Drivers with disabled placards may have to pay at meters in SF

By: Will Reisman : sfexaminer – excerpt

Under a new proposal backed by city leaders, motorists with disabled placards would have to pay for parking and be subject to time limits at meters.
Drivers with a blue placard can park for free at any space in The City and they are not subject to any time limits.
But  since 2001 there has been a 100 percent increase of the placards in the Bay Area, leading some disabled advocates to question whether the permits are being abused. Every year, about 1,800 placards are confiscated in The City for fraudulent use, but permits continue to be issued out…
Several of the proposals, like paid parking and time-limit restrictions, would require approval from the Legislaton… (more)

This is good. Now the SFMTA is going to pick on disabled people. Yes, there is abuse, but, check out all the MTA permit placards and the MTA white zones around the city. There are at least as many of them. Anybody think the MTA should give up MTA parking placards and white zones?

Shared cars eye slice of SF street parking

By Jerold Chinn : sfbay.ca – excerpt

On-street parking spaces for car-sharing in San Francisco could see an uptick starting in September if a two-year pilot project gets approved by The City’s transportation agency board in June.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which will oversee the pilot, would allow car-sharing companies like City CarShare and Zipcar to reserve 150 on-street parking spaces each and an additional 150 spaces the following the year… (more)

The SFMTA is planning to claim public street parking spots for “their” car-share programs, competing with “our” privately owned cars. Is this a conflict of interest or what? How can you trust an outfit that claims they want to help us manage our parking problem by reducing available public parking spots?

Disabled parking rule change recommended

John Wildermuth : sfgate.com – excerpt

Disabled drivers could be forced to feed San Francisco parking meters, a move city officials say is for their own good…
A 15-member committee, with nearly half representing the disabled community, told the city’s Municipal Transportation Agency that tightening the current parking rules, as well as expanding and metering San Francisco’s blue disabled parking zones, would make it easier for people with physical restrictions to find the parking spaces they need… (more)

Why are we not surprised. Will someone please inform the SFMTA that we are not buying their parking congestion theories? Since they have been acting on them parking has gotten worse, not better. We don’t need or want their help parking.

 

When is SFMTA going to pull all the free parking placards for MTA vehicles? Last weekend I spotted more MTA placard permits than disabled ones parking around Jackson Square.

SF Planning Commission Approves New Bike Parking Plan

KCBS – excerpt

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – Bicyclists in San Francisco may soon find it a lot easier to find a parking space for their two-wheelers.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday approved a plan to increase bicycle parking in both residential and commercial areas of the City. The next stop for the bike parking plan: the full Board of Supervisors… (more)

They left out the request for showers and lockers in the work places where the cyclists to change and freshen up after cycling to work. Do regular folks get to use the facilities or will this perk be reserved by cyclists only?

 

RELATED:
Planning Commission Approves Higher Bike Parking Requirements
New buildings in San Francisco will be required to provide more secure bike parking under legislation approved by the Planning Commission yesterday. The ordinance is expected to be approved by the Board of Supervisors next month…
the ordinance will overhaul bike parking requirements for new residential and commercial buildings citywide,…
The Planning Commission voted to remove the “active use” provision, so providing bike parking within 25 feet of the front of a building will still require a permit. The alternative is to place the bike parking closer to the rear of a building or on a different floor.
The strongest opponent of re-defining bike parking as an active use was Commissioner Katherine Moore. While she fully supported the rest of the ordinance, she said that a parked bicycle “is an inanimate object, not an active use.”… (more)

Car-share parking coming curbside

By Will Reisman : sfexaminer – excerpt

Hundreds of on-street parking spaces will be set aside for car-sharing vehicles this fall as part of a city-led effort to reduce private-car ownership in San Francisco.
Companies like Zipcar and City CarShare will be allowed to reserve up to 150 spaces apiece, with another 150 potentially available next year. Wheelz, which specializes in peer-to-peer transactions involving personal vehicles, and Car2Go, a startup that features one-way car trips, could be included later.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which manages parking in The City, hopes its effort leads to more walking, biking and public transit use. It said one car-sharing vehicle can replace as many as 13 private vehicles…  (more)

If you disagree with this program of eliminating parking spots let your Supervisors know. and sign the Stop SFMTA petition: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-sfmta-san-francisco

Iffy Ticket: Meter Maid Bends Time To Issue Parking Citation

by April Siese : sfappeal.com – excerpt

Forgot malevolent spiders in parking meters or other acts of God, parking in SF is a USDA Grade A large-scale bitch even on a good day. Just because you’ve finally found a place to park your vehicle doesn’t mean it’s safe from unneeded fines. As the Ex reports, one potentially overzealous meter maid attempted to bend time and space, issuing a $62 ticket that by all evidence is erroneous.
Forest Hill resident Beth Chen was just starting her day after getting her car cleaned in Daly City. A receipt for Westlake Touchless Car Wash on 87th St. was issued for 9:24am. After the twenty minute car wash, she drove about ten to fifteen minutes into the city, arriving at the Stonestown YMCA around 10:29am. At least, that’s when her membership card logged her entering the Y. Yet somehow when Chen returned to her vehicle, she had a ticket for staying past the two hour parking limit. The problem? The ticket had been issued at noon. Though the citation said Chen had been at the spot since 9:36am, Chen’s receipts say otherwise.
Chen has formally contested the ticket. She says another woman was faced with a similar incident that very day. “I don’t know if it was because it was the end of the month and they needed to meet some quota, but this is just flat out wrong,” says Chen.
SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose has a theory to this madness. He thinks Chen’s car may have picked up marking chalk meant for another vehicle that was parked there previously. Rose also notes that the parking control officer in question has no history of complaints… (more)

Does Mr. Rose have to make excuses for everything? Sometimes  “I don’t know.” works best. Picking up marking chalk? I would like to see him demonstrate that in court.

I had a personal story this week, not with a ticket but with a wayward parking machine. First time I ever tried to use a credit card instead of coins. Took over 10 minutes, and the help of a fellow parker to get it to take my card. At what point does one determine the machine is broken?

When it finally accepted my card it would not allow me to pay less than the total day.

In the end I had no information on how long I had to park and no paper receipt came out.

Details with photos coming soon.

Environmentalists question the wisdom of this state legislation

What do you think of giving particular vehicles, powered by electric batteries, special rights to to park on city streets, eliminating more spaces for non-electric vehicles ?
We are all for cleaning the air, but there isa state bill that is being discussed in committee to reserve on-street space for electric vehicles only.  If if passes SFMTA will be forced to comply with or amend their current ordinances to implement that. How will this affect the community? Does this discriminate agaisnt certain classes of people who can’t afford the luxury of buying an “electric vehicle”?  Will that also hurt more families and push them out of the city?  What percentage of the SF residents own “electric vehicles”?  What will be the impact should this state legislation pass and SFMTA adopt it? It’s OK for people who have OFF-street parking but what about those who cannot afford garage fees?
The gasoline powered vehicles will run out of parking spots even faster. Consider how this will effect the additional thousands of housing units that the city has agreed to take on as part of the (RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and you can see a real mess brewing.
This is meant to incentivize owners of gasoline powered vehicles to junk their cars and buy electric vehicles, but should this legislation pass, how many “electric vehicle”
spots will eat up the standard on-street parking spots. All very interesting when one looks at the many bills are being contemplated at the state level including some questionable CEQA reform bills — some nasty stuff there as well.

- Sent from a concerned environmentalist working on the SF CEQA legislation

An act to amend Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
AB 1158, as introduced, by Assembly Member Waldron – Vehicles: on-street parking for electric vehicles.
Existing law authorizes local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding specified matters, including, among other things, regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane
or on private property. This bill would expressly authorize local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding designating and enforcing on-street parking spaces for electric vehicles.

Bill Text: The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding all of the following matters: (q) Designating and enforcing on-street parking spaces for electric vehicles.

Comments welcome, especially from people who know the science behind the issues.

SF Churchgoers Complain About Sunday Meter Enforcement

by Emily Green : kqed.org – excerpt

On Thursday, San Francisco once again takes up the controversial issue of parking meter expansion at a committee hearing. One issue will be Sunday meter enforcement, which took effect in late February. The change has angered many churchgoers, who say it is undermining community bonding and forcing people to pay money to worship….
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency regulates the meters. Its spokesman, Paul Rose, said, “In the 1940s when most of the businesses were closed on Sundays, Sundays may have been sacred. It’s not sacred at this point, as far as parking is concerned.”
Rose said the Sunday meters should generate around $2 million annually, but contended that the change is not driven by money… (more)‘

The Muni can’t need a measly $2 million from Sunday parking fees when it et go of $510 million dollars in transit fees. They just traded the Muni fees in for an in-kind traffic streetscape project that will eliminate two lanes of traffic Look at the plans

SFMTA chief hopes to calm the parking meter furor at supervisorial hearing

Steven T. Jones : sfweekly – excerpt

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency director Ed Reiskin faces a tough challenge tomorrow (Thu/2) at the Board of Supervisors Neighborhood Services and Safety hearing that Sup. Mark Farrell has called on expanding parking meters into new neighborhoods, where Reiskin is expected to face a hornet’s nest of SFMTA critics stirred up by the loss of free street parking and perceptions that the agency is mismanaging public spaces and transit.
Reiskin needs to quell some of the anger that is erupting in the northeast Mission District, Potrero Hill, and other areas slated for new meters enough to prevent increased supervisorial intervention into his independent agency and ensure a transit improvement bond measure planned for next year has a chance of passing – which the agency desperately needs to make improvements to Muni… (more)

Diverted funds: If SFMTA needs money to fix the Muni why did they divert 510 million dollars in public transit fees from Muni to the street calming project to reduce the traffic lanes where Dolores meets Market Street?

This is an in-kind trade that doesn’t smell right. How can they possibly spend over half a billion dollars widening a sidewalk?  Is this real money and where is it going?

The Sunday parking meters are expected to bring in a measly 1.7 million dollars a year. Why bother collecting 1.7 million dollars if you are going to give away 510 million? The voters are not that dumb. Ed and Primus are wasting their time.

Parking meter expansion in SF neighborhoods subject of hearing

By: Will Reisman : sfexaminer – excerpt

The plan to add more parking meters to several San Francisco neighborhoods will receive scrutiny today from a Board of Supervisors committee.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which manages traffic policies in The City, is looking into the possibility of adding more parking meters in neighborhoods that include the Mission District, Potrero Hill and South of Market. The agency originally proposed to add around 5,000 meters to those neighborhoods, but balked on that project after backlash from local residents…
Transit agency spokesman Paul Rose said the SFMTA has no intention of adding parking meters to any neighborhoods beyond those already identified. He said meters are just one tool the agency is considering for managing traffic in the Mission district and its surrounding neighborhoods. There are no plans to add meters to any residential areas, Rose said… (more)