Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Thomas Rogers

    I see a reply from Andy Thornley on another post (http://hoodline.com/2014/07/parking-for-private-car-shares-backlash-in-the-haight), which confirms data sharing:

    “Participating car share organizations (City CarShare, Zipcar, and Getaround) will pay monthly permit fees for the parking spaces, and they’ll have to collect and share a lot of data with the SFMTA about how the vehicles are being used, and who’s using them. At the end of two years we’ll evaluate the data and potentially recommend making on-street car sharing a permanent program, if the pilot experience so indicates.”

    Good to hear!

  2.  

    Dave Snyder, CalBike

    I think that the speed trap law limits an agency’s ability to enforce speed limits remotely (by radar or lidar or airplanes, or whatever) but not its ability to set speed limits. That is, a city could set a lower speed limit than justified by the engineering survey and the 85% threshhold; they just can’t practically enforce it.

  3.  

    guest

    City employees pay no attention to parking regulations. They
    park in bus zones, red, yellow, and white zones, in front of fire hydrants, on
    sidewalks, in the middle of the street, you name it and they’re there every day.
    They’re immune to parking tickets. They don’t have to pay the fines everybody
    else does. Take a photo of every city car you see parked illegally and send it
    in to the mayor and your supervisor. Send a copy to Streetsblog.

  4.  

    rfkolbe

    Why do we allow bikes? I ride bikes; but I know they can be a real threat to pedestrians. The rules for bikes on roads should be the same for cars as this issue is about more than traffic jams. It’s about safety for all.

  5.  

    rfkolbe

    They might have to actually talk with a tourist. I love talking to tourists as they come here from all over the world! They spend their money and share their culture with us.

  6.  

    rfkolbe

    I think the graphics at the top of this are good. There will be lots of noise against this from different moneyed interests. I walk by the spot in the Tenderloin along Polk Street where the mother and two children were hit by a driver. One child died; and mom and the other were badly hurt. This is a great city; what’s your hurry? Thanks for the report.

  7.  

    Dark Soul

    If you vote yes on whatever the ballot than you start seeing reduced service further

  8.  

    94103er

    You are right, of course. I was being deliberately lazy with my wording for dramatic effect.

    That said, a good many of the 36.6 percent of San Franciscans who drive alone to work every day do live in the Richmond. (If anyone can point to how that population’s broken down by neighborhood, thanks!). And not that carshare cars are appropriate for commuting, but I do still wonder why the Richmond continues to abound in transit alternatives and the southeast neighborhoods get forgotten. Same distance to downtown and likely a similar percentage of households that could go car-lite or car-free if there were more options. [And no, I don't think the T offers much by way of close access for many of these neighborhoods. Too much geographic variation aside from the problems that line has.]

  9.  

    baklazhan

    Everyone does not drive to work in the Richmond…

    The bus lines connecting the Richmond to downtown carry 100,000 people a day.

  10.  

    baklazhan

    I think that’s already a widely-held notion. I would rather replace it with the idea that all residents have an equal claim, not just those who own cars.

  11.  

    Patrick Z.

    Here’s my response to your post.

    1. Actually, study after study has shown that when you make a street more comfortable for bikes (including buffers and dedicated lanes), biking increases tremendously. Whether people chose to ride their bikes or not depends largely on perceived danger. This stretch of San Jose was pretty damn hostile to bikes. I used to ride it almost every day and it’s very scary to have a car zoom past you at 50 mph. So yes, as people discover that this route has been made safer, they will be more likely to ride it. And if you’re about to tell me that bikes could just take a different route, no. This is by far the flattest route through this area and, unlike when you’re driving a car, hills do matter. So creating this connection is vitally important to a citywide bike network.

    2. You’re right about balancing the needs of different stakeholders. Up until a month ago, the needs of drivers far outweighed the needs of everyone else. Now, it’s starting to seem a little more balanced though let’s acknowledge that drivers still take up 4 lanes, while Muni, bikes and pedestrians get two “lanes” each. Cars are not an efficient way of transportation and the city is trying to discourage people from using them since there is a finite amount of space that the city can devote to transportation. Driving your car to work is not a constitutional right (though in many places in this country it may feel like it) and everyone else shouldn’t have to sacrifice their needs so yours can be met.

    3. It’s interesting that you call people who leave nearby entitled for wanting calmer roads. I think as they are most directly impacted by this project, I would think that they are more entitled to have their opinions heard than someone who wants to zoom through the area twice a day. I’m also reminded of the fact that most drivers would drive through here going way above the speed limit. Is that an entitlement of yours, too?
    You also use the word inconvenience. It’s true that sitting in traffic for an extra 5-10 minutes is an inconvenience. It’s also not much more than that, however, especially compared to the positive benefits that greater cycling accessibility has on the city and nearby residents.

    No project will ever satisfy everyone. You live in a city, one of a only handful in this country, that has decided to reduce reliance on the automobile. If you don’t like that you can lobby the city, try to get pro-car folks elected, try to get a referendum passed, or you can move. In the meantime, I will enjoy the new bike lanes and feel so much safer riding down San Jose.

  12.  

    agvs

    Obviously he’s got that bad boy wired directly to a coal-burning power plant in China with his own private power lines running across the Pacific…

  13.  

    Bob Gunderson

    sorry you’ll need to buy a car instead and then bitch and moan when you can’t find a place to park it. Just blame it on bikers, somehow.

  14.  

    Thomas

    Yes, These spots were requested due to demand from the Car-sharing organizations. They are required to have at least 15% spots in Zones 2 and 15% spots in Zone 3 (the two rings outside of the downtown/Market St. area).

  15.  

    94103er

    Sorry if I’m out of the loop on this, but was this a request-driven process? [EDIT: Ah yes, now I see the word 'request' all over that map]

    I find it frustrating that the southern neighborhoods are neglected, as usual. Bernal Heights gets *two* Zipcar spaces? Portola, zero? Whereas in the Richmond, where everyone also drives to work but most people have working garages (which they often don’t use), on-street carshare will abound.

    It seems like the city’s attitude is that the poor and middle class will park their cars on their lawns and/or sit on slow buses no matter what, so why change anything? If they’re not careful, the NIMBY fear that new housing in the southeast will bring on traffic gridlock will be 100% true.

    EDIT: So perhaps this was entirely driven by requests. I have to wonder, though, if there’s a difficult-to-surmount information gap and/or other difficulties with lower-income, possibly immigrant households accessing the technology or not having sufficient credit, etc. And also, if the city doesn’t figure out other ways to bring car share to the southeast now, will new residents be willing to take a leap of faith and count on it in the future?

  16.  

    Jeff

    The Muni fare and pass increases go into effect on Sept. 1, actually.

  17.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Thanks Andy. Now, what do I need to do to get a city car share space on my block?

  18.  

    Thomas Rogers

    Does the project include SF getting data from the car share companies? It would be great if we could quantify actual demographic/customer data from this pilot- things like how many people were using these spots, were they new or existing car sharing users, had they previously owned a car or not, etc. That would be great stuff for figuring out whether to extend the pilot. Often, companies are reluctant to share their proprietary data, but SF has leverage here since it’s our right-of-way.

    A related question- is there a way to ensure that these spaces are additive, i.e., the car sharing companies aren’t using them as an excuse to cut leases with off-street spaces?

  19.  

    Andy Thornley

    Here’s an updated draft of the car share parking space proposal map, showing further adjustments as of 6/30/14:

    http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/CSO_Space_Requests_citywide_20140630.pdf

  20.  

    HappyHighwayman

    Patriotism requires more than buying a Hybrid car. Where does the electricity from said car come from?

  21.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Doesn’t your idea re-enforce the notion that each resident is entitled to a parking space and that they can do whatever they want with it? That said I’d be happy to “give up” my space so that I can have carshare on my block.

  22.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    The communication from AC Transit about the new fare structure has been about as clear as mud. I don’t even see how it’s supposed to speed boarding. The people who pay cash now will continue to pay cash, and will still be paying $2.10, and therefore groping around in their bottomless baggage for the dime while blocking the door. Maybe, MAYBE the discount will incentivize people to get Clipper cards, but I doubt it.

    I still don’t understand whether the transbay fare counts toward the $5 day pass. For example, if I ride round trip on a transbay bus ($8.40 fare) do I ride local buses free the rest of the day?

  23.  

    Anthony Eskinazi

    Hi Jym,

    ParkatmyHouse was launched a few years before ParkCirca.

    It doesn’t allow you to make money from the public highway.

  24.  

    Kevin J

    Wait, you mean the mayor who’s raising Muni fares to pay for free parking still isn’t satisfied and wants to park in bus stop. Why doesn’t he just shut down Muni so all those useless bus zones can be used for car parking.

  25.  

    Peter M

    But then what will Ed Lee do next time he wants a burritio?

  26.  

    roymeo

    Last story on Friday!

  27.  

    baklazhan

    If the criticism of this project is that it removes spaces from “public” use and turns them over to “private businesses,” it occurs to me that one way to pre-empt this would be to require the car sharing companies to find local residents to “donate” their share of street parking– something like “I, X, who am entitled to parking on this street, transfer my right to City Car Share”. Maybe have several people do it for each reserved space (since it’s reserved 24 hours a day).

    Doing this would probably be trivial (just ask the existing customers), and it makes the point that if everyone supposedly has an equal right to street parking, car share users are probably getting less than their share, rather than more.

  28.  

    LocalYokel

    I’m confused by this map. Can someone clarify…. several spots noted for Haight street itself.

    We have a number of parking lots (McDonalds, Kezar stadium) that already have leased spaces. Why wouldn’t these companies just take more of those spots in private lots?

    Is it because the city is selling spots for less?

    Also, how do we know which spots will be discussed in the City Hall hearings?

  29.  

    Bob Gunderson

    The war on cars (With cars) continues! Well played Bike Coalition, well played.

  30.  

    Jym Dyer

    Adding bulbouts doesn’t cut Muni service. Indeed, by keeping motorists from parking at bus stops, they can actually help.

  31.  

    sebra leaves

    Cutting Muni service and adding bulbouts does not cut it. Why don’t you train some of you overpaid planners to drive a bus. That is what is needed. Quit spending money shuffling Muni stops and stop signs.

  32.  

    shotwellian

    I’m happy to be proved wrong about my initial faith in stop signs — if the evidence shows, as apparently it does, that we can get rid of most stop signs on Haight and still calm traffic, that’s great, and I’m all for it.

    Again though, the plan as presented here will result–no matter how successfully traffic on Haight is calmed –in people on bikes waiting to turn left onto Haight no longer having the right of way, leading to excessive delays on a crucial bike route. I don’t see any way to avoid this problem other than a traffic light at Scott and/or Pierce.

  33.  

    davistrain

    I suspect that the interest in the Mayor’s motorcar had to do with the fact that it’s something visible and obvious. City budget discussions and zoning matters are really more important, but they involve columns of figures or lots of fine print, the sort of things that make most readers’ “eyes glaze over”. Many years ago, I read “Parkinson’s Law” by C. Northcote Parkinson; one chapter dealt with budget sessions and how deliberative groups would approve a $10,000,000 contract with little discussion, but spend the better part of an hour wrangling over a $750 item for a bicycle shed.

  34.  

    Jym Dyer

    Whatever’s under the hood, it’s a car doing car things. Like running over children and being parked wherever, because parking, ammIright?

  35.  

    Jym Dyer

    I would find it more Amazing!! if it were all about me.

  36.  

    Jym Dyer

    @MrEricSir – It’s not something that can be legislated, though a nonbinding resolution was passed to this effect some years back.

  37.  

    Jym Dyer

    ¤ ParkAtMyHouse sounds like a redo of something called ParkCirca, which encouraged people to park “in driveways” as well. Their guidelines actually made claims that it was okay to park on the sidewalk if a certain amount was left open, but in fact state law is clear that 100% of the sidewalk is not for parking on. ParkAtMyHouse’s website offers no such guidance, but widespread ignorance that the driveway ends at the sidewalk will surely lead to sidewalk-parking (and, with any luck, tickets).

    Most of the driveways in the eastern half of the city are too short to park in without encroaching on the sidewalk. There are longer driveways in the western half of the city, but parking demand is not as high.

  38.  

    Lee Ross

    Nice name I’m parked at the World Cup. I’ll respond later with a nuanced comment. Ciao

  39.  

    Jym Dyer

    Agreed. Check e.g. the AP style guide; journalists should be using neutral terms and “illegal” is not one.

  40.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Gezellig – I suppose anything could be made hilarious if vague enough to read whatever into it.

  41.  

    Jym Dyer

    @94103er – Nobody said that. Bla bla bla.

  42.  

    Jym Dyer

    @gneiss – The curb cuts are not owned by abutting property owners, though they and/or their tenants are their exclusive beneficiaries.

  43.  

    Jym Dyer

    @shotwellian – Again, traffic calming is an approach, not “devices.” Sometimes various treatments from the traffic-calming toolbox are thrown onto the ground and the result is called “traffic calming,” but that’s a misnomer.

    That said, STOP signs are just plain old ordinary traffic control devices, not traffic “calming” devices.

  44.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Caleb – The problem as I see it is that traffic calming is not “devices,” it is an approach. Too frequently we see “devices” thrown onto streets and the words “traffic calming” misused to describe the resulting obstacle course. Or something that starts as traffic calming gets redesigned by “stakeholders” (i.e. the people who scream loudest at meetings) and the approach is lost along the way.

    This is exactly what happened to the traffic circles on Page Street, a decade ago. They were a flop, and now people blame “traffic calming.”

    So I can fully understand being wary when the phrase is trotted out. Certainly true traffic-calming would be of great benefit, but which of the two different SFMTA proposals are we actually going to end up with some version of?

  45.  

    Jym Dyer

    Let’s not forget the no-longer-rail-ready BRT slated for Geary, a rail corridor.

  46.  

    Jym Dyer

    Car storage is car storage, and takes up too much space. Shuffling the word “share” around doesn’t challenge anything worth challenging.

  47.  

    voltairesmistress

    So basically, you have read many explanations but remain unconcerned and utterly unchanged in your point of view. Do you enter into debates solely to stick to your original assertions? Or do you want to learn from political discussions and gain a more nuanced view? Seems to me the whole point of engaging in commentary is to learn what matters to others. Otherwise I could just mutter privately over my morning coffee and newsfeed.

  48.  

    Anthony

    get over it. If it’s signed for vehicle parking, then it’s for vehicle parking. Get a life.

  49.  

    Jame

    Every study on freeway construction shows that even when highways are widened, congestion continues. Sure for a couple weeks traffic is flowing great. But new lanes attract new riders which cause congestion. It is a never ending cycle, that’s why options are essential. And most road users shouldn’t have to use the freeway to handle daily errands. That means our cities are poorly planned and poorly zoned. [http://www.fastcompany.com/1756746/building-more-roads-only-causes-more-traffic]

  50.  

    thielges

    Nice to see the NFOCC has good values defined for the improvements. If a 4 to 3 conversion is implemented this will make a great reference project for similar 4 lane roads, including the piece of Middlefield in Palo Alto. Currently many parts of Middlefield are really hostile to those outside of cars.