"Smart" growth, bicycles, and Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson's latest production is a letter (below in italics) from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) to the MTA Board of Directors in support of the latest "improvements" to lower Haight Street.
After what the HVNA and the city have already done to that unfortunate neighborhood, their credibility is non-existent, but eliminating the jog over to Page Street from Haight Street that Muni buses now make seems innocuous in itself---I can't recall why it was necessary in the first place---but the context presented by bike guy Henderson is revealing, since it shows how the city's delusional "smart growth" policy dovetails with the anti-car, bike agenda.
The HVNA "endorsed the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhood Plan, which includes transit first proposals like this. Our neighborhood is poised to add thousands of new housing units and residents in the next decade, and it is imperative that transit, walking, and bicycling infrastructure be capable of absorbing this new growth."
When last heard from, Henderson was wringing his hands over the future traffic problems the Market/Octavia area faces. But the Market and Octavia Plan he and HVNA support rezones more than 4,000 properties in the middle of the city---eliminating backyards, setbacks, density standards, and height limits---to encourage 4,440 new housing units and 10,000 new residents in the area.
Think traffic is already bad in that part of town? The M/O plan makes no provision for the traffic all those new residents will bring to the area. Instead of the citywide standard of one new parking space for every new housing unit, the M/O Plan mandates maximums of from .25 to .75 parking spaces in new developments, which will create a massive shortage of parking in the area, which is why the Bicycle Coalition supports the M/O Plan.
Think traffic is already bad in that part of town? The M/O plan makes no provision for the traffic all those new residents will bring to the area. Instead of the citywide standard of one new parking space for every new housing unit, the M/O Plan mandates maximums of from .25 to .75 parking spaces in new developments, which will create a massive shortage of parking in the area, which is why the Bicycle Coalition supports the M/O Plan.
"Transit first"? The M/O Plan provides no money to help Muni to handle all those new residents. Let them ride bikes! (I warned the city about this problem six years ago.)
"Removal of the bus from Page Street, which will incrementally bring the city closer to making Page Street a bicycle boulevard, also called-for in the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan."
This is what really interests Henderson: turning Page Street over to the bike people by restricting access for cars, which means the city has to first get Muni lines off Page. Both the bicycle boulevard plan and traffic circles for Page Street were added to the M/O Plan after the city certified the Plan's EIR, which is how City Hall and the bike people operate---in virtual secrecy in poorly-attended committee meetings.
Recall that traffic circles on Page Street have already been tried, were clearly unworkable, and were rejected by both the people who live on Page Street and the fire department. But they're back, whether we like it or not! Like religious fundies, the bike people keep coming at you.
Recall that traffic circles on Page Street have already been tried, were clearly unworkable, and were rejected by both the people who live on Page Street and the fire department. But they're back, whether we like it or not! Like religious fundies, the bike people keep coming at you.
Henderson suggests another anti-car measure:
"We also urge your staff to reconsider how discontinued bus stops and other curb parking restrictions are evaluated...HVNA encourages the SFMTA to consider bicycle parking and parklets when a bus stop is removed or a bus line re-routed. Not all of the newly-freed space should go to automobile parking."
Henderson also sits on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Market and Octavia Plan, with bike guy Robin Levitt. Along with the HVNA, the CAC has been promoting "smart growth" development in the Market/Octavia area.
My post on traffic circles in 2007.
Dear Chairman Nolan and SFMTA Board of Directors,
The Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) enthusiastically supports the proposal to reintroduce two-way bus service on Haight Street. Attached at the end of this letter is an additional endorsement by the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Community Advisory Committee.
The SFMTA’s proposal to two-way Haight Street between Octavia and Gough/Market has come a long way and will greatly improve public transit for upwards of 20,000 daily bus passengers, especially at peak commute times. The HVNA has a long history of supporting the reintroduction of two-way bus service on this street. HVNA advocated for this idea multiple times during the Transit Effectiveness Project public input process, and we endorsed the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhood Plan, which includes transit first proposals like this. Our neighborhood is poised to add thousands of new housing units and residents in the next decade, and it is imperative that transit, walking, and bicycling infrastructure be capable of absorbing this new growth. This proposal is a step in that direction and is especially warranted given that it is multi-modal. We are especially pleased that the proposal includes these measures:
A new transit-only lane eastbound on Haight Street between Octavia and Gough/Market Streets, which will dramatically improve travel times for bus passengers, especially during commute hours.
A new center bus lane on Haight Street between Laguna Street and Octavia Boulevard which will enable the bus to by-pass queues of cars making the right turn from Haight Street to Octavia Boulevard.
Restrictions on right turns from Octavia Blvd to Haight Street, and forced right turn from eastbound Haight to Octavia Boulevard.
Pedestrian improvements on Market and Gough.
Parking removal on Haight between Octavia and Gough/Market to be replaced by over 14 parking spaces re-allocated from bus stop removal and other street reconfigurations on Haight, Laguna, and Page Streets.
Removal of the bus from Page Street, which will incrementally bring the city closer to making Page Street a bicycle boulevard, also called-for in the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan.
In addition to supporting the above measures, the HVNA urges SFMTA to also consider rethinking the southbound travel lane on the east side of Gough between Page and Haight/Market. This lane should be replaced by on-street parking, and a tow-away zone introduced on the west side of Gough.
We also urge your staff to reconsider how discontinued bus stops and other curb parking restrictions are evaluated. While it is considerate to provide some of the new curbside space for parking, HVNA encourages the SFMTA to consider bicycle parking and parklets when a bus stop is removed or a bus line re-routed. Not all of the newly-freed space should go to automobile parking.
Overall we are pleased with SFMTA’s handling of some neighbor’s concerns, and believe that extensive public comment and outreach has resulted in a very good, albeit incremental, improvement to Haight Street bus service. The proposal to reintroduce two-way bus service on Haight Street has long-standing community support and meets many of the city’s transit first and livability goals. It benefits three modes of transportation---transit, walking, and bicycling, and benefits users of these systems that live throughout the city. We urge you move forward with this project expeditiously
Sincerely,
Jason Henderson
Labels: Anti-Car, Highrise Development, Jason Henderson, John King, Market/Octavia, Octavia Blvd., Parking, Robin Levitt, Smart Growth, Traffic in SF, UC Extension
posted by Rob Anderson @ 12:04 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
the M/O Plan mandates maximums of from .25 to .75 parking spaces in new developments, which will create a massive shortage of parking in the area
or... it might lead to (GASP) a shortage of cars in the area.
Nope, there will be more than enough cars for the planned parking spaces, which is the point. That's considered good planning here in Progressive Land.
No. This sort of development will turn off those who consider cars to be integral to their lives, and we will attract the kind of people who do not want cars to be integral to their lives. This is to our benefit - if we want to be competitive in the future that is the sort of community we need to develop. Period.
You're expressing something like a religious faith. Somehow the 10,000 new residents in the middle of the city---and their friends and families---won't have cars? Like to see some evidence for that faith-based idea.
They can bring a car, but we'll make it so miserable for them they will convert or leave. Perfect.
The impression I get of your beliefs:
Providing housing for people: optional.
Providing housing for cars: mandatory.
San Francisco is already the second most densely-populated city in the country, after only New York City. Hence, new housing developments should be considered a lot more carefully than SF is now doing. The Market/Octavia Plan calls for more than 4,000 additional housing units---in addition, that is, to what would normally be built---in a densely-populated part of town while restricting parking for the new units under the assumption that the 10,000 new residents will ride bicycles or Muni without providing any money for more buses or streetcars.
Check out what the M/O Plan wants to do at the Market and Van Ness intersection.
As a long time resident of more than 30 years in San Francisco, I know what the effect of not having parking is like. In the 1980's there were a lot of Victorians that did not have parking, the residents of these buildings resorted to using street parking which created a lot of competition for street parking. Then urban renewal began to encourage property owners to make improvements like new concrete foundations replacing old brick. And in the process also added off street parking in the street level of these buildings. In many instances this allowed multiples of cars owned by residents of San Francisco to now park their vehicle off of the street. This urban renewal has made San Francisco easier to park than in previous decades.
I wish to have a livable city, cars are part of that landscape, because despite what all of the newcomers on bikes believe many of us have friends and family and jobs that are not in San Francisco. The small mindedness of newcomers who have few friends or family outside of the city or have the luxury of catching a corporate sponsored private bus to work, the rest of us realize there is still a place for cars in San Francisco. San Francisco is the center of a larger metropolitan area that is currently not well served by public transportation or a regional governing body.
HVNA and its tactics are nothing more than a few principals bamboozling the citizens in their district into slowly choking off livability, property rights and the individual pursuit of happiness in favor of communist style mediocrity.
We don't need a center lane down Haight St for buses. We simply need No left turn and No right turn signs at the intersection of Haight and Octavia. HVNA and the Market & Octavia plan are only complicating the process and in turn making the general housing stock much more expensive while not meeting the needs of those who wish to live in the Lower Haight.
Bike riding should not blindly trump the use of vehicles as vehicles are a vital part of the real economy that serves and services the properties and businesses that those lovely bike riders and pedestrians enjoy lining up for.
The city is becoming more expensive because of these neighborhood restrictions being imposed by the likes of HVNA and the SF Planning Dept.
Haight Street didn't have a problem with traffic until the Market Octavia plan in it complicated form has saddled the Lower Haight to a future of unlivable dysfunction. There is a reason people have left New York, now we are creating another New York with all the pressures and hostilities that go with that carless mentality.
I wish to return to the live and let live San Francisco and the freedom to make property improvements to ones own property in pursuit of one's own happiness, and not the happiness of HVNA or a passing pedestrian or a passing bike rider.
And to all those who already have off-street parking and all the things they love about where they live and are in favor of this new form of progressive dysfunction and property restrictions, you are hypocrites!
And after the young anti-car generation is through screwing up our streets, they'll move to the suburbs with their young families, where they will drive SUVs to live normal lives.
"I wish to return to the live and let live San Francisco and the freedom to make property improvements to ones own property in pursuit of one's own happiness"
It's nice to have such ardent defenders of freedom around, who understand that the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to restrict other property owners from making improvements to their property which you don't like.
"the Market & Octavia plan are only complicating the process and in turn making the general housing stock much more expensive while not meeting the needs of those who wish to live in the Lower Haight."
Really now. Because reducing the number of apartments available while increasing the cost to build them, and increasing the square footage of each one by 25-50% through the addition of a parking space, will clearly lead to lower prices, is that right?
Post a Comment
<< Home