Photos: San Francisco Department of Sidewalk Parking

Now, an enterprising resident of the Excelsior, who wishes to remain anonymous, has created a website to publicize the abuse and advocate for comprehensive enforcement. The San Francisco Department of Sidewalk Parking website went live last week with numerous photos from the neighborhood, and while Commissioner Concrete admits that he doesn't occupy an office in City Hall and doesn't have the power to issue tickets, he advises you and all your friends to help populate the website and memorize the Department of Parking and Traffic's parking hotline: 415-553-1200.

Read our interview with the commish below the break.

Matthew Roth: How did your concern with sidewalk parking develop?

Commissioner Concrete: My wife and I are new homeowners in District 11. One of the worst things about this area is seeing all the cars in a neighborhood that was designed for a much lower number of them. I am particularly mortified by how widespread and accepted sidewalk parking is. We own one car and we actually use our garage for storing it (we mostly bike), but we're absolutely the exception.

"I perceive sidewalk parking as an incredibly rude thing to do that I take great exception to. The sidewalk, to me, is for the people, and parking a car there is completely sacrilegious."

MR: What prompted you to create a website like this?

Commish: The site is new, but in a way I have been developing it inside my head for a while. I guess one of the things prompting me to finally do it was when someone on my block, who's selling their house, very recently ripped out their front yard and concreted it over, no doubt to please some buyer who requested sidewalk parking spots. That was one of the last front yards on the block... though we are now in the process of installing a front yard as large as the Planning Department will approve, in front of our own house.

This is a collective failure: somewhere along the way we stopped being civilized and started accepting this as the norm. I'm not a sleuth, all pictures on the site were very easy to get and the problem is everywhere and out in the open. The site's concept is still evolving, but I mainly see it as an entertaining albeit shocking "from the trenches" kind of report (a real-world look of where car culture and growth-based ownership economies in a finite world get you), with a sprinkling of information, analysis and tips (since I feel I have a lot to say about the issues). I also want to feature other familiar types of sidewalk blight such as tree removals and car alarms. It all really depends on how the site is received and my perception of its effectiveness in exposing the problems.

MR: Have you tried to get the MTA's parking control officers to ticket sidewalk parking?

Commish: Oh yes, of course. Infuriatingly, you can't flat-out say that the MTA doesn't ever ticket sidewalk parking. They do -- if you call them up. But in general they simply don't ticket sidewalk parking on sight. Not even during street cleaning. The meter maid comes out and tickets cars parked on the street, but NOT those parked on the sidewalk. Hellooo? In fact, what I have noticed is that this means that the DPT tacitly condones moving even MORE cars onto the sidewalk on street cleaning days, which of course is what ends up happening.

I have written to my supervisor, John Avalos, and also to Carmen Chu, since I know that she has has made noises against sidewalk parking (she was coming from the Americans with Disabilities Act angle). I received positive, but toothless replies. Chu basically told me to talk to the ADA people directly - which to me implies that she has no further interest in this issue. She closed with: "Meanwhile, DPT also enforces blocked public right of ways. You can call 311 to report those instances." To which I replied, "You and I both know that the DPT does *not* enforce the law, which is exactly why this problem exists. They really only do it when called to a specific block. So should I call them every time I see it? That's going to be a lot of calls... I wish the Board would show leadership on this issue." which pretty much sums it up.

Streetsblog reached out to the MTA press office for comment on the new website and the problem of parking abuse, but they didn't respond.

Chu's opinion, as stated in the email: "I believe that the MTA must be more surgical in their approach. 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."

I don't know if the MTA's proposal could have been more surgical in Chu's district, where the agency proposed extending meter hours on limited commercial streets such as Taraval, Noriega, and Irving (click here for the map). 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.

We've also heard that Chinatown merchants will be out in force at the meeting to oppose any changes and will request an explanation of the methodology behind the MTA's study in their area.

Though Livable City tells us they are trying to organize merchants from a couple of the commercial districts in the study area, it's possible the meeting is going to be swamped with angry business owners who fear the effects of increased meter hours, even if it would make it easier for their customers to park nearby.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors meeting is today at 2 p.m. San Francisco City Hall, room 400. The parking study presentation is item 14 on the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast online on SFGTV2.  Here's more info on who to contact to voice your support for the parking study. You can also send feedback to extendedhours@sfmta.com.

Read the complete Chu email after the jump.

Supervisor Carmen Chu, with a demonstration of the new safety sign in the background. Photo: Michael Rhodes

At a press event announcing the initiative, Chu said she's been working with the MTA to address the issue. The problem is especially prevalent in her district, where the N-Judah and L-Taraval lines stop exclusively in the center of the street. "We see, a lot of times in our district, near misses, where individuals are coming off of the train and vehicles are not stopping because either they are unaware and they can't stop in time, or are going too fast, or maybe just simply don't know that it is a rule."

The new bright yellow signs on LRVs were added last week and read: "Motorists must stop for pedestrians." While many train stops already have signs mounted high up on utility poles, MTA Deputy Chief Operating Officer Samuel Lau said the new signs are far more visible to motorists. "Motorists don't really have their eyes trained on what's 20 feet on the right hand side," said Lau.

"They're looking at the LRVs, they're looking at the lights. So, we've designed these stickers as bright yellow as they are to communicate to customers and motorists, mainly, that you need to stop whenever a train is stopped and the doors are opening."

Supervisor Chu demonstrates the new sign. One of the old signs, which the MTA believes are not visible enough, is visible in the background. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Just in the past five years, Chu said, there have been two dozen incidents where people have been hit by cars that fail to yield and pass stopped LRVs. "This is a big district issue for Sunset. It's also a big issue in all parts of the city where you do see passengers disembarking from the trains."

"I really hope that we get the message out, number one, to the drivers, please do yield, just wait a little bit longer so that the people can safely get off of the trains. And then of course, for all passengers of Muni, just make sure you look outside before you step off the light rail vehicle."

The signs are the education component of the safety initiative; Taraval district station captain Paul Chignell said he was instructing officers to step up the enforcement component. "We found that there are many, many instances of people being unaware of the law," said Chignell. "We are letting people know now that my officers here out in the Taraval district will be citing drivers who violate that statute."

SFPD Deputy Chief and director of Security Enforcement for the MTA Tony Parra said that SFPD would start with education, warning drivers that they must obey the law, then move to full enforcement with $146 fines, and targeted stings to make sure the point gets across.

The N-Judah "station" at 7th and Irving Streets. Pedestrians must enter into the middle of the street to board. Flickr photo: chronos tachyon

While education and enforcement are both part of the initiative, costlier and perhaps more effective engineering improvements to the streetcar stops are not on the immediate horizon. Chu said she believes awareness is paramount, in the absence of design upgrades. Though she currently drives for most trips, before she was a supervisor, Chu rode the L-Taraval regularly and found that drivers and passengers were often not conscious of each other.

"I've actually myself witnessed coming off the light rail vehicles and seeing cars that just don't stop for you," said Chu. "So, I was always very conscientious and would just look outside before I would step off. But there are many people who are passengers who would be on their cell phones, who would just walk out without really taking a look."

In addition to this initiative, Chu has shown other signs of a nascent interest in pedestrian issues, including participating in an awareness campaign about the impact of illegal sidewalk parking on people with disabilities, and strong support for Sunday Streets along the Great Highway. A much more significant measure, of course, will be the outcome of this safety initiative, and whether Chu continues to pressure the Taraval police station to consistently enforce the law.

By a unanimous vote, the Board indicated its support for the ordinance, though the supervisors reasons differed. The vote only authorizes creating a parking plan for Golden Gate Park, not its implementation, which the MTA will need to seek later.

The Recreation and Park Department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have expressed strong support for the measure in the past, since it will generate funds for the MTA and the Rec and Park Department, and is consistent with the city's Transit First policy.

After yesterday's vote, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he still has "major reservations" about installing meters in Golden Gate Park, including the meters' aesthetic impact on the park. Elsbernd also expressed concern about whether the meters would "create residual parking problems" in surrounding neighborhoods, such as the Inner Sunset, the Richmond, and Haight-Ashbury.

Elsbernd said he also worried that charging for parking could drive park users away. "We want to encourage people to go to parks, we don't want to discourage," said Elsbernd. "I wonder if meters are going to do that."

Supervisor Carmen Chu, who represents the Sunset, also was concerned about parking spillover. Asked whether she could potentially support installing meters, Chu said, "to me there's still a lot of unknowns about what that would look like, what the meters would look like, what the rates would look like, how are we going to deal with disability issues, and also what the surrounding impact on the communities would be. So these would all be the things that I would take a look at when we have the report."

Chu did acknowledge that "there are some individuals who are unfortunately taking advantage of the park," and said the city "should think about what things we can do, what strategies when can do to address that issue."

She remained concerned about neighborhood impact regardless, however. "Whether it is a parker who is parking all day or a parker who is parking there for an hour," said Chu, "the impact of having parking meters installed inside the park will be that there will be an impact on the neighboring community."

Supervisor Eric Mar, while also sensitive to neighborhood concerns with parking spillover, called installing parking meters "a good way to insure that we have more promotion of the Transit First policy for the city," and said he's "open to parking meters in the park."

"I know that the pushback will come heavily in districts like mine, the Richmond District, and the Sunset, and a little bit in parts of District Five, so I'm going to be listening to residents, and trying to minimize the harm to the neighborhoods," said Mar. "But I think that in general, parking in a reasonable part of the park will insure that we have more public transit use. But I don't want to see kind of ugly meters in the park that destroy the environment for people too."

To limit the visual impact, the MTA has said it will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The Board also gave final approval to putting the Safe Streets and Road Repair General Obligation Bond on the ballot for November. As we've written before, the bond measure would direct $368 million towards rehabilitating the city's aging streets and sidewalks, and would pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. If voters support the measure in November, funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Drivers often take advantage of Golden Gate Park's free on-street parking. Flickr photo: morganthemoth

The first is a measure to begin charging for on-street parking in the eastern half of Golden Gate Park, where many of the park's most popular attractions are located. The plan will turn over responsibility for on-street parking in Golden Gate Park from the Recreation and Park Department to the MTA, which will install meters and charge for some street parking in the park for the first time.

The Rec and Park department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos expressed support for the measure on public policy grounds, since charging for parking may lead to reduced driving and increased walking and biking in the park, and is consistent with the city's transit first policy.

Given the impact on transit riders of recent Muni fair hikes, Campos said drivers should "share the pain" of balancing the budget.

The meters will be a financial boon for the MTA and the park department, with the MTA collecting citation revenue and the park department collecting meter fare revenue. Once the meters are installed, as early as next April, they're projected to bring in $500,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30 and $1.4 million in the second year for the park department. The MTA will bring in a net profit of about $379,000 per year.

The area affected is bounded by Stanyan Street, Crossover Drive, Lincoln Way, and Fulton Street, and includes just over 1,800 spots. To limit the visual impact of the new meters, the MTA will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The mayor has expressed more qualified support, reversing his previous opposition to charging for parking in Golden Gate Park only recently, in light of the budget crisis. Supervisor Carmen Chu, who supported the measure, also expressed reservations, especially regarding parking pricing, and the installation of the meters.

The parking measure ultimately gained the support of the full committee, and appears to have most of the full Board of Supervisors' support, and the support of the mayor.

The second proposal, which Streetsblog San Francisco wrote about last month, is a $368 million bond measure to create a one-time fund to pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. This measure also had the strong support of the full committee, and Supervisor Avalos was confident it would pass next week at the full Board of Supervisors meeting. If it does pass, it will go before voters in November, and funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Next of up for both measures: Board of Supervisors meeting, Tuesday, July 14, San Francisco City Hall, Room 250.

Budget and Finance Committee file photo by Bryan Goebel

The 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Carmen Chu dissenting, followed a lengthy discussion in which Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos and Ross Mirkirami argued that the MTA budget was still woefully unacceptable, with all agreeing the rejection motion was the only way to get the MTA to budge some more. A procedural move at the last meeting allowed members to consider the motion again.

"We were able to get to where we got to yesterday because we had a measure before us calling for the rejection of the MTA budget," said Avalos. "I do think that we live in a political world and need to have this rejection measure before us in order to be able build the kind of pressure we might need to get some more changes."

Avalos said if there was anything flawed about the process over the last week it was that supervisors weren't being specific enough about changes and ideas they wanted to see in the budget, instead only criticizing what they thought was wrong with it. 

"I think if we have a process where we can come to some agreements that are specific and take those to the MTA and the Mayor and use the next week to discuss that somewhat further, we might be able to make a few other changes that can alleviate perhaps fare increases [and] service cuts that are alarming.”

Dufty, however, warned that continuing the debate over the MTA budget would unravel the Board of Supervisor's ability to reach an agreement on the city's budget. He refused to call the result of Chiu's negotiations with the MTA and the Mayor's office a compromise, instead referring to it as "adjustments in the budget." 

“There is a lot of anger out here, but let’s be real about it. We can’t make everyone happy," he said. "There’s no way you can cobble together the discontent across this city with our budget, specifically about the Muni budget, which frankly is in better shape than the city budget is."

After the budget committee's vote, Chiu told Streetsblog San Francisco he doesn't "expect any movement on this. I mean, we voted on exactly the same item yesterday."

In an interview shortly before the vote, he said: “I think the agreement that was reached was the best possible deal we could have gotten given the enormous financial and budgetary constraints that we’re under right now. $10.3 million dollars for Muni riders, I think, is a really good thing.”

Rather than caving in to the Mayor's office, as some advocates have suggested, City Hall sources say Chiu failed to secure Supervisor Sophie Maxwell's vote on the rejection motion, despite an intense lobbying effort, and felt the 11th hour compromise was second best.

Mirkarimi told Streetsblog he understands the politics behind the move but added: “I think that when we look at the aggregate budget deficit before us I think it would be highly premature for us to close the case on the MTA.”

Campos agreed that given the harsh feedback he's hearing from his constituents he feels compelled to do everything he can to force more changes in the MTA budget.

“There are still a lot of outstanding issues and I think that the people of my district, that the people who ride Muni on a daily basis, expect us to do better and I think that we have an obligation to do our best.”

Under the city charter, the Board of Supes has the power to accept or reject the MTA budget, but not to make line item changes. The rejection motion is expected to be considered again at next Tuesday's meeting, which is also the first time the MTA Board will meet since it passed its $778 million budget.

Updated 10:50 a.m.

San Francisco Supervisor Carmen Chu represents the Sunset District, which includes some of the city’s major thoroughfares: the Great Highway, 19th and Sunset avenues and Sloat Boulevard. She was appointed to her post by the Mayor in 2007 and elected last November.

Chu's main mode of travel tends to shape her views on transportation issues. She gets around mostly by car and only rides Muni a few times a month.  In a lengthy interview in her City Hall office, she expressed tepid support for studying a car-free Market Street, said she needs to study the Bicycle Plan before she "wholeheartedly" supports it, but hopes the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) will help overhaul Muni.

"I’m very, very happy that we were able to embark on the TEP process, the Transit Effectiveness Project.  We have for a very long time had a transit system that truly wasn’t reflecting what the changes in the demographics of this city were."

At the same time, Chu believes there is a parking shortage in the city. She recently voted to support a conditional use permit for a developer who wants underground parking for a condo complex at 299 Valencia above the ratio set in the Market/Octavia neighborhood plan, a sustainable blueprint that took ten years to craft.

"In San Francisco we do have a parking issue, whether people want to say that we can just ignore the parking issue and that people will eventually choose public transportation, there truly is a parking shortage, where people are kind of fighting for spaces.  In a situation where the parking was all underground...I didn’t see a problem with adding the additional parking spaces underground."

Chu also outlined some of the initiatives she has undertaken to improve streets and sidewalks in her district, particularly along corridors that have seen a high number of fatal pedestrian crashes.

The interview with me and reporter Matthew Roth was recorded on February 26, 2009.

Other highlights:

• On pedestrian safety in District 4: "We do face the challenges of how do you try to create an environment that is good for pedestrians when there are so many cars moving at high speeds.  On 19th Avenue we’ve worked very much in partnership with the state to try to provide additional benefits, making sure that we have pedestrian count down signals at some of our very, very busy intersections.  Providing for mass arms, which are basically more visible street lights so people can actually see it and stop, because there have been a number of fatalities that have occurred from collisions, people and car collisions, on 19th Avenue.  We’ve installed a left-hand turn signal on Sloat, which has been good to help facilitate car traffic there."
• On a car-free Market Street: "I would definitely consider it.  I think we need to take a look and see where we’re going to be diverting traffic otherwise.  So does it mean when we say ‘car free Market Street’ that that’s going to leave the Muni lines continuing to go through there, or does it mean no Muni line at all?  Does it mean cabs can go there, or cannot?  Private vehicles, does that mean that they get routed off to Mission Street, or other places, what is that traffic pattern going to look like?  I think that’s important to consider before just saying that you’re going to go on board with it. But we all know that Market Street is very congested, very many people already avoid Market Street to begin with if they are driving their own vehicles.  And so it’s worth taking a look at."
• On denser development in the Sunset: "I know that there has been some conversations about transit-oriented development that would mean higher density along the transit areas.  I would say that for me there would be a very big concern with moving forward with some of that, because I do know that if you were to have more dense development along say the two major corridors in our district, which would be the N Judah and the Taraval line, there are also residential spaces abutting. How do you deal with the increased amount of individuals who’d be living there?  What would you do with a lot of the parking issues that are already exacerbated?  To be frank, we see a lot of individuals right now who are driving out to the Sunset, parking their cars there to take the transit line. We see a lot of neighborhood concern with regard to that issue."
• On the Bicycle Plan: "I would say that I’m not as familiar with all the details of what the bike plan would entail, so before I would say that I’m wholeheartedly for the bike plan, I would like to take a look at all those details. But I would say in general I am supportive of being able to improve the safety experience of bicyclists.  I think that we are also very, very concerned with improving the safety for pedestrians, it’s just a different mode of travel.  And so how is it that we provide for sort of a more integrated, a more thoughtful, a more safe environment for a pedestrian, for a bicyclist, for automobiles."