Upper Market Street bike lane "compromises the safety of firefighters and local residents"
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54603483/Mike_Peel.0.jpg)
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:52 PM
To: Maguire, Tom; Sallaberry, Mike; Golier, Patrick; Montoya, Luis; Hildreth, Casey
Cc: Barnes, Bill (ADM); Gonzales, Mark (FIR); DeCossio, Dan (FIR); Rivera, Anthony (FIR); Balmy, Alec (FIR); Gracia, Daniel (FIR)
Subject: Report on Impact of Proposed Plans by SFMTA for Upper Market Street
Good afternoon,
Please see the findings below regarding Market Street proposal.
Regards,
Olivia
Olivia Scanlon
San Francisco Fire Department
698 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
The Bureau of Fire Prevention, Support Services and Suppression have reviewed MTA's proposed protected bicycle lanes on Upper Market and Herman streets.
The review was a parallel path of both drawing review and on site physical inspection. The Bureau of Fire Prevention has concluded that MTA's Upper Market design materially compromises the safety of firefighters and local residents for the following reasons:
1) Herman Street:
* Diagonal parking scheme reduces the clear width to 15 feet resulting in insufficient clearance to deploy Aerial Ladder.
2) Upper Market:
* Protected Bike Lane shifts car parking stalls which in turn further displaces aerial truck staging (38 feet out from the building versus prescribed 15-30 feet) creating an unsafe climbing angle for firefighters.
3) Upper Market:
* Protected Bike Lane shifts parked car stalls forcing the aerial truck to stage under Muni overhead wires creating an electric shock hazard for firefighters.
In addition, the SFFD has requested SFMTA to provide drawings using approved fire vehicle turn templates at the corner of Market/15th St/ Sanchez. This is a frequently traveled street just down from Sta 06. Fire must confirm that the proposed corner bulb-out and bicycle/vehicle parking at 15th St./Sanchez doesn't compromise Fire access.
Given compromised safety standards as detailed above, it is the recommendation of the Bureau of Fire Prevention to decline the expansion of protected bike lanes as currently outlined in MTA's proposal. The Bureau of Fire Prevention encourages MTA to identify alternatives that will address outlined safety standard issues, and welcomes further engagement on same.
See the SF Curbed story on this issue: San Francisco votes to protect bike lanes despite SFFD alarm.
See also Upper Market Street and the Bicycle Derangement Syndrome.
See the SF Curbed story on this issue: San Francisco votes to protect bike lanes despite SFFD alarm.
See also Upper Market Street and the Bicycle Derangement Syndrome.
Labels: Anti-Car, Bicycle Plan, City Government, Cycling and Safety, Muni
posted by Rob Anderson @ 3:15 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The letter was written in April but has only just appeared on my browser's view of District 5 Diary due to internet connection problems of some kind. I'm going to reset my modem to see if that fixes it.
Sfmta response : we could care less Mr Fire Dept. We know all of our projects compromise safety. We know all of our projects make it difficult for emergency response. Because of longer emergency response times we suggest not calling 911. Safe is the money as they will not get to you in time. Your dying anyway right? We will continue with these dumb projects as most SF citizens are as dumb as we are. We enjoy spending their money. Who cares they're not doing shit about it anyway.
Sincerely,
The fuckheads at the sfmta.
Anonymous 1: That the letter was written in April doesn't invalidate the Fire Dept.'s concerns.
Anonymous 2: What it demonstrates is that the safety of cyclists trumps, so to speak, the safety of everyone else. Notice that the city hasn't provided any proof that the upper Market Street area is particularly dangerous. All they have to do is invoke safety as a rationale for all these "improvements," and the folks on the Board of Lemmings falls in line.
Years ago when I worked for a Northcoast paper, I questioned an official in the Sheriff's department about the anti-marijuana program, for which the county got state money, mostly for helicopters. He argued that growing marijuana is illegal.
I countered that so is jaywalking, but the county doesn't assign a special enforcement team to deal with it. His response was unanswerable: "We would if the state gave us money for it."
Post a Comment
<< Home