Last meeting on screwing up Masonic: Sept. 30
The last "community workshop" meeting on exactly how the city is going to screw up traffic on Masonic Ave. will be held on Sept. 30. That the city is in fact going to deliberately screw up/"calm" traffic on Masonic is already a forgone conclusion. Why is the city determined to screw up traffic on Masonic, which now works well for Muni's #43 line and more than 30,000 vehicles every day? Because the city's cyclists find riding on busy Masonic "scary", and what the city's bike people want they get here in Progressive Land.
Since the last meeting, a cyclist was killed when he was hit by a motorist at Turk and Masonic. The bike people have shamelessly used that accident to push the city to screw up traffic on Masonic, even though the accident happened late at night, was caused by a drunk driver, and had nothing to do with the design of Masonic Avenue.
The city lists among its bogus "objectives" for Masonic Avenue (below in italics) to "improve transit operation." That's simply a lie, since the #43 Masonic bus---the only Muni line that operates on that part of Masonic---now runs well between Geary Blvd. and Fell Street, the part of Masonic the city and the bike people want to screw up.
Also on the list is this nonsensical objective: "Improve pedestrian and non-motorized access to transit." Since "motorized access to transit" makes no sense, "non-motorized access" simply doubles down on the nonsense.
Even though the city's own numbers show that there are few accidents on Masonic, it includes safety as one of its objectives: "Reduce the number of vehicular collisions, especially those involving pedestrians and bicyclists."
The #43 line now carries more than 12,000 passengers a day, and Masonic efficiently handles more than 32,000 vehicles a day. Hence, the "calming" of Masonic on behalf of a minority of cyclists will screw up traffic for more than 44,000 people a day on behalf of the Bicycle Coalition and an unknown number of cyclists who might use the new bike lanes after Masonic is "calmed." This is how politically correct traffic management is done in San Francisco, where anti-carism is the ruling orthodoxy.
The City and County of San Francisco invites you to the third and final: Masonic Avenue Street Design Study Community Workshop September 30th, 2010 Thursday 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Since the last meeting, a cyclist was killed when he was hit by a motorist at Turk and Masonic. The bike people have shamelessly used that accident to push the city to screw up traffic on Masonic, even though the accident happened late at night, was caused by a drunk driver, and had nothing to do with the design of Masonic Avenue.
The city lists among its bogus "objectives" for Masonic Avenue (below in italics) to "improve transit operation." That's simply a lie, since the #43 Masonic bus---the only Muni line that operates on that part of Masonic---now runs well between Geary Blvd. and Fell Street, the part of Masonic the city and the bike people want to screw up.
Also on the list is this nonsensical objective: "Improve pedestrian and non-motorized access to transit." Since "motorized access to transit" makes no sense, "non-motorized access" simply doubles down on the nonsense.
Even though the city's own numbers show that there are few accidents on Masonic, it includes safety as one of its objectives: "Reduce the number of vehicular collisions, especially those involving pedestrians and bicyclists."
The #43 line now carries more than 12,000 passengers a day, and Masonic efficiently handles more than 32,000 vehicles a day. Hence, the "calming" of Masonic on behalf of a minority of cyclists will screw up traffic for more than 44,000 people a day on behalf of the Bicycle Coalition and an unknown number of cyclists who might use the new bike lanes after Masonic is "calmed." This is how politically correct traffic management is done in San Francisco, where anti-carism is the ruling orthodoxy.
The City and County of San Francisco invites you to the third and final: Masonic Avenue Street Design Study Community Workshop September 30th, 2010 Thursday 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
San Francisco Day School 350 Masonic Ave.(Enter on Golden Gate Avenue)ADA Accessible
Meeting Information: Come join us for the third and final community workshop of a new street design study for Masonic Avenue, focusing on the area between Geary Boulevard and the Panhandle, with the goal of calming traffic on Masonic Avenue and improving access and safety for all modes of transportation.
The City wants to hear your input on ways to improve this important corridor so that it safely and efficiently accommodates the needs of all users. To this end the SFMTA, along with the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department, have conducted two community workshops on June 15 and August 10, 2010 to identify how Masonic Avenue can be redesigned to achieve this goal.
Based on the input received from community members in the June 15 workshop, four options were developed. At the August 10 workshop, these four options were presented and a survey was conducted to gather community input on various elements of each option. Since that time, City staff has been working on combining preferred elements to develop two refined options which will be presented at the upcoming workshop.
Proposed changes to the Masonic Avenue corridor being discussed include:
Addition of a median and other traffic calming features
Improved pedestrian crossings
Addition of bike facilities Partial or full removal of existing on-street parking
Increased landscaping and tree planting
Enhancements to transit stops
Removal of daytime tow-away restriction
During this third meeting, city staff will give a brief presentation on existing conditions, review the options presented at the second meeting as well as the results of the survey conducted, and present and solicit comments on two street design options.
The goal of this last meeting is to gather input on the most favorable/practical option.
About the Project
The primary goal of the Masonic Avenue Street Design Study is to identify how Masonic Avenue between Geary Boulevard and Fell Street can safely and efficiently accommodate the needs of all roadway users, including but not limited to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and Muni. Objectives:
1. Engage representatives of all constituencies within the community who would be impacted by changes to Masonic Avenue including, but not limited to, residents on Masonic Avenue, residents on side-streets, merchants, school representatives, bicyclists, Muni passengers and pedestrians.
2. Improve transit operation.
3. Improve pedestrian and non-motorized access to transit.
4. Increase the safety of pedestrian crossings.
5. Increase motorist compliance with traffic rules and regulations.
6. Reduce the number of vehicular collisions, especially those involving pedestrians and bicyclists.
7. Support neighborhood vitality by creating a more inviting and accommodating public realm. Contact Javad Mirabdal415.701.4421
javad.mirabdal@sfmta.com
javad.mirabdal@sfmta.com
Labels: Anti-Car, Masonic Avenue
posted by Rob Anderson @ 10:02 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
Uh, Rob? Could it be that "non-motorized access to transit" refers to people who use the bike racks on the 43 Masonic?
Once again...
You have said you "oppose speeding"
People speed on Masonic.
You oppose calming Masonic.
Can't have it three ways Rob.
But the bike racks are already on the #43. How will screwing up traffic for motor vehicles make them any easier to use? The same can be said for "pedestrian" access to the #43. The present bus stops work well. This terminology is nothing but bureaucratic flab-gab to convince the unwary and uninformed that the city is doing something positive on Masonic when they clearly aren't.
"Once again...You have said you "oppose speeding" People speed on Masonic. You oppose calming Masonic. Can't have it three ways Rob."
Once again you make a stupid comment, Murph. If there's a speeding problem on Masonic, the city should focus on enforcing the speed limit there, instead of deliberately jamming up traffic for the thousands of people for whom Masonic now works well.
People travel at speeds for which a street is designed. This is usually much higher then the posted limits.
Traffic engineering 101.
"Once again you make a stupid comment, Murph. If there's a speeding problem on Masonic, the city should focus on enforcing the speed limit there, instead of deliberately jamming up traffic for the thousands of people for whom Masonic now works well."
Seems to me that redesigning a street so that the appropriate speed is obvious to drivers would be a smarter long term plan than throwing valuable police dollars at it.
Seems to me that if you have a street that works well now and on which there are few accidents, you should leave it alone.
yea murph does tend to make stupid comments.
Guess what murph?
Bike riders fly thru stop signs and lights, even on Masonic.
More bike lanes will cause more congestion.
Bike riders break laws all over the place.
Can't have it all your way.
Seems to me you're outvoted.
None of the 40,000 people who now use that part of Masonic---in motor vehicles and on the #43 line---will ever get a chance to vote on it.
Fine - you're outmaneuvered. Feel better?
What about the people who live on Masonic? Pretty sure they are getting a say and it sounds like "SLOW MASONIC".
Those passing through have no respect for the place they are passing. The faster they get through it, the better. And if some of the drivers of those single occupancy vehicles instead took Muni, then we wouldn't have much to worry about.
Putting in lanes for bikes will congest traffic, this is unacceptable. But if traffic moves too fast on Masonic then we should do the needful on that. Many places have had success with a thing called "speed bump" - maybe we can put those onto Masonic instead.
How about we discuss your opinions at the corner of Masonic and Turk, or better yet, while we walk along Masonic and cross the avenue at every block. If you find that anything people are complaining is legitimate you can just chock it up to bike propaganda.
I'm intimately familiar with Masonic Avenue. I used to work at the retirement facility on Turk Street near Masonic. I shop at Trader Joes at Geary and Masonic and the Lucky Market at Fulton and Masonic. I cross Masonic on foot almost every day and have no problem doing so. And I often ride the #43 Muni line, which now runs well between the Haight and Geary Blvd.
The bike people are successfully creating a sense that there's a safety crisis on city streets, but the city's annual collision reports---they do one on cycling and one on overall traffic---show that our streets are actually becoming safer every year.
And the numbers the city provided at the first meeting on Masonic back in June show that Masonic Ave. isn't really unsafe for anyone, including pedestrians and cyclists.
The Bicycle Coalition and BikeNopa are using the Big Lie approach to Masonic Ave: they just keep repeating that lie and fomenting hysteria about Masonic to the point where people begin to believe that there's some kind of crisis on that street. It's all bullshit.
Speeding is a crime that is treated like a right. Cycling is a right that is treated like a crime.
Bicycles are toys that the city treats like a serious transporation mode, and motor vehicles are a serious transportation mode the city treats like a crime.
Rob Anderson is a moron the court treated like a plaintiff. But now he's the jester.
And yes, another cyclist was run down on "safe" Masonic at Fell/Masonic by yet another person using "serious transportation" by driving their car through a red light.
Why any sensible person would ride a bike on Fell Street is a mystery to me.
When is your bill with the city due? Are you planning on paying up or appealing? What is the appeal process?
We've already appealed the city's retaliatory attempt to bill us for their useless paperwork. I hate to disappoint you, but they're unlikely to get any money from me, since my only income is my monthly Social Security check, and I have no property or assets. We're still thinking about appealing Judge Busch's decision.
Later: The court threw out the city's ugly attempt to punish us with a phony cost claim designed to discourage anyone from challenging their destructive projects.
Post a Comment
<< Home