Bay Bridge traffic. Photograph courtesy Philip Greenspun

Way Out West/ SF Public Press – Proposed redevelopment on Treasure Island would increase traffic jams on the Bay Bridge, lengthening commute times and exacerbating Bay Area air pollution, critics say.

Residents, environmental organizations and local agencies voiced those concerns this fall in almost 700 written comments on proposed new residential and commercial development that planners have said would make the island a world-class green neighborhood.

Comments about the project’s draft environmental impact report submitted by the September deadline expressed deep misgivings with the approach adopted by the city and the developer to limiting driving on and off the island.

“We are concerned that the project will be allowed to proceed and create profits on the island while causing delays to Muni and AC Transit, while both services are suffering with operating costs exceeding their available funding,” wrote Howard Strassner, a transportation committee member with the Sierra Club’s San Francisco group.

Suggestions from commenters on how to remedy the problem include limiting the number of cars residents may own by reducing the number of parking spaces, and charging visitors for parking.

Many comments argued that traffic is not only burdensome, but more vehicles increase greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. Forty percent of the Bay Area’s greenhouse gases come from vehicles. Other comments forcefully point out that if the project wants to be a cutting-edge green neighborhood, it must reduce the use of cars.

“A 1:1 residential [to parking] ratio is no longer considered anywhere near the cutting edge of sustainability or carbon neutrality,” wrote Ruth Gravanis in her comments. While Gravanis submitted her letter as an individual, she is a commissioner for the San Francisco’s Commission on the Environment.

The uproar over congestion does not come as a surprise given that the draft environmental impact report concluded traffic impacts would be “significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR.”

It found that a “significant impact on queuing” would occur during rush hour on San Francisco streets leading to the Bay Bridge, the Bay Bridge toll plaza, and would slow the travel time of multiple Muni and AC Transit lines.

The project currently proposes building 8,000 residential units that can accommodate 20,000 people. Based on the proposal, which allows each unit to own one car, the Commission found the project would lead to an additional:

• 1,613 vehicle trips during the weekday morning rush hour
• 2,462 vehicles trips during the evening rush hour
• 2,861 vehicles during the Saturday rush hour

The Bay Bridge can currently accommodate 9,000 vehicles per hour per direction. Its capacity is exceeded during rush hour, evidenced by daily traffic jams.

The Planning Department’s assessment takes into account the city and developers mitigation ideas, including adding a ferry from Treasure Island to San Francisco, additional buses, requiring residents to purchase public transit passes, charging residents a $5 toll for entering or exiting the island, and building a high-density neighborhood to reduce the need for residents to leave the island.

Money generated from commercial and on-street parking fees would fund improvements to public transportation, increasing the number of ferries and buses. The developer argues against the idea of reducing parking spaces, thus the number of cars the island can sustain, because it worries such measures will limit public transportation revenues and diminish the marketability of the units.

But the Bay Area environmental non-profit, Arc Ecology, dismissed the developer’s concern by showing that the average San Francisco household owns 0.65 cars, and proposed allotting each residence  0.75 parking spaces. The Sierra Club further demonstrated that SOMA’s 1:2 parking ratio has been successful.

Gravanis summed up her objection to the project’s plans by writing, “Please also address the illogical circuitousness of the argument…that says that the only way to achieve the project objective of ‘discouraging automobile use and promoting the use of public transportation’ is to encourage more driving and parking as the way to generate enough revenue to make it possible for people to take transit.”

Other points of contention included the project’s effect on migrating birds and surrounding waters; air pollution caused by the construction and added vehicles, given that the Bay Area already fails to meet state and federal ozone and air particulate matter standards; and the impact of noise and air pollution on residents and staff using the Federal Job Corps facilities.

The city and planning department are just beginning to sort through the responses, many of which are “fairly sophisticated comments in terms of their technical nature” said Michael Tymoff, project manager for the city.

The city originally hoped the project would break ground in summer 2011. Tymoff wavered in his response about the latest timeline for the project. “It’s still likely to happen in the summer, the fall or the end of 2011,” Tymoff said. While he dismissed the notion that the large volume of comments might slow the project’s progress, he said other matters such as the transfer of the land from Navy could delay it.

Tags: air quality, bay bridge, eir, ruth gravanis, traffic, treasure island environmental impact report 2010