A 21st Century Problem

San Francisco is a city with a history of opposition to freeways. So, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, it seemed natural to suggest tearing down the earthquake-damaged portion of the never completed Central Freeway. But in an age increasingly dependent on cars, it would take some convincing and several fierce battles, to convince drivers that taking down even the four-block portion of a freeway could be a solution to traffic woes. "Central freeway was never meant to be the way it is," said Robin Levitt, an architect and most recently co-chair of the Committee to Build the Boulevard. "The term freeway is a misnomer." While it may be called Central Freeway, it is really a long off ramp that terminates in a residential neighborhood. San Francisco's freeway revolt in the 1960's prevented building intended connections.

The battle over the freeway has been a long one for Levitt, who became involved mid-way in a process which dates to 1992, when a city commission known as the Central Freeway Task Force began to look at different alternatives for the earthquake-damaged freeway. In 1995, the task force, which had since grown to represent neighborhoods from throughout the city, recommended a plan to remove the freeway and replace it with a tree-lined boulevard.

But getting people trained to move cars behind a project to remove a freeway would prove to be another obstacle. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), stalled, according to Levitt, when they removed the one of the freeways two decks, but left the other. Eight years later, with one deck of the still damaged and unsound freeway being used daily by countless motorists, another group of residents later known as the San Francisco Neighbors Association became frustrated with the lack of action and moved to put the question of rebuilding the freeway to the voters.

What followed was a series of ballot initiatives asking voters to approve a freeway rebuild, then a plan to replace it with a boulevard, and most recently both. In 1997, the plan to rebuild the freeway passed, followed the next year by the plan to build Octavia Boulevard. Finally, in the most recent election, both initiatives were placed side-by-side on the ballot, resulting in a second win for the boulevard plan.

"We were dismayed when the voters approved rebuilding the freeway, a decision which ran counter to the recommendation of the task force," Levitt said. "But at that time few voters even knew about the boulevard. We put the Boulevard initiative on the ballot because in 1997 because people were led to believe that if the Central Freeway wasn't rebuilt it would be torn down and not be replaced." After gathering 22,000 signatures (more than 3,000 by Levitt himself) to put it on the ballot, voters approved a initiative to replace Central Freeway with a boulevard.

But again, progress was slow and despite the voter approval of the boulevard plan, Caltrans continued to seismically retrofit the remaining portion of the freeway. The issue was headed for the ballot one more time. "We believed the plan was a better traffic solution," Levitt recalls, "And once voters knew about the boulevard alternative, they were in support of it." But the opposition persisted, asking tiring voters about the fate of the Central Freeway three times. "People often side with the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know," Levitt explains speculating about reasons for continued opposition to the boulevard.

Advocates had to make the boulevard concept familiar to residents all over the city. "The opposition was using scare tactics, saying the boulevard would create pollution, kill pedestrians and cause gridlock and road rage. We had to explain that the boulevard would act as a transition zone between the freeway and city streets, that it would move traffic, be pedestrian friendly and improve the neighborhoods."

With construction set to go ahead with the building of Octavia Boulevard, Levitt says there is a lot to learn from the long and aggravating process. "One of the the lessons we can learn is that the leadership has to be pro-active. Everybody ran away from it like cockroaches when you turn on the lights. It became controversial and nobody wanted to deal with it. A little leadership in the beginning could have saved a lot of time and resources."

To Levitt, a native of Detroit, it isn't hard to see the effect freeways have on cities and neighborhoods. "When freeways were built they really wreaked havoc. They used eminent domain to take peoples homes, they divided neighborhoods and sent commercial development sprawling out onto the countryside."

Today many cities, including San Francisco, Boston, Portland and Milwaukee are trying to rectify the problems created by freeways, sometimes by removing them or, in the example of Boston, placing them underground. But telling drivers that you want to take down a freeway doesn't always work. Only by presenting a viable alternative, and outlining the benefits, can cities like San Francisco begin to heal the scars created by freeways.

"We had to reach out," Levitt explains. "We talked and talked. Visuals made it understandable and appealing. When people saw the model of the tree-lined boulevard they were immediately attracted to it. We explained the traffic patterns. We explained how the boulevard was safe, could be built faster and looked better. When you hammer the message away long enough, eventually people start to take a look at it."

Eric Miller