Tan colored painted zones on Columbus St.? (San Francisco, Folsom: rental car, 2015)

[dalparadise]

I have noticed new painting of tan pedestrian or traffic zones going on on Columbus, but can't find any explanation of what this color signifies. I did find an article about a tan-striped bike lane on Market, but this seems to be something different.

For instance, on the corner near Mollinari's Deli, there's a tan painted zone that extends a couple of feet from the curb into the street. It is outlined in white striping and rounds the curb. I'm guessing it's some kind of pedestrian zone, but can't find any city ordinance or explanation of the meaning. Any ideas?

[jribe]

they are recent safety upgrades, and that is supposed to be an extended sidewalk- here's an article:
Upper Market Street Gets First Phase of Safety Upgrades | Streetsblog San Francisco

[Sierrajeff]

Originally Posted by jribe

they are recent safety upgrades, and that is supposed to be an extended sidewalk- here's an article:
Upper Market Street Gets First Phase of Safety Upgrades | Streetsblog San Francisco

Oh for the love of... yeah, because a little beige paint on the road will magically protect pedestrians from cars. Even *if* drivers know what the beige pain means (and I certainly wouldn't), all it does is encourage pedestrians to leave the (relative) safety of the sidewalk and stand in the street, closer to traffic. Ugh, this city is so bonkerly stupid sometimes.

[FC76-81]

First off, pedestrians already magically feel that they are protected from cars while transiting in the roadways without the new paint job. One thing for certain, it's there to generate some type of revenue. And eventually it will. Even if it simply is there to "warn" pedestrians or to "direct" them in some way. What happens if a pedestrian gets hit while within that painted lined area? Even though it's in the street? I'd put my money on the idea that if a pedestrian is within that painted line area, drivers will receive a citation for driving within it. Maybe it's beyond a bike lane. A pedestrian lane?

Officials in San Francisco are not working to have cars, pedestrians and bicyclists all get along. They are there to eliminate cars period. For an example, look at how the lights work at all intersections. Before the light for cars turn green, the pedestrians get about a two second head start before the cars with their "walk" sign. This screws it completely up for cars trying to turn right. What they need to do is set it up like in Japan where cars get their green lights and pedestrians get their green lights at different times of the lighted sign sequence. But like I said, officials in San Francisco are not trying to fix the problem, only eliminate cars from their streets.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

First off, pedestrians already magically feel that they are protected from cars while transiting in the roadways without the new paint job. One thing for certain, it's there to generate some type of revenue. And eventually it will. Even if it simply is there to "warn" pedestrians or to "direct" them in some way. What happens if a pedestrian gets hit while within that painted lined area? Even though it's in the street? I'd put my money on the idea that if a pedestrian is within that painted line area, drivers will receive a citation for driving within it. Maybe it's beyond a bike lane. A pedestrian lane?

Officials in San Francisco are not working to have cars, pedestrians and bicyclists all get along. They are there to eliminate cars period. For an example, look at how the lights work at all intersections. Before the light for cars turn green, the pedestrians get about a two second head start before the cars with their "walk" sign. This screws it completely up for cars trying to turn right. What they need to do is set it up like in Japan where cars get their green lights and pedestrians get their green lights at different times of the lighted sign sequence. But like I said, officials in San Francisco are not trying to fix the problem, only eliminate cars from their streets.

You're not too far off, although I think this is true for most major cities in the world - they're trying to disincentivize driving as much as possible. I do like your idea of keeping the lights separate from cars. Some intersections do this in SF - for instance, the instersection of Folsom and 4th has pedestrians get their own entire crossing period (crossing in both directions), which really helps eliminate possible interactions/collisions between car and pedestrian.

I'd really wish SF would take it a step further and create bike infrastructure like you see in the Netherlands: complete separation from car and bikes. And then complete separation between car and pedestrian (this is pretty much how it is now anyway, but just more of that). This will never happen, but it would go along way to mitigate some of the conflicts that arise from bikes and cars - and between car/bike and pedestrians by extension. You'd also start to see people that would generally not bike because it's so ridiculously dangerous (I know because I do it 3-5 times a week), and start to see average people biking around (like you see in the Netherlands for instance).

[dalparadise]

It is pretty silly to think that a painted portion of street where it's now legal to stand makes pedestrians safer. The idea is right, but there really needs to be a legit extension of the sidewalk into the street to be effective. This particular area has a lot of tourists in rental cars who won't understand the beige zones. That will add to the confusion, not alleviate it.

[FC76-81]

I found a little more information out about the new paint job on San Francisco streets. From what I get it may have to do with bikes and it's use is on trial bases as of the moment.

San Francisco’s Market Street is Going Beige This Afternoon « San Francisco Citizen

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

I found a little more information out about the new paint job on San Francisco streets. From what I get it may have to do with bikes and it's use is on trial bases as of the moment.

San Francisco’s Market Street is Going Beige This Afternoon « San Francisco Citizen

Yeah, I saw that. The painting on Columbus is not like that, though. It's a simple extension of the sidewalk (in paint).

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

You're not too far off, although I think this is true for most major cities in the world - they're trying to disincentivize driving as much as possible. I do like your idea of keeping the lights separate from cars. Some intersections do this in SF - for instance, the instersection of Folsom and 4th has pedestrians get their own entire crossing period (crossing in both directions), which really helps eliminate possible interactions/collisions between car and pedestrian.

I'd really wish SF would take it a step further and create bike infrastructure like you see in the Netherlands: complete separation from car and bikes. And then complete separation between car and pedestrian (this is pretty much how it is now anyway, but just more of that). This will never happen, but it would go along way to mitigate some of the conflicts that arise from bikes and cars - and between car/bike and pedestrians by extension. You'd also start to see people that would generally not bike because it's so ridiculously dangerous (I know because I do it 3-5 times a week), and start to see average people biking around (like you see in the Netherlands for instance).

The major global cities that are making driving painful have made and are still making significant investments in public transportations and the public transit in SF is sad joke compared to those. SF wants to increase traffic problems with the hope that the drivers will simply vanish magically or they want to prove a political point. One thing you can always count on is the city govt (and govt of CA in general) to make the life of citizens as miserable as possible! The city engineers designing streets are either complete sadists, utterly clueless or don't do anything. If you take the Mariposa exit from 280 going to the huge employment center of Mission bay you will realize that infrastructure in third world countries are significantly advanced compared to SF... And I just picked up one example!

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

The major global cities that are making driving painful have made and are still making significant investments in public transportations and the public transit in SF is sad joke compared to those. SF wants to increase traffic problems with the hope that the drivers will simply vanish magically or they want to prove a political point. One thing you can always count on is the city govt (and govt of CA in general) to make the life of citizens as miserable as possible! The city engineers designing streets are either complete sadists, utterly clueless or don't do anything. If you take the Mariposa exit from 280 going to the huge employment center of Mission bay you will realize that infrastructure in third world countries are significantly advanced compared to SF... And I just picked up one example!

Despite the fact that your post is full of nonsensical hyperbole (I wouldn't expect anything less ), you have a point: There is a great need to improve the public transit infrastructure, especially in SF proper. It works OK, but it's not very efficient.

This is sadly a big problem for all American cities (outside of a very small set of select cities). It's even sadder when you realize that SF is I'm the upper end of transit infrastructure in this country.