BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Help Children Have a Merry Xmas While Receiving a Lap Dance
Photo by Albert Huynh on Flickr
We admit that headline may be a little sensational... but Steven T. Jones, writing one of several inter-related pieces on the politics of parking in this week's SFBG, argues that the city is only now starting to put its money where its mouth is with regard to the "transit first" policy adopted decades ago. In short, the SFMTA is rolling out a new pilot program in the fall called SF Park which will take 6,000 parking spaces -- both on-street and in lots -- and monitor their use in order to adjust pricing based on scarcity and demand. The idea is to discourage driving into the most popular parts of town where, allegedly, adequate transit should exist to get you there -- this in an era of Muni service cuts.
We're all for discouraging the use of cars, but only if transit services *increases*. There are already wide swaths of this town we don't go to much because we can't bear to spend over an hour waiting for and riding a bus to get there.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Not just more service but FASTER service. Transit service is way, way too slow right now.
Also, if you want people to drive less, stop increasing the price of public transport, you mumping idiots.
Why does anything have to be about forcing people to drive less? I like to drive. I enjoy driving in the city and as long as I have lived here, I have been able to navigate my way across the city in about 15 minutes or less to multiple neighborhoods. Finding parking has never been an issue. I hate taking the stupid MUNI. You can literally walk along a 'Looney' route and get to your destination faster than the bus takes to pick you up.
I am really getting sick of living in a place where the BOS get paid to constantly think up stupid laws and legislation that socially engineer their constituents to think and do as they please. Stop telling me where i can drive my car or how much to drive it. I bought the car legally, i pay to park it legally, so leave me the frick alone.
In the meantime knock on the poop stained door of your absentee mayor and start getting this dirty, filthy city cleaned of piss-soaked bums and other malfeasances.
You drive a car and are therefore an enemy of the planet. If it were legal, Chris Daly would show up at your home, take your car and hire a local artist to turn it into an exhibit at the Civic Center.
for the most part, i completely agree. i just spent 9 months in Hong Kong, where i didn't drive a car once, and didn't miss it. that's because they actually have a public transportation system. They have 10 times more people, yet less traffic. Also, 4 of the 5 modes of public transportation use the same electronic payment system. i realize that sf can't replicate this, since our population is too small to make such an amazing transportation system viable. but something more could be done.
in the mean time, i'm going to drive.
if i want to go to 3 locations across the city in one afternoon, i sure the hell am not going to wait for 7 busses to do so.
i'd love to ride a bike, but i am a: too scared, b: too weak to go up sf's hills, and c: wouldn't have a place to put passangers or groceries...or musical equipment.
"I bought the car legally, i pay to park it legally, so leave me the frick alone. "
You pay nowhere near the true cost of owning a car. Every store you drive to you get a free (roughly) $50,000 parking space to put your car in. Ditto for street parking. Even metered parking is underpriced. Plus you slow down MUNI, cause everyone to breathe carcinogenic particulates, take up a lot of space (whether parked or not), increase real estate costs, etc. What if everyone was like you and wanted to pay to drive everywhere -- total gridlock would ensue. If we're going to live in a dense city we're all going to have to share, and that means taking public transportation. It's a bunch of crap how cheap driving a car is in the city is relative to the costs that everyone has to incur.
Dude, well said. Agree 100%.
I am sympathetic to your complaints about our overactive and meddlesome local government. But the argument is fairly simple: driving cars in the city imposes externalities on others. It slows down traffic, it requires that we subsidize it requires massive government subsidies in the form of the use of city owned land for street parking spots and wide roads to accomodate the traffic it creates, it causes noise and pollution, etc.
I think we can reasonably debate whether it is worth the expense of trying to force people to internalize these costs. We can also, no doubt, point out that public transit is also publicly subsidized (though I would argue to a lesser extent than driving). But to express confusion about why anyone would think that your driving imposes any externalities at all, seems disingenuous.
i don't know if you've run numbers on this, but the money the DPT brings in, including meters, is pretty sizable.
many of the roads in san francisco were created before the use of cars....
and what would street parking spots be used for... other than more lanes for traffic?
i could argue that many things people do are imposing externalities on me.
i really think pollution is the only reasonable argument you have.
also, public transportation's public subsidization is sure more than what the city "spends" on "driving".
I'd be careful of making pulling out of your butt suppositions as to what the City spends on public transit vs. cars. Yes, there were roads existing for a while - but those roads wear down with some frequency. Repairs (and upgrades) paid for by the City and not by drivers.
There is also the issue of the publicly owned land taken up by pakring spaces. If those spaces did not exist (and thus less traffic on the streets), the space would not necessarily be used for more roads. Instead, it could be used for far more positive public uses - like wider sidewalks and NARROWER streets which would encourage more pedestrian activity, which would have have a positive benefit for street level retail.
"like wider sidewalks and NARROWER streets which would encourage more pedestrian activity, which would have have a positive benefit for street level retail."
This concept seems to be popular with a few people on here.
As someone who worked in street level retail, I know it was the accessibility of parking, and not the width of the sidewalk that effected our business. Every hour someone would complain that there was not enough parking. That the parking was too expensive, and frequently only an hour was given at the meter.
i personally think local businesses would benefit from more and cheaper parking. lunch spots would definitely benefit from 2 hour meters.
as far as causing more traffic is concerned, that is definitely an issue. but i still say that until public transportation is improved i'm gonna stick to driving.
The amazing thing about retailers is they all think more and cheaper parking is going to get them more customers.
Guess what, guys. Long, cheap parking will all be eaten up by cars that don't move, so no one will be able to find parking easily.
It's simple supply and demand. If you want your customers to be able to park, there need to be free spaces. To get free spaces, you're going to have to raise the price of parking. That's what SFMTA is trying to do.
You gotta at least give me traffic congestion, too. Come on!
Muni slows down traffic. Bikers weaving in and out of lanes and disobeying traffic laws slows down traffic. Homeless skid, amputee, wheelchair-bound bums wheeling into the street, slows down traffic. Ballgames at ATT Park slow down traffic. I fail to see the logical connection of you singling out car traffic in this.
wait wait wait, you're saying that muni, bicyclists and the homeless are as much to blame for traffic as cars? are you really saying that?
(also ballgames cause traffic because people drive to them. in cars.)
Yes I am saying that. Are you telling me that of all those variables, simply removing ONLY CARS would solve the traffic issues? HA!
REDUCING the number of cars on the road would:
- increase speed of traffic for cars/trucks
- increase speed of MUNI/mass transit
- encourage bicycling further reducing number of cars on road
While we are all very proud of you for purchasing and upkeeping your car, it'd be great if others in your position didn't drive every day or take all transit planning as some affront to their awesome 6-cylinder lifestyle.
Cheers.
yes. are we really debating this? really?
if cars suddenly vanished from san francisco, and all we had on the street were buses and bicyclists, congestion would not be an issue (this is hypothetical, not a proposition). how could it be?
this is silly, because rather than having this discussion, you could step outside and watch traffic for a minute or two and come to this conclusion. it's not really subjective. how many buses are actually out on the street at any given time vs cars or bicycles?
i mistyped: how many buses or bikes are actually out on the street at any given time vs cars?
"what would street parking spots be used for... other than more lanes for traffic?"
bike lanes, transit-only lanes, wider sidewalks. any number of things that would improve the city.
I would like to add that if there were fewer cars and less traffic, entire streets could be closed. They could be turned into parks, pedestrian malls, or even in some instances developed into housing. Look, for example, at Octavia street now, which I understand used to be a highway. Each acre of land that the city owns that is now a street represents a car subsidy (and, yes, to a lesser degree a bicycle subsidy since they use it too). What is the market value of all that land? Certainly, it is enormous.
Here's me rant:
If you claim to live a car-free life, you don't. All that stuff you consume, the drycleaning, the dogwalker, that cake you ate, your friends that pop in from out of town, the blokes who turned up at your meeting so you can earn money and have a job—they all arrived by gasoline-powered transportation. People like me who pay for, tax, and insure our vehicles are subsidizing you, not the other way around.
If you work in a real industry and do a job that involves clients, deadlines, budgets and all that good stuff it is impossible to have a functioning work day in this city without a car.
The number one cause of traffic congestion is drivers from out of town. People who are not used to driving in an urban environment take their sweet ass time to navigate the streets and clog them up for those of us who actually have to be somewhere on time. What we need is more car crime aimed specifically at people who drive cars with Walnut Creek Toyota license plate holders.
The number one cause of traffic congestion is drivers from out of town.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this (or your rant as a whole), but I found it a little ironic in that I'm one of those people in the city who owns a car but really only drives it when I'm heading out of SF for whatever reason (again, I'm not saying that's a good or entirely bad thing)...I suspect there's a fair number of us here.
Exactly. It's not a crime to drive, however you do it. It is a crime to label all car drivers the enemy when you (not actually you) live a life totally dependent on other people driving cars to sustain it. And it is a crime to tool around the city in a minivan not paying any attention to the light that is about to turn red. And it's a crime to drive one of those crappy mini SUVs, but that's just my personal beef with the world.
I don't think anyone here has said it is or should be a crime to drive. I think the point is that driving imposes externalities that, in an ideal world, would be internalized.
I would be curious if anyone has any stats on what percentage of car traffic is actually people from out of town. Even if it were the case that it is people from out of town that compose the majority of traffic, I'm not sure of the relevance. Certainly both people from in and out of town should internalize the costs of their behavior.
Not only the stats on what percentage of car traffic is actually people from out of town, but also the percentage of trips made that are single destination errands, ie take the car from home--> one stop--> back home.
I will admit that if you have more than one errand in different parts of town that its a hassle to public transportation it, but unless its your weekly grocery shopping, I imagine 805 of trips are just as doable by bus as car.
And for the life of me, of all areas of town, I cannot imagine why ANYone would EVER drive downtown.
Not only the stats on what percentage of car traffic is actually people from out of town, but also the percentage of trips made that are single destination errands, ie take the car from home--> one stop--> back home.
I will admit that if you have more than one errand in different parts of town that its a hassle to public transportation it, but unless its your weekly grocery shopping, I imagine 805 of trips are just as doable by bus as car.
And for the life of me, of all areas of town, I cannot imagine why ANYone would EVER drive downtown.
Yeah they have. when I read comments like, "Plus you slow down MUNI, cause everyone to breathe carcinogenic particulates, take up a lot of space (whether parked or not), increase real estate costs, etc." It's as though this person has been beamed from the 16th century. It's the same with the bike/car bun fights that people have on here.
as much as i enjoyed your last paragraph, i think your first two are a taking it a little far. many of those people on bart in the morning have "real" jobs. some jobs require a car, and i respect that, but let's not diminish everyone else. just because someone's food arrived by truck doesn't mean they can't be happy or proud about biking or taking public transit to work. all those people are making your commute a little easier, so give them a break.
Of course they can be happy about biking. But they can't point the finger at car drivers without accepting that their lifestyles partially contribute to the problem. I'm driving to get to work to design the widget that you will download to your iPhone so that you can find out what time the next bus is coming. I'm making a long-winded snake-eating-it's-own-tail kind of argument.
I think everyone understands the argument. The same can be said about the coal burning power plant. Sure, it imposes huge externalities on others, but the power that it generates is used to make products that all of us consume. But is that really an argument against taxing coal or implementing other measures to induce a coal power plant to internalize the costs of its pollution? I don't think so. To the extent people consume products that depend on car transit, a tax on car transit will likely be passed on to them through higher prices. So I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think that this debate is about "pointing fingers," and I would agree that such an activity is counter productive. But shouldn't the point of public policy be in part to internalize the costs of their own behavior?
If the kind of socialism you're talking about involves taxing private transportation so that only the rich can afford to drive, then I'm in. I think we all agree that it's the poor who are really causing the traffic problems. I'm not being sarcastic, they do drive slower than the wealthy. And by poor, I mean the average middle-class suburbanite in their leased sports activity vehicle.
If you claim to live a car-free life, you don't.
Um, yes I do. The supply chain may not, but I do. To quote a certain book/film, "You are not your fucking khakis."
If you really think so, that's nice.
My wife and I share one car - which means I ride occasionally in her car and grumble the whole time. Certainly I buy things that are transported in motorized vehicles (note - fizzandpop, my bike frame didn't come here in a prius or a hummer). I think we should tax the hell out of gasoline and parking and whatever, and I am fully aware that this would put a pinch in my budget. And I absolutely believe that this is the right thing to do and I'm willing to pay.
Internalizing the costs of motor transport by making the person or corporation doing the transporting will properly price the cost of transport and the cost of things that are transported. Buying decisions will be made on that basis. This is called "Capitalism". Not internalizing the costs of motorized transport and then paying for them collectively through taxes is called "Socialism".
fizzandpop you friggin socialist
That's not the issue at all; Jay gets it completely wrong. It's not entirely his fault, since the Guardian has taken a sensible policy of market-rate parking pricing and made it sound like a stupid crusade against drivers and polluters. Typical of that insta-recycled paper.
What's actually going on is the city is trying to force drivers to pay the real price of parking, with the consequences of increasing the real availability of parking and getting all those circling cars off the street. Which will allow Muni to run faster, and reduce pollution.
Read Streetsblog's articles about how this trial was inspired by the "high cost of free parking" theories (tested in the real world) of UCLA's Donald Shoup. The coverage there is much, much better: http://sf.streetsblog.org/?s=shoup