We've been tracking the Mission Streetscape Plan for the past year, and today a new addition to the proposal caught our eye. Building on the theme of Pavement to Parks, the City Design Group envisions a park at the south end of Dolores Street. Traffic calming and more green space is good, no?
The final proposal will be available for public comment this fall, with environmental review set to start in the Spring. Here's a very large PDF with all the details.
[City Design Group: Mission Streetscape Plan]
[SFGov: Pavement to Parks]
23 comments:
I wonder if it will be more traffic calming or more traffic jamming. Dolores Street is the fastest thoroughfare from San Jose to Market in both directions. Maybe most cars actually turn onto or off Dolores at 14th and 15th Streets, with much less traffic between 14th and Market where this park is slated to go in, in which case it might work out fine.
South end of Dolores is not the 15th street side; it's the other side, where it runs into San Jose Avenue.
You think the left turn onto Dolores is bad now?
I think this sounds like a terrible idea. It's already the case that during rush hour, the left turn from northbound San Jose onto Dolores backs up the traffic light (sometimes you have to wait several light cycles).
Once you get past that bottleneck, traffic (on both northbound Dolores and what's left of San Jose to Guerrero) flows pretty smoothly. So if anything needs calming, it's that intersection, which is exactly the opposite of what this would achieve.
That corner is also not a high foot traffic area, nor is it particularly kid friendly, so it does not seem like a good candidate for a new park.
All in all, this sounds like a totally lame idea.
This really needs to be addressed as a part of a bigger solution for the larger intersection. I have lived in the area since I was born (25 years) and have watched the intersection at Mission, Randal and San Jose, get progressively worse.
Cars driving down Mission trying to get heading south on San Jose (via the wee little block of Randal) get backed up on Mission because there is a stop sign where Mission meets Randal, but a stop light thirty feet away, where San Jose and Randal meet.
I am basically for the new changes, but we might as well blow some millions more addressing the entire traffic flow of the surrounding area.
I LOVE this idea. Through traffic is supposed to use Guerrero, one block east of Dolores. This should be obvious to anyone using Dolores as the through street now -- Dolores is covered with stop signs! Taking out the left turn from San Jose to Dolores would not only calm traffic and REMOVE the bottleneck, it would force people to use the street built for the traffic -- San Jose/Guerrero. Not to mention make the whole area safer for the CHILDREN walking to school at Fairmount, right at the corner. BRILLIANT I say.
Just to be clear, when I'm against this plan, I am speaking as someone who lives on Dolores and commutes via 280 daily.
I'm not sure how jamming up left turns onto Dolores from San Jose will make children much safer. I see a lot more kids snake up Randall and Chenery, or cross San Jose, than cross Dolores at that corner. (I do see more kids crossing Dolores at intersections further north, but there are traffic lights and stop signs for many of those streets.) Seems like there is less likelihood that kids will be affected if traffic flows smoothly, rather than being jammed.
Before you worry too much about the future on Dolores, come check out the latest park triangle at Guerrero and San Jose, where the tree stumps are. Painting and planting this weekend, use encouraged!
I was going to ask about what's going on at Guerrero & San Jose. I just saw the tree stumps late last week. So that's definitely going to be a park? Wahoo! I was hoping!
I love this idea! Brilliant!
"Just to be clear, when I'm against this plan, I am speaking as someone who lives on Dolores and commutes via 280 daily."
So you basically don't want your commute buggered up?
I agree with Andrew H. This is just not a good idea. This is a very high-traffic area. What's the tiny "park" for? Kids? With major thoroughfares on either side? Get a grip - that's dangerous.
On the other hand I agree with City Native's comments about the entire area needing to be rethought. If you're going to diddle around that intersection then think it through. Constricting traffic into Dolores is brainless; It's a major thoroughfare - at least through the southern part - like Guerrero is and it's the only sensible way to get to the southern part of Noe Valley. I no longer commute to Si Valley every freaking day but used to and still use that intersection very often. It's the convergence of five different roads - Mission/Randall/San Jose/Dolores/Arlington - and it's treated as the convergence of 2, 3 at best. Where's a traffic engineer? Come on, here's someplace you can shine! Furthermore there's a K-5 school there; I'm shocked there aren't more traffic-related "incidents" there, it's so dangerous.
There are two proposals for the Dolores Gateway...
Only one is presented here. Please post the second alternative drawing too. Then the neighborhood can comment on ALL the ideas up for discussion.
And by the way, As the southern gateway into the City, it is only fitting that a major piece of public art be placed in the area.
Both proposals for that intersection will reduce traffic onto Dolores. the link posted above to the Mission Streetscape plan and to the "very large PDF" show both plans. Also shown is how they fit into the larger street plan for the Mission.
"What's the tiny "park" for? Kids?"
The tiny park will be used as a dog toilet, just like the Dolores median is now.
Exactly, there will just be more people taking their dogs out for a pee right there. Meanwhile, the San Jose exit is going to back way up because you're essentially turning 2 lanes on both sides of Dolores into a single lane chicane. Oh - and it will probably cost broke ass sf a fortune.
I very very happy that this area is being studied. It's about time.
@anonymous @6:35: Why do you say that Guerrero is SUPPOSED to be used for through traffic and Dolores isn't; say's who? Why should everyone in Noe Valley be forced to drive down to Guerrero (which is already plenty crowded) just to be able to get onto 280?
@Murphastoe: your comment implies that caring about traffic jams is not a legitimate concern. Please have some consideration for your neighbors who need cars -- you bicycle fanatics (who constitute less than 2% of the commuters) need to respect the needs of others.
Basically this plan is a disaster. That sharp left turn serves no purpose other than to create a traffic jam. Sure that makes it politically correct (because it is anti-car) but it would be nice if street improvements were designed so that they helped everyone.
has anyone taken a moment to sit at the castro/market st experiment? Its a harrying experience. Two very busy intersections just feet away is unnerving. Not relaxing or calming whatsoever even on a sunny day. Not saying it cant be done right but... these busy confluences of traffic will always be just that - you will deal with the noise, exhaust, and manic behavior that well traveled streets typically have. and who enjoys being hemmed into a tiny 'green' oasis with constant traffic on 3(!) sides? i'm no urban planner but someone with some experience, and common sense needs to explain how this can possibly work. as previous comments noted, maybe it'll just be a dog park. that i can see; but a canine-less human just sitting there reading a book, or playing catch with their child? and another thing SF: quit penalizing drivers for crying out loud. I ride my bike every week and whenever i possibly can. but i also have kids and need to drive occasionally so leave us alone
Wake Up People! It just blows my mind that when you place a pile of wood,tin cans,crowd control barracades and plants in an intersection, you call it a beautiful park! I call it a joke! A bad joke that nobody seems to be using!I watched as someone damn near get splattered stepping out into traffic from this space.
Now you want to put the squeeze on Dolores street all in the name of traffic calming! WAKE UP! With your so called efforts to do good,You are in effect creating more polution and damaging the enviroment further by causing motor vehicles to sit and idle in bottle-necked traffic you have chosen to create. A VEHICLE POLUTES FAR LESS WHEN IT IS MOVING!
I have to agree with the above post. The park at 28th loks like a pile of planted junk.
Ouch. I had a nice chat with a woman doing landscaping work at the San Jose parklet. I'm glad they're trying it, I think it could work. OTOH there's an awful lot of traffic. The deciding factor for me is whether people will buy ice cream at Mitchell's and then walk half a block to eat it in the mini-park.
Gads, Nelson! Why would you go buy great ice cream, then walk to sit amidst traffic and dog poop to eat it? You can already just sit amidst traffic in front of Mitchells. The added attraction level of the dog poop is minimal, I say.
Post a Comment