[Carfreeliving] Oak and Masonic

[Mike Sallaberry]

I'm not a fan of double turn lanes, and have removed a few myself, but 
something to keep in mind is that many motorists have been treating the #2 
lane (count from the left) as a turn lane even though it is intended for 
through traffic only, basically creating the same problems as the double 
turn lane design but now with the added unpredictability associated with 
illegal movements.  It's a similar phenomenon to the RT issue at 
Market/Octavia.  You can discourage or ban certain movements, but if there 
is enough demand to perform that particular movement and no constant or 
regular enforcement or way to physically prevent it, people will break the 
law.

With or without the second turn lane, there is still two rows of turning 
vehicles here.

What to do?

Now, please do not interpret this as me supporting this or supporting 
that.  I think it's an interesting topic and certainly worth discussing, 
but given my time constraints, I will probably not send another email on 
this topic.

Thanks,
Mike




"Brinkman, Cheryl" <Cheryl.Brinkman at McKesson.com> 
Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
11/17/2005 01:16 PM

To
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org
cc

Subject
[Carfreeliving] Oak and Masonic






Oak at Masonic used to be a double turn lane from Oak to Masonic.  A few 
months ago, June I think, the second turn lane was removed - well, the tow 
away zone was removed so cars can now park along the left side of Oak all 
the way up to the crosswalk.  This meant that there is only one lane of 
cars turning left across the Masonic cross walk that connects the two 
halves of the Panhandle.
 
This was accomplished after a comprehensive e-mail string to DPT 
engineering listing all the reasoning behind improving pedestrian and bike 
safety, the fact that the left turning cars simply meet a red light at 
Fell, and that Oak street does not appear to be at capacity - cars come in 
clumps across all four lanes, but no clump seems to be deeper then about 
four or five cars, and of course that the City Charter states blah blah 
blah....
 
Now my lovely "ark here and help slow the cars down"is going be removed 
for morning rush hours 7-9 apparently due river complaints and the fact 
that the intersection backs up.  I did not go out and publicize the 
removal of the turn lane to peds and bikes, thinking that perhaps it was 
better to fly under the radar and not call attention to it.  That was a 
mistake I guess, the drivers complained and the peds did not state their 
happiness at feeling safer crossing Masonic. Drivers win again.
 
Would the correct ultimate decision maker be Jack Fleck of DPT 
engineering?  As usual,  I don't understand why driver convenience trumps 
pedestrian safety but I want to keep the intersection at one turn lane 
only.  It really is safer for peds.
 
Any advise would be welcome.
 
Cheryl_______________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://livablecity.org/pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20051122/b7d6ffb9/attachment.html