Unsustainable City

Density, Transportation, and San Francisco’s “Sustainability”

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 findings regarding the importance
of density, public transportation, and development patterns in the creation of sustainable urban environments.

An MKThink Research Publication

21 September 2005

For further information, please contact:

Chloe Lauer at 415 288 3394
Unsustainable City
Density, Transportation, and San Francisco’s “Sustainability”

‘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 first 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.
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 significantly 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
FIGURE 1: Sources of Ecological Footprint1

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

Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission. Page 2

 5
possible, two significant and inextricably linked factors—density of FIGURE 3: Bay Area Growth by County, 2000-2020
habitation and employment, and public transit that effectively links 50%
the two—must be present. As habitation and employment in urban
areas become more concentrated and integrated, and as people 40%
have the opportunity to increasingly rely on public transportation,
walking and cycling, consumption of fossil fuels declines, as

Growth Percentage
illustrated in Figure 2. Looking at the figure below, it is apparent 30%
that American cities (clustered to the upper left) have the lowest
density and highest annual per capita usage of fossil fuels.
20%

FIGURE 2: Relation between urban density and annual petrol

use per capita4 10%

0%
no a sta a
ar
a a in eo co
la om ap Cl ed ar at cis
So n Co N m M M n
So tra n ta Al
a n Fra
n Sa Sa n
Co Sa
County

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 figures compiled by the
California Department of Finance.6

According to a study by the Association for Bay Area

In King’s opinion, this trend exists because of the lack of an
Governments, the Bay Area’s projected growth patterns
integrated Bay Area government that can coordinate development
perpetuate low-density development. This means an ever-
agendas and allow development in certain areas while keeping
increasing reliance on the private automobile and thus, fossil
it away from others. Some local neighborhoods thus force
fuels. The Bay Area’s population is slated to increase by over 16
development away from their homes, which results in consumption
percent from 2000 to 2020, with most of the growth occurring
of open space and continually pushes growth further from the
in outlying, relatively non-urban regions, as shown in Figure 3.
city and urban core areas. This also causes longer commutes that
The County of San Francisco itself is expected to grow only one
consume more fossil fuels.
percent, bringing its total population to about 800,000.5

According to this report, Solano County is forecast to grow INCREASING DENSITY: CONSTRAINED BOUNDARIES AND
the fastest, increasing 36 percent to approximately 0.5 million TALL BUILDINGS
people. Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties are expected to
According to David Owen, the key to New York’s relative
grow to 1.2 million (a 24 percent increase) and 2 million (a 15
environmental sustainability is its compactness:
percent increase) by 2020.
Manhattan’s population density is more than 800 times that
of the nation as a whole. Placing 1.5 million people on a
In order to reverse the Bay Area’s tendency toward low-density,
60-square kilometer island sharply reduces their opportunities
private automobile-reliant development, and disproportionately
to be wasteful, and forces the majority to live in some of the
high fossil-fuel consumption, San Francisco must first recognize
most inherently energy-efficient residential structures: apartment
its opportunity to improve as a sustainable region. Then it must
buildings.7
implement strategies to be a leader in high-density, public transit-
reliant, fossil fuel-sparing development.
For many who think of sustainable environments as being vast
open stretches of natural habitat, Owen provides a contrasting

Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission. Page 3

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 defined 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
five 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
Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 traffic 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 traffic 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 first 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
Page 4
Curitiba, Brazil has regulated access of vehicles to downtown
areas, where 75 percent of all traffic 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 fixed 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 specific limit on the amount of vehicular traffic allowed into
downtown areas.18
Reducing congestion and vehicular traffic 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 significant 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 fleet of over 20,000 government regulated taxis with
GPS tracking and navigation systems. This fleet provides urban
residents with over 76 taxis per square mile.18
Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission.
Though taxis are not a universal solution to public transport,
Singapore’s coordination of taxis via computer database and
GPS systems allows for an efficient dispatch system that ensures
customers an adequate supply in response to consumer demand.
This system creates a means by which incoming booking calls first
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 fleet (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 fleet 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 efficiency, reliability, and adequate
response to users needs for public transport in a flexible,
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 fixed 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
Page 5
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 first 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.

Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission. Page 6

NOTES
19. San Francisco Taxicab Commission,
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/taxicommission_
1. Venetoulis, Dr. Jason, et al, Ecological Footprint of Nations
index.asp?id=4547.
Sustainability Indicators Program, March 2004;available
20. New York Taxi and Limosine Commission,
at http://www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/about.shtml
footprintnations2004.pdf
21. Making Taxi Service Work in San Francisco - A SPUR
2. Haynes, Melissa, “Regional Footprint 33 Times Too Large
Report; available at http://www.spur.org/documents/
For Sustainability,” Redefining Press, May 25, 2004.
011001_report_01.shtm.
3. Bay Area Ecological Footprint,
22. San Francisco Muni, http://www.sfmuni.com.
http://www.regionalprogress.org/more_ca_
23. New York Transit Authority, http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us.
bayarea_footprint.html.
24. Metropolitan Transit Authority, State of New York,
4. Newman and Kenworthy, 1989.
http://www.mta.info.
5. Projections 2000, Association For Bay Area Governments,
25. Cabanatuan, Michael, “Bay Transit Headed Wrong,”
http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/
San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2005.
overview/pub/p2000/summary.html.
6. King, John, “Environment in Focus: Urban centers slow to turn
COMPANY PROFILE
green; Putting housing where people work, play
is challenge,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2005. MKThink reveals and optimizes the nexus between people and
7. Owen, David, “Green Manhattan: Why New York Is The their environments. Led by principals Mark Miller, Steve Kelley
Greenest City In The U.S.,” The New Yorker, October and Nate Goore, MKThink creates dynamic strategies that help
18, 2004. solve organizational challenges.
8. Worldwide High-rise Statistics and Real Property Research,
The MKThink team, comprised of anthropologists, psychologists
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/.
and business people, as well as architects and urban planners,
9. Density Chart; available at http://www.sfcityscape.com/
strives to fully understand their clients’ identities, needs, goals
features/density_chart.html.
and culture before ever putting pen to paper. With a strong
10. Swenson, Carol J. and Frederick C. Dock, Urban Design,
background in learning, workplace, community and healing
Transportation, Environment and Urban
environments, MKThink boasts a wealth of capabilities, including
Growth: Transit-Supportive Urban Design Impacts on
strategic, analytic and design services.
Suburban 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_City
12. U.S. Census, http://factfinder.census.gov
13. 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&Conten
tFileID=3235.
15. Nash, Andrew, “Traffic 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.

Unsustainable City © MKThink 2005. Reproduction prohibited without permission. Page 7