Today’s Headlines

  • Appeals Court Upholds Review of SF Bike Plan (SF Exam)
  • Supe Wiener Named Chair of Land Use Committee Ahead of Big Development Debates (SFGateSFBG)
  • In 9th Price Adjustment, 76 Percent of SFPark Meter Hours Drop or Stay the Same
  • SPUR Announces Its 2013 Transpo Agenda for SF, San Jose
  • SFMTA Wants to Name Central Subway Tunnel Boring Machines After Notable SF Women
  • Cupertino Woman Killed by Big-Rig Driver on North Foothill Boulevard (CBSSFGate)
  • Palo Alto Forum to Discuss Caltrain Electrification Effects on Crossings, Connectivity (Green Caltrain)
  • Richmond Ignoring Bike Lane Recommendation From Brand New Master Plan (EBBC)
  • Central Valley CAHSR Construction Bids to be Reviewed by Rail Authority (Merc)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anderson did not return requests for comment Tuesday.Hiding in shame, blocking comments to his blog. Good riddance.

  • Put your feeder away.  We’ve already told you “No, you can’t keep him, even if he does follow you home.”

  • The SFPark rate-change maps are missing some of the SFPark streets.  Townsend between 4th and 5th is SFPark on the west side (and visible here ) but missing from the chart on the last page of the rate change .pdf  and doesn’t seem to be in the spreadsheet, either.  I wonder how many other areas aren’t included.

  • Mario Tanev

    I like SFPark. But I dislike SFMTA’s attempts to obscure the net impact of the rate adjustment. The current rate adjustment lowers the rates on 21% of meter hours and raises them on 24% of meter hours. At first glance this looks like a net rate increase, although it’s hard to tell, because SFMTA bundles the stats of the 25c and 50c rate drops. I tried looking at the spreadsheet, and if we assume every block has the same number of meters as every other block, there is a net rate increase of about 1%, but I don’t think every block has the same number of parking spaces, so it’s hard to tell.

    It’s also not clear if by “meter hours” SFMTA means abstract meter hours regardless of use or it means utilized meter hours. If they mean abstract meter hours, then the user perceived rate increase would be even higher, since obviously the places where the rate goes up are more highly utilized.

    But there is no problem with rate increases. After all, they are accompanied with drops in parking fines, which is proven by the fact that SFMTA has experienced a slight drop in total revenues in SFPark zones.

    So I think SFMTA should really tout improvements in availability and turnover, and not make this a shell game on meter rates. The only argument on revenues that is bound to stick is that fines are going down, which is a good thing and overall SFPark has been almost revenue-neutral so far. The fact that rates drop in some cases can be used as a proof that utilization is indeed used as the metric, but SFMTA shouldn’t try to convince people that somehow meter prices are going down. That’s just a defensive position, and it’s not very defensible. SFMTA should go on offense and tout the actual improvements from SFPark.

  • Mario Tanev

    To wit: wouldn’t it be nice if SFMTA showed a statistic that says that the number of distinct uses (meter feeds after expiration, or even using the sensors to see if a new vehicle has landed) of a parking space went up by X%? What better argument for whether SFPark is working? To businesses it means that MORE people had the chance to visit their business, regardless of price.

  • Joel

    Note to SFMTA: Saturday meter maps should say “Saturday-Sunday”

  • voltairesmistress

    Does anyone know if or when SFMTA will replace old-style meters with SFPark smart meters that change price according to levels of use?  Lowering the price of blocks of empty meters would encourage motorists to use them rather than parking for 1-2 hours or more on neighborhood streets without any meters.  Metered Franklin Street, as just one example, has blocks of unused parking on weekends, while cross streets without meters to its west are chock full.  Seems like residents would really benefit.

  • 94103er

    Agreed. Whether you’re out for brunch or at the doctor’s office, an old-school meter with a one or even two-hour limit is useless. You’d think all the people who fear meters and think RPP will solve all ills would understand this–even if RPP means two-hour parking, your chance of being ticketed for exceeding that is so remote that it’s routinely abused.

  • mikesonn

    Speaking of RPP, did Sunday get added to the 2 hr limit in permitted areas? I don’t recall hearing anything about that.