Second Freeway Revolt - Revision history

Ccarlsson at 22:12, 29 November 2021

2021-11-29T22:12:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 29 November 2021
Line 129:		Line 129:


	[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Book ~~excerpts~~]]		[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Book Excerpts]]

Ccarlsson at 22:12, 29 November 2021

2021-11-29T22:12:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 29 November 2021
Line 129:		Line 129:


	[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]]		[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Book excerpts]]

Ccarlsson: added new photo

2019-08-18T06:03:03Z

added new photo

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 17 August 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:

	However, just before Agnos failed in his reelection bid, the segment of the Central Freeway north of Fell Street was dangerously unstable, and engineers concluded it had to be removed and rebuilt later. Agnos and the Board of Supervisors concurred, and it was demolished, thereby daylighting Hayes Street and attracting more investment. Hayes Street transformed into a hip bohemian shopping and art studio enclave, while the remaining section of the freeway to the south was braced for interim seismic support and kept functioning. By 1992 the volume of traffic using the remaining segment of the Central Freeway dropped from one hundred thousand vehicles per day to eighty thousand.(7)		However, just before Agnos failed in his reelection bid, the segment of the Central Freeway north of Fell Street was dangerously unstable, and engineers concluded it had to be removed and rebuilt later. Agnos and the Board of Supervisors concurred, and it was demolished, thereby daylighting Hayes Street and attracting more investment. Hayes Street transformed into a hip bohemian shopping and art studio enclave, while the remaining section of the freeway to the south was braced for interim seismic support and kept functioning. By 1992 the volume of traffic using the remaining segment of the Central Freeway dropped from one hundred thousand vehicles per day to eighty thousand.(7)

			[[Image:1991-southwest-view-from-Gough-and-Grove-old-central-freeway SFHistorian-twtr.jpg]]

			'''View southwest in 1991 from Gough and Grove where the damaged freeway still stood.'''

			''Photo: SFHistorian via Twitter''

	The post-earthquake traffic was distributed unevenly, and some parts of Hayes Valley were overwhelmed. For example, the newly truncated configuration increased traffic by 70 percent on the Fell and Oak couplet as many cars that once proceeded north to the Franklin and Gough couplet now exited there.(8) There were rumblings of dissent from that section of Hayes Valley. Moreover, everyone in the neighborhood saw the benefit of freeway removal over Hayes Street, and the idea of further removal spread among the local residents. The Board of Supervisors established a citizens’ advisory task force to advise the board on what to do about the remaining segments of the freeway, and the San Francisco Planning Department (SFPD) investigated the potential for urban infill on the former freeway parcels north of Hayes Street. Members of the task force called for the remaining freeway to be torn down. Yet by the time the nascent task force made its recommendation, the political pendulum of the city had swung in a more conservative direction, and the recommendation was ignored.		The post-earthquake traffic was distributed unevenly, and some parts of Hayes Valley were overwhelmed. For example, the newly truncated configuration increased traffic by 70 percent on the Fell and Oak couplet as many cars that once proceeded north to the Franklin and Gough couplet now exited there.(8) There were rumblings of dissent from that section of Hayes Valley. Moreover, everyone in the neighborhood saw the benefit of freeway removal over Hayes Street, and the idea of further removal spread among the local residents. The Board of Supervisors established a citizens’ advisory task force to advise the board on what to do about the remaining segments of the freeway, and the San Francisco Planning Department (SFPD) investigated the potential for urban infill on the former freeway parcels north of Hayes Street. Members of the task force called for the remaining freeway to be torn down. Yet by the time the nascent task force made its recommendation, the political pendulum of the city had swung in a more conservative direction, and the recommendation was ignored.

Lisaruth: Protected "Second Freeway Revolt" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2015-03-30T04:28:20Z

Protected "Second Freeway Revolt" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:28, 29 March 2015
(No difference)

Lisaruth: added abstract

2015-03-30T03:40:59Z

added abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 29 March 2015
Line 8:		Line 8:

	''Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library''		''Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library''

			{\| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
			\| colspan="2" \| '''Linking the Freeway revolts of the 1950s and 1960s to the anti-freeway movement in the 1990s, the removal of the Central Freeway running through Hayes Valley in San Francisco is explored for its effective community organizing. Changes in the lived urban environment of Hayes Valley over the 20th century geographically — specifically historical, political, and social conditions and relations through time — are tracked as well as the ways in which the 1989 earthquake that collapsed several Bay Area freeways opened up political possibilities for reimagining the urban landscape. Other linkages to transportation activism such as Critical Mass are brought in to widen the picture.'''
			\|}

	<font size=4>Removing the Central Freeway (Part 1)</font size>		<font size=4>Removing the Central Freeway (Part 1)</font size>

Lisaruth: minor proofreading

2015-03-29T06:34:02Z

minor proofreading

Show changes

Lisaruth: changed date of initial critical mass from sept 1991 to 1992(!)

2013-10-07T19:19:37Z

changed date of initial critical mass from sept 1991 to 1992(!)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:19, 7 October 2013
Line 81:		Line 81:
	In suburban San Mateo County, the so-called Devil’s Slide highway and tunnel controversy fed into the Central Freeway debate and suggested to Hayes Valley activists that Caltrans bullied communities into accepting freeways.(18) In this case Caltrans was found to be withholding evidence from opponents of an inland freeway bypass, while diluting evidence of the benefits of a tunnel option along the San Mateo County coastline. Eventually citizen activists put the tunnel option on the ballot and won. The high-profile Devil’s Slide controversy reminded many of the long-standing tension between Caltrans engineers and local control of transportation, which in San Francisco went as far back as the first freeway revolts in the 1950s and 1960s.		In suburban San Mateo County, the so-called Devil’s Slide highway and tunnel controversy fed into the Central Freeway debate and suggested to Hayes Valley activists that Caltrans bullied communities into accepting freeways.(18) In this case Caltrans was found to be withholding evidence from opponents of an inland freeway bypass, while diluting evidence of the benefits of a tunnel option along the San Mateo County coastline. Eventually citizen activists put the tunnel option on the ballot and won. The high-profile Devil’s Slide controversy reminded many of the long-standing tension between Caltrans engineers and local control of transportation, which in San Francisco went as far back as the first freeway revolts in the 1950s and 1960s.

	In San Francisco, [[Critical Mass\|Critical Mass bicycle rides]] challenged not only automobility but also capitalism and compelled many to rethink the role of automobility in cities. Initiated in September ~~1991~~, Critical Mass had generally been a relaxed affair until the mid-1990s, when it started to get popular, larger, and more disruptive to automobile traffic.(19) Angry motorists complained to local politicians, and the police began to steer Critical Mass to streets where there would be less of a traffic impact. Bicyclists protested, and a violent upheaval followed in the summer of 1997. The crackdown on Critical Mass got ample media attention, and the bicycle protest movement became conflated with the anti-freeway movement, no doubt because the two groups were not only sympathetic but shared participants. Notably, the controversy over Critical Mass attracted even more cyclists to subsequent rides, with thousands of participants on warm summer evenings in the late 1990s, just as the Central Freeway debate would come to a crescendo.		In San Francisco, [[Critical Mass\|Critical Mass bicycle rides]] challenged not only automobility but also capitalism and compelled many to rethink the role of automobility in cities. Initiated in September 1992, Critical Mass had generally been a relaxed affair until the mid-1990s, when it started to get popular, larger, and more disruptive to automobile traffic.(19) Angry motorists complained to local politicians, and the police began to steer Critical Mass to streets where there would be less of a traffic impact. Bicyclists protested, and a violent upheaval followed in the summer of 1997. The crackdown on Critical Mass got ample media attention, and the bicycle protest movement became conflated with the anti-freeway movement, no doubt because the two groups were not only sympathetic but shared participants. Notably, the controversy over Critical Mass attracted even more cyclists to subsequent rides, with thousands of participants on warm summer evenings in the late 1990s, just as the Central Freeway debate would come to a crescendo.

	In this broader context Hayes Valley activists formed the Association to Simplify Traffic and Abate Congestion (ASTAC). ASTAC tapped into the broader politics of mobility of San Francisco’s Victorian Belt and used political connections to lobby for complete or near-complete removal of the Central Freeway north and south of Market Street. ASTAC’s members had considerable linkages to progressive advocates outside of the neighborhood, including the Sierra Club, [[The House That Jack Built: A History of San Francisco Tomorrow\|San Francisco Tomorrow]], the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), the Harvey Milk Club, the American Institute of Architects and Urban Ecology. The group also had connections and support from merchants in Hayes Valley and other nearby neighborhood organizations.		In this broader context Hayes Valley activists formed the Association to Simplify Traffic and Abate Congestion (ASTAC). ASTAC tapped into the broader politics of mobility of San Francisco’s Victorian Belt and used political connections to lobby for complete or near-complete removal of the Central Freeway north and south of Market Street. ASTAC’s members had considerable linkages to progressive advocates outside of the neighborhood, including the Sierra Club, [[The House That Jack Built: A History of San Francisco Tomorrow\|San Francisco Tomorrow]], the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), the Harvey Milk Club, the American Institute of Architects and Urban Ecology. The group also had connections and support from merchants in Hayes Valley and other nearby neighborhood organizations.

Ccarlsson: added notes

2013-09-30T05:46:35Z

added notes

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 While progressive transportation advocates such as ASTAC could not get everything they wanted—full removal with no replacement surface boulevard funneling cars through their neighborhood—they were able to contribute to removing part of the freeway. Their main contribution was to achieve a political redefinition of the possibilities away from the other extreme of fully rebuilding the freeway. But the struggle for freeway removal was far from over. Complicating progressive visions was a conservative movement to fully rebuild the freeway.
-[[Conservative Fight to Save Central Freeway|Conservative Fight to Save Central Freeway (Part 2)]] [[Dueling Ballots: The Central Freeway’s Fate|Dueling Ballots: The Central Freeway’s Fate (part 3)]]
+'''Footnotes'''
 <hr>

Ccarlsson at 08:01, 18 September 2013

2013-09-18T08:01:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 18 September 2013
Line 44:		Line 44:

	In 1966, as noted earlier, San Francisco’s freeway revolt finally ended with the cancellation of the [[The Panhandle\|Panhandle Freeway]], which would have extended from the Central Freeway westward along the Fell–Oak axis. Touchdown ramps built directly to Fell and Oak Streets became permanent, feeding the freeway to the cross-town one-way couplet. By the late sixties more than 150,000 vehicles per day were traveling through Hayes Valley.(5) The intense traffic, wide one-way streets, and confusing Z jog led to the further decline of Hayes Valley, and by the 1970s the underside of the Central Freeway was notorious for prostitution and drug dealing.		In 1966, as noted earlier, San Francisco’s freeway revolt finally ended with the cancellation of the [[The Panhandle\|Panhandle Freeway]], which would have extended from the Central Freeway westward along the Fell–Oak axis. Touchdown ramps built directly to Fell and Oak Streets became permanent, feeding the freeway to the cross-town one-way couplet. By the late sixties more than 150,000 vehicles per day were traveling through Hayes Valley.(5) The intense traffic, wide one-way streets, and confusing Z jog led to the further decline of Hayes Valley, and by the 1970s the underside of the Central Freeway was notorious for prostitution and drug dealing.

	~~[[Image:Central freeway at Fell and Octavia streets august 12 1965 AAK-1468.jpg]]~~

	~~'''The Central Freeway at Fell and Octavia streets, August 12, 1965.'''~~

	~~''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''~~

	Despite the neighborhood’s historic decline, parts of Hayes Valley underwent limited residential revitalization in the 1970s. Gentrification spilled into parts of Hayes Valley from neighborhoods further to the west, such as the Castro and Duboce Triangle. In the 1980s the opening of Davies Symphony Hall stimulated small business and new restaurants along Hayes Street. This gradual revitalization lay the foundation for organized advocacy for freeway removal after the earthquake in 1989. New merchants were particularly fond of the idea of day-lighting Hayes Street, and many residents experienced what it was like to see traffic density plummet, as it did immediately after the earthquake. They did not wish for it to return.		Despite the neighborhood’s historic decline, parts of Hayes Valley underwent limited residential revitalization in the 1970s. Gentrification spilled into parts of Hayes Valley from neighborhoods further to the west, such as the Castro and Duboce Triangle. In the 1980s the opening of Davies Symphony Hall stimulated small business and new restaurants along Hayes Street. This gradual revitalization lay the foundation for organized advocacy for freeway removal after the earthquake in 1989. New merchants were particularly fond of the idea of day-lighting Hayes Street, and many residents experienced what it was like to see traffic density plummet, as it did immediately after the earthquake. They did not wish for it to return.
Line 66:		Line 60:

	Second, a newly invigorated, citywide progressive mobility discourse, led in part by a vocal bicycle advocacy movement, was gaining traction and by the mid-to-late 1990s had achieved political parity with other progressive causes. Most pronounced in the city’s Victorian belt, this new progressive discourse about livability, urbanism, and mobility strengthened the arguments of Hayes Valley residents who were seeking freeway removal.		Second, a newly invigorated, citywide progressive mobility discourse, led in part by a vocal bicycle advocacy movement, was gaining traction and by the mid-to-late 1990s had achieved political parity with other progressive causes. Most pronounced in the city’s Victorian belt, this new progressive discourse about livability, urbanism, and mobility strengthened the arguments of Hayes Valley residents who were seeking freeway removal.

			[[Image:Double-decked dead end at Haight and Octavia streets 1961 AAK-1457.jpg]]

			'''Dead-end at Haight and Octavia streets, 1961.'''

			''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

	The Hayes Valley neighborhood activists who eventually took down the freeway first began to organize around the prostitution and drug dealing taking place underneath the freeway.(11) Where the freeway crossed over Haight, Page, and Waller Streets two small groups coalesced in early 1994 and began to develop a leadership structure with officers, committees, and regular meetings. Significantly, many of these Hayes Valley residents did not secede from their space in response to the public safety concerns. Instead, the activists were eager to develop solutions that were realistic and believed that simply pushing prostitution and crime out of the neighborhood would not suffice. They held safety outreach events for prostitutes, worked with the police in identifying pimps, and lobbied for community policing. The group advocated that prostitutes receive treatment and reform rather than jail.		The Hayes Valley neighborhood activists who eventually took down the freeway first began to organize around the prostitution and drug dealing taking place underneath the freeway.(11) Where the freeway crossed over Haight, Page, and Waller Streets two small groups coalesced in early 1994 and began to develop a leadership structure with officers, committees, and regular meetings. Significantly, many of these Hayes Valley residents did not secede from their space in response to the public safety concerns. Instead, the activists were eager to develop solutions that were realistic and believed that simply pushing prostitution and crime out of the neighborhood would not suffice. They held safety outreach events for prostitutes, worked with the police in identifying pimps, and lobbied for community policing. The group advocated that prostitutes receive treatment and reform rather than jail.
Line 83:		Line 83:
	In San Francisco, [[Critical Mass\|Critical Mass bicycle rides]] challenged not only automobility but also capitalism and compelled many to rethink the role of automobility in cities. Initiated in September 1991, Critical Mass had generally been a relaxed affair until the mid-1990s, when it started to get popular, larger, and more disruptive to automobile traffic.(19) Angry motorists complained to local politicians, and the police began to steer Critical Mass to streets where there would be less of a traffic impact. Bicyclists protested, and a violent upheaval followed in the summer of 1997. The crackdown on Critical Mass got ample media attention, and the bicycle protest movement became conflated with the anti-freeway movement, no doubt because the two groups were not only sympathetic but shared participants. Notably, the controversy over Critical Mass attracted even more cyclists to subsequent rides, with thousands of participants on warm summer evenings in the late 1990s, just as the Central Freeway debate would come to a crescendo.		In San Francisco, [[Critical Mass\|Critical Mass bicycle rides]] challenged not only automobility but also capitalism and compelled many to rethink the role of automobility in cities. Initiated in September 1991, Critical Mass had generally been a relaxed affair until the mid-1990s, when it started to get popular, larger, and more disruptive to automobile traffic.(19) Angry motorists complained to local politicians, and the police began to steer Critical Mass to streets where there would be less of a traffic impact. Bicyclists protested, and a violent upheaval followed in the summer of 1997. The crackdown on Critical Mass got ample media attention, and the bicycle protest movement became conflated with the anti-freeway movement, no doubt because the two groups were not only sympathetic but shared participants. Notably, the controversy over Critical Mass attracted even more cyclists to subsequent rides, with thousands of participants on warm summer evenings in the late 1990s, just as the Central Freeway debate would come to a crescendo.

	In this broader context Hayes Valley activists formed the Association to Simplify Traffic and Abate Congestion (ASTAC). ASTAC tapped into the broader politics of mobility of San Francisco’s Victorian Belt and used political connections to lobby for complete or near-complete removal of the Central Freeway north and south of Market Street. ASTAC’s members had considerable linkages to progressive advocates outside of the neighborhood, including the Sierra Club, [[San Francisco Tomorrow\|San Francisco Tomorrow]], the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), the Harvey Milk Club, the American Institute of Architects and Urban Ecology. The group also had connections and support from merchants in Hayes Valley and other nearby neighborhood organizations.		In this broader context Hayes Valley activists formed the Association to Simplify Traffic and Abate Congestion (ASTAC). ASTAC tapped into the broader politics of mobility of San Francisco’s Victorian Belt and used political connections to lobby for complete or near-complete removal of the Central Freeway north and south of Market Street. ASTAC’s members had considerable linkages to progressive advocates outside of the neighborhood, including the Sierra Club, [[The House That Jack Built: A History of San Francisco Tomorrow\|San Francisco Tomorrow]], the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), the Harvey Milk Club, the American Institute of Architects and Urban Ecology. The group also had connections and support from merchants in Hayes Valley and other nearby neighborhood organizations.

	ASTAC activists proposed to fully remove the entire length of the ~~free-way~~ and suggested not replacing it with anything. They showed their removal proposal to various community groups and organizations around the city and got a largely positive response, implying that this option should at least get a fair hearing. Yet the full-removal proposal was dismissed out-right by the consultant hired by Caltrans and the city to study the options. City traffic engineers and the city’s consultants literally laughed at the Hayes Valley activists. The city therefore never had the information or data to adequately consider a full-removal alternative. A fair hearing on the full-removal alternative did not happen, and this immediately narrowed the politics of possibilities.		ASTAC activists proposed to fully remove the entire length of the freeway and suggested not replacing it with anything. They showed their removal proposal to various community groups and organizations around the city and got a largely positive response, implying that this option should at least get a fair hearing. Yet the full-removal proposal was dismissed out-right by the consultant hired by Caltrans and the city to study the options. City traffic engineers and the city’s consultants literally laughed at the Hayes Valley activists. The city therefore never had the information or data to adequately consider a full-removal alternative. A fair hearing on the full-removal alternative did not happen, and this immediately narrowed the politics of possibilities.

	While progressive transportation advocates such as ASTAC could not get everything they wanted—full removal with no replacement surface boulevard funneling cars through their neighborhood—they were able to contribute to removing part of the freeway. Their main contribution was to achieve a political redefinition of the possibilities away from the other extreme of fully rebuilding the freeway. But the struggle for freeway removal was far from over. Complicating progressive visions was a conservative movement to fully rebuild the freeway.		While progressive transportation advocates such as ASTAC could not get everything they wanted—full removal with no replacement surface boulevard funneling cars through their neighborhood—they were able to contribute to removing part of the freeway. Their main contribution was to achieve a political redefinition of the possibilities away from the other extreme of fully rebuilding the freeway. But the struggle for freeway removal was far from over. Complicating progressive visions was a conservative movement to fully rebuild the freeway.
Line 93:		Line 93:
	<hr>		<hr>

	[[Image:Street fight 9781613762608.jpg\|left\|140px]] This article is excerpted, with permission, from Henderson's book [http://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/street-fight "Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco"', 2013''		[[Image:Street fight 9781613762608.jpg\|left\|140px]] This article is excerpted, with permission, from Henderson's book [http://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/street-fight "Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco"'], 2013''


	[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:~~North Beach~~]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]]		[[category:Ecology]] [[category:transit]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category: 1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Haight-Ashbury]] [[category:Dissent]]

Ccarlsson at 07:54, 18 September 2013

2013-09-18T07:54:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 18 September 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:
	On October 17, 1989, the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake shook down several Bay Area freeways. The Cypress Freeway, a double-deck, 1960s-era freeway in the working-class neighborhood of West Oak-land, collapsed, and forty-two people were killed. A section of the upper deck of the Bay Bridge collapsed onto the lower deck, killing one motorist. In San Francisco the Embarcadero Freeway and sections of I-280 in Mission Bay were damaged, and in Hayes Valley the Central Freeway was shut down.		On October 17, 1989, the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake shook down several Bay Area freeways. The Cypress Freeway, a double-deck, 1960s-era freeway in the working-class neighborhood of West Oak-land, collapsed, and forty-two people were killed. A section of the upper deck of the Bay Bridge collapsed onto the lower deck, killing one motorist. In San Francisco the Embarcadero Freeway and sections of I-280 in Mission Bay were damaged, and in Hayes Valley the Central Freeway was shut down.

	The loss of life and the destruction were devastating, but to many people in San Francisco the disaster had a silver lining. It was an opportunity to consider removing some of the vestigial freeways that slipped past the freeway revolts of the fifties and sixties. Whereas in Oakland the Cypress Freeway was rebuilt, in San Francisco some damaged segments were re-moved in what I call the second freeway revolt. The earthquake so badly destabilized the [[~~http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=~~Freeways_Never_Built,_or_Unbuilt_after_1989_quake\|Embarcadero Freeway]] that it had to be razed quickly. The mayor, a progressive who was open to rethinking the waterfront, expedited the decision to replace the freeway with a surface boulevard. Previous political efforts to remove the Embarcadero Freeway had failed, but the earthquake redefined the possibilities.(1)		The loss of life and the destruction were devastating, but to many people in San Francisco the disaster had a silver lining. It was an opportunity to consider removing some of the vestigial freeways that slipped past the freeway revolts of the fifties and sixties. Whereas in Oakland the Cypress Freeway was rebuilt, in San Francisco some damaged segments were re-moved in what I call the second freeway revolt. The earthquake so badly destabilized the [[Freeways_Never_Built,_or_Unbuilt_after_1989_quake\|Embarcadero Freeway]] that it had to be razed quickly. The mayor, a progressive who was open to rethinking the waterfront, expedited the decision to replace the freeway with a surface boulevard. Previous political efforts to remove the Embarcadero Freeway had failed, but the earthquake redefined the possibilities.(1)

	It took longer—ten years—to determine the fate of the Central Freeway. After the quake, parts of the freeway that were beyond repair were removed, but other segments reopened. An acrimonious debate included ballot initiatives in 1997, 1998, and 1999 and was resolved with only partial removal and replacement with a short surface boulevard. The decade-long debate about removing the Central Freeway represented a cautiously hopeful juncture in the politics of mobility in San Francisco. It signified a political maturing of progressive transportation advocacy and also a subtle rapprochement with neoliberal real estate and development interests, who shared in promoting reurbanization of housing and voiced some of the principles of livability.		It took longer—ten years—to determine the fate of the Central Freeway. After the quake, parts of the freeway that were beyond repair were removed, but other segments reopened. An acrimonious debate included ballot initiatives in 1997, 1998, and 1999 and was resolved with only partial removal and replacement with a short surface boulevard. The decade-long debate about removing the Central Freeway represented a cautiously hopeful juncture in the politics of mobility in San Francisco. It signified a political maturing of progressive transportation advocacy and also a subtle rapprochement with neoliberal real estate and development interests, who shared in promoting reurbanization of housing and voiced some of the principles of livability.