August 8, 2007
Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata
Automobiles
This meeting covered automobile transportation in the Western SoMa Plan Area. As usual, members of the Western SoMa community were invited to attend, as were representatives of the City family.
At the outset, it was decided that Tom Radulovich would chair the meeting, since Marc recently chaired it. At one point in the meeting, Tom reviewed a number of handouts that were passed out as well as maps displayed on the wall.
Principal Topics/Current Conditions
The following issues were discussed at the meeting:
· Ongoing work on developing a scenario for the reorientation of streets. Tom mentioned that a charette would be organized at Livable City in September to get input from professionals.
· There is also an intermediate step in which street reorientation plans will be taken to the MTA for comment and discussion on August 16, 2007 (chairs are to review the draft agenda).
· There was a question surrounding the treatment of alleyways and small streets in the Western SoMa. There are both urban design and transportation issues related to alleyway planning.
· The traffic flows that follow down numbered streets and some east-west streets are critical, especially as they relate to the alleyways that cross them, or traffic conflicts that they create.
· It is important that SFCTA is represented on the Transportation Focus Group, as a full member of the Task Force. The SFCTA will try to be present at future Focus Group meetings however, other staff members may actually attend.
· DPH presented data used to study transport impacts on public health. There were high readings on 10th St., however it is important to note that these are not field data, but rather, model outputs.
· Pedestrian injury collision model data was also presented and the possibility of measuring the impacts of parking structures was discussed. Similarly, DPH is considering air quality impacts.
· Supervisor Peskin is developing an ordinance to develop a SUD for the construction of parking structures in Western SoMa (otherwise known as the Fisher proposal). This SUD would comprise an area bounded by Howard to the north, Sixth to the east, Townsend to the south and Ninth to the west.
· It was pointed out that under Prop. 218, government would be obligated to provide measures to mitigate the impacts of potential changes in the area of this proposed SUD. Of course, the area should be closely studied to get a better grip on the larger (macro) picture.
· It was proposed that the group go on record in opposition to the Peskin proposal for a new SUD, i.e., draft something that would voice opposition to the SUD for automobile parking structures. It was determined that the chair be requested to place this item on the agenda at the Task Force meeting. The chair called the motion regarding the policy on the parking structure in the Western SoMa and it passed.
· Under the law, within 90 days, the Planning Commission will need to hold a hearing, at which time the chair or a representative of the Task Force will have to present his/her position.
· The point was raised that the Western SoMa is a neighborhood with residential character and not just an area that cars pass through en route to somewhere else. A solution might be to better funnel traffic through a narrow corridor bordered by two close streets. Another alternative would be to introduce measures to calm traffic, such as the placement of mid-block crossings.
· There is a need for a gateway to the neighborhood, from an area of higher speeds (from the freeway) to lower speeds. This would be accompanied by a set of traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, that would effectively slow down traffic coming off the freeway.
· The discussion on slowing down traffic also addressed the question of switching some streets from two-way to one-way, especially alleyways with issues (e.g., Natoma is a street where people drive fast).
· There was a discussion concerning the protection of residential streets (already contained in the General Plan). It was determined that this should also include some mixed developments in the area.
· Sheridan was mentioned as the typical short cut alley from Ninth to Tenth Streets. Kids and other residents are at risk, and one solution would be to implement traffic calming on these alleyways. Due to the freeway removal, Harrison/Ninth and tenth/Howard do not have crosswalks at all corners.
· It was recommended that bollards be introduced at the edge of roadways to protect the sidewalk from the traffic. Raised crosswalks would provide another alternative to increase pedestrian safety.
· The speed vs. volume issue also came up. One idea would be to have two major and two minor arterials. With the former speeds would be reduced to 25 km/hr, they would be reduced to 20 km/hour on the minor streets. Signage should be introduced to inform the motorist that he/she is entering a neighborhood and to slow down. One idea would be to shrink the streets from five to three lanes wide and introduce reversible lanes.
· There is a push to reverse the emergency powers set in place for these intersections, although it is pointed out that traffic has indeed increased since the freeway was removed near Market-Octavia. This initiative, which called for the immediate reversal of Ninth/ Harrison and Tenth/Howard to intersections with all crossings, also included a provision whereby MTA would be requested to provide a list of other emergency changes. The group voted 6-0 to make this suggestion to the Task Force.
· It was suggested that Bryant and Harrison Streets would serve as fast arterials due to their proximity to the freeway, and that Ninth and Tenth Streets would be the north-south arterials.
· In the area of street calming, two key concepts were discussed:
- protecting a residential area northwest of the freeway; and
- converting Eleventh and Twelfth Streets to green/calmed/pedestrian/livable
- streets that could be closed to traffic
· The application of different forms of traffic calming was discussed. At one end of the continuum, streets would almost be pedestrianized, while on the other, traffic would be allowed (but with pedestrian crossings).
· It was pointed out though, that on Eleventh and Twelfth Streets you have not only residential enclaves, but also a significant number of commercial establishments. Could these streets be completely closed to traffic without adversely impacting local businesses?
· There was discussion of switching Folsom to two-way traffic with transit lanes, based on the argument that Folsom would serve the people. Another east-west street (e.g., Townsend) could also be designed to play a similar role for areas south of the freeway.
· The unbundling of parking from development was also discussed and favored. This would effectively allow for housing to be priced more cheaply and for parking to be priced strategically, discouraging its use.
· Another proposal was to develop a TIDF-like fee structure based on parking (as opposed to simply the size of a building), in order to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the provision of parking. This proposal would introduce
- An ongoing fee to cover the wear and tear of the road and enforcement
- A one time fee for parking areas
· The elimination of double left turn lanes at Fourth/Howard was discussed
· It was recommended that the focus group try to be as concrete as possible, and that action be taken to ensure that a transportation study (e.g., for SoMa) be undertaken to provide background data for the Western SoMa work.
In closing, the following subjects were scheduled for future (monthly) meeting of the focus group:
Sep.: Folsom Blvd. as well as other major transportation projects
Oct.: Goods and freight movement
Nov.: Transit revisited
