[Carfreeliving] Complete streets in SF?
Tom Radulovich
tom at livablecity.org
Wed May 25 20:42:27 MDT 2005
Emily,
Thanks for bringing up the "Complete Streets" idea. I like the Complete
Streets model quite a lot, and TLC has complete streets as one of our
policy focus areas. We worked with Supervisor Mirkarimi on his
ordinance, which is indeed a good start. I don't think, however, that
it is incompatible with a network approach; the two can be
complementary.
The city could, and should, have really robust network plans: a bicycle
network, a pedestrian network, a bus rapid transit/transit preferential
streets network, a goods movement network, and even an automobile
network. I am also realizing that we need a "green network", which
takes into account street trees, stormwater infiltration and water
quality, and ecosystem health and biodiversity. As Jason Patton points
out, all of these networks has a different "rationality" or internal
logic. Pedestrians belong on all streets, but transit vehicles or autos
don't necessarily. No street should be unsafe for bikes or pedestrians,
but we may not necessarily need class 1 or 2 bike facilities on every
street. The network plans should take into account different street
types; sidewalks, for example, should be much wider on the major
pedestrian promenades than on a residential alley; we should have a
pedestrian lighting standard that provides a reasonable minimum of
light on all pedestrian paths, but we may want brighter lighting on a
commercial street than on a quiet residential street.
The city needs to do a better job establishing minimum levels of safety
and amenity; in certain important areas we lack any standards
whatsoever, and we allow things like double left turn lanes, which the
more progressive cities generally prohibit. We also haven't figured out
what the basic elements are of different street types, such as a
transit preferential street, or a neighborhood commercial street, or a
major pedestrian street. Mission street is a great example; even though
it is designated as both a "transit preferential street" and a "major
pedestrian street" in the city's general plan, the resurfacing project
presently underway isn't putting in any pedestrian improvements even
though they are badly needed, isn't putting in any transit-preferential
streets improvements, like nextbus or bus bulbs, and isn't widening the
"substandard" 9' transit lanes. We advocates need to find a way to get
the city's transportation bureaucracies --SFCTA, MTA, Planning, DPW --
to agree to a set of multimodal standards that apply to all public
rights of way as well as specific standards for different street types,
and to agree to a set of capital priorities. We also need network
documents that offer clearer guidance about what the design and
performance standards are for specific corridors, and we need a more
integrated multimodal approach to reconciling instances where the
imperatives of different networks conflict. Ross' ordinance is great,
but we as advocates need to figure out how to tune up the city's
standards and network plans in order to make the ordinance a truly
effective planning tool.
On May 25, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Mike Sallaberry wrote:
>
> I agree with Josh. The idea of having bike lanes on every street is
> certainly nice, but the reality is that requiring them may very well
> threaten the viability of worthy projects like bus rapid transit.
> Developing designs on these projects often results in heated
> negotiations literally over what mode gets the handful of inches that
> are sometimes left over. Taking 10' and saying they must be used for
> bikes can end up being a huge, unintended monkey wrench. Bikes
> facilities should always be considered, but requiring them is a
> mistake.
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Joshua Switzky <Joshua.Switzky at sfgov.org>
> Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
>
> 05/25/2005 02:59 PM
> To
> Emily Drennen <bicyclesf at yahoo.com>
> cc
> Walk SF Board <board at walksf.org>, Carfreeliving at livablecity.org,
> Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
> Subject
> Re: [Carfreeliving] Complete streets in SF?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I actually don't agree that bike lanes should be accommodated on ALL
> streets, particularly Van Ness and Geary. These major transit streets
> need
> major transit infrastructure. It will be hard enough to devote
> existing
> shared lanes to transit only, and to suggest that we ought to either
> reduce
> autos to only one lane in each direction or get rid of the curb
> parking
> (these are really the only options), I think we would be both butting
> our
> heads against a brick wall and suggesting somewhat extreme solutions
> to
> problems that don't necessarily exist. I personally don't think that
> Van
> Ness or Geary need bike lanes if there are immediately parallel
> streets
> that are bike-friendly and serve the same corridor. I think there are
> far
> more important and worthwhile battles to fight than these. Let's
> focus on
> just completing the bike network and throw our full weight behind
> these key
> transit projects. These streets needs a lot of work just to make them
> good
> transit streets.
> my two cents.
> -j
>
>
>
>
>
> Emily Drennen
>
> <bicyclesf at yahoo.com> To:
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
> Sent by: cc: Walk
> SF Board <board at walksf.org>
> Carfreeliving-bounces at liva Subject:
> [Carfreeliving] Complete streets in SF?
> blecity.org
>
>
>
>
>
> 05/25/2005 02:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all-
>
>
> I am wondering how folks feel about working together to pass a
> "Complete
> the Streets" policy here in SF (see www.thunderheadalliance.org for
> more
> info). The complete street concept is that *all* streets should serve
> bikes and walkers (and transit, where applicable)- not just certain
> streets.
>
>
> Politically, the bike network concept has succeeded in shifting
> public and
> political support towards accommodating bikes. And, while the network
> idea
> has been so far successful for bikes, I think we need to look beyond
> the
> network model to expecting bike accommodations on all city streets as
> part
> of a "complete street" model. (Peds, esp., need to be accommodated on
> every street because networks just aren't appropriate for peds.)
>
>
> I know the SFBC has a lot of work and policy already invested in the
> bike
> network concept. Any thoughts about adding in a new layer through a
> "complete streets" push, while retaining a focus on the core route
> network?
>
>
> An example of the many places where the bike network model bites us
> in the
> butt: the redesigns on Geary and Van Ness Avenues to include BRT don't
> include bike facilities b/c "they aren't on the bike network". These
> great
> streets could (and should!) include bike lanes, even if Polk St bike
> lanes
> are right near Van Ness, and there are other bike lanes on streets
> near
> Geary.
>
>
> Ross' resolution to require bike and ped accommodations whenever
> roads are
> built/rebuilt (the local "good roads" bill) is a great start. Is
> anybody
> involved with his office on this resolution? This could be the
> vehicle (so
> to speak) for making complete streets a city policy. Anybody
> interested in
> helping on this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Emily Drennen
>
> 415/863-2248
> bicyclesf at yahoo.com
> www.emilydrennen.org
>
> Acting Executive Director, Walk San Francisco
> Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
> Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation
> Agency
> Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee
>
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 13852 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20050525/8e4ec801/attachment.bin
More information about the Carfreeliving
mailing list