Streetsblog San Francisco

A panel of disability advocates, the SFMTA, and other entities has recommended that handicap parking placard holders no longer be given free parking at meters.

As the SF Examiner and the Chronicle reported, the policy recommendation came out of a committee formed to tackle the growing problem of placard abuse, which deprives legitimately disabled drivers of reserved parking spaces close to their destinations, cheats the SFMTA out of revenue, and lets drivers occupy high-demand parking spots all day with no incentive to limit their stay.

“Current disabled parking placard and blue zone policies are failing to increase access for people with disabilities, and reduce parking availability for all drivers,” said Jessie Lorenz, executive director of the Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, in a statement.

As we’ve reported, lifetime free parking for placard holders — an incentive for abuse — is enshrined in state law, and repealing it would require a bill to be passed by the state legislature. There’s no word yet on which senators or assemblymembers might take up such a bill, but city officials said potential legislation could either call for the free parking repeal statewide or for SF only, and that they hope to pass it by 2015.

Carla Johnson, interim director of the Mayor’s Office of Disability, said California is one of only 15 states to have such a law in place. When it was enacted in the 1970s, she said, the limited parking meter technology at the time made payment more physically challenging, and the law was intended to help disabled drivers get around that obstacle. “Back then, we had to use coins, we had to manually turn a dial, we didn’t have curb ramps that allowed you to get up onto the sidewalk,” said Johnson. “Things have changed since then.”

Read more…

Mark Farrell and Malia Cohen emerged as the most vocal proponents of free car parking on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at a hearing on parking meters last week. Farrell called the hearing in February based on an admittedly “unfounded” suspicion that the SF Municipal Transportation Agency was planning to install parking meters in District 2, which he represents.

Despite the traffic dysfunction caused by free parking, which leads motorists to cruise fruitlessly in search of an open space, Cohen made her anti-parking meter stance clear at the introduction of the hearing. “I’m looking forward to, possibly, [SFMTA Director] Ed Reiskin saying, ‘I quit, you won, we’re not going to be doing parking meters,’” she said, eliciting applause from an audience composed mostly of the city’s usual stable of free parking activists.

Electeds like Farrell and Cohen still see parking as an entitlement for drivers, and tend to resist any effort to encroach on that entitlement. Based on what they said at the hearing, they believe the amount of driving is fixed, and that the demand for car parking is a natural force that must be accommodated, not managed to achieve goals like traffic reduction, transit efficiency, and street safety. They say they won’t tolerate parking reform unless Muni is first improved to their standards. (Oddly, we never seem to hear these folks actually push for more Muni funding, or call for safer streets for walking and biking.)

Meanwhile, the SFMTA’s SFPark program has enjoyed broad political support where it has replaced existing parking meters with smart meters. Those meters adjust prices to demand throughout the day to keep about one parking space open on every block and provide multiple payment options. Prices have dropped about as often as they’ve been raised, so SFPark has actually saved motorists money and reduced citations.

While supervisors and the mayor have gotten behind SFPark as a symbol of San Francisco’s innovation, that’s not the case when it comes to converting free parking spaces to SFPark meters — even in neighborhoods like the northeast Mission, where drivers circle around endlessly for spots on weekday mornings.

At the hearing, Farrell and Cohen waved the flag for the camp that insists San Franciscans shouldn’t pay for car storage. ”What do you do first: Do you make public transportation so attractive that people will voluntarily choose to abandon their cars, or leave them at home, and take public transportation?” said Farrell. “Or do you make it so challenging and frustrating to drive a car, with increased parking rates and what have you, that people are — this is extreme, but — coerced out of their cars? I think I hear from a lot of folks that it’s the latter, not the former.”

The problem with that assertion is that free parking is itself a subsidy that leads more people to drive, creating a traffic-clogged street environment that degrades transit service and makes bicycling unpleasant. That only further coerces people into cars. So while it’s clear that Muni, walking, and biking conditions do need to be improved, continuing to give away in-demand parking spaces for free only perpetuates the vicious cycle.

“We have a charter mandate to” manage parking, said Reiskin. “It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise.”

Read more…

Efforts to reduce traffic caused by drivers circling for parking in the northeast Mission took another step forward last week when the SF Municipal Transportation Agency presented its revised proposal for the expansion of parking meters and permit regulations. Opposition seems to have slightly dwindled compared to the first neighborhood meeting in November, though the SFMTA’s presentation was still interrupted by shouts from audience members who seemed to feel that drivers shouldn’t have to pay the going rate for limited street parking.

Under the SFMTA’s new proposal, about half the area’s currently unregulated parking spaces would be metered, with the other half subject to time restrictions for those without residential parking permits, said Jeff Tumlin, an SFMTA consultant with the transportation planning firm Nelson/Nygaard.

SFMTA planners have been tweaking the mosaic-like map of proposed parking regulations for months, using an unprecedented level of data collection and community input to tailor it to a neighborhood with a mix of residential, retail, and PDR (production, distribution, and repair) buildings that can make it hard for planners to determine where meters and permit restrictions are most appropriate.

But with growing parking demand, it’s become increasingly clear that the status quo of free parking is exerting a high cost in transit delays, noise and air pollution, degraded conditions for walking and biking, and wasted time and fuel. According to the SFMTA, finding a parking spot in the area in the morning hours takes, on average, 27 minutes, or 3.3 miles of driving, with search times running as long as 50 minutes. In the afternoon, the average search time drops to just over 2 minutes. At any given time during business hours, one out of every four blocks reportedly has a double-parked vehicle on it.

“As we all know, the neighborhood is changing, and changing rapidly,” said Tumlin. “As a result, the period of laissez-faire management doesn’t work as well as it once did.”

The proposed meters would start with a rate of 50 cents per hour (a full day of metered parking would cost just $4.50), and all meters could be paid by coin, credit card, phone, or an SFMTA debit card, all in advance of enforcement hours. Meanwhile, any resident within the project area would be eligible for a residential parking permit — a departure from normal rules that only allow residents on RPP-designated blocks to acquire them. The price for a parking permit is $104 per year, or 28 cents per day.

While some attendees did offer some nuanced critiques of the proposal, many of the plan’s staunch opponents seemed to simply dismiss the notion that charging for parking makes spots more readily available. When Tumlin said, “The data is really clear that in the neighborhood as a whole, there is a severe parking availability problem,” a woman in the audience shouted in response, “That’s not going to change.”

Read more…

A draft of the SF Municipal Transportation Agency’s hotly-debated plans to install parking meters and expand permit zones in the northeast Mission has been posted online ahead of a community meeting on Thursday, where agency officials will present it to residents.

Following months of data collection, planning, and community meetings, the SFMTA’s map shows where the agency thinks meters and permits would be appropriate to ensure that enough parking spaces remain available to prevent drivers from needlessly circling the block.

According to the documents, all meters would start at a rate of 50 cents per hour and accept multiple forms of payment. Many would have no time limits. Some blocks would have residential parking permit restrictions, and all residents in the project’s area would be eligible to buy a permit. Since the meters won’t be part of the SFPark program, the SFMTA Board of Directors will consider a proposal tomorrow that would lower the current floor for non-SFPark meter rates outside of downtown from $1.00/hour to $0.25/hour.

Mario Tanev, who started the group sfMORE in support of the SFMTA’s efforts to price parking according to demand, wrote in a blog post that “so far it looks like a very balanced proposal.”

The plans do not include the provision proposed by Potrero Hill Boosters Association President Tony Kelly, who wrote in a Chronicle op-ed last week that RPP holders should be able to park at meters in the area for free.

Read more…

A lot of traffic in the northeast Mission consists of drivers cruising for parking spots. Motorists in the area circle for an average of 27 minutes in search of a free spot, according to the SF Municipal Transportation Agency, which has held community outreach meetings in recent months to develop a plan for new parking meters and permit restrictions to curb excess traffic in the neighborhood.

In response to fervent opposition to metered parking in the eastern neighborhoods, the SFMTA has pushed back its timeline for installing meters, devoting more attention to data collection and community feedback as it develops parking management plans. On March 21, the agency will present a proposal for the northeast Mission, before beginning the same process of community meetings in the Potrero Hill and Dogpatch neighborhoods.

Rather than asking car-owning residents to pay the going rate for on-street parking, Tony Kelly, a runner-up in the most recent District 10 supervisor race and president of the Potrero Hill Boosters Association, says he has a better idea. In an op-ed in the SF Chronicle today, Kelly said the SFMTA should implement meters and residential parking permits — $104 annual bumper stickers that give parking priority to local car owners — but let permit holders park at meters in the area for free.

Kelly claims that the proposal, which hasn’t been used in any other neighborhood, would free up parking for residents by shooing away car commuters. (According to the SFMTA, only 26 percent of cars parked in the neighborhood are registered in the local zip codes.) He calls it “a better solution, one suggested by planners, transit advocates and local businesses, that can prioritize parking for residents and also handle parking congestion the way the MTA wants.”

Kelly asserts that the northeast Mission is being unfairly targeted because other neighborhoods get RPP zones and no meters, and accuses the SFMTA of “turning its back on decades of transit-first policy.” (In fact, the transit-first policy makes no mention of parking permits.)

Do planners really think parking permits that exempt residents from paying for metered parking are such a good idea?

Read more…

Somewhat inexplicably, D2 Supervisor Mark Farrell has suddenly come out as “strongly opposed” to the expansion of parking meters. At a Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, he called for a hearing to scrutinize the SF Municipal Transportation Agency’s parking meter expansion plans, apparently concerned about new meters that will create parking turnover in his district, even though, as Bay City News confirmed, the agency says it has no such plans.

“If the SFMTA plans to expand parking meters into our truly residential areas, I do have serious concerns about what the implementation looks like and the rationale behind those decisions, and I believe that the policy discussion regarding any proposed parking meter expansion plans should start here in City Hall,” said Farrell. “Specifically, I’m requesting information on the statistics driving this expansion, the revenues anticipated from these expansions, the policy rationale for the expansions, as well as an update on future plans to go into different neighborhoods throughout our city. This hearing, I hope, will begin to start the public dialogue about these proposed plans.”

On top of the lack of evidence of plans to expand parking meters in District 2 neighborhoods like the Marina, Pacific Heights, and Seacliff, Farrell’s sudden focus on parking meters is strange for a few reasons. The timing, for one, is odd given that the SFMTA abandoned its scheduled approval of parking meter expansions in the eastern neighborhoods a year ago, and is now working through a far slower and more detailed public process in each of those three neighborhoods. So there’s nothing particularly new to raise concerns around parking meters, except for the implementation of Sunday enforcement last month, which he didn’t protest when it came up for approval by the board as part of the SFMTA’s budget, even as Supervisor Scott Wiener did.

Read more…

The folks at SF Weekly seem really upset about the end of free car parking on Sundays. The shock is apparently severe enough that Erin Sherbert put up a post yesterday directing readers to sign the petition demanding an absolute end to the SF Municipal Transportation Agency’s expansion of parking meters, launched by the Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF). (Just a reminder: ENUF’s spokesperson won a Streetsie Award this year for “most absurd argument against SFPark meters.”)

Signing on the to ENUF petition, Sherbert wrote, is car owners’ last stand against “the new oppressive parking rules.”

Apparently SF Weekly is little behind the curve when it comes to the basic nuts and bolts of parking policy. But in a sign that you don’t need a parking PhD to get why meters make streets work better for everyone, SF Weekly’s readership seemed to welcome the end of free parking on Sundays.

None of the readers commenting on the SF Weekly post were actually “pissed off” about Sunday parking. To the contrary, there were a few comments supporting Sunday meters, like “bulk2,” who wrote, “Sorry, but free parking on Sunday is a legacy from an era when shops were closed Sundays… I’m sick of my taxpayer dollars going to fund everyone’s private car parking on public streets. Muni still costs $2 on Sundays last I checked.” Reader ”ChachitoSF” simply asked, “Is this a joke? Know your readership or rename yourselves ‘Walnut Creek Weekly.’”

The reaction on Twitter was similar. Transbay Blog’s Eric C. pointed out that SF Weekly isn’t in the habit of telling readers what they can do “if we’re pissed about paying for Muni on Sunday.” And @LightExposures suggested that anyone “pissed about paying for parking on Sunday” should “ride a bike, and calm the hell down.”

Read more…

Updated 4:47 p.m.

Yesterday was supposed to be different: San Francisco parking meters were to be in effect during business hours on Sundays for the first time ever, meaning fewer drivers would be clogging up the streets looking for a spot.

But in at least two busy commercial districts, nearly every parking meter appeared occupied but unpaid. The displays flashed “expired,” but parking control officers were absent, as were the warning leaflets that the SF Municipal Transportation Agency said it would hand out during the first three weeks before actual ticketing kicks in.

That’s what I found on upper Haight Street yesterday just after 5 p.m., and what Streetsblog reader Mike Sonn observed on 24th Street in the Mission at about 2 p.m. It was enough to make you wonder if the message about Sunday metering will actually get across before the real enforcement kicks in.

Of course, it could have been a fluke — enforcement staff is limited, and perhaps PCOs were too busy elsewhere to blanket windshields with warnings in the Haight and the Mission. One report from ABC 7 did show a parking control officer handing a woman what appears to be a leaflet about Sunday parking meters. But upper Haight and 24th are prime examples of busy commercial streets where one would expect to see the PCOs in action.

So, what’s going on? Was this a sign of the SFTMA’s enforcement department bungling the first day of Sunday metering? A decision by management to ease into Sunday meters a little too incrementally? Streetsblog is still waiting to hear back from the SFMTA in response to a request for explanation sent in yesterday. In any case, without any real enforcement to speak of, it seems the first few Sundays of 2013 are going to be metered in name only.

Update: SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said PCOs distributed 4,000 warnings citywide, including 600 in the Haight area, and approximately 1,000 warnings in the Mission District. He also said that “old meters” don’t display a change when drivers pre-pay or pay by cell phone.

Happy New Year, indeed. This Sunday will mark the day when San Francisco finally catches up with the times and runs parking meters during business hours on Sundays, ending the nonsensical weekly tradition of allowing prime parking spots in front of shops to sit occupied for free while drivers circle endlessly around the block.

The meters will run from 12 to 6 p.m., when demand for parking is highest. That means turnover will be higher and fewer drivers be distractedly searching for spots, wasting gas and adding to the noise, air pollution, and danger on the streets.

To help get the word out about Sunday metering, the city produced the above PSA featuring a parking meter and an ice cream sundae.

Unfortunately, religious leaders still maintain that this long overdue transportation reform is just the SFMTA’s way of attacking every marginalized group they can name. For SF Interfaith Council Director Michael Pappas, who appeared in the SF Chronicle yesterday, the victim of choice this time around was volunteers who serve the poor. Note that Pappas has yet to publicly voice any concern over volunteers paying for unreliable Muni service on Sundays, or for the safety of volunteers who walk or bike to their destinations. Sunday metering is going to reduce the illegal parking that slows Muni and often endangers people walking and biking.

Pappas does, however, indirectly hint at one unresolved question: Will the SFMTA’s parking enforcement officers continue to allow drivers to illegally co-opt traffic lanes and bike lanes as free church parking lots on Sundays?

Following fierce opposition that led the SF Municipal Transportation Agency to roll back its first attempt to expand car parking meters in the northeast Mission, the agency re-started a community process last night to develop a plan for managing parking demand in the area. The meeting was seen as a litmus test for the public’s openness — and the agency’s tact — which will be key to implementing parking meters and permit restrictions to reduce cruising for parking in a dense, complex neighborhood where parking problems are only expected to get worse.

The area is centered around a 220-space parking lot at 17th and Folsom Streets that’s set to be closed within months and converted into a new park and affordable housing development. As it is, the SFMTA said the area is basically a vacuum of free, unregulated parking surrounded by streets with meters and permit restrictions, making it a magnet for car commuters and long-term car storage that fills parking spots to the brim during the day. A presentation explaining the data and the rationale for using parking pricing to manage demand was made by Jeffrey Tumlin, a principal at Nelson/Nygaard, a consultant firm working on the project with the SFMTA.

“Everyone knows that you can park free all day, all week — you can leave your car here and go to the airport,” Tumlin told the audience, noting that drivers in the area reportedly circle for parking for a half hour, on average. “People are coming from all over to park in your neighborhood.”

Unlike the original planning process, SFMTA officials didn’t present any proposed parking plan at the first meeting — its stated goal was simply to present the block-by-block parking data collected in recent months and field input from residents to help inform a future proposal.

Tumlin explained that planners aim to account for the mix of land uses in the neighborhood, including residences, retail shops, and “production, distribution, and repair” businesses — many of which, unlike retail merchants, prefer free vehicle storage over the elevated parking turnover that meters bring. “It is the most complicated mosaic of land uses that I’ve seen, really, in any place I’ve worked anywhere in the world,” he said.

That the SFMTA didn’t adequately account for that complexity was one of the major sources of complaints against the original parking meter plan, which had been presented to residents as part of a larger plan to expand the SFPark smart meter program to manage parking in and around Mission Bay, where major developments are expected to bring an influx of car commuters into the area. The SFMTA took SFPark meters out of the equation, opting for conventional meters instead, to address skepticism voiced by opponents about the efficacy of SFPark. The agency also plans to eventually re-start the planning process in the Dogpatch and Potrero Hill neighborhoods, which were also included in the original plan, “one neighborhood at a time,” said agency spokesperson Paul Rose.

Read more…