San Francisco Board of Supervisors Hosts Hearing on MTA Parking Plans

By Keith Burbank : potreroview – excerpt

Last month the San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee asked San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) director of transportation, Ed Reiskin, to discuss the agency’s parking meter plans. Committee members presiding over the hearing included District 9 Supervisor David Campos, who represents the Mission, District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar; and District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sat in for District 7 Supervisor Norman Yee, who couldn’t be present, with District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen also in attendance. Reiskin answered questions from the supervisors, provided data on parking revenues, and explained the rationale driving parking meter expansion.
The “MTA is on the wrong track,” said Cohen, who explained that her main frustration with the agency relates to its lack of a comprehensive planning, with SFMTA’s transit, parking and enforcement divisions going in different directions. The supervisor added that transportation and associated infrastructure wasn’t keeping up with development and growth in her district. Worse, complained Cohen, in some instances SFMTA has been considering cuts in service, has been inconsistent in its enforcement of the residential parking permit program, and the agency’s plans don’t adequately acknowledge the parking needs of production, distribution, and repair (PDR) businesses…
Campos said he appreciated the agency’s effort to listen to the community. But he pointed out that the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan calls for protecting PDR businesses, and asked that SFMTA follow this policy…
Reiskin acknowledged that parking management affects the economic viability of commercial districts…
Farrell asked the transportation director how parking management efforts can meet the needs of families — especially ones with multiple children, and both parents working — who depend on cars…
Farrell said residents have told him that SFMTA seems to be making car ownership more challenging, rather than making public transit more attractive. “I hear that time and time again,” Farrell said. The supervisor insisted that making transit more attractive should come first…
Campos told Reiskin that there should be no artificial deadline for the parking meter expansion. Instead, SFMTA should be sure to hear the concerns of residents and business owners.
“We’ll continue to take the time that it needs,” Reiskin responded… (more)

SFMTA Puts More Time in Meter Plan

Keith Burbank : potreroview.net – excerpt

Anti-parking meter advocates appear to have won a victory in their efforts to slow-down plans to blanket parts of Dogpatch, Mission, and Potrero Hill with high-tech parking meters.  In a letter to a citizens group spearheading anti-meter efforts, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) director Ed Reiskin said the agency “may delay when we begin engagement with the 12th & Folsom areaЙat present the agency does not plan to revise the order for outreach to the other areas.”  For now, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and the Mission will not be part of the Mission Bay parking pilot because of citizen concerns about the plan, Reiskin said in his letter.  Reiskin’s correspondence was in response to a request by the Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF) to reschedule meter-related outreach efforts over a longer time period.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce joined ENUF in opposing SFMTA’s parking meter plan, though the chamber’s president and chief executive officer, Steven B. Falk, said in a newsletter that “demand-sensitive parking charges can provide new revenue for transit services.”  The business group recommended that the City study a regional congestion pricing model, and work with other organizations to alleviate traffic congestion.  In the same newsletter, Falk wrote that SFMTA’s policies may be “‘driving’ employees, employers and customers out of San Francisco…”

(more)

Since the advent of the SFMTA encroachment by parking meters and limited parking hours, we are aware of few citizen complaints over traffic. The conversation has centered almost entirely on the parking problems.

 

Could the following Newswire review have anything to do with the Chamber’s position?

 

U.S. Travel Association: San Mateo County Travel Tax Will Hurt Economy

“The latest proposed travel tax hikes in San Mateo County (Bay Area), CA will damage the local economy, make San Francisco International Airport (SFO) less competitive, and generate far less revenue than county officials estimate, according to a new economic impact study released by the U.S. Travel Association.

Economists found that SFO could lose 100,000 vehicle rentals a year if just one of the measures were to pass…”