Hi Transpo working group and Green Party County Council,
I am on an ad hoc coalition working on the issue of the Golden Gate Park
concourse area and the proposed circulation plan for drivers going into GG
Park to visit the museums. This group is mobilizing to urge the Board of
Supervisors (who have the final say on the circulation plans in the
concourse) to approve a plan that will minimize auto travel through the
concourse.
We are seeking an endorsement from the SF Green Party for the proposal
below. Ideally, the Transportation Working Group will vote online to forward
this to the GM in July. We cannot wait until the next Transpo WG since the
Board of Supervisors will be taking this vote up within the next month and
we need to move rather quickly with this.
We would like the Transportation Working group to have a chance to weigh in
on this since it relates to Transportation and the working group has
existing policy on Golden Gate Park issues. If you cannot do this online,
then I ask the CC to please add it to the agenda for consideration this
July.
The proposal should be added to the GM for final approval (just as we did
with the Coalition for Transit Justice).
BACKGROUND:
The original intent of Proposition J, (the Golden Gate Park Revitalization
Act) passed by the voters in 1998, was to create a pedestrian oasis by
removing autos from the surface of the concourse (the large plaza that the
museums and the bandshell surround) by building an underground parking
garage. Now that the garage is almost built, the garage backers (primarily
the institutions and their well heeled supporters) want to allow auto
traffic in the concourse.
The plan being promoted by the garage proponents, the Golden Gate Park
Concourse Authority and others is a so called Option 2A compromise that
provides some minimal discouragement to auto drivers to not use the
concourse to cut through the park, but does nothing to actually prevent
drivers from driving through what was supposed to be a pedestrian oasis.
The SF Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee,
and other enviro/transpo groups are mobilizing in support of the proposal
below.
DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
July 6, 2005
The following groups {Who to include?: SFBC, Walk SF, SF Green Party, SF
Sierra Club, others?} request that the SF Board of Supervisors modify the
Concourse Authority¹s preferred option for design for Surface Vehicular
Circulation in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, called Option
2A.
The Concourse Authority¹s recommended design is not consistent with
Proposition J¹s (Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998) mandate to:
(1) Create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse Area of Golden Gate
Park; and (2) Take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park.
Our organizations recommend a modified version of Option 2A, referred to
here as Option 2B, in order to more fully meet the mandates of Proposition
J.
Option 2B includes all of the components of Option 2A in addition to several
modifications (outlined below), which would more effectively restrict
non-transit and non-emergency thru-traffic in the Concourse Area, as
supported by the Concourse Authority (per 6/10/05 Concourse Authority
meeting and resolution). Following are the recommended modifications for
Option 2B:
1) Add bollards at the north entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which
would be activated (raised) all hours and allow automatic access only to
Muni busses and emergency vehicles, and would restrict general thru-traffic.
2) Add bollards at the south entrance to the Music Concourse Area, which
would be activated (raised) only during the museums¹ non-operating hours
(estimated before 9:30am and after 5:30pm and on days the museums are
closed). This will allow for passenger drop-off access during the museums
operating hours, as well as access for Muni busses and emergency vehicles at
all hours.
Attached: Research findings on general use, effectiveness and cost of
bollards. (To come)
Recap of the options considered:
Option 1: Allow full auto access to the concourse (this is the option
favored by the institutions)
Option 2: Make the concourse accessible for drop off only via Marting Luther
King Drive at the southern entrance as a one way loop (no way to drive
through the park to the other side using the concourse).
Option 3: No through traffic. This option was voted down, although it was
the one favored by park advocates.
Option 2A was created as a hybrid to forbid traffic with signs ("No through
traffic") while allowing cars carrying passengers to drop off at the museums
to do so. Autos may access the concourse from either the north or south and
exit in the opposite side.
SUMMARY:
The problem with 2A is that there are no physical barriers to prevent anyone
driving in the park from using the concourse to get to the other side of the
park rather than going up to Stanyan or down to 19th Ave. The backers of
this claim that the signs will deter most drivers, and that the prospect of
slow moving traffic will be a deterrent to driving through. Park advocates
are not so confident that drivers will be courteous enough to go around,
especially when the museums are not open and there are no cars dropping off
passengers. For these reasons, we are promoting an alternate to the
alternate proposal, with physical barriers in place to prevent drivers from
cutting through the concourse.
