Letter to the Editor: Blame for Collisions Misplaced

–Published in today’s Chronicle–

Blame for collisions misplaced

I am astounded by C.W. Nevius’ ignorance of the facts behind the causes of pedestrian collisions in San Francisco.

According to the Municipal Transportation Agency’s 2007 collision report, pedestrians caused one-third of all injury collisions, meaning that drivers were responsible for two out of every three pedestrian accidents.

Nevertheless, Nevius insists on blaming the victims, referring to pedestrians as “lackadaisical jaywalkers” who carelessly walk into traffic at their own expense.

San Francisco must address the epidemic of pedestrian collisions through calming car traffic so that everyone can be safe crossing the street.

DANIEL JACOBSON Stanford University

A Relic from San Francisco’s Freeway Revolt

In today’s Chronicle, there’s a great Letter to the Editor about the freeway revolt from Phillip Richardson, a San Francisco highway planner in the 1960s from Tiburon.

Thank you for the interesting article about the city taking back control of regional highways in its usual self-centered way (“Freeway Revolt set S.F.’s course,” Insight, Oct. 11).

The result transportation-wise is that there are congested streets – Oak, Fell, 19th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue – that would now be free of all through traffic and livable again. The two routes that you mention, Park-Panhandle and Golden Gate, were the only serious programs ever put forth by the state. They both were underground or depressed and would not have been noticed by city residents.

However, the Division of Highways was not set up to sell such a program, and the NIMBYs, as you call them, were totally ignorant of what they were contesting.

The result is serious regional highway disconnect and a quite reduced level of livability for the city.

PHILIP RICHARDSON,

Division of Highways planner

1961-69, Tiburon

There’s so much good stuff to dissect here.  Richardson’s core argument rests upon the belief that San Francisco’s freeway revolt was led by a group of “self centered” NIMBY residents “totally ignorant of what they were contesting.”  Richardson argues that some of San Francisco’s busiest streets–such as the 19th Ave, Lincoln, and the Panhandle–would be “free of all traffic and livable again” with “underground or depressed [freeways that] would not have been noticed by residents.”  Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Richardson fails to recognize his own self-centeredness as a suburban Marin driver, believing that San Francisco should completely change its cityscape to fit his desires.  Maybe he should actually go to Hayes Valley or the Embarcadero and ask residents if freeways made their neighborhoods more livable (I suspect the answer will be a “HELL NO!”).  The notion that residents would not even notice freeways is nonsense–imagine a depressed freeway in place of the Panhandle, or the surrounding traffic impacts of offramps and onramps along 19th Avenue.  The current situation on Fell/Oak, 19th Ave, and Lincoln is nothing near ideal, but it still beats bulldozing victorians and businesses for a traffic aquaduct (a really big traffic sewer? I tried).

Richardson’s backwards logic is a true relic of the postwar freeway boom in which central cities were expected to bend over backwards for the desires of their suburban residents.  If Richardson had his way, San Francisco would be split with freeways and even more gridlocked due to induced demand and insufficient capacity.  The most important lesson we can learn from is the arrogance implicit in Richardson’s argument–his assumption of the infallibility of the freeway plan and his dismissal of local objections as ignorant and irrational.  San Francisco’s freeway plan was not a fundamentally sound plan doomed by a poor marketing strategy; it was a selfish attempt by power-hungry suburbanites to fashion San Francisco into their own image at the expense of the city’s residents (especially the working class and Black populations).  The Freeway Revolt was one of the most pivitol moments in San Francisco’s history and the history of urban planning as a whole.  Without it, San Francisco would be an awful city to live in.

What Transit Looked Like in 1993

Recently, I ran across an old 1993 copy of Bart’s “Guide to Public Transportation From Bart” buried in a closet in my house.  I would have been three years old at the time this map was published, so I can’t exactly bring much experience to the table as to what transit was like in 1993.  But, from a 2009 perspective, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in these maps–AC Transit only ran four Transbay routes, Bart still had commuter buses, and transit agencies actually had money and ran a lot more bus routes.  It’s also notable that there is hardly any mention of Caltrain, the Peninsula, and the South Bay.

Check out the links below to big scans of the maps:

San Francisco

Downtown San Francisco

Oakland-Alameda

Richmond-Berkeley

Eastern Contra Costa/Alameda Counties

(For 2009 maps, click here for AC Transit, here for Muni, and here for Bart)

An old Bart commuter bus, probably one of the most underrated Bart programs.

16 years later, how far have we come, and how far do we still have to go?

Bart has spent a whole lot of money on its Dublin-Pleasanton, North Concord/Pittsburg-Bay Point, and SFO/Millbrae extensions, but these extensions have really not had much of an effect on promoting transit-oriented development or improving ridership–the Dublin-Pleasanton station has attracted a decent number of riders, but required a costly 12.5 mile extension for just two stations, North Concord/Martinez, San Bruno, and South San Francisco make up three of the five lowest ridership stations in the Bart system (under 3,000 daily riders), and Millbrae has attracted only 25% (4,150) of its projected 16,500 riders by 2010.  Meanwhile, some of the fastest growing stations in the Bart system in the last decade–MacArthur, Lake Merritt, 16th & Mission, and Balboa Park–have received hardly any investment for much-needed capacity and station access improvements, and Bart’s stations in Downtown San Francisco have continued to be at capacity with no signs of relief.  No infill stations have been built within the gaps in the urban core, and system compatibility has worsened (the guide explains how Bart riders get a 25 cent transfer credit to cover half of most bus agencies 50 cent fare; 16 years later, the transfer credit remains 25 cents while fares have skyrocketed to $2).

It’s interesting to note that after over a decade, Bart is considering getting back into the commuter bus business as a cheaper alternative to the Livermore and eBart extensions.  It seems like Bart is slowly realizing that it can’t just burn money anymore like it has the past 15 years, and in this disastrous financial environment, it is going to have to reconsider some of its worst cost-benefit projects (it might be too late for the OAC, however).  One thing that Bart does have going for itself is the branding, so getting back into the commuter bus business with nice, wifi-enabled buses could really be a great asset for Bay Area transit.

In the end, while transit agencies in 1993 had a lot more money for more bus routes and big extensions, we really didn’t get a whole lot out of the past 16 years.  Nevertheless, we can count on these maps looking a whole lot different 16 years from now in 2025, with high speed rail, Caltrain electrification, East Bay BRT, Geary and Van Ness BRT, Smart, Bart to San Jose (if built by 2025?), and numerous other projects which will better tie in the Peninsula and the South Bay into the rest of the Bay Area.  I think we have also seen a shift in transportation planning from access to performance, given the emphasis now on capturing a greater mode share and improving efficiency versus serving the greatest land area.  While this shift has improved overall service, it hasn’t been great for low-density, transit-dependent, low-income communities (see Richmond’s transit network in 1993 vs. 2009).

Anyway, looking through these maps was an insightful window into the past, and I highly recommend that you check them out.  Enjoy!

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

Old Oakland could use a few tips from Denver's Laramier Square (above)

[The conclusion of a series on urban design in Colorado]

Over the past two weeks I’ve looked at a number of innovative urban planning policies in Colorado, and how these policies have help fostered healthier, more vibrant cities.  Now I’m going to switch back to the Bay Area and look at what we can learn from Colorado.  Below are five lessons that the Bay Area can take away from Colorado:

Lesson 1: Invest in Pedestrians

Across Colorado you’ll find great pedestrian infrastructure–be it Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall or Denver’s artistic pedestrian bridges–but the same cannot be said for the Bay Area.  Palo Alto’s University Avenue and Berkeley’s Center Street are logical starting points when it comes to pedestrian malls–both have been the subject of recent proposals for a Boulder-esque treatments due to their popular commercial districts and their current poor handling of cars, bikes, and pedestrians.  San Francisco has also began to give trial runs for temporary pedestrian plazas, and there’s no reason a pedestrian mall couldn’t work in the Mission or North Beach as well.  One place where I cannot see a pedestrian mall working is Downtown Oakland (I wouldn’t really consider City Center a true pedestrian mall) but half-malls on excessively wide streets could be just as good.  Pedestrian malls can turn good commercial districts into regional destinations and create stronger, more exciting neighborhoods.

A half-pedestrian mall in Denver's LoDo district. Two of the four lanes on this street were converted to pedestrian space with a negligible effect on traffic.

Lesson 2: Why Not Experiment with [Free] Transit Malls?

Denver’s 1.2 mile 16th St. Transit Mall generates a whopping 63,000 daily riders and 6% of Denver’s sales tax revenue (tell that to SF merchants who will try to kill a project over a single parking space).  A car-free Market Street with a free shuttle/free transit zone would do wonders for mobility in Downtown San Francisco, and a SoMa and perhaps a Chinatown/Union Square Transit Mall could save the city billions of dollars.  Rather than the 2 billion dollar Central Subway, a SoMa Transit Mall provide a good connection betwen Caltrain and Downtown while encouraging more economic investment at as much as 1/8th of the cost.  If extended to Chinatown and North Beach, San Francisco could have 100,000 people riding on the mall daily.  Obviously, there would be a lot of street access issues that would have to be dealt with, but when the alternative is 2 billion dollars, Denver’s option looks pretty good.

View Larger Map

Lesson 3: Activity is Contagious

Colorado’s culture of activity is a self-propagating phenomenon that is drawing more and more people toward biking and walking in their daily lives.  Coloradoans have come to expect walkable, bikeable neighborhoods with nice street trees and plenty of recreational opportunities, and the “if you build it, they will come” effect holds true when you look at the enormous ridership return experienced by Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver after their moderate investments in bicycle infrastructure.  Bay Area cities need to pursue comprehensive bicycle networks that at least makes every non-arterial street attractive for bicycling.  This means 90% of the streets in Berkeley should have Fort Collins’ “bicycle friendly street” signs, and Oakland should look to turn excess road capacity in Downtown and the entire city into new wide bike lanes.

Lesson 4: Redevelopment Needs a Holistic Approach

The reinvestment and redevelopment of LoDo, Central Platte Valley, and other areas in Denver have been great succeses because of the comprehensive approach taken by the city of Denver and developers.  These areas are truly pedestrian oriented, creating a true sense of place that is essential for any good neighborhood.  If you give people a reason to walk around and enjoy their neighborhood, they will walk around and enjoy it.  If you use the bottom floor for a parking garage, as is the common practice in many new Oakland, Emeryville, and San Francisco developments, then people will not be as active, neighborhoods will not be as safe, and cities will not be as vibrant.

Lesson 5: Be Bold

Bay Area cities are very conservative when it comes to urban planning, balking at any large-scale proposal which would create transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented streets.  30 years ago, Denver and Oakland would have looked one in the same, but Denver’s ability (as well as Fort Collins’ and Boulder’s abilities) to revitalize its downtown in the last 30 years has push it far ahead.  What makes Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins successful is the bold choices they’ve made (and continue to make) when it comes to reclaiming streets from cars and pursuing projects which put the neighborhood before the driver.   This is not a matter of advocating change for the sake of change–there are real issues at stake and our decisions to stick to the status quo costing us billions and billions of dollars.  Bart to San Jose (7+ billion), the Central Subway (almost 2 billion), the Oakland Airport Connector (half a billion), and a multitude of other projects of questionable merit could be done for a fraction of the cost if we made innovative choices to use more cost-effective technology (such as a functional light rail or commuter rail system) or dedicate a small amount of streetspace to transit.

Lastly, consider this:

For 6.2 billion dollars, Denver will revolutionize its transit system with 140 miles of new light rail, commuter rail, and BRT by 2015.  In comparison, Bart will spend more money on its 16 mile San Jose extension alone, which will not be completed until after 2025.  Something has to change in Bay Area transit planning.  We are being ripped off.

Conclusion:

Colorado today is a truly unique laboratory for innovative policies in urban planning.  While Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins tend to not get much credit for their urbanism, I hope that this series has given their efforts a little justice.  I strongly recommend visiting these cities to see the potential of bicycling, pedestrian malls, nature, and redevelopment can have.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

And more pictures at the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr

Post Office Closures Hurt Communities

With the U.S. Postal Service slated to close post offices across the country due to struggling business in this economy, communities across the nation will lose an integral local institution which brings neighbors together and contributes to the vibrancy of neighborhood business districts.  These closures will particularly affect my hometown of Richmond, in which four of the six Post Offices are designated for closure, including the branch in my neighborhood.  Of the Post Offices that will remain open, one is the main office in central Richmond (which will receive the vast majority of users), while the other is in the suburban Hilltop area of northern Richmond. I can only speculate about the reasons behind the disproportionate number of closures in Richmond– as a working-class, minority-majority city that has already sufferred decades of disinvestment, it is probably an easier target than larger, wealthier cities such as Concord, Fremont, and Hayward that will only have two Post Offices closed apiece.  One thing is certain: in a city that is caught in a perpetual struggle to build stable business districts and a true sense of community, losing four neighborhood anchors and forcing residents to drive to a single overcrowded facility in the center of the city is the last thing Richmond needs.  I have real sympathy for anyone out there who might lose their neighborhood Post Office.

A History of Bayview-Hunters Point, Part 3: Redevelopment or Renewal

The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Candlestick Point will be redeveloped into two new neighborhoods over the next 10-15 years, adding a minimum of 25,000 new residents

Walking down Third Street in Bayview, one cannot help but notice the rapid changes occuring–construction of new apartments and the opening of new businesses line the streets–yet, this is only the beginning for Bayview-Hunters Point.  After decades of disinvestment that left Bayview-Hunters Point an impoverished ghetto, two current projects—the Third Street light rail line and the Hunters Point/Candlestick Point Redevelopment projects—are poised to completely remake the district.

The relatively-new T-Third Muni Metro line along Third St.

Opened in 2007, the T-Third Street Muni Metro line has brought much-needed transit access to Bayview-Hunters Point, re-integrating the district with the rest of the city and inducing residential and commercial development along the corridor.  The T-Third line has provided an excellent opportunity for smart growth and economic revitilization in Bayview and finally shows that City Hall is beginning to take notice of Bayview-Hunters Point.

Condos under construction in Bayview

This process of reintegration and reinvestment will be augmented by the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point stadium area.  Encompassing nearly 3% of San Francisco’s total land area, the Shipyard and stadium redevelopment is projected to bring at least 10,500 new residential units to Bayview-Hunters Point with 1/3 below market rate, likely amounting to 25,000 new residents over the next decade (and potentially more if/when the 49ers move to Santa Clara).  While these projects generally follow sound urbanist and smart growth principles and will expedite the environmental cleanup of the area, many residents view this transformation as the final attempt to push Black and low-income residents out of San Francisco.

Even before the latest redevelopment, San Francisco’s Black population has been decreasing at an alarming rate, a phenomonon that many label the “Black Exodus.”  San Francisco’s Black population has decreased 46% since 1970, from 96,018 to 51,795 (2007 ACS), in large part due to urban renewal, rising cost of living, and the opening of the suburbs to Blacks as housing discrimination decreased.  While cities like Richmond, Oakland, and East Palo Alto, and more recently Vallejo, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Stockton have seen their Black populations soar, San Francisco now has a lower proportion of Blacks than cities with traditionally low Black populations such as Seattle, Portland, and San Diego.  This general trend is also true for Bayview-Hunters Point, which has seen its Black population decrease 22% since 1970, and Blacks currently account for less than half of the population.

Once again, a look at racial trends in Bayview-Hunters Point. Notice the recent decline in the district's Black popluation coupled with a large increase in the Asian/Pacific Islander population.

Some hope still exists in preventing wholescale gentrification and preserving the diversity and Black character of Bayview-Hunters Point.  Recently, Bayview-Hunters Point has been targeted for reindustrialization as “green industries” move into the area–including the recycling, biodiesel, and solar panel industries.  In addition, Hunters View, one of the worst housing projects in Hunters Point, just received 6 million dollars from the Stimulus package to finally be torn down and completely redeveloped, going from 250 public housing units to 800 mixed-income units.  In general, the city has tried to reach out to the community in the redevelopment process and ensure the availability of affordable housing, but these efforts have not healed the anti-government sentiments in the district.

Bayview-Hunters Point is San Francisco's new center for "Green Jobs"

"Were you displaced from Bayview or Fillmore in the 1960s and 1970s? You may qualify for buyers priority" -SF Housing Development Corporation

"No government money of any kind built or maintains this facility" -Community Awareness in Action, conveneintly located next to Bayview Liquors

All in all, this project left me feeling conflicted.  On the one hand, Bayview-Hunters Point could very well add 35,000-45,000 new residents by 2030 in an environmentally-friendly and energy-conscious manner.  On the other hand, it will without question be the most changed district in San Francisco, and gentrification will inevitably occur.  Situations like this pose some of the most complex and conflicting choices for me as someone who supports infill projects and Smart Growth while at the same time wanting to aid neglected low-income communities in economic development while preventing gentrification.  But then again, the only thing that’s been constant in Bayview-Hunters Point the past 100 years is change.  Hopefully, redevelopment will not be as destructive as postwar urban renewal, and finally stabilize the district while allowing it to remain diverse and affordable.  Whether or not this can actually occur is yet to be seen.

Don’t be afraid to read my paper!

A History of Bayview-Hunters Point, Part 2: Crime, Contamination, and Crisis

The decommissioning of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 1974 signified the collapse of the economic monoculture which the Navy had imposed upon Bayview-Hunters Point, resulting in widespread unemployment and poverty.  Unemployment in the district is consistently the highest in San Francisco, peaking at 13.3% in the 1990 census (although I’d speculate that the current figure is even higher).  In addition, in tract 231.03, which contains the Hunters Point housing projects and is 74% Black, unemployment in the 2000 census was a whopping 22.2%, with 53.4% of the population beneath the poverty level and 79.3% classified as “poor or struggling” by having an income less than two times the poverty level.  Even more concerning, this tract has San Francisco’s highest concentration of children, with 44% of the population under 18 (compared with 14.6% in SF as a whole), yet 57.6 of households have no father present.  Granted, Bayview-Hunters Point is an extremely diverse district, with a sizeable base of middle class homeowners, but exploring the Hunters Point housing projects makes you feel like you’re in a Third-World country, even though you’re just minutes away from wealthy districts such as Bernal Heights.

The layers of isolation of the Hunters Point housing projects--steep terrain, lack of traditional street grid, poor sidewalks, and lack of public transportation access--all help to perpetuate the highest rate of unemployment in San Francisco 22% (2000 Census)

A number of wartime housing projects are now abandoned, yet a large number of San Franciscans still remain trapped in this terrible public housing.

Many early attempts were made to encourage reinvestment in Bayview-Hunters Point even before the Shipyard’s closure, but ultimately these measures failed.  In the late 1960s, Mayor Joseph Alioto designated Bayview-Hunters Point to participate in the Model Cities program to develop a community-based redevelopment plan to rehabilitate dilapidated housing projects, create new community facilities, and attract new business to the area.  However, Mayor Alioto failed to obtain adequate funding, and the proposal died.  Similarly, in the early 1980s, Mayor Dianne Feinstein sought to reinvigorate the Naval Shipyard and attract investment to the area by stationing the USS Missouri there and turining it into a tourist attraction, but this plan also failed.  Therefore, San Francisco government provided little assistance to clean up the economic mess that the Navy left behind.

In addition to an economic mess, the Navy left behind an environmental mess that only recently has started to be cleaned up.  The district is littered with toxic waste, including a filthy power plant, one of California’s largest radioactive sites (the National Radiological Defense Laboratory), and of course the highly polluted shipyard.  It’s no coincidence that Bayview-Hunters Point has the highest infant mortality rate in California, as well as an extremely high rate of athsma and cancer.  While these examples of environmental racism were only a small part of my research, it could make up an entire project in itself.

35 years after its closure, the Naval Shipyard remains a contaminated ghost town

As if the unemployment, poverty, disinvestment, and contamination weren’t enough, since the 1980s Bayview-Hunters Point has been overrun with gangs, drugs, and violence.  With extreme isolation and few other opportunities, youth in Bayview-Hunters Point often turn to gangs and crime and cannot escape the culture of poverty and segregation which has consumed the area.  The district has one of the highest crime rates in San Francisco, and despite having less than 5% of San Francisco’s population, the district consistently accounts for 20-30% of San Francisco’s homicides, peaking at 50% in 2004.  A two year gang rivalry in 2000-2001 resulted in 20 homicides alone.

Bayview-Hunters Point has suffered from decades of crime, poverty, and disinvestment.  Yet, demographic changes, combined with redevelopment, are poised to completely change the district.