Parking breaks - Page 2

Supervisors and angry citizens fail to deter the SFMTA from managing on-street parking

|
(9)
SF EXAMINER PHOTO BY MIKE KOOZMIN

But in Potrero Hill and the few other parts of the city that still have unregulated street parking, other issues arise, such as out-of-town commuters parking for free all day and limiting availability in a region slated for lots of new development in the coming years.

"Parking management matters," Reiskin said, adding that without it, "we won't be able to achieve our goals of having an efficient transit system."

He cited policies in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan that the supervisors approved that call for parking management and noted growth projections that could draw another 100,000 people into San Francisco in the next 20 years.

"The competition we feel today in the public right-of-way will only grow more intense," Reiskin said.

Farrell argued that families and many individuals need cars to get around: "The use of a car is simply necessary." Reiskin acknowledged that cars are still the top transportation choice in San Francisco and they will remain so for the foreseeable future. But he said that each person who opts to use a bike, Muni, or to walk is an important gain in the efficiency of the overall transportation system, given how much space cars take up, so eliminating free parking is an important incentive.

"There is a clear relationship between transportation choices and costs," Reiskin said. "If there is free parking, a lot more people will choose to drive."

Farrell then repeated the other big criticism that gets aimed at the SFMTA over its parking management program, that it's simply a "revenue grab" that uses meter and parking citation revenue to make Muni and cycling improvements. But Reiskin said the $200 million in revenues from parking have been fairly consistent, with increases in meter revenue being offset by declining revenue from citations (which he attributed to longer meter hours and new payment options) and lowering the rates in city parking garages to make them more competitive with street parking.

"We're lowering your rates as much as we're raising them," Reiskin said after noting that, "We'd much rather get the revenue through the meter than through citations."

Finally, Farrell got down to the crux of the criticism from car owners: why can't everything else wait until the SFMTA makes Muni more efficient and attractive? This is a car-dominant culture, and people won't take the bus until it's easy and reliable. Bike advocates make a similar argument, saying completion of a safe system of bike lanes is the only way to substantially increase cycling in the city. But Reiskin said the SFMTA has to do everything at once lest traffic congestion slow the entire system.

"I know it's a challenge for you, but it's a challenge for us with how to respond to it as well," Reiskin replied to Farrell. "I don't think we have the luxury of putting one part on hold while we make up for decades of underinvestment in public transit."

Sup. David Campos said he understands the frustrations of his northeast Mission constituents and he thought the SFMTA was right to delay the implementation of parking management programs there (the revised plan comes out this summer).

Comments

Progressive government is to do whatever it wants in spite of the citizens involvement.

Posted by Matlock on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

Citizen involvement in the form of Prop E a few years back merged dpt and muni to create the politically independent sfmta so that they could make the hard choices that need to be made to accommodate a future population of 900,000.

Posted by Guest @jwinstonsf on May. 09, 2013 @ 5:34 am

you said it. so they can make the hard choices that need to be made. And that's the fact, except that they made the decision and that politics took over anyway. Time to stick to it, run it as a pilot, see what the market rate would be, and if all else fails you can always return to the status quo. EXCEPT you will never know if you dont ever try. People are afraid of change, they dont look at the whole picture, and like anyone, who would want to pay if they used to get it free. Well time to grow up people! We cant all drive all the same time, else no one will get anywhere.

People dont live here to live in a parking lot, and it simply is inefficient to fill our world with cars... sitting...

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2013 @ 11:08 pm

Hilarious. This is SF.

Posted by Matlock on May. 10, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Why does "manage traffic" always mean "take from the motorist and give to SFBC?" Why does "manage" mean eliminate parking without mitigation plans for alternative parking locations? Why does "manage" mean putting bike lanes onto the busiest streets, thus creating new dangers? Why does "manage" mean forced increases in the cost of living in the City? Why does "manage" mean that cyclists never have to pay for anything, including the revenue of which their cycling deprives Muni of millions? It all sounds like Pogrom to me.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Watch the hyperbole or you'll be sewing messenger bags in Pelican Bay! I've been biking in SF for 13 years and these changes have very little effect on my cost of living. In addition, how do you define "never have to pay for anything?" There's a Bridge and a New Bore of the Caldecott that I would like to sell my tax dollar share of - are you buying?

Posted by SFBayBiker on May. 09, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

"This was the moment these indignant motorists had been waiting for."

- Steve Jones.

"The soccer project has been repeatedly approved by city agencies despite strong opposition from some neighbors and environmentalists, who say it conflicts with a Local Coastal Plan that calls for it to be a “naturalistic” setting. "

- Steve Jones

Posted by Matlock on May. 10, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

"I look forward to you saying, 'I quit, you win, no more parking meters,'" Cohen said to Reiskin, throwing red meat to the seething crowd, which erupted into loud, raucous, sustained applause and shouts of appreciation at the comment."

That incident was a psychological ploy between two of the the Israelis running San Francisco.

Everyone hates Reiskin so what does he care if Cohen attacks him? They will kiss and make up at the synagogue later.

Cohen gets loads of positive publicity for saying what she did that will help her when re-election time comes around.

Reiskin will go ahead and do what they all do. Maximize profit which in turn maximizes human suffering.

I bet he is salivating at the prospect right now.

Posted by guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:24 am

SFMTA sucks on a good day. Time to put it in the hands of the Stupidvisers who are elected by the people.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 9:42 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.