Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 18, 2014 3:00pm-3:31pm PDT

3:00 pm
parking inventory changes per project. we will live -- leave it accountable for all pro act. i will now move on to some conceptual design to illustrate how we plan to accommodate accessibility in protected bike ways. this first slide shows a crosswalk in a green bike way that's at street level next to the sidewalk, and on the other side of the bike way is a raised buffer also at the sidewalk level. the raised buffer has a ramp that leaves to the crosswalk with yellow truncated domes and the other side of the raised buffer is a parking lane. the first parking space in the parking lane is an accessible on street parking space. you
3:01 pm
will notice the difference in buffer width next to the accessible parking space and next to the parking spaces that are non-designated as accessible. this change of width is more to illustrate the different minimum requirements that we have. it does not mean necessarily that the buffers would barry in width like that. the accessible parking space will be parking wide. it can be a minimum of 8 feet wide. places that are not designated as accessible, it can be four 4 feet wide and essentially it's five 5 feet wide. in this next slide, we have a similar
3:02 pm
set up where we have a sidewalk and a green bicycle lane at the street level and on the other side of the bicycle lane, a raised buffer that's at the same level as the sidewalk. with a ramp leading towards the crosswalk at the beginning of the buffer. and on the buffer is a transit stop. so the buffer serves also as a transit island. and we also have a crossing, a pedestrian crossing both at the middle of the block. so at the far end of the transit stop and one at the beginning of the transit stop which is at the crosswalk. so two ways for pedestrians to get from the sidewalk to the transit island. so this conceptual design is meant to illustrate how we envision accommodating stops in accommodating access
3:03 pm
to these stops for pedestrians on the sidewalk or pedestrians that want to get from the stop to the sidewalk. so what we thought was important for providing ample ways to get from the sidewalk to the transit stop knowing that a lot of times people might be trying to catch the bus, etc. these crosswalks already marked with marking similar to continue continental crosswalks and with truncated domes on each side on the raised buffer and sidewalk. the bicycle lane will angle up. they are at the same level of the sidewalk and transit bufrt -- buffer and it will accommodate the level crossing. as you will also note the raised buffer is also wider where the transit stop is located. this transit stop will be a minimum of eight 8 feet wide to accommodate the
3:04 pm
lift to be deployed from the transit vehicle. this next slide illustrates a little bit in more detail the mid-block crossings that we are envisioning from the sidewalk to the raised buffers. one of the things we want to make sure to do whenever there is either a parking along the raised buffer or transit stop on a raised buffer is to make sure that people have clear and designated ways to get from the sidewalk to the buffer and for them to be frequent. so at most people would have to walk 300 feet to get to a crossing from a crosswalk or mid-block crossing. if a block is longer than 600 feet, it will require a mid-block crossing. and this last slide that i will show shows instead of
3:05 pm
what we've been seeing which is a raised buffer, we have a sidewalk and green bicycle lane at the street level and the separation between traffic and the bicycle lane consist of one that has a painted buffer and a parking lane. a parking space and parking lane is an accessible parking space which is also well marked with blue. we are still figuring out how we will mark these spaces and that's an on going conversation. the most important to address of this slide is the width of the buffer. so a minimum buffer with a long and accessible space would be 5 feet wide. the recommended minimum buffer for a parking space that's non-designated as an accessible space would be four 4 feet wide and we have an
3:06 pm
exception for under various strenuous circumstances require approval of services for three 3-foot wide buffer. with that, i will close. thank you. >> first off, thank you so much for coming today and presenting this plan. it's definitely ambitious. i think we have questions from the council myself include. first off, in speaking to the buffer width, i think it was the first diagram you showed the buffer width along blue zone would be five 5 feet minimum for van accessible spaces. in the slide that's shown the crosswalk points for going from the sidewalk islands to
3:07 pm
the actual crossing with the bikers there, i didn't see signage or any notes about signage or, my question is it going to be something where a person with a mobility disability is going to be waiting for bikers to slowdown and always having to be vigilant that no one is going to be barreling down where there is no crossing. could there be a stoplight for them so they can stop and go so they know they have to stop? >> thank you for the question. i'm going to defer to my colleague from livable streets. miriam sorelli. >> it would depend on the example that sandra had an
3:08 pm
image of. one of the crosswalks at the actual intersection and that would be subject to whatever the normal markings are of the stoplight. in terms of the mid-block location. it's a crosswalk that would yield to pedestrian in a crosswalk. would it be added an extra stoplight that would be as the process. >> can i ask a question as a follow up. we've all been down to market street and seen news reports of bicyclist and running and mowing down pedestrians. these things, i'm not making this up. but at the same time, i'm happy that you are here though. we all want to help make it successful. so in speaking to that, the fact that adhering to the current standards for well, they are just going to have to wait or
3:09 pm
ensure that these bicyclist, the way they are going down, it's not like a standard for pedestrian. they are a moving vehicle themselves. so saying that it's okay, we have a current regulation in place, they are just going to that and during multiple mid-point, not just one because these are long stretches here. just leaving it to that, that's being to the point where you are waiting for it to be reactive measures instead of proactive measures. what is in place to be possibly be pro act identify ct -- protective about this problem. that's a problem. >> that's an issue that we are dealing with in the city. it's a lot more broad than what we are looking at in terms of coming up with these design guidelines. it's an issue of enforcement, issue of education. there is lots of
3:10 pm
things that factor into that. there are many things that are going on around enforcement in terms of these designs. what we were looking at is not, this handbook, this set of guidance is about designing the facilities in a way that they provide access to the people who need it and figuring out some of those issues is a little bit of a separate thing. i don't want to discount that as a real issue and we have the raised feet in the crosswalk is something we don't so far have and for instance the new, there is a similar design at church where there is a bicycle track behind the muni stop and that doesn't have the raised crosswalk. when we add something like that in, it's a signal that not just is there a marked crosswalk but you are physically going uphill to enter this pedestrian space and we are hoping that that design will help to address those issues. >> with a yield sign or
3:11 pm
warning ahead, crossing. i'm sure lots of things will be implemented. one more question, going to the accessible painted buffer in the slide and the control room can find that slide because i see we are trying to reference the slide the public may not be able to see. >> i have it up. >> okay shall , thank you very much. control room. this seems to me a little similar going on with the park with the jfk way. there was strong feedback from that because really it's, you know, despite however you paint it, you are still trying to transfer out and there is still bicyclist barreling down. they are not going slow. and so, it really doesn't feel as much of a loading zone. once again, the own us really in my opinion should not be on the person with the
3:12 pm
immobility to be vigilant. if they have a disability, low vision, they can still be independent. this set up still, it seems to me they have to be very vigilant and almost dependent to have a person by their side so they can cross and that impedes them from being able to go out independent ly in the community. is this something we are going to have in place now and later on we'll find new ideas? >> the work we did on jfk did factor in a lot to what we've advised here. when we are designing bicycle facilities impact always afford to put in an actual raised buffer in the case of the golden gate, the park wasn't interested in that. so the design in the case of the painted buffer is
3:13 pm
similar recommended to the raised buffer and that's five 5 feet and that's something through the process of the jfk design, we worked to widen those buffers and we wrent able to in all locates. our guidance for the future is that are recommended with the five 5 feet and minimum is 4 feet. there are some other things that we learned through jfk that we recommend for the future which is jfk has an additional issue of the parking lane itself being very narrow. you know, jfk was the first of it's kind in san francisco. we have a lot of guidance from other cities, here is the recommended buffer and the recommended vehicle lane because of the concern of jfk and we put minimums next to minimums and it's a little tight. the parking in jfk people park into the buffer, but in the width of that parking lane combined with the travel lane next to
3:14 pm
it. it's something we are always going to be struggling with and to ensure cars are parking outside the buffer as they should be adds a whole lot of width. >> this you for answering that. one more just to really address this. if it comes to the attention and this is jfk, this is going to be going on more downtown. if it turns out that this is not a good idea that the accessibility and harm is great, would it still be left in place or be taken out. that's with image nothing. we are working on a new plan. do you feel like it might be hazardous to leave this in if it presents challenges. is it better to
3:15 pm
have nothing so it doesn't get pushed along by accident? >> we are definitely on top of looking at collision data and complaints or praise that we receive especially a painted feature. that's something, if we had seen it as being problematic in terms of increasing collisions, that would be something we would look at. so far for jfk we haven't seen anything in collisions compared to what we've seen before. >> okay. councilmembers, thank you for being patient with me. we have mr. supanich? >> my question is for both of you. i went to drive through jfk boulevard or parkway and when the pilot program began and it was clearly evident
3:16 pm
that people did not know what to do. you go down and these green lanes are already on market street and i have on several occasions seen cars in those lanes. so i am concerned that we will revamp a radical new system of transportation in this city without adequate signage and without adequate community education before hand. can you give me assurances that there will be an adequate budget to educate the public. it's really messy when a car gets in a bike lane and of course tempers flare and there is already enough an animosity between drivers and bicycles. is there going to be
3:17 pm
a system and how will that work? >> that is a much more broad issue than specifically related to the guidelines and that is something we are cognizant of and working on and partnering enforcement and education and working with non-profit partners. we do have some coming up, i think outreach and around education around those things, but it's not actually, i'm not familiar with the details of that but i know that education is something we want to do, having it be green as opposed to jfk we weren't able to do the green treatment. we are figuring out each thing to do to make it clear. our goal is to make it clear as possible for people for what they should be doing. when people understand where they should be, that will be more smoothly. >> i would like to encourage you to work with the mayor's office on disability on these matters and also council.
3:18 pm
>> to the chair, quickly. i think those are really very good suggestions and some of the conversations we had out of jfk were looking at things like pavement markings and signage to really communicate to people where is the parking zone, where is the buffer zone and bike lane zone. i think that's constructive feedback for this document. thank you. >> councilmember wong? >> hi, there. i saw you yesterday at the committee. today i have the second round at hearing the presentation and finally it's sun ken in. i was looking at the bike lane that should be 8 feet minimum. page nine. i like the idea of the improvement of the double crosswalk. currently most of
3:19 pm
these islands, we could not get to the intersection because of the crowds. like market street. when we board on the island or get off the island and there are crowds in front of the intersection, we just wait patiently but having this improvement will be great and better factor market street to have double crosswalks. and this observation, i noticed that most of these don't have guard rails. you know, parentally market street had guard rails to guide them and once they get off the bus, they don't know where to go and they
3:20 pm
have an aid as a guard rail that will be helpful and also for safety. people tend to want to jaywalk anyway. so anyway, i just kind of throw that in for the time being. i'm sure we'll have further discussion about it. thank you. >> councilmember kostanian? >> hi. one of the things when i do go out. i don't go out very often, but when i do go out and have a chance to go to some of the neighborhoods and/or to the park, i still see bikes and skateboarders going at a reckless speed and have no concern about people or anybody. except on one thing, to have access and speed. when you are talking about education, i think these are the people that you really have to sit down and say,
3:21 pm
this is very serious. the city of san francisco has to pay for these things. i think it's important to sit down and have classes and have people come and talk and ask questions especially youth. because if they don't start putting that into place, who is going to listen? thank you. >> now i will turn it over to comment from staff. okay. let's go to public comment. we'll start with, if you will be kind to hang back if there are questions. we have a
3:22 pm
speaker. >> thank you. for your presentation on accessibility on bike lanes. i have a question and concern and also a rhetorical question. will there be, should there be, could there be installed on the medians on the north south, east west, roads such as gary and van ness an aps push button on the median to assist pedestrians crossing over those routes which in those two examples are also highway 1, which is van ness is 101 but equates to lombard which is also 101. can that be installed to van ness, market and gary and lombard?
3:23 pm
>> thank you. next. we have comments from howard chad ner. >> hi, good afternoon. thank you. couple things. i have not had a chance to really digest these guidelines but i was one of the people advocating against the folly at the jfk drive. it's interesting in relation to cochair zarda's comments. in case it doesn't work, would you change it. jfk doesn't work, bicyclist tell me that, drivers. the only thing that doesn't acknowledge that it doesn't work is the mta. there is no mentality at the mta streets department,
3:24 pm
livable streets, whatever. there is no mentality of acknowledging when they have made a mistake and starting over because they don't really consider themselves accountable to the people of san francisco as a whole. they are captured pretty much by special interest. couple things, i think this maybe an improvement, thighs guidelines. but anything that puts a pedestrian having to cross a bike lane particularly with mobility disabilities should not have to cross a bike lane. the way i read these guidelines would still have as one of you pointed out in terms of the parking along one of these buffer zones, you still have to cross a bike lane. is that the 30 second bell? okay, the other thing is that one thing that's not dealt with in these
3:25 pm
guidelines is what is an accessible space? they define accessible space as a technically accessible space without taking into account the fact that most parallel spaces are defactor accessible to most people with disabilities. i have had correspondence with ed reiskin, he doesn't acknowledge that fact. you have to look at how many faces that are defactor are limited with these projects. thank you. >> thank you. next, we have comment from tyler frisby from sf bicycle coalition. >> thank you very much for having me here today. i'm the
3:26 pm
policy director for the san francisco bicycle coalition. i want to take a moment to say we are very supportive of this document and represents a great deal of work on the mayor's office on disability and other stakeholders and one of it's first in the nation to set up a broad standard when they look at accessibility and biking improvements. we've had difficult conversations and this is the way to set up guidelines and pieces more accessible for people on crutches and people on bikes and wheelchairs. to address the question about people stopping at crosswalks and making sure to yield to pedestrians, we intend to take this document once it's
3:27 pm
formalized and use it for soik -- cyclist and children and their families. we want to engage these guidelines and we want to understand what these signals and markings mean and have a clear understanding of where we want this to go. we want to make this useful for all of us. thank you. >> thank you. next we have comments from evelyn present. >> i never see bicycle laws enforced. okay. yes, one rowdy with me and said, i'm wearing
3:28 pm
a helmet. well, dark jacket. i know bicycle coalition people the real ones wear it. necessity neon vest should be a law. the barreling down residential streets. i saw it at sanchez and 14th. running and not even looking, no helmet. just driving through. now, do they and i see no enforcement of this, none. nobody pulled over. so it's almost which do you follow, pedestrian laws or bicycle laws. it's very unclear still. but one problem with the enforcement, one more thing, i just noticed it with a friend. let's say on the intersection
3:29 pm
of oak and divisadero. there is a bicycle lane on the right. that's fabulous and well marked and wide. it gets narrow because there is a right turn for automobiles on the divisadero. how should one cross with the green there. how do you cross that green thing and also entitled to your right turn with a traffic arrow? anyway, that's something for the green zone people, but the main thing is enforcement, is it pedestrian bicycles. it's mostly i'm concerned that it's helmet already but the neon vest.
3:30 pm
>> thank you. we've got comment from wendy. >> hi. my name is wendy. i wanted to echo the previous comment about enforcement. yes. collisions will probably get marked. but near collisions don't get noticed. or scare the people with hearing issues. and i have seen this countless times is that the curb cuts are used by bicyclist climb onto the sidewalk and go directly to the door. they do not dismount at the curb because they don't want to get hit by cars. is