I think it is critical. The fact is we can’t encourage, as we do now, 80% of our commuters to use the automobile and have just 4/10th of one percent using ferry service and expect to survive in the long run with the projected increases in the population. I’ve always been for peak pricing. I’ve never necessarily been with those who feel that peak pricing is particularly unfair and I have no problem with increased tolls. It’s the carrot and the stick. You have to concurrently provide options for people to get out of their automobiles. But we have to be more aggressive. And yes, we have to be punitive of those who want the privilege of being a single occupant driving along commute corridors where there is a viable public transportation alternative.

I did not know that. That’s fascinating.

That’s a good question. I will have to give that more thought. My first instinct, of course, is no, it wasn’t a mistake. I really have to consider that in a larger sense. I don’t necessarily see it as dividing the region. I think in many respects it unites it. But clearly what the bridge has done to me is analogous of what great economic times have done to our decision making process generally. It allows you not to make the tough decisions. Building a freeway allows you the privilege of not having to make the tougher long term decisions because you have in essence reduced the propensity for people complaining because it is easier for people to get from point A to point B for a period of time and then eventually things clog and you are back having to make those tough choices. But you are reacting as opposed to being proactive and the Bay Bridge I think is a good example of that. For many, many years it made this region I think move more efficiently and I think has been very advantageous, but for years and years we’ve been neglectful of alternatives.

Yes. There are examples all over the world. It’s a question of are they feasible in economic terms and I think that is the balance. You’ve got to provide an alternative that is efficient and meets the needs of the highly engaged economic engine which is the Bay Area region. It’s got to be a viable alternative to the automobile. I am convinced that there are those models that will provide us both environmental sustainability and the efficiencies of technologywe need.

Here’s my bias: the upfront costs of being environmentally considerate pale in comparison to the neglect of not considering the environmental consequences. I think it is an outrage, not a shame, an outrage that in San Francisco we have warnings against people eating more than four fish a month. The environmental impacts of dioxins, the environmental impacts of our neglect in terms of economic impacts, are extraordinary. But they are not felt immediately. So from our perspective the incremental costs upfront of being environmentally considerate are wildly inexpensive in comparative terms to the neglect of the environment in the long run. So those upfront costs are well served. They are great investments; they are great economic investments at the same time.

An analogy is the treatment and prevention in drugs. You can sit back and be punitive with this failed drug war and spend your time on that or you can spend your time on treatment and prevention and reap huge rewards, but the upfront costs people are constantly pushing people off because they don’t want to open up another treatment facility. The point is that our best economic calculus is to make the environmental investments upfront and not pay the price in the long run.

Yes, we are too new to criticize, frankly. I mean we are just getting up and running. Consultants are just being hired. Consultant reports are not back yet. We will be looking forward to debating these issues in upcoming months. We’ll see. It’s too early to tell. But I think that you’ve got to keep an eye on us. The environmental community needs to keep an eye on us and now is the time to do it. Hold our feet to the fire.

I hope so and looking at the plans for what they are doing at the Ferry Building and the restaurants, the cafes, the other retail outlets, I think it promises to be more than just a tourist destination. I think it is going to bring a lot of residents of the City back to their waterfront and I hope it does provoke a new consideration of what a waterfront can be about. I mean if this vision is materialized I think it is a great model for the rest of our waterfront and a waterfront that continues to evolve and expand and make its way into the Bayview-Hunters Point area. So it’s an exciting prospect of things to come.

It is inevitable. No one wants rotting, decaying piers. In the long run, some may, but there can be a balance of open space, a balance of recreation, a balance of industry and maritime use. Again, I want to stand up for a working waterfront as well as tourism. And, I think, in many respects we are seeing some good evidence that supports that from our Port. At the same time, we are seeing some projects that are not necessarily getting to the fore on their merits, but on political considerations and we are seeing the dominance of money influencing the process. There is no surprise there, but it seems to be disproportionate in our waterfront, and I think it raises a lot of questions and flags for those that are concerned about its future and viability, including my own.

No. I mean, it’s amazing if you read the Burton doctrine that governs our waterfront here and then you see the actions at times of the Port. They are in stark contrast. So there is a lot of interpretation that is afforded our Port Commission and Port Staff. Unfortunately, at times that interpretation I think takes liberties. But I think that in the margins a lot of good things are happening down here. San Francisco does need to influence the process because without that influence, I dare suggest that the Port may be venturing in areas that divide San Franciscans from their waterfront. There is evidence, like with our referendum on the Pier 45 development proposal that suggests San Franciscans can have a huge and profound effect. The Board of Supervisors still deals with economic considerations, leases must come in front of the Board, and policy decisions are left with the staff, and of course the Port Commission. But in terms of the economic considerations, the City and County of San Francisco does have tremendous amount of influence. We will be watching closely, for example, the Mills development and all the controversy around Chelsea and Mills.