In a world threatened by Peak Oil, Transit Oriented Development is a development concept
aimed at encouraging the development of housing and commercial centers around mass-transit systems.
By Marc Salomon
March 4, 2010
Over the past ten years, the San Francisco Department of City Planning has rezoned much of the east side of San Francisco [0] for greater densities of market rate housing based on the theory of Transit Oriented Development:
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, livable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival.
Transit oriented development is a major solution to the serious and growing problems of peak oil and global warming by creating dense, walkable communities connected to a train line that greatly reduce the need for driving and the burning of fossil fuels.[1]
Surely only the antideluvians deny that burning fossil fuels is a leading cause of climate change. And clearly one of the best ways that we can contain emissions is to consume less petroleum. And who but a stick in the mud could be against “Exciting new fast growing trends” or “vibrant, livable communities?” Especially if the residents of those communities are hip, slim and young.
Each of these sections warrants a detailed explication of its own. This piece is intended to serve as a high level sketch of the issues involved and how environmental jargon is used to further developer corruption of the political and planning processes.
What Are the Realities of TOD in San Francisco?
Under a cursory examination of the concrete realities on the ground, in San Francisco, Transit Oriented Development is a Green bait and switch designed to promote developer profits [1.5] while exacerbating the very conditions which lead to increased emissions, climate change, congestion and slower, less reliable surface transit. Simply because desirable aspects of a policy appear to work on paper does not mean that they work that way in reality, or that other aspects of the policy don’t actually work against preferred aspects. Compact urban development can lead to denser more walkable communities, but only with sufficient investment in regional infrastructure to discourage auto ownership by making transit more attractive. In the absence of that level of investment, the economic characteristics of this type of development in San Francisco will most likely diminish transit reliability by increasing auto trips–the precise opposite of TOD’s stated goals.
The Existing Transit System is Under-Invested
The existing transit system, both regional and local, is not capable of handling existing demand. Proposed development has been shown to slow down existing transit investment, which according to market research studies [2] associated with the San Francisco MTA’s Transportation Effectiveness Project, discourages transit choice riders from abandoning their autos for transit. The long haul regional network is neither fast nor reliable, and the first and last miles are slower and less reliable.
San Francisco is Actively Dis-investing in Muni
Current acute and active structural disinvestment diminishes transit as an attractive alternative by making service less reliable and increasing trip time. As government retrenches from funding commitments to transit, the existing condition of Muni in the neighborhoods slated for TOD today are actually worse than when the Eastern Neighborhoods and Market Octavia EIRs which gave TOD the green light were approved.
Transit Oriented Development Takes More From Muni Than it Contributes
The Environmental Impact Report for Eastern Neighborhoods stipulates to the significant adverse impacts on the Municipal Railway at the time;
A proposed project [Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning] would have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by nearby transit lines, resulting in unacceptable levels of transit service; or cause a substantial increase in delays or operating costs so that significant, adverse impacts on transit service levels could result. With the SF Muni and regional transit analyses, a proposed project would have a significant effect on the transit provider if project- related transit rider trips would cause the capacity utilization standard to be exceeded during the p.m. peak hour. SF Muni’s standard of capacity utilization is 85 percent.[3]
The Preferred Project would result in significant, adverse transit impacts on Muni service affecting the following seven lines: 9-San Bruno, 22-Fillmore, 26 Valencia, 27-Bryant, 33-Stanyan, 48-Quintara, 49-Van Ness/Mission. [4]
Since that EIR was certified and these rezonings passed, the MTA has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to state operations subsidies cuts, general fund contribution cuts and work order charges, and has repeatedly cut services accordingly. The conditions considered for TOD in those planning areas no longer apply, yet those rezonings remain even though greater environmental impacts upon which they were predicated remain undisclosed and unmitigated.
Local and Regional Transit Infrastructures Are Neither Reliable Nor Robust
Transit Oriented Development is predicated upon the notion that existing transit infrastructure is attractive enough such that residents of new units will take transit to work instead of drive. This assumption is critical from two perspectives. First, new residents owning vehicles will create parking impacts and increase local traffic congestion which will slow down local transit. Second, that in the face of unacceptably grueling transit commutes, that these residents will not take transit to work, which will eliminate the alleged climate change benefits of TOD.
San Francisco is not the regional employment center. Employment growth projections according to the Association of Bay Area Governments [5] indicate that San Francisco’s job levels are flat while jobs at the sprawled job centers will grow roughly where the headquarters of the top 30 of the Chronicle 200 firms and in sub-regions served even worse by transit in the North Bay.
A study of commute times from 20th and Mission, the center of the Mission Area Plan which is extremely well served by regional and local transit investment, to the top 30 of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Top 200 Firms [6] should dispel the fallacy that transit competes effectively with private autos for average commutes:
The TOD thesis asserts that in order to check suburban sprawl, cities need to densify their urban cores to support greater densities of development. But this is predicated upon the assumption that housing in the urban core and periphery are fungible, that the core and periphery compete interchangeably for buyers. The disparity in economic demographics and the price of housing between the two markets dispatch this as false:
Median home price: Brentwood $298K [7]
Median per capita income: Brentwood $33K [8]
Median home price, SF EN construction $627K [9]
Median per capita income, SF EN (D6) new construction $91-147K [10]
In order for TOD to check sprawl, prospective home buyers would be expected to make the choice between purchasing a $300K unit in Brentwood or a unit costing twice that much in San Francisco. Further, in order to check motor vehicle commutes, the assumption would be that someone paying that urban location premium would more than double their commute time by taking transit.
Although San Francisco has a superior investment in public transit, that investment is not sufficient to tip the balance in favor of lengthy commutes by those well heeled enough to be able to afford to purchase housing in San Francisco. The “last mile” problem remains, where jurisdictions in the periphery near sprawled job sites will need to make a transit investment similar to that of San Francisco in order to balance the equation and make transit attractive to commuters. The City’s own studies demonstrate that under a previously under-invested system, Transit Oriented Development will slow down most Muni lines in the plan areas. Under subsequent disinvestment, these numbers only will get worse.
The Muni is not the only existing infrastructure which will be impacted by TOD. The Planning Department stipulates to the fact that existing infrastructure is insufficient [11] and that new construction in TOD zoned areas will not pay for its own added infrastructure costs [12]. That means that the infrastructure needs of existing San Franciscans whose sidewalks, streets, parks and playgrounds are crumbling and dangerous will need to wait until the newcomers are provided for. The Planning Department also stipulates to the fact that new residential development will not pay enough property taxes over time to cover the future costs of city services they will consume.
Under the Planning Department of Gavin Newsom and John Rahaim, lucrative entitlements are being fast tracked and the bill to cover the costs of that construction now and over time are landing in the laps of San Franciscans. Note that the same people who are expressing concerns over the unfunded liabilities of city employee benefits are the same ones who are fast tracking saddling the City with the out-year unfunded liabilities of new luxury construction.
If the fiscal costs to the City were not bad enough, the demographics of new residents should sound the alarms for all progressive, liberal and moderate San Franciscans.
Market Rate Housing is for Republicans
In 2000, Bush/Cheney received 2812 votes in District Six, the epicenter of new residential development. In 2004 Bush/Cheney’s vote jumped to 3845. In 2008, McCain/Palin garnered 3984 votes. There is a pressing need for housing in San Francisco. Does anyone really believe that the constituency we need to be fast tracking housing entitlements for are Republicans? [13]
Transit Oriented Development is a poor business deal for San Francisco. The benefits accrue to developers and new homeowners while the burdens are shifted onto San Francisco’s beleaguered taxpayers. In order for TOD to work as advertised, we need for new housing to be affordable to existing San Franciscans and to have in the pipeline a level of investment in local and regional transit infrastructures which we are not likely to conceive of much less realize.
The T-Third line has failed to take advantage of a mostly exclusive Right of Way and Transit Preferential Signaling to break past the 11 mph average speed barrier [14].
Against that backdrop, the future for similarly situated BRT projects on Van Ness and Geary to improve transit speeds is dim indeed.
Surface transit will never be able to be competitive with private autos. This problem had been solved more than a century ago with underground subways. In order to have a hope that TOD will work, the City needs to identify a capital program on the order of $20 billion to dig a network of underground subways that can obviate the street grid and surface obstacles which conspire to snarl transit. The DPW and MTA should develop in-house expertise with tunnel boring machine technology. The surface transit quagmire will only worsen as population grows.
To quote Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols’ last song of their last show ever, in San Francisco at the Winterland Ballroom, January 14, 1978, “This is no fun. No fun at all. No fun. Did you ever get the feeling you’re being cheated?”
Foot Notes
[0] Eastern Neighborhoods http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1673
[1] http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/tod.html
[1.5] Affordable Housing Sensitivity Study Keyser Marston: http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2042
[2] http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/documents/10.10.07%20SFTEP%20Market%20Analysis%20ppt.pdf Market Research
[3] Eastern Neighborhoods, Adoption Packet: http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3977
[4] Eastern Neighborhoods, EIR http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1268′
[5] ABAG Projections 2002: Employment Growth 2000 to 2025 by 1454 TAZ (58.8MB PDF) http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/GIS/maps/proj2002_00_25_emp.pdf
[6] Chronicle Top 200 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/business/chron200/chart
[7] http://www.homeinsight.com/home-value/TN/brentwood.asp
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood,_California
[9] Zillow.com condo stats: http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-San-Francisco/South-of-Market/r_268491/
[10] Healthy Development Measurement Tool, SFDPH http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/162
[11] Eastern Neighborhoods Needs Assessment http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2585.
[12] Eastern Neighborhoods Public Benefits (pg 47) http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1447
[13] San Francisco Department of Elections
[14] T-Third not living up to potential By: Mike Aldax April 16, 2009 SF Examiner http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/T-Third-not-living-up-to-potential-43150512.html#ixzz0gUnQU5qE
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/T-Third-not-living-up-to-potential-43150512.html
The Hunger Site
July 5, 2010 at 10:25 am
@Lawrence, in general land is cheaper where most Republicans tend to live and there is not much transit infrastructure in place, so the issues facing San Francisco around TOD are simply not present elsewhere. Unlike the trailer parks on the redneck riviera working for the NASCAR weekend and such, people actually want to live in San Francisco, they want to create jobs nearby, and we’ve invested in our infrastructure, so the economic pressures on land use as relates to transit here are excruciating.
Republicans tend to go apoplectic over alleged Democrat Party policies to encourage low income home ownership, even though Bush II bought into that shell game as well. Republicans used low income home ownership as a partisan cudgel against the Democrats to deflect attention from Wall Street’s crash.
I am a registered Green, hold equivalent enmity for both Democrat and Republican parties. In appealing to a San Francisco political audience, it is legitimate to question why people would encourage the construction of housing for those who would vote them into political oblivion, like where Republicans prefer to live.
-marc
February 26, 2016 at 4:00 pm
Marc,
Hope you’re still following this (came across the piece recently, researching spate of BRT projects in San Francisco that make hard-to-believe claims.
QUESTION: Your data from 2010 re commuting times from SF south, via transit and auto — has any of it been updated? Would like to share this article, but wonder whether its more (or less) accurate today than when written. Suspect the former.
July 5, 2010 at 9:48 am
This piece would have a lot more credibility if it did not take gratuitous swipes at Republicans. What does it matter what the political affiliations are of people in the City? Is it just that you assume all Republicans are rich and evil? Or are you just one of those progressives who can’t bear to have anyone around who might think differently than you? The fact that you are so close minded and intolerant that you would actually write those paragraphs strongly suggests that the rest of the article is just rubbish.
March 15, 2010 at 10:58 am
Lee, does the state force the City to subsidize developers because corrupt politicians desire campaign contributions for future campaigns?
No problem with more units, just so long as they are affordable to existing SF residents and pay for or otherwise obviate more than half of their impacts.
More units is not the problem, more luxury units that don’t produce mode shift are the problem.
So long as our electeds cut crappy business deals for our communities because they are frightened of or dependent upon developers, TOD will not work in SF and the unintended consequences of state law, written by and for developers, will be paid by San Franciscans over and over again.
-marc
March 14, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Marc, I agree that high-rise TOD is less practical than suburban housing, but urban SF does not have THAT choice.
The state forces SF to allow more units, and those units have to go somewhere. The state policy requiring built-out cities to add more units is the problem, but it enriches developers and guarantees future population growth, raising property values. Under CA’s outdated election system, money talks. Local cities approving TOD are the tails, not the dog.
March 11, 2010 at 8:33 am
Lee, thanks for your reply.
So since the state mandates a certain level of new housing, existing taxpayers are supposed to subsidize this new construction both now and ongoing through property taxes?
How about we cut an equitable business deal with developers that they cover the full costs of the impacts of their construction instead of relying on stressed out taxpayers to cover the costs of building housing most of us will never be able to afford?
Planning Commission President Ron Miguel states clearly that Planning never expected developers to cover infrastructure costs because that would make projects unfeasible.
That means that Miguel expects for residents in neighborhoods like Potrero Hill and The Richmond to take the infrastructure hits in their communities so that new housing can be built with subsidized infrastructure on the east side.
To quote the immortal Kenny Rogers:
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run.
Progressives and liberals have forgotten how to walk away from the table and a bum deal when we’re getting screwed.
-marc
March 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Salomon is attacking the effect, not the cause.
The EFFECT of state policy mandating that already built-out cities plan for additional population growth forces the cities to plan where new units will be built.
Our choices are:
a-commercial neighborhoods that have crowded transit
b-lower-density residential neighborhoods that hardly have any transit.
Hopefully Salomon can figure out that adding the state-mandated units low-density areas would create cause even more traffic than TOD.
If you want to stop overwhelming our urban transit systems, try focusing on CA’s insane policy requiring the most crowded cities in the state to keep building more units while millions of newer suburban houses are being abandoned, foreclosed, even demolished.
The suburbs can more easily be served by new transit technology than the already built-out cities, but the urban skyscraper-developers seem to be calling the shots in Sacramento.
March 8, 2010 at 9:21 am
We had company in from the country visiting this weekend and I was busy playing tour guide.
Thanks, Tigard, for your comments. My hope is that we’d make the transit investment that we need, as even with a massive heavy rail investment in BART, the Mission Street corridor is not sufficiently connected to regional job sites to make TOD work.
But once the transit problem is solved, the infrastructure and affordability problems remain to be solved, not to mention the resistance of residents to out-of-scale yet highly profitable new construction.
h, this piece is not about the AAU, it is about TOD.
The AAU is not an academic institution. Those who pay the AAU are not students. “Graduates” of the AAU cannot take their “degree” to legitimate graduate institutions to continue their “studies.”
The AAU is a business, any and everyone who bellies up to their admissions bar with enough cash gets in.
SFState is an academic institution, as is the SF Art Institute, CCSF, UCSF and USF. UCSF runs its own transit system and does so in some degree of collaboration with the Muni.
Since the AAU is a for-profit diploma mill, they need to be regulated like any other business, and their transit operation needs to figure out how to not block Muni or bicycle lanes or be forced to.
I’d prefer that the law state explicitly that no public dollars from exaction fees ever go to Calvin Welch or the Council of Community Housing Organizations or any of the other nonprofit mafiosi. Public spending on the public should remain within the public sector and not be privatized to unaccountable and abusive nonprofit advocates and their empires.
That said, the nonprofit mafiosi are correct on the substance of their claims, and that is only because they are not getting their 15c tribute on the dollar like they do with the rest of crappy new luxury housing construction.
-marc
March 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“Wait, I can venture a guess. Could it be that Warren Hellman took control of the Art Institute about 4 years ago and copied the AAU model (except for free speech – he fires teachers and dumps students who are pro-Palestinian).”
Is this the same Warren Hellman who gave SF the $55 million parking garage under the Concourse and pays $2 million a year for a free concert in the park? Clearly a sinister figure, at least in Brown’s befuddled mind. Somehow I doubt his account of what’s happening at the Art Institute.
March 7, 2010 at 8:37 am
tigard,
You managed to insult me but you never answered my questions. Neither did Marc and he’s seldom at a loss for words. Would you charge impact fees to any school in SF other than AAU?
It’s not just Salomon and Calvin Welch attacking AAU. The Mayor’s office is after them too. It’s hard to explain Gavin’s people complain about a green business for growing too fast and bringing too much money into town but that’s what they’re doing.
Wait, I can venture a guess. Could it be that Warren Hellman took control of the Art Institute about 4 years ago and copied the AAU model (except for free speech – he fires teachers and dumps students who are pro-Palestinian).
Look for Salomon and Welch to don bandannas and start robbing the AAU buses. You know, the clean ones. That are free. And run on time.
h.
March 6, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Any decent planner knows Transit Oriented Development was developed for community building, getting density like SF ALREADY HAS to support retail and rail transit ridership.
Using the concept of TOD in SF is a ruse. It’s embraced because of the pass from environmental review:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-02-05/article/32191?headline=Far-Reaching-New-State-Law-May-Reshape-the-Bay-Area
The bottom falling out of MUNI service should de-cloak
TOD and “Transit First”, as Development and ideology first, “Transit Last”. Let them ride MUNI, indeed!
March 6, 2010 at 11:30 am
Yes, the transit corridors development theory is all the rage in the Planning Dept. and among progressives in SF, but it’s a half-baked, poorly-thought-through idea. As Marc points out, you need a real good transit system to make it work, and even with that it encourages excessive population density in any neighborhood near a major traffic corridor. That means in practice the “progressive” Board of Supervisors, with Mirkarimi leading the way, passes the Market/Octavia Plan that rezones more than 4,000 properties in the heart of the city to encourage even more population density, including 40-story residential highrises at Market and Van Ness. The only thing that’s slowed down this awful plan is the current recession. Interesting that the SF Bicycle Coalition supports the M/O Plan. Can you guess why? Yes, it’s because the zoning regs discourage developers from providing parking spaces for the thousands of new housing units planned for the area. Let them ride Muni? Let them ride bikes?
And this is what worries folks who live and/or own businesses along Geary Blvd. in the avenues; the BRT proposal is mainly about more highrise development in the Richmond district.
One of the originators of the transit corridors theory is alarmed at how SF is implementing it in our neighborhoods.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2007/03/san-franciscos-transit-corridors.html
March 6, 2010 at 12:54 am
Wow- I figure the AAU supporters are the ones still renting in buildings they’ve bought!
Look, a SF parking ticket might be extortion these days, but what do you say to the schmuck trying to get the boot off his car when there’s a Pac Bell parking lot full of cars that never, ever get tickets? In plain sight. Everyday. It’s the law (which may suck) but shouldn’t it apply to everyone?
h, of all folks, you should realize why these Universities don’t get charged the impact fees (they rightly owe)– ’cause VIPs are on their Regents, Trustees, etc.
“On a deeper level” it’s all bad! Artists, my ass.
It’s about real estate and we ARE all being swindled!
March 5, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Marc,
If I understand from our conversation yesterday you want to also charge impact fees to the AAU (Academy of Art University) because their students use our infrastructure. Would you do the same for SF State students? USF? UCSF?
Why just AAU? You actually side with Calvin Welch on this blatant extortion? This is an 80 year old San Francisco institution that realized Muni was a loss years ago and created their own transit system for their 15,000 students and you condemn them for building the infrastructure you lament developers of new condos refuse to do?
I really don’t understand this witch hunt against AAU. On a deeper level they are bringing artists back to SF to replenish those who have been driven out over the past decades by developers. And you want to hamstring them?
Most of the time you are brilliant and insightful and sometimes you are confused and contradictory. So, do we charge impact fees for SF State students?
h.
March 5, 2010 at 12:11 am
If only Marc Solomon were called by the Chronicle to opine on urban development instead of Gabe Metcalf!
It’s Transit-Oriented-Development, except without the transit.
No problem there, b/c it’s an exciting new fast growing trend! LOL