Concrete Giveaway: Free and Exclusive Parking on the Public Street

gaven_street_no_parking.jpgThis public street has zero public parking spaces, due to private driveways.

Curb cuts, also known as driveways, theoretically provide vehicle access from the street into a private garage.  New development in San Francisco has been required to include off-street parking since the 50s, in an effort to ensure a convenient supply of on-street parking.  But as documented by Mary Brown’s comprehensive investigation in the Mission District, 49-percent of all residential garages are used for storage, not parking.

Moreover, a resident is permitted to park at the curb blocking his own driveway, whereas if someone else parked in front of said driveway, her car would be towed away.  In effect, the curb cut has become a reserved, free parking space on a public street, financed by the taxpayer.  Meanwhile, on-street parking is so scarce that people will kill for it

Curb cuts not only deplete on-street parking for shoppers and visitors who do not have their own driveway to occupy.  Curb cuts dramatically decrease the available space on the sidewalk for trees, street furniture, transit shelters, lighting, or any other use that could preclude car access.  Driveways also pose a safety hazard to cyclists and pedestrians, and decrease transit speeds when buses are forced to stop for driveway maneuvers.

Recent neighborhood plans have focused on increasing livability by flipping the previous parking minimums for new developments into parking maximums.  However, in most neighborhoods, the parking code still requires a developer to build an off-street parking space for every residential unit constructed, even a studio apartment.  Office space and commercial uses also have minimum parking requirements.  In fact, according to the planning code, once a parking space is constructed, it can never be removed!  It is well understood that requiring new housing construction to include off-street parking, along with prohibitions on converting existing garages into apartments, drive up the cost of new and existing housing.

Curb_cut_2.jpg

Despite the clear impacts curb cuts have, these is no mitigation fee for maintaining one.  Such a fee could help address the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s structural deficit ($100 million is the latest projection).  Decision makers are beginning to understand a curb cut’s true public cost; in November, the Board of Supervisors adopted Jake McGoldrick’s legislation, which imposed a minimum $100 per year fee on all newly constructed curb cuts.  However, the 200,000 existing curb cuts in the city are exempted.

To improve Muni’s budget, the agency chartered a Revenue Panel to investigate the feasibility of a variety of new revenue sources for the agency.  Ideas floated range from fare hikes and payroll taxes to bridge tolls and vehicle registration fees.  As the panel has evaluated options, most have been summarily dismissed as hostile to business or tourist interests.  A curb cut fee would not negatively impact business or tourism, and would complement the MTA’s innovative demand-responsive parking program, SFpark.

In January, the MTA Citizens’ Advisory Council, in forwarding recommendations to the Revenue Panel, advised that the panel study a curb cut fee, levied on all existing driveways and with proceeds benefiting the MTA.  The fee could be based on the number of parking spaces accessed by the curb cut, so that large parking structures pay proportionally more than a residential garage.  Residents with garages used for storage could opt out of the fee by painting their driveway brown, which would declare the curb cut as abandoned and free the curb space for public parking.  The CAC also recommended that staff study the elimination of minimum parking requirements in the planning code.

Hopefully, the Revenue Panel will give consideration to a curb cut fee.  It would not negatively impact business or tourism, and could increase on-street parking.  In keeping with the City’s Transit First policy, it would discourage private auto use while raising funds for transit and streetscape improvements. 

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Parking Shared Cars Instead of Private Cars Isn’t Exactly “Privatization”

|
The SFMTA’s endeavor to reserve on-street car parking spaces for car-share vehicles has yielded complaints from some car owners who, ironically, decry the “privatization” of space currently used to store private cars. These folks don’t seem to acknowledge the extensive research showing that each car-share vehicle replaces, on average, nine to 13 privately-owned cars. They should […]
STREETSBLOG USA

More Affordable Housing, Fewer Driveways

|
As Minneapolis considers dropping parking minimums for residential developments near transit, Seattle may soon be talking about doing away with driveways for single-family houses. Erica C. Barnett at Seattle Transit Blog writes that Mayor Ed Murray’s committee on affordable housing and urban livability has drafted a proposal to replace single-family zoning with a new designation that would […]
STREETSBLOG USA

Curb Appeal

|
Alan Durning is the executive director of Sightline. This post is #15 in the Sightline series, Parking? Lots! Imagine if you could put a meter in front of your house and charge every driver who parks in “your” space. It’d be like having a cash register at the curb. Free money! How much would you collect? Hundreds […]

Eyes on the Street: The Mean Sidewalks of San Francisco

|
This home’s beauty, like most in the city, is not on display for pedestrians, those most likely to look at it. San Francisco is renowned for the beauty of its its Victorian homes almost as much as its rugged seaside setting. But with most buildings in the city, the architectural grace starts at the second […]