SF State Station, M Line, via wikipedia
Picking up on a thread from my last post, I want to focus on increasing the TOD potential along existing transit routes in San Francisco. The basic fact is that new (rail and BRT) transit is incredibly expensive to build, but generally well worth it in social costs. Our question is – what do we do with existing transit that is underused?
If you look at the transit ridership numbers from the Transit Effectiveness Project, the majority of the boardings on the K,L & M lines are in the tunnel along market. The busiest stop is typically Castro or Montgomery or Embarcadero. So does that mean that we should increase the level of service in the Metro Tunnel? What about the future? Of course, the reason is that those stops serve more people, as in they serve a denser population.
Instead of trying to increase the service from one point in the line, why not increase the demand along the length of the route? Part of the Eastern Neighborhoods plan was the introduction of Transit Zoning to areas near BART and the T line. This zoning should be utilized to try and increase the population with access to transit, but also the ability to live ‘away’ from the city. I understand that people enjoy the idea of living apart from Downtown, but in a city that’s this small, it will soon become inescapable.
Park Merced Plan, via socketsite
One great example of this is the Park Merced neighborhood trying to increase their density. The 1940s car-centric development is trying to add more towers to their land and take advantage of the M line running just a few blocks away. Instead, the residents are fighting to preserve one of the last bastions of suburbia within San Francisco. One resident says “”There is no reason why this shouldn’t remain as it is indefinitely” (from SFgate) – but that is the exact opposite of the truth. There is no possible way for the neighborhood not to change, due to the large increases in population that San Francisco needs to absorb.
Again, it all comes down to basic economics. More dwellings = cheaper houses. Living near transit = less reliance on personal cars. Developing around existing transit is much more effective than building lines through established neighborhoods. So, what kinds of arguments can we make to appease NIMBYs? It all starts with changing the government regulations.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Can Richmond Put an End to 60-Year Stagnation? on 08.11.2009
[...] faster Muni and growing population in the Richmond one more time? We’d like to point out this post about Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) on the blog of the same name. In a nutshell: Faster transit and denser populations go hand-in-hand: more space for people equals [...]
richard on 08.12.2009
“There is no possible way for the neighborhood not to change, due to the large increases in population that San Francisco needs to absorb.” Why does San Francisco need to absorb a large increase in population? This the question that needs to be asked.
Admin on 08.12.2009
It needs to absorb population because it has the most opportunities for employment. People need houses near jobs. The responsible choice for growth is to increase density, rather than increase the footprint of development.
Pedestrianist on 08.17.2009
Richard’s point remains valid, since density can be increased on every developed piece of land – often for far cheaper in the suburbs than the city. So why the West Side?
I’d argue that its current low density make it desirable because the addition of fewer units, which can be built for cheaper than downtown towers or SoMa lofts, would lead to greater increases in density and a quicker tripping of the critical mass needed to activate urban features like public transit and walkable neighborhoods. But that’s my personal opinion.
I think independent of overall density-related arguments, the west side of town has some of the more robust, and expensive, transit infrastructure in the city. If we’re going to continue to under-use the land around that resource, then we should seriously consider whether it’s worth continuing to invest in its operation.
Balboa Park Station Area Plan : San Francisco Transit Oriented Design on 11.20.2009
[...] close to BART for such affordable prices? As I’ve written before, why not take advantage of what we have? The question is, how can we best work to enact the needed changes? We needed this project 25 [...]