where a lot of motor traffic moves efficiently.

 
At 9:22 AM, Blogger Michael Baehr said...

The Hayes/Fell -> Fell/Oak complex which shuttles traffic from 9th/10th streets out to the Avenues does a good job of moving cars, but it tears up Hayes Valley way more than Octavia Blvd, even. The fact that there are no-crossing zones at two spots on Gough should be evidence enough that the current arrangement may move cars fast but penalizes pedestrians. A two-way Hayes would do well to make Gough a friendlier street for people to walk, instead of forcing them at certain corners to have to cross, cross, and cross back.

Plus, it's redundant. The reopened Central Freeway takes traffic from both 101 and 280 and dumps it on Fell St/slurps it off of Oak St. 9th and 10th streets accomplish the same feat through the Hayes/Fell->Fell/Oak jog. Why have two ways to do the same thing? I think you may find that it's more than just "bike nuts" who think it would be worthwhile to remove this arrangement; some traffic engineers probably agree, too. And keep in mind that neither of us is an expert, Rob :)

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Nothing fucks up Hayes Valley more than Octavia Blvd. Oak and Fell were important east/west traffic conduits long before the Central Freeway ramp came down. Talk about making Gough into some kind of boulevard for pedestrians is preposterous. It's the major southbound traffic artery in that part of town, even more than Van Ness. Anyone who wants to avoid the many stoplights on Van Ness takes Gough. It's laugable when you bike people talk about the poor pedestrians. Come off it. Hayes is quite walkable as it is now, but you folks don't know when to leave well enough alone.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

By the way, between Van Ness and Gough, there's very little in the way of shops or restaurants that would attract a strolling pedestrian, which makes it a good segment for one-way traffic. The so-called experts don't know shit, Michael. See for example Jack Fleck's proposal for the Market/Octavia intersection, which was so stupid even the SFBC rejected it.

 
At 10:50 AM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"By the way, between Van Ness and Gough, there's very little in the way of shops or restaurants that would attract a strolling pedestrian"

or...

"Because it is not pedestrian friendly, there is very little in the way of strolling pedestrians between Van Ness and Gough that would attract a shop or a restaurant".

 
At 12:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm always amazed at how people thing going from one-way traffic to two-way traffic is safer for crossing pedestrians! The city wants to make the crossing pedestrians on Hayes Street to need to look in more directions in this proposal. I feel more unsafe when I have to look in two directions before crossing, rather than one.

 
At 2:11 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Robin Levitt and the bike people don't give a shit about pedestrians. It's all about bikes and making it difficult to drive in the city.

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtraffic/documents/Collision_report_2007.pdf

Interesting at how every single intersection in the top 10 have at least one direction -- if not both directions -- as a two-way street.

Third and Folsom isn't here. Third and Howard isn't here. Stockton and Geary isn't here.

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

"I'm always amazed at how people thing going from one-way traffic to two-way traffic is safer for crossing pedestrians!"

One of the simplest reasons is that left turning traffic off of a one way street does not have to look for oncoming traffic and can just simply turn left, at speed, on a green light. Usually left turning cars have to prepare for that left by looking ahead for oncoming traffic. The simple fact that screwing up a left hand turn is likely to result in their own death is calming to the left hand turn.

The problem being that when they turn left - on green - the walk signal is also present for pedestrians. This is why these intersections are frequently designed to not allow pedestrians to go across the cross street on the left side of the one way street - they are forced to cross the one way, cross on the right side, and cross the one way again - having to wait for 2 light cycles.

"Interesting at how every single intersection in the top 10 have at least one direction -- if not both directions -- as a two-way street."

It's far more likely that the top ten involve a 2 way street in at least one direction because that is the description of the vast majority of intersections. And because of the limitations imposed and the generall crappy nature of such intersections, they don't attract pedestrians - so even if the net statistics show less collisions, that says nothing about the per capita danger.

 
At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One of the simplest reasons is that left turning traffic off of a one way street does not have to look for oncoming traffic and can just simply turn left, at speed, on a green light. Usually left turning cars have to prepare for that left by looking ahead for oncoming traffic. The simple fact that screwing up a left hand turn is likely to result in their own death is calming to the left hand turn.

The problem being that when they turn left - on green - the walk signal is also present for pedestrians. This is why these intersections are frequently designed to not allow pedestrians to go across the cross street on the left side of the one way street - they are forced to cross the one way, cross on the right side, and cross the one way again - having to wait for 2 light cycles."

This does not suggest making a street two-way. This suggests prohibiting left turns!

Get a clue! Fewer lanes do not slow down traffic! In fact, I've seen lane reductions actually speed up traffic because drivers don't have to concentrate staying in a narrower (say 11-foot) lane.

Maybe you should check out what they do at 9th and Franklin in Oakland's Chinatown as a way to promote better pedestrian safety.

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

This does not suggest making a street two-way. This suggests prohibiting left turns!

Get a clue! Fewer lanes do not slow down traffic!

But prohibiting left hand turns - now that slows down traffic. Reference: 19th Avenue.

 
At 11:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's jam it up with cars!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home