San Francisco's Prop K would transform Great Highway into recreation space

Started by bing101, October 08, 2024, 11:32:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2024/san-francisco-prop-k-great-highway-recreation-space/3672118/

Note this is a proposed plan to convert Great Highway into a park. Also this road has a history of being buried in sand whenever storms take place.

This need the approval of San Francisco voters before this is implemented.


Max Rockatansky

Decent bypass of traffic from the southern city limit to the Golden Gate Bridge.

heynow415

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2024, 12:05:44 PMDecent bypass of traffic from the southern city limit to the Golden Gate Bridge.

What I haven't seen discussed in this very heated debate is a hybrid concept.  The current roadway is four lanes separated by a large median for most of its length. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the inland/northbound lanes could be converted to a two way roadway and the median and beach/southbound lanes to the seawall could become the promenade/park. There's plenty of room for both uses, though the area from GG Park northward used for parking would need to be reconfigured.   

Voyager

Quote from: heynow415 on October 08, 2024, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2024, 12:05:44 PMDecent bypass of traffic from the southern city limit to the Golden Gate Bridge.

What I haven't seen discussed in this very heated debate is a hybrid concept.  The current roadway is four lanes separated by a large median for most of its length. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the inland/northbound lanes could be converted to a two way roadway and the median and beach/southbound lanes to the seawall could become the promenade/park. There's plenty of room for both uses, though the area from GG Park northward used for parking would need to be reconfigured.   

People want the road gone entirely so they can cross over to the beach, I doubt this option would ever happen.
AARoads Forum Original

heynow415

Quote from: Voyager on October 08, 2024, 02:13:59 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on October 08, 2024, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2024, 12:05:44 PMDecent bypass of traffic from the southern city limit to the Golden Gate Bridge.

What I haven't seen discussed in this very heated debate is a hybrid concept.  The current roadway is four lanes separated by a large median for most of its length. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that the inland/northbound lanes could be converted to a two way roadway and the median and beach/southbound lanes to the seawall could become the promenade/park. There's plenty of room for both uses, though the area from GG Park northward used for parking would need to be reconfigured.   

People want the road gone entirely so they can cross over to the beach, I doubt this option would ever happen.

I'm sure some/many people do.  But others want the roadway to stay in place.  Crossing a two-lane roadway as a pedestrian, especially if signalized (like many of the crossings already are), is not an onerous burden.  Given the amount of sand blowing around that must be regularly moved back to the beach it would seem that channelizing beach access crossings to a focused number of locations would discourage people trampling what remains of the vegetated dunes and not make the blowing sand issue worse than it is.

DTComposer

If they closed it completely, I think residents on the "inland" version of Great Highway (i.e. on the east side of the bike path) would see a miserable increase in traffic.

I like the half-closed idea (convert the northbound lanes to two-way traffic) - everywhere there's currently crosswalks (every two blocks), convert it to a pedestrian/bike overcrossing. AND decrease the number of signals on Sunset - keep them at Judah, Noriega, and Taraval, and convert the rest into RIRO, or no access but overcrossings for thru traffic.

Rothman

Quote from: DTComposer on October 09, 2024, 07:20:49 PMIf they closed it completely, I think residents on the "inland" version of Great Highway (i.e. on the east side of the bike path) would see a miserable increase in traffic.

I like the half-closed idea (convert the northbound lanes to two-way traffic) - everywhere there's currently crosswalks (every two blocks), convert it to a pedestrian/bike overcrossing. AND decrease the number of signals on Sunset - keep them at Judah, Noriega, and Taraval, and convert the rest into RIRO, or no access but overcrossings for thru traffic.

Hm.  When I lived in SF, I thought there must have been some rhyme or reason for where left turns were prohibited and they forced you to take three rights...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

TheStranger

Quote from: Rothman on October 09, 2024, 11:43:55 PMHm.  When I lived in SF, I thought there must have been some rhyme or reason for where left turns were prohibited and they forced you to take three rights...

19th Avenue (Route 1) and Van Ness Avenue (US 101) have these bans, and both happen to be the only two north-south through routes in town.  (Van Ness used to have more left-turn-permitted slots until the center bus lanes opened in 2019)
Chris Sampang

Rothman

Quote from: TheStranger on October 10, 2024, 03:35:17 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 09, 2024, 11:43:55 PMHm.  When I lived in SF, I thought there must have been some rhyme or reason for where left turns were prohibited and they forced you to take three rights...

19th Avenue (Route 1) and Van Ness Avenue (US 101) have these bans, and both happen to be the only two north-south through routes in town.  (Van Ness used to have more left-turn-permitted slots until the center bus lanes opened in 2019)

When I lived there, I think it was the case for a lot of intersecting roads to Geary.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

mrsman

Quote from: DTComposer on October 09, 2024, 07:20:49 PMIf they closed it completely, I think residents on the "inland" version of Great Highway (i.e. on the east side of the bike path) would see a miserable increase in traffic.

I like the half-closed idea (convert the northbound lanes to two-way traffic) - everywhere there's currently crosswalks (every two blocks), convert it to a pedestrian/bike overcrossing. AND decrease the number of signals on Sunset - keep them at Judah, Noriega, and Taraval, and convert the rest into RIRO, or no access but overcrossings for thru traffic.

This is a very good idea.  The closures already redirect traffic to Sunset (by signage) but no actual encouragement to do so.  Making Sunset a bit of a surface expressway would be very helpful.

They may also need to close up some of the other side streets from having thru effect.

citrus

There was an AMA on the San Francisco subreddit from the organizers of Prop K today, and I learned a lot from some of the supporting documentation.

A big part of the rationale here is tied to: the portion of Great Highway *south* of Sloat (to CA-35) is already slated to permanently close. This was voted on and approved by the city supervisors, and it's because that specific stretch has had so many problems with sand blowing and closures that the city just wants to abandon it rather than try to keep it open.

Based on that, the organizers have done a bunch of studies and concluded that the traffic impact is minimal, because thru traffic already will need to divert inland at the south end regardless, so the stretch in question on Prop K isn't going to be that useful anymore. Their studies are showing that most of that traffic will be expected to use Sunset Blvd, and I do believe that since that's where the route from the south will directly lead to. And these studies also show that Sunset Blvd has plenty of unused capacity to absorb it, and that traffic speeds on Sunset will only be impacted by a few mph at most. I buy most of that.

Ultimately I don't use Great Highway enough to care that much (although I have used it more on the closed days as a pedestrian than on the open days as a car). But Sunset Blvd kind of sucks. It's a 6-lane road with frequent, not-very-well-timed lights and no shoulder. There's a bus line on it. There are 2 streetcar lines that cross at-grade. There are lots of schools nearby with significant pedestrian traffic during certain hours. And the connections on either end suck -- especially now that MLK in Golden Gate Park closed, so all traffic on Sunset needs to use Lincoln to reach Chain of Lakes to cross the park.

The study leaves open a few options to improve intersection capacity at both ends of Sunset, so that's good. I think there are probably more things that can be done - like... making the local bus take the parallel 36th/37th Aves, closing off intersections to east-west traffic (eliminating some pedestrian conflicts). Basically I almost see Sunset becoming a Netherlands-style surface through road, and requiring local traffic to take the grid streets.

The study addresses the 2-way, one carriageway version of this project - where they close the current SB lanes and keep the NB lanes open for 2-way traffic. The study basically says this is too expensive as that roadway would need to be completely reconstructed to accommodate extra shoulder width.

BTW, one thing I can say with certainty --- the neighborhood is not going to accept overpasses/viaducts here, either over existing Great Highway or along Sunset. If we had infinite funding, maybe a cut-n-cover tunnel along Sunset, and then the main roadway there can become a linear park. Folks would LOVE that!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.