MORE ON SFBG.COM
>>Deconstructing the politics of parking in San Francisco
>>Safer streets for cyclists cause growing pains for motorists
San Francisco has been a "transit-first" city since 1973, when the Board of Supervisors first adopted the policy of officially promoting public transit, pedestrians, and bicycles over the automobile. But the label has really been in name only — until this year.
Through an unusual confluence of policy initiatives that have been moving forward for several years, San Francisco is finally about to have a serious discussion about the automobile and its impacts. And parking policies are being used as the main tool to reduce traffic congestion, better set development impact fees, increase city revenue, and promote alternatives to the automobile.
"Our parking requirements need to be revised to support this [transit-first] policy by limiting parking supply — the single greatest incentive to drive — where transit and other modes are viable alternatives," reads the city's Better Neighborhoods Plan.
While the very notion of deliberately limiting parking will likely be met with howls of protest by many drivers — indeed, urban planners already acknowledge that it's probably not politically feasible to make drivers pay for their full impacts — they also say it's the only way to decrease the over-dependence on the automobile.
"Without limiting parking, people will choose an auto-oriented lifestyle and continue to drive. Traffic will continue to worsen, and we will never shift the balance in favor of ways of getting around that are more effective in moving people," the plan continues.
Yet the push isn't as dire for drivers as its stark language suggests, thanks to some innovative initiatives that could ironically make it even easier to park in some areas than it is now, in the process easing traffic congestion by eliminating the number of cars circling the block looking for parking spaces, which studies show can often account for up to one-third of the cars on the road.
DEMAND-BASED PARKING PRICES
The SF Park program is scheduled to begin later this summer in eight pilot areas, providing real-time parking data to give drivers better information on where to find spots and controlling demand with a market-based pricing system that raises rates when spots are scarce, encouraging turnover and freeing up spaces.
It is just one of many current initiatives. The city is looking at extending meter hours to nights and Sundays and adding parking meters in Golden Gate Park (those are simply revenue measures aimed at city budget deficits). Another study is examining the nexus between parking and developer impacts that could be used to charge new fees for construction. There's also a comprehensive study of on-street parking policies that will be going before the Board of Supervisors (sitting as the San Francisco County Transportation Authority) next month ...
When the full costs of driving are socialized, when the full costs of luxury condo development, impacts and ongoing services, are socialized, then we have a situation where the bulk of taxpayers who do not engage in such conduct and do not benefit from it are being made to pay the tab for the convenience and profit of others.
Not only are autos threatening the biosphere, threatening more terror attacks against Americans, delaying Muni, hitting pedestrians and cylists, they are tearing up our streets too. Supervisors would not have to go $300m into the hole to Wall Street to keep the streets in good condition if motorists were made to pay their share of the costs to keep streets whole. When Newsom and Rahaim the BofS and Planning Commission encourage luxury condo development, irrespective of parking ratios, they are going to attract more car owners who are able to absorb the costs of parking and thus generate impacts.
Government at every level has been a racket to socialize costs while privatizing profit. Only locally have folks come together to chart another course. It is time for progressives to pull the trigger on ending socialism for the very well off where we are able--in the intersection of housing ,environmental and transportation justice.
-marc
When the full costs of driving are socialized, when the full costs of luxury condo development, impacts and ongoing services, are socialized, then we have a situation where the bulk of taxpayers who do not engage in such conduct and do not benefit from it are being made to pay the tab for the convenience and profit of others.
Not only are autos threatening the biosphere, threatening more terror attacks against Americans, delaying Muni, hitting pedestrians and cylists, they are tearing up our streets too. Supervisors would not have to go $300m into the hole to Wall Street to keep the streets in good condition if motorists were made to pay their share of the costs to keep streets whole. When Newsom and Rahaim the BofS and Planning Commission encourage luxury condo development, irrespective of parking ratios, they are going to attract more car owners who are able to absorb the costs of parking and thus generate impacts.
Government at every level has been a racket to socialize costs while privatizing profit. Only locally have folks come together to chart another course. It is time for progressives to pull the trigger on ending socialism for the very well off where we are able--in the intersection of housing ,environmental and transportation justice.
-marc
I believe drivers who NEED to drive get no consideration, and since that's the case, an idealistic cause (biketopia) becomes an elitist cause, as it seeks no reparations for the harm it causes(yes, I'm still talking about bikes). I think bikers deserve routes which can take them fluidly across the city, as well as laws which emphasize bike-safety (not car-safety; a biker needs more options and can make it safer for everyone with a bike's flexibility while not having to worry about DPT). It would be outstanding if this same group pushing for bike laws would consider that many folks in SF MUST drive and there might be solutions for us all (how about free parking lots for residents!)
If I didn't have to spend so much time parking, perhaps I could form the parking coalition, and we could have courthouse battles with the bike coalition to see who can be the most self-righteous.
If you want to get rid of drivers, it would help to reveal who SHOULDN'T drive and WHY. It would be a useful social study and a much less general condemnation on drivers than these new plans. But truly: Good public transportation(the elephant in the room) is the greatest.
Peace
It isn't about punishing motorists, but about promoting many modes of transportation, focusing now on Muni, pedestrians, and bicyclists, rather than automobiles. The fact is a disproportionate share of our tax dollars go to facilitating automobile use, and motorists don't come anywhere close to paying for their impacts (the use of public space, air pollution, natural resource depletion, global warming, etc.). So it's a little silly to play the victim card and accuse bicyclists of being elitist simply for taking a very small percentage of roadway space from cars. Sure, some people need to drive, and programs like SF Park will make it easier from them to find parking spaces. But just because you need to drive doesn't mean that I need to subsidize your needs and/or sacrifice my own.
Steven T. Jones
Comment on: Turning point
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
