San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133
SFpark (sf-park) n.
The **Latest** SFpark News
Residents across San Francisco are saying that the SFpark Pilot is an EPIC FAILURE, run by a $20M grant from the Federal Highway Administration , SFpark has no Federal oversight, and has done little outreach to find out what businesses and residents need for parking in their community.
It's clear that SFpark doesn't have a clue about the community which it is serving, planting parking meters all over the city in an attempt to "regulate parking" that in many areas doesn't need regulating. Residents across the city are revolting against the draconian steps the SFMTA has taken to control city streets through programs that eliminate parking spaces, rearrange traffic flows and demand more money for parking fines and fees.
City Halls War on Cars is To artificially inflate consumer prices is not innovative, groundbreaking, or revolutionary. Its just plain wrong. . Residents have had enough of SFparks price-gouging, and market manipulation.
After noticing flyers early 2012 posted on street corners announcing SFMTA's intention to install meters in front of their homes, residents from Potrero Hill, Dogpatch and North East Mission, packed City Hall mid-January to protest. Neighbors quickly met and exchanged notes, vowing to fight MTA's plans to blanket the city with a new brand of parking meters: technology ‘smart’ meters. The “variable pricing” on the smart parking meters allows the city to charge motorists up to $6.00/hr. or up to $18.00/hr. for “special events”.
A review of how the smart meters were working in SOMA and along Townsend was part of what people riled up: plenty of empty spaces by parking meters left by Caltrans commuters. Also, residents of Potrero Hill and Dogpatch knew some streets previously slated for 2-hour parking signs and parking permits, were changed to be zoned for smart meters only. An injunction was filed.
Neighborhoods Unite 2012
Neighborhood groups then joined together with media coverage and a number of MTA and city officials, including three District Supervisors. The Director of MTA apologized for the lack of community outreach stating ‘we want to get it right,’ and offered to work with residents on a more palatable parking plan.
SFpark artificially inflates the cost of street parking so that only the wealthiest residents can park close to their destination. Low income and working class people have to public transit or park blocks away from their intended destination where parking is slightly cheaper.
The conflict centers on some assumptions the MTA makes that residents question:
1. MTA is authorized to control the streets;
2. No one has the right to free street parking
3. San Francisco has a traffic and parking crisis;
4. MTA parking management goal is to increase parking availability;
5. MTA needs to calm traffic and parking by eliminating parking spaces;
6. MTA will only use the most current technology to solve all parking problems;
7. Revenues gained from parking meters will go directly to MUNI; and
9. Lack of Fair Notice and Outreach- Aging and disabled citizens report that they (nor from the Planning Department or any other City department or agency) about how the SFpark Project would affect their ability to access city streets and other public spaces.
10. People with mobility disabilities and seniors rely heavily on automobiles, so we would be even more impacted by the parking loss than the general public.
Small Businesses, working families, and Senior Citizens make up the highest percentage of registered voters in San Francisco and we are not happy with the radical car-free agenda that has been forced on to our community.
At a time when many San Franciscans are confronting a growing affordability gap—why is our city government artificially inflating parking prices? When are lawmakers going to get the message? Our elected leaders should be focused on issues like public safety, homelessness, education, keeping our streets and parks clean, and addressing the housing affordability gap. Instead they’re raising taxes, inflating parking prices, and making it even more expensive to live and work in San Francisco.
Rising costs of living, escalating rents, impending evictions and whats City Hall doing? Using the full strength of government power to prey on their own citizens. By willfully ignoring most of San Francisco’s residents, the Board of Supervisors and the MTA have created a master plan that makes no sense at all. It demands that people ride bicycles or use a transit system that doesn’t work. All the changes required will be paid for by extending parking meter hours, raising parking rates, raising parking fines, installing tolls into San Francisco, plus an assortment of added fees for everything from paying on line to doing what the MTA wants you to do, ride the MUNI.
as expressed below:
"Oh poor drivers! Having to push their widdle foots on the gas pedal for a few more seconds to get to the other legal freeway on-ramps. Let's charge them ten bucks to get on and off and see how they like that. They'll be wishing for the days of a few extra blocks to drive."
Like so many other plans hatched by our insulated administrators, this one is based on a demonstrably false set of beliefs about who we are and how we live.
The enduring fiction is that cars and their drivers are evil, but bicyclists are holy. The city of San Francisco imposes fees on auto ownership, order police to prioritize bike theft and design streets to serve bicyclists needs, but do not enact fees for bike registration or instigate safe riding exams for bicyclists. Bicycles, the myth goes, are good for the environment.
The idea that bike riding is an environmentally sound transit solution, one that we should repave our streets to accommodate, is ridiculous. Only 3% of all trips in SF are made on bicycles. One only needs to check page 3 of the city's latest Transportation Fact Sheet to verify that reality.
The number and type of bicyclists remains constant because people do not convert to bike riding, but move into, then away from it. As people move into their professional lives, age and have children, bike riding becomes a recreational activity, not a commuting choice. Yet, San Francisco has developed an urban plan around the loud but short-sighted desires of 12,000 people in our population of 800,000.
Buses, streetcars and BART trains are dirty, dangerous and don’t run to places or at times that people need to use them. If you live anywhere except along a BART or Metro corridor, it is safer and more expedient to drive than to take public transportation, especially on weekends and at night.
According to the 2010 census, just 13.5 percent of San Francisco's population is under 18 - the lowest percentage of any city in the nation.
Older adults, and people with children who have long term investments in public schools and the community, must compete for attention and funding with people demanding we save the planet by riding bicycles while real estate developers get tax breaks to build huge “luxury” condo complexes without parking spaces in our densest areas.
Such street planning assaults are happening all over the city as traffic lanes are torn out and eliminated to make way for bicycle lanes, impromptu sidewalk cafes, and expanded sidewalks that often no one needs or wants.
It’s become "fashionable" to proclaim grand concepts – Transit First! - without asking what the slogan really means or how it’s supposed to work. The campaign against cars is harming many San Franciscans, visitors and businesses, but is having a disparate impact on aging and disabled residents.
Copyright 2013 SFpark.info All rights reserved.
The website SFpark.info is not affiliated with the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, The Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF), The SF Auto Jobs Alliance, or the Municipal SFpark Project. We are a Grassroots Coalition of Aging and Disabled Motorists who oppose the roll out of the SFPark program in San Francisco. We represent private citizens, business owners, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities. We are residents from every economic status and cultural identity represented in the diverse city of San Francisco.
INFORMATION DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed on SFpark.info are soley those of the original authors and other contributors. This information is provided ‘as is’, and we accept no liability for its accuracy.
Tags: SFpark Results, SFpark Evaluation, Pilot Evaluation – SFpark, SFpark Pilot Project Evaluation – SFpark shows Epic Failure, SFpark Final Report, SFpark Pilot Report, SFpark Results Epic Failure, SFpark Scandal, SFpark Expansion, SFpark Final Report, Department of Transportation Report on SFpark, SFpark Report to the Obama Administation, Official SFpark Report,
San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133