Buzz

Comments

1. J. on Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:28am

   Well written article.

   And some unmentioned positive long-term externalities of fees for parking would likely include reduced car usage and perhaps greater density.

2. David in California on Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:28am

   I don’t know if the answers to San Fransisco’s budgetary woes are to meter the other 90% of parking spots to raise money for the city, considering already we are in a major recession and plenty of people are laid off.  The city first and foremost must become much leaner, renegotiate union pay scales and especially pensions, and eliminate any and all unnecessary yet expensive programs to balance the budget before taxes are raised.  In reality, them laying people off, while hurtful to the people that were laid off, is a good thing, as the size of city government must shrink a bit to fall in line with reality. 

   As you said, San Fransisco is already expensive, why make it more so for the people who live there?  It will only further act to remove more of the middle class, especially younger families as they realize they can find a better and cheaper life outside of the city and continue to flee. 

   It is a good thing that they take stock of their parking inventory, so proper planning decisions can be made, but to tax people for parking their car in front of their house?  Many homes were built prior to the car becoming as dominate as it is now, and for alot of people without a garage, it’s a necessity for them to park their car on the street.  Come on now, for many in San Fransisco, it may be the last straw….

3. Shawn Allen in San Francisco on Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:17pm

   David, your concerns are are totally valid. People pay an inordinate amount of money to own and maintain motor vehicles in San Francisco, and that’s money that could be better spent on food, housing, and locally produced goods that fuel our own economy rather than funneling money out of our city, state, and country.

   But what you have to realize is that our dependence on automobiles is crippling us in many other ways. Private automobiles inhibit the movement of public transit and slow the delivery of commercial goods. Traffic impacts everyone, and though its effects are difficult to measure it’s clear that we need to solve the problem of congestion if we’re to turn this city around. We need more public spaces in which people can live healthier, happier lives.  We need safer streets on which people can feel better and more confident while walking, biking, and shopping. Charging a reasonable rate for the use of public space that now serves few people (and inefficiently so, as evidenced by drivers’ frequent complaints that it’s difficult to park here) is smart public policy, and the long term effects that it will have on San Francisco are too numerous to list here.

   What we can’t afford to do is delay parking reform any longer. Giving preference to motor vehicles actively inhibits the movement of people who can’t afford them, or who get around via other means. And as the article clearly states, the space that cars take up is a valuable public resource which is currently being poorly utilized and represents a substantial opportunity cost to the city.

4. David in California on Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:37pm

   “Land is one of the most valuable resources of any city, particularly one as expensive as San Francisco, and while it is superb that the new system will take much of the guesswork out of parking, what the city really needs is to see massive financial gains from this largely untapped resource. “

   That right there seems to be the point of the article, that San Fransisco is broke and needs the money, not how automotive dependence is ruining our lives.  Look, I’m all for a balanced transportation policy and all, otherwise I wouldn’t be reading this blog, but in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, maybe the city of San Fransisco should think of other ways to cut their spending.  The city already has an annual residential parking permit program that looking at the map covers approximately 40% of the city, which went up $20 to $96 annually for residents as of April 1st.  So, do those residents get double taxed now?  Is the parking permit mentioned anywhere in the article?  Not a once.

   My point is these types of measures are often counterproductive and spawn many unintended consequences.  Like I said, some people may just get fed up enough to leave the city, these people often are the lifeblood of cities, young families, children, etc.  Or, people begin to tear up their backyards to install off street parking to avoid the tax. 

   Sidewalks are a public resource, should we tax pedestrians for walking on them?  Should neighborhood parks have entrance fees?  Should churches and other non profits be taxed because they are taking up valuable real estate that could be used for a more profitable purpose?  Schools have alot of playgrounds and open fields, hey that’s empty land, should we remove those so we can build some more houses or offices?  Of course not, and with residents already paying to park through the annual permit, this idea of installing meters everywhere just so the city can balance their budget is absurd. 

   Cars aren’t the problem, San Fransisco’s spending habits are the problem and they need to change, otherwise the city will continue to be drained of the middle class, and the only people left are either the wealthy, retired, or the very poor who cannot afford to move.

5. corinne on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:46pm

   The primary goal of SFpark is to make it easier to park by providing access to real-time information.
   does this mean that now bikers/pedestrians/other drivers will have to deal with drivers driving horribly because they’re using their iphones to find parking?

6. Marie in District of Columbia on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:27am

   Well said, David.  As a resident of the District of Columbia I am concerned with the anti-car movement sweeping through our Department of Transportation.  As David says, transportation policy should be balanced.

   I am happy to see that SF is taking the parking issue seriously; however, I think that often young planners become obsessed with technology-based practices that ultimately only serve those already with the best access to city services or those best equipped to complain.  Wouldn’t the money be better spent on improved city services?  Or a parking garage? 

   One of my main concerns with anti-car and anti-street parking measures is that they tend to serve young singles and couples, and in the District of Columbia that often means whites and middle- to upper-income households.  Some feminist planners have raised concerns about anti-car measures.  Even in the most equal of marriages, women tend to disproportionately complete the household duties, including shuttling kids to/from school and school-related events, grocery shop, etc.  Without a car, many of these tasks are very difficult or impossible.  In the District of Columbia, kids infrequently attend neighborhood schools and many jobs are not only in center cities but in the exurbs and far reaching suburbs.  Yet, parking is being reduced for Zip Cars, meters fares are increasing, meters are breaking and not being repaired, and bike lanes are popping up in places where I have never seen a cyclist on the street.  Our transportation department surely needs someone to teach them some urban economy or urban planning 101. 

   Planners need to remember that cities are for all… for residents, for visitors, for affluent, for low-income.  Walking-friendly communities are wonderful, but presently they tend to add to a consumer-centered way of life that is easier for the affluent.

7. Shawn Allen in San Francisco on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:42pm

   Marie,

   If transportation policy is to be balanced, we should be paying far more attention to modes of transit that benefit those who cannot afford or lack access to motor vehicles. And we should be encouraging denser development which allows people to live—eat, learn, be entertained—without having to travel long distances. These policies can provide better and more equitable infrastructure for people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and financial means. The fact remains, though, that if we want our cities to grow—and, let’s be clear: they must—we cannot continue favoring automotive transportation over more affordable, efficient, and less environmentally destructive modes.

   The underpricing of parking is a serious liability for cities. In San Francisco we’ve created a situation in which everyone subsidizes private motor vehicles by giving up public space that could be much better utilized by more people, and in which the encouragement of automobile dependence is one of the primary inhibitors of the modes its underwriters (bus riders, walkers, and cyclists) rely upon. Private automobiles clog our city streets and delay Muni. Bus travel times slow, and people resort to driving their cars because they think that will get them to work more quickly. The influx of automobiles only worsens the situation, though, and drivers waste valuable time and money sitting in traffic. It’s a downward spiral, and one exacerbated by inducing demand with more parking.

   San Francisco literally doesn’t have any more room for more cars as it is, and housing would become even less affordable than it is now if we were to replace valuable public, residential, and commercial space with parking. The fact that there is very little room for more people in our city is much bigger cause for concern than the lack of space for more cars, though. Housing is a much bigger piece of family budgets than transportation, and we’ve suffered a potentially devastating loss of middle class families in San Francisco due to a lack of truly affordable housing. We simply cannot grow as a city without tipping the scales in favor of public and non-automotive transportation.

   A comprehensive planning policy involves building denser developments that reduce the demand for less efficient point-to-point modes, and providing a variety of other safe and reliable transportation options that empower people rather than limit them. San Francisco has failed on both fronts, and catering to the needs of only those wealthy enough to own cars will only worsen the situation. It’s obvious that not everyone can live carless without making dramatic changes to their lives, and it would be unreasonable to demand those sacrifices without (quite literally) driving people out of our cities in droves. But American cities dwellers tend to rely on automobiles much more than they probably should, and this is primarily a consequence of bad planning. It’s not too late to change, though, and the sooner we do it the less painful it will be for all of us.

8. Marie on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:14pm

   Shawn,

   Thanks for your very thoughtful response.  I agree with you on all fronts.  Our experiences in our particular cities might be influencing our views and may not be generalizable. 

   In DC it seems that people advocate for alternative transportation, but do not add the dollars to actually follow through.  What happens is that the lowest-income residents are tokens in this ideological battle, but then rarely feel the benefits.  Transportation planning needs to mirror the needs of the city (or be forward thinking and able to implement subsequent social policies accordingly).  For many District residents, jobs in the suburbs are very difficult to get to without a car and although more metro and bus is in order, what the city is getting is bike lanes, zip cars, higher parking fares, and no increased bus service.  You might have heard about the recent problem with our metro system: accidents, increased fares, etc.

   SF is a beautiful—and expensive—city.  My friends and I talk about heading to Philly, Baltimore, or New Orleans in order to live in a mixed community, with persons of all races and incomes.  Sadly, I think DC might be following the same path as SF.  The last city administration made it a priority to attract households without children in order to raise revenue from taxes without those households using services such as city schools or cash assistance—indeed, a vacant, elitist, and shortsighted approach to development.  The current Fenty administration seems to be following a similar trajectory.  They continue to overlay planning models from other cities without a complete understanding of the holistic nature of urban economy and planning. 

   I reside East of the River, in a predominantly Black section of the city.  Unlike SF, DC has open space, but even that is being flipped or developed primarily for profit.  Affordable housing development, my academic policy interest, is not even on the table as a priority.

   What are we to do?  Bad planning seems to follow bad planning.

9. David in California on Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:09pm

   Shawn,

   How can you say parking is subsidized, when all forms of transit forms are subsidized?  You say: “In San Francisco we’ve created a situation in which everyone subsidizes private motor vehicles by giving up public space that could be much better utilized by more people.”  As I already commented above, people who park and live in the city of SF need parking permits, of which they need to pay $96 per year.  Contractors and others who work in the city must pay more.  Has anyone figured out what the real cost is per parking space in the city?  Is it truly subsidized?

   You want higher density and smarter growth, then fine, I agree with that, but at this point to further tax people who are already highly taxed just to raise revenue for a city that grossly overspends money on projects, salaries, pensions, and benefits, is plain wrong.  Where would this new revenue go to?  Would 100% of it be used for transit projects to make San Fransisco better connected?  If it is simply going to be used to fill a budget gap, then isn’t this just wrong? 

   Face it, at this point, people need their cars to get around.  Taxing them more than what they already pay is not “progress” at all, but simply another reason for people to move out of the city, and spreading out even further, the opposite of your goal of higher density.

10. Paul in Lafayette on Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:56pm

    Clearly Laura Walsh’s livelihood is not connected the influx of visitors for shopping, dining or cultural events in San Francisco—a huge portion of the City’s revenue source.  A *balanced* approach is needed here, which SF is already researching.  But Laura Walsh’s proposal is over the top and would hurt the City. 

    The more prohibitive it becomes to park in or visit SF, the more the suburbs will benefit from their thriving and growing dining/shopping/cultural complexes.  Many of the larger suburbs in the Bay Area continue to build upon these amenities—while offering abundant parking at free or reasonable rates.  Towns like Burlingame, Palo Alto, San Rafael, Walnut Creek, San Jose, and others make it convenient and relatively affordable to see movies or shows, dine out in good restaurants, and enjoy local nightlife. 

    Although none matches SF’s array of options, these communities will continue to lure more people, who will opt to avoid the hassles involved in spending their money in the City.  That will harm SF’s budget severely over the long term—and, hence, many of the services that make SF livable for residents like Laura.

11. David in California on Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:49pm

    If anyone doubts why San Fransisco is broke, look no further than the fact that 1 out of 3 public employees make over $100,000 a year, 20% more than the private sector pay, vastly better benefits and health care. 

    Follow the link:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/MNC51CLUBN.DTL&tsp=1&nopu=1

    Just reinforces everything I said above.

12. Shawn Allen in San Francisco on Sun, May 09, 2010 at 8:08pm

    David,

    I know I’m a little slow on the reply here, but a few of your statements shouldn’t go unchallenged:

    “How can you say parking is subsidized, when all forms of transit forms are subsidized?”

    It’s pretty simple: All forms of public transit (including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure) should be subsidized because they can be used by everyone, and because they are more efficient in terms of energy and space than cars. Parking, however—and, more generally, all infrastructure dedicated primarily to private automobiles—is an inefficient use of public space that can only be used by those who can afford it. AAA estimates that the average medium-sized sedan costs $9,641 per year, excluding loan payments. Roads don’t even pay for themselves, and San Francisco’s are in really poor shape, so clearly that investment hasn’t paid off very well. Furthermore, an abundance of parking and automotive infrastructure comes at the expense of public and self-powered transit, and creates a situation in which people are essentially “forced” to own a car. It’s a vicious cycle, and the only way out of it is to incentivize other modes and start charging drivers for the true cost of their convenience to the city and its residents. I hear people alternately complain about the cost of auto registration and parking, then the cost and reliability of public transit; but few connect the dots and try to understand why it is that our over-reliance on automobiles has seriously hindered the growth of a decent public transit system and facilities that make biking and walking safer, more viable alternatives.

    “Face it, at this point, people need their cars to get around.”

    That’s not generally true, and you know it. The “need” for cars is situational, and varies wildly from person to person and place to place. Residents of the Sunset and the Richmond “need” cars because they’ve chosen to live in neighborhoods that distance them from commercial centers that provide them with the things they actually need: food, clothing, employment, education, etc. I lived in the Inner Sunset for 3 years and drove my car regularly. After 9 months of living in the Mission, though, I sold my car because it became totally unnecessary. Now I live close enough to my office, my friends, grocery stores, great restaurants, and shopping that I can easily get everywhere I want to be by bike, public transit, or on foot. Downtown is a 10-minute BART ride away, and on the rare occasion that I need to drive somewhere I can grab a City Car Share from one of the 3 pods within a couple of blocks of my apartment. Everyone in the city deserves that degree freedom.

    The fact of the matter is that most people don’t need their cars. What we, as a society, really need is a diverse and holistic transportation system that gets all of the city’s people where they want to go quickly and safely. (And, of course, we need to live in places that put the things we need closer to us.) Private automobiles are a part of that system, but their overwhelming dominance stifles the growth of alternatives. San Francisco is a geographically constrained area with little room to grow, and the high cost of housing is a reflection of its short supply, for which we have to blame a lack of physical space and overly restrictive planning regulations. We can’t afford any more room for cars, and the cost of parking is way out of step with the economic value of that space to the city and its residents. If the city is to grow we need to drastically change the proportion of people who use their own cars to those who use more efficient and less environmentally destructive modes, so that we can create more space for people.

    Refusing to charge drivers the true cost of their cars—which is, in effect, forcing everyone else to subsidize drivers—may help some people who are struggling in the short term (though I would argue that those same people would do well to consider that getting rid of their car may, in fact, solve their money problems), but doing so further delays all of the necessary changes that the city needs to undergo in order to become a sustainable habitat for more people in the long term. Obviously just pricing drivers out of the city isn’t the answer. But if the city can turn those dials slowly while increasing the viability of alternatives and inviting development which frees people from the need to travel long distances for the things they need, then maybe those people will start to recognize the myriad benefits that the city provides over suburban life. Some who considered moving out of the city might change their minds; others may not, and that’s okay. Hopefully they will be replaced by people who think differently, and can appreciate all of the good reasons for living in a city in the first place.

Comments are closed.

Events

• Feb 23, 2012 Re-imagining Urban Highways Philadelphia
• Feb 29, 2012 An Evening with Code for America
• Mar 05, 2012 - Mar 06, 2012 Getting it Done II: Building Strong Communities In A Changing World Chicago
• More events…

Comments

• Paul: What’s amazing is that while rust-belt cities are built around cars; despite lack of parking during … (read)
• David: I would be surprised to see tax savings as a top five reason for household location. … (read)
• AK: I often make this argument to friends that have moved out to the exurbs supposedly to … (read)