Supervisor Campos made comments on the SFMTA plan before and after the presentation and comments by neighbors. Most people found the studies were lacking in accuracy and called for a better survey of the neighborhood before enacting any changes in the area. David agreed with residents and business owners that even though many changes to the original plan, such as allowing RPP for residents and Preferential Parking Permits for PDRs, are an improvement, the plan is flawed. He concluded by saying that there is no reason to implement any changes until a reasonable approach is found and the details worked out.
The growing trend toward emptying and eliminating public parking garages and parking lots was mentioned at the meeting. There are a couple in the area and a number have been spotted in Mission Bay. Residents on Polk Street and Valencia are also complaining about the rush to eliminate parking spots. Why is the SFMTA spending any time and energy eliminating pubic parking for Muni customers, while cutting back on Muni service? How does eliminating parking options benefit Muni riders?
There is a disconnect in the congested parking theory and the reality of the parking habits of human beings. Why is SFMTA is continuing to sign contracts to expand the program in spite of the lack of evidence or data from the initial tests?
Father of the congestion theory, Dr. Shoup admits his theories are unproven.
He is quoted as saying,If it works, it will make San Francisco an even better place to live and do business and visit. It will just be yet another feather in the cap of San Francisco. And if it doesn’t work, they can blame it all on a professor from Los Angeles… (more)
Santa Monica fired Nelson/Nygaard consultant, Jeff Tumlin, and now the Planning Commission may shelf their radical parking proposals which have “upset and enraged” residents… (more)
If Santa Monica can take back their streets, we can too.
As is evident below, the dreaded SFMTA has now decided that they don’t have to study the effect of projects on automobile and street congestion. BUT, they can collect fees.
if you people don’t stop the SFMTA, you will be left with a Manila or Beijing or Rome. I don’t care, i won’t be here. The new ATG (ed: Auto Trips Generated) system will almost never require an EIR, because the TSF money collected by the Transportation Authority is considered to be a traffic mitigation charge. How clever: The Transportation Authority is abandoning environmental impacts on car congestion and delays, so they can charge developers for transportation money. The Transportation Authority now believes that any reasonable measurement of transit sustainability will satisfy CEQA requirements.If ATG replaces LOS, the Transportation Authority has the right to do whatever it wants with San Francisco’s streets. There is no person or agency in City government fighting for the rights of automobile drivers and their passengers. Slower car speeds, delays, and congestion will not be as important as wider bus lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and limited parking… (more)
The more you know the more important the CEQA protections look. Tell you Supervisor to protect your rights to know and your rights to appeal big decisions that effect your life, such as eliminating parking spots and tying up traffic with complete street projects.
Send the SFMTA a message that their priority is to FIX MUNI not tell people how to get around.