San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133
Why is SFMTA is continuing to sign contracts to expand the failed SFpark program in spite of the lack of evidence or data from the initial tests? Dr. Shoup* admits his theories are unproven. Given the lack of proof that the theory works, along with heavy push-back by residents in Santa Monica**, against the contractors, one wonders why SFMTA continues to sign new contracts with the contractors that have failed to prove their congestion parking theory works.
Notes taken by Mari Eliza
City officials in attendance: Ed Reisken, Executive Director of the SFMTA; Bond Yee of Livable Streets; District Supervisor Jane Kim; Lauren Mattern of SFPark; and David Beaupre, Senior Planner at San Francisco Port Authority.
Ed started the meeting by explaining his agenda and introducing city officials.
Bon explained that SFMTA is installing meters to head off a future parking crisis.
They envision a very dense mixed-use that includes retail, offices, homes, and a ballpark with special events needs. For this meeting, they want to focus on Mission Bay proper, the area East of 7th St., North of Mariposa, and south of the park.
Based on a DOT grant they received, SFMTA started to experiment with a parking management plan in 2008. Mission Bay was one of the first pilot projects. SFMTA has not yet determined the proper hours for meters enforcement, or the charges for the extended hours during special events, even though people are getting ticketed while they are figuring it out.
Mission Bay residents let them know that they were not there to talk about the future or special events. They were there to get some relief from the parking meters SFMTA planted in front of their homes that have turned their lives upside down.
The meeting changed course when a Bluxome Street resident spoke up and asked, “Do you only plan to discuss the special-events parking plans, because we are here to talk about parking problems residents have today. Residents are only mentioned twice in that plan. We want to apply for a residential parking permit. I gathered all the residents’ signatures. I was told that because the meters had already been put in, and we had no say in the matter, that they could not be removed.”
Complaints and comments
General areas of complaints:
Residents complained about the lack of notice of the meeting and the venue. First complaint was about the poor job SFMTA did informing the neighborhood about the meeting. Second complaint was about the choice of a venue in an area not well served by Muni. The third complaint was scheduling the meeting during working hours so that many could not attend.
Everyone wants a new kind of mixed use Residential Parking Permit. The call for residential parking permits was repeated throughout the evening. A resident claimed, “We need another form of residential permit program for the mixed use areas. Right now your RPP program is designed for the Sunset and the Richmond. It was not designed for neighborhoods that are part commercial and part residential. You may need these parking meters in some places, but the residents in those areas should be allowed to park by their houses.” Other areas of the city have residential parking permits. Mission Bay does not. Even an interim RPP would suffice. There is some resistance from officials, suggesting residents may rely on the RPP solution if it is temporary.
There are objections to meters running from 9 to 11 at night for special events, including Sundays and holidays. “Why are we basing the parking on ballpark needs when the ballpark is a small percentage of the use and residents live there 100% of the time?”
High-priced meters are pushing the residents into other neighborhoods and do not solve the parking problem in Mission Bay. Many people complained about the high-priced meters, and “the whole price manipulation scheme” that is creating havoc with residents all over the city while leaving empty meters all up and down the streets.
Many people claim they get no response from city officials after repeated attempts. People complain that their attempts to contact SFPark’s Lauren Mattern and other SFMTA officials have been in vain.
The smart meters are impossible for certain classes of people to use and/or figure out. The smart meters are too difficult for short people, disabled people and people with bad eyesight to deal with. The combination of the signs and the meter instructions are also confusing and often contradictory.
The smart meters are changing event rates for some non-event time periods. There are many complaints that the meters are not accurately following actual event schedules. They are going up when there are no events. People are ticketed anyway. “There is a difference between having meters and enforcing them.” Ed admits there are programming problems with the smart meters. There should be a way of forgiving these tickets. See notes below.*
Signs conflict and/or confuse people. Street signs are not consistent with the meter and/or parking lot signs. Some of the signs are over over 8 feet high and are impossible to read. Is a sign that is illegible and/or positioned in such a manneras to be impossible for a person to see considered proper notice? Is there a legal height limit requirement for street and parking signs?
There are no clear rules on parking in San Francisco. There are requests for public access to a parking enforcement officer’s handbook since the parking rules change so frequently and appear to be so arbitrary.
Many complain Mission Bay is poorly served by public transit. How are we expected to get around without cars when there is no reliable public transit in Mission Bay?
There are no off-street parking options and no plans to increase them to contain the expected population explosion. Many complain of a lack of off-city parking options in Mission Bay, and the plans to increase the population without adding substantial public parking options, even though there are already demands for parking which are not being met.
Maritime issues were raised
There were no conflicts with ballpark events parkers until the meters were put in. Over the years the ballpark, clubs and residents worked out the parking issues without a hitch and were getting along prior to the installation of the parking meters. Two-hour limit street signs are deterring use of the new meters. No one understands how to use the smart meters.
Conflicting time limit information – On March 27, 2012, on KQED’s Forum Jay Primus claimed “so time limits are now either four hours or there is no time limit at all.” Ed said that is the plan, not the present reality. Here they go confusing the present with the future again.
The plans don’t meet Transit First parameters in Mission Bay
SFMTA promised to conduct another meeting, probably on Saturday and that they would pick a place near public transit next time.
Maritime issues were raised
February 19, 2013
Job Killing Sunday Parking Meters are
Bleeding Millions out of SF Economy
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - This is what happens when you "privatize" public streets. Inside sources say that San Francisco may be on a collision course to repeat Chicago's parking meter catastrophe in which thousands of publicly owned parking meters were leased to private investors.
The SFMTA has bled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy and increased the cost of doing business in every part of the city. At these Job Killing parking meters (Pictured above) .25 Cents = 5 minutes of time, $1.00 = 20 Minutes, and $3.00 pays for 1 hour. No cars, no business, no tax revenue and no jobs. Is this the car free future that City Hall has planned for San Francisco?
San Francisco Auto Dealers generated almost $700 million in car sales in San Francisco in 2011 and nearly $9 million in sales tax revenue for the city’s General Fund while employing more than 1,500 people.Source: The San Francisco Auto Jobs Alliance. Its disappointing that San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee would endorse parking policies that would hurt small businesses and destroy jobs. Then again, the Mayor Lee has already proposed tearing down the I280 expressway that feeds the entire south of Market into downtown. Maybe he's just clearing out the cars in advance?
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - I wanted to pick up a few things but decided against it. I'm not going to pay $3.00 an hour every time I want to stop to visit a store in San Francisco. I'll just go to one on the Malls down the Penisula or in South SF instead. There's plenty of FREE Parking and I wont have to worry about parking tickets.
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - Government policies and processes have a major impact on the City’s economic vitality and the resultant welfare of its residents. .25 Cents = 5 minutes of time, $1.00 = 20 Minutes, and $3.00 pays for 1 hour. The SFMTA plans on putting more of these Job Killing parking meters in Mission, DogPatch, Potrero Hill and other parts of the city. Some people say that North Beach and the Marina could be next.
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - This doesn't look like a Livable City to me. City Halls path is unsustainable. Is this the future that we want for San Francisco? How many DPT / Traffic enforcement officers are clocking overtime from this latest debacle? It's disappointing that San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee would endorse parking policies that would hurt small businesses and destroy jobs.
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - And Hey UCLA professor Donald Shoup! Is this kind of thing what you call “responsible parking management?”
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - .25 Cents = 5 minutes of time, $1.00 = 20 Minutes, and $3.00 pays for 1 hour. The SFMTA plans on putting more of these Job Killing parking meters in Mission, DogPatch, Potrero Hill and other parts of the city. Some people say that North Beach and the Marina could be next.
I get all giggly when I think about what else San Francisco City Hall will give us for our good.
There are almost no businesses open in this area but the city is charges $3.00 an hour to park on these streets. The parking meters here are driving out families who need their cars to get their children around the city.
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - Please explain how a Parking Meter with a 6 Hour time Limit encourages parking turn over for local businesses?
Sunday Feb 19, 2013 - The Board of Supervisors, if it has any hope of restoring public confidence in City Hall, must Audit every dollar the SFMTA is spending on programs, projects, and personnel. This process should immediately begin with public hearings.
August 23, 2012
by Stephen Frank on 08/20/2012 ·
The key element to the economy is the sales tax. The more revenue from this source, the better the economy. It means people have money AND confidence.
“But our detractors were stunned to learn from State Controller John Chiang that California’s July sales tax revenue was down 33.5 percent from that anticipated by the state budget approved in late June by the Legislature. Even more ominously, the state’s $9.6 billion cash deficit that was rolled over from the June 30 fiscal year has catapulted to $18 billion last month.”
California is in a Depression—in one month the cash deficit (only a portion of the $50 billion deficit) has doubled. This at a time the cost of gas has gone up 40 cents in a month per gallon.
We are in trouble and Brown, Munger , the CTA and the PTA want tens of billions from families and businesses to expand government. That is a recipe for a crash in California. Ready to call yourself a Texan?
Read More from Stephen Frank's California Political News and Views
Added comments from sfpark.info:
Let's examine the SFpark pricing strategy.
The SFMTA wants people to walk, ride their bikes, or take public transportation to their destination, which often has private businesses that employ people that sell goods and services that are sought by individuals.
Once the customers start shopping, they limit their purchases since they don't have the means to carry home a larger quantity of goods (a car or SUV can carry a much greater capacity than a few bags dragged onto a bus, or loaded onto a bike carrier, or lugged home in a bag). I have not even addressed the dramatically increased danger of riding a bicycle loaded down with additional weight.
The businesses sell fewer goods, make less profit, have less need for employees, and cut their employment than they would with an independently mobile populace. The manufacturers of goods sell fewer goods to those same retailers, make less profit, have less need for employees and cut their employment. The shipping companies ship fewer goods, make less money, and reduce their employment. The mining companies and oil companies that mine and drill for the natural resources used in the production of those goods sell fewer goods and, hence, cut their employment. People use their cars less and have less need to buy replacement vehicles as often as in the past. The car manufacturers sell fewer vehicles, make less profit, and reduce their employment.
Sales Taxes are supposed to pay for transportation projects and government salaries. By nickel-and-diming residents and local business and their customers, the city loses out on millions of dollars of sales tax revenue and does long-term damage for a short-term gain. Money spent on fines, and in parking meters won’t be spent in the community or in local businesses. The more prohibitive it becomes to park in or visit San Francisco the faster the city will sink into insolvency. San Francisco is a city that is killing itself. The death will come suddenly and fast then folks will understand the killing of private cars killed the city.
I get all giggly when I think about what else government will give us for our good. Lets take a minute to thank Mayor Ed Lee and the Job Killing Board of Supervisors for doing their part to chase off small businesses, working families, and tax revenue.
(clap, clap, clap, clap, clap).
Hey there Transportation world. SFpark installed meters on Townsend street almost a year ago. Now, there's no circling, no double parking, no congestion, no businesses, and no tax revenue. How is the city going to pay for the SFMTA's Huge $100,000 Salaries & Lavish, Gold-Plated Pensions?
The more likely reason tax collections continue falling is that businesses and successful people are leaving San Francisco for the more pro-business areas of Silicon Valley.
(clap, clap, clap, clap, clap).
June 6th, 2012
SFMTA Schedules Another Phony
"Public Participation" Meeting in Mission Bay
Mission Creek Park Pavilion, 290 Channel Street, one block west of 4th and Channel Streets
Saturday, June 16
3-3:30 p.m. Open House
3:30-4:30 p.m. Public Comments (sign up by 3:20 p.m.)
The last time the SFMTA held a public participation meeting in Mission Bay they were threatened with legal action, and many longtime residents and business owners walked out. Residents had come for answers and what they got was another "dog and pony show"
The message from residents was unanimous. Mission Bay Residents who are in the Pilot areas do not want, or need additional parking meters installed in front of their homes and businesses. Residents are complaining that they have to park up to 4 blocks away from their homes since the meters were installled. The SFpark Pilot has destroyed parking for longtime residents and small businesses are suffering all around pilot areas. The people in Mission Bay understand that for City Hall it's about the money, not about helping the neighborhoods and small businesses manage parking.
According to the latest Transportation Fact Sheet, last year City Hall collected $171,610,099 fromcity parking lots ($38,742,622), parking meters ($40,520,486), parking tickets ($86,306,584), and residential parking permits ($9,040,407)
City Hall / SFMTA says that they need to calm traffic in these areas of Mission Bay but it is clear that these areas have already been abandoned by companies after the meters were installed. City Hall remains complacent while the MTA continues their Dog and Pony Show* to try and justify installing additional parking meters to areas that have no business presence. The MTA says that Mission Bay was originally slated to be a metered, but who gave the MTA the authority to re draw the boundries of Mission Bay to include mixed use and residential / PDR areas that were not part of the original Mission Bay Parking Plan.
Townsend, Bluxome, 5th and 6th street were clearly not part of the original SFpark Demand responsive Pilot. So, why did the MTA come through these streets and install variable rate parking meters? Yet another instance where the MTA says one thing, and does another.
For those of you who need a MTA to English Translation an SFMTA Public Participation Meeting = A Beauricratic Dog and Pony Show. A Dog and Pony Show is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.
Ill tell you, when the Imperial Japanese Navy tried to invade Wake Island back in WWII, their first attempt, which involved months of planning, failed. The IJN was highlyembarrassed but they knew that it was their job to impose themselves on Wake, to manage Wake, so they came back and succeeded on their second try. (And they beheaded a few Marines, but, byegones)
And Ill also tell you, when the Imperial SFMTA tried to impose SFPark on the Mission Bay and the Dogpatch and whatnot, their first attempt, which involved months of planning, failed. The SFMTA was highlyembarrassedbut they knew that its their job to impose SFPark, or whatever theyre calling it now, on the area. The college boys of the SFMTA just know, they just know it, that its their job to increase the power of the SFMTA and have the SFMTA grow and grow and grow.
And oh, heres SFPark.info website, written by people who dont approve of the worst aspects of the SFMTA and SFPark (or whatever theyre calling it these days.)
April 22, 2012
On April 19th the SFMTA held a Community outreach meeting at The Mission Bay Development Group. The meeting was attended by city officials, SFMTA head Ed Reiskin, Bon Yee of Livable Streets, District Supervisor Jane Kim, and representatives of the Port Authority, and SFPark.
The MTA attempted to set the tone for the meeting but outraged Mission Bay residents quickly took over the the agenda.Supervisor Jane Kim briefly took over the meeting in an attempt to restore order to the angry residents who were shouting over each other. It seems that the SFMTA is managing to infuriate almost everyone without pleasing anyone.
The MTA was repeatly scolded for choosing a venue for the meeting that was not accessible by Public transportation. Many Senior Citizens were unable to attend the meeting which was held in an unincorporated area of Mission Bay that was not accessable to seniors and adults with disabilities. The MTA apologized and said that they were negligent in choosing a bad location and promised to do better outreach at their next meeting.
Several times during the meeting residents accused the MTA of being disingenuous in their outreach efforts and threatened legal action. Residents across the audience expressed their anger with the SFpark metering project and the price gouging of residents.Many residents accused the MTA of creating an artificial parking shortage by taking away residential parking, and not working with residents.
Ed Reiskin, the SFMTA Director of Transportation apologized several times for areas where the MTA "dropped the ball" in the MTA's outreach efforts. Reiskin, promised the Mission Bay residents that additional outreach would be done before more meters are installed.
If you care about parking, you may want to sign up for a subscription as these stories unfold. You may also want to keep tabs on ENUF.
*If the SFMTA is going to force more Aging and Disabled out of our cars, and on to Public Transportation then they need to resolve the overcrowding, safety, and accessibility problems. It speaks volumes that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, (SFMTA) held an public outreach meeting at a venue that was not accessable by public transportation. If you feel that your rights have been violated you can file a complaint with a Disability Rights Specialist. You can also reach out to Californians for Disability Rights at their E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org and the AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL), the legal advocacy unit of the AARP. All of these organizations have extensive class action litigation experience.
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.
San Francisco , CA 94117, 94110, 94107, 94103, 94133