Comments on: Supervisor Carmen Chu Wary of Parking Meter Extension Proposal http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:47:37 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Alex http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-47921 Alex Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:33:02 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-47921 @EL I barely glanced at the survey, but that awkward... but not terrible. Excluding out of towners makes some sense if only because MUNI is mostly used and funded by city residents. Likewise, how many people (drivers or otherwise) do you know who don't use the sidewalks to get to a business? I have the one friend that simply jumps from the middle of the street, but I imagine that's not common ;-) For all intents and purposes the survey is a good start. It would be wise to keep in mind that the MTA has no qualms about tailoring a survey (or any other data) to make themselves look better... Considering that the MTA likely doesn't have any statisticians I don't think that this survey is that bad. One of the biggest mistakes I keep making is to consider all of the Inner Sunset as part of D4. While I would welcome extended meter hours (especially if it could increase turnover around 9th/Judah/Irving), I agree that these spaces should be monitored. If that means throwing out D4 because it's not going to be properly studied, so be it (but that's quite a cop out really). One of the suggestions I agree with (and this is a pretty Shoupian thing to do) is that perhaps transit improvements should be linked to participation in this experiment. Extend metered hours, and make sure (a la the experiment on the 1) that service gets increased (if only a little bit) in the areas that are being studied. Or provide free advertisements on MUNI to businesses in areas that are being studied. Or even just more outreach. Even without changing the area of study, there are plenty of ways to turn this into a positive for businesses. The kind of vague hand waving that Ms. Chu is doing is only going to do a disservice to D4 *and* this city as a whole. @EL I barely glanced at the survey, but that awkward... but not terrible. Excluding out of towners makes some sense if only because MUNI is mostly used and funded by city residents. Likewise, how many people (drivers or otherwise) do you know who don't use the sidewalks to get to a business? I have the one friend that simply jumps from the middle of the street, but I imagine that's not common ;-)

For all intents and purposes the survey is a good start. It would be wise to keep in mind that the MTA has no qualms about tailoring a survey (or any other data) to make themselves look better... Considering that the MTA likely doesn't have any statisticians I don't think that this survey is that bad.

One of the biggest mistakes I keep making is to consider all of the Inner Sunset as part of D4. While I would welcome extended meter hours (especially if it could increase turnover around 9th/Judah/Irving), I agree that these spaces should be monitored. If that means throwing out D4 because it's not going to be properly studied, so be it (but that's quite a cop out really).

One of the suggestions I agree with (and this is a pretty Shoupian thing to do) is that perhaps transit improvements should be linked to participation in this experiment. Extend metered hours, and make sure (a la the experiment on the 1) that service gets increased (if only a little bit) in the areas that are being studied. Or provide free advertisements on MUNI to businesses in areas that are being studied. Or even just more outreach. Even without changing the area of study, there are plenty of ways to turn this into a positive for businesses. The kind of vague hand waving that Ms. Chu is doing is only going to do a disservice to D4 *and* this city as a whole.

]]> By: EL http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-47151 EL Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:54:54 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-47151 @ Alex - interesting counterpoints. My response as follows: The 18 is at least 14 blocks from the nearest meter (on Noriega), 16 blocks from the meters on Taraval, and 19 blockks from the meters on Irving. The 29 is closer, but still a minimum 4 blocks from any meter. The 66 is about to be axed. I agree with the 28/28L, even though it only hugs the easternmost egdge of Chu's district. Regarding survey bias, did you read the survey form? The survey automatically threw out any responses from people who didn't live in San Francisco. Why would you do that when you need to gauge how out-of-towners would feel about paying more for parking? Secondly, question 5 is designed to ask if you would support increases hours/Sunday metering if the money went to sidewalks/MUNI. Isn't there survey bias when you setup the survey areas where most of the people use sidewalks/MUNI? @ Alex - interesting counterpoints. My response as follows:

The 18 is at least 14 blocks from the nearest meter (on Noriega), 16 blocks from the meters on Taraval, and 19 blockks from the meters on Irving.

The 29 is closer, but still a minimum 4 blocks from any meter.

The 66 is about to be axed.

I agree with the 28/28L, even though it only hugs the easternmost egdge of Chu's district.

Regarding survey bias, did you read the survey form? The survey automatically threw out any responses from people who didn't live in San Francisco. Why would you do that when you need to gauge how out-of-towners would feel about paying more for parking? Secondly, question 5 is designed to ask if you would support increases hours/Sunday metering if the money went to sidewalks/MUNI. Isn't there survey bias when you setup the survey areas where most of the people use sidewalks/MUNI?

]]> By: Alex http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-47041 Alex Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:14:55 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-47041 @EL Don't forget that the 18, 28/28L, 29, and 66 all cross Taraval in Chu's district. The 28 falls within the range of the proposed changes, and the 66 comes damn close. 19th & Taraval is a pretty busy stop along the 28 and 28L's route. As for the survey bias, I'll go with not. That's the idea of a random sample (assuming that the MTA tried for a random sample). If more people are not driving to an area, it's only natural that you should end up surveying a small(er) amount of drivers. To include a disproportionate number of drivers would indeed be bias. To dismiss non-drivers simply as bias is a bit narrow in scope. Non-drivers have a lot at stake too (congestion, revenue for MUNI). @EL Don't forget that the 18, 28/28L, 29, and 66 all cross Taraval in Chu's district. The 28 falls within the range of the proposed changes, and the 66 comes damn close. 19th & Taraval is a pretty busy stop along the 28 and 28L's route.

As for the survey bias, I'll go with not. That's the idea of a random sample (assuming that the MTA tried for a random sample). If more people are not driving to an area, it's only natural that you should end up surveying a small(er) amount of drivers. To include a disproportionate number of drivers would indeed be bias. To dismiss non-drivers simply as bias is a bit narrow in scope. Non-drivers have a lot at stake too (congestion, revenue for MUNI).

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46981 John Murphy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:53:17 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46981 @Diane The MTA also says that extending meter hours will free up spaces so that there's more turnover and so more ease of parking. I don't know how they figure that, but everyone I know just goes out to feed the meter again. I think that if it costs more to park, then more people will take public transportation! You just answered your own question. "Something" is more than "free" @Diane
The MTA also says that extending meter hours will free up spaces so that there's more turnover and so more ease of parking. I don't know how they figure that, but everyone I know just goes out to feed the meter again.

I think that if it costs more to park, then more people will take public transportation!

You just answered your own question. "Something" is more than "free"

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46971 John Murphy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:48:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46971 Perhaps the most bizarre juxtaposition - a series of commenters discussing how the meter enforcement was going to be a hardship because they live in one of the "Blue Zones" and now they would have to pay to park, followed by a series of business interests complaining that the pay meters would chase away customers. The residents confirming that they take up all the metered spots at night, and the businesses fighting to keep the residents free ability to eliminate all available parking for customers. Marc from SFBC didn't exactly connect this series of dots but he made this point very clearly. The most amusing commenter was from Polk Street, who threw the pro-side a bone in saying he supported Sunday parking enforcement, but was dead set against extending the meters in his district until Midnight. This was because all the businesses in his district are bars, and people drive from out of town to go to those bars and want to stay longer without having to go feed the meters. Is he promoting drunk driving??? Perhaps the most bizarre juxtaposition - a series of commenters discussing how the meter enforcement was going to be a hardship because they live in one of the "Blue Zones" and now they would have to pay to park, followed by a series of business interests complaining that the pay meters would chase away customers. The residents confirming that they take up all the metered spots at night, and the businesses fighting to keep the residents free ability to eliminate all available parking for customers.

Marc from SFBC didn't exactly connect this series of dots but he made this point very clearly.

The most amusing commenter was from Polk Street, who threw the pro-side a bone in saying he supported Sunday parking enforcement, but was dead set against extending the meters in his district until Midnight. This was because all the businesses in his district are bars, and people drive from out of town to go to those bars and want to stay longer without having to go feed the meters. Is he promoting drunk driving???

]]> By: Diane http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46951 Diane Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:29:11 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46951 It was about 40 against and 10 for extended meter hours. The MTA is targeting "blue areas" (the color on their map of places that have more than 85% occupancy at any given time). In many of the blue areas, it was residents parking at meters for extended periods of time during the times when meters are free. A stat flashed by that in one major commercial area, the study showed that only 15% of shoppers arrived by car. Yet the merchants associations are vehemently opposed to the proposal! The MTA is trying to follow the City's "Transit First" guideline. Oh, and they need to find another income source. Someone did make the point that current enforcement could be a LOT better. The MTA also says that extending meter hours will free up spaces so that there's more turnover and so more ease of parking. I don't know how they figure that, but everyone I know just goes out to feed the meter again. Their goal is to reduce auto trips in the city by 50% in 20 years. I think that if it costs more to park, then more people will take public transportation! That's a win-win, as I see it... It was about 40 against and 10 for extended meter hours. The MTA is targeting "blue areas" (the color on their map of places that have more than 85% occupancy at any given time). In many of the blue areas, it was residents parking at meters for extended periods of time during the times when meters are free. A stat flashed by that in one major commercial area, the study showed that only 15% of shoppers arrived by car. Yet the merchants associations are vehemently opposed to the proposal!

The MTA is trying to follow the City's "Transit First" guideline. Oh, and they need to find another income source. Someone did make the point that current enforcement could be a LOT better. The MTA also says that extending meter hours will free up spaces so that there's more turnover and so more ease of parking. I don't know how they figure that, but everyone I know just goes out to feed the meter again. Their goal is to reduce auto trips in the city by 50% in 20 years. I think that if it costs more to park, then more people will take public transportation! That's a win-win, as I see it...

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46931 mikesonn Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:58:26 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46931 John Murphy, good to hear some logic was present. I'll keep me my eye out for replays of the meeting. But I can't get over how these people want their cake and to eat it too. I guess it is just the big bad gov't out to get them and their RIGHT to own, drive and park (free I might add) their car. EL, this is also just going to be for a trial period; if you are correct, then it'll all come out in the wash. John Murphy, good to hear some logic was present. I'll keep me my eye out for replays of the meeting. But I can't get over how these people want their cake and to eat it too. I guess it is just the big bad gov't out to get them and their RIGHT to own, drive and park (free I might add) their car.

EL, this is also just going to be for a trial period; if you are correct, then it'll all come out in the wash.

]]> By: Matthew Roth http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46921 Matthew Roth Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:25:22 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46921 Thanks, EL, I'm aware that those represent the entirety of Chu's meters. If she expects it to be even more surgical, as in one block here, one block there, some businesses are going to realize the benefit of turnover while their neighbors one block down will not. The distortion would likely have unintended consequences. Thanks, EL, I'm aware that those represent the entirety of Chu's meters. If she expects it to be even more surgical, as in one block here, one block there, some businesses are going to realize the benefit of turnover while their neighbors one block down will not. The distortion would likely have unintended consequences.

]]> By: EL http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46911 EL Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:14:48 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46911 I forgot to add that page 28 of the MTA's study shows the areas where the intercept studies were taken. 41% @ West Portal (done 3 years ago) - 5 intersecting transit lines (K, L, M, 17, 48) 25% @ Mission - 8 intersecting transit lines (12, 14, 14L, 27, 48, 49, 67, BART) 15% @ Marina (don't know why they did this one since there weren't any occupancy studies done in Marina) - 7 intersecting transit lines (22, 28, 30, 30x, 43, 76, GGT) 30% @ Castro - 8 intersecting transit lines (24, 33, 35, 37, F, K/T, L, M) 31% @ Inner Sunset - 5 intersecting transit lines (N, 6, 43, 44, 66) 14% @ North Beach (don't know why they did this one since there weren't any occupancy studies done in North Beach) - 7 intersecting lines (9X, 9BX, 20, 30, 39, 41, 45) NONE of the surveys were done in Chu's district. Furthermore, given the above data, is it any surprise that only 25% of the intercept respondents actually drove? There is TONS of survey bias right there, because 75% of the respondents were asked of their opinion on nighttime/Sunday metering even though THEY DIDN'T DRIVE. Now let's take a look at Chu's district. Irving - No transit lines on it. 3 intersecting lines, 4 that are a block away. Noriega - 3 transit lines on it, none between 19th and 22nd Avenues (where it's metered). Taraval - 1 transit line (L). I forgot to add that page 28 of the MTA's study shows the areas where the intercept studies were taken.

41% @ West Portal (done 3 years ago) - 5 intersecting transit lines (K, L, M, 17, 48)
25% @ Mission - 8 intersecting transit lines (12, 14, 14L, 27, 48, 49, 67, BART)
15% @ Marina (don't know why they did this one since there weren't any occupancy studies done in Marina) - 7 intersecting transit lines (22, 28, 30, 30x, 43, 76, GGT)
30% @ Castro - 8 intersecting transit lines (24, 33, 35, 37, F, K/T, L, M)
31% @ Inner Sunset - 5 intersecting transit lines (N, 6, 43, 44, 66)
14% @ North Beach (don't know why they did this one since there weren't any occupancy studies done in North Beach) - 7 intersecting lines (9X, 9BX, 20, 30, 39, 41, 45)

NONE of the surveys were done in Chu's district.

Furthermore, given the above data, is it any surprise that only 25% of the intercept respondents actually drove? There is TONS of survey bias right there, because 75% of the respondents were asked of their opinion on nighttime/Sunday metering even though THEY DIDN'T DRIVE.

Now let's take a look at Chu's district.

Irving - No transit lines on it. 3 intersecting lines, 4 that are a block away.
Noriega - 3 transit lines on it, none between 19th and 22nd Avenues (where it's metered).
Taraval - 1 transit line (L).

]]> By: EL http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46891 EL Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:32:37 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46891 "where the agency proposed extending meter hours on limited commercial streets such as Taraval, Noriega, and Irving. On Noriega, for instance, extended metering would only occur on three blocks near 19th Avenue and a few more near Sunset. This is a far cry from the blanket 8 pm extension that had been proposed originally in the MTA budget compromise in May and is certainly better than the Oakland situation." A little bit of research from Matthew Roth would have revealed that the above paragraph represents all of the meters in Chu's District. And in that sense, it is a blanket extension similar to Oakland. I do think that Chu has a point in that the study recommends changes on Noriega even though Noriega wasn't studied at all. Likewise, the study reveals that even on a busy retail day like Sunday, 25% of the businesses in her District aren't even open until 10 am which makes you question (following Shoup's theories) why meters that are out there today start at 9 am and why they cost $2 an hour. "where the agency proposed extending meter hours on limited commercial streets such as Taraval, Noriega, and Irving. On Noriega, for instance, extended metering would only occur on three blocks near 19th Avenue and a few more near Sunset. This is a far cry from the blanket 8 pm extension that had been proposed originally in the MTA budget compromise in May and is certainly better than the Oakland situation."

A little bit of research from Matthew Roth would have revealed that the above paragraph represents all of the meters in Chu's District. And in that sense, it is a blanket extension similar to Oakland.

I do think that Chu has a point in that the study recommends changes on Noriega even though Noriega wasn't studied at all. Likewise, the study reveals that even on a busy retail day like Sunday, 25% of the businesses in her District aren't even open until 10 am which makes you question (following Shoup's theories) why meters that are out there today start at 9 am and why they cost $2 an hour.

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46871 John Murphy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:12:09 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46871 The big guns from the good guy side came out much later in the program. Maybe I'm biased but it seems to be there is a huge difference in mental capacity. Reasoned arguments could be made for any side, but the no extension people mostly seem to be yelling and appealing to emotion. Did they practice by watching Fox News for 3 days straight? The big guns from the good guy side came out much later in the program. Maybe I'm biased but it seems to be there is a huge difference in mental capacity. Reasoned arguments could be made for any side, but the no extension people mostly seem to be yelling and appealing to emotion. Did they practice by watching Fox News for 3 days straight?

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46851 mikesonn Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:14:54 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46851 One last thing before I turn this crap off, these people don't understand that the limit will be raised to 4 hrs. That means you won't have to run back outside a bunch of times to feed the meter. But I can't listen to this anymore. Hopefully I'll catch the end on TV another night. One last thing before I turn this crap off, these people don't understand that the limit will be raised to 4 hrs. That means you won't have to run back outside a bunch of times to feed the meter.

But I can't listen to this anymore. Hopefully I'll catch the end on TV another night.

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46841 mikesonn Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:06:04 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46841 I like how the Chamber of Commerce guy says that residents are parking in front of businesses at night. And he is fighting for them! The ignorance is just amazing. Those people are parking at 6pm and taking that spot until 7am the next morning so that means NO CUSTOMER parking. I just do not understand. Also, where the hell are these FiDi guys coming from? I understand the parking in that neighborhood isn't represented well in the report, but they should realize that they live in the MOST rational place for an argument against owning a car. I like how the Chamber of Commerce guy says that residents are parking in front of businesses at night. And he is fighting for them! The ignorance is just amazing. Those people are parking at 6pm and taking that spot until 7am the next morning so that means NO CUSTOMER parking. I just do not understand.

Also, where the hell are these FiDi guys coming from? I understand the parking in that neighborhood isn't represented well in the report, but they should realize that they live in the MOST rational place for an argument against owning a car.

]]> By: Josh http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46831 Josh Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:59:29 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46831 "While changes in meter policy may be desirable in some areas..." She clearly pulled this directly from the 2009 edition of West Side Mad Libs: 'While cost of living in a city may be desirable in neighborhood East of Twin Peaks ...' "While changes in meter policy may be desirable in some areas..."

She clearly pulled this directly from the 2009 edition of West Side Mad Libs:

'While cost of living in a city may be desirable in neighborhood East of Twin Peaks ...'

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46821 John Murphy Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:52:45 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46821 If I hear one more of these turkeys bitch about how the working class are getting screwed, ignoring the 700,000 "elitists" who take MUNI every day, I may go insane. Irwin Lum steps up to say "Cars are a luxury" If I hear one more of these turkeys bitch about how the working class are getting screwed, ignoring the 700,000 "elitists" who take MUNI every day, I may go insane. Irwin Lum steps up to say "Cars are a luxury"

]]> By: zsolt http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46801 zsolt Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:33:32 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46801 "Not only should the MTA take a look at circulation/congestion on a neighborhood by neighborhood level, but they must also take a look and assess how the economy has impacted different areas before implementing any changes." Agreed. Of course if we REALLY take a look at the economics of personal motorized transport, Chu might be surprised. I wonder where all this leaves my supe, Avalos. While theoretically I guess he would be for this, his district has some of the most ass-backwards conservative car collectors in the city. "Not only should the MTA take a look at circulation/congestion on a neighborhood by neighborhood level, but they must also take a look and assess how the economy has impacted different areas before implementing any changes."

Agreed. Of course if we REALLY take a look at the economics of personal motorized transport, Chu might be surprised.

I wonder where all this leaves my supe, Avalos. While theoretically I guess he would be for this, his district has some of the most ass-backwards conservative car collectors in the city.

]]> By: SFResident http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46721 SFResident Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:01:39 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46721 And in other news: rain is wet And in other news: rain is wet

]]> By: Greg http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46701 Greg Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:24:44 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46701 Carmen is very disappointing when it comes to transit issues. She doesn't seem to understand that knee jerk reactions to the parking meter proposal don't help, and were part of a deal her ally Newsom crafted (which of course he's now going back on, as he always does). Carmen is very disappointing when it comes to transit issues. She doesn't seem to understand that knee jerk reactions to the parking meter proposal don't help, and were part of a deal her ally Newsom crafted (which of course he's now going back on, as he always does).

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/20/supervisor-carmen-chu-wary-of-parking-meter-extension-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-46621 mikesonn Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:46:42 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=68741#comment-46621 I'll comment before I even read this - she is a puppet of Newsom, of course she is "wary." Now I'll read. I'll comment before I even read this - she is a puppet of Newsom, of course she is "wary." Now I'll read.

]]>