Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Lee Ross

    I will never again vote for any bond issue promoted by Mayor Lee. I totally agree there is nothing you can do to placate motorists. They want it all. Streets totally given over to cars with free parking. This Mayor is a total disaster and regrettably we will probably have to suffer through his banal administration until the end of 2019. Where are the Progressives? Too busy protesting the Google shuttle, I guess.

  2.  

    murphstahoe

    the money disappear into SFPD work orders

    FYP

  3.  

    murphstahoe

    I won’t go that far because some have been forcibly removed from the City and they have friends in the City. Then again, I was “forcibly removed” from the City and I have new friends. Hmm.

  4.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    Any church dependent on out-of-town parishoners is a dead church within five years. Any one who has moved out of town is best off creating connections to the community they now live in. We are doing no one favors bending over backwards to abet city churches to have suburban congregations. If you like your city church, maybe that’s a good reason not to move from the city. If you have to move from the city, maybe that’s a good time to find a new church.

    We’ve used inexpensive transportation provided by cheap gasoline to try to solve all sorts of social and personal problems, from bussing to drive-till-you-qualify homeownership. It’s just not going to be possible in the future. We need to solve these issues another way.

  5.  

    twinpeaks_sf

    You really might be worried now about the support from the livable streets contingent for these measures. I for one am sick and tired of throwing money at the SFMTA every few years to see nothing change and the money disappear into endless studies, environmental reviews, and outreach. I need to know the SFMTA’s already bloated budget is being used wisely – which from the lack of progress on almost all fronts, I’m not sure I can do.

  6.  

    murphstahoe

    Also – the bonds. Vote no on the bonds. SFMTA will then have 2 choices. Cut service drastically or charge motorists more. I like dumping that choice in their lap.

  7.  

    murphstahoe

    I’m not on the wrong side of history. I’m on the right side of the General Motors – Mike Carabee

  8.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    I don’t know that she’s playing devil’s advocate so much as she’s playing Fillmore advocate. It’s no secret that her positions are primarily founded in the views of her base and then occasionally stretch from there. She’s dancing with the one who brought her.

  9.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Good point!

  10.  

    Karen Lynn Allen

    There is a political game called being on the wrong side of history. When a politician panders to car owners (at the expense of non-car owners), a buzzer goes off, a light flashes red, and he/she is disqualified from future office. It’s an exciting game. I’m sure we can get many contestants to play.

    So don’t have any bond measures. Simply daylight every intersection, lower vehicle speeds on most streets, and install protected bike lanes according to the bike plan. For the amount of curb space left after this, each year auction off, by neighborhood, permits for public parking to those who wish a space. (The permits should vary in price depending on length of car.) But don’t auction off more permits in a neighborhood than curb space exists to accommodate them. (This current practice of the SFMTA is quite cruel.) Use this parking rent money plus all the additional money dropping into SF city coffers from property taxes due to new construction to fund a reasonable transit system.

    Real estate has value. A parking space contains valuable real estate. We all collectively own our street space just as we own our parks. It is entirely fair to charge a market-based rent on its use and have that money go towards the good of all. If state law stubbornly prevents this, then have a lottery for parking permits (all San Franciscans can enter!) and allow winners to sell their permits. This will also create a market-based price for parking, only the rent will accrue to lucky individuals rather than the whole. This would still be fairer than what is happening now.

    Our property taxes should fund and maintain infrastructure in this city. This is why we agree to pay them. (That and the law.) Transit is infrastructure. Sidewalks are infrastructure. Bike lanes are infrastructure. Just as we don’t subsidize self-storage units for people who have an extra couch, we should not be funding private car storage.

  11.  

    murphstahoe

    This is odd.

    The biggest opponents of Sunday meters are church leaders. They claim they have a lot of parishoners who have moved out of the city but come back on Sundays to their old church to get that connection to their community. We are going to repeal Sunday meters in large part to try to pass a bond measure. But the primary constituency that “benefits” from free meters lives outside the City and can’t vote on the measure.

    Do I get that right?

  12.  

    Mario Tanev

    I propose that we use different language to describe “free parking”. “fully-subsidized parking”, “publicly subsidized parking”, “full public subsidy parking” and so on are more appropriate names.

  13.  

    murphstahoe

    Dude – do you have to curse so much….

  14.  

    MrEricSir

    [Henderson] pointed to the case of a sidewalk extension at Market and Dolores Streets that replaced several parking spaces and part of a traffic lane. Some of the most ardent opponents are now fans of the mini plaza outside the new condo building and Whole Foods Market, he said.

    The best part is the new crosswalk — it bridges a gap that was kind of terrifying to cross before. Funny how a couple small tweaks can have such a big impact.

  15.  

    mikesonn

    Breed is trying to play devil’s advocate, much like the reason she left twitter. Grow up and be an adult already, you’re a damn elected official.

  16.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Which is odd since you’d think there would be at least some overlap between Christens and Muni riders, wouldn’t you?

  17.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Local control defeats the purpose of holistic parking management and murphstahoe is not very far off from one of the problems solved by SF Park. There were two successful pilot projects which preceded and helped shape SF Park which were conducted jointly by the Port Authority and the SFMTA.

    One of the problems they both faced was the odd mishmash of who owned what property lead to wildly different policies, hours, and rates from block to block, that lead to a lot of circling and of traffic. As a result the parking around Fisherman’s Wharf is all unified under SF Park which optimized for 15% availability per block (1-2 spaces normally) by adjusting the price up or down. The proven principal is that a lot of drivers will choose to drive an extra block or two in order to pay less (or nothing) so the price get rejiggered every six weeks, up or down no more than 25¢ until it evens out around that 15% number. Hurray for the free market!

    Because of how SF Park works if you start offering neighborhood CBDs a cut of the revenue, there’s a chance that’s a negative number.

    I know that’s a lot of history, but…

    I do think you’re totally onto something with incentivizing neighborhoods to embrace SF Park. Promising revenue could end up looking deceitful, but what could the SFMTA offer for expanding SF Park? Bay Area Bike Share Stations? Some kind of neighborhood improvement grant the neighborhood could decide how to spend? Prioritizing TEP projects for the neighborhood?

  18.  

    jd_x

    MaceKelly: it’s not 1995. You need to get over your past association between bicycling and Critical Mass. Bicycling has exploded beyond that and we have moved into an era were bicycling is being done by people who just want to ride as a form of transportation and aren’t trying to be part of some alternative culture.

    But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that somebody who thinks our cities should be designed around cars instead of people — an anachronistic idea — thinks that bicycles = Critical Mass. You gotta wake up and look around at who is riding bicycles and get over your past stereotypes.

  19.  

    Dark Soul

    Very Interesting……..

    This is not about research is depending what San Francisco people want so let see which side wins the vote (Either Free or Remain Paid Meter)

    Discussion or Opinions is not needed. They decided to go for the good side.

  20.  

    visitthis

    And SFPD. And where are cries from the SFFD about blocking lanes that we heard when bulb outs were recently being proposed? Total pandering and the usual SF political hijinks. Politicos pandering for votes and bureaucrats sacrificing the greater good to their own self interest.

  21.  

    jonobate

    Anyone who uses “I was here first!” as part of their argument has already lost it.

  22.  

    Mario Tanev

    Dark Soul,

    Here is where you are wrong.

    You think a lot of car drivers see a metered spot, but ignore it roaming for free parking. Certainly there are some drivers who do that.

    But the data overwhelmingly shows that there are significantly more drivers unable to find a spot, thus roaming for any parking spot, free or paid. The research shows that FEWER drivers roam for parking when there are meters, because there are no overnight parkers and shoppers tend to do their errands faster.

  23.  

    Mario Tanev

    No, the Church leaders demanded they be allowed to double park for free, in addition to free parking.

  24.  

    jonobate

    Sure. Let the Chinatown CBD do that for a few months, and then watch them reverse it once they realize that no-one can visit their neighborhood because so many people have parked their cars there for free. Let the cost of doing it hit their budget and affect their neighborhood directly rather than hitting the MTA’s budget and spreading the cost over the whole city in a less measurable way.

    As many board members said at the meeting, the SFMTA has failed to convince people of the benefits of market based parking pricing. We don’t have to support free parking to acknowledge that this is the case. So if we are confident of our arguments we should let the neighborhoods try themselves, fail themselves, and learn the lessons in a more tangible way.

    The biggest argument against this idea is that the CBDs are not always democratic, yet they would now be in charge of an additional aspect of public life. Another point is that the negative impacts of free parking are not confined to the neighborhoods – for example, if Chinatown had free parking you’d see more traffic heading through North Beach to get there, and the 30-Stockton would get bogged down in even more traffic. But hopefully those impacts would only be temporary until the neighborhood figured out the high cost of free parking, to coin a phrase.

    Just throwing it out there as an idea.

  25.  

    murphstahoe

    I can just see the ads now – “VISIT CHINATOWN ON SUNDAYS! THE ONLY FREE PARKING IN SF”

  26.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Last time I checked Campos is not the same person as Avalos.

    I would say both Wiener and Avalos have been more consistent than the other supes, although not about the same things. Chiu and Campos are both spineless and Breed is almost always a wild card.

  27.  

    murphstahoe

    Yeah, I grimaced when I hit send. Wiener went so far as to send out a mailer when he was running for Supervisor saying that he would not extend parking meter hours. Inexplicable. He’s also been an opponent of the Free MUNI for Youth program which to me pencils out easily.

    You just can’t win around here. Wiener voted for the toll increase on the Golden Gate Bridge to help fund transit, and Campos/Breed voted against it, making the same nickel and dime argument that Lee is using – applying mostly to rich Marin commuters. Campos has been an opponent of new meters in the Mission which really could use them.

    These guys are nothing if not inconsistent, but Wiener to me is the most consistent.

  28.  

    coolbabybookworm

    Interesting idea, that’s a big part of Shoup’s suggestions for better parking as far as I understand. By using the money to benefit the neighborhood it’s easier to get local buy in. Getting something like that done in this town though would not be an easy task I’d imagine.

  29.  

    coolbabybookworm

    except it’s the opposite because there is no parking turnover without meters. Also, the Chamber of Commerce for San Francisco supports Sunday meters.

  30.  

    Dark Soul

    Free Sunday Parking Meters simply just give business support. Bike people don’t need worry about car drivers desperately cutting bike people off just to roam for a parking space

  31.  

    coolbabybookworm

    What’s his position on parking meters?

  32.  

    Kevin J

    And speaking of bikes and parking, just today alone two cars were parked in bike boxes so I had to queue up ahead of them in the crosswalk. In Portland this was a rarity, but they also stencil “Wait Here” so that cars won’t park in them.

  33.  

    jonobate

    I’m wondering if the way forward is for the MTA to offer local control of the meters to the various CBDs around the city. The MTA would charge a monthly fee per meter transferred to the CBD, set at a rate so that the scheme is revenue neutral for the MTA. The CBD would then be free to adjust rates and hours however they wanted using the SFPark technology. They could subsidize free parking, in the same way that they subsidize other services such as street cleaning and security; or they could charge market rate and use the surplus revenue to fund other improvements.

    By putting control of the meters in the neighborhood and keeping revenues in the neighborhood, people would be able to see directly the benefits and consequences of various pricing schemes. It would also insulate the MTA from charges that they are nickle-and-diming people and push the controversial decisions to the CBDs instead. It would be interesting to see what would happen.

  34.  

    murphstahoe

    At risk of drawing the ire of the further left elements… “Run, Scott, Run”

  35.  

    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    I’m taking suggestions for the sign I’ll be carrying on Bike to Work Day this year. So far my favorite is: Avalos for Mayor

  36.  

    murphstahoe

    One thing I find interesting. Apparently the people pushing for changes are newcomers.

    The “long time residents” think 2 things
    1) they know better than the newcomers
    2) MUNI is a horrible, unreliable money sinkhole

    If the newcomers pushing for changes are so new, on whose watch did MUNI become such a horrible, unreliable money sinkhole, and why should we consider their viewpoints to be of value?

  37.  

    murphstahoe

    “acting like the own the streets”

    Acting like I owned the streets? If I owned the streets, you’d know it…

    http://bikeyface.com/2014/04/03/if-i-owned-the-road/

  38.  

    NoeValleyJim

    My only problem with car drivers are the ones who speed, drive distracted, park illegally and risk the life of everyone else on the road. In other words, all of you.

    Good luck forcing me out, I own my own home. San Francisco is changing for the better, get used to it.

  39.  

    murphstahoe

    I was riding my bicycle in the city long before you came

    Riding in your living room as a toddler doesn’t count.

  40.  

    Michael Morris

    but you are harboring for a return to the past, something that almost never works. You can delay change but you can’t stop it, Daly City will not become livable overnight and people will continue to move to SF.

  41.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Would that be quartering? Oh, wait… that already has a different meaning.

  42.  

    mikesonn

    She may feel she has “reasons” though which is why I asked. Her “reasons” are probably emotions, but they need to be addressed regardless.

  43.  

    the_greasybear

    Richard, they have invisible *super* friends. Big difference!

    Seriously, might the ACLU take interest in a government practice granting Christian church-goers special immunity from the consequences of intentional lawbreaking that is unavailable to all other people?

  44.  

    Richard Mlynarik

    It’s a form of welfare for the mentally ill. Compassionate conservatism!

    Whether people with imaginary invisible friends who hear voices in their heads should be allowed to drive is a larger question.

  45.  

    the_greasybear

    Reasons? Ha ha. This person is an “anti”–anti-bike, anti-growth, anti-metering, anti-newcomers, anti-everything–and the “anti” is all about emotion, not reasoning.

  46.  

    Matthew Petty

    I came to SF from the UK to work on rail projects. I use the Bike Share service, which makes me a “new cyclist”. I obey the road laws. I don’t believe I own the streets, but I believe I am entitled (yes, entitled, in the most literal sense) to be able to use the roads that my taxes help pay for and that belong to everyone, and to do so safely. Do I have your permission to stay in your city?

  47.  

    Bruce Halperin

    I assume Muni is now free on Sundays as well?

  48.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I’m second generation, which means my opinion counts double right?

  49.  

    MaceKelly

    Hi newcomer. 21 years is no big deal; I was riding my bicycle in the city long before you came, and I drive too. My only problem with the bicyclist groups is things like Critical Mass, which is little more than mob behavior, and the way all the new cyclists disobey all the traffic laws, acting like the own the streets. The special interests groups disregard others too much. Go back where ever you came from, or learn to get along with others.

  50.  

    Jamison Wieser

    In reality fare enforcement isn’t a source of revenue. Officers just do not catch enough fare evaders, and there’s an extra cost if the person challenges it. The point is really that random checks will increase compliance and fare-box returns, even if fewer tickets are being written.

    In fact enforcement was one of the ways SFMTA measured the effect of all-door boarding when it was first run as a pilot project on four corridors. The point there was to reduce the time vehicles are stopped as the board passengers.

    Some of the people seen “sneaking” onboard have month passes loaded on their Clipper Cards, they simply don’t want to pull them out. If someone is carrying a valid pass in their wallet, it may be for the best they don’t delay a train or bus by pulling it out.