The War for JFK Drive
April 8, 2022 10:03 AM Subscribe
How a Museum’s Money Is Shaping the Fight Over San Francisco’s Most Controversial Street. Of all the hysteria to arise in San Francisco during the pandemic, perhaps the most on-brand controversy for a city so insular and hyperbolic concerns a 1.5-mile stretch of asphalt.
The fight over whether John F. Kennedy Drive—the road that traverses Golden Gate Park—should remain car-free has led to accusations of shadow lobbying, financial shell games, ageism, ableism, cronyism, elitism and racism. And many of them are legitimate.
As a former SF resident (who did not own a car while I lived there, so you know where my bias is) one thing that confuses me about this debate is that there are other roads in Golden Gate Park, that are not closed to cars. So even if JFK Drive is closed, you're still able to drive to the museum and park pretty close, right? Google Maps is showing me driving directions. If the museum was actually worried about access, wouldn't it make more sense to renovate their entrances/build easier pedestrian access from JFK Drive, or lobby for a special shuttle, instead of completely overturning this new policy?
On an unrelated note, curious if others have more context on the SF Standard, the news source hosting this piece. I thought I was familiar with SF media outlets (including the fantastic and scoop-ful Mission Local) but haven't heard of the Standard.
posted by rogerroger at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2022 [5 favorites]
On an unrelated note, curious if others have more context on the SF Standard, the news source hosting this piece. I thought I was familiar with SF media outlets (including the fantastic and scoop-ful Mission Local) but haven't heard of the Standard.
posted by rogerroger at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2022 [5 favorites]
I truly don't understand the argument that people of color can't access GG Park. The article mentions that a lobbying firm is behind this on behalf of the museums. I'm a relatively privileged person of color, but because I don't own a car, I bike, and take public transit everywhere, so I'm firmly in the car-free GG Park camp.
The park is accessible from the Mission/Fillmore/Bayview/Oakland via many muni routes...IDK...seems like a cynical use of identity politics on behalf of two museums that are unaffordable to many of the folks they are worried the car-free zone is excluding.
The lack of accessibility for seniors and disabled people feels like something that should be taken more seriously, and having a shuttle makes sense.
From the SF Weekly: "Learning from NYC’s Car-Free Parks: As San Francisco ponders the future of JFK Drive and the Great Highway, New Yorkers say banishing cars from their parks was worth it."
posted by nikoniko at 11:03 AM on April 8, 2022 [12 favorites]
The park is accessible from the Mission/Fillmore/Bayview/Oakland via many muni routes...IDK...seems like a cynical use of identity politics on behalf of two museums that are unaffordable to many of the folks they are worried the car-free zone is excluding.
The lack of accessibility for seniors and disabled people feels like something that should be taken more seriously, and having a shuttle makes sense.
From the SF Weekly: "Learning from NYC’s Car-Free Parks: As San Francisco ponders the future of JFK Drive and the Great Highway, New Yorkers say banishing cars from their parks was worth it."
posted by nikoniko at 11:03 AM on April 8, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm very involved in this campaign, and yes, 91% of the roadways in the park are open to cars just like before, you can still drive right up to the main entrances of the museums, still drive into the 800+ space underground parking garage that connects directly to the museums (or use the garage for a short time for free drop-offs at the museum's underground entrance or to drive under the car-free road and emerge on the other side), still drive on every other street in the park that is not closed to cars, park in the newly built ADA lot, ride the newly enhanced shuttle that traverses the car-free area continuously seven days a week, etc... This map the city produced does a good job of showing all the roads in the park still open to cars (this will change a bit if the new plan is made permanent, but in a way that opens some more space to drivers), this page shows the accessible parking options, and there will still be over 6,000 parking spaces in the park (93% of the parking there was before), plus more on the surrounding streets. Before the pandemic, the majority of traffic on this street wasn't even going to the park: it was people cutting through the park as a shortcut, which obviously degrades the experience for people who want to enjoy the park as a park instead of as a highway. The street was already car-free on Sundays and half the year on Saturdays even before the pandemic. Oh, and until this one portion of one street in the park was made car-free, it was on the city's high injury network of streets with high rates of severe and fatal traffic injuries...yes, in a park.
San Francisco Standard is a new for-profit newsroom. It's funded by a Sequoia Capital VC, doesn't seem to have much of a revenue source right now, and broadly seems to take a more mod (for non SF-folks, that's moderate, an SF political faction) line in terms of coverage on some issues, though in a journalistic way. So there are certainly some things to be leery of there. That said, they've been on a hiring blitz that has brought them a lot of great talent I respect with long roots in Bay Area and SF journalism (Josh Koehn, who wrote the FPP’s article, was an editor at the Chronicle and managing editor of some pubs in the South Bay) and they say they have an editorially independent newsroom. My personal opinion is that they've hired a roster of journalists too good to simply write them off completely out of ideology, but critical thinking skills, as always, need to be applied to their coverage and editorial decisions.
Anyway, the core argument here is that San Francisco has 2,612 streets, essentially all of which prioritize car traffic over everyone else. Meanwhile, about a third of households in the city don't even own cars, about half of all trips in the city are made without cars (and the city's climate goals say we have to get that number to 80% by 2030, which is pretty damn soon), and those without cars in SF are disproportionately more likely to be renters, people of color, and low income. Some of the neighborhoods with the lowest rates of car ownership are those most impacted by the negative impacts of cars: pedestrian injuries and fatalities, air pollution, etc... The status quo of continuing to allocate nearly 100% of streets to prioritize one mode of travel when half of all trips are made by other modes, and that mode is the most expensive, least space efficient, most carbon emitting, and most dangerous to others, is untenable. We need to reallocate some space to better and more safely serve the 50% of trips that are taken without cars right now. We're never going to get close to our climate goals if making a decision about just one half of one street turns into a years long battle for the soul of the city.
Certainly, there are people who rely on cars, gaps in public transit service, and it's important nobody be left behind in this transition, especially those people with disabilities who use cars as mobility aids. The city has spent the last two years on an extensive process to create an access and safety program for the park, which has improved the shuttle (it now runs more frequently and every day, instead of just weekends) that loops through the car-free area, ADA parking, and numerous other access improvements. It's important to continue to improve access, but accessibility is not the same thing as having the expectation of being able allowed to drive a car absolutely everywhere (see also: shopping malls).
posted by zachlipton at 11:22 AM on April 8, 2022 [93 favorites]
San Francisco Standard is a new for-profit newsroom. It's funded by a Sequoia Capital VC, doesn't seem to have much of a revenue source right now, and broadly seems to take a more mod (for non SF-folks, that's moderate, an SF political faction) line in terms of coverage on some issues, though in a journalistic way. So there are certainly some things to be leery of there. That said, they've been on a hiring blitz that has brought them a lot of great talent I respect with long roots in Bay Area and SF journalism (Josh Koehn, who wrote the FPP’s article, was an editor at the Chronicle and managing editor of some pubs in the South Bay) and they say they have an editorially independent newsroom. My personal opinion is that they've hired a roster of journalists too good to simply write them off completely out of ideology, but critical thinking skills, as always, need to be applied to their coverage and editorial decisions.
Anyway, the core argument here is that San Francisco has 2,612 streets, essentially all of which prioritize car traffic over everyone else. Meanwhile, about a third of households in the city don't even own cars, about half of all trips in the city are made without cars (and the city's climate goals say we have to get that number to 80% by 2030, which is pretty damn soon), and those without cars in SF are disproportionately more likely to be renters, people of color, and low income. Some of the neighborhoods with the lowest rates of car ownership are those most impacted by the negative impacts of cars: pedestrian injuries and fatalities, air pollution, etc... The status quo of continuing to allocate nearly 100% of streets to prioritize one mode of travel when half of all trips are made by other modes, and that mode is the most expensive, least space efficient, most carbon emitting, and most dangerous to others, is untenable. We need to reallocate some space to better and more safely serve the 50% of trips that are taken without cars right now. We're never going to get close to our climate goals if making a decision about just one half of one street turns into a years long battle for the soul of the city.
Certainly, there are people who rely on cars, gaps in public transit service, and it's important nobody be left behind in this transition, especially those people with disabilities who use cars as mobility aids. The city has spent the last two years on an extensive process to create an access and safety program for the park, which has improved the shuttle (it now runs more frequently and every day, instead of just weekends) that loops through the car-free area, ADA parking, and numerous other access improvements. It's important to continue to improve access, but accessibility is not the same thing as having the expectation of being able allowed to drive a car absolutely everywhere (see also: shopping malls).
posted by zachlipton at 11:22 AM on April 8, 2022 [93 favorites]
"Museum officials are adamant—although they have no definitive proof—that the loss of the parking spaces along JFK Drive is the most likely reason visitor attendance has not recovered. The museum’s 800-plus-space parking garage routinely sits empty because it charges too much, they say, and for convoluted, only-in-San Francisco reasons, cutting the price is not an option."
What are those convoluted special reasons?
posted by ssg at 12:04 PM on April 8, 2022 [16 favorites]
What are those convoluted special reasons?
posted by ssg at 12:04 PM on April 8, 2022 [16 favorites]
zachlipton, that was a fantastically clear and useful comment. Thank you.
posted by kristi at 12:08 PM on April 8, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by kristi at 12:08 PM on April 8, 2022 [8 favorites]
I live right across the street from the park and JFK drive. The closure of JFK drive must be also viewed concerning the potential closure of the Great Highway. That major north south throughway is now closed from Friday noon through Sunday. That closure has enormous impact on the western half of the park, because now a simple two lane street there is the major north south route people are using to bypass Great Highway. At the south end of that street are five stop signs, some within 30 feet of each other. As you can guess, there are times when bumper to bumper traffic stretches all the way across the park from north to south, as there is commute traffic now going that way. This street was not designed to handle that traffic. And hundreds of idling cars are adding a lot to the pollution there. Closing JFK affects north south traffic through the Eastern end of the park, even though it runs east and west. The north south routes are cut off. This is forcing traffic onto the main city streets at that end of the park. More idling cars. Even though JFK is closed to cars, it is not safe for pedestrians. In fact I feel less safe crossing that street now, then when cars where there. Why? Bikes. There are loads of bikes, with no lane controls, a lot of them exceeding the speed limit, and all very quiet. And they have little respect for pedestrians, or the traffic laws.
San Francisco, ironically called "the city that knows how," likes to adopt seemingly noble, humanitarian causes and positions, but when they put them into action, they usually ignore all the other impacts said positions have for the surrounding areas. NO cars here! But where do those cars go? People can walk on Great Highway! But now the cars are polluting the park, where people walk. These sorts of urban planning and design issues are not simple. The city acts like they are.
posted by njohnson23 at 12:09 PM on April 8, 2022 [7 favorites]
San Francisco, ironically called "the city that knows how," likes to adopt seemingly noble, humanitarian causes and positions, but when they put them into action, they usually ignore all the other impacts said positions have for the surrounding areas. NO cars here! But where do those cars go? People can walk on Great Highway! But now the cars are polluting the park, where people walk. These sorts of urban planning and design issues are not simple. The city acts like they are.
posted by njohnson23 at 12:09 PM on April 8, 2022 [7 favorites]
This is a great article, that sheds a lot of light that shows what I intuitively felt was true: all the identity-based rhetoric is profoundly inauthentic, and is being generated by wealthy parties who have a false belief about what drives traffic to their businesses.
Alex Pareene wrote about this a short while back: Sorry, I'm Late, Walking Was A Nightmare. Business owners have delusional beliefs about the impact parking has on their traffic. This is the exact same phenomenon, just writ large.
Even though JFK is closed to cars, it is not safe for pedestrians. In fact I feel less safe crossing that street now, then when cars where there. Why? Bikes. There are loads of bikes, with no lane controls, a lot of them exceeding the speed limit, and all very quiet. And they have little respect for pedestrians, or the traffic laws.
I run this stretch of the park every weekend, along with who knows how many other runners. This comment does not match my experience at all.
JFK is HUGE, and the bicycle traffic it sees is not even what I'd call moderate. All the commuter traffic on JFK funnels right into the Panhandle, where it shares a pedestrian path. That ped path is sometimes a little cramped, but not what I'd call dangerous. And once you get on JFK, well — it's enormous! There's plenty of space for everyone to get around.
I know it can feel dangerous when bicycles are around, but cars pose an actual threat, even if we've grown used to them. As zachlipton noted above, car fatalities on this stretch of road were a real problem. A bicycle collision won't kill you except in rare cases, especially not on a flat area like JFK.
posted by billjings at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2022 [21 favorites]
Alex Pareene wrote about this a short while back: Sorry, I'm Late, Walking Was A Nightmare. Business owners have delusional beliefs about the impact parking has on their traffic. This is the exact same phenomenon, just writ large.
Even though JFK is closed to cars, it is not safe for pedestrians. In fact I feel less safe crossing that street now, then when cars where there. Why? Bikes. There are loads of bikes, with no lane controls, a lot of them exceeding the speed limit, and all very quiet. And they have little respect for pedestrians, or the traffic laws.
I run this stretch of the park every weekend, along with who knows how many other runners. This comment does not match my experience at all.
JFK is HUGE, and the bicycle traffic it sees is not even what I'd call moderate. All the commuter traffic on JFK funnels right into the Panhandle, where it shares a pedestrian path. That ped path is sometimes a little cramped, but not what I'd call dangerous. And once you get on JFK, well — it's enormous! There's plenty of space for everyone to get around.
I know it can feel dangerous when bicycles are around, but cars pose an actual threat, even if we've grown used to them. As zachlipton noted above, car fatalities on this stretch of road were a real problem. A bicycle collision won't kill you except in rare cases, especially not on a flat area like JFK.
posted by billjings at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2022 [21 favorites]
When a person runs on JFK they are moving with the traffic. I am crossing against traffic. Fast, quiet, oblivious traffic. And during the day, especially weekends, I have to be careful because the vehicular traffic now allowed on JFK both human powered and electrically powered does not follow any organized traffic patterns. Not getting killed by a bicycle collision is not a benefit. JFK is huge in length, it is not that wide. These issues are much broader than individual experiences. Solutions require more than slogans or simple changes in rules, like no cars here. I have yet to see any comprehensive solutions to any kind of traffic problems here. Everything is narrowly focused and primarily political in nature. And this political side makes me doubt the objective reality of a lot of the claims made about the situation on all sides.
posted by njohnson23 at 12:55 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by njohnson23 at 12:55 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
The museum’s 800-plus-space parking garage routinely sits empty because it charges too much, they say, and for convoluted, only-in-San Francisco reasons, cutting the price is not an option."
What are those convoluted special reasons?
The parking page for the De Young Museum states that the museum doesn't own the parking structure.
posted by meowzilla at 1:48 PM on April 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
What are those convoluted special reasons?
The parking page for the De Young Museum states that the museum doesn't own the parking structure.
posted by meowzilla at 1:48 PM on April 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
Wasn't there a lot of drama about building that parking structure under/by the De Young when it built and they redesigned the Concourse? I seem to remember the more "moderate" faction being adamant that parking was necessary, but now apparently it's sitting half used, but apparently that's because SF's Byzantine rules around changing the cost of public parking makes it difficult to adjust to demand, but hey, doesn't SF Park have a dynamic pricing scheme that supposedly automatically adjusts to demand?, but oh yeah, wait, that pricing scheme is still so structured by public policy that it barely really captures the "true" cost of parking and seems to do nothing to actually induce or reduce demand etc etc etc ....Basically SF is a hot mess and while I enjoy the closure of JKF and use it almost every weekend, it still feels like SF is always adding more and more complexity, new streets programs and initiatives (like parklets, not-really-BRT bus lanes and ineffective speed humps) but it can barely work out the ones it's already got.
posted by flamk at 2:56 PM on April 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by flamk at 2:56 PM on April 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can’t believe someone on this thread is pushing the idea that making driving more convenient would reduce pollution.
posted by grahamparks at 3:50 PM on April 8, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by grahamparks at 3:50 PM on April 8, 2022 [15 favorites]
Apparently the parking structure is owned by a non-profit (Music Concourse Community Partnership) which has tens of millions of dollars of debt related to the construction of the garage.
posted by ssg at 3:50 PM on April 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by ssg at 3:50 PM on April 8, 2022 [3 favorites]
For the de Young, which lost millions in admissions revenue during the pandemic and is still seeing less than half its pre-Covid attendance, the closure of JFK Drive—and the loss of about 300 free parking spaces along the street—is seen as an existential threat.
I hate the construction that street parking is free. The JFK spots aren't free; they are being paid for by the city. A huge subsidy to drivers at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclers.
I can’t believe someone on this thread is pushing the idea that making driving more convenient would reduce pollution.
It's counter intuitive but we know that traffic volumes track availability pretty much 1:1. The effect on those roads is probably muted because the Grand Highway closure is periodic inducing demand during the week past what it supports on the weekends.
Apparently the parking structure is owned by a non-profit (Music Concourse Community Partnership) which has tens of millions of dollars of debt related to the construction of the garage.
The city should know what each street parking space costs annually. I wonder if offering to subsidize the parking structure by that amount in exchange for loss of the JFK parking would be effective.
posted by Mitheral at 4:37 PM on April 8, 2022 [7 favorites]
I hate the construction that street parking is free. The JFK spots aren't free; they are being paid for by the city. A huge subsidy to drivers at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclers.
I can’t believe someone on this thread is pushing the idea that making driving more convenient would reduce pollution.
It's counter intuitive but we know that traffic volumes track availability pretty much 1:1. The effect on those roads is probably muted because the Grand Highway closure is periodic inducing demand during the week past what it supports on the weekends.
Apparently the parking structure is owned by a non-profit (Music Concourse Community Partnership) which has tens of millions of dollars of debt related to the construction of the garage.
The city should know what each street parking space costs annually. I wonder if offering to subsidize the parking structure by that amount in exchange for loss of the JFK parking would be effective.
posted by Mitheral at 4:37 PM on April 8, 2022 [7 favorites]
Apparently the parking structure is owned by a non-profit (Music Concourse Community Partnership) which has tens of millions of dollars of debt related to the construction of the garage.
The "Music Concourse Community Partnership" is yet another shell nonprofit run by and for the benefit of the museum board of directors. It used to be led by Ms. Wilsey until one of her associates was caught embezzling several million dollars from the organization, leaving it with the debt that it still struggles to pay off. Meanwhile, the garage itself is tightly wedged in a lease to a for-profit parking company that refuses to acknowledge any of the to-do going on above ground.
The supreme irony is that, if anyone else has been around long enough to recall, many San Franciscans vehemently opposed the construction of this garage because it involved the demolition of some of the beloved music concourse tunnels. The museum bought its way into a fancy new garage, with much rhetoric about "access for employees and the disabled" because of the supposed lack of parking nearby. The museum even got its coveted garage entrance from outside the park (you can enter the garage from Fulton Ave., outside the park) which was a real sore point with the Inner Richmond neighborhood at the time. And here we are now, the garage underutilized and saddled with debt but somehow not fit for it's original purpose, while the lack of parking that it somehow was to alleviate is suddenly really important to the museum.
posted by niicholas at 6:14 PM on April 8, 2022 [20 favorites]
The "Music Concourse Community Partnership" is yet another shell nonprofit run by and for the benefit of the museum board of directors. It used to be led by Ms. Wilsey until one of her associates was caught embezzling several million dollars from the organization, leaving it with the debt that it still struggles to pay off. Meanwhile, the garage itself is tightly wedged in a lease to a for-profit parking company that refuses to acknowledge any of the to-do going on above ground.
The supreme irony is that, if anyone else has been around long enough to recall, many San Franciscans vehemently opposed the construction of this garage because it involved the demolition of some of the beloved music concourse tunnels. The museum bought its way into a fancy new garage, with much rhetoric about "access for employees and the disabled" because of the supposed lack of parking nearby. The museum even got its coveted garage entrance from outside the park (you can enter the garage from Fulton Ave., outside the park) which was a real sore point with the Inner Richmond neighborhood at the time. And here we are now, the garage underutilized and saddled with debt but somehow not fit for it's original purpose, while the lack of parking that it somehow was to alleviate is suddenly really important to the museum.
posted by niicholas at 6:14 PM on April 8, 2022 [20 favorites]
What are those convoluted special reasons?
I could write a whole essay, but it's easier if I refer you to this article from last year (The Frisc is a small non-profit newsroom in SF under the fiscal sponsorship of Independent Arts & Media). While it is technically true that the museums do not directly control the garage or its pricing, the majority of the board of the non-profit that controls the garage are museum insiders and executives. The garage mired in debt: the whole thing was supposed to be built with philanthropy, donations came up short as construction costs ballooned, they took out bonds to pay off the remaining construction expenses, the absentee board of the garage failed to notice their CFO embezzle $3.9 million (which added to the debt of course), the board signed what I'm told is a bad contract with the garage operator, etc... The garage charges high prices in the hope of raising revenue to pay off the debt, which means many visitors try to park for free on the streets nearby instead, which means the garage gets even less revenue to pay off the debt. Like the article said, it's convoluted.
Ideally there's a solution by which visitors who are low-income or have disabilities, and so already receive free or discounted museum admission under city-funded access programs, can also receive a validation for free or discounted parking in the garage, but working out a solution like that requires the museum to be sincerely interested in collaborating in good faith to make this work, as opposed to hiring expensive lobbyists to try to return cars to 100% of the roads in the park instead of just having cars on 91% of them. As in, the money they've spent on the lobbying could have gone to pay for a lot of parking spaces for those who need them.
JFK is huge in length, it is not that wide
What I would just say is that if the process was focused on "how do we make this work?" there are a lot of ways in which crossings could be made safer, treatments employed to encourage cyclists to slow down, etc... and I think everyone is open to experimenting with those. However, the process has instead focused on fighting for years over whether the space should be car-free (two years worth of fighting in this latest instance, but about four decades of fighting over this in general), and city staff haven't had a lot of resources to devote to the crossings of a temporary project, especially as they've been holding 60+ outreach meetings and events to solicit feedback on whether the street should be car-free. I do think the crossings should be made safer, but the fight over this has consumed all the resources that should have gone into the "given that this space will be car-free, what do we need to do to make it work best for everyone?" discussion.
posted by zachlipton at 6:20 PM on April 8, 2022 [20 favorites]
I could write a whole essay, but it's easier if I refer you to this article from last year (The Frisc is a small non-profit newsroom in SF under the fiscal sponsorship of Independent Arts & Media). While it is technically true that the museums do not directly control the garage or its pricing, the majority of the board of the non-profit that controls the garage are museum insiders and executives. The garage mired in debt: the whole thing was supposed to be built with philanthropy, donations came up short as construction costs ballooned, they took out bonds to pay off the remaining construction expenses, the absentee board of the garage failed to notice their CFO embezzle $3.9 million (which added to the debt of course), the board signed what I'm told is a bad contract with the garage operator, etc... The garage charges high prices in the hope of raising revenue to pay off the debt, which means many visitors try to park for free on the streets nearby instead, which means the garage gets even less revenue to pay off the debt. Like the article said, it's convoluted.
Ideally there's a solution by which visitors who are low-income or have disabilities, and so already receive free or discounted museum admission under city-funded access programs, can also receive a validation for free or discounted parking in the garage, but working out a solution like that requires the museum to be sincerely interested in collaborating in good faith to make this work, as opposed to hiring expensive lobbyists to try to return cars to 100% of the roads in the park instead of just having cars on 91% of them. As in, the money they've spent on the lobbying could have gone to pay for a lot of parking spaces for those who need them.
JFK is huge in length, it is not that wide
What I would just say is that if the process was focused on "how do we make this work?" there are a lot of ways in which crossings could be made safer, treatments employed to encourage cyclists to slow down, etc... and I think everyone is open to experimenting with those. However, the process has instead focused on fighting for years over whether the space should be car-free (two years worth of fighting in this latest instance, but about four decades of fighting over this in general), and city staff haven't had a lot of resources to devote to the crossings of a temporary project, especially as they've been holding 60+ outreach meetings and events to solicit feedback on whether the street should be car-free. I do think the crossings should be made safer, but the fight over this has consumed all the resources that should have gone into the "given that this space will be car-free, what do we need to do to make it work best for everyone?" discussion.
posted by zachlipton at 6:20 PM on April 8, 2022 [20 favorites]
I would endorse a compromise of yes to driving cars, no to parked cars. As a bicyclist I find the parked cars to be more dangerous than the moving. Opening doors, forcing you in and out of the bike lane. The stretch from the Chain of Lakes to Transverse is the scariest to me.
What specific crossings are you talking about njohnson23? Chain of Lakes or Transverse, or the streets outside the park? I moved to near the park during the pandemic so have mostly known the car free JFK, and walk/run/bike in the park multiple times a week. I do get nervous about the mixing of bikes and pedestrian, but am also amazed and how it just works (us humans naturally avoiding collisions). I've never seen an accident or even a close call; on the weekends it gets hairier as pedestrians linger and more kids are playing on JFK, but speeds naturally reduce. I absolutely sympathize with your first comment; and have two replies. First, 85%+ of what scares me are very high speed ebikes, they should have a speed limit and other restrictions. A bicyclist strong enough to go over the speed limit I implicitly trust as skilled and cautious. Second, if it goes car free they should repaint and reconfigure the road. Right now fast bikes tend to congregate in the middle whereas the bike lanes are still on the sides. Crossing areas could be made where bikes must go through one area so the dangerous width crossed is small; maybe even employ some friendly crossing guards. Or use the moon bridge from the Japanese Garden!!
Chain Of Lakes is crazy narrow and has physical limitations on expansion I think. Transverse is always busy and is a very dangerous crossing, where cars re-enter the picture, especially for me as I've been practicing to attempt a no-hands bike ride of the length of JFK ;)
The downhill west of Transverse is the big obstacle;
have to either steer to the 2' wide flat portion between the speed bump and the curb, or learn to take that speed bump at 25mph without wiping out!
posted by abcanthur at 11:26 PM on April 8, 2022
What specific crossings are you talking about njohnson23? Chain of Lakes or Transverse, or the streets outside the park? I moved to near the park during the pandemic so have mostly known the car free JFK, and walk/run/bike in the park multiple times a week. I do get nervous about the mixing of bikes and pedestrian, but am also amazed and how it just works (us humans naturally avoiding collisions). I've never seen an accident or even a close call; on the weekends it gets hairier as pedestrians linger and more kids are playing on JFK, but speeds naturally reduce. I absolutely sympathize with your first comment; and have two replies. First, 85%+ of what scares me are very high speed ebikes, they should have a speed limit and other restrictions. A bicyclist strong enough to go over the speed limit I implicitly trust as skilled and cautious. Second, if it goes car free they should repaint and reconfigure the road. Right now fast bikes tend to congregate in the middle whereas the bike lanes are still on the sides. Crossing areas could be made where bikes must go through one area so the dangerous width crossed is small; maybe even employ some friendly crossing guards. Or use the moon bridge from the Japanese Garden!!
Chain Of Lakes is crazy narrow and has physical limitations on expansion I think. Transverse is always busy and is a very dangerous crossing, where cars re-enter the picture, especially for me as I've been practicing to attempt a no-hands bike ride of the length of JFK ;)
The downhill west of Transverse is the big obstacle;
have to either steer to the 2' wide flat portion between the speed bump and the curb, or learn to take that speed bump at 25mph without wiping out!
posted by abcanthur at 11:26 PM on April 8, 2022
This kind of rhetoric is pretty much the standard oil industry talking point these days, propagated through to your usual NIMBY forces.
If all you're trying to do is say "hey, let's allow cars to this destination, but not through it", then you will be stuck with a ring of disingenuous arguments from very loud voices:
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:59 AM on April 9, 2022 [13 favorites]
If all you're trying to do is say "hey, let's allow cars to this destination, but not through it", then you will be stuck with a ring of disingenuous arguments from very loud voices:
- "This is ableist, because not everyone can ride bikes!" I mean, not everyone can drive, either, and nobody's blocking access to this destination. It's just a terrible thoroughfare.
- "This will just push traffic and pollution to other places, making it more concentrated and worse!" Sorry, evidence shows that this simply doesn't happen: people make transport choices, and when you change the infrastructure, they change the choices they make.
- "Oh ho ho, you're leaving access by car to these places, but trying to improve them. That's inequitable to everywhere else!" Uh, what? Seriously? You argue that we can't improve anywhere until we've improved everywhere? Also just a minute ago you were saying through traffic was good for this area!!
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:59 AM on April 9, 2022 [13 favorites]
I would endorse a compromise of yes to driving cars, no to parked cars.
This is the craziest thing about this whole fracas: the ONLY thing that is driving money into the opposition for keeping JFK car free is the parking!
posted by billjings at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2022
This is the craziest thing about this whole fracas: the ONLY thing that is driving money into the opposition for keeping JFK car free is the parking!
posted by billjings at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2022
At least no one is claiming "Cycle lane will be "clear getaway" for shoplifters and drug dealers"
posted by Mitheral at 8:27 AM on April 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 8:27 AM on April 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Update: we won. Golden Gate Park’s JFK Drive will stay permanently car-free after S.F. supes vote following marathon meeting
posted by zachlipton at 12:51 PM on April 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 12:51 PM on April 27, 2022 [4 favorites]
« Older “Oh no…” she says, reading the fortune. “…you got... | Wordshore Was Unavailable for Comment Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Monochrome at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2022