Eastern Neighborhoods

http://enufsf.com/ deals with a new Pilot plans the SFMTA has for Dogpatch.
Parking Pilot Proposed in Dogpatch by : potreroview

The biggest problem we face is the elimination of traffic lanes and parking spots on our major streets. The Potrero Avenue plan, along with the expansion of General Hospital is a travesty in more ways than one. Let the Supervisors know how you feel about the way SFMTA is managing traffic and parking:
https://metermadness.wordpress.com/district-supervisors

The RPP request to extend Zone W was filed. Go here to download these and other documents: http://sfenuf.net/Docs.html
Residential Parking Permit Petitions: RPP forms
Business Parking Permit Forms: RPP Biz forms

NEMBA has is developing another plan for PDRs and businesses here:
http://nembasf.org/events/

Here are some photos of the streets in the Eastern Neighborhoods that the SFMTA claims need calming and more parking controls. In truth, the streets are filling up during the day because of SFMTA’s efforts to remove parking spaces. People park here because the BART station is nearby, and because they have been squeezed out of their neighborhoods. Sound familiar? At night and on weekends there is more than ample parking.  Click on an image to launch slide show.

Most residents agree our neighborhoods need more parking, not less. We need parking right off the freeways exits so we can take public transit and not waste all day getting to the final destination. Some Supervisors and Candidates agree.

This website is provided by the City and County of San Francisco to assist San Franciscans to make street improvements in their neighborhoods, shopping districts, and workplaces. The site provides information on street improvement project types, the City’s permitting process, maintenance responsibilities, and applicable codes and guidelines. http://www.sfbetterstreets.org/

Advertisements

Recent Posts

Red Lane Amendments and Efforts to Stop the Corporatization of our Streets

MissionReds

After months of letters, comments and neighborhood pushback against many elements of corporate takeover of our streets and public spaces, many people who shocked by the announcement that some of the Red Lanes in the city are open to use by private enterprise vehicles, such as tech buses, private shuttles, and any vehicle that carries more than 10 riders, based on the definition of a bus.

Supervisor Fewer, among others, scheduled hearings on the use of the Red Lanes that were re-scheduled a couple of times, and reset for early December. As many people were preparing for those meetings, we got the news that recent developments at the Land Use and Transportation Committee may have made those hearings unnecessary.  November 5, 2018, Aaron Peskin aide, Lee Hepner, introduced Amendment 18-862, that was passed unanimously to the Full Board by the Land Use and Transportation Committee:

Ordinance 180862 – Ordinance amending Division I of the Transportation Code to establish a procedure for Board of Supervisors review of Municipal Transportation Agency decisions related to Bus Rapid Transit projects that do not include transit-only areas or lanes for Municipal Railway vehicles, taxis, authorized emergency vehicles, and/or Golden Gate Transit vehicles; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The tape of the meeting is below, go to Item 6: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/31749?view_id=10&meta_id=642988

As a matter of introduction Mr. Hepler described the areas of concern that are under the purview of the Board of Supervisors, though they are not being added to this amendment at this time.

This is a paraphrased transcript of the meeting:

Within the text of Prop A, there is a provision that allows the Board of Supervisors to enact an ordinance that gives the Board the option to review SFMTA decisions regarding various curb space decisions, bicycle lanes, traffic mitigations and measures etc…

Background information:  Supervisors Peskin and Safai co-sponsored Ordinance 180089, to enact that review provision regarding curb use. That ordinance expressly exempted certain projects from review that were determined to be public interest projects, such as bike lanes, curb modifications for street sweeping, and bus rapid transit projects.

This new ordinance is taking on elements of the Bus Rapid Transit Projects that are not clearly defined in the code and providing guidance as to the scope of the board’s review authority of these projects. This proposal expresses this board’s desire to promote Bus Rapid Transport projects that are generally designed and implemented to further public transportation reliability.

The amendment clarifies the Board of Supervisor’s policy preference. The board would not review BRT projects that are designed for public transportation use, but would take review of BRT projects designed for use by private commercial shuttles, tour busses or other modes of private transportation that might actually impede the flow of public transportation.

The proposed amendment… replaces the words, “bus rapid transit project” with “bus rapid transit project that includes transit only areas or lanes for municipal railway vehicles, taxis, authorized emergency vehicles, and/or Golden Gate Transit Vehicles.”

SFMTA appears to have collaborated on this. The amendment passed to the full Board of Supervisors as is on the agenda for the November 13 Board of Supervisors meeting. We had no notice, but, this appears to be going through rather rapidly. In this case, that may be a good thing.

  1. RVs in the News Leave a reply
  2. First-ever woman named SF Muni chief Leave a reply
  3. Red Lanes hearing cancelled! Leave a reply
  4. Uber And Lyft Are Making Traffic Worse While Claiming To Fix It Leave a reply
  5. E-scooters are back Leave a reply
  6. SF may fine Uber’s Jump bike repair shop for violating city code Leave a reply
  7. Ways San Francisco nickels and dimes its residents Leave a reply
  8. Muni chief steps down amid growing pressure over harassment allegations Leave a reply
  9. SF may no longer require housing developers to build parking Leave a reply