_Perhaps_ it will decrease _automobile_ level of service (there is no
guarantee that it will) but I believe it would certainly increase
overall mobility in the area. And remember that moving people and
goods, not moving vehicles, is what it is all about.
It will also make it more likely for autos to
use the transit only lane. Autos must occupy the transit lane in
order to parallel park, so enforcement will be difficult. This is
all undesirable for Muni.
Parking is a straw man. Anybody who snags a spot there will hold onto
it all day. The real problem is with right-turning traffic clogging
the transit lanes: a problem with either the DPT proposal or with the
more urban-environment-friendly one.
A lane of parked cars to separate pedestrians and moving buses may
be desirable but it is not necessary. The buses stop at every
corner and the blocks are short, so speeding buses should not be a
problem. I too am uncomfortable walking next to moving vehicles,
so I don't walk next to the curb. I also stand several feet away
from the edge of the Muni Metro and BART platforms.
Have you actually experienced the sidewalks on Third? They, like most
of street edges in SoMa, have been narrowed over the years as part of
the creation of the network of one-way "traffic sewers" which pass for
roads in that area. The existing sidewalks have already been
cannibalized to a dangerous extent by SOV-supporting roadway
widenings. The existing sidewalks are already too narrow to support
the existing levels of pedestrian movement, let alone the massive
increases which will come with planned and envisaged development in
the area. And let's not forget that the Moscone Center monstrosity
_completely_ removes sidewalks from one side of the street.
It's a borderline-unpleasant environment, and there's nowhere to go
which would place all pedestrians "several feet away" from the traffic
lane. I hate free parking as much as the next enviro, but in this
case a line of parked cars can provide a useful barrier. (The real
solution is to reclaim the parking lane for sidewalk expansion;
something the superior proposal could lead to, but which which the
DPT-sponsored roadway widening works directly against.)
The DPT proposal sounds reasonable.
The existing DPT proposal is an awful like the constant Caltrans
proposals to sell freeway widenings in the sheep's clothing of "HOV
lanes."
Confining heavy Muni traffic to a substandard-width, grossly
substandard-paved lane next to a grossly substandard pedestrian way
seems analogous; and if you read further about their plans to cut down
the size of the pedestrian island (Lotta's Fountain) at
Market/Third/Kearney/Geary is gets even worse.
In the words of a letter from the SFBC/Walk SF/Transit First Market
Street "we would like to address what we suspect may be an unstated
motive for developing the current transit-only lane configuration.
Although your letter regarding the proposed Third Street changes
rightly emphasizes that a diamond lane is needed to enhance bus
services in this corridor, it appears to us that the current plan will
also increase Third Streets' capacity for automobiles. By putting the
buses in the Third Street curb lane and cutting back part of the
Lotta's Fountain island, the proposal would have the effect of
creating another lane for cars along Third Street and through this
intersection."
If there is a real
concern, the sidewalk should be widened. Let's make sure the streets
around PacBell Stadium have wide sidewalks, as well as the Mid-Embarcadero
Roadway and future Mission Bay developments
I believe that the Walk SF proposal is a start to doing just that.
This is a very integral part of "future Mission Bay developments."
-- Richard