Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While this blog post discusses SF specifically, the principles the author uses come from global examples and, from my perspective, is an interesting way to in-fill particularly supply-constrained cities. It's not perfect--we Americans like space and would generally protest having another building so close to the front of ours where there wasn't one before. That said, it is very incremental, a development pattern we don't see enough of anymore.
Quote:
I want to highlight the total space we’re setting aside for cars in the current setup. When we multiply the width of the lanes (38′ 9″) by the length of the block (425′), the result is more than 15,000 square feet of space for cars, just on a single block of McAllister Street.
Remember that San Francisco is suffering through an affordability crisis caused in large part by a massive housing deficit. We need space for a lot more units than we have, and no one wants to build up.
Quote:
Before
After
Both the Before and After diagrams are exactly the same scale. But in the new version, we trade the wide street and segregated sidewalks for the following:
(2) 15′ Narrow Streets For People
(1) 38.75′ Buildable Space (New Homes, Shops, etc.)
We can now reuse the old center roadway — nearly 40′ across — in a more productive way. Assuming we build to three stories, we now have 45,000 square feet of buildable space where people can live, work, shop, and relax — just on the 1400 block of McAllister.
The old segregated sidewalks (each 15′) are wide enough to become our new shared streets, built at a comfortable scale for people. Drivers respond to narrow streets by avoiding them when they can, and by moving very slowly — no more than about 5 mph — when they need to use them for local access. In a future post we’ll look at how to supplement narrow streets with a network of arterials and boulevards where cars and transit can move more quickly.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57825
"The old segregated sidewalks (each 15′) are wide enough to become our new shared streets, built at a comfortable scale for people. Drivers respond to narrow streets by avoiding them when they can, and by moving very slowly — no more than about 5 mph — when they need to use them for local access. In a future post we’ll look at how to supplement narrow streets with a network of arterials and boulevards where cars and transit can move more quickly."
The problem I see with this is moving most of those cars (avoiding) onto other streets, further clogging them, and at the same time adding more cars from the people living in this new housing. I also doubt the 5 mph theory, based on experience in our own suburban neighborhood. With the 25 MPH speed limit and resident complaints of speeding, the city installed nice landscaped traffic circles with 15 MPH speed signs in the intersections. When that didn't work, they installed choke points up and down the road to reduce the width and used your theory that people would slow down. That didn't work either, tickets are still written for 35-40 mph every day for those that get caught.
There are a few streets in SF that could use this kind of upgrade. It would divert traffic and create new pedestrian areas. There are worse things that they could do.
[color=Blue] With the 25 MPH speed limit and resident complaints of speeding, the city installed nice landscaped traffic circles with 15 MPH speed signs in the intersections. When that didn't work, they installed choke points up and down the road to reduce the width and used your theory that people would slow down. That didn't work either, tickets are still written for 35-40 mph every day for those that get caught.
Maybe the streets are still too wide overall? This street doesn't get traffic at 35 mph, though still higher than 15 mph when empty:
It's too narrow for cars in the opposite direction to travel easily. The streets in the OP are even narrower and have people walking in the middle of the street. It's not a similar situation to your suburban neighborhood.
Somehow I just do not see people in San Francisco going for this idea.
Oh sure they will. Just tell them it's for the environment or bikes, better yet use the words "sustainability" and/or walkability that they have such a fetish for. You could sell them anything that way....
Oh sure they will. Just tell them it's for the environment or bikes, better yet use the words "sustainability" and/or walkability that they have such a fetish for. You could sell them anything that way....
Mmm, no. Despite what people think of San Franciscans, they like their cars and dislike a lot of development. Especially in what looks like a fairly quiet residential neighborhood.
Pretty sure, that just like every other CA city, San Francisco has a hell of time implementing their bike plan.
Mmm, no. Despite what people think of San Franciscans, they like their cars and dislike a lot of development. Especially in what looks like a fairly quiet residential neighborhood.
I'll add that the San Franciscans that do have those are more likely to be long-term residents and participate in local politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
