SFMTA seeks more parking meter revenue to balance its budget

|
(49)
The SFMTA's budget proposal calls for 500 new parking meters and charging at all meters on Sundays.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency staff and Director Ed Reiskin today unveiled a two-year budget proposal that avoids Muni fare increases or service cuts and directs more money to address the transit system's deferred maintenance needs, but it relies on substantially increasing parking meter revenues in ways that have been tough sells before.

In addition, the budget proposal – which will be considered by the SFMTA Board of Directors on Tuesday – is seeking labor concessions to lop off another $7 million, which will still need to be negotiated with the militant Transport Workers Union Local 250A. That won't be easy, but Reiskin made a good first move by recently canning 10 of the agency's top-paid executives en route to saving $2 million per year just in management salaries.

But the parking meter proposals are likely to stir a hornet's nest of angry motorists who have come to expect free street parking. Reiskin is proposing to eliminate the free parking on Sundays, making drivers pay for parking between noon and 6 pm. And he wants to add another 500 parking meters.

Both are good ideas for an agency that desperately needs the money, and it has done studies showing that businesses and motorists would benefit from the charges making parking spots more readily available. But each time the SFMTA has tried to implement these proposals – trying to do Sunday meter hours in 2009 and trying to add hundreds of new meters in the Mission and Potrero Hill earlier this year – the torches and pitchforks came out and agency officials sulked off to lick it wounds.

But Reiskin says this is what the city needs to do. An SFMTA press release labels the proposals “modernizing antiquated parking policies, and Reiskin says, “While we’ve made tough decisions in order to develop a responsible, balanced budget, we are doing everything we can to avoid fare increases and service cuts. These proposals reflect our commitment to the city’s Transit First policy and allows for improvement in all modes of transportation.”

Comments

MTA could balance its budget easily if it cancelled the dumb Central Subway project, the political deal disguised as a transportation project.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

Most residents agree with you Rob. The MTA can't manage the transportation system in its current state and now they want to saddle taxpayers with this central subway. The MTA and their "thuggish" policies have started a movement. The MTA thinks that they are "too big to fail" but their anti business policies have reached main street.

Definition: SFpark
SFpark (sf-park) n.

A failed experiment of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA) designed to expand government, bilk taxpayers, and generate unlimited revenue under the guise of "Going Green".  

SFpark.info

Posted by SFPARK RIPOFF on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 4:20 am

wonderful publish, very informative. I'm wondering why the opposite experts of this sector don't
realize this. You should proceed your writing.
I am confident, you have a great readers' base already!

Posted by number plate recognition on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 6:15 pm
Posted by alison on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

Which is an absurd amount to spend because you got caught in a long line at the store and were a minute late to your car. It's not the responsibility of drivers who park their cars on the street to keep fares down for those who ride MUNI.

Reiskin just doesn't get it. It's so insulting to the populace that we have to come out and protest these wrong-headed attempts to milk us again and again and again and then Reiskin and his anti-automobile cronies wait a couple months and submits them AGAIN. He doesn't give a shit what the people want - his arrogance is staggering.

Posted by Troll II on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 8:05 pm

I would take issue with this statement: "It's not the responsibility of drivers who park their cars on the street to keep fares down for those who ride MUNI."

Voters gave SFMTA jurisdiction over both transportation choices and declared a transit-first policy priority. That made sense because they are inextricably linked: if driving is too cheap and easy and there are too many cars on the road, that slows down Muni and makes it a less attractive option, creating a downward spiral for our entire transportation system.

And your point also raises this question: as a bicyclist, why is it my responsibility to subsidize motorists and Muni riders? Neither pays for their full societal impacts, whereas the sales taxes I pay that are set aside for transportation more than pays for my small impact to the roadways (heavy cars and buses break down asphalt but light bikes really don't). But let me answer my own question: We all have a responsibility to pay for what this complex city needs to function. It's just part of the basic social bargain of living in civil society. And despite all the screaming and hollering to come on this issue, I have a hard time seeing anyone making a logically defensible argument that drivers are entitled to store their vehicles on our streets for free. Does anyone here want to try?

Posted by steven on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

I like the term "our streets" as if you and like minded people own the streets. Many of the people utilizing parking ("storing their vehicles on OUR streets" as you like to put it) pay taxes and support their building and maintenance. I think that's a very defensible argument that can be made. Voters can also remove MTA's authority when they feel abused.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

cloak of self-righteousness.

"Our streets" mean looking through the world through his made of reality.

Logic dictates that we all obey his world view because he is so much smarter than all of us, you know, with his logic.

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

"through his made of reality?"

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
err

"made up reality"

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

It's heavy vehicles, specifically buses and cargo-carrying trucks, which cause the most damage to the road. Not "heavy cars." According to a GAO study - road damage from one 18-wheeler (at 80,000 pounds) is equivalent to 9600 cars (at 4000 pounds each). It's a matter of exponents.

I don't think drivers should be able to park their vehicles for free. I actually think there was so merit to SFMTA's plan to put meters on Portrero Hill because parking there, especially during the day, can be a total nightmare. But ever-increasing fines for overtime parking absolutely have to stop. Fines are not supposed to serve as the mainstay of the transportation budget - they are out of proportion to the activity which they are supposed to penalize the driver for. Even you cannot justify a $60 fine for being one minute late on your meter.

And Steven - how do you think the food and clothes you buy, the spare tires you need etc... get to this city? There's nearly 100% chance they got here by truck. So that's why you need to help pay. Because Steven's organic greens don't magically show up at Rainbow Grocery in the basket of someone's bike.

Posted by Troll II on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

I'm a car owner/driver and am OK with the MTA activating parking meters on Sundays. However, I think the MTA should raise fares to increase revenue. San Francisco MUNI fares seem a little low when compared to other big cities like New York or Chicago. I ride MUNI on average twice a week and think that $4.00 for a round trip is a really good deal. I would still ride MUNI at $6.00 per round trip. It's still less costly than parking your car for $7.00 per hour or $20.00 per day!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

Bike rider & Muni pay zippo for the streets they ride their bikes on and drive buses on.

Car owners pay 87 per gallon for road taxes, a new 20 dollar fee to registar cars in the city so the roads are nice for cyclist. Also, FET taxes on tires etc.

You're not paying a red cent in taxes for the streets - neither is Muni. I am also the proud father of 3 bikes, but, I am still completely amazed at cycling avocates sense of entitlement...

It's time cyclist pay too..

Posted by Guest on Apr. 04, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

thereby paying for their road use. After all, cycling is private transit even more than cars - the exact opposite of a "transit first" policy

Then we'll talk about bike lanes and special treatment.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 04, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

What a load of crap.

$60 million in wasted overtime is just the beginnig. Have the $100k bus drivers started contributing a dime to their guaranteed pensions yet??

No but we need to tax middle-class residents who don't have health care and pensions to pay for it; right in the middle of the Great Recession.

My gawd- we get one day of peace from the PCOs and their RIDICULOUS $60 tickets but no- we can't even get that any more.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

The constant threat of not knowing what to expect from day to day as you drive, bus, walk, or bike around the city is enough to convince us that it is time to clip the wings of the SFMTA. They have started projects all over town that are disruptive and in many cases, downright dangerous.

There are streets all over town with no paint on the lanes, that have gone from being 2 or 4 lanes to 3 or ??? lanes. A lot of the white bike symbols are fading or flaking off. To add real stupidity into the mxi, there are plans for new curb-side bicycle lanes in Golden Gate Park. What is the point of every street being different? Why would bicycles want to drive next to cars in Golden Gate Park and the Panhandle, when there are miles of bicycle trails throughout the park?

Do you really want a lot of confused people having to think about which lane they are supposed to be in on each block? What about at night and in the rain and fog when you can't see very well? Knowing instinctively which lane is yours is the only safe way to travel.

SFMTA should drop everything and fix Muni. The Mayor and Supervisors should deny SFMTA any more revenue until they do the job they were hired to do. otherwise, there will be a voters revolt.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 10:47 pm

The thinking of progressives like Mr Jones is so comical.

The government has run amok and is persecuting Ross Mirkarimi, the government isn't harassing the citizens enough with more meters and more meter hours.

The citizens need a government that reflects their needs, the entitled peasants are upset that they have to pay for parking.

The whole transit first policy is such a red herring, the city has passed probably hundreds of meaningless jingo's over the decades, and yet the only one we hear about is the "transit first policy" that is really just a policy to make everyone miserable.

The Guardianbots take with a grain of salt the cities government's case against boss Ross, it is unquestioning in its servility to the SFMTA. What a spineless crew of hacks.

Posted by Matlock on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 7:07 am

Here's a resolution that I offered which passed the MTA Citizens Advisory Council unanimously last night:

[Resolution urging the MTA Board of Directors to restore funds approved in 2007 by voters but spent outside the MTA to transit operations within the MTA in order to build trust as a basis for securing additional resources required for transit operations.]

WHEREAS, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A in November, 2007; and,

WHEREAS, Proposition A dedicated 80% of City parking revenues, a sum amounting to $26 million to transit; and,

WHEREAS, In the subsequent budgets since that time, the MTA has authorized "work orders" that sent those new resources out of the MTA at the expense of transit operations; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the MTA Citizens Advisory Council finds that the public support for securing additional needed resources for transit operations requires that the MTA Board of Directors meet its end of the bargain made to the voters in 2007; and, therefore be it

FINALLY RESOLVED, That the MTA Citizens Advisory Council urges the MTA Board of Directors to begin to rebuild public trust in the agency's ability to dedicate new resources to transit operations by ending at least $26 million in work orders so that those dollars can be restored to transit operations as promised to the voters prior to seeking new revenues for transit operations.

Folks should contact MTA leadership, the Mayor and their Supervisors asking them to restore the $26 million in work orders to direct, internal MTA transit operations:

ed.reiskin@sfmta.com

mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

eric.l.mar@sfgov.org
mark.farrell@sfgov.org
david.chiu@sfgov.org
* carmen.chu@sfgov.org
christina.olague@sfgov.org
* jane.kim@sfgov.org
sean.elsbernd@sfgov.org
* scott.wiener@sfgov.org
david.campos@sfgov.org
malia.cohen@sfgov.org
* john.avalos@sfgov.org

* = finance committee

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 7:23 am

Local governments are supposed to exist to provide services to the public. Here in San Francisco, our government's function is to dispense generous benefits and hight salaries to the people working for government.

Until that changes, we will continue to get nickel and dimed, hit with fees, costs, taxes, etc. to support a public workforce gettng benefits that the people paying the taxes, fees, etc. don't get.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 8:23 am

Progressives claim to speak for the people, and yet when the people voice their opinions and the government backs down, Jones complains. So amazingly funny, and pathetic.

"Both are good ideas for an agency that desperately needs the money, and it has done studies showing that businesses and motorists would benefit from the charges making parking spots more readily available. But each time the SFMTA has tried to implement these proposals – trying to do Sunday meter hours in 2009 and trying to add hundreds of new meters in the Mission and Potrero Hill earlier this year – the torches and pitchforks came out and agency officials sulked off to lick it wounds."

Posted by Matlock on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 9:04 am

Pension costs for retired workers went up another $60 million this year.

This requires "revenue enhancements" elsewhere.

Sorry, drivers! The "city family" needs you to pay for its retirement.

Posted by Troll the IV on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 10:29 am

That's where our problems are, speculative investors and the military industrial complex that thrives on perpetual war for perpetual profit.

Agency budgets do not cover pensions.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 11:28 am

The rest is just fluff. We will see price hikes and tax increases every year forever unless we cut back on these insane pension and health benefits.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

"it has done studies showing that businesses and motorists would benefit from the charges"

Where's the citation for these supposed studies? I doubt they exist. Who commissioned them? Who published them? Were they peer reviewed? This article is such an inaccurate one-sided joke it's not even funny. Bruce Brugmann should be ashamed for publishing such propaganda.

Meters further increase the cost of living and are a tool used to gentrify neighborhoods. The SFMTA has managed to convince progressives to get behind an incredibly regressive proposal. It's truly sad that they allow themselves to be used as pawns this way. There are no proposals to put new meters in Presidio/Pac Heights.

The budget could easily be fixed by restricting the overtime scam that has gone on forever in the MUNI system. One guy calls in sick and his buddy gets overtime for covering and they switch off the next week.

Fix that, and then fix the rest of MUNI.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 10:31 am

The studies were done by the SFMTA in association with each of the proposals that I linked to, they're pretty easy to find on the SFMTA website. They were not peer-reviewed in the sense that academic papers are, but their logic makes inherent sense: if cars can't park for free all day, many will move, thus opening up parking spots. Now, you can raise all kinds of other issues -- such as your regressive tax point, which isn't borne out when one looks at the socioeconomic status of who owns cars versus who uses Muni -- but the basic logic in those studies seems obvious. If you don't want cars to take up parking spaces all day, charge for those spaces. Drivers aren't entitled to use public land to store their vehicles for free. And in a city that refuses to tax wealthy property owners enough to pay for public transit services that this city needs to function, we're faced with hard choices like this one. Reiskin has already taken one step suggested in the comment -- firing a bunch of SFMTA managers making over $100,000 per year -- so now we're moving on to what's next. It should be a lively debate.

Posted by steven on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 11:48 am

So the "studies" were done by the same organization who is implementing policy based on them with no objective third party review. And you take them at face value? Do you also believe the tobacco company "studies" that say nicotine is not addictive?

The logic of those studies does not make inherent sense as you state. Simple supply and demand shows the flaw in their logic. You can't free up parking unless there are either less cars or more spots. Otherwise you are just shifting around inventory. If someone moves from one spot they are going to have to park in a different one or drive around all day. You can't get rid of cars until you provide real alternatives by, for instance, fixing MUNI.

The belief that only rich people own cars in San Francisco is absolutely false. One example is people who use tools in their jobs, including many day laborers, who own cars in order to get those tools to work. You can't take them on the MUNI. Those people are not rich. That belief must be based on more of your "studies". It also is assuming that those who own cars don't use MUNI, which is also false. I ride MUNI to work every day and I own a car.

What should be next, is fixing the work order nonsense addressed by the CAC that siphons money away from SFMTA operations and the $57 million overtime budget. There are plenty of options to get money to fix MUNI that do not include throwing more good money after bad.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

that all streets should be re stripped for my bicycle at no cost to me, because I pay taxes I should get this for free, people who use basic logic to agree with me know that my logical statements are true because I am correct.

My flawless logic states that people are not entitled to use public things for free, I get to pick and choose my way through what people are entitled to for free by using my basic logic, for example schools should be free, parks should be free, my bike lanes should be free, building should be forced to give up space on their private property for free so that I can park my bike there... Any defined group should get things for free, bike riders should get free things because we pay taxes, while car owners should pay for the things I think they should pay for because of my high logic brain thinking they should, although they pay taxes too.

If you don't agree with my narrow and logical framing of the debate you are an apologist for the rich one percent who drywall, unclog toilets, install and repair locks, all those ultra rich should be paying their fair share so that I can have more bike lanes, logic dictates.

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

"if cars can't park for free all day, many will move, thus opening up parking spots"

That statement is not necessarily true as presented, and ignores the basic economic reality of price elasticity of demand. The factors affecting whether cars will actually move depends on the availability of substitutes (there are few in SF since MUNI generally sucks), the percentage of income of the car owner vs. price (rich people won't need to move their cars, poor people will have to), and the necessity of the good (if you own a car, parking is a necessity meaning people will have to park their car no matter the price).

Parking demand is generally price inelastic in San Francisco due to the fewer transportation substitutes, meaning that price will have little affect on it except in the case of lower income people. If you increase the cost of parking for them in front of their homes where they have no substitute for parking, they will be pushed out of San Francisco to a less expensive area increasing gentrification.

So sure, "their logic makes inherent sense" - if you have no understanding of basic economics.

Posted by Dogpatcher on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

Sure, some of these variables do affect parking demand, but none refutes my point: many cars will move if there's a cost to leaving them there. And the city's SFpark program further utilizes this basic market principle by making parking more expensive in areas where they want more turnover, such as in busy commercial corridors where it's tough to find parking spots. And for those who want to avoid being charged, there are still going to be cheaper parking options if they seek them out. This is basic economics: increasing the price reduces demand when the supply is finite, something that the factors you mention influence, but only a little bit.

Posted by steven on Apr. 02, 2012 @ 10:18 am

concerned about business, handing money over to a useless transit agency doesn't hurt I suppose.

You don't see how, ahem, interesting, your opportunism is?

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Apr. 02, 2012 @ 10:47 am

government agency that is doing it? But not otherwise?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 02, 2012 @ 11:17 am

I agree with are logical and agreeing with how I frame logic makes you more logical too.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/03/02/sf-chamber-poll-distorts-factsagain

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

Over and over again what's being written is that those opposing SFMTA proposals expect free parking. It's not true. We expect to pay our fair share: for example, the right to buy a permit to park in front of our homes, the same right that homeowners in Pacific Heights and other neighborhoods have in this city.

Yes, as I drive around SF, I may have to pay some parking fees, but I don't want to drop money in a meter in front of someone's home, and I need to be able to read the meter; the flashing is terrible.

Who pays for the streets? Taxpayers already pay, and now we're being expected to pay more. This article at least is telling the real truth: meters are being installed to collect revenue, not to increase parking availability.

No matter how much technology is used, a factor is being missed: human whim determines how long the space will be used, and maybe there'll be a free space and maybe there won't. Back to square one - or two: economic means determines if the car will be able to park in the space given the cost of this technology. Maybe there will be plumbers, carpenters, tilers, small businesses to provide services to the city and maybe there won't be in the future. Others have pointed to the probable gentrification effect of meters.

In response to the discussion of the differences between bicycles, buses, and cars - I rode on Muni for much of my life in SF, and then I bicycled rain or shine because I despised Muni so much. I am thankful I have a car now so I can drive so I don't have to be on Muni. I did try to use Muni for my current job, and I couldn't because Muni is still so undependable, and uncomfortable.

So yea - while it's great to have lots of bicycle lanes - guess what? We all get older, get responsibilities, and it's not possible to bicycle everywhere now.

You want to invest in the future and be progressive? Get battery charger stations installed, electric cars and bicycles people can pick up and drop off, and van shuttles for neighborhoods. That's Bucky for you, and a drop in the bucket of capitalism.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

Free for his agenda is logic.

Free for anyone else is an entitlement.

For white liberal Jones, lumping an out group is logical, lumping an in group is racist.

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

Steven, you need to drop this "people expect free parking" crap.

For SF residents, we pay property and sales taxes and parking has historically been managed for the benefit of existing residents. The Eastern Neighborhood plans all call for this. SF is a Charter City which means that lots run to the street centerline with the street and sidewalk as ROW easement. San Francisco has traditionally controlled parking in residential neighborhoods using Residential Parking Permits. If the City is to move away from that, let's have a citywide conversation instead of knee jerk supporting the MTA targeting lower income communities for meters while leaving higher income communities with cheaper parking. Until Muni and regional transit can compete with private autos, the City is going to need to deal with cars and their parking. The solution to that is to shape up Muni and invest in rapid regional transit, not to blame motorists for that lack of infrastructure. But this notion that people expect free parking is insulting when RPP is the pay to park program that most residential neighborhoods use.

For incoming traffic, the approach is different and depends upon the land uses and zoning of the district in question. Sometimes there will need to be a lot by lot approach to parking control that might change with rental or ownership tenure based on the nature of the customer footprint at a business.

As far as weekends and evenings go, that likewise has to be tailored to specific circumstances. Some NCD's want evening and weekend, some don't. One size is not fitting all here.

The enviro advocate narrative is not politically viable. Instead of pushing something that is not meeting with consensus, it is time to assess, recalibrate the approach to get where we want--rapid, reliable regional transit options that will make changing parking controls a nonissue.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

Steven, as others have written, you're "people expect free parking" argument is weak and fallacious. If the city's agenda is to force San Franciscans to give up their cars and make them move about the city either by MUNI or by bike/foot, that agenda needs to be voted on by the voters, not decided by a bunch of souless city apparachiks, many of whom don't even live in San Francisco (Jay Primus lives in Berkeley) and will be long gone when we deal with the devastation they have wrought.

Many of the areas where the SFMTA plans new meters are places that have never been metered before -- residential, mixed us areas, and business-to-business areas. Those businesses established themselves in these areas and grew in part because employees could generally park on the street. Many people chose apartments in these neighborhoods because street parking was generally available so they could commute to work.

Suddenly introducing meters into these areas (if you look at Jay Primus's original plans they were a blanket of 5,000 meters!), SFMTA initiates a social engineering process, where people who cannot afford to pay, will leave the city. Those people who CAN afford to pay will have more money. We are already seeing this in the NE Mission. Lots more Benzes, BMWs, and Audis because those people can afford to pay and own the smart phone apps that give them a leg up. Like those nice restaurants on Valencia? Where do you think those bus boys, line cooks, and other kitchen help? On S. Van Ness and Folsom. Yes, they drive. Some at the SFMTA may think that's a sin, and will say "Good! Now they'll take MUNI or bike." But that's a level of governmental god-playing in people's lives that's really a war on the poor and a further gentrification of the Mission.

This also brings up the point on why are poorer residential and mixed use neighborhoods like Mission, Dogpatch, and Portero being blanketed with meters, but not the more upscale and politically connected parts like Sunset, Richmond, and Pac Heights? Parking is just as much a "problem" in those areas.

None of this wouldn't be happening if the federal government hadn't given SFMTA $20 million for this meter program. Now they've got to find a place for these meters to get the money.

People are already biking and walking in growing numbers. They change is happening without any new parking meters. The real purpose of the meters is to make more money for SFMTA to waste through its historically inept management. It is only now that Ed Reisken has found his ten or so $100K+ earners to sacrifice at the altar. Even a union supporter like myself has to take offense to the ridiculous MUNI labor laws that allow drivers to simply not show up, allow others to wait around for six hours on the clock, and so on. Then there's the whole Breda debacle where MUNI officials went on an Italian junket to inspect Breda rail cars for delivery, only to have those rail cars arrive with the wrong specs for the tracks in SF. What it the Italian wine and grappa and threw off their judgement? Then there's paying millions to a dog-killing artist based in NYC to create sculptures for the new Chinatown rail stop boondoggle. Imagine paying millions for art in a station that doesn't yet exist, buying it from a guy who killed a dog on camera, and buying it from a NYC artist when there are so many great Bay Area artists who would do the work for a much more reasonable rate (perhaps even for the honor of having their work displayed).

I say no. No more money extorted from the declining middle class and poor for SFMTA mismanagement and ineptitude. Stop taking our money!

Posted by Mister Big on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 7:09 am

SFMTA seems beholden to fiscal stress and narrowly-based agitators. Hardly a viable basis for long-term planning.

I'd like to see performance targets met for Muni before any hikes in parking fees and fines.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

Absolutely NO ONE will benefit from more parking meters and eliminating Sunday Free Parking... NO ONE except city bureaucrats. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to actually believe this money will go to providing free MUNI rides to youths. What a joke! And WHY should ANYONE get free MUNI. Kids can save some money by getting their parents to buy a little less pot or cigarettes or booze or drugs. This article is the Bay Guardian at its worst. Feh!

Posted by SFPhoto on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

Boston looked at these ideas and thought they put less wealthy people at a disadvantage.

Read the entire Boston Globe article:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-15/ideas/30622650_1_parking-meter-spa...

Robert Reich, former labor secretary and professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, who recently lamented the creep of privatization into public life, points out that the current system has a kind of equity built in: People who make less money, and can’t afford to park in a garage, can instead invest their time in the search for a cheap metered space. “Which is best? It depends in part on how much time you have relative to how much money,” Reich wrote in an e-mail. “Upper-income people have more of the latter, of course, which makes the allocation-by-price system better for them. But it’s far from clear it’s the best system for everyone.”

Posted by Mister Big on Apr. 01, 2012 @ 9:11 pm

In Boston, parking officials are watching the San Francisco experiment closely, but don’t have plans to try demand-sensitive meters any time soon, says transportation commissioner Thomas Tinlin. They’re worried about low-income drivers, and also the effect on local businesses.

“One thing that we’re always balancing is we don’t want to incentivize somebody to go to a mall outside of the city where they can park for hours and hit multiple stores and go to restaurants,” Tinlin said.

What do you think is going to happen in SF?

Posted by Mister Big on Apr. 01, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

SF's true believers think that they live in such an Eden that people are privileged to get tickets in SF.

Parking in tickets are often framed by the peasants to remember their time in the city.

Posted by Steven Haaland Daly on Apr. 01, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

Things have changed so much, not everyone lives and works in the city, not everyone wants to take a bike, walk, or even ride the MUNI. If you live in the city don't expect free parking, don't expect to have a easy drive, got news for you it was never easy to drive in the city. Bikes don't expect the same either, it is not easy riding a bike in SF, you still have to share. Walking in the city was somewhat alway friendly, great if you lived in the downtown area.

MUNI needs improvement, even back in the 80's it had route problems, dirty, late, crowded and not very comfortable, guess what it has gotten worse.

The other thing to point out, the growth of Silicon Valley hasn't made it any easier, in fact might have made it worse. Last time I checked MUNI doesn't even go to Silicon Valley.

Posted by garrett on Apr. 03, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

So I go to the MTA "Budget balancing panel" yesterday morning, a blue ribbon select panel of those designated to hold stake in transit.

One of the items was evening and Sunday meter extensions.

When I asked senior staff if they could dedicate meter revenue increment to transit improvements where revenues are generated, they said that the extensions were done for policy reasons, not for budget reasons and besides, the revenues are not sufficient to do much of anything new.

Sundays and evenings are the times of the spottiest Muni service. You'd think that this would be an easier sell if they would link revenues generated at those times to improved Muni service at those times. But it seems that the MTA is interested in picking fights with every constituency but SFPD and youth.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 04, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
WTF

If any of the folks at SFMTA or our elected and appointed leaders, past and present, had the intestinal fortitude and freedom to challenge their paymasters on Pac Heights and 'Downtown', this whole mess, especially MUNI could have been substantially resolved decades ago. It is way past time to revisit and revise the creation of a Downtown Transit Assessment District, modify it so that all the 'legal objections' raised concerning it's implementation be addressed. A few of the current Supervisors have in the past expressed a willingness to do so and one of them, Supervisor Kim, had it included in her Campaign Platform last time around.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Apr. 05, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

As a tax payer, I will totally agree to SFMTA's proposal after they cut their wages first and eliminate the ridiculous unnecessary overtime. SFMTA, show me you are willing to contribute to the budget!!! Load of bull$%@#! In the end, SFMTA doesn't suffer or sacrifice anything.........interesting.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

I live near the MTA bus depot in the dogpatch at 22nd and Indiana. Every time I walk past this (2X per day) there are on average 6 illegally parked cars, probably all of which belong to MTA drivers. Cars parked in bus stops. Cars parked in cross walks. Empty cars parked in passenger loading zones. Even cars parked (with no driver in them, ignition off) in the middle of the intersection. Yet I never see any of them with tickets. Clearly there is no parking enforcement here, otherwise they wouldn't even try to get away with it.

Even worse, half the time there are perfectly legal parking spots available less than a block away.

Posted by sdv on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

Not exactly the best way to balance the budget, but I am sure they are doing their best to ensure that they can deliver their promises and not shortchange the citizens. Unfortunately, they need a longer term solution to ensure that their budgets stay on track in the long run.

Posted by Thomas on May. 15, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

I really appreciate Reiskin for his first move by recently canning 10 of the agency's top-paid executives. I think, this topic should be a lively debate as it is very informative. So I think it is also the best way to balance the budget. Good move.

Posted by WheelFire Inc. on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:13 am

MTA can balance its budget easily, if it could delete useless project.

Posted by 3Dmats Inc. on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 8:04 pm