unsustainable city: density, transportation, and san francisco's "sustainability"

Unsustainable CityDensity, Transportation, and San Francisco’s “Sustainability”

An MKThink Research Publication21 September 2005

For further information, please contact:Chloe Lauer at 415 288 3394

Heralded by many as a ‘Green City,’ San Francisco is viewed as being at the forefront of progressive thinking and sustainable planning. Seeking to demonstrate the real elements in urban sustainability, MKThink initiated a research project to analyze patterns in urban density and public transportation networks in several global cities and compare these with those in San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area. This research yielded important fi ndings regarding the importance of density, public transportation, and development patterns in the creation of sustainable urban environments.

© MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission.Unsustainable City

‘GREEN CITY’; BIG FOOTPRINT

Heralded by many as a ‘Green City,’ San Francisco is viewed as being at the forefront of progressive thinking and sustainable planning. The week of May 30 - June 2, 2005, San Francisco became the fi rst American city to host a conference based on the United Nations’ World Environmental Day. Mayors from around the world traveled to San Francisco to attend lectures on a variety of topics from green building to urban recycling programs. And San Franciscans patted themselves on the back, thankful to live in such a sustainable metropolis.

In fact, San Francisco lags behind many urban regions in its overall sustainability. As a regional hub, San Francisco could be a leader in urban sustainability by instituting ‘smart growth’ (an urban planning strategy that advocates mid to high density development, discourages reliance on the automobile, and encourages public transit use), but instead, San Francisco continues the status quo, resulting in the spread of people to the suburbs and an ever increasing Ecological Footprint.

The Ecological Footprint—one way to measure an area’s sustainability—summarizes the overall impact and demand on a particular region by the people dwelling there. The United States has the highest per capita Footprint of any country in the entire world: 23.6 acres/capita. Western European countries have on average only approximately two-thirds the Ecological Footprint of the U.S.1

At 20.9 acres/capita, the Ecological Footprint of the Bay Area is 14 percent less than that of the rest of the United States. Even so, it exceeds the local region by over 33 times: the Bay Area relies on the equivalent of more than 146 million acres to sustain itself.2 This area is nearly the size of the states of California and Oregon combined. The world would need over four and half additional earths if everyone in the world had the same Footprint as the SF Bay Area.3

Within the Bay Area, the city of San Francisco has the lowest Ecological Footprint of the region at 18 acres/capita, but it is still three times the size of densely urbanized Hong Kong.1,3

FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION

In higher income countries like the United States, fossil fuel consumption accounts for the largest portion (53.7%) of the Ecological Footprint.1 Coal, oil, and natural gas consumption in the higher income regions of the world contribute signifi cantly to global Ecological Footprints, as shown below in Figure 1 below. In order to become a truly ‘Green City’, San Francisco needs to reduce its per capita consumption of fossil fuels. For that to be

Unsustainable CityDensity, Transportation, and San Francisco’s “Sustainability”

FIGURE 1: Sources of Ecological Footprint1

Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission.

possible, two signifi cant and inextricably linked factors—density of habitation and employment, and public transit that effectively links the two—must be present. As habitation and employment in urban areas become more concentrated and integrated, and as people have the opportunity to increasingly rely on public transportation, walking and cycling, consumption of fossil fuels declines, as illustrated in Figure 2. Looking at the fi gure below, it is apparent that American cities (clustered to the upper left) have the lowest density and highest annual per capita usage of fossil fuels.

LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE BAY AREA

Since most growth in the Bay Area is occurring in outlying areas, the majority of housing developments consist of what John King, author of the San Francisco Chronicle article, “Urban Centers Slow to Turn Green,” terms “Brentwood-style sprawl” instead of focused urban development and rejuvenation.6 Urban Emeryville grew a respectable 20 percent since 2000, adding 1,400 residents for a total population of 8,282. During the same time, suburban Brentwood’s population grew a whopping 76 percent, from 23,302 to 40,912, according to fi gures compiled by the California Department of Finance.6

In King’s opinion, this trend exists because of the lack of an integrated Bay Area government that can coordinate development agendas and allow development in certain areas while keeping it away from others. Some local neighborhoods thus force development away from their homes, which results in consumption of open space and continually pushes growth further from the city and urban core areas. This also causes longer commutes that consume more fossil fuels.

INCREASING DENSITY: CONSTRAINED BOUNDARIES AND TALL BUILDINGS

According to David Owen, the key to New York’s relative environmental sustainability is its compactness:

Manhattan’s population density is more than 800 times that of the nation as a whole. Placing 1.5 million people on a 60-square kilometer island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful, and forces the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-effi cient residential structures: apartment buildings.7

For many who think of sustainable environments as being vast open stretches of natural habitat, Owen provides a contrasting

According to a study by the Association for Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area’s projected growth patterns perpetuate low-density development. This means an ever-increasing reliance on the private automobile and thus, fossil fuels. The Bay Area’s population is slated to increase by over 16 percent from 2000 to 2020, with most of the growth occurring in outlying, relatively non-urban regions, as shown in Figure 3. The County of San Francisco itself is expected to grow only one percent, bringing its total population to about 800,000.5

According to this report, Solano County is forecast to grow the fastest, increasing 36 percent to approximately 0.5 million people. Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties are expected to grow to 1.2 million (a 24 percent increase) and 2 million (a 15 percent increase) by 2020.

In order to reverse the Bay Area’s tendency toward low-density, private automobile-reliant development, and disproportionately high fossil-fuel consumption, San Francisco must fi rst recognize its opportunity to improve as a sustainable region. Then it must implement strategies to be a leader in high-density, public transit-reliant, fossil fuel-sparing development.

FIGURE 2: Relation between urban density and annual petrol use per capita4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Gro

wth

Per

cent

age

County

FIGURE 3: Bay Area Growth by County, 2000-2020

Solan

o

Sono

ma

Contra

Cost

aNap

a

Santa

Clar

a

Alamed

aMari

n

San M

ateo

San F

rancis

co

5


position that focuses on urban density as a key ingredient in sustainability. One way to achieve urban density is by building high-rises, which are defi ned as buildings 115 feet or greater in height.8

San Francisco has approximately 416 high-rise buildings with its ten tallest buildings averaging 627 feet. This equates to roughly 8.85 high-rises per square mile. Most of these high-rises are commercial in nature, so they do not provide for residential density or for integration of living and working. New York’s 26,783 people per square mile live in an environment of 5,845 high-rise buildings where the ten tallest buildings average 924 feet. This equates to approximately 18.91 high-rises per square mile. Of these high-rises, many are residential apartment towers and mixed use buildings that allow for proximity among home, work, and entertainment districts via a rich network of public transportation. Per capita, no city in North America has as many residential high-rises as Vancouver, British Columbia. Vancouver’s 606 high-rises equate to 13.77 high-rises per square mile; most are residential.8

While New York does boast some notable high-rises, it has only fi ve of the 100 tallest residential towers. Hong Kong, on the other hand, claims 49 of the top 100, and as mentioned above, also has an Ecological Footprint only one-third as large as San Francisco’s.8

High-rise development is not the only way to achieve high density. Low-rise, high-density development can attain densities that rival Manhattan’s (66,940 people per square mile).11 In fact, portions of San Francisco already reach impressively high densities. North Beach’s densities range from 62,014 to 77,178 people per square mile and Nob Hill’s peak at 91,982 and average 68,396 people per square mile.9 With these areas as a precedent, low-rise, high-density development may be the best approach for San Francisco to increase densities.

So what happens when cities reach a tipping point on the density scale? Jeffrey Zupan, a Senior Fellow in Transportation with the Regional Plan Association (serving NY, NJ, and CT) explains:

Once you get above a certain density two things happen. First, you get less travel by mechanical means, which is another way of saying you get more people walking or biking; and second, you get a decrease in the trips by auto and an increase in the trips by transit. That threshold tends to be around seven dwellings per acre. Once you cross that line, a bus company can put buses out there, because they know they’re going to have enough passengers to support a reasonable frequency of service (qtd. in Owen).7

How does San Francisco measure up? Have we crossed that density threshold? At approximately 11 dwellings per acre (and approximately 16,000 people per square mile), San Francisco’s density supports buses. Light rail (requiring approximately nine dwellings per acre to be economically viable) is moderately

effective, but is limited by the city’s geography. Rapid transit requires a higher density (12 dwellings per acre).10 San Francisco would do well to follow David Owen’s advice and aspire to New York’s density: approximately 15 dwellings per acre and 26,000 people per square mile.11,12 These levels of compact life support an increased reliance on public transport, which results in a decrease in fossil fuel consumption.

RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE

Like the rest of America, San Franciscans are married to their personal automobiles. In 2000, approximately 3.8 billion vehicle miles were traveled within San Francisco County, generating approximately 2.42 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. This translates to almost 5,124 car miles per person per year, or approximately 14 miles per person per day for San Franciscans alone. Intraregional trips by commuters added an additional 2.65 million tons of emissions in the same year.13

The average number of vehicles owned per household in the Bay Area is expected to climb from 1.85 vehicles per household in 2000 to 1.91 vehicles per household by the year 2020.4 While this is a minor increase, it does suggest that San Francisco is missing an opportunity to develop more sustainable transportation alternatives.

Higher-density development is one method of reducing both vehicle miles traveled and vehicles per household because higher-density development “generates less traffi c than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking”.14 Once an areas is dense enough to support public transit, the following strategies may be employed to further encourage reduction of private automobile use.

REDUCING PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE USE

Restrictions on the Private Automobile

Some European and South American cities have successfully implemented strategies to reduce private automobile use that could be considered much more extreme than anything San Francisco has tried, or plans on trying.

Cities like Vienna and Munich have implemented traffi c calming procedures with limited entry to urban cores and narrow lanes to limit speed and access of personal vehicles into metropolitan areas. This procedure ensures vital urban spaces where human interaction is prioritized over vehicles and parking.15

In London, congestion pricing charges motorists a fee to enter the Central London area. While not the fi rst city to institute such a policy, London is the largest city thus far to do so. Proceeds from the £8 daily fee are invested in public transport.16


Curitiba, Brazil has regulated access of vehicles to downtown areas, where 75 percent of all traffi c now occurs via bus. Curitiba’s buses now carry 50 times more passengers than they did 20 years ago. As a result, despite the second highest per capita car ownership rate in Brazil (one car for every three people), Curitiba’s gasoline use per capita is 30 percent below that of eight comparable Brazilian cities. Other results include negligible emissions levels, little congestion, and an extremely pleasant living environment.17

In Singapore, with fi xed government policies restricting car access to downtown areas, residents are forced to walk or rely on taxis or buses. Singapore’s planning and city coordination creates a specifi c limit on the amount of vehicular traffi c allowed into downtown areas.18

Reducing congestion and vehicular traffi c increases the livability and desirability of urban areas, which in turn increases density, and ultimately, sustainability.

Provision of Public Point-to-Point Transportation

Another strategy to reduce private automobile use is to provide reliable public point-to-point transportation, generally in the form of taxis. With a population of approximately 750,000 over 47 square miles, or approximately 16,000 people per square mile, San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the United States after New York.12 That said, on a variety of levels, San Francisco’s infrastructure pales in comparison with its larger metropolitan brother on the East Coast. San Francisco’s 1,381 taxis19 equate to roughly 29 taxis per square mile. New York’s 12,187 taxis,20 in contrast, equate to roughly 40 taxis per square mile, counting the entire 303 square miles of the New York metropolitan area, and over 450 taxis per square mile in Manhattan alone.

Besides, according to a survey by the Chamber of Commerce, most San Franciscans do not use taxis regularly. One-third of the population use them “never” or “almost never,” while a further 24 percent use them only a few times a year. This in itself suggests that there is signifi cant scope to expand the use of taxis.21 San Francisco’s relatively low taxi density also suggests that residents must depend on private automobiles for reliable point-to-point transportation. In order to San Francisco to see a decrease in the use of the personal automobile as the primary means for point-to-point transportation, it would have to increase its taxi supply to over 4,000 (MKThink analysis).

With its 3.44 million people distributed across 265 square miles, (or 12,981 people/square mile), Singapore residents can count on a fl eet of over 20,000 government regulated taxis with GPS tracking and navigation systems. This fl eet provides urban residents with over 76 taxis per square mile.18

Though taxis are not a universal solution to public transport, Singapore’s coordination of taxis via computer database and GPS systems allows for an effi cient dispatch system that ensures customers an adequate supply in response to consumer demand. This system creates a means by which incoming booking calls fi rst go to a central computer and the GPS tracks the nearest empty taxis and dispatches calls.18

Provision of Mass Transit

Another way to reduce use of private automobiles is the provision of mass transit. San Francisco’s mass transit fl eet (electrical and diesel buses, trolleys, streetcars, and cable cars) consists of 978 vehicles.22 With an average daily ridership of 737,287 people, this equates to one vehicle for every 753 passengers.

New York’s fl eet of 4,566 buses has a daily ridership of 2.5 million people. This translates to one bus for every 547 individuals.23 New York’s public transportation network provides approximately 37 percent more vehicles per rider than San Francisco’s.

Though not fully implemented, Singapore has been working on a project to utilize GPS tracking and centralized computer dispatch to coordinate its bus deployments relative to user demand as well. Such a solution promises effi ciency, reliability, and adequate response to users needs for public transport in a fl exible, adaptable manner.18

Rail service provides faster service, but requires higher densities and investments. As such, it serves as an indicator of a city’s density and commitment to mass transit solutions. BART and Muni’s light rail tracks within the city of San Francisco comes to a total of 71.5 miles,22 which translates to 1.5 miles of light rail track per square mile of the city. In New York, a density of 15 dwellings per acre supports 660 miles of subway lines24 or almost 2 miles of subway track per square mile, which is a 33 percent denser network of fi xed rail access than San Francisco. As Bay Area development extends further from its transit backbone, the effectiveness of the current system will continue to decline.

In an article titled, “Bay Transit Headed the Wrong Way,” Chronicle staff writer Michael Cabantuan explains that due to a sluggish economy and volatile funding sources, almost every Bay Area transit operator has been forced to cut routes, employees, and service availability.25 Muni, the heart of SF’s public transit, is considering a cut of seven percent and a fare increase of 20 percent. The core of the problem lies in the development patterns of the Bay Area. In essence, “Instead of sprawling out toward the San Joaquin Valley and building suburban housing tracts that encourage, if not require, people to drive, the Bay Area needs to focus on development along transit lines and around stations, planners and transit backers say.”25


CONCLUSION

Patterns of density and urban transport are key elements in understanding the sustainability of the city and region. Furthermore, the sustainability of the city cannot be measured independently from its surrounding region; instead, we must account for the impact of the city’s policies on its surrounding area. If future trends continue current patterns, San Francisco and the Bay Area region will mirror the trend of growing sprawl. In order for San Francisco be able to herald its success as a green city, the city will need to fi rst recognize its shortcomings and then focus on regional-level policies and programs to increase density and allow for economically viable alternatives to automobile use. Only then will a decrease in reliance on fossil fuels be possible. Then our fair city can be aptly named ‘Green City’; Small Footprint.


NOTES

1. Venetoulis, Dr. Jason, et al, Ecological Footprint of Nations Sustainability Indicators Program, March 2004;available at http://www.redefi ningprogress.org/publications/footprintnations2004.pdf

2. Haynes, Melissa, “Regional Footprint 33 Times Too Large For Sustainability,” Redefi ning Press, May 25, 2004.

3. Bay Area Ecological Footprint, http://www.regionalprogress.org/more_ca_ bayarea_footprint.html.4. Newman and Kenworthy, 1989.5. Projections 2000, Association For Bay Area Governments,

http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/ overview/pub/p2000/summary.html.

6. King, John, “Environment in Focus: Urban centers slow to turn green; Putting housing where people work, play is challenge,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2005.

7. Owen, David, “Green Manhattan: Why New York Is The Greenest City In The U.S.,” The New Yorker, October 18, 2004.

8. Worldwide High-rise Statistics and Real Property Research, http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/.

9. Density Chart; available at http://www.sfcityscape.com/features/density_chart.html.

10. Swenson, Carol J. and Frederick C. Dock, Urban Design, Transportation, Environment and UrbanGrowth: Transit-Supportive Urban Design Impacts onSuburban Land Use and Transportation Planning, 2003; available at www.cts.umn.edu/trg/research/reports/TRG_11.html.

11. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City12. U.S. Census, http://factfi nder.census.gov13. Climate Action Plan For San Francisco: Local Actions to

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, San Francisco Department of the Environment and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, September 2004; available at http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/C_ID/2137.

14. Haughey, Richard M, Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.:ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2005; available at http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&section=Policy_Papers2&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=3235.

15. Nash, Andrew, “Traffi c Calming In Three European Cities,” SPUR Newsletter, September, 2004.

16. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Congestion_Charge.

17. The Dismantlement Website, http://www.dismantle.org/curitiba.htm.

18. Fwa, T.F., Sustainable Urban Transportation Planning and Development – Issues and Challenges For Singapore, Center for Transportation Research Dept of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore, 2004.

19. San Francisco Taxicab Commission, http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/taxicommission_

index.asp?id=4547.20. New York Taxi and Limosine Commission,

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/about.shtml21. Making Taxi Service Work in San Francisco - A SPUR

Report; available at http://www.spur.org/documents/ 011001_report_01.shtm.

22. San Francisco Muni, http://www.sfmuni.com.23. New York Transit Authority, http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us.24. Metropolitan Transit Authority, State of New York, http://www.mta.info.25. Cabanatuan, Michael, “Bay Transit Headed Wrong,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2005.

COMPANY PROFILE

MKThink reveals and optimizes the nexus between people and their environments. Led by principals Mark Miller, Steve Kelley and Nate Goore, MKThink creates dynamic strategies that help solve organizational challenges.

The MKThink team, comprised of anthropologists, psychologists and business people, as well as architects and urban planners, strives to fully understand their clients’ identities, needs, goals and culture before ever putting pen to paper. With a strong background in learning, workplace, community and healing environments, MKThink boasts a wealth of capabilities, including strategic, analytic and design services.

unsustainable city: density, transportation, and san francisco's "sustainability"

Documents