Urban development and CA High Speed Rail -> further cuts to I-280 San Francisco?

[citrus]

Saw this article in the blogosphere this morning, with some details about a proposal to tear down parts of I-280 in San Francisco, replaced with urban boulevards and street grid connections. There's a link to a more detailed PDF study in there too. Looks like there are quite a few proposals, some keeping most of the freeway intact with some small adjustments at the north end, and some having the freeway touch down at 16th St, tearing down the viaduct north of there. I've heard proposals of tearing down everything east of US-101, but I don't see that anywhere here.

The impetus for these proposals seems to come from a couple places. One is new urban development: the neighborhood (Mission Bay) east of I-280 and north of 16th St was historically a large industrial land of railyards, docks, etc. Now, UCSF is building a large healthcare-oriented campus there, complete with lab facilities, hospitals, and housing for students. Beyond that, there are quite a few new condo complexes in Mission Bay now, already constructed, under construction, and proposed. 4th St is supposed to become a commercial corridor for the neighborhood, and transit (the 22 Muni bus line) is supposed to be rerouted there, possibly with bus rapid transit.

The other motivating factor is based on engineering and CA High-Speed Rail. The HSR corridor is slated to follow the current Caltrain corridor whose right-of-way is directly under I-280. Electrifying the corridor just for Caltrain is supposed to happen beforehand, and grade separations are likely to be required. This is going to prove difficult at a few at-grade crossings that are directly under I-280, especially at 16th St.

I suppose this should not be too big a surprise given SF and precedent. The last time I-280 was cut back (just a few blocks on the north end), it was to make way for urban development surrounding the 4th/King Caltrain station and AT&T Park, and the Muni light rail (T line) extension.

I'm split on proposals like these, but I'd personally be mostly in favor of having the freeway touch down at 16th St, instead of reaching 5th St as it does today. A lot of this is personal - my girlfriend works over at UCSF, and the whole area does feel a little creepy. I've walked down 7th St (parallel to 280) in broad daylight, and it feels super sketchy. The intersection of 7th, 16th, and Mississippi doesn't feel as sketchy, but it feels dangerous from a pedestrian standpoint, and pedestrian traffic there has increased a lot in the last 2-3 years. Razing the freeway and building a neighborhood will certainly make it feel more "friendly" around there - but at what cost. While I don't drive on that stretch of 280 much, it's a welcome alternative to 101. SF has also had a series of "successful" freeway stub teardowns. I live very close to the stub end of the Central Freeway. The neighborhood got a lot better since the extension was taken down, but it's not like walking down Octavia Blvd is pleasant. Ditto for 4th and King.

I think this is interesting because it's not the traditional NIMBY argument. 280 isn't really in anyone's backyard right now (other than some RV dwellers on the street), but the City wants to build a lot there. Some may argue that the area should be left alone, there's no business building housing near a freeway that's already there, but there's also this standpoint: there's currently a pretty serious housing shortage in SF, especially for rentals. (Rents have gone up like crazy in the past year or 2, and my friends all have stories of showing up at an apartment viewing only to find 30 other people outbidding each other.) SF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere, and it's more valuable without the freeway. What are your thoughts?

[vdeane]

Looks to me like the development would do more to make the area less sketchy than tearing down the freeway.  How would the boulevard deal with the railroad tracks?

[citrus]

Development would help for sure... at least to a point. (The area under the Central Freeway is both developed and dingy.)
The train tracks would go underground - which should probably happen regardless of what else happens.

[triplemultiplex]

I support this reasonable freeway tear-down proposal.

They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.

[TheStranger]

They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.

Actually, no.  The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.

[myosh_tino]

They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.

Actually, no.  The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.

...and provides the only convenient freeway access to and from AT&T Park.

Existing trains don't move any faster than 20 MPH after exiting the final tunnel before arriving at the San Francisco Caltrain station.  That is the segment of track that is under I-280.

[citrus]

They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.

Actually, no.  The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.

...and provides the only convenient freeway access to and from AT&T Park.

Existing trains don't move any faster than 20 MPH after exiting the final tunnel before arriving at the San Francisco Caltrain station.  That is the segment of track that is under I-280.

That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.

I'd argue that the freeway is not an especially convenient way to get to AT&T Park if you have other options - already, parking on game days is $20-100(!, for weekend games with "rival" opponents in town), and most surface parking south of AT&T Park is being re-purposed for housing and other uses. (i.e. the parking was intended to be temporary.) The transit connections at that location are far and above most other MLB ballparks...and would only get better if/when Caltrain gets electrified. But no matter what happens, AT&T is a hell of a place to watch baseball!

[triplemultiplex]

That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.

That channel off of McCovey Cove is exactly what I'm talking about.  I see it's already lined with some nicer development and boat docks.  The existing freeway bridges can't be very attractive while they're using some potential valuable waterfront real estate.  When you've got density like San Francisco, any waterfront property is a huge asset.  That's why cities have been cleaning up and redeveloping their old industrial waterfronts for decades.

Side note: the Giants were playing when the current aerial photos were taken.  Never seen that before.
Looks like the home team was in a bit of a jam.  The bases are loaded and a right-handed batter is up.  The infield is playing at double-play depth so that means there is at most one out.  The outfield is playing pretty much straight away, if a little deep, so the batter must be pretty good to present a equal threat to both left & right fields.
Must be a weekday game, too judging by the crowd size.  Full parking lots elsewhere in the city is further evidence.  So odds are pretty good it was a Wednesday or a Thursday, since those are the most common days for a weekday day game.  Using that information, one could probably figure out what date the aerials were taken.

[Zmapper]

Nooo, it isn't like Google Earth doesn't just tell you the date. 

Though I suppose given the date, you could figure out the exact moment during the game when the aerial was snapped.

[mgk920]

That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.

That channel off of McCovey Cove is exactly what I'm talking about.  I see it's already lined with some nicer development and boat docks.  The existing freeway bridges can't be very attractive while they're using some potential valuable waterfront real estate.  When you've got density like San Francisco, any waterfront property is a huge asset.  That's why cities have been cleaning up and redeveloping their old industrial waterfronts for decades.

Side note: the Giants were playing when the current aerial photos were taken.  Never seen that before.
Looks like the home team was in a bit of a jam.  The bases are loaded and a right-handed batter is up.  The infield is playing at double-play depth so that means there is at most one out.  The outfield is playing pretty much straight away, if a little deep, so the batter must be pretty good to present a equal threat to both left & right fields.
Must be a weekday game, too judging by the crowd size.  Full parking lots elsewhere in the city is further evidence.  So odds are pretty good it was a Wednesday or a Thursday, since those are the most common days for a weekday day game.  Using that information, one could probably figure out what date the aerials were taken.

Slightly off-topic, but Google has been actively trying to shoot aerial images during major events in recent years.  Check their aerial images of Oshkosh, WI - I got when it was flown down to within about half an hour or so.  It was about 2:00pm CDT (Sun angle) on the Sunday before EAA opened in 2011 (24-July).  Numerous clues on the grounds point to that day.



Mike

[TheStranger]

San Francisco has found funding to discuss the teardown proposal further, though if implemented, it would not happen for at least 5-6 years.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/07/s-f-railyard-redevelopment-280-terminus-phase-two-funded.html

(Interestingly, CalTrans did earthquake retrofits earlier this year on this stretch of freeway).

Reading the debate on Socketsite in the wake of having read the Wikipedia entry of the Embarcadero Freeway's late-80s/early-90s history has made me realize...regardless of city policy and other cities trying to claim the San Francisco example as an ideal...there has never been much agreement amongst residents here as to the functionality (and future) of existing highways in the city.

The comments there do provide insight into the traffic patterns along existing 280 in the Potrero Hill/Dogpatch area and along the sections of streets (Octavia, Embarcadero) that were built or refurbished as freeway replacements.

SF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere

A year and a half after this post, I can think of several counterexamples to that:

- the Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley which is finally being developed (in conjunction with the Muni Metro extension to Bayshore Caltrain, and the revived Geneva Avenue extension to the Bayshore Freeway)
- Hunter's Point (which, for its historic seediness, is receiving new construction at present)
- Candlestick Park once the stadium is demolished later in the year

While none of those are in as trendy a spot as Mission Bay or Dogpatch, the land area of those three project sites is significantly larger than what would be freed up by removing 280 in Mission Bay.

[citrus]

The Planning Dept is acting as if it's probable enough that developers should take it into account:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/07/29/500_townsend_would_trade_i280_for_a_view_if_youre_asking.php

SF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere

A year and a half after this post, I can think of several counterexamples to that:

- the Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley which is finally being developed (in conjunction with the Muni Metro extension to Bayshore Caltrain, and the revived Geneva Avenue extension to the Bayshore Freeway)
- Hunter's Point (which, for its historic seediness, is receiving new construction at present)
- Candlestick Park once the stadium is demolished later in the year

While none of those are in as trendy a spot as Mission Bay or Dogpatch, the land area of those three project sites is significantly larger than what would be freed up by removing 280 in Mission Bay.

Of course! I'd also add the Parkmerced expansion over in the far SW corner of SF. Undoubtedly developers and the City see more $$$$ in this location... not that that's a particularly good reason in itself to tear the freeway down.

Mission Bay already looks wildly different than it did when I started this thread! (And that's not even including the massive fire that happened in the spring.) Dogpatch looks pretty different in many parts as well. There's also the Warriors arena that's going to be built on 3rd St in Mission Bay in a couple years. Will be interesting to see what happens. Meanwhile, I'm following the proposed 400' towers over by Market and Van Ness....

[TheStranger]

Of course! I'd also add the Parkmerced expansion over in the far SW corner of SF. Undoubtedly developers and the City see more $$$$ in this location... not that that's a particularly good reason in itself to tear the freeway down.

I wonder how much of this will be affected by...

1. the continued delays on high-speed rail

2. the current battle between the state and SF (and SF voters) over that voter-development-approval proposition that passed, much of which has to do with waterfront areas

Interesting that in some way, the development boom currently occurring South of Market is to an extent an artifice of the anti-Manhattanization that curtailed north of Market development after the mid-1980s (specifically with height limits being relaxed around Transbay).  Even the past saga of the Embarcadero Freeway fits in with the city's shift towards emphasizing the southern part of the core over the traditional Financial District area, with this 280 discussion being but one aspect of this decades-long revamping.

[Henry]

I wouldn't be surprised if this went through! Sort of reminds me of Detroit's plans to eliminate I-375 (although that proposal does not involve a railroad yard).

[citrus]

This proposal has been back in the news recently: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/I-280-near-Mission-Bay-would-be-razed-in-Caltrain-6254662.php

[The Ghostbuster]

I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.

[jakeroot]

I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.

[TheStranger]

I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.

I use it at least 2-3 times a week when 101 has its usual traffic around Cesar Chavez (Army) and at I-80 - northbound in the commute it is pretty close to capacity, and the exit in the Dogpatch neighborhood (Mariposa Street) is almost always backed up .

I cannot think of any scenario where moving all of those commuters onto only 101 between the Bayview and downtown areas would be beneficial.

[Henry]

I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.

I'm sure all the people of the City by the Bay share that sentiment. Putting a freeway in the Embarcadero area was the worst mistake ever in the history of urban planning.

I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.

I use it at least 2-3 times a week when 101 has its usual traffic around Cesar Chavez (Army) and at I-80 - northbound in the commute it is pretty close to capacity, and the exit in the Dogpatch neighborhood (Mariposa Street) is almost always backed up .

I cannot think of any scenario where moving all of those commuters onto only 101 between the Bayview and downtown areas would be beneficial.

If I were to build the boulevard on the freeway ROW, I would keep the same number of lanes, and maybe add at least one more in each direction if need be. And there'd be RIRO's for the side streets, plus signalized (split-phase?) intersections for the crossing streets.

[JustDrive]

Does that mean that Selby Street would finally see the light of day?  Or would it be incorporated into the new parkway?

[TheStranger]

I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.

I'm sure all the people of the City by the Bay share that sentiment. Putting a freeway in the Embarcadero area was the worst mistake ever in the history of urban planning.

The fact that Art Agnos was voted out in part because Chinatown/Richmond District residents felt their needs were trumped by pro-waterfront development interests tells me there isn't (and never has been) a city-wide consensus on this.  The comments on that Chronicle article only highlight inter-neighborhood differences as well.

If I were to build the boulevard on the freeway ROW, I would keep the same number of lanes, and maybe add at least one more in each direction if need be. And there'd be RIRO's for the side streets, plus signalized (split-phase?) intersections for the crossing streets.

That's however not how the replacement boulevards along the Embarcadero and Octavia Boulevard were built.  Octavia has frontage roads for the burgeoning east portion of the Hayes Valley business district, but only 2 through lanes in each direction, and signals generally designed to guarantee that traffic heading from the Central Freeway to Fell Street has to stop at least once (and traffic heading from Oak/Octavia to the freeway has to stop once as well).  Oak has a protected right turn to Octavia but the other cross streets do not have protected turns as far as I can recall.

I don't think the Embarcadero gained any lane additions with the removal of 480 (especially with the old Belt Line rail right of way being used for today's F-Market historic streetcar line).

Does that mean that Selby Street would finally see the light of day?  Or would it be incorporated into the new parkway?

No - the portion currently being suggested for conversion to boulevard, if I'm not mistaken, is north of Cesar Chavez (Army).

[andy3175]

More news on potential to remove northernmost 1.2 miles of I-280 in San Francisco near Mission Bay:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3717 - feasibility study to remove portion of I-280 just released

Phase I of the RAB studies four distinct components. Each component will include a thorough analysis of existing conditions and prepare conceptual design alternatives within three study areas: the 16th Street grade separation, the 4th and King Railyard, and I-280.  ... 1. Make I-280 a Boulevard: Replace the end of I-280 north of Mariposa or 16th Street with an urban surface boulevard, similar to the Embarcadero or Octavia Boulevard. This boulevard could create new open space, improve circulation and allow connectivity throughout the area that is currently separated by 1.2 miles of I-280.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/demolition-of-one-mile-stretch-of-i-280-part-of-proposal-to-link-mission-bay-with-surrounding-area/

Mission Bay is San Francisco’s neighborhood of the future.

That’s Mayor Ed Lee’s publicly stated vision. And in public documents, his office said a key to that future may be razing Interstate Highway 280 — now the source of much public ire.

Mission Bay has become home to gleaming new UC San Francisco hospitals, and is the potential new home to what some call the mayor’s “legacy project” — the Golden State Warriors’ Chase Center. The Mission Rock and Pier 70 housing developments could also soon considerably boost the neighborhood’s population.

And one day in the far-flung future, perhaps decades from now, Mission Bay may become the conduit for a second transbay tube that would connect BART and — for the first time — newly electrified Caltrain service to the East Bay.

But the future comes at a cost.

A one-mile portion of Interstate 280 at 16th Street could come down to make way for a boulevard, which would link Mission Bay with its surrounding neighborhoods, say city planners.

The highway’s potential demolition is included in “The Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study,” which was released Tuesday by The City. The report explores a plethora of changes to the area.

The study looks at relocating the 4th and King Streets Caltrain railyard, a more than $2.6 billion proposal to connect High Speed Rail and Caltrain to the new Transbay Transit Center, and to create a 1.3-mile tunnel from the transit center to Mission Bay in anticipation of the new transbay tube.

That Transbay Transit Center is now under construction in South of Market, and is seen as a vital connection for high speed rail in California, set to open in 2017.

Removing a portion of I-280 was the most controversial part of this plan prior to the meeting, and that sentiment intensified Tuesday night.

Surrounded by angry neighbors at the rec center, former Mayor Art Agnos — no stranger to fighting development, as evidenced by the recent “No Wall on the Waterfront” campaign — told the San Francisco Examiner he will personally combat any effort to tear down I-280.

In 2014, Agnos and now-Supervisor Aaron Peskin blocked a luxury housing development along the Embarcadero, and passed a ballot measure calling for voter approval of all height-limit increases along the waterfront.

Agnos promised a similar fight against tearing down I-280.

“I’m going to make the [No Wall on the Waterfront] fight look like a minor league skirmish,” he said.

It’s a switch in position for a former mayor who, in the 1990s, not only tore down the Embarcadero Freeway, but played a key role in tearing down the Central Freeway at Octavia Street as well.

“Listen,” he said, “there’s no one in this city who has demolished more freeways than I have.” But tearing down I-280 “will absolutely choke all of this area.”

[The Ghostbuster]

Wow, San Francisco residents who oppose tearing down a portion of San Francisco's freeway system? Have I just entered the Twilight Zone?

[citrus]

Not only that - it appears to be some of the same people that fought to tear down freeways in the past.
The issue is likely on what would go in its place - these folks are very opposed to building new expensive housing right now, which is likely what would go into the space now occupied by the train station.

[TheStranger]

And it looks like 280 will stay in place for the long-term, as a completely different plan for rerouting CalTrain in the area was approved in April:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-simpler-plan-for-SF-s-downtown-rail-12855669.php

Very interesting phrasing here from the paper:

Retaining I-280 and its two ramps to Sixth Street and King Street should make it easier to sell the project to residents and commuters who feared that the plan to demolish the freeway and replace it with an Octavia Boulevard-like street would lead to gridlock.

...

"This is really about: "˜How do we get trains to the Transbay Transit Center?'"  he [Adam Van De Water of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development] said. "But we kept hearing from the neighborhood: "˜Are you going to take the freeway down?'"