Random header image... Refresh for more!
Aug-16-2010

Why the Presidio shouldn’t close Battery Caulfield road at the 15th Ave. gate

A lot of activity is happening in the Public Health Service District in the Presidio, more commonly known as the part of the Presidio just inside the 15th Avenue gate off Lake Street. It includes the new 154-unit Presidio Landmark apartment building (formerly a hospital), the Wyman Avenue historic homes, and a building occupied by businesses.

With the influx of Landmark and Wyman residents into this area, there are concerns about how the traffic will impact the Presidio as well as the surrounding arteries of the Richmond District, specifically along 14th and 15th Avenues. For the last decade or so, the gate at 14th Avenue has been closed, so all traffic in and out of the district has gone through the 15th Avenue gate.

But that will change in September, when the Presidio Trust plans to re-open the 14th Avenue gate, allowing one-way traffic inbound to the Presidio. They’ll also modify access on 15th Avenue, changing it to only allow one-way traffic out of the Presidio. So to get into the Presdio, you’ll only be able to use 14th Avenue. To exit it, you’ll use 15th Avenue (traffic on the actual city blocks of 14th and 15th Avenue will remain two-way).

Another change up for debate is how to temper traffic along two-way Battery Caulfield Road, which runs alongside the Presidio Landmark building, allowing traffic to reach the other side of the Presidio. Similarly, it is the only outlet that runs to the 15th Avenue gate, allowing for traffic to exit the Presidio (see map).

The Presidio Trust is considering two options to reduce vehicle traffic on Battery Caulfield Road (read the full proposal here):

1) Limiting vehicle usage during weekday peak AM and PM hours, 7 to 9am and 5 to 7pm, as well as on weekends. How the traffic would actually be controlled has not yet been decided.

OR

2) Limit vehicular use at all times, e.g. closing the road completely, in both directions, to cars.

However the issue is not just about what happens within the Presidio. The Battery Caulfield changes are also meant to appease residents on 14th and 15th Avenues who will contend with traffic that goes in and out of the Public Health Service District. At a recent neighborhood meeting, these residents challenged representatives from the Landmark, claiming that to NOT close Battery Caulfield Road completely would be a violation of a previous agreement they had made with the Presidio Trust in 2007.

As a resident of the Central Richmond District, I believe it’s a huge, short-sighted mistake to close Battery Caulfield Road (B.C.R.) completely for a few reasons:

1) This would cause an unnecessarily heavy burden of traffic on 14th Avenue. Closing B.C.R. would force any and all inbound traffic to the District through 14th Avenue. Returning Landmark residents and any others accessing the Public Health Service District from the north would always have to enter in 14th Avenue. Imagine you live at the Landmark and are returning from Marin. Rather than exiting at the toll plaza and winding through the Presidio and down B.C.R. to get home, you’d have to go to Highway 1, turn right on Lake and come in 14th Avenue.

2) The Central Richmond District would lose in an important alternate route through the Presidio and to the Golden Gate Bridge. At this point, no one has taken the Doyle Drive construction into account. As construction on the new roadway progresses, there will be more closures, slowdowns and residents looking for alternate ways to reach the Golden Gate Bridge and the north side of San Francisco. By closing B.C.R., you cut off an important artery for the Central Richmond District. This will drive more traffic onto Arguello and 25th Avenue when residents are looking for alternate routes through the Presidio.

3) Closing B.C.R. would be an overreaction to a situation that has not been thoroughly studied. The Presidio Trust did one traffic study in March 2009, counting cars during the week and on Saturdays that qualified as “cut-through traffic” at the 15th Avenue gate. But this was before the Presidio Landmark opened and before any Doyle Drive construction began.

It’s too early to tell how the Presidio Landmark will affect traffic patterns; the Landmark’s own staff says traffic will ramp up slowly over time as they are nowhere near full occupancy. Nor has the 14th Avenue gate been open the last 10 years. Re-opening it may be more than enough to alleviate traffic issues on 15th Avenue which neighbors are so concerned about.

The Presidio Trust is taking comments and feedback on the Battery Caulfield Road proposal until September 1 October 15 (the deadline was extended). To send in your comments, email batterycaulfield@presidiotrust.gov or mail a letter to: Planning Department, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052 by October 15.

What would you like to see happen with Battery Caulfield Road?

Sarah B.

Bookmark and Share
 
6:05 am | Posted under Traffic | 34 comments
  1. passerby said (08/16/10; 9:48 am):

    I read the graph as saying that, at the time the data was taken, 4pm is the peak traffic time at 15th Ave. The peak traffic is less than 1 car ever minute. With over 3000 residents in 1150+ households and over 200 businesses currently in the park, I can only describe the current traffic going through 15th Ave as a trickle at worst.

    Because parking isn’t an inclusion with the rent at the Landmark, we can’t know how many residents there would have a car, either.

    I don’t think your argument even includes the residents of the West Washington neighborhood, which sits on Battery Caulfield. Presumably, 15th Ave is their main gate in to and out of the Presidio.

  2. Administrator said (08/16/10; 10:03 am):

    Hi passerby,

    Yes, I don’t know what would happen to the West Washington neighborhood, though I presume they would somehow allow those residents access down B.C.R. even if they close it off (at least I hope they would). They didn’t seem to know operationally how any closure or limiting of B.C.R. would happen yet. But if I were a West Washington resident, I’d definitely be lobbying for B.C.R. to remain as is!

    Sarah B.

  3. verso2 said (08/16/10; 11:09 am):

    People seem to forget that the “Landmark” was a working public health service hospital until the early 1980s. To me, that sounds like lots of people coming and going, plus deliveries, plus, of course, traffic from the then military housing, now rental housing, farther up the hill.

    I don’t recall there being much of a problem–but has either the current Presidio management or the (current) fearful neighbors (whom these plans seem to be bending backward in order to placate) ever investigated the actual history of traffic in the area when the hospital was in operation? We don’t actually have to depend on guesswork or the current, inadequate, studies.

  4. Fog Belt Baby said (08/16/10; 11:17 am):

    Re: this article’s line: “…concern about the traffic impacts on the Presidio”?

    No, no no.

    “Impacts” is a verb — it is not a noun. The plural of “impact” is “impact” — ergo it should read “…concern about the impact of traffic on the Presidio” or, even better: “…concern about how traffic will impact the Presidio”

  5. Tweets that mention Why the Presidio shouldn’t close Battery Caulfield road at the 15th Ave. gate -- Topsy.com said (08/16/10; 11:34 am):

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richmond SF Blog, Ocean Beach Bulletin. Ocean Beach Bulletin said: Access to Presidio from western neighborhoods could change dramatically. @richmondsfblog has important article, details: http://dld.bz/sa9Y [...]

  6. jim h said (08/16/10; 11:51 am):

    i am so tired of those nimby neighbors who for so long blocked any development of the hospital. when it was going to be an old age home they cried about the traffic. like those poor old people would be going in and out all the time. now they have yuppie non kid friendly appts and they are still crying about cars.remember the signs they put up- like “kids not cars”. what did that mean? anyway keeping Battery Caulfield Road open isnt going to affect anything. we need it open more than ever with the doyle drive construction going on.

  7. Administrator said (08/16/10; 1:23 pm):

    Calm down, Fog Belt Baby! ;) Thanks for your comment – I’ve corrected the offending line!

    Sarah B.

  8. David H said (08/16/10; 2:23 pm):

    The construction for Doyle Drive will turn all the projections inside out, it seems early to close roads or designate one way traffic. Some traffic calming to keep cars from trying to maintain freeway speeds while they are in the Presidio couldn’t hurt. We had the calming experiment and most of the bumps and signs were pulled early due to the bitching. There is not much focus on getting traffic to city streets during the Doyle Drive work. Ahead lie cars in numbers due to the work and hospital that will totally wreck the atmosphere and set hard to break commute patterns. Sigh, with the hospital there is bound to be more cars in the lot with the headlights at night shining over the creek into the houses and on the avenue approaches.

    The neighbors fought hard,what good did it do to dig in? We are right back at the point of needing solutions Something creative is called for, and as usual Supervisor Mar as did his predecessor, is missing an opportunity to lead some efforts to reach a workable solution.

  9. Scott S said (08/16/10; 2:49 pm):

    The NIMBY’s strike again. I’m sure there are many people who live in the Richmond district who use these roads through the Presidio, both because it gets them where they need to go in a generally calmer manner (whether to the GGBridge, the Marina or elsewhere) and because it is an enjoyable scenic route. It seems selfish to consider closing these roads just for the sake of the few who live close by. The whole thing would be incredibly shortsighted.

    We all live in this city and need to learn to adapt and share. Personally I’d rather a bit of extra traffic on my street than having the ugly monstrosity that used to be the Landmark sitting in my backyard. And Newsflash to those NIMBY’s: most San Franciscans live on far busier streets and have learned to deal with it.

  10. David H said (08/16/10; 3:14 pm):

    @Scott- Good points. The locals like taking time going through the Presidio, its the many commuters on the horizon that hopefully will learn the benefits of slowing down to look at the Ocean or trees. Folks on Lake who years ago thought they were in a quiet spot now see cars bumper to bumper. Yellin NIMBY is over rated.

  11. Sam Foster said (08/16/10; 6:59 pm):

    I echo the NIMBY sentiments. That street was a working gate to the military base of ages, it should remain open.

  12. Sam Foster said (08/16/10; 7:00 pm):

    Replying to self: I echo the sentiment that the NIMBYs need to be ignored and the road should remain open.

  13. Bob said (08/16/10; 10:52 pm):

    I think the greater good is to keep the road open. While it is easy to criticize the NIMBYs, I imagine most would act similarly if they lived in the immediately affected areas. However, closing the road will just force that traffic onto 25th Avenue and Arguello, and how do you think the residents of those residential streets will react to this? Very similarly, I would imagine.

    Excellent post Sarah, as always, but I am not sure that your first point is valid. I believe the Trust is looking at allowing PHSH district traffic (ie residents and businesses of the district) the ability to access the road at any time (presumably via some card key controlled gate). If this is true, then district residents will be able to access the district from either the 14th Avenue gate or the Washington Blvd side.

    I have also wondered why the Trust hasn’t publicly articulated why access to the district directly via a new connector/intersection with Park Presidio Blvd is not being considered, or if it has been, why it is not being pursued. A quick look at the satellite image on Google Maps would suggest that there is room to create this access. This intersection would be directly north of the Lake Street / Park Presidio intersection. I can imagine that a cost/benefit/need analysis is part of this. I wonder if another part is the pending litigation between the Presidio Trust and CalTrans regarding the clean-up of Mountain Lake (read more here: http://www.fmlp.org/assets/Presidio_vs_Caltrans.pdf).
    The cost/benefit of such an intersection might tilt depending on how current or any future litigation regarding this contentious issue might affect this.

    Finally, comments here are interesting, but ultimately not part of the public record. If you feel strongly about this issue, make sure you submit your comments to the Presidio Trust above as Sarah indicates. Only then will your voices be heard above the very vocal NIMBYs.

  14. Dick Keenan said (08/17/10; 8:49 am):

    Sarah: I think the Blog has done a good service alerting neighbors to the Trust notice of plans to close Battery Caulfield Road behind the new Presidio Landmark apartment building, the former Public Health Hospital Site. Also, I have just been told by Trust staff that the public comment period for the Battery Caulfield Road Federal Register notice is being extended to October 15, 2010. Information regarding this update will be going out via email as soon as possible.

    Thank you for the opportunity to share with you and other Richmond District neighbors why I hope they will write to the Trust to oppose proposed “Alternative 1” that would limit vehicular use of Battery Caulfield Road to during weekday peak AM and PM hours, 7 to 9 AM and 5 to 7 PM, as well as on weekends and why I support “Alternative 2”, limitation of vehicular use at all times, allowing designated vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles, PresidiGo shuttles and designated Presidio residents and tenants) to have unrestricted access to Battery Caulfield Road, and access by pedestrians and bicyclists will remain unrestricted. Many neighbors will join me in asking the Trust to limit the “designated Presidio residents and tenants” to those in the Public Health Service Hospital (PHSH) District., that would address your first objection but still limit the traffic that would otherwise flow through the 14th and 15th Avenue gates,

    I believe the Presidio Trust should adopt Alternative 2, as clarified to allow vehicular access by only residents and tenants of the PHSH District, for four reasons:

    The Trust Told Our Neighborhood it would close Battery Caulfield.

    Battery Caulfield was never designed or intended to be an artery through the Presidio for the central Richmond District. In 2006 and 2007, Richmond District residents and community groups expressed strong concern for the traffic that would be generated by proposed development of the PHSH Site in many meetings and letters before the Trust settled on its final plans. In response, at many meetings, Trust staff said they understood this concern and made a commitment to reduce the amount of traffic exiting from the 15th Avenue gate. In an April 24, 2007, letter to community leaders that was widely shared, the Trust’s Executive Director promised closure of Battery Caulfield Road. This promise was not limited to “peak hours”.

    Alternative 2 is more protective of Neighborhood Safety.

    The more cars that the Trust lets come through the 14th and 15th Avenue gates, the less safe will be the residents of surrounding streets, as well as by bicyclists and pedestrians using the new paths that cross the PHSH District and connect the Mountain Lake and Lobos Creek Valley trails. Traffic exiting the 15th Avenue gate will likely turn onto Lake Street, which has become increasingly congested and has a designated bike lane, or proceed up 15th Avenue to California Street.

    Many families with young children live on this block and nearby blocks. “Cut through” traffic is in a hurry; keeping 14th and 15th Avenue open for cut through traffic is an accident waiting to happen in our neighborhood.

    The Trust’s March 2009 “Peak Hour” traffic count study ignores the Trust promise.

    Along with its Federal Notice, the Trust released a March 2009 traffic count study that indicated there was greater vehicular traffic out the 15th Avenue gate during “peak hours” on week days. But with the completion of the PHSH Site construction and the ongoing Doyle Drive construction project, many more vehicles are using the 15th Avenue gate to cut through the Presidio than ever before. The number of people learning about, and making use of this cut through will only increase as the Project construction goes on until 2014. Also, increased traffic on Battery Caulfield puts pressure on the ongoing restoration of sensitive environmental areas that have been replanted and are being protected. The increased use of Battery Caulfield has never been studied and the March 2009 traffic count does not measure or estimate this increased traffic. More importantly, the Notice suggests that the reason for the proposed closure of Battery Caulfield Road was to “discourage traffic not destined for the [District] from passing through the area”. That rationale overlooks the expressed concern of many Richmond District neighbors about the increased traffic that would exit the 15th Avenue gate after the renovation and new construction and occupancy of the PHSH Site, especially if there was the continued use of Battery Caulfield road by the general public. And it overlooks the Trust’s promise to Richmond District residents to close Battery Caulfield Road for this reason.

    Alternative 1 is not enforceable.

    The Trust does not lay out any plan to enforce Alternative 1. How will the Trust practically enforce this Alternative? It will depend on only public cooperation with posted signage, which can and will be ignored. This is not acceptable with the increased use of Battery Caulfield that has happened and will happen now that the PHSH Site construction is over and the Doyle Drive construction project is underway. Simply put, the Trust does not have traffic police to enforce Alternative 1’s time limitations.

    The Trust needs to keep its commitment to our neighborhood to limit traffic flowing in the 14th Avenue gate and out of the 15th Avenue gate. I urge Richmond District neighbors to write in support “Alternative 2″ set out in the Federal Notice. Dick Keenan

  15. Paul said (08/17/10; 9:20 am):

    I feel for the people that live on 14th & 15th Aves. but like other commentors, I need to ask what were the traffic patterns previously when the facility was up and running?
    If you buy a house on a street with a gate onto Govt. property, there is a chance you may have to live with the fact that it may someday be re-opened.

  16. Linda said (08/17/10; 10:45 am):

    I agree with NIMBY sentiments. The gate should remain open as well as the drive. The Presidio is not an exclusive nature reserve. It is an area that contains both commercial and residential within an urban setting. Those living within the Presidio and on streets adjoining the Presidio should all bear the results of increased traffic.

    Thank you for bringing up this issue on your blog.

  17. Administrator said (08/17/10; 10:52 am):

    Thanks to everyone for your comments. Let me echo what Bob said as well – no matter where you stand on the issue, please send in your comments to the Presidio Trust for the official record:

    Email jfa@presidiotrust.gov or mail a letter to: Planning Department, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052 by October 15.

    Thank you Dick for letting us know the deadline has been extended!

    Sarah B.

  18. Beth Bromfield said (08/17/10; 11:07 am):

    And by the way, the Supervisor for this part of Richmond district is not Eric Mar, it is Alioto-Pier.

  19. Carolyn B said (08/17/10; 5:47 pm):

    In my opinion, however the traffic flow is resolved, both 15th and 14th Avenue will need significant speed bumps to slow traffic coming out of the Presidio in order to protect pedestrians. Incredibly, that doesn’t appear to have been required in the construction and landscaping plan (or at least they haven’t been installed yet).

    Even with the 14th Avenue gate closed, over the years, I have observed people racing through this area in their cars (to drop the kids at daycare, to get to work in one of the offices in the back, or to cut through to the golf course), so my first concern is keeping the speeds down in this pedestrian heavy area inside and outside the gates. Especially now, with the townhouses being renovated, a new office building being constructed and the existing office buildings being renovated.

    As someone who walks through the 15th Avenue (and 14th Ave) gate a couple of times a day, I feel that the 15th Avenue gate should be used exclusively for both directions of traffic until we can determine the actual usage, before opening the 14th Avenue gate to cars. Until Doyle Drive is completed and more residents have moved into the Landmark, how can an optimal long term traffic solution be determined now. The traffic flow solutions need to remain flexible until the longer term usage is determined. Then, open the 14th Avenue gate to cars (with strategic speed bumps installed near both gates). Although it puts a huge strain on 15th, having only 15th available limits and directs the flow. With 14th open, the potential for cars to be speeding from several directions is increased.

    I feel Caulfield Road should most definitely be left open as an access road to be used for all. The relatively few people who appear to drive on it now appear to be either lost tourists or Richmond locals passing through (even with the Doyle Drive construction).

  20. crankygal said (08/18/10; 2:29 pm):

    David, you crack me up. I’ve been to a few PAR meetings, and all I have to say is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY! Every “resident” comes out with their dukes up. Jeez, lighten up, people.

  21. DT said (08/19/10; 1:45 pm):

    This was a working hospital for decades. It has been only in recent years that the NIMBYs have taken over. 25th Avenue used to be a MUNI line and the 49 Mile Scenic Drive. The NIMBYs killed that.

    Much attention has been paid to this by the Park Presidio Neighbors Group, which, in my experience is interested primarily in those blocks closest to Lake Street. They had traffic studies done, interestingly when the Hebrew Academy on 14th Avenue was closed for the summer.

    The basic fact is that Park Presidio is property of the State of California, which treats it as a freeway. It is not a freeway, it is State Highway transiting an urban area. The State will do little to address traffic flow issues until they can design and install cloverleafs.

    The Presidio Trust is an entire other beast. Given that their charter is to be profitable, it is in their interest to develop as much as they possibly can before the deadline. I found it just a little too convenient that the Doyle Drive project suddenly got funded and that its completion date neatly dovetails with the Presidio’s financial deadline.

    We must remember that we San Franciscans fought long and hard against building freeways from the Golden Gate to the proposed Highway 280 (and along Oak and Fell Streets) back in the 1950s. What was ceded were portions of the Mission, Glen Park, and beside Alemany. A number of these areas went from being desirable to being redeveloped by the San Francisco Housing Authority, or simply became low income areas (with increased crime). Do we want this for the west side of San Francisco?

    I have noticed an uptick in developer talk about highrises in the Richmond and Sunset (which was highly favored by Willie Brown). San Francisco does not have sufficient infrastructure (water, power, sewer, police, fire) to increase our poplation.

    My family has been in the Richmond District since my grandfather purchased a sand lot in 1917. A lot has changed in 93 years. Becoming Hong Kong or Taipei West is not desirable.

    Keep the gates open, keep the streets one way, and enforce existing traffic laws.

  22. Whiners Galore said (08/19/10; 1:47 pm):

    Oh my gawd. I have never heard such a complaint as “headlights will be shinning in the house windows” grow up. This argument is what is wrong with San Francisco. You don’t like it move. The Presidio was there long before any of the neighbors.

  23. David H said (08/20/10; 5:24 am):

    @ Whiners- That was humor not a complaint, although I am sure we will hear that at some point!
    @DT- Nice bit of history, thank you

  24. Ben in SF said (08/20/10; 1:57 pm):

    Battery Caufield Road didn’t always go through. The hospital was a separate entity from the Presidio. The upper end of the road led only to a Nike missile base in the 1950s and 60s. Based on maps I dimly recall, the road was extended through from Washington to the back of the PHH sometime in the 1970s give or take a decade.

    That being said, it’s been a handy local cut-across for a couple decades, and keeps this central Richmond District resident off the freeway, plus off Arguello, Lincoln, and other commuter streets, when all I want to to is get to the Main Post or take the grandkids to Crissy Field. It can be tinkered with, but I’d sure like it to stay open. (I walk into the Presidio that way every week or so, too. So far not trafficky; let’s see what happens).

    14th Ave. is a little too close to Park Presidio to be a really good sole entrance to a big complex — I wonder what sort of complications would arise with people turning across traffic from west or east. Cutting directly across Lake on 14th is probably going to be at least as dicey as cutting across Anza, Balboa or Cabrillo — fraught with peril from people turning suddenly from Hwy 1 and not expecting cross-traffic. Thus more people entering the PHH complex (or Presidio) from the Central Richmond District will tend to adjust their travel to turn into 14th (were that the entrance) rather than head straight across –making more clutter half a block from Hwy 1. 15th is a better entrance because traffic has a block and a half to calm down after crossing or exiting Hwy 1, and everyone stops at the 4-way stop sign.

  25. Beth Bromfield said (08/20/10; 2:57 pm):

    This discussion is about Battery Caufield Drive, not about a renegotiation of whether the 14th Avenue gate should be opened at all. The neighbors whom this will affect have been working with the Presidio Trust for years on this topic and came to a reasonable agreement with the Trust regarding future traffic patterns. Calling this a NIMBY issue is counter productive and only serves to divide the community rather than supporting the decisions that have already been made.

    I live on the north side of 15th and know about the traffic issues. Our street not only serves as a thoroughfare for Richmond district residents wanting an alternate route to the bridge, but it also serves those who live in Marin who come through the Presidio, park their cars in the non-residential area of Lake Street, and take the bus into work. With the opening of the PHSH, an additional 225 cars will be using those gates, which, according to traffic studies will add significantly to the vehicular traffic in and around those gates.

  26. Administrator said (08/20/10; 3:29 pm):

    I just received an update email from the Presidio Trust, confirming the extension of the deadline to October 15 for the public to send in comments on the proposal. Note that the email address in this latest update for public comments is:

    batterycaulfield@presidiotrust.gov

    That was not the email I was given back when I inquired, they had provided me with jfa@presidiotrust.gov. So for those of you who already wrote into the jfa@ address, I encourage you to resend your email to batterycaulfield@presidiotrust.gov. I assume they would honor emails sent into jfa@ but better safe than sorry.

    The update also said there will be a public meeting the first week of October. As soon as I have when and where, I will post to the blog.

    Sarah B.

  27. Bob said (08/20/10; 5:42 pm):

    With all due respect to the residents near the 14th and 15th Avenue gates, this is a divisive issue because a small but very vocal group of residents have been working with the Trust on this issue for some time apparently, while the majority of us (who will be inconvenienced) were not really a part of that process. The bottom line is that it would appear that there are more people who would prefer more open access to BCR than there are those who prefer to see it closed. In addition to all of us who lose a scenic and peaceful route to Crissy Field or the Main Post, ask the residents on Arguello and 25th Avenue which alternative they prefer.

    Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that Alternate 1 (partial closure) is un-enforcable. A card-key controlled gate would provide full access to PHSH residents and could be programmed to remain open during unrestricted hours. With appropriate signage and traffic calming measures, public safety could be ensured while providing public access.

    The one argument I haven’t heard yet for complete closure (which I actually think is a valid one) is it is aligned with the Trust’s stated goal of limiting vehicular traffic within the park for ALL visitors. Perhaps those on the side of full closure should be highlighting these benefits to the general public instead of their localized traffic concerns.

  28. SFinSF said (08/22/10; 1:22 pm):

    A graph is a graphical depiction, e.g. a chart. It expresses data. A PARAGRAPH is something entirely different and writing “graph” when you mean “paragraph” only creates confusion. Even using an apostrophe to indicate that you have omitted letters — ‘graph — doesn’t do much to ease the confusion. And Lord knows, with so many people here who are not native speakers of English, we should all be striving for clarity!

  29. Administrator said (08/22/10; 1:28 pm):

    @ SFinSF – The commenter “passerby” is referring to the graph that is shown in the 2009 traffic study, which is linked from the article:

    http://www.presidio.gov/NR/rdonlyres/834ABC49-E588-4A38-A7C9-0C11405781AE/0/15thAvecutthrudataMarch2009.pdf

    Sarah B.

  30. Richmond Native said (08/22/10; 1:30 pm):

    While I am very concerned about pedestrian safety (and cyclists and motorists, too) here in the Richmond, I’m getting a bit annoyed that the response always seems to be to SLOW traffic down and put up speed bumps, etc., etc.

    We are way out here at the NW edge of the City. We need to be able to get to the opposite side of town — and it seems that every proposal just makes that more difficult. Sup. Mar’s idea in response to complaints about Fulton was this: put in speed bumps!

    For God’s sake — Fulton is one of the only streets that offers a way to get out of the Richmond in any kind of reasonable amount of time — slowing it down hardly seems the answer. I’d like to propose that people who do traffic planning for the Richmond plan to have a couple of streets as “thoroughfares” and others for bicycle lanes, and as “slower” streets. For example,I think it would be a good idea to see California Streets have its lights “timed” during peak hours — yes, still 25mph, but have it flow, so you could actually MOVE…

    I’m starting to feel like I’m being imprisoned here!

  31. SFinSF said (08/22/10; 1:32 pm):

    the photo shows just about where the cemetery used to be…on the right, just past the buildings…

  32. Jonathan R said (08/23/10; 9:11 am):

    PLEASE leave this road open. The outer richmond residents see more and more of their access out or around the city being cut. These roads are not overused– I can attest to that but are a GODSEND with all of the other closures occuring. I’m just a normal taxpayer trying to get to work so I can live and enjoy the city and still pay taxes and be a calm citizen. But more and more roads are being closed and are getting clogged with other city traffic– Such as the great highway going south at Sloat, the 19th ave exits going east to doyle drive, as well as occasional interuptions like Sunday Streets and Outerlands, movie/museum closures along Camino Del Mar and Lincoln Hwy.

  33. Rob said (09/4/10; 6:29 am):

    Why doesn’t the Presidio Trust take a “Wait and see” attitude about whether to close the road or not? Right now, as many people have said, Battery Caufield Road is acting to relieve some of the traffic due to the Doyle Drive construction. 20% of the time, when I try to get from Crissey Field to Park Presidio by going up the hill to Lincoln to the toll plaza, there is some kind of traffic backup. Having BCR open allows an escape hatch to come into Park Presidio Blvd. at Lake St.without having to go all the way out to 25th Ave., or up and out Arguello Blvd. and down through all the stop signs on Lake St.

    I don’t live on 15th Ave. outside the gate, so I can’t put myself in their shoes. But I grew up on Lake St. and road my bike all over the Presidio. I don’t remember there being lots of traffic using the 15th Ave gate when the hospital was operating, but then 14th Ave was open as well so it might have helped. Like any place in the City, there will most likely be more traffic in the mornings and evenings as people go to and from work. At least if both gates (14th and 15th Ave) are open, it might divide the traffic load.When the Public Health. I do have a little problem though with the people on 15th Ave. insisting that the Presidio MUST close BCR. As someone mentioned, look at Lake Street now. People have to deal with the higher traffic flows than there used to be. Look, why not leave the gate open, AND open 14th Ave. and see how things work out? You can always change things later without spending a lot of money AFTER you see how it actually does unfold. Having fewer roads open means the ones that do remain will have to carry more cars.

  34. Public meeting Tuesday night about Battery Caulfield Road closure | Richmond District Blog of San Francisco (richmondsfblog.com) said (10/4/10; 12:06 pm):

    [...] I wrote back in August, the Presidio Trust is considering closing Battery Caulfield Road to automobile traffic. It’s [...]

css.php