Is public transit on I-280 the answer?

On the Peninsula, as with other areas, the more expensive areas are in the hills and the cheaper areas are in the flat lands. Those flat lands also happen to be the location of rail. So cheaper land happens to be near transit, and that is where the development is focused. It also happens to be where poor people live. Not always, but generally.

And that means new development is focused on where poor people live, and sometimes they get forced out. Some argue that creating more housing development will reduce the cost of living and make it easier to afford it here. That’s generally true, but try telling that to a tenant whose building was just sold for redevelopment.

There are more housing insecure people in poorer areas and anyone who is civic-minded needs to be sensitive to the fact that new development could mean displacement. Sensitivity to this has been an emerging trend and sometimes makes its way into the public discussion.

However, another way to solve this would be to create a new rail line on Interstate 280. Hear me out. Before the pandemic, Caltrain was crowded and, while electrification will help, it will be even more crowded when we all get back to work. Highway 101 is already busy and, while the Express Lanes will be able to carry buses, it will be even busier soon. Most of the commuter traffic is north and south, and the traffic people experience through town is from people getting to either mass transit or highways. By having a public transit option on Interstate 280, this will enable residents in the hills to easily access that form of transportation and get them out of their cars rather than them being forced to travel down into the flat lands. Just because you are affluent, doesn’t mean you don’t care about the environment right?

In addition, and this is the real benefit, transit-oriented development could also be focused in the more affluent areas in the hills rather than just focused on the poorer flat lands. It is common knowledge that much of our traffic is caused by residents outside our county traveling in for work, there is even a term for it — daytime population. While much land near the Caltrain line is already populated with people, the density is much lower in the hills. That means there is more opportunity to rezone those areas for higher density. Multi-family housing would be a key asset for those upper hill areas, and think of the views! I’m sure current East Bay residents would love living there and would gladly shed their commute. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers could also be revised so some of the more affluent areas could accommodate more growth.

I know what you are thinking, this is crazy. The current residents of the upper hills would never allow for such a thing. After all, they paid a premium for their property so they could be away from high-density housing and public transit. That’s for the flats, not the hills!

But why is that exactly? Is it because people who live in the hills have more money and influence? Could it be that people in the flats matter less to those with more money and influence?

Time and again, less affluent areas are targeted for new development because of location. Different decisions could be made to make more affluent areas more amenable to those very same developments. And yet this is never discussed as if it is off limits.

I do believe public transit on Interstate 280 makes sense and could be considered at some point in the future. I also believe we could have east-west light rail in some spots through affluent neighborhoods and cities to ease our congestion and reduce our emissions. I also recognize the political reality of it and know it will never ever happen.

But this is all to make a point. If we want to talk about treating people equally, their location and level of affluence shouldn’t be a factor. Yet it is. We just don’t talk about it.

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.