Boomer parents say that vans are their number one concern. Vans were their number one concern for their children’s well-being. As in: Sickos driving vans loaded with candy to send young people off to faraway places.
Unless you’re a traveling musician, vans don’t seem so common anymore. Maybe that’s the best.
In my generation, I was not prepared for how much parental stress would be related to cars. I was constantly telling my children to watch out for driveways and keeping them off the street. This is exhausting, and all-consuming. The idea of car-free spaces is a welcome thought.
Do not mistake: After many months of work and many years of pleading, the Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday 7-4 to declare John F. Kennedy Drives carless. It is intrinsically a noble end to have a safe place for people to walk and socialize without worrying about being crushed or maimed. Arguments against this particular closure were either largely addressed or are bafflingly and questionably real (more on that in a moment).
I am however concerned that in a place with so many existential maladies or overt afflictions, there is a possibility that it might be a problem. ThisThis is what causes the issue to attract such large attention and participation. I am more concerned that the decision to limit car access on a mile-long stretch, which only consists of a small fraction Golden Gate Parks roads, required such a long, bitter, convoluted process, which is politically unfavorable.
San Franciscans can be content that we have created a needed social space. But it’s not over You can also Satisfied: Cars being taken off JFK drive has been touted as an eco-friendly move. This is a questionable claim. San Francisco will not address the environmental goals nor the elusive attempts to achieve equity without engaging in much more difficult battles over much larger issues.
Ratifying JFK’s status as a car-free community is a good thing, according to Sarah Jones (the former planning director for the Municipal Transportation Agency), who played a major role in engineering this long-awaited decision.
She continues to say that JFK Drive is not an environmentally-friendly destination. JFK Drive is a limited source of climate benefits. Transit is the key to climate action.
Anyone who has ever taken a bus in a city knows this. Not It’s much easier to wait for a city bus than it is to take a city bus. It is generally for the good of people to have places to go. However, this does not remove people from their cars.
If San Francisco cannot find a way to do this, then our future looks bleak.
Chris Jones is not related to Sarah and loves JFK. He loves roller-skating and the park. He drives to the park from Davis, but that’s the problem.
He offers to loan me an electric car. However, making the park more of an area for recreation and not allowing vehicles is only a way to attract people from far-flung areas. It won’t reduce net greenhouse gases, I don’t think so.
Jones is the Director of the Cool Climate Network at UC Berkeley. He also We analyzed the long-term emissions of greenhouse gases for San Francisco This was documented and They can be reduced in hundreds of cities around the world. He also contributed to the creation of this handy-dandy Carbon footprint calculator.
Jones is also a fan, as you can see, of roller-skating at Golden Gate park. This is a positive thing. Jones points out that this alone will not reduce the city’s emissions. They are stable and not decreasing. This does not mean that environmental progress has been made.
Let’s be very clear: It’s okay. It is worthwhile to have social goals and family-friendly amenities. People should have fun in the park. It’s a great place to relax. Fine. However, removing cars from the park will not make a difference in the city’s climate, equity or transportation goals unless it is a step in the right direction.
Jones says that mass transit is essential for working.
Sarah Jones agrees. Yes, bikes can now navigate the entire west end of New York City with relative ease and safety thanks to JFK’s cars. And yes, this could connect up to a network of bike-friendly streets. Jones is an avid cyclist. Your humble narrator rides a bicycle to work every day, and carries multiple children. This is all for the good.
She also reiterates that bikes are only a transport mode. Transit is something that everyone could use. This is the most efficient, equitable, sustainable and accessible mode of transportation.
She pauses.
It’s not.
The plan to allow cars is an added insult. BackOn JFK would place them in the perfect spot to block the 44 OShaughnessy buses. It’s a terrible idea. However, it is a bad idea when it comes Muni.
One of the most jarring criticisms about removing cars from JFK Drive is that it harkened back to the Bull Connor era American South. To borrow the term used by museums who have long considered this stretch of road their loading dock, it constitutes Recreational redlining.
Let’s be honest: This city has not done justice to its oppressed minority residents. Black people were historically relegated to an isolated, transport-poor, remote area in the southeast, which was, casually.The United States Navy irradiatedIt is not an accident.
It is still absurd to claim that removing automobile access from a small section of Golden Gate Park road amounts to segregation. Bayview residents can still drive all the way from their homes to the museum and park at Fulton, or to the park’s 90 percent of unoccupied parking spots. The pricing structure for the underground parking garage could be altered by the city.It was built with taxpayer money(And, for that matter: reconsider the exorbitant museum prices).
It takes quite a while to ride from Hunters View to Museum Concourse, but that’s because buses are slow. Here’s a new idea: Accelerate them.
It is still difficult to understand how cars speeding down JFK Drive equals equity. It’s not difficult to imagine how it would be equitable for a 44 Express to travel to the park, making limited stops and being assisted by transit-only lanes. If you are looking for a more sustainable way to reduce the number of cars in JFK, then it would be to listen to those who explain why cars are needed and then to address those situations.
This It is the only way to real progress. It is the one that has been less traveled in San Francisco and it has made all of the difference.
Muni is run in a manner similar to the Oakland As. Riders get less for more. Muni, to mix sporting metaphors, is the Steve DeBerg for transit: ItsYou won’t be disappointed!. Muni is becoming less reliable and providing less service. Yes, there’s a pandemic. San Franciscans have seen their percentage of trips made via sustainable modes drop to 10%..
Sarah Jones summarizes that there is very little interest expressed in San Francisco’s transportation and political realms in making it possible for people get out of their cars. Mode shift is not concrete. It’s not very satisfying. It’s not something that politicians can point to.
It’s a shame. This should be Job No. This should be Job No. 1 at Muni or City Hall.
This should be the main focus of all activities [transit]Jones continues to make every investment and every decision. A system that requires cars to get you to your destination is not fair, viable, or livable.
That’s the big picture. Everyone should celebrate yesterday’s victory. Then, look forward to tomorrow.
