tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511182286834112345.post7418560439940467918..comments2024-01-22T12:33:34.115-08:00Comments on Pedestrianist: Truly Green 'Greening'Pedestrianisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03067236246319422235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511182286834112345.post-51698959700144742002011-05-26T12:13:38.276-07:002011-05-26T12:13:38.276-07:00Pedestrianist, I completely agree. I suppose I am ...Pedestrianist, I completely agree. I suppose I am a pragmatist, and love that the city is doing *both* large and small scale improvements. Sometimes waiting for an ideal solution means never arriving at a solution at all.<br /><br />But I like the way you framed your idea about coming up with standards that can be applied city wide. It is indeed a shame that Divis, while improved, is in all likelihood not going to see any more improvements for a long time.shananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148332226847945883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511182286834112345.post-87110341560175054382011-05-26T10:28:17.637-07:002011-05-26T10:28:17.637-07:00Shanan, you bring up a great point. Cost concerns...Shanan, you bring up a great point. Cost concerns do significantly dilute the quality of street redesign projects. I have a couple thoughts on that.<br /><br />The first is that in many cases we're building a cheaper project upfront, but locking it in for longer and preventing more comprehensive change down the road. In the case of Divisadero, there is no way that median is ever going away, and cars will continue to speed down it with its freeway-like design. If we truly wanted to save money *and* continue to improve out streets, the median could have been temporary - composed of planters, perhaps - which would set it up for easy replacement in a future budget cycle.<br /><br />My other thought is that the cost of truly good street redesigns is inflated for no good reason. You mention the cost of relocating utility poles, but as we saw on Valencia, you can leave the poles in place with no harm. Other, bigger costs like sewer, utility and fire hydrant relocation don't need to apply either. San Francisco is somewhat unique in requiring fire hydrants to be within 18" of the curb. And many other cities have expanded sidewalks without moving sewers, storm drains, or utilities.<br /><br />One can think of a watered down streetscape design as saving money and continue to charge ahead with them all over town. Or we can come up with a plan that can be applied city-wide that removes all the unnecessary costs. We may wait a year to come up with that plan, but then all the streets we redesign will be better; we'll have more better streets sooner than if we only take half-measures.<br /><br />And thank you very much for the great comments!Pedestrianisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067236246319422235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511182286834112345.post-24907669393755681482011-05-26T09:53:45.327-07:002011-05-26T09:53:45.327-07:00In general, I'm quite happy with the general m...In general, I'm quite happy with the general movement to make streetscapes greener and more mixed use, but I share your disappointment that we're not seeing bigger, faster change. <br /><br />But you fail to address the cost issue.<br /><br />When <a href="http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=88" rel="nofollow">Divisidero recently underwent a streetscape upgrade</a>, the plan very purposely avoided widening the narrow sidewalks because of cost. It would have entailed significantly higher costs to widen this space and move utility poles. So, they did without. Planting medians, however imperfect, are far cheaper, and Divis is better as a result of the project. <br /><br />The question for SF is whether we want to more of these practical, if imperfect upgrades, or fewer more comprehensive ones?<br /><br />We don't lack for more ambitious planning, either. The plans for the Masonic Boulevard and <a href="http://www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/" rel="nofollow">Market Street</a> are far more grand, if slower moving.shananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148332226847945883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511182286834112345.post-88149055936792618932011-05-26T01:08:07.445-07:002011-05-26T01:08:07.445-07:00As a bicyclist, I don't like this either. Narr...As a bicyclist, I don't like this either. Narrow streets can be fine for biking--great, even--because cars naturally slow down and you can take the lane without issue. If traffic's heavy, it's not moving very fast, and if traffic's light, people can pass you by crossing over the center line and give you plenty of space.<br /><br />But with this design, the protection from the opposite lane will encourage higher speeds, and at the same time make passing a biker dangerous.Alaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12332608117322342590noreply@blogger.com