West Portal Notebook
Public discord overshadowed by SFMTA’s unanimous Approval of West Portal Project
• • • • • • • • • • August 8, 2014 • • • • • • • • • •
West Portal merchants, residents, and long-time frequenters have weighed in for months on the City’s plan to institute significant new traffic regulations and barriers primarily at the mouth of the MUNI station at the north end of West Portal Ave, otherwise known as the “horseshoe.” Over this period, it seemed the SFMTA and Supervisor Myrna Melgar were taking steps to incorporate community feedback about different renditions of the plan—even getting input from the various West Portal committees and residents about which plan they’d find the most agreeable (this in the face of the many residents who thought radical change was unnecessary, and that the installation of a stoplight and stop signs at the Ulloa St. and West Portal Ave. would solve existing problems). Many were surprised to hear that the SFMTA Board of Directors would hold their final hearing on July 16th – which was closed to the public (with the exception of a few) – before taking a final vote on whether or not to approve the plan. Several days after the hearing, the Board announced that the plan had been approved, despite the manifest wishes of the majority of West Portal residents and merchants.
The meeting, scheduled for 1 p.m. on Tuesday, July 16th, 2024, was attended by all the seven Board directors: Chair Amanda Eaken; Vice-Chair Stephanie Cajina; Director Steve Heminger; Director Dominica Henderson; Director Fiona Hinze; and Director Janet Tarlov. (Most of the directors have current and previous experience working in other city departments.) The Board had previously received a recommendation from the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), a committee of 15 members appointed by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, to adopt the final draft of the West Portal Project plan, as well as a request for a pilot study to see how transit, safety, and economic factors would be impacted. Their recommendation was submitted to the SFMTA Board on July 11th, even though no pre-project studies on traffic conditions and pedestrian safety had been conducted to support it.
There were several points of criticism during public comment about the CAC’s process when refining the final design for the West Portal Project. A conspicuous point—only one West Portal business owner sat on the committee. West Portal resident Alan Burradell called this fact “outrageous…[since] the business community is what’s going to be impacted most by the changes.” The lone dissenting vote on the CAC opposed to the final plan was a business owner because adequate studieshad not been done on potential community impacts before implementing changes. A West Portal business owner and resident, Pat Dunbar, stressed that the “whole process has been done too quickly,” especially as “a lot of the new elements were only announced today.” She asked a question that was repeated by many other commenters: “Why now?” .
Since the news of the project came out, the majority opinion appeared very publicly against SFMTA interference in the corridor. However, observing the hearing, public opinion on the issue was split right down the middle.”
Following comments about the CAC’s course of action was a detailed slide presentation by Liz Brissol, the Long-Range Transit Corridor Planning Manager for the SFMTA, outlining the proposed changes for the project, including the features not shown on the “Final Design” that was published on June 28th. That drew some comments and questions from the Board and public commenters; Ms. Brissol said the changes were based on community feedback and were “more holistic”—considering present traffic needs and future traffic flow changes on the streets adjacent to West Portal Ave.
The new additions were innocuous primarily, like removing parking spaces, painting safety zones and additional speed bumps on adjacent streets like Wawona or removing the 57-bus stop on the north side of Vicente and to the west of West Portal Ave. (due to low ridership). But one new traffic redirection drew a stronger reaction: drivers going south on West Portal Ave. will no longer be allowed to make left turns at the West Portal Ave. and Vicente St. intersection. The left-turn restriction was added in response to community feedback indicating the intersection was particularly dangerous. This restriction was a mitigation effort to reduce the high number of pedestrian and vehicle accidents at West Portal Ave. and Vicente St.
Multiple public commenters offered opinions and data about the necessity of all the proposed changes and the need to significantly change traffic flow at the Ulloa and West Portal intersection, as well as the conversion of Lenox Way from a two-way to a one-way street (heading southbound down to Ulloa St., the existing right-turn only regulation will be enhanced with painted lines). Comments ranged from support for the original plan with some minor traffic guidance at that intersection to requests that the SFMTA install long-requested stoplights and stop signs at Ulloa and West Portal and abandon any significant re-design. It wasn’t long before it was evident that there were two camps, for and against, with only a few landing in the middle, lauding the final re-design.
On the one side, commenters repeatedly spoke about how they felt that, as it stands now, the West Portal and Ulloa intersection seems wildly unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. It fails to take advantage of the massive number of MUNI riders passing through West Portal every day.Wit Bornheimer advocated for more extended transit-only lanes and restricting vehicles from crossing or turning at the West Portal and Ulloa intersection, claiming that such action would increase SFMTA ridership. It was pointed out that West Portal currently fails to take advantage of the large number of daily MUNI riders that pass through the neighborhood, but increased foot traffic would very likely create more business for West Portal merchants, bringing the corridor’s financial prosperity back up to pre-pandemic levels. Another speaker thought that the SFMTA should implement that plan and, preferably, “measures that have actual teeth to them.” Yet a third commenter, Bruce Halperin, who described himself as a frequent MUNI rider, spoke about how he “often takes MUNI through and to West Portal and feels threatened by the chaos of cars outside the station.”
Other pro-plan speakers continued; Fran Taylor — who admitted that she’s a resident of the Mission, not West Portal — compared the community backlash and West Portal merchants’ anxiety about loss of foot traffic to the reaction of the Bernal Heights businesses to the re-design of Cesar Chavez St. She pointed out that “their fears never came to pass” and that business owners did not see a drop in pedestrians frequenting their stores. Several other commenters added to her statement by asserting that the re-design (preferably the original plan) would benefit business owners because it would make it safer, encouraging more pedestrians to explore the West Portal corridor.
The other half of the speakers were against implementing the West Portal Project, some citing the return of the L Taraval and West Portal Elementary as unknown factors and, therefore, reasons to delay. Others cited the SFMTA’s data, which, they said, disproves the need for changes (except the installation of a stoplight and stop sign at the horseshoe). Several brought up how they had never felt unsafe on West Portal, even after years of living in the neighborhood. A lifelong West Portal resident, Toni Kylie, testified that she had walked the West Portal corridor since she was in grammar school and only felt unsafe after the Vicente stoplight swas installed. She noted that West Portal “is not a city thoroughfare, this is where people who live there drive!” adding that the March 16th tragedy could have happened anywhere. She made her final comment as time ran out, drawing a chuckle from the rest of the room: “Oh, and another thing, the polka dots on the horseshoe… Please!”
Multiple speakers brought up concerns about how implementing transit-only lanes would not only impact drivers but could be the cause of more collisions. Karl Aguilar, co-owner and business partner of Papenhausen Hardware, made the point that delivery trucks that must double park would force cars into transit-only lanes anyway, “creating more stress on drivers and more potential collisions between vehicles and other modes of transportation.” Former West Portal resident William Plagelhoffer added his concern that restricting westbound through traffic on Ulloa St. “would cause a dangerous situation where the cars and the MUNI would be pointing at each other,” upping the odds for later collisions.
Commenters representing the Lenox Way residents made the forceful points that not one resident had approved the redirection throughout several public meetings regarding the Lenox southbound one-way. Further, making the street one-way would create a nightmare for parents dropping their kids off at school, considering that the one-way, right-turn only traffic flow would cut street access in half. Several calls echoed the request to delay the implementation of the project until school is back in session to ensure a more realistic assessment of traffic impacts. One commenter (and Board director, later on) questioned why any change to Lenox Way was necessary in the first place, considering that there is no data or justification for modifications. Residents seemed unsatisfied that theSFMTA never justified the “why” of it all.
The rhetoric escalated as the meeting progressed. One man opined that an angry mob took over an SFMTA “open house” concerning the West Portal Project. In contrast, another young man equated disapproval of the West Portal Project as anti-progressive. One woman stated that San Franciscans tend to be smug and look down on gun owners for loving their guns even as San Franciscans love their cars and that “the red states are laughing at us,” a proclamation that brought baffled expressions to several faces. A fourth commenter bluntly accused Supervisor Melgar of being a bald-faced liar; yet another questioned the intentions and integrity of the SFMTA, asking when they would “allow San Franciscans their freedom?” Somehow, almost everyone seemed to have feelings of disappointment and frustration directed towards the SFMTA and their actions, some criticizing them for watering down safety measures at the first complaint by community merchants, thereby rendering any action useless, and others criticizing them for essentially sticking their noses where they didn’t belong and creating solutions for nonexistent problems.
In general, the public seemed discomfited, yet even considering that something was a tad strange about the hearing—the number of pro-project and anti-project commenters was significantly out of proportion with the number of West Portal residents and business owners who advocated for and against changes. Since the news of the project came out, the majority opinion appeared very publicly against SFMTA interference in the corridor. However, observing the hearing, public opinion on the issue was split right down the middle.
By the conclusion of the issue, all the commenters had made their arguments and opinions (mostly) clear. Many expressed reasons for or against the project. This was made evident in previous meetings, newspaper articles, letters, and emails to Supervisor Melgar and the SFMTA; now, laid out for the SFMTA Board of Directors, the only thing left for the public to do was wait for the verdict. The Board released a statement several days later confirming that they had unanimously approved the final draft of the project as well as the request for a trial period during which traffic and economic studies would commence.
Beginning August 5th, Lenox Way became a one-way street, and the SFMTA will begin implementing the other elements of the re-design.
Maura Corkery is a reporter living on the West side.
August 8, 2024
