Advocacy & Safety - San Francisco bicyclists get their own traffic light

http://www.sfbike.org/download/newsreleases/FellMasonic_2008_09_23.pdf

http://www.sfbike.org/email_templates/2008-09-22_Fellmasonic.jpg


(SAN FRANCISCO, CA) — A notoriously dangerous San Francisco intersection underwent a big
safety fix this week, the city's first on-the-ground bicycle-safety enhancement in two years. The
SF Municipal Transportation Agency installed a traffic light specifically for bicyclists and
pedestrians at the Fell and Masonic intersection, along the Golden Gate Park Panhandle, an
intersection that had posed mounting safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians.
"We have spent years advocating for a safer Fell and Masonic intersection, and we are relieved
that this safety improvement is finally in place," says Leah Shahum, Executive Director of the
9,500-member San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "It is critical that the City provides for safe
transportation options, and this fix is really a matter of public safety."
This special traffic light separates the crossing into two phases — one for pedestrians and
bicyclists and a separate phase for motor vehicles, in order to ensure that bicyclists/pedestrians
and left-turning cars do not cross paths. Previously bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles
would proceed through the busy intersection at the same time.
Elizabeth Gjelten, a 56-year-old writer who bikes as her main mode of transportation, was
injured while bicycling through the intersection just three weeks ago. She swerved to avoid being
hit by a car driver who turned in front of her. "It is so important that the City protects all users of
our streets," says Gjelten, who broke one rib in this crash. "Bicycling is a wonderful way to get
around town, but safety is the biggest hindrance for most people. I hope that San Francisco will
continue to address other problem areas like the Fell and Masonic intersection, so that more
people will feel comfortable enough to get out of their cars and move on their own power."
On Tuesday, September 23rd at 11:30a.m., members of the SFBC, Walk San Francisco and the Fix
Masonic Coalition will join City officials to unveil and celebrate the new traffic signal at the Fell
and Masonic intersection. For several years, members of each of these groups have led volunteer
crossing guard programs to help bicyclists and pedestrians cross the intersection safely and to
draw attention to the public safety threat at the intersection.
The intersection improvement is particularly noteworthy since the City has been barred from
making any physical bicycle changes since June 2006, when a court injunction required that an
Environmental Impact Report of the City's Bike Plan be completed. In May, the Superior Court
lifted this injunction, at the request of the City, citing the public safety threat the intersection
posed.
Other cities in the state have been successfully using bike-traffic lights for years. Davis, CA
installed a bicycle traffic signal at the intersection of Sycamore and Russell. According to the City
of Davis, for the two-year period before the installation there were about 16 reported bicycle and
motor vehicle collisions and for the two-year period following the installation, there were only
two collisions, neither of which involved bicycles.

Now that the copy/paste fest is over with, in what way does this signal affect traffic; cyclist, motorist and otherwise?

-Kurt

"This special traffic light separates the crossing into two phases — one for pedestrians and
bicyclists and a separate phase for motor vehicles, in order to ensure that bicyclists/pedestrians
and left-turning cars do not cross paths. Previously bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles
would proceed through the busy intersection at the same time."

...and proven effective..

"Other cities in the state have been successfully using bike-traffic lights for years."

a

I'm already getting a picture of it, and I don't like it (though I am reserving judgment, just in case it is a unique street pattern...which I doubt).

-Kurt

So, if a cyclist comes up to this light where the regular light is green, he/she has to stop and wait for the beginning of the next light cycle for the bicycle portion?

I saw an intersection in the Netherlands where there was a pedestrian cycle, a bicycle cycle, and a car cycle. I bet there were some serious traffic jams during rush hour.

There are a couple of intersections here where they have started letting the pedestrians go first, which I think is a great idea. One of the issues is that "right turn on red" doesn't involve a stop first for most motorists. Pennsylvania was one of the first states to have right turn on red, so we have achieved highly evolved behavior in this regard. Motorists also don't have to stop for stop signs if the the DMV should have posted a yield sign.

I don't know if I think there should be an early bicycle cycle in the traffic lights. I'd have to see it working.

Fell Street is a traffic-heavy streat that runs west just north of the Panhandle, which is essentially a large median strip between Fell Street and Oak Street, which runs east. There's a bicycle lane on the left side of Fell (a one-way street) three blocks to the east of this intersection that becomes a bicycle path at Baker Street, where the Panhandle begins. The bicycle path runs to the left of Fell Street. Masonic Street, which is the north-south street that intersects with Fell where the traffic light is, is one of the few roads that cuts across the Panhandle, and many of the cars traveling west on Fell Street make a left turn onto Masonic. The problem is that because the bike lane is to the left of Fell Street traffic, bicyclists who are riding on the bike path cross Masonic into the path of cars on Fell turning left onto Masonic. The cyclists are hard to see and have trouble seeing cars turning left, and many have been hit by cars turning left. Here's a picture of the intersection taken from the bike lane looking to the west. In this photo, cars turning left onto Masonic would be coming from the left.

http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/go8f7398a.jpg

Notice how in this photo pedestrians and cyclists are being instructed to cross Masonic (the white pedestrian light) at the same time cars on Fell have a green light (which includes turning left into the path of those pedestrians and cyclists).

Here's another photo of the same intersection, also looking to the west (the direction of Fell Street traffic) from Fell Street instead of from the bike path.

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/fell-masonic.jpg

And here's a link to a map of the intersection:

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=37.77298&lon=-122.445919&zoom=18&q1=Msonic%20and%20Fell%2C%20san%20francisco%2C%20CA

Here's an explanation of the problem from a SF-based bicycle blog (to read even more about the intersection, click on the links in the blog entry):

"Motorists turning left from Fell onto Masonic cross the Panhandle Path crosswalk and collisions with bicyclists are almost routine. City attorneys in San Francisco persuaded Judge Peter Busch to make an exception (http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/finally_a_fix_for_fellmasonic_1.html) in his injunction against bicycle projects for intersection improvements at Fell and Masonic in the City. Work can now proceed to improve the intersections so the crosswalk will have its own green cycle, and left turners must wait for a green turn arrow. More at SFist (http://sfist.com/2008/04/04/not_news_masoni.php) and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (http://www.sfbike.org/?fellmasonic)."

It's hoped that the light will be more effective than the "Left turn yield to pedestrians and bikes" sign you can see in the photos. The new light is designed to ensure that cars are not turning left into the paths of bikes coming from both directions on the bike paths at the same time that the bikes are crossing Masonic (as shown in the first photo). Bikes and pedestrians will be able to cross Masonic on the bike path while cars proceeding straight along Fell have a green light and cars turning left have a red light. Cars turning left will have a dedicated left arrow light, during which time the bicycle and pedestrian lights will be red (they'll also be red when traffic on Masonic has a green light). So bicyclists will have to wait while cars turn left onto Masonic from Fell, but they can proceed across Masonic on the bike path without having to worry about cars turning left into their path.

"So, if a cyclist comes up to this light where the regular light is green, he/she has to stop and wait for the beginning of the next light cycle for the bicycle portion?"

If you have a left green arrow, then a regular green light, can you still turn right?

I've always thought a pedestrian only light cycle was the best way... especially after watching a bunch of school children get honked at by an anxious left turning motorist. They had a walk light... and he had a green. Just doesn't make sense.

I was nearly hit about 6 months ago while leaving an MUP on a green light... you guessed it... left turning motorist with the same green.

I don't think this is a particularly good idea.
Beside the fact that it puts cyclists on the sidewalk, it also gives motorists another signal to wonder about.

I don't think this is a particularly good idea.
Beside the fact that it puts cyclists on the sidewalk, it also gives motorists another signal to wonder about.

Give them six more to wonder about... why in the world do we give any priority to someone because they chose to move about in a huge (mostly empty) polluting vehicle? F _ _ _ 'em.

I don't care if you are walking, biking, jogging, skateboarding, or whatever... we are all humans with the same darn priority. If it takes an extra light cycle to get traffic safely across... so be it.

This makes good sense - the facility in place is an parallel off-road/median separated MUP. Those are notoriously dangerous at all intersections due to the physical separation. The extra control is then needed to separate the movement of the two flows - separating the 'MUP path thru' from the road 'left across MUP' is required for such a facility.

Al

I don't think this is a particularly good idea.
Beside the fact that it puts cyclists on the sidewalk, it also gives motorists another signal to wonder about.

Cyclists are already on the bike path and off the street at that intersection, with or without the extra light. The street is a somewhat major artery from the downtown area to one of the city's big residential areas. Taking bikes off the road (and putting them on the path) where the Panhandle begins was a safety measure to get bikes off the road at that point because (1) cars move fast and there was no room for a bike lane once the Panhandle begins and (2) riding on the right side of the road is dangerous due to a fork on Fell where some traffic peels off to the right but the main traffic (and most bicycle traffic) peels off to the left. Under the circumstances, which would be difficult to change by putting cyclists on the street there, the idea seems to make more sense.

I don't care if you are walking, biking, jogging, skateboarding, or whatever... we are all humans with the same darn priority. If it takes an extra light cycle to get traffic safely across... so be it.Well said.

I was at the unveiling ceremony today. A lot of self-congratulatory speeches by various parties involved in getting it done. It was quite a process, given that Judge Busch had to lift the injunction on bike improvements specifically for this intersection (albeit not for the city as a whole).

Though I'm happy it's there, I couldn't fail to notice that several cars ran the new light while the news cameras were rolling, including some whom were so impatient that, even after people told them that they had a red light, continued on anyway.

I predict there will be fewer collisions at this intersection, but not none. However, the next driver to hit a cyclist here will have a much nicer lawsuit on his hands, since that now involves running a red.

Thanks for the pictures. That explains everything. I think the light set-up is good. Actually, I think the light set-up is now correct. With the path separated as much from the road as it is just past the intersection, my opinion would be that depending on the one light to control all the traffic was not sufficient. If shown those pictures before, I would have said it was technically two different intersections.

The only problem I have is with the "claim" that the cyclists and pedestrians are hard for drivers to see. It looks pretty easy for me. I think the correct word would be "inconvenient" for the drivers.

The only problem I have is with the "claim" that the cyclists and pedestrians are hard for drivers to see. It looks pretty easy for me. I think the correct word would be "inconvenient" for the drivers.

Now now, it's not like we expect the motorists to actually look up from their blackberries, or blueberries or what ever the heck they are texting on... :rolleyes:




(Interesting... "texting" shows up as "misspelled" as it simply was not a word used like that, until recently... and now it is a verb.)

How is this different from a normal walk signal?

^^
It has a green bicycle rather than a white walker.

How is this different from a normal walk signal?


In San Francisco, cycling on a sidewalk is pretty much illegal. This is one of the few bike paths in the city that runs along a roadway and functions as both a sidewalk for people and a path for bikes at a road traffic intersection. The reason why the white walking light was felt to be insufficient is because cycles travel much faster than pedestrians, so cyclists decide to cross the intersection from further away than pedestrians do. The walk light at this intersection corresponded with a full green light, which included a green light for cars making left turns. By having a dedicated bicycle light, cyclists can determine their right to cross the intersection from far away without regard to what pedestrians are being permitted to do.

In San Francisco, cycling on a sidewalk is pretty much illegal. This is one of the few bike paths in the city that runs along a roadway and functions as both a sidewalk for people and a path for bikes at a road traffic intersection. The reason why the white walking light was felt to be insufficient is because cycles travel much faster than pedestrians, so cyclists decide to cross the intersection from further away than pedestrians do. The walk light at this intersection corresponded with a full green light, which included a green light for cars making left turns. By having a dedicated bicycle light, cyclists can determine their right to cross the intersection from far away without regard to what pedestrians are being permitted to do.

So is there a separate bike cycle to the light? Or is the bike light just on when the walk light is on? I can't see any sense in having two different controls for the same crosswalk. Is there ever a time when it is safe to bike across the crosswalk but not walk? Or vice versa? I also wonder about the legality -- is there any legislative authorization for bike signals? I'm not sure about California law, but usually cyclists using a crosswalk have the rights and duties of pedestrians, which means they have to obey the pedestrian signals.

Reading the article, it sounds like the real improvement was adding a third phase to the traffic signal, putting in a left turn arrow and eliminating the conflict between left turners and crosswalk users. It sounds like the bike signal was just window dressing.

So is there a separate bike cycle to the light? Or is the bike light just on when the walk light is on? I can't see any sense in having two different controls for the same crosswalk. Is there ever a time when it is safe to bike across the crosswalk but not walk? Or vice versa? I also wonder about the legality -- is there any legislative authorization for bike signals? I'm not sure about California law, but usually cyclists using a crosswalk have the rights and duties of pedestrians, which means they have to obey the pedestrian signals.

Reading the article, it sounds like the real improvement was adding a third phase to the traffic signal, putting in a left turn arrow and eliminating the conflict between left turners and crosswalk users. It sounds like the bike signal was just window dressing.

To be honest, I haven't yet seen the light in action. My point was that before the cycling light was installed, bicyclists obeying the pedestrian signal were more likely to be hit by a car turning left than a pedestrain would be simply because bikes go faster than pedestrians and cyclists make decisions further away from the intersection than pedestrians do. In any event, because cyclists in SF are trained to think and drive like vehicle operators on the roads rather than like pedestrians and this intersection is unusual for SF in that it puts bicyclists in the same position as pedestrians, there's no harm in the redundancy of having a cycling light, even if it only mimics the pedestrian light.

One of these days I'll videotape a cycle of the signal and post it on youtube.