Skip to content

Posts from the "Parking" Category

16 Comments

Chron’s Math: Re-Purposing 0.01 Percent of Parking = “Devouring” Parking

The SF Chronicle published its take on the SFMTA’s proposed network of permitted stops for private shuttles. These proposed stops would re-purpose 0.01 percent of the city’s on-street parking supply as white zones. According to the Chronicle, that equates to Google buses “devouring parking,” as its headline puts it.

Devoting 0.01 percent of SF’s street parking so that shuttles can load out of Muni’s way is an atrocity, according to the Chronicle. Image: ABC 7

This is seriously the narrative the Chronicle has construed, even though the article acknowledges that the amount of parking spaces is, “Well, not a huge amount — unless, of course, it’s a space you often use.”

Unfortunately, it is true that every last parking space, no matter how remote, can find its own pocket of constituents. The Chronicle reported that the “Alamo Square Neighborhood Association… is fighting the proposed location of two shared stops at Hayes and Steiner streets because they would result in the part-time loss of parking.” Note to Chronicle: right now, that same neighborhood is in the process of creating a long-needed residential parking permit zone to better manage its parking supply.

As the SFMTA told the Chronicle, three parking spaces in the entire shuttle pilot would be taken full-time to accommodate private transit boardings without getting in the way of Muni. These would serve far more than three bus and shuttle riders, of course, helping to reduce parking demand. Three spaces citywide, to make streets work more efficiently, evidently constitute an outrage for the Chronicle.

Just a reminder: San Francisco has more than enough street parking to line California’s coastline.

30 Comments

Supes Reject Appeal for CEQA Review of Sunday Parking Meter Repeal

The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 yesterday to reject an appeal, filed by sustainable transportation advocates, to require environmental review of the SFMTA’s repeal of Sunday parking meters. Although the vote was not on the merits of Sunday parking metering, but rather whether the SFMTA violated the California Environmental Quality Act in repealing it, the hearing shed some more light on the political stances of some supervisors.

Photo: Aaron Bialick

All supervisors, except John Avalos and Eric Mar, voted to reject the appeal. Supervisor Scott Wiener argued that, even if supervisors opposed removing Sunday meters and the SFMTA governance structure that allowed Mayor Ed Lee to push it through, CEQA must be applied consistently. “I have enormous respect for the appellants in this case,” he said. “I work with them regularly in our joint quest to adequately fund our public transportation system and have smart transportation policy in San Francisco… but this is about whether the SFMTA correctly applied a CEQA exemption.”

Wiener has been a proponent of reforming CEQA to curb frivolous appeals, which are often used by opponents to delay even environmentally beneficial projects, like bike lanes. Since the Sunday meter repeal was approved as part of the SFMTA’s budget as a whole, and budget adjustments have a statutory exemption from CEQA review, Wiener argued that upholding the appeal would mean it would have to apply to other changes, like the free Muni for low-income youth program.

“Rejecting a correctly applied statuary exemption because one might disagree with the underlying policy decision, and trying to force it into a higher level of CEQA review, has profound implications not just for this issue but for the many, many other situations that MTA and other agencies deal with — situations [like] fees, fines and fares,” Wiener said.

But the appellants, representing Livable City and the SF Transit Riders Union, disagreed. They argued that removing Sunday meters comes with a particular set of impacts, particularly increased traffic congestion, since the SFMTA’s own studies showed benefits such as cutting in half the time that drivers take to find a commercial parking spot.

Read more…

9 Comments

San Jose Diridon Area Plan Could Add Parking, Lose Trail, Pass Council Tues.

SAP Arena’s existing surface parking lot. San Jose has already agreed to expand the parking available to Arena visitors by over 900 spaces in the Diridon plan. Photo: Google Maps

Just four days before San Jose’s City Council was expected to approve the Diridon Station Area Plan, a four-year-old community-based plan to guide the next 30 years of transit-oriented redevelopment around the Diridon Caltrain Station, city officials released a memo on June 6, proposing numerous amendments in response to City Council questions and public comments made at the council’s preliminary review of the plan on May 20.

These amendments include adding a “Parking Policy 9″ to the plan’s Implementation Strategy Report, developed in close collaboration with SAP Center. The sports and entertainment arena has requested that over 20,000 car parking spaces be constructed in the Diridon Station Area — double what the city’s recommends based on its projections of parking demand — and has criticized the city’s plans to improve transit as “unlikely to allow convenient transportation.”

Development projects within 1/3-mile of the Caltrain station or SAP Center would be affected by Mayor Reed’s June 10 proposal. Image: City of San Jose

The city’s memo recommends adding new conditions to future commercial development within the Diridon Station Area. Shared parking, which would allow SAP Arena visitors who arrive for events to park in the parking lots of future office buildings, would be a required for all development projects located within 1/3-mile of the Caltrain station, “if necessary to mitigate the loss of parking” of new buildings constructed on existing parking lots.

Mayor Chuck Reed, who is also represented on the San Jose Arena Authority’s Board of Directors along with City Council members Pierluigi Oliverio and Kansen Chu, proposed additional development conditions in his own June 10 memo [PDF]. City Council members Sam Liccardo and Pierluigi Oliverio voiced support for the Mayor’s proposals in a June 13 memo [PDF].

Mayor Reed’s new development conditions would give SAP Center control over any future city plans to reduce the existing parking supply, proposing that the implementation of the Diridon plan include ”a goal to maintain the current parking availability until the City and Arena Management agree that transit ridership is robust enough to reduce parking supply without negatively impacting SAP Center operations.” (emphasis added)

The Reed-Liccardo-Olivero proposal would also expand the required parking studies to all projects located within 1/3-mile of SAP Arena, in addition to those located within 1/3-mile of the Diridon Caltrain Station as proposed by city staff. These parking studies would need to “identify the impacts of the project on the existing parking supply within the Diridon area, and suggest ways to mitigate the impact if it is deemed significant,” possibly resulting in the construction of surplus parking spaces, the cost of which would be borne by developers and passed onto tenants in the form of higher rents.

Read more…

18 Comments

Sunday Meter Repeal Needs No CEQA Review, Say SFMTA and Planning Dept.

An appeal claiming that the repeal of Sunday parking meters is an action that requires environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act is baseless, according to responses issued by the SFMTA and Planning Department this week.

Photo: Aaron Bialick

The appeal, filed by Livable City and the SF Transit Riders Union, is set for a hearing and vote at the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. The board will not vote not on the merits of running parking meters on Sundays. Instead, the board will vote on whether CEQA would require an environmental impact report for the SFMTA’s new budget, which directs the agency to stop charging for meters on Sundays. The supervisors’ decision is expected to be largely informed by the recommendations of the SFMTA and the Planning Department.

The policy change is expected to remove $11 million per year in transit funding, as well as double the average time that drivers take to find commercial parking spaces on Sundays, according to an SFMTA study [PDF] of the benefits that Sunday meters garnered in their first year. The appellants argue that impacts like increased traffic congestion and pollution, reduced parking turnover for businesses, and lost transit funding warrant an EIR.

“Our appeal insists that CEQA doesn’t allow an exemption for lowering of parking fees, when such an action would clearly impact the environment,” said Mario Tanev of SFTRU.

But the SFMTA maintains that the act of removing fees (e.g., Sunday meter fees) fits within a CEQA exemption meant to allow for speedy municipal budget balancing. The agency argued in its memo [PDF] that the loss of $11 million is not of significant impact because Muni fares, parking ticket fines, and parking permit fees for construction contractors were increased to make up for it:

Read more…

7 Comments

Are SFMTA’s Proposed Shuttle Stops Enough to End Muni Conflicts?

A snapshot of the SFMTA's proposed Muni stops to be shared with private shuttles. See the full map in this PDF

A snapshot of the SFMTA’s proposed Muni stops to be shared with private shuttles. See the full map in this PDF

The SFMTA has released a proposed map of Muni stops where commuter shuttles would be permitted to load passengers, part of the agency’s 18-month pilot program to test private-bus regulation. Shuttles currently use many of these stops, and the resulting conflicts between shuttles and Muni buses has led to transit delays. SFMTA says it hopes to reduce bus conflicts by replacing car parking with new loading zones, marked with white curbs, where shuttles can load passengers out of Muni’s way.

With the vast majority of SF’s curb space devoted to storing private automobiles, hiving off a sliver of that space to make room for both public and private transit to co-exist shouldn’t make a huge difference. But, of the roughly 80 shared stops proposed on the map, just nine have white zones. Four of those would ban parking during morning peak hours, and five would during both morning and evening peak hours. A handful of bus stop zones would also be extended.

Are nine new white zones enough to minimize conflicts between Muni and shuttles? Transit advocates are still assessing that answer — but it’s not a simple one, since there isn’t hard data on how much shuttles delay Muni, or where it happens most often.

For many of the stops, it could be that there aren’t enough conflicts to warrant a white zone. As shown in a three-hour time lapse video of the shared stop outside the home of transportation planner Paul Supawanich, most of the 36 shuttle buses that arrived within that period didn’t block a Muni bus.

“I hope that it was based on metrics, and wasn’t a politically arrived-at figure,” said Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City. While shuttles take cars off the road by providing convenient alternatives to driving, “The benefit of that is diminished if they’re also delaying Muni. If we’re going to have the shuttles using [bus] stops, it’s gotta be in such away that they’re creating no delay for public transit. And that’s not what’s happening now. I think we could get there, but little has been asked of the shuttle operators.”

Read more…

27 Comments

SF Chronicle Regurgitates Misinformation From the Free Parking Crowd

Does this parking lot in the Fillmore reflect a more “balanced” SF in the eyes of op-ed writer Bill Bowen? Photo: Aaron Bialick

The SF Chronicle printed an op-ed this weekend, written by the Republican-backed group that aims to “restore balance” on San Francisco’s streets. And by “balance,” they mean enshrining a status quo where cars, not people, get the lion’s share of the public streets, in the form of more pavement and more traffic.

Unfortunately, the Chronicle didn’t seem to have a problem reprinting the misinformation that plagues the column, which was written by right-wing author Bill Bowen. Given that the Chronicle failed to challenge, or even “balance,” Bowen’s unfounded claims and factual errors, we thought we’d clear some things up.

Transportation policy has been set by the agency’s governing board, whose members are appointed by the mayor. By law, a majority must be regular riders of Muni.

The loudest voices? The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and those who envision a “car-free” city, despite the fact that 79 percent of households have a motor vehicle and nearly half of those commuting to work do so by car.

This is a misleading and hyperbolic way to misrepresent policies aimed at giving San Franciscans better alternatives to owning cars. Another way to look at car ownership stats: 37.1 percent of households own only one car, so 58 percent of households own one or zero cars. Despite having a solid car-light majority, San Francisco already devotes most of its street space to moving and parking cars — mostly for free — and furthermore has long mandated off-street parking with every new building even while demonstrable shortages exist of many other land uses (notably housing). Meanwhile, most of those cars stand still most of the time: only 36.6 percent of San Franciscans drive alone to work, with most accomplishing their daily tasks by foot, transit, or bike.

The assertion that the SF Bicycle Coalition is responsible for the SFMTA’s shift away from car-centric policies might be flattering to the organization, but SFBC doesn’t call for a “car-free city.” Instead, they sensibly advocate safer streets, to make bicycling a safe and comfortable option for more residents and more trips.

Read more…

18 Comments

SAP Arena Wants Parking Crater Around San Jose Diridon Caltrain Station

SAP Center Parking Lot

SAP Center called San Jose’s plans to reduce parking demand with transit improvements “highly speculative”, and wants over 20,000 new parking spaces built near the Diridon Caltrain Station. Photo: Richard Masoner

SAP Center, the corporation that owns the 19,000-seat arena across Santa Clara Street from San Jose’s downtown Caltrain station, doubts that the next 30 years of transit improvements will bring more visitors to events at the “Shark Tank.” Instead, they insist that 20,000 new car parking spaces be built within its redeveloping neighborhood.

“It is unlikely that public transportation will allow convenient transportation from throughout the area the Arena draws from,” wrote SAP Center Vice President Jim Goddard in the Arena’s EIR comment letter on the draft Diridon Station Area Plan, which aims to guide future development toward land uses that support transit ridership, and to “create a world-class cultural destination” within the walkable radius (1/2-mile) of the Diridon Caltrain Station. The plan will allow 2,600 housing units, 420,000 square feet of retail space, 5,000,000 square feet of office space, and 900 hotel rooms — and up to 11,950 new car parking spaces to support this infill development — over the next 30 years.

But SAP Center claims that its customers will always drive in, and that they will demand an extra 8,050 parking spaces, creating a parking crater in downtown San Jose. “Vehicular access will be the most significant method for our patrons and their families to attend Arena events for the foreseeable future,” wrote Goddard. ”Any limitation in the effectiveness of vehicular access to the Arena… would degrade the customer experience and discourage attendance at the Arena.”

Future Diridon Station Area - Facing Downtown San Jose

Electrified Caltrain, BART, High-Speed Rail, and BRT lines will all connect at Diridon Station in 15 years. Mid-rise office and housing development are planned for the area. Image: California High-Speed Rail Authority

Read more…

Streetsblog USA No Comments

There Is Now Scientific Evidence That Parking Makes People Crazy

pfb logo 100x22Michael Andersen blogs for The Green Lane Project, a PeopleForBikes program that helps U.S. cities build better bike lanes to create low-stress streets. Fifth in a series.

All this week, we’ve been unpacking the nuances of the first major study of protected bike lanes in the United States. Today, we’re wrapping things up by taking a moment for perhaps the most amusing finding in the 179-page report.

Even when a protected bike lane project creates on-street parking spaces where none existed before, 30 percent of nearby residents think the project made parking worse.

The project in question was Multnomah Street in Portland, where the city removed one travel lane in each direction in order to add buffers for the bike lanes and, at some midblock locations, 21 new parking spaces. Of 492 nearby residents who returned surveys about the project, 30 percent said that the changes had made it harder to park on the street.

At projects that actually removed parking spaces in order to add protected bike lanes, 49 percent of residents said they made it harder to park.

Could it be that when people who oppose bike projects complain about the loss of on-street parking, this issue is often not actually their primary concern?

As scientists sometimes say, the answer to this question is left as an exercise for the reader.

You can follow The Green Lane Project on Twitter or Facebook or sign up for its weekly news digest about protected bike lanes.

No Comments

Mayor Lee Appoints Planning Commissioner Gwyneth Borden to SFMTA Board

Gwyneth Borden will fill a year-old vacancy on the SFMTA Board of Directors, Mayor Ed Lee announced today. Borden has sat on the Planning Commission since 2008 and is the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

Gwyneth Borden. Photo via her Twitter page.

As a planning commissioner, Borden has exhibited a largely progressive view on issues such as permitting developments without car parking. At a hearing in 2012, she argued that the contentious 12-unit condo development at 1050 Valencia Street was fine without parking, noting that she lived near the site without a car, relying mostly on transit. “It is transit-rich,” she said at the hearing. “It’s close to BART — I don’t even own a car.”

“She’s sharp. She’s a quick study,” said Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich. “As a planning commissioner, she’s definitely shown an understanding of the land use – transportation connection in regards to parking, location, streetscape improvements, the potential and responsibility of developments to activate street life… she definitely gets it. It’s a good choice.”

On the Planning Commission, Borden has called out developers for trying to exceed parking maximums set in the Market-Octavia Area Plan. However, she also said that a proposal for excess parking at the CityPlace Mall development on Market Street (now Market Street Place) would not set a precedent for other developments in the Downtown Plan area. She also supported a measure that allowed developers to exceed parking maximums to provide car-share spaces, arguing that it could lead to lower demand for the construction of parking down the road.

Borden’s resume includes stints on the SPUR Board of Directors, on the Mayor’s Transportation 2030 Task Force, and as a legislative aide for Gavin Newsom when he was a supervisor. Here it is as listed in the Mayor’s Office press release:

Read more…

25 Comments

SFMTA to Change “Unclear” Sidewalk Parking Guidelines on Website

Image from the SFMTA website

The SFMTA web page that provides guidance on “how to park legally” currently tells drivers that “you may park in your own driveway as long as no portion of your vehicle extends over the sidewalk.” The text is accompanied by a photo of someone walking a bike past cars parked in “driveways,” but with their rear ends extending well into what appears to be the sidewalk.

After I inquired with SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose about the legality of those instructions, he said that the agency will change it. “The page is unclear and may lead one to think that it is OK to park anywhere as long as you are not blocking the sidewalk,” he said. “We are working on changing it now.” The SFMTA hasn’t provided the new language yet.

SF’s rampant sidewalk parking problem seems to stem partially from a widespread belief among drivers that they’re allowed to park in their “driveway.” There’s no telling whether drivers are genuinely confused about parking laws or by the definition of a sidewalk — or whether drivers blatantly disregard the law, and their neighbors’ need for safe and dignified passage by foot, stroller, and wheelchair. But either way, the SFMTA’s instructions on the matter need to be clear.

I pointed out to Rose that the SFMTA’s instructions appear to conflict with the SF Planning Code, which prohibits parking in setbacks, and the fact that all off-street parking spots must be permitted in zoning.

Livable City Director Tom Radulovich confirmed: “The Planning Code prohibits parking in front yards, side yards, or rear yards, so SFMTA is advising San Franciscans to break the law – and risk getting cited by the Planning Department,” he said.

It’s a little troubling that the SFMTA would have illegal and ambiguous instructions posted on its most easily-accessible resource for parking information. Of course, changing it just barely scratches the surface of what’s needed to clean up SF’s car-littered sidewalks. Ultimately, it would mean an upheaval in deep-seated misconceptions among drivers and parking control officers of what constitutes a legal parking spot, and a greater respect for the pedestrian realm. And given that many San Franciscans own cars solely because they can rely on free, illegal parking, bringing parking enforcement in line with actual laws would probably result in a lot of cars going up for sale.

We’ll post an update when the SFMTA website is changed.