Urban Action Final Pages

7/30/2019 Urban Action Final Pages

1/156

URBAN ACTIONA JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS

ISSUE #34 | 2013


2/156

2 |

Urban Action is published annually by students in the Department ofUrban Studies and Planning at San Francisco State University withfunding from the SFSU Instructionally Related Activities Program. Viewsexpressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect thoseof San Francisco State University or the Department of Urban Studiesand Planning.

Correspondence and requests for additional copies should be sent to:Urban Action, Department of Urban Studies and Planning.Departmentof Urban Studies & Planning San Francisco State University 1600Holloway Avenue,HSS 263 San Francisco, CA 94132

Phone: 415-338-1178 Fax: 415-338-2391

Email: [email protected]

For additional copies, please enclose a check ormoney order for $5.00 each(includes postage and handling made payable to Urban Action.)

Urban Action Logo (2012) Designed by Ramon HernandezCover By Nicholas McIlroy

2013


3/156

Urban action2013

A JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS

schoolofpublicaffairsandcivicengagement


4/156

4 |


5/156

The 34th edition o Urban Action comes as major shits in themovement o world populations proceed en masse towardsthe urban environment looking or better job opportunitiesand a higher standard o living. This edition o Urban Actioncontinues and augments the tradition established by theearlier editions o the journal. The journal is producedannually and entirely by students enrolled in courses in theUrban Studies and Planning department at San FranciscoState University. Thereore, Urban Action reects theattitudes and outlook that current college students eel andthink about the uture o urbanization, and how present-day society inhabits and eects change, on the urbanenvironment to suit its own needs and desires.

Our talented team o editors has leveraged previous editionsand produced a comprehensive anthology or understandingthe urban environment. Additionally, our skilled design teamhas created an exciting ormat that highlights the conceptseach o the authors wish to communicate. Writers whohave contributed to this edition o Urban Action representtheir understanding and interpretation o the urban studiesand planning curriculum, which include the disciplines oarchitecture, city planning, demography, geography, GIS, andurban design.

Our goal or this edition o Urban Action is to provide apublication that allows students to express their researchwhile giving an interdisciplinary outline o the urbanenvironment. We hope that you enjoy reading Urban Action2013.

Omar Abu-Hajar

Managing Editor

Urban Action 2012-2013

INTRODUCTION


6/156


7/156

Managing Editor

Omar Abu-Hajar

Editing Team

Sonja Gajic, Matt Stang, KareemHines, Victoria Winters, Colton Coty,Joshua Ollinger, Mackenzie Bunch,

Melissa Brymner, & Julian Bobilev

Design Project Manager

Nicholas McIlroy

Design Team

Alicia Pisani, Henry Pan,

Haison Zack Dinh, Jamee Aroma, &

Guy Michael

Academic Advisor

Ayse Pamuk

Contributors


8/156

tableof contents

34. Congestion Pricing

Mathew Stang

48. Ensuring Vibrant WaterrontsNicholas McIlroy

58. India:Struggling to Develop

Victoria Winters

68. Urban Pioneers in Austin

Zack Haison Dinh

10. Food SovereigntyOlivia Gregory & Brittany Giunchiliani

24. BRT Geary Extension

Henry Pan


9/156

82. Crime Prevention

Andrew Sloane

80. Streetsweeping

Benjamin Orion Lonchero

90. Central Freeway

Josh Ollinger

98. Lake Merritt BART Station PlanNatasha Dunn

122. Designing For Looks

Ramon Hernandez

134. Los Angeles Transportation Case StudyBrett Thomas

108. Geographic Isolation o Public Housing

Forrest Chamberlain


10/156


11/156

Food SovereigntyaSa tool

toCombatFood inSeCurity;Mobile Approaches to aContemporary Problem

Olivia Gregory

& Brittany Giunchiliani


12/156

12 |

Abstract

For a successul, all-encompassing, healthy uture environment, oodsecurity will need to be reshaped. The World Health Organizationdefnes ood security as having three acets: ood availability,ood access, and ood use. This project will be assessing how toadequately create more access, better availability, and promote the

positive use o nutritious oods in a variety o neighborhoods in theUnited States. Additionally, the goal o the project will be to help defnethe six pillars o ood sovereignty and consider that this social thoughtwill ameliorate the negative impact o ood insecurity. This defnitionwill help to understand that the problem not only is inaccessibility tonutritious ood, but more importantly, where this ood comes rom andhow it is produced. Empowerment in understanding these specifcareas could abolish the monopolistic powers o the industrial oodregime. The main question addressed throughout the article is howdo urban communities in the United States gain access to ood? The

project team will devise a pop-up grocery project in a hypotheticalneighborhood combating ood sovereignty to illustrate a small-scalesolution as well as address a case study o a real-lie in Oakland,Caliornia. By organizing communities and creating more accessto culturally appropriate ood, reductions in dependency on thecorporate ood systems can be achieved in order to revitalize culturesand neighborhoods. Every individual has a specifc role in creating asystem o powerul communities, and each is a puzzle piece in thelarger design o our uture environment.

IntroductionvThe time has come when the international community must beginto reject the proposition that ood is just another commodity orcomponent or international agri-business (International PlanningCommittee or Food Sovereignty). A ood regime has thus emergedrom stable periods o capitalist accumulation and agriculturalproduction and consumption relations between nations (McMichael,2009). The rise in transnational commerce has enslaved peripheralcommunities to provide essential nutrients to those in the core, while

amine has become a cultural norm or people within underdevelopednations. However, this unequal distribution o resources, ood, andwealth is not only a global problem, but also a local one. Communitieswithin our own nation lack access to nutritious ood and are essentiallyorced into consuming a commodity, rather than a meal. Thisinequality is a growing problem as population increases and citiesbecome denser. Consequently, we are seeing a rise in awarenessregarding ood production and its origin. However, this awarenessremains available only to those with access to proper resourcesand education, giving them the power to choose. A multitude o

communities have begun to gather and exchange ideas, preparing tocombat this global problem o ood insecurity with what is called oodsovereignty.

This paper outlines the six principles o ood sovereignty, including


13/156

URBAN ACTION 2013 | 13

in-depth research on the main points o the six concepts, small-scalesolutions or hypothetical neighborhoods, a case study, and a critiqueo ood security that is oten deemed the solution to complex oodissues. Food sovereignty has been studied on a global scale by manyscholars, however we have narrowed our ocus to ood access withinurban communities in the United States. Thereore, we have been

able to reect on our own observations, fndings and experience livingin and near these areas o interest. I we restructure consumption sothe consumers experience (their consumption activities and goods)enhances their desire to request traceability in the production anddistribution o local, nutritional ood goods, then the outcome wouldbe an improved ood system. Empowerment in understanding the sixprinciples o ood sovereignty could abolish the monopolistic powerso the industrial ood regime. By organizing communities througheducation, empowerment, access, development, and health wecan reduce dependency on corporate ood to revitalize cultures and

neighborhoods.Literature Review

Food sovereignty is a term coined by members o the Via Campesinain 1996, worlds oremost international movement o small armers,to illustrate the rights or armers, peasants, fshermen, women, ruralyouth, indigenous peoples, pastoralists, fsherolk and environmentalgroups to delineate their own ood systems (Food Sovereignty, 2011& La Via Campesina, n.d.). It has urther been defned in the 2007International Forum on Food Sovereignty in Mali as the right o

peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate ood produced throughecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to defnetheir own ood and agriculture systems. The delegates deepenedtheir collective understanding o the key principles and published whatis now known as the six pillars o ood sovereignty. We include: ocuson ood or the people, value ood providers, localize ood providers,put control locally, build knowledge and skills, and work with nature.(Forum or Food Sovereignty, 2007, p.1).

Food security, defned by the Wisconsin Food Security Project, is theassured access o all people to enough ood or an active healthy lie;households are ood insecure i they have uncertain or limited accessto ood through normal channels (Shaw, 2006, p.232). The lack oculturally responsible ood or dierent groups o people in the UnitedStates plays a large role in ood insecurity. The Newcastle Study,one o the largest UK studies on ood deserts to date, shows thatknowledge o and attitude towards ood determines whether a healthydiet is consumed (Shaw, 2006, p.233), and thus the lack o educationaround nutritious ood urther exacerbates the problem.

Focus on Food or the People

Problems with access to nutritional and culturally appropriate ood arenot restricted to a low income. Research has shown that not only havepeople lost more and more control over the source and quality o theirood, and have become increasingly distanced rom ood practices

Accessinghealthyood requires

manydierentresources:mobility,fnancialcapacity,and oodpreerences.


14/156

14 |

and knowledge, but also that ood access problems are present in awide variety o neighborhoods (Allen, 2010, p.296). Demographically-based ood access problems, time-based constraints, limited (edible)ood in rural areas, lack o cooking skills, wealth-based constraintsand limited accommodation to cultural needs are just a ew o theproblems Hillary Shaw mentions in her work on ood deserts (p.238-

240). Shaw (2006) claims that the Low Income Project Team defnedood deserts as areas o relative exclusion where people experiencephysical and economic barriers to accessing healthy ood, andyet it still remains relatively undefned beyond this basic description(p.231). These problems aect all neighborhoods, ranging romauent to extremely poor, with these specifc issues also aectinggender disproportionately. For example, single women are particularlyvulnerable and studies have shown that women with less access tohealthy, vegetable rich meals tend to eed the males o the householdbetter diets (Shaw, 2006, p.232). Accessing healthy ood requires

many dierent resources: mobility, fnancial capacity, and oodpreerences as several important actors. Less nutritious that are moreenergy-dense are cheaper and are less rich with vitamins and mineralsprovided by ruits and vegetables. This adds to the complex problemo ood insecurity.

Geographical proximity to ood also does not mean the consumerwill fnd the options attractive. Even i grocery stores and marketsare available it still may mean that a ood desert exists due to thesebarriers (Shaw, 2006, p.232). The most important aspect to this oodsovereignty pillar is that not only does it give the right to culturallyappropriate, sufcient and healthy ood to all individuals, but alsoit rejects the proposition that ood is just another commodityor component or international agri-business (Forum or FoodSovereignty, 2007, p.1).

Value Food Providers

This principle o valuing ood providers strives to reject policies,actions and programs that undervalue, threaten and eliminatethe livelihoods o women and men, small scale amily armers,pastoralists, artisanal fsherolk, orest dwellers, indigenous peoplesand agricultural and fsheries workers, and migrants who cultivate,grow, harvest and process ood (Forum or Food Sovereignty, 2007,p.1). Traceability schemes conventionally attempt to assure customersthat the ood they ingest is sae and has been the ultimate aim orood producers (Beekman, 2008, p.62). However, in order to value allood providers, ethical traceability must be used as a managementtool as well as a communicative tool (Beekman, 2008, p.63).Beekman (2008), in his article on consumer rights to make inormedood choices, explains that there are two justifable variations o ethical

traceability. Used as a management tool, governments must ensureconsumers that they are provided with sae ood. Ethical traceabilityused as a communicative tool is the notion that producers mustprovide consumers with sufcient inormation o these products.


15/156


The two are inherently intertwined by the act thatgovernments must ensure that the inormation providedis credible and sound (p.61).

However, with the interlaced relationship betweenbusiness and politics, this communication betweengovernment and the consumer is becoming unclear.

Due to the strength o this relationship, the only avenueto curb this altered communication is strengtheningthe community by valuing ood providers. When acommunity, representing a small yet powerul entity,joins together to attempt to understand the role o oodproducers, a ripple eect will cause larger institutions tovalue ood producers as well. For example, the notiono the ethical consumer in relation to meat productionhas popularized and in response, large meat producershave written animal welare policies and began to

improve housing and slaughter conditions.

Localize Food Systems

Historically, the localization o ood-systems emerged inresponse to social movements that occurred during the1960s. Today, in Europe and the USA alone, alternativeood institutions such as armers markets, arm-to-school programs, local label schemes and CSA arepredominant strategies to develop local ood systems(Allen, 2010, p.297). As stated in the 2007 Forum or

Food Sovereignty, sovereignty brings the providerso ood and the consumer together, establishing anavenue or local ood producers to be at the center odecision-making on these ood access issues. In turn,this protects communities rom unhealthy and poorquality ood, as well as inappropriate ood aid, such asood stamps, and genetically modifed organisms. Thisorm o empowerment resists governance structures,agreements and practices that depend on and promoteunsustainable and inequitable international trade andgive power to remote and unaccountable corporations(Forum or Food Sovereignty, 2007, p.1).

The Importance o Local Control

Local ood control must be maintained and consideredduring all urban/rural development and planningprocesses. Zoning large, corporate grocery storestraditionally requires extensive parcels o land in order toaccommodate large parking lots. These grocery storesonly bring nutritional ood to the neighborhoods with thespace required o these large developments. Currentlyin urban and rural development projects does one rarelysee a single grocery store, but rather a project withmany retail shops condensed into one. This trend only


16/156

16 |

enhances ood insecurity within dense urban or open rural areas andcontributes to ood deserts due to the inaccessibility o these lots byoot and/or sufcient transportation (Jackson & Sinclair, 2012, p.97).

A socially just ood system is one in which power and materialresources are shared equitably so that people and communities canmeet their needs, and live with security and dignity, now and into the

uture (Activist Researcher Consortium, 2011, p.297). This statementalone stresses the need or local ood control. Cities must begin tointegrate locally owned, aordable retail and ood shops walkingdistance away rom these impacted neighborhoods. Foot trafc mustbe the main priority or those designing the modern city in order toallow easy access to local markets. Transportation routes should alsobe designed to transport people and goods saely and sufciently withreliable service and aordable rides. In this paper we will discuss howto strengthen local control to combat ood insecurity and promote thevalues o ood sovereignty through innovative mobile grocery stores,

ree arm stands, and cooperatively ran grocery markets. These ideascombined are only some o the ways in which the community isnow given the power to decide where and when the ood should belocated at any given time.

Build Knowledge and Skills

Federal and local governments historically have intervened in orderto maintain neighborhood character and have thus been hesitant toimplement policies that preserve their socioeconomic status (Freeman,2006, p.167). To prevent this rom occurring in the uture, communities

must educate themselves to allow uidity in local decision making andlocal development, aecting policy implementation on a larger scale.For example, instead o ocusing on improving our largest hungersaety net, the United States Food Stamp Program, policy makersshould shit their ocus to improving communities local control oood (Gundersen & Oliveira, 2001, p.877). This in turn would stabilizeaccess to nutritional ood and strengthen the power o choice.

It is known through research conducted over the past ew decadesthat the government has historically been able to thwart all

attempts or disempowered communities to gain control over theirown communities. However, it is also apparent that when thesecommunities are completely stripped rom all investment, business,grocery, and proper education, a revolution can occur (Carter, 2006).The main point is that merely introducing more places to buy ooddoes not translate into better choices unless people are educatedabout what those better choices actually are (Sierlin, 2012). AsMajora Carter (2006) points out, rom a planning perspective,economic degradation begets environmental degradation, whichbegets social degradation, and this social breakdown can be

improved through an enhancement in community education and willulinvolvement, or social reormation.

Work with Nature

People whohave theability topurchaselocal ood areconsciouslychoosingto supportsustainablepractices.


17/156


The fnal principle o ood sovereignty is a reminder that there isonly one planet Earth, thereore, it is necessary to fnd a way towork with nature that benefts both humans as well as the rest othe environment. Methods o production and harvest must be lessenergy intensive in order to maximize the contribution o ecosystemsand improve resilience and adaptation, especially in the ace o

climate change; it seeks to heal the planet so that the planet mayheal us... (Forum or Food Sovereignty, 2007, p.1). There exists aninterconnectedness between humans and the environment that otenseems to be overlooked. This can be seen in unsustainable armingtechniques that are carried out by industrial ood producers. Thesetechniques that are used in industrialized arming have only lead to thedegradation o ertile land which then erodes and is rendered useless.In response to this environmental problem, urban areas have begundeveloping marginal areas o unused land to establish communitygardens. According to the article People, Land and Sustainability:

Community Gardens and the Social Dimension o SustainableDevelopment by John Ferris, Carol Norman and Joe Sempik (2001),there are many community gardens that exist around the worldwithin both urban and rural areas. The authors provide a variety oexamples o the dierent types o gardens that may exist within thesecommunities; each one intended to be used as a response to theparticular needs o a given area. There are some gardens that aresimply used or their aesthetic value while other gardens are used byresidents to grow ruits and vegetables. The demand or communalgardens has grown due to the issue o land scarcity, which is

particularly present in urban communities (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik,2001, p.561). Furthermore, the authors suggest that urban gardensmay be one o many key tools or communities to adopt, as they are...widely seen to be a way o improving local ood supplies as wellas leisure and recreational activity (Ferris, Norman & Sempik, 2001,p.560).

As it relates to ood sovereignty, some community gardens are usedto grow resh organic produce or the purpose o being distributedthroughout the community. Any neighborhood should be capable o

making their own communal gardening space and the level o wealthin the area is not necessarily a actor. Within the Mission district oSan Francisco, there is a armers market that occurs every Sunday.What makes this armers market particularly unique are the pricesor the produce: everything is ree to anyone who desires reshproduce. As stated on their webpage, their mission statement is tobecome a riendly gathering space or people to come together andbecome involved in localizing ood systems by providing sustainablyproduced ood that will beneft everyone living within the community.The ood that is showcased at the Free Farm Stand comes rom

peoples backyards, various armers markets, and community andneighborhood gardens (Free Farm Stand, n.d.). Communitieswho make their ood readily accessible through the establishmento something similar to the Free Farm Stand are also choosing to


18/156

18 |

work with nature. As people begin to avoid purchasing ood that isunsustainably produced by the industrial powers that plague our oodsystem nationwide, people who have the ability to purchase local oodare consciously choosing to support sustainable practices that protectthe environment.

Methods to Combat Food Insecurity

Lance Freeman (2006), in his work on gentrifcation, states, theaim here is to inorm eorts to build just, livable, and prosperouscities (p.157). Neighborhoods are constantly changing and thischaracteristic could be used to counteract traditional solutionsto complex problems (p.167). Throughout the history o theenvironmental justice movement, only stationary solutions have beenproposedsolutions that adapt to the problem rather than combatit head on. We shall now propose a mobile solution to these ever-changing problems.

A un and certainly innovative way o combating ood deserts hasarisen in the orm o mobile grocery stores. The development o thesemobile grocery stores has certainly caused a new wave or oodsovereignty, as it attempts to address the problem o ood desertshead on by bringing healthy ood to a neighborhoods doorstep.Alexandra Sierlin (2012) examines mobile grocery stores as a solutionto the plight o neighborhoods that lack access to healthy produce inher article Can Pop-Up Grocery Stores Solve the Problem o FoodDeserts? Entrepreneurs rom all over the country have developedtheir own version o these mobile markets. Sierlin (2012) uses the

example o the mobile grocery store called Freshmobile rom Madison,Wisconsin. Their presence within neighborhoods that struggle toobtain resh ood has improved the diets o those living within theseneighborhoods. This concept o literally bringing resh ood to onesdoorstep is popping up across the nation; several temporary andmobile pop-up markets will set up shop in so-called ood deserts low-income areas that are more than a mile away rom the nearestgrocery store to sell mangoes, melons, lettuces, onions and otherresh ruits and vegetables (Sierlin, 2012).

In 2003, one o the frst mobile grocery stores emerged in WestOakland, but only recently has the movement started to gain anytraction. Through the USDA who frst began to map ood deserts in2009, one is able to see a map o the locations o ood deserts thatlie across the country. Now that there is a sense o where access isneeded the most, is it plausible that putting mobile organic markets inthese areas will begin to solve a neighborhoods problem o accessingnutritional ood? Not necessarily.

Just because you build it, doesnt mean you will change peoplesbehavior, says study author Barry Popkin, a proessor o publichealth at the University o North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Price, quality,accessibility, incentives, they matter too. Every community is dierent,but new eorts or supplementing existing inrastructure works itheyre accompanied with aordable prices, education, promotion or

Aninnovativeway ocombatingooddesertshas arisenin the orm

o mobilegrocerystores.


19/156


community collaboration (Sierlin, 2012).

In essence, communities must frst be educated on the importanceo a nutritional diet beore they can truly value a healthy liestyle. Withthis in mind, these mobile grocery stores are not only subject to sellingproduce but also have a wealth o helpul healthy tips to provide ortheir customers. Just by simply inorming someone, the Fresh Moves

sta ound that i they provide relevant health tips like the actthat organic ruits are ree o potentially harmul pesticides theircustomers will buy more organic strawberries, even i theyre moreexpensive (Sierlin, 2012). The power o knowledge really does havean eect on consumer behavior. When people have the acts aboutwhat they are putting in their body, they are typically more likely tomake more conscious purchasing decisions at the marketplace.

In contrast to the emerging mobile grocery store phenomena, oneo the more stationary ways an impacted area can collectively battle

ood insecurity is through the development o local, worker-owned

cooperative grocers that sell local, arm resh produce. Such an

example comes rom Oaklands Mandela Foods Cooperative. Acooperative store is where anyone who works or the store inherentlyowns a part o that store. The cooperative is a component o the non-proft organization Mandela Marketplace and their mission statemententails: Mandela Marketplace is a non-proft organization that worksin partnership with local residents, amily armers, and community-based businesses to improve health, create wealth, and build assetsthrough cooperative ood enterprises in low income communities.(Mandela Marketplace, n.d.). A cooperative grocery store likeMandela Foods encompasses the six principles o ood sovereigntyand emphasizes the ollowing principles: ocus on ood or the people,the importance o local control, and building knowledge and skills. Theexecutive director o Mandela Marketplace, Dana Harvey, discusseshow ood insecurity has plagued her West Oakland community. She


20/156


21/156


we have selected to examine a community garden that is working toempower West Oakland community members to meet the immediateand basic need or healthy organic ood or themselves and theiramilies by creating high-yield urban arms and backyard gardens(Mission and History).

As an attempt to awaken the almost-orgotten knowledge o ood

production, City Slicker Farms was ormed in 2001 to provide long-term sustainable access to resh ruits and vegetables, with theintention to help alleviate pollution and poverty, and to reconnectpeople with nature (Mission and History). West Oakland, Caliorniais home to a variety o community arm programs that provide resh,available, and nutritious oods to local residents. This specifc gardenprovides culturally appropriate Arican-American, Latino, and Asianruits and vegetables (cooking greens, root and summer crops, herbs,eggs, honey, bread, wood-fred oven pizzas, etc.) sold on a slidingscale in order to ensure all income levels can participate (Unger &

Wooten 29).

This arm represents a 1.25 acre plot o land that produces 2.5tons o ood per year and a net income o roughly $5,000 in sales(2005 est) (Unger & Wooten 29). The land has been zoned as mixed


22/156

22 |

use, purchased by deed, which allows or the sale o animal oodproducts directly to consumers. As a non-proft organization undedby private oundations, this community garden not only providesood to impoverished and malnourished residents but also motivatesthe urban population to produce its own ood and participate in itscultivation. Today City Slicker Farms consists o seven Community

Market Farms (spaces open to the public), over 100 BackyardGardens, a weekly Farm Stand, a greenhouse, [and] Urban FarmingEducation programs, and is inspiring various groups to begin similarprograms in their communities. For more inormation, visit City SlickerFarms main website at http://www.cityslickerarms.org/. There arealso various internship and volunteer opportunities available to helpcontinue the growing ood justice movement in the Bay Area.

Conclusion

Solving the complex problem o ood insecurity has created a greater

opportunity or disenranchised communities to come together, sparkcreativity, and fght against injustices. Introducing innovative solutionsand educating communities on the values o ood sovereignty willlead them to become more empowered, inspiring the people withinthese communities to develop their own localized ood system.This may come in the orm o developing their own mobile marketprogram, starting a number o community gardens where the producecan be handed out reely, at an extremely low cost, or with a work-trade agreement. They may even set out to create their own localmarketplace that is owned and ran by members o the community.

These solutions that are already in use today serve as a reminderto all communities that they do not need to be dependent on largesupermarkets, ueled by monopolistic ood enterprises. Communitiesmay even become completely sovereign once they are able torecognize that such industrial ood regimes are not needed or anadequate standard o living. With proper education, communities willcome to understand that ood sovereignty lies within the power othe people. O course, one must understand that alternative systemscannot be created without addressing the dominant system frst.However, this transer o power rom the corporate ood system toa more localized, community based ood system will enable thesecommunities to come together and take back the land.

When contemplating what it means to have access to nutritiousood, this lack o accessibility has eventually led to the organizationo communities that promote health education. In turn, educationin leading a healthy liestyle has empowered local communities todevelop and create their own source to a nutritional diet, lesseningtheir dependency on industrially produced ood. By adopting the sixprinciples o ood sovereignty as defned in the 2007 International

Forum on Food Sovereignty in Mali, communities are given theopportunity to revitalize cultures and embellish their sense ocommunalism. This is a eeling that is elt by all who are living in aneighborhood that encompasses the ideals o ood sovereignty. Every


23/156


Reerences

About | Free arm stand. (n.d.). Free Farm Stand. Retrieved November 25, 2012, rom http://www.reearmstand.org/about/

About Us - Mandela marketPlace. (n.d.). Mandela Marketplace. Retrieved November 25, 2012. Web.

Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local ood systems.Cambridge Journal o Regions, Economy and Society, 3,295308.

Beekman, V. (2008). Consumer rights to inormed choice on the ood market. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,

11(1), 61-72.

Caliornia. Oakland Food System Assessment. Mayors Oce o Sustainability. A Food Systems Assessment or Oak-land, CA: Toward A Sustainable Food Plan. By Serena Unger and Heather Wooten. Oakland: University o Cali-ornia, Berkeley, Department o City and Regional Planning, 2006. Google Scholar. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. Web.

Carter, Majora. Greening the ghetto | Video on TED.com. (2006, June 6). TED: Ideas worth spreading. RetrievedNovember 8, 2006. Web.

Green, Matthew. Oakland Looks Towards Greener Pastures. Web log post.Http://www.ediblenetwork.com. EdibleEast Bay, Apr. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. Web.

Hillary J. Shaw. (2006). Food deserts: towards the development o a classication. Geograska Annaler. Series B, Hu-

man Geography, Vol. 88, No. 2, Geography and Power, the Power o Geography (2006), pp. 231-247Ferris, J., Norman, C. and Sempik, J. (2001), People, land and sustainability: community gardens and the social

dimension o sustainable development. Social Policy & Administration, 35: 559 568.

Food sovereignty. (2011, August 27). Union or Solidary Peoples. Retrieved November 20, 2012. Web.

Forum or ood sovereignty. (2007, February 27). Nyeleni 2007. Retrieved November 14, 2006, rom www.nyeleni.org/IMG/pd/31Mar2007NyeleniSynthesisReport-en.pd

Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the hood: views o gentrication rom the ground up. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Gundersen, C., & Oliveira, V. (2001). The ood stamp program and ood insuciency. American Journal o Agricultural

Economics, 83(4), 875-887.

Jackson, R.J., & Sinclair, S. (2012) Designing healthy communities. San Francisco, Caliornia: Jossey-Bass

McMichael, P. (2009). A ood regime genealogy. The Journal o Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139- 169.

Mission and History. City Slicker Farms. N.p., 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. Web.

Oakland Convention and Visitors Bureau. Facts & Figures. Visit Oakland. N.p., 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. Web.

Oakland Convention and Visitors Bureau. Facts & Figures. Visit Oakland. N.p., 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. Web.

Schor, J. (2007). In deense o consumer critique: revisiting the consumption debates o the twentieth century. Annalso the American Academy o Political and Social Science, 611, 16-30.

Sierlin, A. (2012, July 24). Can pop-up grocery stores solve the problem o ood deserts? | TIME.com. Health &Family | A healthy balance o the mind, body and spirit | TIME.com.

International Planning Committee or Food Sovereignty. (n.d.). What is IPC. International Planning Committee or FoodSovereignty. Retrieved November 25, 2012. Web.

individual within every community has the right to a healthy diet. Bylocalizing ood systems, working with nature, building knowledge andskills, and valuing the needs o producers and consumers, we fndthat everyone has a role to play in maintaining a more sustainable andsecure uture environment.


24/156

BRT: GeaRyextension

Henry Pan


25/156

SynopsisGeary was Munis very frst cor-ridor. At around 12:30pm onDecember 28, 1912, the frst

streetcar departed Kearny andGeary in San Franciscos UnionSquare on its frst run on the

A-Geary. The A ran rom thatspot to 10th and Fulton Street.Service became popular, and theGeary corridor was expandedto our routes by 1915. The B,which also opened in 1912,unctioned as a shuttle rom

Geary and 10th to Geary and33rd. The C opened in 1915,and ran on Geary until 2nd Ave-nue, when it diverted to Caliorniaand operated between 2nd and

33rd Avenues.. The D line openedin 1915 or the Panama-Pacifc

Exposition, shuttling passengers romDowntown to the Presidio via Geary,

Van Ness, Union, and Greenwich. Also in1915, the our routes were extended to the

Ferry Building. While service became cohesive,expansion was short-lived. The A was eliminated in

1932, and the D was eliminated in 1950. The C was also truncatedto 2nd and Caliornia. Auto mania, the promise o a Bay Area Rapid

Transit (BART) corridor, and redevelopment soon ensued, and the Band C were gone by the end o 1956. However, communities weredestroyed, congestion ensued, and BART nixed the Geary planbecause Marin County was not interested in a line. Since the 1960s,

Geary has been without a rapid transit line, despite residents alongGeary fghting or a resurrection. Their eorts have been stymied bysome merchants that have fercely opposed to the project. In addi-tion, the ambivalence o key stakeholders delayed rapid service arlonger than it should have.


26/156

26 |

The BeginningGeary was Munis frst rail corridor. It opened on December 28, 1912,and over the next our years, our routes operated on Geary (Matoet al. 27). The A-Geary operated rom Downtown to Fulton and 10th

Avenue until 1932 (McKane and Perles 174). The D-Geary/Van Nessoperated rom Downtown to the Presidio via Geary Street, Van Ness

Avenue, and Union Street until 1950 (McKane and Perles 178; SanFrancisco Examiner). What remained were the B-Geary and the C-Geary/Caliornia lines. However, they too were endangered.

While the B and C survived, they were slated or elimination. It all beganwhen Mayor George Christopher was elected as mayor o San Fran-cisco in 1955. According to Rick Laubscher o the Market Street Rail-way, he campaigned on the platorm that the B-Geary streetcar will besaved. Unortunately, he had a change o heart once elected, proposingto switch operations on Geary to trolley buses (Laubscher; Mato etal.). Increased automobile use contributed to the streetcars demise. Asan interim measure, the Geary line would operate with motor coaches.On the morning o December 29, 1956, the last B-Geary streetcarpulled into the Presidio Carhouse at Presidio and Geary (McKane and

Perles 174). The next morning, however, an interim rapid transit planwas implemented. Many believed this was the interim to the BART planwhich would soon be implemented. According to the San FranciscoCall Bulletin (1956), express buses began to run on Geary, starting rom10th and Geary and running to 2nd and Market in Downtown San Fran-cisco. The BART plan, however, would not be the case.BART Flirts With GearySince then, there has been a never-ending fght to revive rapid transit onGeary. As soon as the B was discontinued, BART was planned to be

built to Marin County. Unortunately, in 1962, Marin County pulled out othe BART agreement, and as a result, plans or rapid transit on Gearywere shelved (Geary Task Force 3). Things would not get better or theGeary corridor. According to the Geary Task Force Final Report, a 1966bond that would have brought BART to Geary was deeated (Geary


27/156


Task Force 3). BART made one last attempt to study the Geary corridorin 1973 as part o the Northwest Corridor Extension. That, too, came toa halt as there was signifcant opposition, particularly rom the mer-chants (Geary Task Force 3). It seemed that enhanced transit servicewould never be a reality on Geary. That all changed in 1979.Kicking The Can Down The RoadRapid transit on Geary was no longer on the horizon. However, Muni,along with Wilbur Smith and Associates, had been evaluating convert-ing the transit system to resemble a grid system (San Francisco Muni,

7). Later, it was, with Phase 1A implemented on August 31, 1979.This involved implementing enhanced express bus service rom theRichmond to Downtown, a limited-service bus route down Geary, andrerouting the 38-Geary away rom Balboa to Lands End (McKane andPerles 229; Geary Task Force 4). Neighbors soon opposed this ar-rangement, and the 38 was eventually branched into three segments(Rosenberg). The frst segment maintained its original routing to OceanBeach via Balboa, while the second segment maintained its new rout-ing to Lands End. A third segment was created to serve the Veterans

Administration Hospital at Fort Miley. While rapid transit was still a long

reach, this enabled better access to and rom the Richmond District.Soon, increased growth in both the Richmond district and Downtownled residents to organize or more improved service on the 38.Eventually, the residents saw the need or rapid transit on Geary. A taskorce was created in 1988 to oversee alternatives or rapid transit onGeary, in response to a halhearted plan to convert service on Gearyto trolleybus BRT (Geary Task Force 4). The task orce researched lightrail and a bus rapid transit subway Downtown, which set the precedentor uture project planning along Geary. They noted that it would be

expensive to build a rapid transit mode using trolley buses, especiallyi it were to be accommodated by a subway. The task orce ultimatelychose to build light rail, contingent on unding. That is where Proposi-tion B comes in.Prop B was passed in 1989, which created a hal-cent sales tax or


28/156

28 |

transportation projects. But there was no way light rail on Geary couldbe built since there were no easible alternatives developed by Muni tobypass the complex intersections at Fillmore, where six lanes o trafcdive under the street, and at Presidio/Masonic, where our lanes o tra-fc bypass those two streets through a tunnel. In addition, a compet-ing light rail project doomed Geary light rail. According to Peter Strausand Duncan J. Watry, Prop B stipulated that unds would be allocatedto build light rail on either the Geary or the 3rd Street corridor (Strausand Watry 61). Muni ultimately chose to build light rail along 3rd Street,because o widespread community support (Straus and Watry 62-63).While it was built, Geary was still a ocus o transit improvements.Contemporary DevelopmentsNot all hope was lost or the Geary corridor. A corridor planning studywas initiated in 1995, which, like the Geary Transit Task Force, alsostudied light rail and bus alternatives. Vehicles would originate rom aacility at Lands End, and operate on an exclusive right-o-way rom39th Avenue to Laguna, enter a subway at Laguna, and emerge either

at Market, where it could continue to the Transbay Terminal, or at How-ard and 2nd, or at 3rd/4th Streets and Brannan, which was in conjunc-tion with the Central Subway (Merrill & Associates, 18-20). Travel timerom each terminal would take 28 minutes. The study also evaluatedthe easibility o BART service on Geary, which would run rom MarinCounty to the East Bay or the San Francisco International Airport. Thestudy also attempts to address the situation caused by the intersectionarrangements at Fillmore and Presidio/Masonic. The only alternativesuggested was to put transit on viaducts that bypassed the bypasses(Merrill & Associates 49, 61). Another issue that was addressed was

how the subway would cross Market Street to reach the South o Mar-ket or the Transbay Terminal. They studied having it cross above theMarket Street Subway at 3rd Street, the only point easible, or belowthe existing subway, which would be cost-prohibitive (Merrill & Associ-


29/156

| 29

ates, 50) . Despite the complexities, the study rea-frmed the importance o the Geary corridor, and howrapid transit was badly needed. The San FranciscoCounty Transportation Authority agreed.In 1996, the San Francisco County Transportation

Authority identifed Geary as one o our rapid transit

corridors vital to the city, based on the 1995 systemplanning study (San Francisco Guideway Associates).This ensured rapid transit would still be guaranteedor one o the busiest corridors in the city. With Prop Bunding earmarked or the Third Street Light Rail proj-ect, they did not have enough money to build light railon Geary. Meanwhile, with the Richmond experiencinga population inux, as well as increased trafc, some-thing had to be done soon. The SFCTA then decidedon a two-phase approach to rapid transit on Geary:

bus rapid transit, then light rail. This was eventuallyembraced by the then-newly ormed San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA).Muni released its Vision or Rapid Transit in SanFrancisco study in 2002, which outlined the cor-ridors deserving o requent, reliable service in orderto accommodate growth in the city. This was whereBRT was introduced as a concept that could improveMuni service, since unding was limited (Vision 9).Geary was selected as one o 12 rapid transit cor-

ridors which would initially receive BRT. Ultimately, thecorridor would be studied or either light rail or trolleycoach BRT, making enhanced transit on Geary closerto reality (Vision, 19). It fnally received a defnitesource o unding in 2003, when Proposition K, a30-year extension o Proposition B, passed. Proposi-tion K plans to allocate $110 million or a BRT systemthat includes Geary, and $55 million or building lightrail along Geary. As a result, this project evolved into

a rail-ready project, where the inrastructure or busrapid transit will be constructed to light rail standards(Sales Tax 155-156, Dyett & Bhatia et al. 2-11).However, many dilemmas remain unsolved or the cur-rent BRT project which is continually under opposition.Geary: Building the Perect BRT?Many workings o the current BRT plan remain un-solved. For certain, the Geary BRT project will consisto dedicated lanes. In addition, i all goes accordingto plan, BRT will be ready as early as 2019. However,

it is not known how ar BRT will run all the way out tothe Richmond. At a recent Geary BRT Citizens Advi-sory Committee meeting, it was announced by DavidParisi and Chester Fung that BRT would end at 25th


30/156

30 |

Avenue, with the lanes transitioning to the right-side lane between 25thand 33rd (Parisi and Fung). In addition, they are still deciding on whatalternatives to build. While all alternatives show a side-running alterna-tive west o 25th, some o the alternatives will conict with the existingFillmore Underpass and the Masonic Tunnel. In act, the alternativesare so complicated, that there are talks o a fth alternative (Parisi). Andfnally, two variants o separated transit lanes will be built rom Gough to

Market Street (Fung).The SFCTA is currently evaluating fve alternatives or the project. Onealternative is a no-build alternative, which is required under the Calior-nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National EnvironmentalProtection Act (NEPA) to be studied. Another would entail side-runninglanes. Two more alternatives would have center-running lanes, one withone center median, and the other with two side medians, as shown inFigure 3. A fth alternative was disclosed at a recent meeting with DavidParisi in December 2012, which would consolidate local and limitedservice because o concerns about allowing sufcient room or limited

buses to pass the local BRT service. All alternatives will entail side-run-ning BRT between 26th and 33rd Avenue, as well as two side-runningalternatives on Geary and OFarrell between Gough and Market (Parisiand Fung). I properly planned, the service should be ready by 2019.But some alternatives pose problems, particularly with the two trickyintersections at Fillmore and Presidio/Masonic. While some alternativescall or flling the Geary underpass, the Presidio/Masonic intersection ismore complicated.

The transit stop arrangement planned at the Geary and Presidio/Ma-sonic intersection is problematic. Assuming a center-running alignment

is selected, it would require buses to operate in the already-existingunderpass, as shown in Figure 4. This would present a situation similarto what is experienced at Glen Park Station or the J-Church, which islocated on the middle o San Jose Avenue. As Figure 5 shows, Glen


31/156


Park station is only accessed via a stairwell adjacent to a reeway o-ramp. That particular station, like the proposed station, is unprotected,prone to vandalism, unsae, and unattractive. One method to makea uture Presidio/Masonic stop (as well as Glen Park) sae is to makethe station similar to that o a Muni Metro Station, which will include aStation Agent booth. This allows surveillance o the station, thereoremaking the stop saer, more attractive, and less prone to vandalism.

However, even i these changes are made, it still has to contend withexternal obstacles.Even now, buses have to navigate obstacles. The bus lanes currently inuse east o Gough Street are unprotected and susceptible to vehicularinvasion. Currently, they are only to be used by buses, taxis, and motor-ists anticipating right turns or up to one block. But motorists oten outthis rule, and drive on it or multiple blocks, hindering buses. This isespecially prevalent in the Downtown area. The lanes are largely unen-orceable because o the lack o resources at the SFPD trafc company,despite ront-mounted enorcement cameras on the buses. As o March

2013, the SFCTA is currently evaluating a let-side running BRT anda right-side running BRT on Geary and OFarrell between Gough andMarket. Both alternatives have their benefts and drawbacks. Figures6 and 7 demonstrate the two alternatives. The let-side variant may bemore easible and efcient to implement, considering it is concurrentwith a center-running alternative in Outer Geary, and provides a gradualtransition to the right side once it approaches Market. However, this ne-cessitates creating island platorms, which are known or subpar waitingconditions, especially since it is surrounded by trafc. Right-side run-ning BRT would not require any new construction o passenger waiting

areas, however it is orced to weave through trafc on OFarrell betweenPowell and Stockton to retain a parking garage queue. In order or BRTto be eective, there must be a barrier-separated bus-only lane easto Gough Street, to prevent autos rom infltrating the lane and slowing

The bus lanescurrently inuse easto GoughStreet areunprotected

and suscep-tible to ve-hicularinvasion.


32/156

32 |

transit service. The SFCTA acknowledges this and issues two alterna-tives, and while it may not be enough, it is the frst step in developing acohesive BRT system on Geary.Geary BRT is another attempt to address problems along the corridorsince the B and C lines were discontinued. I planned well, this projectshould be ready or revenue service in 2019. However, problems at the

complex intersections and on inner Geary remain partially unsolved,although simple remedies, i implemented, probably would not delaystart o service. In act, as soon as the BRT line opens, planning shouldimmediately begin or light rail along the corridor, to compensate ordepreciated levels o service since the B and C were withdrawn.Conclusion

The Geary project has come a long way. It was Munis frst corridor, andnow has the potential to be Munis frst BRT corridor. Unortunately, thealse siren o progress, with auto mania and redevelopment, signaledits demise. Over the years, it could have had BART operate into the

Richmond, but support was lackluster and they werent willing to com-mit. Eventually, many sought to get light rail built, but the ambivalence


33/156


Reerences

A Vision For Rapid Transit in San Francisco. San Francisco Municipal Railway, 2002.

Dyett & Bhatia, Environmental Science Associates, and DKS Associates. Expenditure Plan and

Sales Tax Reauthorization Final Environmental Impact Report. San Francisco County Transportation Authority. June 2003.

End o Line Today / Geary Streetcars Rumble Their Last. San Francisco Call Bulletin, 29 December 1956

Final Report / Geary Transit Task Force. Municipal Railway o San Francisco, October 1989. Print.

Fung, Chester and Parisi, David. Presentation to the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Citizens Advisory Committee. 21 March2013.

Laubscher, Rick. What Might Have Been: Geary. Market Street Railway, 22 September 2008. Web. 23 October 2012

Mato, Tom, John McKane, Anthony Perles, and Peter Straus. The Peoples Railway:

The History o the Municipal Railway o San Francisco. Glendale: Interurban Press, 1981. Print.

McKane, John and Anthony Perles. Inside Muni. Glendale: Interurban Press, 1982.

Merrill & Associates. Geary Corridor System Planning Study. San Francisco Municipal Railway, April 1995.

Rosenberg, Paul. B Geary/Geary BRT. Message to the author. 28 July 2012. E-mail.

San Francisco Municipal Railway Planning Division. Five Year Plan, 1979-1984.

San Francisco Fixed Guideway Associates. Four Corridor Plan Technical Summary Report. San

Francisco County Transportation Authority, June 1995.

Sales Tax or Transportation. San Francisco Department o Elections, November 2003. 143-160

Straus, Peter and Duncan J. Watry. Planning and Forecasting or Light Rail Transit / Community

and Systems Planning or Munis Third Street Light Rail Project. San FranciscoMunicipal Railway.

remains. This was why the project planned in the 1980s has ailed tomaterialize. Today, there is a BRT planned or the corridor, which ap-pears promising, but is marred by opposition. How much longer will ouragencies allow the opposition to delay a project desperately neededto better serve the Geary corridor, and prevent our city rom achiev-ing Transit First? The environmental impact report must be vetted by

the public later this year. The dynamics associated with the EIR reviewshould be interesting, seeing it has been 56 years since the City threwaway a rail expansion opportunity by removing the B and C, with publicopinion on various project iterations over the years ambivalent. Hope-ully, without delays, this project should be ready by 2019.


34/156

CongeStion PriCing

Practical Relief forSan Franciscos Increasing TrafcMatt Stang

This article describes the basic structure o a potential congestionpricing plan in San Francisco as ormulated by the San FranciscoCounty Transportation Authority (SFCTA) through their Mobility,

Access, and Pricing Study (MAPS). A comprehensive congestionpricing plan is a viable and practical solution to reducing automobiletrafc within the city o San Francisco and the immediate surround-ing areas. Congestion pricing calls or the commodifcation o highdemand road space within urban areas during peak period usage.It aims to reduce peak rush hour auto travel by charging drivers oraccess to chronically congested trafc zones. Internationally, con-gestion pricing has been successully employed in cities such as

Singapore, Stockholm, and London. Several city-wide pricing planswill be reviewed and critiqued on their viability and impacts. Alsodiscussed will be the many benefts - such as: reduced congestion,saer streets or pedestrians and cyclists, and improved air quality - aswell as some barriers to implementation, or example: cross-countyborder ee conicts, inner city cordon boundary locations, and publictransit capacity.

What is Congestion Pricing?

The United States Department o Transportation (U.S. DOT) defnescongestion pricing as a way o harnessing the power o the marketto reduce the waste associated with trafc congestion (p.15, 2009).By implementing a ee or vehicle use within chronically congestedzones, municipalities hope to reduce the maniold impacts associatedwith automobile congestion. The main target o a congestion pricingplan is the single occupant vehicle (SOV). I only considered rom theamount o space occupied, SOVs are the least efcient orm o travelwhen concerning peak hour commutes. Congestion pricing, alsoknown as cordon pricing, or value pricing, is a way to capitalize onhigh demand road use by treating the road space as a commodity. In

a sense, the plan aims to rent highly concentrated areas o congestedroad space to commuters with SOVs paying the highest price. Asis typical o most sophisticated pricing systems, there are dierentlevels, or tiers to the plan, which will be discussed in detail later in thearticle. The idea o congestion pricing is a radical but promising way


35/156


36/156

36 |

Within thefrst year,trafc in thecordon zonewas reducedby 18%,delays were

lessened by25%, andtravel speedsup by 30%.

to reduce automobile congestion in high impact areas.

International congestion pricing applications

Internationally, congestion pricing has been practiced successully ormany years. Singapore, London, and Stockholm have all employedsome sort o pricing plan to help combat the detriments o congestion.

These modern, working programs serve as a model to which we can

weigh our concerns and observe the many benefts.Londons program has been in eect or nearly a decade. Although thepricing charges or access to the city center are much steeper (nearly$16 as o 2011) than those proposed or San Francisco, the planhas been worth it. Within the frst year, trafc in the cordon zone wasreduced by 18%, delays were lessened by 25%, and travel speeds upby 30%. The result o the high charges has prompted many Londonresidents to convert to public transit. Bus reliability was much greater aswas usage, up by 40% (U.S.DOT, 2008). The combination o reduced

trafc and greater transit reliability markedly aected the predictability otravel in the downtown area. These changes resulted in a vast improve-ment across the public transportation network.

Beore congestion pricing became a workable solution to trafc issuesthat it is today, Singapore had a ee program in place beginning in1975. The island nations land challenged situation, coupled with rapideconomic growth in and around the Central Business District (CBD),led to low level o service (LOS) across public transit and private vehicletravel. When the plan, named the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS), wasfrst put into action it covered a relatively small, two square mile area

in the CBD restricted zone (RZ). In 1975, the ee was $1.30 or entrybetween 7:30am and 9:30am, which was monitored through visualconfrmation by ofcers who manned 28 dierent locations around theRZ. Today there are over 50 electronic checkpoints that charge motor-ists a base rate o $2.00 or entry in to the RZ rom 7am to 7pm, duringweekdays. Travel within the RZ, rom the onset o Singapores ALSplan has been much more efcient, with benefts across multiple ronts.Commuter travel, air quality, public transit, and local businesses have allseen improvements.

In 2006, Stockholm adopted a plan that has also worked success-ully to reduce trafc. Initially, the automated tolling system and transitupgrades were to be implemented simultaneously, yet unintentionaldelays to the tolling system allowed transit improvements to be madesix months prior to the system taking eect. Not only did it allow thecity the time to make necessary changes without the additional travelerdemand, but it also encouraged commuters to take advantage o amore efcient transit service. Interestingly enough, there was no changein congestion levels or transit usage until the congestion pricing tookeect. Once commuters were aced with a charge, trafc was reduced

by 20%.These three examples show how a fnely detailed congestion pricingsystem can bring relie to over-burdened, high-congestion urban zones.By recognizing the value o each o the above systems, as well as the


37/156


conicts aced rom ee implementation, local U.S. governments, suchas San Francisco, can compare their existing domestic congestionissues against those encountered by each o the international pro-grams.

Why is there a need?

Other attempts to reduce congestion, such as high occupancy vehicle

(HOV) lanes and aordable public transit ees, have not eectively per-suaded drivers o SOVs, which make up the majority o auto trafc, tochoose another mode or o-peak time to commute. Based on a publicoutreach program the perceptions about a potential congestion pricingproject reveal that 46% o the respondents want a pilot program. Con-sidering that the outreach program was conducted in 2010, ater thesevere economic downturn o 2007-2008, there was some concern asto the additional economic impact o a pricing program. As a result,only 14% avor permanent implementation. Other categories showthat 16% want a dierent solution, 12% were unsure, and 11% wereinterested but desire a modifed plan (MAPS, p.40). When the samegroup was asked to respond to the possible advantages that a pricingplan would bring, the largest group, at 40%, said reduced congestionwas the greatest beneft. 24% believed that transit requency and speedwould increase, 15% imagined a greater quality o lie and environment,and 2% thought bicycling and walking would improve (p.40). Surpris-ingly, 20% believed the there was no need or a pricing plan, and i aplan were to be enacted it would be ineective and wanted anothersolution.

Above: Figure 1, source: westsideobserver.com

Improve air quality

Beside the overall goal o reduced auto congestion, there are a ew

other positive outcomes that could be achieved through a pricing plan.The greatest concern regarding air quality, are greenhouse gases (GHG)and the detrimental eects that are associated with them. Senate Bill375 (SB375) and Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) require that Caliornia GHG


38/156


39/156


higher operating costs or commercial vehicles - and the most ubiq-uitous concern - excess travel time, all contribute to this loss. In SanFrancisco, during 2005, these combined costs equaled more than $2billion o annual economic loss. Within the next twenty years that fgureis predicted to surpass $3 billion (MAPS, p.9). Yet altering the trafcvolume, during peak am and pm hours, solely based on economic

concerns does not directly reduce congestion. From a purely eco-nomic standpoint, maximizing societys resources - by efciently utilizingtaxpayer dollars - is paramount to reducing congestion (Downs, 2004).Spending less time in trafc aords travelers more time to be productiveat work rather than idly waiting in long lines o congestion.

Above: Figure 2, Focus Area


40/156


41/156


Above: Figure 3, Four Cordon Pricing Zone Options


42/156

42 |

shows that it is necessary or the pricing system to have an averagelevel which is equivalent to a ee o about $3.00 during am and pmpeak periods (MAPS, p.20). The our scenarios were broken downinto three categories: characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages.

The Gateway design would potentially cover 4.6 million daily trips, yetit would not directly target the high congestion Focus Area. It would

also charge drivers entering the city at the Route 1/19th avenue border,which or most practical travel purposes is unavoidable. While thisdesign might help to reduce congestion o those traveling into highcongestion zones within San Francisco, it would unairly charge thosewho have to traverse the city with no other efcient route choice. TheDouble Ring plan also suers rom the same issues as the Gatewayplan in regard to the problems associated with a city perimeter cordon.

This design includes an additional downtown ee area, which mayhelp to dissuade the number o automobile travelers with a downtowndestination. The downside is that the dual cordon might prove too

complex or commuters, considering that two dierent ees might apply.This plan was also predicted to capture 4.6M, as many as the Gatewaydesign daily trips, which seems conservative given the combinedcordons.

The concentrated area that the Downtown Cordon aimed to coverwould only collect revenue rom 1.3M daily trips, which makes its fnan-cial easibility questionable (MAPS). While it targets an area strickenwith low LOS, both or transit and private vehicle travel, it would createparking and travel problems around the border. Pedestrian and bicycletravel around the Downtown Cordon may conict with those attempt-ing to circumvent the ee cordon, particularly around the proposedHarrison Street, 13th Street, and South Van Ness/Van Ness crossings.Commuters and travelers whose destination lies close to the border willmost certainly attempt to park outside the ee area to avoid a charge.

The increased density o automobile travel surrounding the ee cordonwill not only hinder the ow o drivers heading downtown, but will alsoslow transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Among the our designs, theNortheast Cordon showed the most promise. It addressed the chroni-cally sluggish peak hour trafc in the downtown area o the city and

provided substantial revenue based on the cordon size. Furthermore,drivers navigating the border o the Northeast Cordon may fnd it easierto understand than the other designs, considering the relatively straight-orward boundaries o Divisadero and 18th street, as well as the naturalbarrier o the northeast waterront.

Northeast Cordon shown to be most promising

The next step o the MAPS survey, known as Phase II Analysis -Scenario Refnement and Pilot Options, determined that a refnednortheast cordon - rom this point on reerred to simply as the north-east cordon - showed the greatest potential across several categories(fgure 4). (insert the northeast cordon design here) The review o thecordon shows that it provides the greatest congestion reduction in thecitys most congested areas, while also delivering substantial additionalbenefts or transit perormance, environmental quality, and sustain-


43/156


able growth (MAPS, p. 23). The perimeter o the northeast cordonis bounded by 18th Street to the south, Laguna Street to the west,and the entire northeast waterront with a $3.00 ee during both peakperiods. Although the cordon has great potential, it was not the onlyoption under review in the second phase analysis. The study alsoconsidered two other scenarios: the modifed northeast cordon and the

southern gateway. The plan or the modifed northeast cordon consistso the same boundaries as the northeast cordon with the dierence oan outbound charge o $6.00 during PM peak hours. The southerngateway would cover the boundary between San Francisco countyand San Mateo county to the south with a ee plan identical to the AM/PM schedule o the northeast cordon. Across vehicle travel metrics,the potential or congestion reduction with the northeast cordon plan ishopeul. It is important to note that in order to more accurately evalu-ate the eectiveness o a uture congestion pricing plan the study usedthe year 2015 as a orecast or its evaluation o relative metrics. The

largest notable change would be a 13% decrease in AM peak vehicletrips to and rom the cordon, as compared to only a 5% change acrossboth the modifed northeast cordon and the southern gateway. PMpeak vehicle trips to and rom the northeast cordon might yield a 12%decrease, where the modifed plan would show a 13% decrease andthe southern gateway a 5% reduction. The northeast cordon designis also a top perormer when it comes to potentially reducing daily SanFrancisco VMT by 5%, which could reach 9.8 million by 2015 (MAPS,p.26).

ResistanceWhile the proposed southern border plans may seem promising whenit comes to reducing San Francisco trafc, some below the countyline think otherwise. It is important to note that all plans that containsouthern border ee cordons have received sharp criticism rom severalSan Mateo County ofcials. Jerry Hill, State Assembly member (District19, Democrat), the most outspoken o those involved, remarked at anSFCTA board meeting in December o 2010 that he and others romSan Mateo County were supportive o eorts to reduce congestionand deal with climate impacts, but not i it included charging drivers tocross the county line (Roth, 2010). Hill was so strongly opposed to thesouthern border plans that he was prepared to introduce legislationthat would make it illegal or one county to charge other counties puni-tive measures like pricing (Roth, 2010).

It seems that Hill is missing the point. He admits that congestion reduc-tion and climate concerns are important issues yet he stonewalls theSFCTA study plans while oering no alternative solution. Reacting toa plan that aims to successully target universal concerns based onprice is extreme. I Mr. Hill ramed the additional cost o a congestion

pricing ee in terms o the overall expenditure o automobile ownershiphe would realize that it is a very small percentage (commutesolutions.org 2012). Palo Alto councilmember and Friends o Caltrain organizer,

Yoriko Kishimoto views the idea o congestion pricing as a potential


44/156


45/156


run express service into the city without adding additional lines.

Surace transit is subject to the ow o commuter trafc, yet two majorBus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, proposed or the Van Ness & Geary cor-ridors, may help to relieve some public transit commuter delays. Nearlyall options o the two BRT plans include eliminating several lanes, whichmost certainly will have a negative eect upon vehicular trafc on those

corridors. Car drivers may opt to use side streets that bracket the BRTroutes in order to park and/or bypass the excess trafc cause by lanereductions. In turn, this most certainly will have a negative impact on theneighborhoods surrounding the corridors. By the time the BRT linesare realized gas prices may be so high as to preclude a large percent-age o local and city-bound drivers.

While it is possible that the numbers o SOV automobiles can bereduced by oering a less expensive mode choice, those that drivecommercial vehicles and delivery trucks are stuck with surace streettravel. Thereore, a sophisticated plan would need to take in to accountvehicle weight and requency and charge accordingly. Cities worldwidedepend on trucks to deliver their goods and should be given preerenceo road space and not be penalized or it.

The $900+ million o ederal unds that are destined or the CentralSubway project makes one think about how that amount o moneycould have improved the BART system and MUNI in preparation or acongestion pricing plan. Instead what the city will get is a destinationchallenged subway line that ends in Chinatown. Observing a map othe planned route or the subway shows its terminus alling short o

North Beach, the Marina, and several waterront neighborhoods. Itseems like a great deal o expense and labor to bore a tunnel rom theSouth o Market (SOMA) neighborhood without connecting it to severalo the citys strongest tourist destinations.

Other alternatives that would help to relieve congestion, either in coor-dination or in lieu o congestion pricing, would be to restrict parking onodd numbered days to drivers with odd numbered tags and vice versa.

An increase o the gas tax would drive the price o gas up, which wouldreduce vehicle use, but it would not directly target drivers commut-ing to the CBD. Telecommuting incentives could help to reduce trafcby paying employees to work at home during peak hours. A VMT taxwould deter travelers rom unnecessary travel and help to und publictransit. The revenue could go to support the public transportationsystem o the township or county o the drivers origin.

Conclusion

There are many detrimental issues related to automobile travel that asophisticated congestion pricing plan could help alleviate. Reducedtravel time and stress, increased transit reliability and revenue, greatercommute time predictability, enhanced economic productivity, and

better air quality are just some o the benefts that could be realized bycongestion pricing. Unortunately, most people will not change theirmode o transportation or schedule on their own accord. The Stock-holm example, where an upgraded transit system preceded congestion


46/156

46 |

pricing ee implementation by six months, made no dierence to com-muters. It was only ater they were orced to pay or access to the CBDthat they shited their mode choice or time o travel. The successeso the international congestion pricing programs should serve as theimpetus or a San Francisco plan. Furthermore, the example set bySan Francisco would inspire other major cities, stricken with greater

trafc problems, to do the same. Yes, Americans still have a love aairwith the automobile, but it will not be tolerated indefnitely. Drivinghabits are slow to change or many reasons, one o them being thatan automobile provides a sense o reedom, convenience, and luxurythat other modes o transportation seldom oer. Perhaps a substantial


47/156


Reerences

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (2011). Trip Linking.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Spare-the-Air/Trip-

Linking.aspx (last accessed March 21st, 2012).

Bialick, A. (2011, January 25). Growing Movement To Save Caltrain From Potentially

Devastating Cuts. SF.Streetsblog.Org. http://s.streetsblog.org/

2011/01/25/growing-movement-to-save-caltrain-rom-potentially-devastating-cuts/ (last accessed November 15th, 2011).

Borjesson, M., Brundell-Freij, K., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M. B. (2012). The Stockholm

congestion charges5 years on. Eects, acceptability and lessons learnt. The Ocial Journal o the World Conerence onTransport Research Society (WCTRS), 20, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.11.001

Downs, A. (2004). Still Stuck in Trac: Coping With Peak Hour Trac

Congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Kwon, J., Varaiya, P. (2006). Eectiveness o Caliornias High Occupancy Vehicle

(HOV) System. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16(1), 98-115. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2007.06.008

Roth, M. (2010, December 14). SF Congestion Pricing Study Moves Forward Without

San Mateo Boundary. SF.Streetsblog.Org. http://s.streetsblog.org/2010/12/14/s-congestion-pricing-study-moves-orward-without-san-mateo-boundary/ (last accessed November 18th, 2011).

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (2010). Mobility, Access, and Pricing

Study. http://www.scta.org/content/view/302/148/ (last accessed November 9th, 2011).

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (2012). The True Cost o

Driving. http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html (last accessed December 27th, 2011).

Transport or London (2010). Mayor conrms removal o Congestion Charge Western

Extension Zone by Christmas and introduction o CC Auto Pay in New Year.

http://www.tf.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/17091.aspx

(last accessed March 15th, 2012).

U.S. Department o Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Impacts o

Higher Fuel Costs. http://www.hwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/ innovation/issue1/ impacts.htm (last accessed March 6th, 2012).

U.S. Department o Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Tolling and Pricing

Program. http://ops.hwa.dot.gov/publications/ hwahop08047/

02summ.htm (last accessed January 4th, 2012).

U.S. Department o Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Transit and

Congestion Pricing: A Primer. ops.hwa.dot.gov/publications/ hwahop09015/

hwahop09015.pd (last accessed November 27th, 2011).17

change will come when the price o a gallon o gasoline reects the truecost o the associated environmental damage.


48/156


49/156

enSuringa vibrant

WaterFront:From Industry to Investment

Nicholas McIlroy


50/156

50 |

Introduction

Waterronts have been instrumental in shaping successul worldclass cities. During the industrial era, waterronts were utilized orbreak-bulk shipping, dierent orms o fshing, and the processing ogoods. Throughout the last fty years, these industries have movedout o the expensive waterront real estate o old built up cities. The

main orce driving this change is that the shipping industry has beenrevolutionized with container shipping, which requires large swaths oopen space connected to deep water that older cities cannot provide.Even i they wanted to, the real estate would be too expensive tocreate the open spaces, so it is not economically easible. Thissignifes that waterront cities across North America have seen adecline and a need to change their use to ft the changing economy.The question is how can waterronts be successul in adopting a neweconomic identity while still preserving public space? The answercan be ound along the waterronts o cities across North America.

Cities such as San Francisco have been able to create public spaceor its residents and any tourists, while at the same time adopting anew economy that revolves around proessional services. The openspace and developments created on the waterront serve as a largetourist attraction and serve as a welcoming gateway to the city. Anexamination o this shit rom industrial to post-industrial cities andhow waterronts can continue to connect people to the water will beexplored.

During the industrial era, people were oten directly connected to

and interacting with waterronts on a daily basis. Work, trade, andtransportation all revolved around the waterront. The main mode otransportation was by water, and ships delivering cargo would stayin ports or two weeks to load their shipment and restock suppliesor the next voyage. This made waterronts vital to a citys fnancialsuccess, but they also contributed to the decline o some cities. Aculture that catered to the transient nature o sailors and maritimelie gave industrial waterronts a bad name and created an economyo cheap entertainment and a prolieration o dive bars. Beingaway rom home or weeks on end with only a brie amount o time

to spend their money led to prostitution, gambling, and drinking.Thereore, rom the advent o cities in North America, there has beenthe lure o mystery and danger surrounding ports. On the positiveside, there have also been ways or an average worker without highereducation to fnd airly high paying work on the waterront. With theinvention o standardized shipping containers, the whole culture owaterronts began to change. Older cities that did not have the spaceto adapt to container shipping began to decline. Jobs were lost andthe industries that supported this maritime culture began to ade. Inresponse to this loss o industry and jobs, the run-down waterronts

became subject to revitalization. Yet this revitalization came under thepretense that industrial waterronts were not successul in connectingpeople to the water when they really were. They connected a verycolorul and diverse group o people to it. There were no elitist

Industrialwaterrontsin citiesacross NorthAmerica haveseen a steep

decline, sothey adjusttheir value interms o useto ft into anew dynamic.


51/156


breweries with nine dollar pints speckled along a clean environment.They were dirty, alive and ull o people. Thereore, the challenge thatcities aced, was how to preserve the industrial interaction, exchange,and community when they rehabilitated their waterronts. A balanceneeded to be ound between making waterronts economically viable,and equally accessible to everyone.

Background and Literary ReviewFor an in-depth understanding o waterronts, it is important to look atthe authors who have written about them and established a vernacularto work rom. Starting with industrial waterronts, Michael Chiarappasarticle New York Citys Oyster Barges begins by painting a pictureo how oyster barges connected the water to the street and provideda vibrantly industrious waterront in New York in decades past. Themain emphasis can be summarized by, oyster barges embodied andexpressed the palpable rhythms o a competitive consumer economyand ramed an occupations dynamic waterront culture (Chiarappa2007). This space and the relationships it created where explicitlyimportant to the health o New York. It created the ramework or thegateway to New York City. These oyster barges provided a mediumand a socio-economic exchange that connected people to the water.Chiarappa fnishes this article with a very poignant statement thathighlights how developers can throw away something great in thename o progress:

Ironically, Robert Moses and his cadre o modern planners spelled theend o New York Citys oyster barges at the whar when they began

their campaign to reconnect the city to its rim o water through highways and parks rather than through the more tangible experience othe working waterront. (Chiarappa 2007)

During the end o the oyster barges lives, a small amount o crimesbegan to occur and it scared pedestrians out o the waterront area.The tragedy is that reeways disconnect people rom the water andopen up the waterront to more serious crime. Is there some wayto continue the lively tradition o connecting people to the water bypreserving some o the industrial experience?

One o the answers to preserving a connection to the waterrontcomes rom Dr. Jasper Rubins book on waterront development. Inthe chapter Neoliberalism and the City, he picks up where Chiarappalet o, where San Francisco is able to respond to Robert Moses andthe rest o the modernist regime that swept the United States with therevitalizing cities movement. The ideology behind this revitalizationprocess is a orm o neoliberalism that ocuses on the privatizationo public resources, including, or example, the creation o quasi-public entities and the use o contractors to carry out governmentactivities (Rubin 2011, 144). This suggests that cities turn over

parcels o land, in this case waterronts, to private developers orbelow market value with the goal being that the increased value o theland ater development and the new tax income will help boost thecities revenue. When a waterront property transers rom public to


52/156

52 |

private hands there needs to be restrictions in placeto prevent the land rom losing its use value.

For decades, San Franciscos piers used to enjoythe ow o goods rom shipping, it was the mainindustry that shaped the city and led to its worldwideprominence. However, when the major shipping

moved across the San Francisco Bay to Oakland,the city saw a declining economy. It is clear that theplanning o SFs waterront:

has been keenly inuenced by public interest inpreserving use value, which has been supportedby an enlightened, as opposed to technocratic,bureaucracy, and the results have been more thansuperfcial (Rubin 2011).

What Rubin suggests by, more than superfcial, is

that they actually still have use value, because o therevitalized waterront that still connects pedestrians tothe water. San Franciscos waterront has an investedpublic and intelligent government leaders that wereable to create a successully revitalized waterront.

An important actor in waterront development atergovernment, private developers, and the public, isthe role o the environment and the environmentitsel. This last component o waterronts is just asimportant as connecting people to the water and

should not be overlooked. Brian Hoyles article titledGlobal and Local Change on the Port-City Waterront,not only discusses the environment, but also howthe importance o revitalizing waterronts is extendingaround the world. One distinction he makes isthat the impact o inrastructural revitalization onsociety goes hand in glove with its impact on theenvironment (Hoyle, 2000). This impact on theenvironment can range rom infll to endangeringspecies and native populations. Pollution increaseddramatically during the industrial era and is still incontention with contemporary waterronts. Citiessuch as San Francisco, who used to enjoy largepopulations o salmon and crab, now fnd the salmonnearly extinct rom the area and the crab populationnothing compared to how it used to be.

Contemporary Waterront Development

A waterront is where the water meets the landalong some portion o a city. It does not have to be

something spectacular or need to be a comprised otowers and monuments (Figueiredo, 2003) in orderto be successul. Oten there is a bridge in the back-drop and in the oreground there may be piers, a erry


53/156


building, a fsh market, or any number o orms that createinteraction between humans and the water. It simply needsto preserve the use value o the land and maintain somesort o ow between the land and the water. This orientspeople and i done correctly can really shape a city into thecenterpiece o the area. In order or these to be achieved,

regulations by the government need to be put in place tocontrol neoliberal development and protect the environment.Community and rights activist groups need to do their partas well and speak up to preserve their right to access theseareas and to make sure the government is doing its job. Thelast component is or all three to come together and make ithappen in a cohesive ashion.

However, politics and development are rarely on the samepage. It is a battle feld o drastically dierent interests andor every story o achievement there are fve other stories o

ailure that get swept under the rug. Waterront developmentis not immune to these problems and more oten than notit is a question o fguring out how can conicting aims,objectives, and interests be reconciled? (Hoyle, 2000). Evenwhen these dierences are fgured out and a waterrontgets revitalized, there are plenty o battles that had to beought to get it there. In the case o San Francisco, manydierent waterront developments were proposed. Therewere some ideas that would block views, some that aimedto fll in the bay, and many that would have completelyprivatized the waterront. Each one was stopped by amixture o government regulations, local activists, and non-proft organizations. These strict restrictions and the strongvocal eedback by pedestrians were able to attenuate theow o capital investment and the creep o privatization alongthe waterront (Rubin). The outcome has been multiplesuccessul developments, such as the erry building plaza,and AT&T Park.

Some cities have been less successul at developing their

waterronts. When elite ideologies stonewall use value,developments can be halted and valuable waterrontreal estate can go un-used. Industrial decline createda paradigm shit that old industrial waterronts need tocreate new tourist and public open spaces in order to staycompetitive. An example where people wanted this tohappen, but conicting ideologies halted development iswith Penns Landing, which is located in Philadelphia. Thisprime stretch o waterro

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alicia-l-pisani
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Urban Action Final Pages

Documents