Install photovoltaic capacity to generate “green” hydrogen: Install multiple PV modules at its Central Maintenance Facility in Hayward. Combined with AC Transit’s already-installed solar capacity, this solar installation will produce the renewable electricity equivalent to what will be required to produce 180 kg/day of “green” hydrogen.

Separately, the FTA also announced that the Central Subway has received a $9.9 million grant, which will the SFMTA will apply toward carrying out further design of the T-Third Street light rail extension from 4th & King, through South of Market to Chinatown. The federal government will ultimately supply roughly $950 million toward this project (about 60% of  the $1.57 billion that is now believed will be the total cost). To date, the Central Subway has received $66 million of federal New Starts funding.

Finally, no hard cash, but some good news, for the Transbay Transit Center. The most recent dispute between the TJPA and the CHSRA about where high-speed rail should terminate in San Francisco may have jeopardized our chance to secure a $400 million high-speed rail discretionary grant to build to the Transbay subway station box, but that is not the only piece of federal funding that the TJPA has sought. Since long before the stimulus plan, the TJPA planned to pursue a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan as one of many sources of money for the transit center. (The TIFIA loan is the same funding mechanism that BART will use so that it can build everyone’s favorite transit project, the Oakland Airport Connector. This recent post on the OAC is an illustrative cross-reference for those who delight in the minutiae of TIFIA.) Anyway, in October 2008, the TJPA applied for a $171 million TIFIA loan, which would cover a little over 14% of the capital costs for the first phase of this two-phase, $4.2 billion project. And just last week, the Credit Council unanimously recommended approval of the $171 million TIFIA loan. The Secretary of Transportation will produce a term sheet and loan agreement, which the TJPA Board is expected to approve this November.

So what’s the beef now? Rather than employ the downtown extension alignment and station location previously adopted by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the CHSRA would instead like to override the TJPA’s previous efforts and study alternative locations for the San Francisco terminus in its project-level EIR/EIS for the San Francisco-San Jose segment. In particular, the CHSRA has set its sight on another terminal to accommodate its exaggerated capacity requirements — the Beale Street terminal, situated parallel to Beale Street, and stretching roughly from Mission Street to Harrison Street. But this is an alternative that was resurrected from the dead. In the 1990s, a handful of potential Caltrain downtown extension alignments were considered. Most of those, including alignments leading to a Beale Street terminal, were rejected as undesirable or infeasible:

Rejected DTX alternative alignments. Courtesy of TJPA.

California has submitted project requests to the U.S. Department of Transportation, including a $400 million request that, if granted, would allow the Transbay Transit Center’s train box to be excavated sooner rather than later, using a “bottom up” construction approach. Transbay, by virtue of its completed environmental documents, is classified as a “ready-to-go” project, eligible for a Track 1 high-speed rail stimulus grant. In just a few weeks, the Federal Railroad Administration will announce the Track 1 projects that it has selected for grants.

On the surface, the CHSRA’s interest in the Beale Street alternative appears to reflect the simple desire to comply with a legal opinion it has obtained (endorsed by Gensler Architects), which stands for the proposition that Transbay will have too few platform tracks, and that the CHSRA is legally required to study the Beale Street alternative. But it does not seem coincidental that the agency’s temper — presumably largely fueled by, or embodied in, its ever-colorful former chairman, Quentin Kopp — flares up at the exact points in time when the TJPA competes with the CHSRA for access to new pots of funding that are being made available for high-speed rail. In November 2008, it was the Proposition 1A bond, and now, it’s the high-speed rail stimulus funding. Given that the FRA will announce its Track 1 selections in the next few weeks, it is perhaps the near-term implication of the legal opinion that explains why the CHSRA has resurrected the Beale Street terminal at this time.

Californians observing this process, as well as most government agencies, believe that the location of San Francisco’s rail terminal has been finalized. The DTX alignment adopted by the TJPA is, after all, long-standing, and it is supported by a Record of Decision from the Federal Transit Administration. But if the CHSRA can introduce a fog of uncertainty by evincing interest in (and carrying out subsequent environmental review of) the Beale Street terminal, then the Transbay Transit Center will lose its air of shovel-readiness and will no longer be a promising candidate for stimulus funds. What the FRA will see is that two key agencies, the TJPA and the CHSRA, cannot even agree on the answer to a simple question like where the shovels should begin digging. That strikes a chord of administrative dissonance, and it may leave the FRA with the impression that Transbay is not ready for prime time. Why, then, would the FRA dignify it with a handsome $400 million award? California’s HSR project has a high profile and is poised to become a national model. If Transbay were not awarded a grant, then surely, given the importance of California HSR, other components of California’s application falling more directly under the CHSRA’s purview would be in a better position to receive funding instead.

And for how much longer must we endure Quentin Kopp’s anti-Transbay/DTX agenda? California voters, when passing Proposition 1A in November 2008, explicitly authorized a high-speed rail line whose northern terminus is the Transbay Transit Center. A Beale Street terminal might be near Transbay; but the length of its platforms would lie orthogonal to the length of the bus station, and it would not strictly be located in Transbay, as called for by voters. The CHSRA’s essentially obstructionist reopening of alternatives also demonstrates an utter lack of respect for a years-long land use planning effort in San Francisco. The Planning Department’s work to date strives to guide the city through the complex process of transforming uniquely valuable, downtown-adjacent former freeway parcels into a living, breathing neighborhood. But that process has operated under the assumption that a significant rail and bus transit hub would eventually be built at Transbay.

Let’s allow decade-old rejected alternatives to rest in peace. San Franciscans, and a majority of Californians, have supported a high-speed train project terminating at Transbay. I do not want to sweep under the carpet, so to speak, the Transit Center’s design flaws. Those are real, albeit distinct from the CHSRA’s pet complaints; and they would ideally be vigorously addressed, rather than weakly justified. But the CHSRA’s last-minute resurrection of Beale Street does a disservice to the high-speed train project it purports to manage. If you happen to be interested in maximizing our chance of securing $400 million of ARRA federal stimulus funds for the Transbay train box — to construct the station from the bottom-up, and to extend commuter and high-speed rail service downtown, preferably within our lifetimes — then it wouldn’t hurt to mention that to the Governor’s office, which will soon send a letter about California’s high-speed rail priorities to Secretary Ray LaHood.

In several places, the Workplan pledges its support of current efforts to plan and build mixed-use transit-oriented development throughout the region — to encourage transit use, decrease congestion, curb emissions, shorten commutes, and to ensure that there is sufficient housing at all income levels, as allocated by ABAG; major projects like Mission Bay and Bay Meadows were specifically highlighted. The Workplan also briefly discusses NSPs as a tool to stabilize areas hit especially hard by foreclosures. Meanwhile, the transportation section does not really contain any surprises. MTC’s efforts on the stimulus (which we discussed previously) are included in the Workplan, along with various pedestrian/streetscape Transportation Enhancements projects, and some HOV projects; also included are transportation improvements that upgrade trade links, e.g. Port of Oakland and the Capitol Corridor. In anticipation of the $8 billion of discretionary competitive grants set aside for national high-speed rail projects, the proposal includes $3.4 billion worth of projects that fall under the heading of Caltrain/high-speed rail prep, including: positive train control (due by 2015), electrification (which, after years of endless delay, is now declared to be of “highest importance”), grade separation at San Bruno Station, $500 million for redesign and expansion of San Jose Diridon Station, and $400 million for the train box at the Transbay Transit Center.

TTC cross-section; courtesy of TJPA (larger version here).

In related news, this week the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board is expected to approve a resolution that will include the below-grade levels in the detailed Design Development of Phase 1 of the Transit Center. This resolution, which will override TJPA’s previous “top down” strategy, advances design and construction of the train box and the support columns onto the Transit Center’s timeline (although the finishes, like the platforms and track, will be deferred to Phase 2). One stated reason for moving the train box forward is everyone’s favorite reason these days: using construction projects as opportunities to stimulate job creation during an economic downturn. As usual, though, the rationale really boils down to time and money, neither of which are in abundant supply. Although shifting the train box in to Phase 1 would require the additional $400 million upfront, the train box would at least be eligible for ARRA stimulus high-speed rail grant money. And the shift is estimated to save $100 million over the course of construction, speed up the construction schedule, and reduce disruptive impacts by avoiding excavation under an at least partly completed bus terminal. Focusing on this one design alternative (instead of carrying both forward) will save about four months and $12 million. Building the train box in Phase 1 will ease and improve waterproofing. It will also permit mechanical rooms, transformers, and other necessities to be located below grade, on the concourse mezzanine level, which leaves more space above ground for retail and circulation.

During the discussion at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission over how to allocate Bay Area transportation stimulus funds, MTC proposed applying for $195-$400 million of funds to build the train box at the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. This money would come from the $8 billion of high-speed rail grant money that was ultimately integrated into the final stimulus bill. Then, the California High-Speed Rail Authority made public its concerns that the Transbay Transit Center, as currently designed, would be inadequate to satisfy its new needs for 12 trains per hour, increased from six trains, for each of the six peak hours everyday. Under the current plan for the Transbay station, tracks would transition underground west of 4th Street, leading to a new subway station at 4th and Townsend, where Caltrain currently terminates. A three track tunnel would then curve off Townsend and north onto 2nd Street, turning once more and splaying out to a six track throat leading to the Transbay underground rail station. The station had been planned to include three island platforms and six platform tracks: two tracks for Caltrain, and four for high-speed rail. According to ridership projections, 2030 Transbay ridership for Caltrain might be 31,500 and 4th/King Caltrain ridership at 17,100. Daily high-speed rail ridership at Transbay by 2030 was projected to be in the vicinity of 26,500.

The basic problem is a perceived discrepancy between the CHSRA’s ridership projections and an as-yet unrevealed operational plan that would require 12 trains per hour and 8-10 platform tracks, rather than four. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority will need a detailed explanation from CHSRA justifying its demand for extra capacity. But what would it take to build more tracks? To avoid the cost of additional right of way acquisition, the TJPA considered a design which would accommodate six additional tracks for high-speed rail on a third level underneath the currently planned platform level. (The above image depicts the concourse mezzanine and the single planned platform level.) The extra cost of such a change would be at least $1 billion: $500 million for the expanded train box and $500 million extra for the actual rail extension — and that even lowballs it, because it assumes early construction of the expanded train box. Is there a demonstrated need for the extra capacity, that would justify somehow scraping together even more funding for Transbay? In Tokyo, 13 trains per hour at peak time for the Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen line use just six platform tracks. But that’s for a line that carries 145 million passengers, which exceeds CHSRA’s projections even at full-system buildout — and that’s in a country whose current population is at least double California’s projected population by the year 2050. The TJPA also considered a worst-case scenario with a higher Transbay ridership (12.7 million annual riders), in which an especially large number of passengers happened to concentrate on peak hour trips. But even in that worst-case scenario, combining the CHSRA’s ridership projections with its new alleged need for increased peak capacity, the trains would only be 12-43% full at the newly increased service levels. Note that there are still other design options that were once considered — including tail tracks and an underground track loop — which would improve the flow of trains in and out of the station. And in the long, long, term, beyond 2030? An additional tube under the Bay has long been discussed in hushed tones, even though it is not yet being planned outright. If an additional tube contained four tracks (with two broad gauge tracks for BART, and two standard gauge tracks for intercity and high-speed rail), it would dramatically increase pinched transbay capacity. It would open up new possibilities for regional connectivity, and it would finally integrate Oakland and the East Bay directly into the state’s high-speed rail network. It would also mean that trains would run through Transbay, rather than terminating there, which would put less stress on that station.

According to the most recent estimates, the Bay Area will receive approximately $490 million of transportation stimulus money, which MTC has discretion to allocate within defined categories. $340 million are FTA transit formula funds pursuant to Section 5307/5309, and $150 million are FHWA/Surface Transportation Program funds.

Of the $340 million for transit, $270 million will be allocated to operators for transit rehabilitation: AC Transit ($25.7 million), BART ($65.3 million), Caltrain ($10.3 million), Golden Gate ($9.4 million), SFMTA ($67.2 million), SamTrans ($7.9 million), VTA ($47.2 million), and $36.4 million for the smaller transit operators.

Rendering of Coliseum BART station; courtesy of BART.

And as for the rest of the FTA funds? MTC plans to allocate the remaining $70 million to the Oakland Airport Connector. In November 2000, Alameda County voters approved by an overwhelming 81.47% Measure B, a 1/2-percent sales tax for transportation that rejuvenated 1986 Measure B. The proceeds from 2000 Measure B were to be allocated to many projects, including highways, BART to Warm Springs, ACE improvements, and the Oakland Airport Connector: a 3.2-mile automated guideway transit system that would connect Oakland International Airport to Coliseum BART, the closest BART station; this function is currently filled by AirBART shuttle buses. The people mover, which would complete the trip between BART and the Airport in under ten minutes, is expected to increase transit share to the Airport — to about 13% (13,540 daily riders), increased from 9% in 2007 — and it could accommodate any future market growth at the Airport. And yet, while it seems like it would be a good idea to improve BART access to Oakland Airport, this particular project is in a sickly state. The cost has ballooned to $529 million, and a large funding gap remains. The project was intended to be a public/private partnership, but the private partners who might have filled the funding gap are no longer interested in pursuing the project. $288 million of public funds are allocated to the project, but $241 million more are needed. Some of that additional money might eventually be obtained from other sources: including $71 million from BART and $50 million saved from seismic retrofit of the Transbay Tube. MTC would now like to apply $70 million of FTA stimulus funds to rescue the people mover and close the funding gap.

This would be an unwise allocation of the money. We literally just got through lamenting that the State of California has yanked five years of State Transit Assistance operating funds from transit agencies; these agencies must now put fare hikes, service cuts, or a combination of the two on the table to close their own deficits. To the extent that MTC can help agencies in need, it should, by allocating the money directly for agencies to use for purposes of rehabilitation and preventive maintenance. The plan to withhold $70 million of valuable stimulus money — only to insert it into the funding pot for a project that is basically a luxury item, at a time when we can scarcely afford necessities let alone luxuries — is frivolous. In any case, we have long believed that the sensible course of action would be to at least revisit the less glamorous option of a rapid bus system with signal priority on the amply wide (6-8 total lanes) Hegenberger Road and Airport Drive. This would provide a link between BART and the Airport that is quicker and more reliable than current AirBART service, at a fraction of the cost of the proposed people mover.

The next component of the stimulus funding concerns roadway improvements. Of the $150 million of STP funds, $118 million will be applied to rehabilitation of local roads, according to the following proportions per county: Alameda ($23.8 million), Contra Costa ($17.3 million), Marin ($4.6 million), Napa ($3.1 million), San Francisco ($11 million), San Mateo ($10.7 million), Santa Clara ($25.6 million), Solano ($9.4 million), and Sonoma ($12.5 million). In addition, MTC plans to allocate money directly toward other specific road projects:

• $2.75 million of stimulus funds for safety improvements in the North Bay, including $1 million for a Class I bicycle path along Highway 29 in Yountville; $750,000 for ITS on Mendocino Avenue in Santa Rosa; and $1 million to reconstruct a segment of McGary Road in Fairfield;
• $19 million of stimulus funds to be spent on ramp meters for the Freeway Performance Initiative: $7 million in San Mateo County, and $12 million in Santa Clara County; and
• $10 million of stimulus funds for safety improvements on a collision-prone segment of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, near Byron and the Alameda County line.

Cross-section of the Transbay Transit Center; courtesy of Pelli Clarke Pelli.

Lastly, there is further stimulus money that might be applied toward Bay Area transportation projects, but those funds do not exist at MTC discretion; rather, those monies are awarded at the discretion of state and federal governments. Caltrans might apply stimulus money to backfill Proposition 1B. This would fund freeway projects that were formerly called to a halt during the budget crisis, including the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, and HOV lanes for the Sunol Grade, Interstate 580 in Alameda County, Interstate 80 in Solano County, and Highway 101 in Sonoma County. $100 million of funds for Doyle Drive might come from both the State (from Caltrans, via SHOPP) and the federal government (via the National Park Service). Last, but not least, is the train box in the Transbay Transit Center, which will be the northern terminus for Caltrain DTX and California High-Speed Rail. The Transit Center is planned to include a subway station with six tracks and three island platforms; the stimulus funds would allow the station box to be excavated in the first phase when the Transit Center is constructed, where it would await the future rail extension. Although this would require more money upfront, it could save $100 million in construction costs over the timeline of the whole project. MTC originally proposed that some of the transit funds from the stimulus be applied to the train box; but according to the revised proposal, we will instead seek $195-$400 million from the stimulus high-speed rail fund. This is made possible by the the infusion of $8 billion of HSR funds into the final stimulus bill, and California’s HSR project is in a good position to receive a substantial chunk of that money.

The proposed buildings are both located in an area currently zoned RSD (South of Market mixed-use district), and it carries a minimum of one parking spot for every four dwelling units. That there is such a large disconnect between the minimum requirement and the proposed parking is in itself a strong argument for eliminating parking minimums citywide and replacing them with maximums. This much-needed change would be partially implemented under the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which would rezone the 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth parcels from RSD to MUR (Mixed-Use Residential), since both parcels lie within the East SoMa portion of the plan area. Off-street residential parking provisions for land zoned MUR would be similar to the more recently adopted downtown controls — no minimum, up to a 0.25 ratio permitted by right, and up to 0.75 with a conditional use. (A draft table of the new Eastern Neighborhoods controls can be found here.) The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which is currently being presented at both the Land Use Committee and at the Planning Commission, has not yet been adopted and is still subject to changes from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. So it does not yet govern at the time of this posting, but, looking ahead to the near future, provision of 1:1 parking clearly flies in the face of the City’s increasing desire to eliminate parking minimums and replace them with maximums that are less than 1:1. And for the interim period until the new controls are approved, the proposed off-street parking at 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth would still require a conditional use authorization. Since the goal is to create a lively, walkable neighborhood out of section of South of Market that is dominated by automobiles and is rather unfriendly to pedestrians, the prudent course of action would be to limit parking at 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth to a ratio more consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.

I might not have bothered to write a post only about this yet because there is still quite a ways to go in the process (notice for preparation of the EIR was issued last month). But this gravitation toward slightly more than 1:1 parking at 5th and Folsom resonates with another parking snafu from a Planning Commission meeting about a month ago that I never got to write about at the time. At that meeting, the Commissioners discussed the 631 Folsom (a.k.a. BLŪ) condominium project (pictured at right), a narrow 21-story tower that is currently being constructed on the western edge of Rincon Hill, just a few blocks from these other two proposed projects at 5th and Folsom. The Commissioners approved increasing the building’s parking allotment from 64 to 116 (still within the same physical constraints), 108 of which would be accessed by mechanical stackers. The parking is not to be bundled with the units, but that is still 116 parking spaces for a building with 114 units — once again, slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio.

Policy 30.1 from the General Plan’s Transportation Element stipulates that the following criteria (among others) be met before approving a new or enlarged parking facility:

• Generation of traffic from additional parking will not create a substantial adverse effect on the surrounding city streets;
• Additional parking will not discourage the possible diversion of current automobile users to transit;
• “Demonstrated demand” for additional parking in the surrounding area in relation to supply provided in the development; and
• The need for the additional parking must be “clearly established and not presumed.” (emphasis mine)

The Planning Department actually recommended disapproval of the additional parking, because the 631 Folsom site (along with Rincon Hill, in general) is transit-rich and already has many amenities within walking distance, with even more coming in the future as the new neighborhood takes form. This recommendation to disapprove is wholly consistent with Policy 34.1 of the Transportation Element, which states, in part:

Regulate off-street parking in new housing so as to guarantee needed spaces without requiring excesses and to encourage low auto ownership in neighborhoods that are well served by transit and are convenient to neighborhood shopping.

Despite the recommendation to disapprove, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the additional parking at 631 Folsom. The justification for the approval was the need to provide 1:1 parking so that families would not be discouraged from moving into this building, which consists of two- and three-bedroom units larger than 1000 square feet in area. Commissioner Antonini supplied a statistic that suggested that the number of children under the age of 14 decreased by about 1000 citywide between 2000 and 2007, but actually increased by about 400 in zip codes 94105 and 94107. This figure is potentially very misleading, because most of the buildings located in those zip codes are not newly constructed condominiums, which is the relevant subset of housing stock. The City has not formally tracked how many families are actually moving into the new South of Market condos, and we cannot assume that every multi-bedroom condo being constructed will house a family with children — so an assertion one way or the other is necessarily speculative. Therefore, a mere desire to encourage families to live in the new buildings falls short of “clearly establishing” a need for the additional parking. Upon realizing that it had no hard data to indicate whether the new larger units were actually attracting families, the Commission also required the compilation of a database that would track this information, with the recommendation that the database eventually be made available to other City departments. Project sponsors will be required to submit a report two years after the initial occupancy date, and every two years thereafter, indicating the number of children living in each household, any vehicles owned, and other information. This data will be valuable in studying the demographic trends of the new neighborhoods emerging South of Market — neighborhoods that have been planned on the premise that residents will walk and use transit rather than drive.

If such data were available prior to the approval of the additional parking for 631 Folsom, then it would obviously be crucial in evaluating the strength of any argument that alleges a “clearly established” need for more parking. But without the data, this need has been only nebulously established, at best — and therefore is inconsistent with the Transportation Element. We need not fault the Commission for its desire to make more informed decisions, but given that we cannot force a new influx of families into South of Market high-rises who may not even want to live there, how about we deny requests for additional parking until data exists showing that there is a clearly established need for more? Or, what if we try this one on for size: the families who decide to live in these mid- and high-rise buildings actually manage to adapt their lifestyle to the city, instead of simply transplanting a suburban auto-oriented lifestyle into a dense urban setting? Although there are already some residential towers in the Bay Area, the whole notion of “high-rise living” and of a true high-rise neighborhood is a recent development, and it may just trigger unforeseen lifestyle changes. In fact, that is exactly what we have to hope will happen.

Commissioner Antonini, et al may be worried that parking limitations will discourage families from occupying the new units, but it would also behoove the Commission to be worried about the cumulative environmental impacts (and associated CEQA implications) of providing generous parking for new units constructed in a neighborhood that when all is said, done, and built, will have a population density akin to parts of Manhattan — and this in a neighborhood that is already disproportionately burdened by high traffic volumes and street gridlock associated with the nearby freeway. The large industrial blocks and wide one-way streets in South of Market, combined with the intrusive presence of a freeway slicing through the middle of neighborhoods, make this a difficult section of the city to plan well. But given South of Market’s proximity to downtown, dense development is not a question of “if,” but “when” — so any planning in this area of the City deserves all the effort and careful thought we can give. Being lenient with parking restrictions makes an already monumental task even more difficult. A strong commitment to limited parking is necessary if we want to encourage transit use and create truly successful, livable neighborhoods.

For reference, the current BART line and stations are marked in blue. One alternative (pink) connects the Transbay Transit Center to the Presidio Transit Center via Folsom, Van Ness, and Lombard. The second alternative (purple), connects 4th & Townsend to Geary & 33rd Avenue, via Townsend, Division, Van Ness, and Geary. Both routings serve the intersection of Van Ness and Market (the station marked in yellow), as they were designed to facilitate an awkward transfer to the existing BART line at Civic Center Station. Routes were also designed to serve destinations that have emerged as regional destinations in the 35 years that have elapsed since BART’s debut — notably Mission Bay, Phone Company Ball Park, and South of Market.

But does that alone make either of these the best choice? The second alternative along Geary, between Van Ness and 33rd Avenue, has the advantage of serving most of Geary, but it skips downtown altogether, forcing riders whose origin or destination is downtown to transfer. The first alternative at least serves Transbay, but then it does not address the high-demand Geary corridor at all. Both alignments have the considerable disadvantage that they skirt around the Bay Area’s densest, most transit-dependent neighborhoods, where close to three-quarters of residents do not own cars, and which are filled with both local and regional destinations. The Geary corridor, which is currently very dense and yet chock full of opportunities for further infill, has already positioned itself as an ideal corridor whose riders would make thorough use of an expensive BART investment. Including the multiple branches of the 38-Geary, the 38L-Geary Limited, the parallel bus routes to the north and south of Geary, and the various Richmond District rush hour express routes, there is a current bus ridership of over 110,000 daily riders in this corridor, about half of whom are riding on Geary itself. This figure is already close to 1/3 of BART’s daily ridership, and it does not even include those who are now driving to downtown but who could be convinced to take transit, if only “transit” meant a relatively smooth, 15-minute BART ride instead of a bumpy, jam-packed 40-minute bus ride. And here’s a note for anyone reading this who might happen to be in charge: when planning this alignment, please, please, please ride the 38-Geary; at least 250 times. Previous conversations I have had with some folks at BART make it abundantly clear that many have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the mysterious world of Muni. It is often the case that articulated buses traveling outbound on the 38 route are packed to the brim and on the verge of overflowing well before reaching Van Ness. The eastern segment of Geary is a gold mine of riders who should be delivered directly to and from downtown.

That said, Folsom and South of Market in general will be a very different place in 50 years. The innermost portion of Folsom will be a new neighborhood commercial strip for Rincon Hill, with a lively streetscape punctuated by slender high-rises — and, to be fair, Rincon Hill will be the Bay Area’s new densest neighborhood. But as long as the new BART line directly serves the Transbay Transit Center, as it should, Rincon Hill will enjoy a convenient BART connection, and it still remains to be seen the extent to which high densities in that one relatively small area will spread westward to create a new high-demand transit corridor. Hopefully, that is exactly what will happen — in response to the Central Subway, Fourth Street at least may be upzoned to support a new urban canyon. When high-density development does spread west, deeper into South of Market, we absolutely should have high-quality transit to accommodate the thousands of new residents who could potentially live there, as the current sketchy bus service in that area will be insufficient. But “high-quality transit” does not automatically imply BART. Anyway, for another expensive pipe dream that involves this corridor: check out the next post.

The new Museum is situated off of Yerba Buena Alley, directly behind the beautiful 1872/1906 landmark St. Patrick’s Catholic Church on Mission Street. The Museum fronts onto Jessie Square and is set back from Mission Street itself. The 63,000 square foot building consists of two starkly contrasted sections. The western half is the large blue steel cube, a chameleon of sorts whose exact hue is designed to shift according to weather and the time of day. The eastern half is an adaptive reuse of the 1907 brick landmark Jessie Street Power Substation, which has not been used by PG&E for close to fifty years. The building was designed by Willis Polk, who is perhaps more well-known for designing the Palace of Fine Arts and the famous glass curtain walls of the Hallidie Building on Sutter Street.

The opening of the Museum’s new home is only the latest chapter in a redevelopment plan that has taken decades to be fully realized. Plans to redevelop the Yerba Buena District in South of Market began in the 1950’s, but San Franciscans did not vote to approve a convention center in the area until Proposition S in the November 2, 1976 election (FYI: that link opens a rather large PDF). The first section of Moscone Center opened in 1981, but a greater flurry of activity followed in the 1990’s. A decade after the first section of Moscone opened, the convention center was expanded with the Esplanade Ballroom and the Moscone North part of the complex, with Moscone West added in 2003 to bring a total of two million square feet of convention center space to the area. After the opening of the initial sections of Moscone, the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts followed in 1993, the Museum of Modern Art opened in 1995, and the much-maligned Metreon arrived in 1999. SFMOMA remains the centerpiece museum of the district, although it is accompanied by several others, including MoAD (Museum of the African Diaspora), the Cartoon Art Museum, the Museum of Craft and Folk Art, and, of course, now the Contemporary Jewish Museum. Meanwhile, plans to build a new home for the Mexican Museum across Jessie Square from the Jewish Museum are on hold. In the past couple years, the boundaries of this active cultural/commercial district South of Market have been creeping in a westward direction, with the opening of the Westfield Center and the Intercontinental Hotel on the east side of 5th Street — and there are plans for the west side of 5th Street, where the Old Mint Building is planned to house the Museum of San Francisco and the Bay Area, the American Money Museum, and a new visitors center to replace the one that is currently at Hallidie Plaza.

• The 5-Fulton will use the two-way pair of Main and Beale to serve the northern border of the terminal at Howard.
• During the short first phase, the 38/38L-Geary and the 71/71L-Haight/Noriega will serve the northern border of the terminal at Howard, but for most of the life of the temporary terminal, both the 38/38L and 71/71L will loop to the southern border of the site at Folsom, also using the two-pair of Main and Beale.
• Because the 71/71L will be rerouted to the terminal, the 6-Parnassus will terminate at Ferry Plaza.
• The 108-Treasure Island (now extended to the Caltrain Depot afternoons and evenings) and the 76-Marin Headlands will serve the temporary terminal. Several other routes (1-California, 12-Folsom/Pacific, 20-Columbus, 30X-Marina Express, 41-Union) that currently run on portions of Howard and Folsom will continue to do so, accessing the northern border of the terminal site.
• Unlike its current configuration, the route of the 10-Townsend will not directly serve the temporary terminal, with southbound buses using 2nd Street and northbound buses using Folsom and Fremont before aligning onto Sansome.
• The 14/14L-Mission route will not be changed, so it will miss the temporary terminal by one long block.

For visual learners, here is a PDF map of the final phase reroutes.

And bound to get more controversial, courtesy of the C.W. Nevius column that appeared in the Chronicle this week. The column painted a grim picture of The Plaza, a housing-first building at Sixth and Howard Streets. While it included a fairly meek rebuttal from DPH, the article mostly cited anecdotes which indicated that rather than providing proactive services to adequately encourage its formerly homeless residents to conquer the substance abuse underlying their unfortunate life cycle, the supportive housing experiment has only succeeded in moving the harsh realities of the street indoors — putting aside for the moment any architectural achievements of The Plaza.

Pursuant to both the project redevelopment plan requiring 35% affordability and the Mayor’s Consolidated Plan, a permanently affordable supportive housing project with on-site services in the vein of The Plaza is slated to be built on the northern portion of Transbay’s Block 11, fronting onto Folsom; construction is targeted to start in roughly 2011. The building, which would likely be about 80-85 feet tall, will include 100-120 units, 90% of which would be 400 square foot studios, and 525 square foot one-bedroom apartments for the remaining 10%. In accordance with the plan to transform Folsom into a new two-way neighborhood main street for Transbay and Rincon Hill, neighborhood-serving retail is planned for the ground floor of the building at the corner of Folsom. The RFP for Block 11’s supportive housing component will be finalized in upcoming weeks. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be collected during the summer and evaluated by the Commission later this fall.

As for the rest of Block 11, fronting Essex Street: the slice of land adjacent to the supportive housing site would support no more than a couple dozen homes, of the 35-50 foot townhouse variety that will be peppered throughout the Transbay redevelopment zone to lend a comfortably human scale to the alleys and narrower streets in the neighborhood; it has not yet been officially determined whether or not these units will be applied to fulfill the affordable housing requirement. Moving a little further south along Essex, the remaining slivers of land will become new open space for the neighborhood. The tax increment funds needed to make this open space a reality are available to be applied, pending approval from the Board of Supervisors. The park would ideally be completed in advance of the new housing.