Blog: August, 2011
BART of the Future
Forget what your mother told you about "it's what’s on the inside that counts.” In the case of BART trains, it’s all about what’s on the outside.
BART’s new fleet of cars is on track to begin service in 2016. This month, BART provided a first look at the concepts for the new train cars, holding a series of forums for the public to weigh in on the design of the interiors of the future.
The most important change in the new fleet, however, is one made to the exteriors: the addition of 50 percent more doors for boarding and off-loading.
In our recent video “Crossing the Bay,” SPUR recommended adding more doors to BART trains as a crucial step to reduce loading delays and make for faster and smoother commutes.
BART currently carries more than 750,000 riders between San Francisco and the East Bay each week. That number is projected to increase as the Bay Area population grows by another 1.7 million people over the next 25 years. It is essential that we continue to use smart design to accommodate more people on transit.
Finally, while the exterior is the most important factor to system efficiency, the interior is important for user comfort, so BART passengers will be glad to note that all design concepts include new seat cushions that are, shall we say, less absorbent.
Read SPUR's blog post: How will 1.7 million more people cross the SF Bay? >>
Food Desert No More: New Grocery Store Opens in the Bayview
In many neighborhoods in San Francisco, the opening of a new grocery store is notable. But in the Bayview, a new Fresh & Easy store that opened on August 24 filled a full-scale grocery store gap that had persisted for more than 15 years. “It’s all about health, about neighborhood vitality, about jobs, and about fulfilling old promises,” explained Mayor Ed Lee at the opening. “That is what this store represents.”
The store opening, planned since late 2007, marked the success of a partnership between Fresh & Easy and a number of city agencies and advisory groups. In 2007, the Southeast Food Access Working Group, which is supported by the Department of Public Health, released a survey showing widespread support for more grocery options in the Bayview. Responding to this desire, staff at the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (MOEWD) reached out to many established grocery chains in San Francisco, including Safeway, Whole Foods, Andronico’s, Trader Joe’s and others, seeking a company that would open a store in the neighborhood. All of them declined to set up shop, except for Fresh & Easy.
With a lot of recent focus on incentivizing the creation of grocery stores in food deserts through programs such as the federal Healthy Food and Financing Initiative and the California Endowment’s FreshWorks Fund, it’s worth noting that the City of San Francisco did not provide any direct subsidies or loans to Fresh & Easy. Instead, MOEWD helped make the project a reality by assisting the developer in changing its building plan to make space for the grocery store while still adhering to code; helped spearhead a change to the city’s restrictions on alcohol sales in full-scale grocery stores so that the store could offer some alcoholic beverages; and facilitated the availability of federal New Market Tax Credits for Fresh & Easy’s participation in the development of the project. And, as the project moved forward, the Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee, which advises the city’s Redevelopment Agency, also provided feedback. This concerted effort by multiple city agencies and groups helped seal the deal for Fresh & Easy.
The store isn’t without controversy. Labor groups are critical of Fresh & Easy’s stance on unions, some neighborhood activists oppose the store’s sale of alcohol, and others argue that the development as a whole should include more affordable housing. Protesters with picket signs joined those who came to the opening to shop for groceries.
But neighbors’ enthusiasm was even more apparent. When Fresh & Easy CEO Tim Mason touted the store’s policy of not stocking food with transfats, “ingredients you can’t pronounce”, and focusing on fresh options – some in the crowd began applauding.
After the speeches, the doors opened to the public. And, for the first time in many years, Bayview residents could walk the aisles of a full-scale grocery store in their neighborhood.
Election 2011: How Did SF’s Pension Problem Get This Bad?
With two different pension-reform measures on the upcoming ballot, it’s no secret that pension reform will have a significant impact on the November election. But how did the city get to the point of having a problem of this magnitude? Clearly the recession has played a big part, but what about the many negotiated increases in benefits over the course of the last decade?
While there has been much discussion here at SPUR about the magnitude of the pension crisis in San Francisco, scant attention has been paid to the many decisions that brought the city to the brink. In a recent article, the Examiner’s Josh Sabatini finally cast a light on the elephant in the room: “Among the factors leading to skyrocketing costs is a political culture that routinely rewards public employee unions with little thought about the future.”
These increases have taken many forms, but with little consideration of the financial implications down the road. Sabatini discussed some of the trends in pension benefits over the last decade, including how former Mayor Gavin Newsom struck a 24 percent, four-year pay increase with the Police Officers Association, as well as the firefighters and nurses unions.
But this was just one of the recent agreements that should cause concern in the current debate. The real issue is that pay increases have continued in the midst of this crisis, compounding problems with pension and other obligations. And the reality is that voters must also take some responsibility. In addition to turning a blind eye to fiscally irresponsible collective bargaining agreements, they have also approved a number of incremental changes at the ballot that have gradually — and sometimes radically — increased retirement benefits.
Once again, voters will have their say this fall. With two competing proposals for pension reform on the ballot for this November, and a slightly better understanding of the potential implications, voters have an opportunity to move things in the right direction. The city’s proposal (Proposition C) is estimated to save as much as $1.29 billion over ten years by increasing employee contributions and requiring contributions to the retiree health account. Jeff Adachi’s proposal (Proposition D) is projected to save as much as $1.62 billion by increasing employee contributions and reducing benefits for future employees.
While each proposal promises significant savings, this has to be the opening salvo in the debate: The total projected cost of pensions over the next ten years? Four to five times the savings offered by either proposal. That’s $6.57 billion.
Will the city's pension proposal really solve the pension crisis? >>
PARK(ing) Day 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
12-2 pm
First celebrated in San Francisco in 2005, PARK(ing) Day has since become a global phenomenon. The annual event celebrates public space and street life by temporarily transforming metered parking spots into public spaces. This year, stop by the Urban Center between noon and 2 p.m. to enjoy a recipe from one of La Cocina’s cooks and experience El Puesto, an ongoing, traveling food installation by artists Sergio De La Torre and Chris Treggiari. Food will be served while supplies last, so come early!
Learn more >>
Opening party: Reclaim Market Street!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
6-8 pm
Join us at the SPUR Urban Center Gallery to celebrate the opening of Reclaim Market Street!, designed by the Studio for Urban Projects. The opening party will feature spirited gallery talks, refreshments, a presentation by the exhibition design team and more.
Reserve tickets and learn more >>
Announcing our 2011 Silver SPUR honorees!
We are proud to announce this year's Silver SPUR honorees: Natalie Berg, Art Gensler, Rick Laubscher and Dale Minami. Join us in recognizing the extraordinary accomplishments of these individuals on Monday, October 31, 2011 at Moscone Center West for the 2011 Silver SPUR Awards Luncheon. Stay tuned for more details.
Learn more about our honorees >>
Sponsorships available >>
High-Speed Rail's Plan B Is A-Okay
More than ten years ago, we did our first major report on high-speed rail in California, advocating for an alignment that went through existing town centers rather than bypassing them for cheaper land. The point was to use rail as a tool for organizing the state’s growth, reinforcing center-oriented development instead of sprawl.
For the most part, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has done the right thing on this basic question of the train alignment. But as we move from idea to implementation, things get messier. It’s difficult and expensive to thread a major infrastructure project like this through existing, long-established communities.
So it is no surprise that here in the Bay Area we’ve run into a lot of trouble with how to get high-speed rail from San Jose to San Francisco. Residents along the Peninsula were understandably concerned about noise impacts and eminent domain being used to take property for the right of way. Last spring the High-Speed Rail Authority actually voted to stop work on this segment until the Bay Area could sort out what it wanted to do.
In April of this year, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State Senator Joe Simitian and State Assemblyman Rich Gordon put out a letter stating their terms for how to do high speed rail the “right way.” Essentially, their argument boils down to two points:
1. Keep the project within the existing right of way, fitting in as many tracks as possible.
2. Don’t put the tracks on an elevated structure unless that’s what the community prefers.
Recently, I met with Senator Simitian to talk about the project, and my sense was that these constraints were, for the most part, fine. In fact, given that they could help bring down the cost of the project, accepting these constraints potentially makes the project more likely to happen.
Caltrain has now confirmed my intuition with the preliminary results of its capacity analysis, which studied a "blended system" for Caltrain and high-speed rail along the Peninsula. The initial results show that we can accommodate six Caltrain trains and four high-speed rail trains each hour by using a combination of two tracks in some places and four tracks in others. (And if we can manage to design the system to have level boarding, the throughput capacity will be even greater.)
Plan A for Caltrain and high-speed rail was to have a fully grade separated four-track system. This is the ideal from a transit design point of view. But we are now in the realm of Plan B: a system that is less costly and more politically acceptable. When we leave the realm of dreaming on paper and actually have to fund and build transportation projects, we almost always have to make these kinds of compromises. SPUR’s view is that this solution is going to provide enormous benefits to the region and is the direction we should all focus on.
There may be communities that are willing to embrace more radical design changes. (See, for example, an alternative vision developed by architects and students in Palo Alto for undergrounding train tracks as a way to knit the community back together.) Other communities will want to keep the disruption to a minimum. Fortunately for all of us, high-speed rail is going to work just fine with a combination of many approaches.
Read SPUR’s original 1999 report on high-speed rail >>
Read SPUR’s latest high-speed rail report, “Beyond the Tracks” >>
SPUR Announces November Ballot Positions
The ballot for the upcoming November 2011 election has finally been set. After five measures dropped off, we’ve ended up with the shortest ballot in a mayoral election in at least 50 years.
The remaining measures address some important financial topics in a difficult economy, when voters may not be in the mood to talk about money. Pension reform, bonds to pay for schools and roads, and even a sales tax increase — all on the same ballot. Times are still tough for local government, and that the city is taking on some difficult issues in spite of the state of the economy. For example, there is wide agreement that the city’s pension system requires attention; unfunded retiree healthcare liabilities totaling $4.3 billion need a payment plan; the school district needs bond funding to complete its 10-year capital renovation program; and the city’s roads desperately require investment.
To a certain extent, many of these measures rely on something much more basic: trust that voters will see the wisdom of investing in their city in spite of high rates of unemployment, continuing volatility in the stock market and severe financial challenges at the state and federal levels.
After hearing an in-depth report from our Ballot Analysis Committee, SPUR’s board of directors voted to take the following positions regarding the eight propositions on the San Francisco ballot this November:
Proposition A: 2011 SFUSD General Obligation Bond ($531 million)
General Obligation bond measure of $531 million to finance repairs, renovations and new construction of San Francisco Unified School District structures.
SPUR position: YES
Proposition B: 2011 Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond
$248 million bond to rebuild deteriorating city streets.
SPUR position: YES
Proposition C: City Retirement and Healthcare Benefits
Charter Amendment that would increase employee pension contributions, increase retirement ages, require employee contributions to the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund and change the composition of the Health Services System Board.
SPUR position: YES
Proposition D: Retirement Benefits for City Employees
Charter Amendment that would reform the funding of city employee pension and retiree healthcare through increased pension contributions, increased retirement ages and limiting the annual pension for new employees.
SPUR position: NO
Proposition E: Allowing Amendments to and Repeal of Initiatives
Ordinance that would allow voter-adopted initiative ordinances and declarations of policy originating with the mayor or Board of Supervisors to be amended or repealed by the Board of Supervisors, with certain conditions.
SPUR position: YES
Proposition F: Modifying Registration and Disclosure Requirements for Campaign Consultants
Modifies current San Francisco campaign consultant regulations to require consultants to submit campaign consultant filings monthly instead of quarterly, and complete a training course. Exempts some consultants from filing if they receive less than $5,000 per year in consulting fees, and increases other fees.
SPUR position: YES
Proposition G: 0.5 percent Sales Tax Increase to Fund Public Safety, Services to Children and Seniors
Ordinance that would temporarily increase the sales tax rate in San Francisco from its current rate of 8.5 percent to 9 percent, but would be repealed for five years if the state restores recently expired sales taxes. The revenue is intended to fund public safety and social programs in the face of reductions in state funding.
SPUR position: NO
Proposition H: Student Assignment System
Advisory measure declaring policy that every family in every San Francisco neighborhood should have the opportunity to send their children to a quality school in their neighborhood, and the system for assigning children to schools should give the highest priority to the proximity of a child’s home to the school.
SPUR position: NO POSITION
Stay tuned for our in-depth analysis of these measures at spur.org/voterguide as Election Day approaches.
Don't want to miss our ballot analysis? Join SPUR today to receive the Voter Guide issue of the Urbanist >>
What it means to be an urbanist
At the core of SPUR's work lies a belief in urbanism and its potential to solve many problem for our region and our world. But what is urbanism — and what do we mean when we say we are urbanists? This year, we used our annual report to answer that question with six reasons why we think cities are the answer to serious issues.
Read "What it means to be an urbanist" >>
How Will 1.7 Million More People Cross the SF Bay?
The San Francisco Bay Area is expected to grow by 1.7 million people in the next 25 years. If you’ve ever muscled your way onto an overcrowded BART train or idled at the toll plaza waiting to cross the Bay Bridge, you may wonder how we’re going to get all these additional people back and forth across the bay.
Meanwhile, gas is just under $4 per gallon today. What happens when it hits $6 or $8 per gallon? Will we have enough transit capacity to manage everyone who can no longer afford to drive?
In the last century, visionary planners made major investments linking San Francisco and the East Bay. When the 20th century dawned, the only way to get from San Francisco to Oakland was by ferry. We built the Bay Bridge during the Great Depression and the BART tunnel in the early 1970s. It’s been nearly 40 years since then, and the Bay Area has grown by 2.7 million people. Yet we’ve added no new capacity. Even the new Bay Bridge, currently under construction, won’t help: It will be much more resilient to earthquakes, yet no bigger than the bridge it replaces.
What will our generation’s contribution be?
And how will these 1.7 million additional people travel across the bay?
For our region to thrive as it grows, travel must move away from personal automobiles and shift to higher capacity public transit options. SPUR has developed an animated film to illustrate a few simple things we can do today, as well as one big idea for the future:
Video team:
Egon Terplan, Musical Composer/ Script Editor
Jordan Salinger, Producer
Denisa Trenkle, Graphic Designer/ Script Writer
Bjorn Rostad, Animator
Micah Hilt, Project Manager
Jonathan Rogers, Researcher
Sarah Dennis Phillips, Narrator
Noah Christman, Audio Assistant
Anthony Bruzzone, Content Consultant
Blog RSS Feed