Today’s Headlines

  • SFMTA’s Ed Reiskin Hopes to Quell Parking Meter Furor at Hearing Today (SFBG, KQED, SF Exam)
  • Reiskin: We Can’t Keep Starving Muni of Funding (SF Examiner)
  • C.W. Nevius on Polk: “Reality is There Isn’t Enough Parking” (SFGate)
  • Why Are Announcements on Muni Often So Hard to Understand? (SFGate)
  • Bill From CA Assemblymember Ting Would Create Signs Alerting Drivers of Senior Pedestrians (AsianJ)
  • Photos: Illegal Parking Around SF (SFGate)
  • Copenhagenize’s List of Top 20 Bike-Friendly Cities Doesn’t Include Any From U.S. (Bay Bikers)
  • Harvard Names SFPark One of the Top 25 Innovations in Government (City Insider)
  • Will BART’s Ban On Unruly Passengers Extend to Political Protestors? (RT)
  • Pleasant Hill BART Spreads Leaflets on Proper Bike-Locking Techniques (Patch)
  • Attorney: Cyclists Can Receive Compensation From Driver Even if Passenger Doored Him (SF Exam)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • mikesonn

    I really like Ed, but he should not be conducting these meetings. The SFMTA pays people a lot of money for public relations/outreach. LET THEM DO THE TALKING!

  • Mario Tanev

    What does “not enough parking” mean? It means demand for travel and business by car is suppressed by lack of availability. An easy way to improve availability of parking WITHOUT requiring extra space is to charge a market rate for the price of parking, i.e. SFPark. Under the most aggressive scenarios, 6% of parking spaces is to be repurposed. With 15% auto mode share, that equates to 0.9% basis points suppression of travel.

    What does lack of protected bike lanes mean? It means demand for travel and business by bicycle is suppressed by lack of availability. There is no easy way to improve this without taking space. Installation of protected bike lanes increases bike travel by 50% to 100%. Assuming the lower number, and with 6% bike share, the increase corresponds to 3% basis points increase in travel.

    So we’re talking about reducing travel by 0.9% (which can be easily mitigated by using market rate pricing) and increasing it by 3%, and some how the clamor is that there is “not enough parking? No, it should be that there are not enough protected bike lanes.

  • mikesonn

    Math. The SFMTA just needs to step up and put the numbers out there. “These are the stats. These are the current travel patterns. This is how they will be impacted. You will see more customers with this option. Now, we are the professionals and we are going to do this because, based on the numbers/facts provided, it is the best overall use of the public right of way.” Conversation over.

  • Anonymous

    1000 times yes!! that was my impression of the Open House. The level of discourse was all emotional and transportation planning should be fact driven.

  • In essence I agree with this, but Americans are notoriously bad with math. The baby boomer generation especially had poor math and science instruction as children, with the result that very, very few now have any acquaintance with physics, calculus, or even basic statistics. Throw a decimal point at them and their eyes glaze over. So they are unlikely to comprehend numerically-based arguments even if they are presented with them. If there is also a complete unwillingness to believe any facts no matter how simply presented (a pie chart?), it becomes almost hopeless. Worse, some people really would rather have polluted, noisy, filthy, congested, dangerous, crime-ridden streets than walk a few blocks or pay an extra 50 cents a couple times a week. Their math isn’t bad, their values are.

    I completely agree the SFMTA should make their decisions based on legitimate analysis, not citizen fear or greed–after all, one assumes traffic engineers are capable of basic quantitative calculations. And that then the SFMTA should stick to that decision unless they can be shown their math is wrong. (Perhaps there are variables they haven’t considered.) But it would take buy in from both the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors that, yes, reality-based analysis is the way traffic planning decision in San Francisco get made, not via pitchfork community meetings. I think this is the core problem.

  • mikesonn

    Do we need to make sure the Save Polk types understand? Their stupidity (or whatever you want to call it) should not hinder my safety.

  • The Catch-22 they don’t seem to get, is that in order to add MORE parking we’d need to build parking garages which would require us to remove retail, thus removing the need for all that parking. It is always thus.

  • davistrain

    Regarding “Banning protestors from BART”: The Constitution affirms the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”. If someone wants to ride BART to the SF Civic Center to protest whatever is bothering them, I don’t see a problem. If on the other hand they are causing a disturbance, and interfering with the normal activities of law-abiding citizens, there’s no reason why BART (or Muni) should tolerate this kind of behavior. Likewise, individual troublemakers should not be allowed to make everyone in the vicinity miserable.