Plans to Replace Doyle Dr. Debated at Presidio Meeting

By Alastair Bland

On Wednesday, Feb. 15, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA) held a public meeting at 135 Fisher Loop in the Presidio to address the upcoming plans to retrofit Doyle Drive, the elevated on-ramp that connects the Marina District to the Golden Gate Bridge - and San Francisco to Marin County.

Doyle Drive currently lags in seismic and traffic safety standards. Of six initial alternate improvement plans, two are still being considered, and debate remains as to which plan will better serve the community.

At the meeting a panel of spokespeople for such groups as CalTrans, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area heard comments from a group of several hundred citizens. Attendants voiced concerns over funding, traffic flow, safety and the impacts on various cultural, historical and environmental resources, such as the Crissy Field wetlands.

Michael Keck, an attorney from Marin, commented at the meeting. Keck survived a head-on collision on Doyle Drive in 2003. He blames the accident on the roadway's narrow lanes and its lack of a median barrier. He expressed dismay at the slow proceedings of the upgrade project.

"CalTrans mentions just one traffic death in 1970," Keck said, "but there has been on average about one crossover fatality per year since then. In '96 they kind of thought, 'Let's do it.' But then there's a three-year gap where apparently nothing happened, and each year that passes, well, you can check off another life."

Keck feels that the "replace and widen" plan, also called Alternative 2, is the most appropriate measure. Alternative 2 would replace the existing overpass with two parallel elevated structures that meet current design standards. Officials estimate the plan would cost between $553 million to $586 million in local, state and federal funding.

The other option is the "Presidio parkway" plan, or Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would call for the eventual removal of the current overpass and the construction of a new roadway at ground level.

Also divided between local, state and federal funding, Alternative 5 would require as much as $701 million. Its proponents claim it would meet traffic safety standards while simultaneously addressing environmental and aesthetic concerns.

The overpass removal would open up views of the Golden Gate Bridge, two tunnel segments would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access from the Presidio across to Crissy Field, and a high sound wall would protect local residents from the noise of the traffic.

Keck said that these issues will slow the completion of the project and ultimately cost more lives. "Are we going to talk about aesthetics," he asked the assembly, "or are we going to talk about safety? How many lives is it worth? How many people must die while you wait?"

Jim Chappell, the president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), addressed the auditorium in support of Alternative 5.

"The idea that something that is beautiful cannot be safe doesn't make sense," said Chappell. "Our environment belongs to us and it is our duty to husband it and shepherd it."

Chappell said SPUR wants to save taxpayers $100 million by abandoning plans for a ground-level roadway whose construction would be socially irresponsible and disregardful of future generations. Chappell said facilitating a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and Marin would serve tourists and drivers alike and generally enhance the beauty of the area, which consists in part of national park land.

"Roads have always had more purposes than just transportation," said Chappell. "They are the primary open spaces in a city."

Joyce Piccinini disagrees. As a resident of the Presidio, she is concerned that Alternative 5, if passed, will stall traffic and generate an increase in rush-hour congestion.

"Alternative 5 sounds lovely," she says. "It might look lovely, too. But the fact is Doyle Drive is a traffic thoroughfare and its purpose is to move traffic."

Piccinini favors Alternative 2 on the basis of a long-term consideration of traffic issues. Alternative 2's construction plan necessitates immediately demolishing the Doyle Drive overpass and rerouting traffic onto smaller roadways while rebuilding takes place.

Alternative 5, on the other hand, would involve the construction of an entirely new ground level roadway, while leaving the old overpass in operation until the project's completion, its proponents say.

The TA is currently reviewing public comments on the Doyle Drive issue in concert with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released in December 2005. Six plans were initially drafted by the TA in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, but authorities abandoned all but the current two initiatives. A final decision is expected early this summer, and the Doyle Drive retrofit project is slated to begin in 2009, with completion expected by 2012.