Want to Ease Parking in Your Neighborhood? Join Our Open Houses

by Pamela Johnson : sfmta – excerpt

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Residential parking is an issue in any crowded city, and San Francisco is no different. But while San Francisco’s Residential Parking Permit program hasn’t changed much since it began in 1976, the city has. That’s why we’re continuing our community meetings to address the natural questions: does the program still work? And if not, what changes could make it work better?..

The SFMTA would like to hear from you! We hope you can attend one or more of these upcoming workshops to discuss San Francisco’s neighborhood parking.

5/3/2015 6 to 8 PM San Francisco Day School 350 Masonic Avenue
5/4/2016 6 to 8 PM Calvary Presbyterian Church 2515 Fillmore Street
5/9/2016 6 to 8 PM Richmond Rec Center  251 18th Avenue
5/10/2016 6 to 8 PM Grace Lutheran 3201 Ulloa Street
5/18/2016 6 to 8 PM CCSF Chinatown/North Beach 628 Washington Street
5/19/2016 6 to 8 PM CCSF Mission Campus, Room 109 1125 Valencia Street
5/23/2016 6 to 8 PM St. Stephen Catholic Parish 475 Eucalyptus Drive
5/25/2016 6 to  8 PM Minnie Lovie Ward Rec Center 650 Capitol Avenue
6/1/2016 6 to 8 PM St. Anthony’s 150 Golden Gate Avenue
6/2/2016 6 to 8 PM CCSF South East Campus 1800 Oakdale Avenue
 6/8/2016 6:30 to 8:30 PM Harvey Milk Arts Center 50 Scott Street

If you can’t make it, you can also provide feedback to:

Kathryn Studwell
Program Manager of Residential Permit Parking
InfoRPP@sfmta.com (more)

More changes to be ignored?

After removal of hundreds of parking spaces both on and off street, and new laws that limit building new parking spaces, it is pretty disingenuous of the SFMTA to ask how the parking is in San Francisco. If anyone wants to know how the parking removal is effecting SF businesses, you can watch the April 25th Small Business Commission meeting tapes for a pretty common description of how bad business is after the SFMTA establishes its plan on your streets. It sucks!

We know the SFMTA plan is to put parking meters, or should I say, “park by phone only” (http://enufsf.com/) options on all the San Francisco streets so you will have to constantly play musical parking chairs. STOP THEM NOW. Sign the Stop SFMTA petition and find out about all the other petitions and opportunities to oppose the SFMTA plan to privatize our public streets. http://stopsfmta.com/wp/

 

Public Works to crack down on illegal Chariot signs

By sfexaminer – excerpt

Sandwich boards stationed at sidewalks across San Francisco by shuttle company Chariot are illegal and must be removed.

That’s according to the San Francisco Department of Public Works, which after inquiries from the San Francisco Examiner said dozens of such boards across The City placed by Chariot are unpermitted.

“Chariot has no permits with us for A-Frames,” said Rachel Gordon, a spokesperson for Public Works. A-Frames are the technical term for sandwich boards.

After the Examiner’s inquiry, Gordon said the agency has sent out an inspector to investigate the boards. She added, “We’ll send a corrective order,” about one of the boards on Pine Street downtown.

But Chariot has many more boards erected every morning in neighborhoods all over San Francisco, and those may also be illegal, according to Public Works.

Gordon said the fine for erecting these boards unpermitted is $300, and Chariot could be fined individually for every board it has on city streets.

Beyond the sandwich boards, one city resident, Sue Vaughan, who also serves on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Citizens Advisory Committee, said Chariot repeatedly violates parking zones and public bus-only lanes… (more)

Shuttle Bus case in Superior Court

Thursday April 28, 2016 at 1:30 PM. 400 McAllister at Polk. court room 508, Judge Wong. will hear the Shuttle Bus case in Superior Court.  Only the Judge and lawyers will speak. The Decision will come later. if you are interested.  Plaintiffs are requesting that the judge issue a decision on the California Vehicle Code 22500.i preemption matter, since the trial was finally held on November 13, 2015.  The other side is seeking dismissal of the case.

Thank you for all your letters of opposition to AB-1641 and ABX1-25
Assemblymember Travis Allen pulled AB-1641 from the Assembly Transportation Committee agenda for April 11, and it has not yet been rescheduled.  The last day for non-fiscal bills to be heard in committee is May 6.  If you have not yet gotten your letters of opposition to both bills in, there is still time.  Templates are attached for each.
ABX1-25 — OPPOSE 02-22-2016
AB 1641– OPPOSE 02-22-2016
Please submit them to the Honorable Jim Frazier, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee, C/O Toni Zupan at toni.zupan@asm.ca.gov.  Also attached are the analysis for AB-1641 (with a listing of opposing organizations) and the analysis for last year’s AB-61 (same legislation, different number)

 

Proposal Approved, But It’s Not Over Yet!

Apr 25, 2016 — update on the Twin Peaks petition and meetings.

Hi.

As you may already know, at the meeting on 4/19/16, the SFMTA board approved the proposal to prohibit vehicles on the east side of the figure 8 and make the road two-way traffic on the west side. About twice as many people testified against the proposal as those in favor, and I gave a detailed statement on the safety hazards, but the board decided to go ahead with it anyway.

That being said, things may yet change. There is a meeting of the City-chartered Bicycle Advisory Committee on Monday, 4/25/16 at 6:30 PM in room 408 at City Hall, and I will be there to discuss the unfortunate consequences if the proposal is implemented. Information on the committee is here:
http://sfgov.org/bac/about-us
And the agenda for the meeting is here:
http://sfgov.org/bac/bicycle-advisory-committee/meeting/2016-april-25-agenda

Meanwhile, please continue to spread the word, and get more people to sign the petition. The proposal is considered a “pilot” by the SFMTA, and if negative effects come to light, such as onerous traffic jams at the overlook, they may consider canceling the pilot early. Petition signers will get timely updates when the pilot is being evaluated, so that additional input can be provided when that’s most important.

Thanks again.

Jeff

Survey Floats Proposal To Add Parking-Protected Bike Lanes To Oak And Fell Along Panhandle

by Nuala Sawyer : hoodline – excerpt

The North of the Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) has released a survey polling the community about a radical plan: to install separated bike lanes on both Fell and Oak streets, running the length of Panhandle Park between Baker and Stanyan. To achieve such a feat, one lane of traffic may have to be removed, and parking would be set back from the curb to create a buffer between the bike lane and car traffic (similar to the setup on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park)…

The Panhandle currently has two paths running through it. The path on the south side, commonly used by pedestrians, is bumpy thanks to tree roots pushing through the soil, and meanders to and fro along the edge of Oak Street.

The north side of the park is a different scene. The wider two-way multi-use path is used by runners, pedestrians (often pushing strollers), rollerbladers, skateboarders, and cyclists. Particularly during the morning and evening rush hour, it can become a highway for two-wheeled commuters, connecting them from the popular Wiggle bike route to Golden Gate Park, the Richmond and the Sunset…

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) supports the work of NOPNA in polling the community about these issues. “It’s so great to see the neighborhood association seeking the community’s feedback on how best to improve the Panhandle and neighboring streets,” said Chris Cassidy of SFBC. “We’re excited to see the results of this community survey, and eager to see streets around the Panhandle reflect the hopes of those who use them the most.”

But it’s likely that not everyone in the neighborhood will be a fan of the proposal. As readers well know, the addition of new bike infrastructure, which can spell less space for cars on the road, is perennial hot topic around these parts (see the discussion around this week’s story on a new Tenderloin bike lane). If implemented, the new bike lanes could require the removal of a lane on both Oak and Fell streets, which serve as main arteries for east/west car traffic in the area… (more)

Plan to move ‘Google Bus’ shuttles to arterial streets hits roadblock

By : sfexaminer – excerpt

No matter where they roll, the infamous “Google buses” seem to draw controversy.

Plans to place private commuter shuttle stops on Dolores Street stalled Tuesday at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Board of Directors meeting after neighbors decried relocating the stop to that area.

But other relocations to commuter shuttle stops were approved — on 16th, Fell, Powell and Gough streets, for instance — because of prior-approved policy by the SFMTA to direct vehicles off of smaller streets.

And because the Supervisors didn’t show up to protest them.

SFMTA planners will instead conduct a monthlong study of moving the Dolores Street stops to nearby Guerrero Street, which has weight restrictions that would prohibit shuttles. However, the SFMTA will now study why those restrictions — instituted long ago — were created, and if they are still necessary.

More stops will need to change in future meetings as well, said Tom Maguire, a planner at SFMTA.

Many neighbors from Dolores Street came out to oppose a new shuttle stop on their block, which Supervisor Scott Wiener and others alleged would create a sea of these gleaming white buses…

Wait a minute. Isnt’ that the argument the people opposing the tech buses have been using agaisnt them? It is ok for some streets to have a sea of buses but not Dolores? Is this a NIMBY comment by an anti-NIMBY?

“I think the overarching issue is safety,” said John Giordano, a neighbor who lives on Dolores Street. He noted the SFMTA should study Dolores Street for weight restrictions similar to Guerrero Street, because Dolores Street has steeper grades, unprotected crosswalks without stoplights, and narrower lanes.

Not steeper than the streets in Noe Valley where the buses get stuck and can’t turn.

Supervisor Scott Wiener scolded the SFMTA board, telling them that outcry from neighbors is a direct result of tech shuttle opponents sweeping shuttles off narrower streets.

????

“There was a lot of pushback that they should only be on arterials,” Wiener told the San Francisco Examiner. Restricting shuttles to arterials, he said, “means an enormous number of shuttles is on the arterials, instead of dispersing the shuttles” throughout the neighborhoods.

Wiener alleged as many as 55 commuter shuttles per hour would stream down Dolores Street if the plan were approved, instead of throughout the neighborhood… (more)

Comments at the source are strongly encouraged. Be sure to read a few so you can enjoy the irony of who is complaining now about tech buses.

 

Muni lines delayed due to equipment problem

By Eaminer Staff : sfexaminer – excerpt

An equipment problem led to delays on the N-Judah and J-Church Muni lines Tuesday morning, frustrating hundreds of riders in San Francisco.

Muni reported that both lines were delayed as of 7:50 a.m. because of an equipment problem at Duboce and Noe streets. Shuttles were deployed to provide service to riders on those lines.

Riders, however, faced crowded stops where the shuttles were implemented…(more)

Comment: The J doesn’t go through Duboce and Noe.

That explains a lot. The PR department (let’s hope it is not operations), doesn’t know which lines are effected. SF4sf has it right. We need a shift alright, away from this Board and this Director.

SF needs to hire a full time, 24/7 Public transportation Director who spend ZeroTime on bike paths, pedestrian crossings, and construction issues, preferably someone with a track record, if such a person exists

SFMTA Approves Controversial Twin Peaks Car Ban

Almost two years after it was proposed, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has made a decision to ban cars from one side of Twin Peaks, following a contentious meeting Tuesday.

As previously reported, roads on the east side of Twin Peaks — the side facing downtown — will become a pedestrian and cyclist-only street. The one-way west side will be turned into a two-way road, to be shared by private vehicles and, of course, tour buses. (You can see the full brief on the project here.)

“Twin Peaks is not only an important tourist destination, but an important recreation destination and an important natural resource,” Recreation and Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg said when the proposal was announced last month. The ban “increases the recreational accessibility of the area and makes it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians,” he said.

Despite the rosy picture painted by Ginsberg, some were up in arms at yesterday’s SFMTA Board meeting, the Ex reports, quoting “technology worker and Twin Peaks cyclist” Jeffrey Perrone as telling Board members that “‘A tight blind curve’ on the west side of the north peak would become more fraught for cyclists.”

This isn’t the first time Perrone has spoken against the proposal: Back in March, the Chron included him in their coverage of the proposal:

Glen Park resident Jeff Perrone, who regularly rides his bike on Twin Peaks, fears that cars will clog the west-facing road and make life perilous for cyclists and anyone trying to cross the road on foot.

“This will be much more dangerous,” said Perrone, who has been trying to mobilize public opposition to the plan. “It sounds good in theory … but it’s a bad idea.”…

At the meeting, SFMTA Board Director and Vice Chairman Cheryl Brinkman told those opposed to the program, called the “Twin Peaks Figure 8 Redesign Project,” that the changes were “only” a pilot — albeit, one that will last for two years, from June 1 to May 31, 2018.

“I hear the input of the people opposed to it, I ask that you give it a chance,” Brinkman said.

“Let’s give it a try, there is just such a desire in this city for car free space so people can just look at the view.”

Did she really say that? How many cyclists are going to cycle up that hill? And how many people who cannot walk or bike will be kept from the view? Before everyone had an equal opportunity, now, only cyclists and pedestrians can appreciate it. Isn’t this discrimination?

 

Mission Businesses Tussle with Transit Advocates over Bus Lanes

by : sf.streetsblog -excerpt

SFMTA’s newly painted transit lanes on Mission are raising the ire of many.

Businesses in the Mission are complaining to Supervisor David Campos about the new “Red Carpet” painted transit lanes. And there’s already talk about taking them out. The San Francisco Transit Riders Union (SFTRU) reacted in an email blast last week:…

This is what Campos had to say about the lanes on his Facebook page:
While I understand the intention was to enhance the commute of 65,000 transit riders, the changes look better on paper than in practice. I have heard from many of you–car commuters frustrated by traffic jams that stretch multiple blocks…That’s why I’m calling on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to make a radical shift in the program. We look forward to announcing a solution shortly. In the meanwhile, please email your concerns to the SFMTA: matthew.brill@sfmta.com

The SFTRU is pretty peeved that Campos is even suggesting undoing the results of all their hard work. They’ve set up a web page, letting transit-supporters know how to stop this roll back. As the SFTRU put its outrage:…

Studies show that businesses tend to get it wrong about how many customers arrive by car…

We can see the author knows little about running a business. The number of customers arriving has nothing to do with actual sales and the bottom line. Many people shop on the street who purchase online now, especially if they can’t park near the store they intend to purchase from.

Perhaps one has to run a small business to fully appreciate the reasons for the complaints…

That said, Trevino bikes to work and she also complained about the lack of bike lanes. “It’s not safe,” she said, opining that the bus lanes made it even worse for cycling. “I’m afraid I’ll get hit by a bus.”…

Streetsblog is on the record for not approving of how this lane was set up, principally because of how cyclists were basically given nowhere to ride. The confusion that motorists experience about where to turn and where to go straight, might also be less acute if the transit-only lanes were in the center with boarding islands. Part of the driver confusion no doubt stems from flipping the transit-only lane back and forth from right to center, depending on the stretch of Mission, to allow cars to make right turns. If the cars were driving to the right of the transit lane all the time, as they do on stretches of Market and elsewhere, it might be less of a mess at intersections. That said, the markings could be much clearer, as the SFTRU pointed out in an email to Streetsblog.

Why are turn signs at Mission & 24th invisible? Why no ped priority walk signal?

Either way, no matter what SFMTA does, motorists will get grumpy when they lose lanes–that’s why going in with all the incremental half-measures and compromises seems so futile. Compromise results in blowback. Doing it right the first time results in blowback. Let’s save the compromises for later.

The SFTRU, meanwhile, has set up the hashtag  to get pro-transit people talking… (more)

The Mission is in a crisis. People are losing their homes, jobs, and lives. Walking, sitting or standing may considered “lingering”. The red lanes are an insulting intrusion into our lives.

 

 

 

Transit Board to vote on partical Twin Peaks car closure

By : sfexaminer – excerpt

Screen-Shot-2016-04-18-at-4.54.40-PM.png

Twin Peaks’ eastern roadways may soon be closed to vehicles altogether, with pathways only for walkers and cyclists.

That possibility is pending a vote by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s Board of Directors on Tuesday.

If approved, “The Twin Peaks Boulevard Figure Eight Pilot Project” would last two years – from June 1 to May 31, 2018.

At that time, data and feedback from the closure would be assessed for a permanent closure.

SFMTA spokesman Ben Jose said the pilot is intended to “make one of The City’s most iconic destinations more accessible, to more people, by foot and bike,” noting that it would not reduce parking.

The closure would not affect Christmas Tree Point, a popular lookout spot for drivers replete with quarter-fed binoculars. But besides that lookout spot, the eastern side of Twin Peaks Boulevard – with a viewpoint of downtown, the Mission, the Bay Bridge and beyond – would be the sole province of walkers and cyclists.

Cars would be limited to the west side, which is considered a less picturesque view. The western side of Twin Peaks Boulevard would also be turned from a one-way street into a two-way street, according to SFMTA documents. Additional parking would be provided at intersections, and temporary barriers would be installed.

The project will cost an estimated $60,000, according to the SFMTA.

But some neighbors are none too happy with the proposal. Dona Crowder, president of the Twin Peaks Improvement Association, told the San Francisco Examiner that neighbors feared for road safety.

“We’re not for it,” she said.

Originally, the road was engineered to be one way in each direction “for safety,” she said. Now she worries cars driving through the area will need to contend with oncoming tour buses, which frequent the area regularly.

SFMTA’s proposal for Twin Peaks was the subject of a public open house in June 2015, as well as a survey of residents with 450 responses and ongoing meetings with tour bus operators, neighborhood groups and others, according to the SFMTA… (more)

Is cutting off a view by limiting access not discriminating against non-walking, elderly and others who can’t physically walk or bike on a steep hill?