Comments on: San Francisco Converts Some Bus Zones on Terminated Lines to Parking

By: chauncey graves

chauncey graves — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:01:27 +0000

@ CBrinkman: re Potomac at Duboce Park; yes, call 311 and get a few others to do it too; those calls add up; multiples are noticed. I’ll go by and call myself if the tape is still up. Thanks!

By: Sprague

Sprague — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:21:22 +0000

These spaces should be off limits to parking and should be used for wider sidewalks and bike racks, where needed (like Valencia St.), or for future fruit tree plantings. The trees would help offset a bit of the pollution from this city’s supersized car fleet. Whatever happens, free parking spaces shouldn’t be created since the easier it is to find parking in SF, the more people choose to drive.

By: CBrinkman

CBrinkman — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:19:54 +0000

Speaking of illegally altered, Potomoc Street at Duboce Park has an illegally altered parking sign allowing cars to block the steps into the park. The red arrow on the no parking sign has been changed from a left arrow to a right arrow with red sticky tape. Two cars park right in front of the steps making it necessary for peds to go around them. I guess just as we have our bike lane DIYers there are car driver DIYers. I need to call the Potomoc steps into 311 again, did it once several months ago.

Makes me sad that the PCOs don’t use common sense, the two other streets which end at the park are correctly signed and obeyed…why would this one be any different? Why allow one set of steps to be blocked and not the others?

By: Jamie Whitaker

Jamie Whitaker — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:46:33 +0000

I have little doubt that the former #12 Folsom bus zones east of 2nd Street in the Rincon Hill neighborhood will grow parking meters soon. With any luck, they would be SFPark meters with demand-based pricing like those used by the Port of SF, but I can’t see that happening.

By: the greasybear

the greasybear — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:50:54 +0000

Temporary bike corrals on Valencia like that one they recently tried on the Wiggle shouldn’t violate the injunction, right?

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:31:44 +0000

I noticed this at the begining of the year and wondered if the decsion to cut the 26-Valencia was partly influenced by the amount of revenue that could be brought in from the extra meters and fines.

40 added spaces on valencia could bring in a $1000 a day, not including that gained from tickets. Those spots are prime real estae and worth between $500-750K a year. Around Jan 2nd or so I was walking down Valencia and could have swore that tickets were being issued to cars in the gray zone (is it still an unmetered 2-hour zone?)

And to go slightly off-topic, a disturbing trend is happening throughout the Sunset District. Red zones at fire hydrants are being cut short by gray paint (illegally) so motorists can fit in an extra car. I think a citywide “Good Roads” style ride is in order to correct this hazard.

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:30:34 +0000

Last week we heard that an MTA paint crew is such a precious resource that it would be unthinkably expensive to zebra-stripe a single crosswalk on Van Ness. Now we know what the paint crews were so busy doing.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:08:04 +0000

So once these are converted to parking then we’ll need an EIR to get rid of them right? Easy to create, but impossible to destroy. Good thing we’ll never run out of oil or space to sprawl into!

By: Seth Andrzejewski

Seth Andrzejewski — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:00:33 +0000

Final note: I’m glad that the SFMTA is open to other uses of the space. I think the “trial” mode is entirely appropriate.

By: Seth Andrzejewski

Seth Andrzejewski — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:10 +0000

@Michael Smith : Impacts to parking are considered social impacts and not environmental impacts. So this goes both ways: a project that limits or eliminates parking supply does not have to mitigate it unless it impacts vehicle circulation (but they do have to comply with City code parking minimums). However, a project increasing parking supply also does not need to mitigate the impact to supply unless it causes an impact to traffic and circulation (which it may).

By: Seth Andrzejewski

Seth Andrzejewski — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:37:34 +0000

The new gray curb spaces presumably have no meters (because they aren’t installed) & no time limits; enabling 2 to 3 days of squatting parked cars in a high-demand district (particularly Valencia). A brilliantly wasteful use of street space.

I would love to do a study of the elasticity of economic activity resulting from adding to the supply of on-street auto parking vs. bike parking. This is a rare opportunity to do this.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:21:52 +0000

“publicly-subsidized private auto storage”

What more can I say?

By: Jym Dyer

Jym Dyer — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:13:17 +0000

=v= Now that we’ve got all this free parking all over the city, I suppose there’s no longer any excuse for allowing variances for extra parking in the M&O area. Nor anywhere else.

By: Matthew Roth

Matthew Roth — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:43:19 +0000

A glaring example of how certain parts of environmental law have been turned on their head. And we have a judge with no practical traffic engineering experience as the arbiter of traffic and environmental impact.

That’s why we’ve been doing this series on Level of Service reform:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/26/ca-poised-to-reform-auto-centric-level-of-service-environmental-rules/

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:38:19 +0000

Ummmm, the city reduces transit service and adds 120 parking spaces and there is no environmental review?? Not quite sure how that fits in with a “Transit First” city.

By: ZA

ZA — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:33:19 +0000

Wait, don’t tell me, there’s a law on the books somewhere that say the highest-and-best use for public space voluntarily declared unneeded by transit is given to cars? …And an EIR would be needed for Bike Corrals, right? [/headdesk]