The new plan for this block of Cesar Chavez, which includes an additional lane on the north side rather than a parking lane on the south side. Image: SF Dept. of Public Works.

Snowballs are piling up in hell. I’m about to defend car parking.

The rug has been pulled out from under those living on the nastiest block on Cesar Chavez between Hampshire and York, closest to the 101 highway ramps. With only a belated chance to weigh in on changes to the design that never underwent the public scrutiny of the rest of the plan, a decision to add a one-block westbound traffic lane and remove a parking lane on the south side to make room for a curbside bike lane was made at the behest of Caltrans (which is providing $5 million for the project).

Since 1997, the southernmost lane on that block has been a part-time bike lane, part-time parking lane — a compromise that never satisfied anyone. Through the recent five-year redesign process, the plan shifted to include a full-time bike lane next to a full-time parking lane. Residents who had opposed the bike lane back in the 90s applauded that plan.

Although the change was originally scheduled at an SFMTA engineering hearing on January 6 along with several other improvements on the street, it was postponed until February 17 because the legally required postings were not done on the affected block. However, several residents never got the message. They learned about the January hearing only the night before and hastily took off work to testify. I went to City Hall, too, to testify in their support while wearing full cyclist regalia.

Why should I care about these car parking spaces? Several reasons, in addition to the lousy hearing notification:

• The change is a bait and switch. Neighbors saw one design and were now being subjected to another, with no chance for input.
• It discredits the whole project’s planning  process. Our organization, CC Puede, always took care to involve affected neighbors in the discussion and work toward some consensus, even in the face of often pretty heated disagreement. No one who initiated the process or who lives in the affected block was consulted.
• Physically, the block in question has a narrow sidewalk, and parked cars would act as a buffer for pedestrians and residents. Several homes on that block have been hit by cars.
• Public transportation for that block is not good and may get worse. Now, the nearest bus is the #27-Bryant, and that may move two more blocks to Folsom Street under a proposal in the Transit Effectiveness Project. Walking to the #9-San Bruno involves the hair-raising navigation of the Hairball.

The reason for the change is even more infuriating. Last night, city engineers held a community meeting to explain the change and listen to neighbors vent their frustration. They said that Caltrans, which had zero presence at any of the meetings, demanded that the original plan, which included two vehicle travel lanes in each direction (down from the existing three), be changed to keep the third westbound lane to prevent cars piling up on the freeway sometime in the next 25 years. Even during the construction now clogging Cesar Chavez, such pileups have failed to materialize. And even if they did, why should the potential temporary inconvenience of drivers passing through our neighborhoods take precedence over the safety of the people actually living there?

I appreciate the irony of getting on my high horse about traffic to defend parking. I hope the day will come when the residents of the affected block, who do seem to have garages in almost all of the buildings, won’t feel, as one resident said she did, trapped in their homes because they’re afraid to lose their parking space. And I would not advocate sacrificing the new bike lane to restore the parking. As mitigation, the new plan does include several trees and bollards on the block to act as buffers.

But what Caltrans has done is unconscionable. And the city agencies who have been visionary and supportive throughout the Cesar Chavez Street process failed to notify the community in time to let us agitate against this change. Finally, I fault myself for neglecting to check in on the process and nag the city officials for more details, once it seemed like smooth sailing, losing the chance to alert the opposition. I let myself and the community be blindsided.

Lesson learned: Never let up! And never trust the guys in charge.

Images: MTC

For more than 15 years, bicycle advocates in San Francisco and the East Bay have pushed for a west span path to connect bike commuters to the east span path expected to open between Oakland to Yerba Buena Island by 2014.

“We’re very encouraged that Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have come up with a design that works for the west span and the touchdown on either end,” said Dave Campbell, the program director for the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

“This new study not only affirms the feasibility and benefits of the pathway, it also puts this important project in line for funding,” said San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum. “Now, the city and the region are showing their commitment to connect not only the East Bay and San Francisco, but also San Francisco’s own neighborhoods, which is critical as Treasure Island is developed. This is an exciting step for a much-needed bridge between communities.”

The project would still take up to ten years to plan and construct once the estimated $500 to $550 million in funding is secured, said John Goodwin, spokesperson for the MTC, which manages regional transportation funding. Last night’s presentation of the project study report, funded by toll revenue, was just one step in developing the project initiation document, expected to be completed next summer, which will allow agencies to begin the funding search. After that, roughly five years of planning and five years of construction lie ahead.

The study report “shows that the project is possible, but not that it’s affordable,” said Goodwin.

While the cost has risen about $200 million from its original 2001 estimate, potential transbay bike commuter Tina Crawford pointed out to KTVU today that “we spend a lot more on transportation options for cars so I think it’s about time we offer this alternative and have a showcase for bike commuting in the Bay Area.”

Despite the lengthy project timeline, advocates praised MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger for helping to push reluctant engineers and staff to take on the daunting design and funding challenges.

Engineers from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll Authority last night presented a number of possible ways [PDF] to connect the path to downtown San Francisco and the bridge’s east span across Yerba Buena Island. The impact of the additional weight would also have to be mitigated, possibly by counter-weights and shortening the suspension cables, they said.

In downtown San Francisco, the west end of the path would have to navigate around the existing off-ramp as well as buildings and other planned developments, but engineers presented several possible configurations. The ramp could land bike riders and pedestrians in parks planned for the areas near the highway offramp, or on the short and narrow Lansing Street. One proposal would even connect to the roof of the planned Transbay Terminal, where stairs and elevators would provide the only way down. In any case, ADA requirements would mean the path would have to avoid including steep slopes and narrow passages.

On Yerba Buena, planners must also determine the best way to connect the east and west spans of the bridges by navigating the island’s terrain. Nine alternatives had already been considered and put aside, including a path suspended through the bridge tunnel above motor traffic, due to reasons including the lack of right-of-way, poor user experience, and interference with Coast Guard operations.

Advocates and officials said they plan to begin searching for funding after the project initiation document is completed and a preferred alternative is chosen next summer.

One proposal for a downtown off-ramp.

Another proposal includes two variations that would land the ramp adjacent to a planned dog park.

One proposal for the connection on Yerba Buena Island.

The project schedule.

Photo: pbo31

City planners have been talking about Complete Streets for awhile now. I half expected it to go the way of the Transit First Policy wave that swept California and the U.S. a decade ago; that is to say, a lot of talk, many well-intentioned policies, but mostly business as usual for transportation priorities. I am pleased to say that I think this one is really taking hold.

San Francisco has been at the forefront of this trend with the preparation of the Better Streets Plan, which despite lack of a capital improvement program or implementation actions, has been used very effectively by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) to exact improvements from developers and assure that city-funded/built roadway projects comply with best practices for accommodating transit, bicycles and pedestrians.

But you would expect such things from San Francisco. How is the auto-dominated Caltrans doing?  Caltrans first adopted something akin to a Complete Streets Policy in 2000 – Deputy Directive 64 – and updated that directive in 2008 [pdf].  Highlights are:

•    “The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.
•    The  Department  develops  integrated  multimodal  projects  in  balance  with community  goals, plans, and value”

Caltrans has also developed the Smart Mobility Framework, California Blueprint for Bicycling and Walking [pdf] and Complete Intersections [pdf].  More recently, Caltrans has updated its Highway Design Manual¹ to, among other things:

•    Increase the recommended time afforded for pedestrians to cross the street at signalized intersections (something San Francisco has done for over a decade and the Federal Highway Administration began recommending several years ago)
•    Require that signals be timed to accommodate bicycles (in response to state legislation requiring such)
•    Allow 11-foot lanes on ramps and arterials without a Design Exception (a fairly involved process)
•    Require count-down pedestrian indications be installed at new signals
•    Allow rain gardens and other “green” storm water catchment/treatment systems
•    Allow experimentation – colored bike lanes, back-in-angled parking, HAWK beacons,rapid rectangular flashing beacons

Despite its progress, Caltrans is primarily an organization focused on moving vehicles. That is not a judgment statement. It is a fact. Caltrans’ primary mission is to maintain and operate freeway and local highways throughout California. On the operations side, it is something Caltrans is quite good at doing. But Caltrans has a different set of objectives than local governments when it comes to some California State Routes (SR), particularly those that are urban arterials:  Caltrans wants to move people efficiently; local jurisdictions often want economic return. Although Caltrans is becoming more flexible, the fact that their objectives frequently differ from local objectives will perpetuate conflicts on arterial state routes like 19th Avenue (SR 92), El Camino Real (SR 82) and San Pablo Avenue (SR 123).

The best-case scenario for these roads is that Caltrans relinquish them to local control. Caltrans is receptive to this idea. The problem has been that locals frequently don’t want control; not because they wouldn’t like to have more control, but because with control comes the responsibility to maintain and operate, which is expensive. Relinquishment of arterial state routes should be a key state priority, not only because of its potential to improve conditions for transit, bicycles and pedestrians, but because it will allow Caltrans to focus on what they do well at a lower cost to taxpayers. Relinquishment could also be an economic development tool if the state were to incentivize locals accepting responsibility for state routes.

California has been through, and is continuing along a path, of reducing its state budget. In the first three quarters of the 2010/2011 fiscal year, the state has seen increases in income tax collections (fourth quarter data not yet released). As the state recovers from the recession, we will reach a point when state revenue exceeds expenses. A portion of the surplus could be used to implement a buy-out program, whereby Caltrans pays locals to take responsibility for state routes. In order for locals to be receptive, this one-time money would need to cover operating expenses for several years, maybe a decade. And that gets to be enough money that the funds, rather than being banked for future operations and maintenance, could be invested in making the streets more economically productive such that the incremental property and sales tax generated from the roads could off-set on-going operations and maintenance costs. There is already strong proof that investments in streetscape and transit enhancements, when paired with zoning regulations that permit transit-supportive densities, can result in private-sector investment in the adjacent properties, which increases property tax and potentially sales tax revenues to cities.

Notes:

[1] It is worth noting that the proposed update to the HDM is an improvement, but has flaws.  The SFCTA prepared a letter to Caltrans with a very thorough review of the draft and point-by-point suggestions for changes that would improve it further.

Green bike lanes are not yet an officially approved traffic control device in California. Photo: Bryan Goebel

For decades, a little known Caltrans advisory committee dominated by highway and automobile interests has been setting the design standards for signs, signals and pavement markings for California’s urban streets. If a city wants a green bike lane, it has to be approved by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC), which also develops the state’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

The problem, say advocates and city transportation planners, is the committee, which only meets three times a year, doesn’t include representation from all road users, and requires such an arduous process to do something innovative that many cities don’t even bother. It’s chaired by a manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA).

“Essentially what you have are no road user groups participating in decisions about traffic control devices that are meant to control the behavior of all road users,” said Jim Brown, the communications director for the California Bicycle Coalition (CBC).

An agency can get around the state process by getting approval for an experiment from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which sets federal standards, but it still has to get CTCDC backing to make a treatment permanent. Green bike lanes that have been installed in cities like San Francisco and Long Beach are considered trials, and have not gotten the state’s official blessing.

“We need to open up this idea of a state highway function dictating the design standards and the traffic control devices for urban streets,” said Timothy Papandreou, the deputy director of transportation planning for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). “There are unique differences on urban streets.”

A bill working its way through the Legislature and being pushed by the California Bicycle Coalition would require the CTCDC to consult with groups representing “bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.”

It’s the beginning of a process that the CBC hopes will lead to the state adopting bike standards similar to the recent bikeway guidelines adopted by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which incorporated best practices from all over the world. Caltrans is currently working on updating the state’s MUTCD and has adopted a complete streets policy.

“If we could get California to adopt these guidelines as a standard, then cities could try some of the facilities that are reflected in that guide with the protection that comes from doing something that has been endorsed,” said Brown. “It’s the lack of endorsement that makes communities reluctant to give things a shot.”

Liability is also one of the main concerns that prevents cities from moving forward with innovative street treatments, said Ryan Snyder, a Los Angeles-based transportation consultant and longtime bicycle advocate. He feels it is sometimes overblown, though.

“The first thing lawyers for the plaintiffs always ask is ‘did you follow established standards and guidelines’? If you don’t, the chance of a city losing a lawsuit is pretty high,” said Snyder. At the same time, it’s good to experiment, gather data and be cautious before establishing a standard because “there have been a lot of mistakes made in road design,” he added.

The SFMTA’s Papandreou worries that if the California standards aren’t changed soon, San Francisco will have trouble meeting its goal of making 20 percent of all trips by bicycle by 2020. That’s because obtaining state and federal funding for innovative treatments such as green bike lanes can be difficult if the treatment is not a recognized state standard.

“In all of our understanding of what gets people to ride their bicycles it’s really about design, and the design on the street. Funding aside, I’m not sure how we’re going to meet the 20/20 goals unless we put out more innovative designs,” he said. “It’s what creates that ridership and allows people to ride their bicycles.”

A green bike lane on Market Street in San Francisco.

The following is being republished from the monthly newsletter of the California Bicycle Coalition.

When bicycling facilities help people feel safer, more people of all ages and abilities ride bikes. Yet the current statewide design standards keep California cities from building the kind of facilities envisioned by the Urban Bikeways Design Guide released earlier this month by the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

To give cities the tools they need, CBC is sponsoring Assembly Bill 345, authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins of San Diego, to require Caltrans to consult with all road users when developing statewide design standards. At a State Capitol hearing April 11, the bill will be amended to ensure that this requirement applies to the membership of Caltrans advisory committees that help create those standards, such as the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.

Caltrans is making progress. In 2008 the agency adopted a complete streets policy that calls for accommodating the needs of all road users, not just motorists, in state highway planning, design, construction and maintenance. Yet that progress has not trickled down to the CTCDC, which advises Caltrans on standards for traffic signals, signs and pavement markings such as bike lanes and crosswalks. Motorists are the only roadway users represented: the California State Automobile Association and Automobile Club of Southern California each have a seat on the committee.

“We salute cities like Long Beach and San Francisco that have been willing to design the best possible facilities for bicycling regardless of what’s in the official book, however, most jurisdictions aren’t comfortable being that bold,” said Dave Snyder, CBC’s Relaunch Director/CEO. “Residents of every city deserve to have the best infrastructure, and this bill will make that possible.”

The California Bicycle Coalition is a non-profit education and lobbying organization working to improve bicycling conditions throughout California. CBC’s mission is to create safe, healthy and livable communities in California by promoting bicycling for transportation and recreation. Join the CBC April 16th in Sacramento for a party to raise money for the organization. Download the PDF invitation here.

BART officials and Contra Costa County politicians break ground on the eBART extension. Photos: Matthew Roth

For BART, the past month marks the beginning of two very different extensions, though both have been controversial. After surmounting vigorous opposition to the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC), BART inaugurated the 3.2 mile, $484 million extension last week with great fanfare and a large crowd of construction workers and politicians proud to get the project underway.

Today’s groundbreaking for the 10-mile, $462 million eBART extension was a much smaller affair, though the speakers emphasized job creation nearly as heavily as they did during the OAC event.

“BART is very fortunate this month, we’ve celebrated two groundbreakings, this and the Oakland Airport Connector,” said BART board director Joel Keller, a champion of the eBART project. “I think the important thing to remember here today is, we are building a transportation extension, but we’re also stimulating the economy. When eBART is in operation, there will be 40-80 permanent jobs and during the construction phase there will be 600 construction jobs.”

The eBART project will extend from the current Pittsburg Bay Point terminus along the Highway 4 median to a new Hillcrest Avenue Station in Antioch. The extension is expected to carry as many people as an additional lane of traffic on Highway 4.

The eBART extension is funded mostly through bridge tolls and a Contra Costa sales tax measure and will accompany the widening of Highway 4 to six and eight lanes along the corridor from the existing four lanes. As Caltrans widens the highway, it will build infrastructure for BART’s trains in the median.

“For those who sit in traffic every day in this corridor, it’s clear that we need major improvements to address the growth in East Contra Costa County,” said Bijan Sartipi,  Caltrans’ Region 4 Director. “It will take a multi-modal approach, also being mindful of the environment and smaller carbon footprint.”

eBART route map. Image: BART

Ridership estimates are 10,100 per day in the horizon year and 260,000 pounds of CO2 are expected to be removed daily due to reduced traffic.

The extension uses Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technology, linking up to standard BART at the Pittsburg Bay Point Station. According to BART, extending traditional BART would cost upwards of $1 billion dollars, though the agency and local officials haven’t ruled out the conversion from DMU to the traditional system if funds are available in the future.

More than a few of the politicians at the groundbreaking pointed to the DMU technology and the controversy around not extending traditional BART into a county that has been paying BART sales tax for decades.

Antioch Mayor Jim Davis recounted an experience when he was in 2nd grade seeing the original conceptual drawings for BART to East Contra Costa. “We expected a long time ago that we would get the real BART, but it has morphed into something different,” said Davis. “A lot of disdain, a lot of discourse, a lot of strife has been discussed over the years about this project. A few years after this is completed, when the trains are moving back and forth, the freeway’s widened, when 10,000 people are taken off the freeway everyday and traffic is moving, we’re all going to stop and say, ‘what was all that fuss about.’”

“The communities of Eastern Contra Costa County have grown much larger since BART was envisioned,” said Salvatore Evola, Mayor of Pittsburg. “Planning for and funding of the eBART extension has at times tested most of our patience, however, all of our citizens placed an extremely high value on public transit and we welcome with open arms a much needed expansion of BART to the community.”

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning body, is paying for approximately 60 percent of the project, with $263 million in bridge tolls and $20 million from other sources. The remainder of the funding will come from Contra Costa sales tax revenue and Caltrans. Construction is expected to start late this year or early next year during the Highway 4 widening and BART expects to have the trains in operation by 2015.

BART Director Thomas Blalock, seated, and Representative John Garamendi at the lectern.

MTC’s Executive Director Steve Heminger lamented his agency couldn’t do more to stimulate construction jobs, given unemployment among construction workers and low bids generally. “We are getting great bids on these projects right now. I wish we had more money to invest right now,” said Heminger

Heminger also pointed to the need to make infrastructure funding a priority at the state and federal levels. “We need that new governor to place a priority on transportation investment in our state as well,” said Heminger.

US Representative John Garamendi, whose congressional district spans portions of the Bay Area and is the only Northern California member of the House Transportation Committee, cast a shadow on the possibilities of getting significant federal money for public transit if the Republicans regain the House and especially if they regain the Senate as well.

“The politics at this time are not very favorable to the whole effort of building our infrastructure. If we fail to build the infrastructure, our economy will slow down as we move slower and slower with congestion,” Garamendi told Streetsblog, warning of what it will mean if Republicans have more control of Congress. “We will not be able to pass a surface transportation act that supports public transportation. They won’t go that direction, they’ve been opposed to it for years and years. We need to be really aware of what this election means in terms of infrastructure. Republicans are not willing to fund it.”

Garamendi has sponsored a slate of bills he calls “Make it in America,” which would close tax loopholes and other incentives for shipping manufacturing jobs oversees. With these bills in place, he hopes to see more American manufacturing in California and the Bay Area. Pointing to the Siemens plant in Sacramento and a new Alstom plant on Mare Island, he said rail can be made locally if the incentives are right.

“We need to make sure this equipment is made here in America so we circulate our tax money in America and a lot of it be made locally. The game changer is the law, the law that Democrats put in place that said it must be built in America,” he said.

Doyle Drive after construction, as visualized by Caltrans.

Quartermaster Reach is currently so neglected, most people don't even know it exists. Floating between Lucasfilm's Letterman complex and the Presidio Post Office, some sections have been abandoned for decades. A disused power plant sits at one end and piles of dirt and construction debris mark the northern edge. Once home to Yelamu Ohlone, Mexican settlers commandeered the area's flow of fresh water in the 1700s, the military established a shooting range on the site in the 1800s and paving for Doyle Drive had erased the site's history by the 1930s.

But Doyle Drive may hold the key to the 9.5-acre site's restoration. Nearing the century-mark, the elevated freeway is currently being replaced with a slightly-lower-impact Presidio Parkway. When construction is complete, the landscape underneath the freeway may transform from asphalt to wetland.

Doyle Drive as it has appeared for the last few years. The large gray building near the center is currently being demolished.

The key to revitalizing the area is a stream flowing deep beneath the site. Starting at the El Polin Spring, where drinking the water was once said to enhance virility, it flows under Lover's Lane Bridge before disappearing into decades-old storm drains beneath a bramble. The stream re-emerges briefly in Thompson Reach, before entering a 72-inch culvert that empties into Crissy Marsh.

The site is well-suited for a wetland, with silt and clay comprising most of the native soil. The curve of the roadway will maximize natural light for plants and animals, and with improved tidal exchanges and continuous green space, the wildlife corridor will be significantly expanded, though still interrupted by a massive elevated freeway.

Earlier this summer, the Presidio Trust completed a Quartermaster Reach Environmental Assessment and identified three potential treatments: a minimally-constructed stream, a diverse wetland with a boardwalk trail or a tidal lagoon.

The current state of Quartermaster Reach. Photo: Matt Baume

A long-forgotten rail line that once connected the Marina to Fort Mason is a crucial element of the site. Those tracks, a section of which still exists to this day beneath Mason Street, would be commemorated with historic markers.

Transit enthusiasts may dream of a day when Mason is converted into a rail line, perhaps as an extension of the tracks currently traveled by the F, but there are currently no concrete plans to do so. Earlier this year, Supervisor Alioto-Pier criticized a proposal to extend the F-line to Fort Mason, citing bogus concerns about outreach and funding.

Quartermaster Reach has been overtaken by invasive ruderal plants. Photo: Matt Baume

So far, the project has attracted enthusiastic support. When public comment closed on August 1, all letters received were in support, and the Presidio Trust expects to start work quite soon.

The preferred alternative features a wetland -- and, unfortunately, some parking lots. Source: Presidio Trust

"We'll be responding to the comments shortly," said Presidio Spokesman Clay Harrell, "and we'll release the final report as soon as next week, along with the signed finding of No Significant Impact." Due to the involvement of the National Park Service, Caltrans and the State Historic Preservation Office, complications with inter-agency cooperation could arise, but all agencies are currently working in sync, according to Harrell. He estimated the initial construction on culverts and utilities could begin in as little as a month.

The Presidio Parkway Construction will require a temporary bypass on the site until 2013, so it'll be a few years before the project is fully implemented. But once it's finished, Presidio guests and residents -- human, plant, and animal -- will enjoy one more piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is the restoration of the Presidio.

Quartermaster Reach may one day sport a boardwalk similar to the one crossing Crissy Marsh. Photo: Matt Baume

Drive north from San Francisco for a few hours, and the 101 will gradually melt into a slim road between giant sequoia trees. You've found your way to Richardson Grove State Park, where you can see thousand-year-old redwoods, the South Fork Eel River, and lots of campgrounds, but you won't see any big box stores.

That's thanks, at least in part, to the narrowness of the 101. With a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, most tractor-trailers are banned from the park. This has helped keep sprawl to a minimum, but some Humboldt officials have long complained that it isolates the county and limits commerce.

In response to the politicians, Caltrans spent about a decade working on the Richardson Grove Improvement Project, which culminated this May in a Final Environmental Impact Report.

As described, Caltrans' project would widen the highway and eliminate detours for trucks, shortening the trip from Oakland to Eureka from 725 miles to 279.

And that's where things get controversial.

The current roadway creeps right up to the edge of some old-growth redwood trees. As Streetsblog has reported in the past, impermeable pavement is bad news for root systems, since compacted earth weakens roots and impervious pavement keeps water out of the soil.

Richardson Grove after construction. Source: Caltrans

This month, a coalition of residents and environmental groups sued Caltrans to halt the plan. The widened roadway isn't their only complaint: There's lead in the soil, which they worry could leach into a nearby river. Excavation around the roots could potentially kill the trees. And looming over the entire project is the possibility that, with increased trucking, Wal-Mart might finally move into Eureka.

"It hasn't been adequately justified by Caltrans," said Stuart Gross, an attorney with Burlingame-based Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, which filed the lawsuit pro bono. The firm handles numerous environmental cases, including litigation on behalf of fisherman affected by the Cosco Busan spill. "The purpose is not, they've admitted, to improve the safety," Gross told Streetsblog, "but merely to get lifted restrictions to which waivers already apply."

"Caltrans' interest to get a faster highway has been on the table for a long time," said Kerul Dyer, Richardson Grove campaign coordinator for the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC). "They've been trying to do it since the 50s."

She added, "Caltrans cannot offer any guarantee that they won't destroy the old growth redwoods with the experimental techniques that they're proposing to use."

"They're excavating around the roots of trees that are one thousand to two thousand years old," she said. "That's never been done before as far as we know. These models that they're working off of are purely theoretical."

Admissions of Risk

Gross agreed with Dyer's interpretation. "They admit it will put at risk a large number of old-growth redwood trees," he said.

The Caltrans EIR does address the risk to trees. "While some cutting of tree roots would be necessary," says the document, signed by Acting District 1 Director Matthew Brady, "it is anticipated that many of the roots can be saved by using an pneumatic excavator like an air spade, rather than heavy equipment to do the excavations near the large redwoods."

Elsewhere, the EIR states, "Realigning the roadway requires some minor to moderate cuts and fills which would necessitate vegetation removal including some 30 trees of various species. Construction activities in close proximity to these trees could result in impacts to the root systems of these trees. There would be both cut and fill activities occurring within the structural root zone."

The document also addresses the expanding of paved surfaces, claiming that since damage has already been done, the effect of highway widening would be minimal:

Many of the large redwoods within and adjacent to the project area are likely affected by compaction resulting from the existing US Route 101 roadway and park facilities (campsites, trails, roads, park structures). The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase the magnitude of compaction on old growth redwoods that presently exists as the edge of pavement in many instances is less than a foot away from the trunks.

Environmental groups aren't buying the argument.

"The mitigation proposals included in the Draft EIR and the final report, those are both insufficient and inadequately explained," said Gross. "For example, in the final report, Caltrans suggests as one of the mitigation procedures, they're going to remove a restroom. It's not at all clear how removing a restroom from a state park will mitigate the damage to old growth redwood trees."

"Caltrans wants to cut through and pave over the life-giving roots of ancient redwoods in one of California's most-loved state parks, yet expects us to believe there won't be any damage," said Peter Galvin, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

But not all experts are opposed. Caltrans' consulted with their own certified arborist, Darin Sullivan, as well as with Dennis Yniguez with the Save the Redwoods League. They both determined that, under the plan, redwoods would not be "substantially adversely affected."

Ynguez wrote, "My professional opinion is that the highway alterations, as proposed, will have no significant detrimental effect on root health or on the availability of water to the roots of old growth redwoods adjacent to the highway construction."

"I question someone who works for Caltrans to produce an independent review of what Caltrans is going to do," responded Dyer.

Further Obstacles

Backers of the lawsuit are seeking an injunction to prevent Caltrans from beginning work in the Grove. They also want Caltrans to conduct further research under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

"We feel confident that if they conduct the CEQA process as the law requires, that the conclusion reached will be that the project as proposed cannot be conducted and should not go forward," said Gross.

Yet, it appears Caltrans is unlikely to adjust its plans. Alternatives such as a bypass and signaling changes were studied, but eliminated from consideration due to expense, engineering complications, and in some cases, an even greater ecological risk.

In fact, the EIR states that in some contexts, the current plan would cause no ecological damage whatsoever. "The project would not affect the visual characteristics of the river nor affect the water quality for fish," it states, despite also describing lead levels that exceed the threshold for hazardous waste.

"Caltrans, as part of its storm water management plan has prepared a spill contingency plan that includes identification of procedures and response crews in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials," the EIR adds. In other words: trust us. What could go wrong?

Plenty, says Kerul Dyer, and pointed out that Caltrans was cited for numerous violations in connection with a highway bypass project near Confusion Hill.

Besides, she said, "STAA trucks pass through the grove every day without incident. Right now there's a California legislative exemption that allows some STAA trucks through the grove every day." Those exceptions include moving vans and cattle rigs.

What's further complicating the issue is the difficulty finding proponents of the highway-widening.

"My official comment would be that Caltrans has no comment," said Caltrans spokeswoman Julie East.

The Humboldt County Economic Development Division also declined to discuss the plan. "The person who's been handling that is out on maternity leave," said the woman who answered the office phone.

The Eureka Chamber of Commerce did not respond to a request for comment.

"Who are the local businesses who will be benefited by this? Large box retailers," said attorney Stuart Gross. "It's a gross mischaracterization to say that this is a project that the people of Humboldt County are screaming out for. There are already exceptions provided for moving vans, certain other types of other large trucks that would operate in this area. The primary beneficiaries are the big box retailers."

Caltrans has until August 24th to respond to the lawsuit. Then there will be a hearing and settlement conferences, which could last about a month. Gross expects that they'll have a day in court in September, at which point they'll argue that Caltrans needs to redo the CEQA process.

"What we're talking about is the destruction of trees that range from one thousand to three thousand years old," said Gross. "This is truly an instance where the public's interest in preservation of irreplaceable natural resources is being placed at risk for a project whose beneficiaries are, if they're identifiable at all, large non-local businesses who simply want a regulation change so they can increase profits."

Of course, it's possible that Caltrans' assessment is correct, and the excavation and pavement expansion won't cause any damage.

"We don't feel that we have enough old-growth trees to risk," said Dyer. "I think it is a crime. And I think there are a lot of people who agree with me."

San Franciscans don't often spend their days contriving ways to spend more time near freeway off-ramps, especially when proximity to freeways can be a risk to your health, but the city's newest park along the I-280 exit at Sixth and Brannan Streets may make you think twice about it.

City leaders officially launched the park with an opening ceremony this afternoon, and with the success of the Pavement to Parks program, which reclaimed underused street space for public parks and plazas, the Department of Public Works and Caltrans have now embarked on a series of upgrades across the city on what we'll unofficially dub, "Off-Ramps to Parks."

"Creating beautiful, livable, vibrant, and sustainable spaces is an important part of our work, however, we cannot do it alone," said DPW Director Ed Reiskin. "These types of partnerships are critical in an era when we are seeking the most efficient way to clean and beautify the city."

On this sunny Wednesday afternoon, it appeared the demand for green space was strong -- even along a freeway off-ramp. Several groups of people lounged along the paths, and the hum of the exiting cars could almost be mistaken for the babbling of a creek (the exhaust of the cars was less mistakable, though a strong breeze and the trees helped mitigate that.) The park includes walking paths, new trees, flowers, and other landscaping upgrades like boulders, which serve as the only seating at present.

"Before, it didn't have all the greenery. All it had was a bum," said Megan Bluxome, an art student who used to live nearby, but hadn't returned to the area recently. "It looks like it's not part of the city, a very short natural walk -- right next to the freeway."

"It's an escape," she added.

Bluxome was lounging on the decorative boulders with a friend, Ken John. "It needs a bench -- or more comfy rocks," said John, who quickly pointed out the major upgrade had made him prone to demanding even more.

The park, which runs as a linear strip between a newly built apartment building and the off-ramp, was paid for and coordinated by DPW's Street Parks Program, Caltrans' Adopt-A-Highway Program, UMB Construction, and a group of neighbors who wanted to see less graffiti and illegal dumping in the space.

Over the summer, more spaces along freeway off-ramps will be cleaned up and greened by participants in the Jobs Now program and DPW's Summer Youth Landscaping Apprenticeship Program, including the Eighth and Harrison street off-ramp, the entrance to I-280 at Cesar Chavez and Kansas, and the Mission and Duboce off-ramp.

While the intersection of Sixth and Brannan may always be an unpleasant space to be a pedestrian, in a part of the city that lacks green space, the new park provides a small refuge.

The mess on Van Ness at California, scene of three pedestrian crashes last year. Photo: Bryan Goebel

The number of recorded pedestrian crashes leaped from four in 2008 to sixteen in 2009 on the stretch of Van Ness Avenue between Golden Gate and Lombard Avenues, where the double-fine zone is in effect. Crashes in which police deemed pedestrians at fault held steady at three, but the number of crashes where drivers were found at fault skyrocketed from one in 2008 to 13 in 2009.

Those stats have left pedestrian safety advocates wondering what's happening on Van Ness Avenue.

"It's hard to draw any conclusions after one year," said Manish Champsee, President of Walk SF. "I would call on the city and the state to really examine what's going on and look at all of the injuries, the situations, ... and try to formulate some conclusions and maybe start doing some enforcement on Van Ness."

Perhaps even more astonishingly, drivers fled the scene in five of the 16 pedestrian crashes last year. "I'm floored by that," said Champsee. None of the 2008 crashes were hit-and-runs.

On January 1st of last year, Van Ness Avenue from Golden Gate Street to Lombard Street and 19th Avenue in the Sunset were made double-fine zones. Van Ness is the baseline for the double-fine zone experiment, while 19th Avenue has received many additional safety enhancements, including increased police presence, streetscape upgrades, pedestrian countdown signals, and a reduced speed limit.

Those additional enhancements seem to have paid off on 19th Avenue: pedestrian crashes were down from 17 in 2008 to 14 in 2009, and all crashes were down by 13 percent, from 116 to 101.

But without stepped-up enforcement or other traffic calming measures on Van Ness Avenue, the double-fine zone failed to stem a major increase in recorded crashes.

"We need to look at each incident and see if there are any patterns or trends in the collisions," said MTA spokesperson Judson True.

"That's definitely a jump," said Pi Ra, pedestrian safety coordinator for the SF Senior Action Network.

Even if the number is a fluke, or the result of more-zealous record keeping by the SFPD, Ra said it's clear Van Ness Avenue should no longer be treated as the baseline in the double-fine zone experiment, deprived of further safety measures. "Enforcement has to be in there," said Ra. "Double-fine doesn't mean anything if you don't pull anybody over."

Crashes Spread out Across Intersections, Time

There's no indication the crashes were due to any one event, as the 16 pedestrian crashes in 2009 were spread out over nine separate months, with only May, June and December crash-free. In the 13 crashes where the driver was found at fault, nine happened when the driver struck a pedestrian who had the right of way in a crosswalk. Two were attributed to speeding, one driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and one ran a red light.

Pedestrians were found at fault just three times, according to the police reports: twice due to crossing mid-block and once due to crossing too suddenly at an unmarked intersection.

The 2009 pedestrian crashes were spread throughout the day, as well: 11 occurred after sunset, and five occurred in daylight.

Only one intersection on the 1.4-mile stretch accounted for more than two of the 2009 pedestrian crashes. Van Ness Avenue at California Street recorded three crashes. Two each were recorded at Bush, Eddy, Turk, and Union. Van Ness Avenue's intersections with Fern, Geary, Pacific, Pine and Sutter each recorded one crash.

One pedestrian was killed on Van Ness Avenue in 2009, near its intersection with Bush - prompting a column from C.W. Nevius that blamed pedestrians for crashes.

By contrast, a motorist was found at fault in just one of the four crashes recorded in 2008. In that crash, the driver struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk who had the right of way - a trend that grew mightily the following year, according to the SFPD statistics.

All four 2008 crashes occurred after dark, and they were spread across four months: January, February, August and December. None of the crashes were fatal.

The numbers are stark, but it's still not clear why drivers struck more pedestrians last year.

Teamsters Local 665 workers protest a parking lot at the future site of the Transbay Transit Center. Photos: Matthew Roth.

Teamsters Local 665, which represents city parking workers and some private sector parking workers, has been picketing this week in front of a parking lot administered by ABC Parking, a non-union company, demanding that TJPA and Caltrans shut the parking lots down and use the property for open space.

"If you are going to drive into San Francisco, it’s the premium way to get into town and [it should] not be subsidized by Caltrans," said Local 665 President Mark Gleason, who asserted that Caltrans and TJPA lots were half the price of nearby municipal parking facilities. Gleason argued the MTA, which runs Muni, could be getting a lot more money from parking if those facilities were not in business and drivers had to park in municipal lots. Even if they chose to park in private facilities, said Gleason, they would pay more money and the city could collect more parking tax revenue.

"The service they are providing should dovetail with the Transit First Policy and should not be adversarial to it," said Gleason. The union estimates there are at least 7,000 parking spaces in more than 15 Caltrans easements that could be closed.

Additionally, Gleason sent a letter to City Attorney Dennis Herrera [PDF], requesting he open an official investigation into the business of the previous parking operator on the site, US Parking, which Gleason accused of owing $7 million dollars to the city in unpaid taxes.

Because of state-mandated furlough days, a Caltrans spokesperson was unavailable for immediate comment.

TJPA spokesperson Adam Alberti responded that it was a non-issue because Caltrans was signing over ownership of its easements within the next few months to the TJPA in the preparation for construction of the new Transbay Terminal, which was recently awarded $400 million in federal stimulus money. Groundbreaking and construction on the terminal is expected by late spring or summer.

"Their letters don’t make a whole lot of sense," said Alberti. "They made complaints about the state of the site and the suitability of parking and the operator is working with the Planning Department on those issues."

As far as converting the site to a park or open space, Alberti said the timeline is too narrow and the TJPA is leasing the lot it controls for parking because it generates revenue the Authority will use for the terminal. "This is a very short-term parking operation," he said. "The protests that are ongoing are outside of our control."

A spokesperson for the City Attorney's Office, Matt Dorsey, confirmed receipt of the Teamsters letter and said "we are taking it seriously," but declined to provide more information.

Covered parking at a lot across the street sells for roughly 40 percent more than the 80 Natoma Street/81 Minna Street open lot.

(Photo: NJBIZ)

Congress
formally banned SILOs (short for "sale in, lease outs") in 2004, but
some banks are so intent protecting their deals that a court battle is
needed to settle the cases.

And in one such dispute, Wells Fargo has lost a $115 million SILO lawsuit against the same federal government that gave the bank a $25 billion bailout last year. From the opinion released by federal claims court Judge Thomas Wheeler:

Although well disguised in a sea of paper and complexity,
the SILO transactions essentially amount to Wells Fargo’s
purchase of tax benefits for a fee from a tax-exempt entity that
cannot use the deductions.

Wells Fargo had taken on the government over a passel of 26 SILOs,
including several signed with transit agencies in New Jersey,
Washington D.C., California, and Harris County, Texas. A Belgian
telecom company was also party to one of the tax shelters at issue in
the suit.

In
some of the deals, beleaguered insurance company AIG had agreed to
underwrite the SILOs. The precipitous fall of AIG’s credit rating last
year as it headed for an $80 billion bailout triggered some of the major banks’ claims to SILO payments from transit agencies.

As
lawmakers continue to weigh legislation that would slap a 100 percent
excise tax on banks’ SILO proceeds, however, it’s important to note
that local transit agencies weren’t necessarily innocent victims in
some of the deals. When Congress moved to outlaw SILOs four years ago,
transit officials were seen lobbying alongside banks to preserve the shelters.

One
former lawyer for Caltrans, California’s state DOT, even bragged last
fall that he had put one over on Wells Fargo by structuring the deal to
shield his employers from liability. "I sold [the bank] the Brooklyn
Bridge," he told BusinessWeek.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman told Bloomberg today that the bank is weighing whether to pursue an appeal.

Stephen O'Brien has been coaxing an oasis out of a most unlikely environment for a long time: the small green patches at either end of the ground level Mission Street frontage of the Transbay Terminal. He started back in 1958, when the old Key System train tracks that used to bring East Bay electric streetcars to the Transbay Terminal were being torn out. The Transbay Terminal in those days was a crucial commuter hub, bringing passengers from all over the East Bay. If you've ever ridden the F bus from Berkeley to San Francisco, you've ridden on the descendant of the same-lettered streetcar that once transported you from downtown Berkeley to downtown San Francisco just a minute longer than BART does today!

O'Brien is having his last day working his gardens at the Transbay Terminal today. His company's contract with Caltrans has ended, and he has been transferred to the State Building or the PUC building grounds. He's almost 80 years old and if he doesn't like his new posting, he'll probably retire soon. It'll be hard to match the half century he's spent cultivating the quiet, almost invisible oases at the Transbay Terminal. I heard about O'Brien from my friend Susanne Zago:

"Every morning I step out of the Transbay Terminal, one of the ugliest places I've ever been, and I notice this small green space as I leave. Sometimes it was completely trashed, but the next day I'd look in and it would be restored to its pristine condition. I looked at the trees, surprisingly mature, wondering what was planned for them as they build the new Transbay Center. I started asking around, and no one knew. One day I met this man who was in the space and it turned out to be Stephen."

July 20, 1953, Key System train awaits on platform in Transbay Terminal. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

Passengers boarding Key System train, June 8, 1948.

A natural oasis at 1st and Mission.

Beneath this 45-year-old pine lies a hidden patch of nature, nurtured for a half century by Stephen O'Brien.

A garden flourishes in a forgotten corner.

Stephen O'Brien knows what's going to happen. His 52 years of nurturing these garden spots will be bulldozed with the rest of the old 1939 Terminal, making way for the new tallest building in San Francisco and a multi-billion dollar transit center. The project has been gestating for years. I once had an office at 37 Clementina, which is only about a block away, and I remember the original plan in the late 1980s to bring Caltrain into the city center at 1st and Mission in order to connect to BART and MUNI, establishing a true regional transit hub. The Caltrain extension was deep-sixed by transit planners. Years went by, during which BART was extended to the airport and MUNI extended its N-Judah by building waterfront tracks around to 4th and Townsend (massively subsidizing the Giants' "privately financed" stadium). Now they've resuscitated the Caltrain extension, in order to bring High-Speed Rail into the center of downtown. The profligate waste of resources is breathtaking. But as long as engineering firms and contractors and building trades workers are all keeping busy, it's good for the economy right?

Anyway, as we go through our daily lives it's easy to not see the little patches of nature struggling to gain a foothold in the aptly named concrete jungle. I spoke to O'Brien on Wednesday and learned a bit about his long service at this deeply layered historical site. He told me when he showed up in 1958 there were just brown patches where today there is dense foliage and tall trees. I went to look for old photos at the Main Library's online collection, and as you can see from these pictures, the spots that Stephen has been maintaining have always been "green," albeit nothing like what he's helped them become.

In this December 27, 1939 photo taken in the first year of the Transbay Terminal's operation, you can see the two garden spots laid out from the beginning. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

By August 10, 1964, Stephen O'Brien had been watering and attending this garden for almost six years. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

October 8, 2009, just months before demolition.

O'Brien has an interesting history himself. He's got an Irish name but on his mother's side of the family, he has an English grandfather and a German grandmother. His English grandfather once owned a dairy ranch on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais before selling it off for $500! O'Brien grew up in Tomales Bay, and as a young man he jumped at the chance to purchase a lot in the newly subdivided Inverness back in the 1940s: $25 down and $25 a month until he'd paid off the $1,000 price. Today his lot is the only one left in Inverness that hasn't had a house built on it.

He told me about the barber who used to have his business inside the Terminal. After helping him sink his plumbing O'Brien got free haircuts for a long time. There used to be three different restaurants inside too, including the James Gray Company restaurant, and shoeshine and shoe repair were also thriving businesses there. Continental Trailways bus service once used the station in competition with Greyhound, just as other train lines once ran across the Bay Bridge along with the Key System, until the Bay Bridge was converted to motorized vehicles only.

O'Brien was in the basement a few years ago and saw that the vast underground space was still as good as new. Nevertheless, it's all coming down soon. He noted that the rebuilding of the Fremont Street ramps from the Bay Bridge had probably saved his gardens for an extra seven or eight years. The gnarly pine tree closest to First Street was saved from a nearby State Building, when O'Brien transplanted it from a discarded planter. It's grown to be 20 feet tall and while it's oddly shaped there's no denying that is seems to be thriving with its roots in the ground! The twin pines at either end of the Terminal were planted more than 45 years ago and though they've grown rather tall, they're dwarfed by the skyscrapers that have continued the southward march from downtown. O'Brien told me about the various birds, LBB's, gulls, hawks, and pigeons that have made this mini-habitat a resting spot. Varieties of butterflies have found a home here too.

The eastern end of the Terminal plaza.

The Millennium tower dwarfing the 45-year-old pine tree at Fremont and Mission.

To the west, this ungainly monster dominates a hearty pine tree that was saved from a discarded planter by Stephen O'Brien.

Who remembers that the highrise in the photo above was built on the site of the old arcade known as "Fun Terminal"? The same "Fun Terminal" that gave its name to the seminal album by local rockers The Mutants back in the early 1980s?...

Fun Terminal! Right across 1st Street from O'Brien's Garden back in the 1970s-80s.

Stephen was philosophical about losing his half-century's work. It makes him sad, of course. O'Brien's gardens have survived in surprised juxtaposition to the changing neighborhood that surround them. Easy to overlook, his gardens are larger examples of the persistence of nature even in a highly built environment. For those of us who haven't noticed the garden spots as we've scurried by, preoccupied with the day's work or the domestic dramas ahead, their imminent disappearance (they will no longer be maintained, but should stand for a few months more at least) might serve as a cautionary note. Shouldn't we stop and smell the flowers? And shouldn't we honor the essential work of the invisible toilers in our midst, people like Stephen O'Brien who has selflessly and without ulterior motive kept these little patches of urban greenery flourishing for decades? Stop by today and say thanks to Stephen O'Brien!

In 1953, pigeons had the roost of the lawn... (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library)

Going, going, ...

November 1965 view looking southeast over the Transbay Terminal. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

Terminal History

San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal was built in 1939 at 1st and Mission Streets as a California Toll Bridge Authority facility in order to facilitate commuter rail travel across the lower portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.  It was paid for by Bay Bridge tolls, which were then 50 cents per automobile.  At the time, the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was not only used for automobile travel, but also hosted two rail tracks on the south side. The rail portion was run principally through the Key System.

The Terminal was designed to handle as many as 35 million people annually with a peak 20-minute rate of 17,000 commuters that were transported in 10-car trains at headways of 63.5 seconds. In its heyday at the end of World War II, the terminal’s rail system was transporting 26 million passengers annually. After the war ended and gas rationing was eliminated, the Terminal’s use began to steadily decline to a rate of four to five million people traveling by rail per year. In 1958, the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was converted to automobile traffic only, the Key System was dismantled, and by 1959, the inter-modal Transbay Terminal was converted into a bus-only facility, which it currently is today.  (from the Transbay Center website)

Flickr photo: Cheryl and Rich

From the press release:

"Due to a dramatic increase in the use of bicycles on the Capitol Corridor trains, all 14 of the original 1995-era cab cars have been retrofitted to accommodate an additional four bicycles on the lower level," CCJPA Chair Jim Holmes said. "These new bike racks are in addition to the three bicycle racks that already exist on the cab cars. When we combine the retrofit cabs with the five newer, 2002-era cab cars, which utilize wall-mounted storage racks to accommodate 13 bicycles, it provides about 130 more racks each weekday to help accommodate the hundreds of cyclists who bring their bikes on board."

Once funding is secured and a retrofit is complete, Holmes said at least one cab car on each train should be able to accommodate up to 13 bicycles "plus an additional three on all coach cars." All in all, bicycle capacity will increase by 34 percent.

Capitol Corridor spokesperson Luna Salaver said she hasn't heard of bicyclists getting bumped because of overcapacity, which happens all the time on Caltrain, but says agents usually work with them to find space.

"We have to think of our passengers who are mobility-impaired. There has to be room in the first level of the cab car for someone to negotiate in a wheelchair or some other mobile device," she said. "But we try to accommodate [bicyclists] even if it means the [bicycle] has to go in areas typically used for luggage."

Capitol Corridor, on its website, says it is "committed to helping achieve greater environmental sustainability for a healthier planet. We believe in getting more cars off the highways and more people onto the train." The latest passenger survey (PDF), conducted in June, found that 64 percent of riders get to stations by car, but 34 percent would consider riding a bicycle. The majority of riders live in Sacramento, Alameda, Placer, Yolo and Contra Costa counties.

Images: Rael Fratello Architects

Ronald Rael, Principal at Rael San Fratello Architects and Professor of Architecture at UC Berkeley's graduate program, has developed a plan that would preserve the existing cantilever and truss section of the Bay Bridge and transform the span into a park and mixed-use development. In homage to the High Line, Rael's project is dubbed The Bay Line (PDF).

Rael and Berkeley have submitted their proposal to a design competition sponsored by UCLA, but have not made a formal proposal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) or Caltrans, both of which are not likely to support any more changes to construction of the Bay Bridge.

Though MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler hadn't seen the proposal, he called any attempt to preserve the old span a "pipe dream." "We won't leave it up for the same reason we are taking it down. That is, there is a real chance this bridge segment won't stand up in a quake. Also, keeping it maintained is cost prohibitive."

He added, joking, "Past that, it would be a great permanent location of the Summer X Games."

Rael, however, is quite serious about the project, pointing to many examples of re-purposing bridges and rail infrastructure to house dwellings and parks, including the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, the Promenade Plantee in Paris, and the Belt Line in Atlanta. Rael envisions the project as an important use of existing infrastructure to promote urban density and has a proposal to pay for the necessary seismic retrofits, which he points out, would be billions cheaper than the ballooned cost of the new self-anchored suspension bridge that is being built for cars.

"The bridge does need further seismic upgrades, however it was initially considered that a seismic retrofit of the old bridge would cost $200 million—something we've taken into account in our proposal," said Rael. "Instead, it was decided a new bridge would be better because it was estimated that it could be built for a few million more than the $200 million retrofit, at $780 million. As I understand it, the new bridge is now estimated to cost $6.2 billion to complete."

By promoting many uses of the bridge, including rents for retail and residential, the project would help pay for its own maintenance. Rael does project an upfront capital shortfall of $350 million, which he proposes recouping through bridge tolls or commercial rental over 40 years.

The upper deck would include a 1.9 mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway (with amazing views, no doubt) as well as tennis courts, a climbing wall, and 15 acres for planting gardens and growing crops. The lower level mixed-use development would include a number of pre-fabricated residential units, swimming pools, retail development and cultural amenities, such as museums and an open-air amphitheater.

Given the successful fundraising for the High Line and a very real need to maximize the potential of existing urban infrastructure, is The Bay Line less of a pipe dream than one would think?

Flickr photo: schlick33

Despite gridlock expected on the roads as hundreds of thousands of BART riders move to other transit operators or their cars, Caltrans doesn't plan to alter its traffic management across the Bay Bridge.

"At this point we're going to operate within our standard traffic management. We're going to adjust metering lights as is necessary," said Caltrans District 4 spokesperson Lauren Wonder. She noted that Caltrans engineers would be out monitoring traffic throughout the day starting on Monday and for the duration of the strike in order to gauge the traffic impacts as they arise. "We are looking at possibly changing hours on HOV lanes, but if you make it too restrictive, you might alienate a portion of the community and make those other mixed flow lanes even more crowded."

While she didn't rule out the possibility of converting a mixed-flow lane into a transit-only lane if deemed appropriate by Caltrans engineers, that option is not expected, said Wonder, in part because AC Transit and other transit operators are running at near-capacity conditions and don't have that many more buses to put into service.

"You have to look at the big picture and if a transit-only lane would result in more overall traffic," she said.

AC Transit spokesperson Clarence Johnson said his agency expects to beef up its service and put every available bus and driver to work, particularly along BART corridors and the Transbay route, to "help commuters cope with the paralyzing impact of the walkout." The agency has worked with Caltrans, the City of Oakland, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to temporarily convert the West Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Bay Bridge into HOV and bus-only, thus facilitating buses on their entry to the bridge past the horrendous back-up expected at the toll plazas.

MTC spokesperson John Goodwin echoed Wonder's concern that converting a whole lane across the Bay Bridge to transit-only might not have the desired effect of expediting travel given the dearth of buses to use it. Goodwin also said there was no way they would convert a vehicle lane to a bicycle lane, suggesting instead that cyclists use the various ferry services to get across the bay. All ferries can be found at 511.org, though Goodwin noted that East Bay Ferries and Baylink Ferries had already committed to adding service during the strike.

Goodwin and Wonder both encouraged riders to make use of formal and casual carpooling options, which can be found at 511's rideshare page, as well as Park and Ride and BART parking lots, which will be open and free in various locations and will be served by AC Transit.

When asked if a mandatory carpool option would be considered, as was done in New York City after the September 11th attacks, Wonder said no option was off the table, but she highly doubted any such action would be taken. "I don't think that a mandatory carpool has ever happened before, even with Loma Prieta."

In San Francisco, where traffic will be untenable if BART riders choose to drive in large numbers, there are no plans to create additional temporary transit-only lanes.

"We're going to be working closely with our PCOs and the traffic deployment to keep crucial transit corridors open," said MTA spokesperson Judson True. "For us, it's all hands on deck and we're going to do the best we can given the challenging situation."

BART Director Tom Radulovich said he had heard some talk of BART running shuttles through the Transbay Tube with managers at the helm, but that there were no concrete plans. He said he had also heard BART could consider paying for private bus companies to transport customers across the Bay Bridge. BART spokesperson Linton Johnson had not responded to our requests for clarification by the time of this writing.

Radulovich stressed that San Francisco's downtown will be a mess if agencies don't coordinate to manage the streets intelligently. "The worst outcome would be everyone drives and clogs downtown streets, then the limited transit that is running won't be able to move.  Unless there's proactive management of our streets and the Bay Bridge, that's exactly what's going to happen."

MTC's Goodwin said his agency has been working for months planning for a strike, which could have come when BART's contracts expired at the end of June. "I wish there was more that could be done, but in light of the budget squeeze, there's only so much. In the past, we might have been able to make up the difference for the transit operators with the State Transit Assistance Fund, but that was slashed in the last state budget negotiations."

"This is going to be an inconvenience for a lot of people, but it's not going to be a catastrophe," he added. "People in the Bay Area have proved over and over again, from the fire on the [MacArthur Maze] exchange in 2007 to the Loma Prieta earthquake, they are resilient. My advice is: plan ahead, pack your patience, you're going to get where you're going."

Really.

Let me repeat that: a woman driving illegally in a construction lane was upset her victim didn't jump out of the way fast enough when she plowed into him and the guard rail he tried to jump behind!

From the Santa Rosa Press Democrat report:

She was driving in the closed construction lane and passing other westbound vehicles when she rounded a curve and saw Sears, who was working on foot in the closed lane, the CHP said.

Stotts braked and Sears tried to jump over a guardrail but the van struck both the railing and Sears, the CHP said.

Stotts told officers she was driving in the construction lane because she was not used to driving on new asphalt and that she thought Sears could have jumped faster, the CHP said.

Fortunately the Caltrans employee survived, though he was seriously injured. Stotts was charged with reckless driving.

How about assault with a deadly weapon!?

Continue the fun at the Bike Festival After-Party. Free valet bicycle
parking provided.

To volunteer as a bike valet email LisaRuth
at vbpvolunteer@sfbike.org."

Photo: Susan Vaughan

In early April, Caltrans contractors replaced the sidewalk curb ramps along Park Presidio, but left without ensuring a smooth transition between the clean, new curb ramps and the road pavement.  Instead, they filled in the spaces between the curb ramps and the roads with bumpy, uneven black asphalt – or they left unfilled gaps. While a minor difference in grade may not appear to be a problem for most pedestrians, it is a major burden for visually and mobility impaired users trying to access bus stops along Park Presidio and its cross streets. At the least it's an unacceptably sloppy job, though the new curb ramps could be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“Accessible routes of travel are required from the new curb ramp through the crosswalk, even if the item is
still under construction," said John Paul Scott of the Mayor’s Office on Disability. "The asphalt should be suitably patched even if the milling and resurfacing of the street is to be done later.”

Park Presidio is a part of California State Route 1, but this particular project is a joint project between Caltrans and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Estimated to cost $18.4 million, its purpose is to upgrade signalization and curb ramps in order to improve traffic flow and enhance pedestrian safety from Lake Street past San Francisco State University.  It is scheduled for completion by the summer of 2010.

Adding insult to potential injury, Ghilotti Brothers, Inc., the sub-contractor hired by W. Bradley Electric, Inc. to complete that portion of the job, was supposed to only do alternate diagonal corners at each intersection.

“It didn’t happen that way,” said W. Bradley Electric Project Manager Brian Finley.  “There was scolding going on with the contractors.”

At the intersection of Fulton and Park Presidio, for example, Ghilotti Brothers did both the northeast and the northwest corners at the same time. This created the potential for collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles who were trying to cross the boulevard, as there is no crosswalk at the southern end of the intersection.

Finley said that the crumbly black asphalt – known as ‘cold patch’ or ‘cut back’ – is supposed to be temporary. When countdown signals and fresh cement are installed south of Golden Gate Park, the contractors will return to intersections north of the park to lay down ‘hot patch’ – or smoother, more permanent concrete transitions from the curb ramps to the roadways.

When the ‘hot patch’ will be installed is still not clear.

The San Francisco Department of Public Works inspected the intersections between Lake and Golden Gate Park, according to DPW spokesperson Christine Falvey.  "Our street and sidewalk inspectors are contacting Caltrans to restore the curb areas (even temporarily) to provide better access until they can come back and complete the work."

“Caltrans and the MTA are both talking about the possibility of additional corrective asphalt” at the intersections, added Finley, but if representatives of Caltrans and the MTA do not give him instructions soon, he said he'll  "be obligated to proceed.”  Once he receives word from Caltrans, contractors will be able to go back in and complete the curb ramp project.

According to Ghilotti Brothers Project Manager Mike Powers, the correction of the ramps, with hot patch, may happen on Thursday and Friday, June 19th and 20th.  Per the contract, the hot patch will extend 2 to 4 feet into the road pavement at most intersections, but at one corner at California and Park Presidio, it may extend 7 to 8 feet.

W. Bradley Electric and Ghilotti Brothers also disturbed SF Recreation and Park Department work along the pathways between Funston and Park Presidio and 14th Avenue and Park Presidio.  Sprinklers and plants were damaged or removed, according to nearby resident and Recreation and Parks volunteer Patty Phleger.

"We all want them to be accountable and for them to take care of their mistakes," said Phleger.