[Carfreeliving] treasure island

[dave@livablecity.org]

T.I. could be a wonderful car-free development, but the challenges are as great
as the benefits. Residents on a car-free Treasure Island could enjoy a complete
lack of roads, their housing linked throughout by trails. Gardens would abound.
There would be no car noise. However, transit access to the island would be
difficult, as it would be expensive per trip for such an isolated development.
Shared cars at the entrance to the island would be a good supplement to
infrequent transit service. As soon as you let in some cars for access within
the island, you've lost much of the benefit of a car-free development. However,
to completely restrict cars would limit the attractiveness of living there for
most potential residents. A better way than a massive extraction from
developers to pay for transit and the ped/bike/maintenance path would be a high
toll at the entrance to the island. This would also discourage car use,
obviously.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a good place for
residential development. A better use would be for recreation and wetlands. Let
Mills Corp. put their sports complex on Treasure Island, accessible only by
transit from the Ferry Building, Sausalito, and Oakland. Daytime-only ferry
service to a major attraction would actually be cost-effective compared to 24/7
service for everyday multiple uses. People wouldn't lose their homes when sea
levels rise. Use Piers 27-31, and much of the rest of the waterfront, for that
matter, for high-density housing. This would require changing the state code,
but if you allow public pedestrian access to the waterfront I think that
waterfront residential better preserves the bayfront for public use than a
massive car-dependent recreational attraction at Piers 27-31.

I'm agnostic on the pedestrian/bicycle/maintenance path to T.I. from San
Francisco. Under either scenario, such a path would be extremely popular,
absolutely gorgeous, and socially important. For the $200-300 million it's
expected to cost, I can think of many more beneficial uses, including
converting the bridge per Jason's "out of the box" ideas. If the San Francisco
bicycle network were fully funded at a cost of only $50-100 million, I would be
happier about the $200-300 million for the path. We need both. Remember that
amortized over its life, considering savings on maintenance made possible by
the path, the total cost is much less.

Dave