Van Ness bus rapid transit. Courtesy of SFCTA.

In San Francisco, the Transportation Authority and SFMTA are moving forward to recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for bus rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue, signaling that a long planning process will be drawing to a close later this year.  This critical north-south corridor between Mission and Lombard is served by Muni’s 47 and 49 routes, as well as Golden Gate Transit, and offers transfers to many east-west Muni services to downtown and the west side of the city. Although the 47 and 49 offer frequent service on paper, actual headways do not reflect these theoretical combined headways. Buses bunch frequently, and the mix of 40-foot and articulated buses operating on the corridor can create a mismatch between the size of the crowd standing at the stop and the capacity of the vehicle that arrives to pick up that crowd.

Although not a cure-all because of the considerable portions of both routes that will operate outside of the Van Ness facility, the package of amenities offered by BRT — particularly dedicated lanes, signal priority, and more widely spaced stops — will help improve these conditions. Toward this end, the TA and Muni are recommending a real BRT alternative, with dedicated transit lanes in the center of Van Ness and stations placed to allow for transfers to intersecting routes. The stations will allow boarding on the right, avoiding the need to procure special vehicles opening on both sides, although lanes will weave slightly around parts of the existing median.  The recommended LPA also promises to improve transit performance further by eliminating nearly all left turn opportunities for automobiles in the corridor.

Center-running LPA recommended by staff,with most left turns eliminated. Courtesy of SFCTA.

One reason why it is particularly gratifying that Muni and the TA are endorsing a center-running LPA is that, until the announcement this week, it was not necessarily clear that a center-running design would be recommended over the inferior side-running alternative.

From the perspective of improving transit performance, building dedicated bus-only lanes in the center of Van Ness (as depicted above in the sample schematic for the recommended alternative) is unquestionably the winning formula. While the side-running design would benefit from improvements to stops, it would also allow motorists to enter the marked transit lane for the (officially stated) purposes of parallel parking and right turns, and thus would practically be only marginally better than the so-called “transit only” lanes already in place in certain corridors. On the other hand, buses operating in a dedicated space free of traffic, vehicle turning movements, and parking maneuvers will perform better even than buses relieved of a subset of those conditions. By 2015, bus speeds would increase on average from the current 5 miles per hour to 7 mph, but only 6 mph for side-running.  Center-running transit travel times in the corridor would decrease 33 percent with limited left turns, but just 19 percent for side-running. Center-running also performs better on reliability, increasing ridership, and reducing operating costs (or, alternatively, allowing service to be increased at no additional cost). [1]

Van Ness BRT proposed stations at Mission, Market, McAllister, Eddy, Geary, Sutter, Sacramento, Jackson, and Union (south to north). Courtesy of SFCTA.

Originally, an LPA for Van Ness was supposed to be announced a couple months ago, but it was not actually announced until this week. A reason for the delay was a disagreement between Muni and the TA regarding which alternative should be moved forward as the preferred alternative. Although not aired and debated in a public forum, this disagreement centered on misgivings expressed by Muni about adopting a superior center-running alternative. This was not the word of the agency, as the MTA Board has yet to weigh in on the LPA, but rather, misgivings expressed by certain individuals at Muni.

It may seem counterintuitive that a transit operator would be reluctant to endorse an alternative that offers the best opportunity to improve reliability and transit travel time on one of its most important corridors, reduce operating costs, and increase ridership.  On the other hand, basically any time I had occasion to discuss Van Ness with TA staffers on an individual basis throughout the study process, they came as close to favoring a centered transitway as one could reasonably expect from individuals working for an agency that has not yet completed its review or taken an official position on the issue. Once it was confirmed that a disagreement requiring resolution explained the delay in selecting the LPA, it was not all that surprising that Muni was at the root of the discord. Less clear is why. Innate distrust of buses with doors that open on the left? Pressure to institute impromptu stops between branded, more widely spaced “rapid” transit stops? Paralysis by fear of the unknown? Simple agency inertia? A fear that transit speeds might actually catch up to those of a century ago?

It is an unfortunate reality that, among the modes that might be considered for a transit upgrade, BRT is particularly susceptible to dilution in the face of political weakness. Even for Van Ness — a critical transit link, where the City is taking advantage of the street overhaul to complete other public works improvements in the corridor, including resurfacing — the urge to dilute and reluctance to commit can come into play. It is therefore encouraging to see the two agencies arrive at mutual agreement to do what’s best for transit riders.

The LPA for Van Ness BRT will be considered by other boards and commissions throughout May, including the Planning Commission on May 10, the MTA on May 15, the TA’s P&P committee also on May 15, and the TA on May 22, with the latter three presumably voting on the recommended alternative. With Muni and the TA uniting to endorse a center-running project, the essential features of this recommended alternative have a good chance of moving through the approval process unscathed, thereafter to be analyzed in the final environmental document and hopefully officially approved later this year. San Francisco is ready to put transit-first into action, by reallocating street real estate for exclusive use by transit riders and committing to build real BRT on this important corridor.

—

[1] Measuring reliability as the probability of encountering an “unexpected” stop (i.e., a stop forced by traffic conditions or traffic signals, rather than to drop off and pick up passengers), the TA estimates that buses have a 30 percent chance of encountering an unexpected stop on each block for center-running BRT with limited left turns, compared to a 50 percent chance for side-running. The TA also estimates a 37 percent increase in ridership on routes using the BRT facility for center-running (compared to 29 percent for side-running).

Eddy & Leavenworth. Photo courtesy of FoundSF, Chris Carlsson.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency finally seems to be pursuing two-way conversion for a handful of one-way blocks in the Tenderloin on Ellis and Eddy streets.  Ellis and Eddy, as well as other streets in the Tenderloin, host relatively minimal vehicle traffic.  Yet despite the neighborhood’s very low vehicle ownership rate [1], these streets are designed for the principal purpose of allowing motorists to pass quickly to and from downtown with nary a thought for the neighborhood through which they are passing.

Collisions in the Tenderloin involving pedestrians are not limited to those that are graphically captured on video.  The fact that pedestrian “accidents” occur relatively uniformly at intersections throughout the Tenderloin, with many of those involving serious injury or death, suggests that it would be desirable to rethink street design throughout the neighborhood in a way that prioritizes vulnerable users.

Tenderloin pedestrian accidents. Courtesy of SFCTA.

A plan to convert thoroughfares like Ellis, Eddy, Jones, and Leavenworth into two-way streets could carry multiple benefits, including improving safety, consolidating difficult-to-describe transit routes running on one-way couplets into more legible routes running on two-way streets, and infusing the feel of a genuine neighborhood into one of San Francisco’s densest neighborhoods.  Despite the fact that converting streets to two-way operation has long been recognized and supported in community surveys (PDF) as an important tool for calming traffic, the plan has mostly been collecting dust on the shelf, left unrealized for years. [2]

It looks now to be moving forward, at least partially.  Excerpted from the list of proposals that will be heard at the SFMTA engineering hearing this Friday, April 13 is the following:

REVOKE – ONE-WAY

Eddy Street, between Larkin and Leavenworth Streets (2 blocks)

Ellis Street, between Polk and Jones Streets (4 blocks)

The SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), which is now undergoing environmental review, has considered revising the current route of the 27-Bryant line.  The concept of two-way conversion is harmonious with the proposed revisions (PDF) as the route could be consolidated onto Ellis and Leavenworth, which is currently the routing of just the inbound direction.  The above proposal for Ellis does not completely facilitate that change but, pending implementation of the TEP, still provides independent benefits.

—

[1] According to the 2000 Census, 82 percent of Tenderloin households did not own a car, compared to Manhattan, where 77 percent of households did not own a car.

[2] One opportunity that was identified to make a transit route more legible through two-way conversion has been implemented.  The inbound 5-Fulton’s jog over to Market Street via Hyde was eliminated in favor of a simpler and more direct path via McAllister.

Courtesy of SFMTA.

As one would expect in a market price experiment — as opposed to an exclusive revenue generation measure, or “stealth tax,” as it has been dubbed by the literati that haunt the SFGate comments section — the SFMTA both increased and decreased different meter rates depending on the level of demand for those parking spots.  In fact, for this first round of adjustments, most parking meters in pilot neighborhoods will be no more expensive to use than before.  Rates will decrease at 32 percent of meters within the pilot area, stay the same at 37 percent of meters, and increase at only 31 percent of meters.

Responding to the data (available as both PDF maps and an Excel spreadsheet) creates a fine-grained result in which one block may have higher rates, while a nearby or even directly adjacent block has lower rates.  Not surprisingly, there is a need to boost the price at many times of day on popular and walkable commercial segments (e.g. Hayes Street between Franklin and Laguna, Valencia Street, Fillmore Street between Bush and Jackson, Chestnut Street west of Fillmore, and the Financial District/Jackson Square).  In contrast, prices will stay the same or decrease on weekdays for high-volume traffic arteries like Geary Blvd., Van Ness, and Lombard, as well as significant portions of the Wharf, Civic Center, and South of Market pilot areas.  Although the SFMTA could have decreased rates this month by as much as 50 cents under its adopted policy, the data collected so far suggests that in three cases (Fillmore, Mission, and Marina), the rate should not be lowered more than 25 cents at any meter throughout the time period in which the meters operate, while in other pilot areas a 50-cent decrease is sometimes warranted.

Corridors like Telegraph Avenue, which are well-served by transit and have plenty of room for urban infill, will be targeted for growth. Image: Flickr account.

SB 375 now calls for a blend of the RHNA with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS):

It is the intent of the Legislature that housing planning be coordinated and integrated with the regional transportation plan. To achieve this goal, the allocation plan shall allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the sustainable communities strategy.

The final allocation plan shall ensure that the total regional housing need, by income category … is maintained, and that each jurisdiction in the region receive an allocation of units for low- and very low income households.

The resolution approving the final housing need allocation plan shall demonstrate that the plan is consistent with the sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan.

(Government Code, §§ 65584.04(i)(1), 65584.04(i)(2), 65584.04(i)(3).)

SB 375 leaves open the question of exactly how the two ought to be blended.  But if you acknowledge that growth should be targeted in transit-oriented locations rather than simply allowed to sprout at random, then it is almost a direct corollary that an “unfair share” distribution of housing will result.  Perhaps because it is still early in the process, ABAG and MTC thus far have not emphasized the fair share distinction.  It was not surprising, then, to find some initial pushback in a report prepared by Berkeley city staff.  This piece in the Berkeley Patch, written by Livable Berkeley, summarizes the conclusions of the staff report as follows:

City staff’s “educated guess” is that the level of growth posited in the scenario exceeds what can be feasibly accommodated in Berkeley.  Staff is also concerned that other communities are not being asked to do as much as Berkeley.

Staff’s remarks were offered in response to the Initial Vision Scenario, which included a preliminary estimate of the new housing Berkeley should plan to accommodate: 15,730 additional units under ABAG’s aggressive growth projections, concentrated in the downtown and along more robust transit corridors like San Pablo, University, and Telegraph Avenues.  Interestingly, even though staff offers its “educated guess” that this level of growth cannot be feasibly accommodated, the report admits that “staff has not generally quantified the capacity of these areas to accommodate new units” and that “staff has not begun to test the feasibility of the numbers generated for the [Initial Vision Scenario].”  (PDF of staff report)

In short, Berkeley city staff has offered an “educated guess” that is ostensibly based on little education.  Which would make it … just a plain old guess?  The report proposes that the guess is based on the City’s Housing Element work, but that is an iterative process, and it does not terminate just because a city claims it has no more space after completing the last iteration.

The staff report illustrates the tension between SB 375 and fair share.  Hypothetically, if all cities were served by transit equally well, it would be reasonable to expect each city to absorb its fair share of housing need in the traditional sense.  In reality, though, transit service is not provided uniformly throughout the region, and a principal objective of the SCS is to bring transit networks and housing distributions into alignment.  This means that a city like Berkeley — which is home to the University, a major trip generator, and is served by three BART stations, the Capitol Corridor, and major bus transit corridors — is a natural place for growth.  Clayton (to pick one example), which was assigned just 124 new households, is not.

That disparity may seem “unfair” to some, but the Initial Vision Scenario arguably does not go far enough.  If one goal of the SCS is to increase the share of the Bay Area’s population living in places that resemble Berkeley, the Initial Vision Scenario does not accomplish that goal with respect to Berkeley itself — because the growth it describes in Berkeley closely mirrors the regional trend and is actually slower than Alameda County as a whole.  Indeed, in 2010, 1.728 percent of Bay Area households called Berkeley home; in 2035, if the Initial Vision Scenario’s allocation were to become reality, that share would barely increase to 1.732 percent.  In contrast, the allocations for other East Bay cities like Oakland, Emeryville, Fremont, Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton pick up the slack with growth that outpaces both Alameda County and the region as a whole.  Notably, the Initial Vision Scenario does not take into account unmet demand for more housing in walkable, centrally-located neighborhoods like those in Berkeley.

To the extent there is a break from fair share as it has traditionally been implemented, the concerns of the Berkeley staff report will resonate with other cities in California, and it will be interesting to see how fair share is ultimately folded into the SB 375 framework.

The actual balance sheet is worse, of course, as the $484 million figure does not include operating costs.  Despite charging $6 fares to pay off a $100 million federal loan, an additional subsidy — on the order of $9.85 per ride, compared to $1.95 for a bus rapid transit project — would be required given current passenger traffic levels at the airport.  In short, public dollars are being “invested” in a way that pointlessly maximizes future costs. The fact that $95 million has already been consumed, while certainly interesting given how little there is to show for it, is immaterial when evaluating whether that additional ongoing cost is a worthwhile one to bear.  (Comments)

If you have been reading this website for awhile, you might remember that a few years ago I used to maintain a fairly active Flickr account used in conjunction with the blog, uploading renderings and construction progress photos.  That Flickr account has been sitting dormant for the past few years, but the time has come to revive it.  My hope is to update it regularly, and while some photos will be connected to articles here, others will be posted there independently.  Click here to see the photostream, and for easy future access, a Flickr link has been added to the sidebar.

Since last summer I have dropped by the Transbay site to photograph various stages in the demolition of the old Terminal.  On the Flickr account, I have now uploaded a couple hundred Transbay-related photos, including one set of photos for the East Loop and temporary terminal, and another set of photos for the demolition of the main building.  The full Transbay Terminal collection includes photos from the final operating days of the Terminal and the groundbreaking ceremony, which were posted here last year in the form of slideshows.  There is also a set for the recently-opened West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.  Finally, I posted urbanist-oriented photos from two recent visits to New York.

There should be more substantive content here next week, but in the meantime, I hope you enjoy these photo sets.

At what point is a project far enough along in the process to be “committed”?  We looked before at the two policy choices that were being considered.  There is more detail in that previous post, but the brief recap is that with “Option 1,” a project is committed if it has been environmentally cleared, e.g. the project has an EIR certified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  With “Option 2,” a project is not committed until dirt has turned and construction is underway.  Of these two options, I supported Option 2 because it would expose commissioners to a benefit-cost analysis for more projects, thereby empowering them with greater discretion to decide whether even older projects are still worthy of pursuit.  The Planning Committee also supported Option 2 and voted to move it forward to the full Commission.

At its April 27 meeting, however, the Commission unfortunately retreated from the committee recommendation, voting in favor of the less rigorous Option 1.

Part of what made this vote disappointing was that some committee members who supported Option 2 a few weeks ago changed their minds and voted for Option 1.  These fickle commissioners include the now-ousted Jon Rubin (who frankly surprised me when he supported Option 2 in the first place, but ultimately opted to cast a less-than-stellar vote as his final vote on the Commission) and Sam Liccardo (a San Jose councilmember whom I suspect was concerned about placing too many obstacles in front of the full BART extension).  Had these committee members continued to support Option 2, the vote would have tilted the other way.

Other commissioners, albeit too few in number to change the vote, recognized that projects should be included based on their intrinsic merit and ability to satisfy performance targets.  These commissioners include San Francisco supervisor David Campos (who, despite being newly appointed, honed in on the issue quickly, or at least picked up on the right cues), and BCDC commissioner Anne Halsted (who was willing to engage and grasped the value of Option 2 in the climate target discussion).

Had the new committed projects policy been in place a few years ago, building the Caldecott Tunnel's fourth bore would have been subject to performance review and Commission approval under Option 2 but not Option 1. Image: courtesy of Caltrans.

Over the past few years certain high-profile projects, like Warm Springs and the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore, have moved forward into construction phase and are deemed committed no matter what.  The practical implications of choosing one option over the other will emerge as the next project cycle takes shape.  As a matter of principle, though, the Commission’s vote demonstrates an unwillingness to take responsibility for ensuring that taxpayer dollars are invested wisely, and a reluctance to engage in true planning, as opposed to mere assembly of a to-do list.

Although this is disheartening, it is not surprising.  Even when sitting on a regional board, commissioners are still elected local officials at heart, interested in moving projects forward with a minimum of delay and controversy.  Whether a particular local project is the best and most cost-effective way to meet identified regional performance targets is a different and sometimes even conflicting question, however, and it is precisely the question that commissioners would have confronted more robustly had Option 2 moved forward.  Although Option 1 is an improvement on previous policy, even Option 1 does not go far enough.  Under Option 1, projects that have been environmentally cleared are insulated, and it is true that environmental clearance is itself a major milestone that is reached only after a project has been subjected to significant public comment.  But environmental laws like CEQA are designed primarily to disclose a project’s impacts to the physical environment.  They are not designed to effectively engage the issues that are central to deciding whether a region should commit funding to a particular transportation project.  Having that latter discussion requires an additional layer of regional oversight, which Option 2 would have provided. Moreover, as the Oakland Airport Connector demonstrates, projects can change significantly in cost and scope if they are left in limbo for years after being cleared.  Yet Option 1 shields those changes from scrutiny.

Option 2 would also have put MTC in a better position to meet the Bay Area’s obligations under Senate Bill 375.  One of the principal takeaways from the Initial Vision Scenario is that meeting the regional target of 15 percent per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is more than simply a matter of concentrating growth in the right places — for despite its optimistic assumptions, even that scenario fell short of achieving the 15 percent target.  MTC will need to bring to bear more tools in order to craft an RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy that does meet the target, and one critically important tool is the Commission’s role in selecting the projects that will be included in the next RTP.  Option 2 would have subjected more projects to a performance assessment, thereby empowering the Commission with greater discretion to approve or reject projects.  That decision would take into account the project’s benefits and costs; the extent to which the project meets the Bay Area’s growth, mobility, equity, air quality, and health goals; and a consideration of whether the project moves us closer to or further from achieving the SB 375 target.

But it is Option 1 that has moved forward.  More projects will be spared that exacting level of discretionary review, and we may need to rely more on other strategies to meet the target.

That’s one reason I was excited that SFpark launched this past week, generating a continuous open data feed that tracks the location and quantity of available parking in the handful of identified pilot neighborhoods. Consider the following maps of the Fillmore and Mission, screenshots from Friday night:

SFpark pilot areas: Fillmore (left) and Mission (right), on Friday night (April 22 at 10:15 p.m.). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

(Links to all Friday maps: Financial District, South of Market, Civic Center/Hayes Valley, Fillmore, Mission, Wharf, Marina.)

And another set of screenshots for the Financial District and South of Market, taken at 12 noon on Sunday:

SFpark pilot area: Financial District, on Sunday (April 24 at 12 noon). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

SFpark pilot area: South of Market, on Sunday (April 24 at 12 noon). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

(Links to all Sunday maps: Financial District, South of Market, Civic Center/Hayes Valley, Fillmore, Mission, Wharf, Marina.)

The MTA will monitor occupancy on each block and adjust the parking meter rate periodically based on demand. To ensure that at least one parking spot is available per block for the most part, pilot blocks that are at least 85 percent occupied during certain periods of the day will be targeted for a rate increase during those time periods. In the screenshots above, stretches of block marked in red, with less than 15 percent of spots available, are those high-demand spots that would theoretically be targeted for a rate increase.

One conclusion that can be derived at a glance? That the market price for parking in the evenings and on Sundays in these pilot neighborhoods is higher than what is currently being charged (which is zilch).  When parking is free, motorists have little incentive to vacate parking spots in a timely fashion.  Another good reason to revisit extended parking meter hours?

(No, this is not a groundbreaking revelation.  Yes, there was already data supporting agency staff’s previous recommendation to extend meter hours.  Yes, that data was ignored by squirming politicians.)

SFpark meter in Hayes Valley, San Francisco. Image: courtesy of SFMTA.

Although programs like SFpark demonstrate progress and provide valuable case studies, opportunities abound to improve parking management in both major cities and suburbs throughout the United States.  But parking is also a touchy and controversial topic; proposals to increase parking fees are generally not greeted warmly and can be vociferously protested.

Learning from Mistakes

One barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the context in which government officials propose changes to parking fees.  Particularly during the recession, municipalities have been strapped for cash and seek to increase parking fees as a means of generating revenue to help balance the budget.  The result is that the sound policy reasons to raise the price of parking become drowned out by loud opposition from members of the public, who claim to be victims of an unfair budget that is balanced on the backs of citizens.  Cities that wait until a budget crisis knocks at their door to increase the price of parking are not doing themselves a favor because the underlying motivation for the adjustment will be transparent.  Moreover, the substance of the changes that are proposed may also reveal that underlying motivation, in that they involve simplistic blanket fee hikes — rather than a truly dynamic, market-based approach where the price of a particular parking spot changes with demand.  In short, it becomes all too clear that the purpose of the higher parking fees is not to enact sound policy, but to generate revenue.  When a city tries to do the right thing for the “wrong” reason — to the extent that increasing parking fees to avoid cutting municipal services can be deemed “wrong” — it makes it all the more difficult to try it again later for the right reason.

The marquee of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, which proudly displays progressive political messages, adopted a conservative stance on parking in 2009 -- an all-too-common knee-jerk reaction among many merchants. Image: courtesy of Fragmentary Evidence.

Another barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the perception that higher parking fees diminish a city’s competitiveness, as compared to nearby cities, by making it more difficult for merchants to attract customers.  This point emerged during the backlash in 2009, when the Oakland City Council considered higher fees and extended meter hours as one measure to address the city’s budget deficit.  The underlying assumption here is that the cost of parking is a significant, perhaps even the predominant, factor at play when someone is deciding where to eat dinner, see a movie, or go shopping.  And while this concern was perhaps an especially sensitive point in Oakland because of retail leakage, it overlooks several more important considerations, including: (1) that most people probably won’t travel long distances just to find cheaper parking, particularly when paying more for gas eliminates any potential savings; (2) that the increase in parking price is often minimal compared to the cost of a meal or movie; (3) that many customers seek a unique merchant, neighborhood, or experience that cannot be replicated elsewhere; and (4) that increasing the cost of parking does not necessarily make the city or neighborhood a less compelling destination, but rather, provides an incentive for customers to use transit to travel to neighborhoods they would otherwise access by car.

There are many reasons to question the assertion that higher parking fees make a city less competitive.  But whether or not this is true in fact, the mere existence of this perception suggests that rational parking reform will be an uphill battle — one in which common arguments opposing higher fees will be aired again and again, in city after city.  It is this situation that helps frame the role that regional governments can play in the conversation about parking.

A Role for Regional Participation

Involving regional entities in parking management may, at first glance, seem like a strange idea.  Traditionally, parking management has been left to cities.  Cities control how streets are used within their respective jurisdictions, and they retain the power to charge (or not) for public parking.  In California, regional entities like metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) cannot simply swoop in and force a city to change its parking policies.

And yet the above discussion suggests that a regional directive on parking could be beneficial.  An MPO can provide valuable direction by identifying best practices, assembling useful case studies, and establishing a policy framework that explains and justifies the benefits of parking demand management.  This readily available resource would provide cities with a more constructive way to frame the public discussion about parking, while educating citizens that parking reform has benefits beyond providing the city with more revenue.  Establishing a regional consensus on parking demand management could also help eliminate the popular perception that increasing the price of parking makes a city a less desirable place to do business when compared to nearby cities that retain low parking fees.  Geographically proximate cities, perhaps with the assistance of the MPO, could cooperate in developing harmonious parking policies.

MPOs can provide grants to cities that demonstrate interest in implementing smart parking demand management strategies, and in this respect, there is a useful precedent.  The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the Bay Area has been able to take advantage of its control over funding to leverage improvements in land use — particularly in terms of planning transit-oriented development within walking distance of stations planned along new transit extensions.  Land use, like parking, is firmly within the dominion of local control.  And yet regional influence over land use is possible, despite the fact that MPOs like MTC have no statutory authority to make land use approval decisions.

A similar approach could be taken for parking reform, in which a regional policy directive both guides local planning efforts and provides the funding incentive needed to get the job done.  MTC has taken tentative initial steps to investigate what role regional governments should play in the parking arena, and in the future, I hope to discuss in more detail ways to improve regional oversight of parking.

Senate Bill 375 provides metropolitan regions in California with a compelling reason to do so now.  Parking — whether it is abundant or scarce, cheap or expensive — has tremendous influence on shaping travel choices.  Parking demand management could be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both by (1) encouraging drivers to switch to transit, particularly for peak hour trips, and (2) reducing the emissions associated with drivers circling city blocks on the hunt for parking.  Rational parking policies, when combined with smart land use decisions, are a powerful tool for reducing vehicle miles traveled, and, in turn, for achieving SB 375′s regional emissions reductions targets.  One of the core lessons we take away from the Initial Vision Scenario prepared by MTC and ABAG for the Bay Area is that compact growth alone is not sufficient.  The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to incorporate additional techniques in order to achieve the target.  A strong regional consensus on parking policy, coupled with robust implementation at the local level, could be just such a technique.

350 Mission Street. Courtesy of GLL Development and Mangement, Inc.

350 Mission Street is a 375-foot proposed office tower to be built at the corner of Mission and Fremont Streets in downtown San Francisco.  The site, which currently has a low-rise building occupied by Heald College, is catty-corner to the large construction site that will become the Transbay Transit Center.

Current building at 350 Mission project site.

350 Mission is a solid infill project in the growing canyon of high-rises along Mission Street.  It’s clearly a better use of space than current conditions, but as far as shaping the city skyline is concerned, it’s not a game-changer.  The tower will be dwarfed even by existing neighbors at 50 Fremont and the Millennium — not to mention a future neighbor, the Transbay tower, which will be the city’s tallest.  Given the project’s proximity to the Transit Center and its prime location, it’s hard not to be disappointed with the building height, particularly after the initial mention of an 850-foot tower.  But for an office building, the small project site (about 19,000 square feet) is a real constraint, and adding another elevator bank in a taller building would have reduced the amount of space that could be leased.

Besides, just because a tower is relatively short does not mean it is doomed to lack interesting design and sustainability features.  I will reserve judgment on the moving benches until actually seeing them, but if the constructed building looks like the renderings, it will be a worthy addition to this intersection in spite of its height. The tower’s interaction with the street at ground level is also promising, including eatery space and a lobby opening onto the corner of Mission and Fremont, accentuated by ampitheater-style seating.  The first floor of offices, located above the ground floor and mezzanine, is designed to be about 50 feet above grade, and the lobby’s spacious indoor gathering area will be a nice complement to the public space that will be built across the intersection at the Transit Center.

The owners of 50 Beale Street appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of 350 Mission on CEQA grounds, but the appeal really raised design issues that were framed in terms of CEQA catchphrases.  50 Beale is a 24-story office building located adjacent to the proposed tower and is probably quite sorry to lose its views to the west over the low-rise building that now occupies the 350 Mission site.  To create a CEQA argument, 50 Beale objected to the mechanical element at 350 Mission, which would extend to only about twelve feet from the 50 Beale building.  Even though tower separation was the real sticking point, the mechanical element served as a target on which to pin particular physical impacts like noise and air quality.  50 Beale also argued that the EIR should have analyzed a taller code-compliant alternative.  That’s right: It’s another round of “you should have picked my favorite alternative.”  But CEQA does not demand that an EIR analyze everyone’s favorite alternatives — only that it examine a reasonable range of alternatives that lessen a proposed project’s impacts.  More to the point, there is nothing especially magical about a code-compliant alternative in the abstract, unless not complying with the code exacerbates or introduces additional physical impacts that could be lessened or avoided by complying.  The non-compliant aspects of 350 Mission (bulk and setback) were not the source of the tower’s significant impacts.  The EIR actually did analyze a code-compliant alternative and determined that complying with the code would not lessen these already less-than-significant impacts.  This is not all that unexpected given the project’s nature and physical setting, and it makes this a less compelling alternative from a CEQA perspective.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to certify the EIR, so the tower will move forward.