Friday, March 30, 2012

City Hall puts the squeeze on motorists---again


The story on the front page of the Chronicle this morning warns everyone who drives in San Francisco that The City That Knows How to Prey on Motorists is at it again. San Francisco already has the highest parking meter rates in the country, and it will soon have the highest parking ticket fine: $70!

The parking income numbers: According to the MTA's latest Transportation Fact Sheet, the city raised a total of $174,610,099 from its parking meters ($40,520,486); city-owned parking garages/lots ($38,742,622); parking tickets ($86,306,584); and residential parking permits ($9,040,407).

Note that parking tickets are the biggest moneymaker for the city, bringing in more than twice as much as parking meters and parking lots.

Even as City Hall exploits motorists as a source of revenue, it pushes anti-car bicycle projects (Panhandle bike lanes, Masonic Avenue, the Bicycle Plan, etc.) to make it harder to drive and park in the city.

Labels: , , ,

35 Comments:

At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Morgan Fitzgibbons said...

Good news!

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Park legally, no ticket.

Do we need to have this conversation EVERY TIME?!

 
At 3:05 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

No, you could stop reading my blog, asshole.

 
At 5:46 PM, Anonymous sfthen said...

Anonymous said...
"Park legally, no ticket."

Must not remember when the meter maids had ticket quotas, it was when Molinari or Newlin ran the DPT and claimed the "performance guidelines" (or some crap like that) were necessary because PCOs were clocking in and then working second jobs when they were supposed to be out ticketing.

Yeah right, as if that would be difficult to prove!

During this era Walt went out one morning and found a ticket on his car, reads it, wheels not curbed. Steps back, looks, his wheels are curbed. He looks up and down the street--every third car has a ticket.

Some meter maid met the quota.

Probably don't have hard quotas right now but if necessary they will do it again. The DPT is immune from any real oversight.

Use to be car got booted if had 7 outstanding tickets. DPT doubled the number of Denver boots and reduced the criteria to 5 tickets. Without making any announcement! You'd see two or three cars per block with those yellow boots.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

The "Park legally, no ticket" comment is from a bike dude, who are all gleeful at the thought of any punitive action against motorists and their wicked machines.

Yes, SF has in effect quotas for its meter maids/guys, as this Examiner story told us some time back when the recession put a dent in the revenue stream.

I wonder how long this jihad against city motorists will be sustainable politically, even here in Progressive Land, where cyclists and their traffic-snarling "improvements" to our streets dominate policy in City Hall. The bike people of course provide a lot of the motivation for predatory traffic enforcement---Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad---with dunces like Mayor Lee along for the ride politically.

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder how long this jihad against city motorists will be sustainable politically, even here in Progressive Land"

How many years have you been saying this and we just keep rolling along, same as it ever was.

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

All of the heavy lifting on the bicycle projects is still not implemented. Cesar Chavez is still under construction, where street parking was taken away instead of a traffic lane to make the bike lanes; Masonic Avenue is scheduled to be screwed up sometime next year; taking away 90 parking spaces on Oak and Fell Street is also scheduled for next year.

I'm beginning to think that City Hall is waiting to see the outcome of the supervisor's election in District 5, since there's already been opposition on the loss of parking. If a candidate makes an issue of the Panhandle and Masonic, there are some votes there, though it's not clear how many.

Even Olague has waffled on screwing up traffic on the Panhandle just to make you bike zealots "comfortable" riding your bikes there.

Of course Page and Hayes would do just as well to access the Wiggle, but part of the deal with you bike folks is fucking with motorists, which the Fell/Oakbike project does by eliminating a lot of street parking in a neighborhood where it's already limited.

 
At 9:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Page and Hayes would do just as well to access the Wiggle, but part of the deal with you bike folks is fucking with motorists, which the Fell/Oakbike project does by eliminating a lot of street parking in a neighborhood where it's already limited.

Or it's the flattest route, but you keep that tin foil hat on. And, if parking is so limited, why is there no RPPP for that area? Must not be too bad. Which means you are lying.

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cesar Chavez is still under construction, where street parking was taken away instead of a traffic lane to make the bike lanes.

How do you consider yourself any authority to comment on anything. You don't even bother to try to know what you are talking about.

The portion of Cesar Chavez where the street parking was taken away - it's already gone and the bike lanes are painted - is not under construction. At all.

"I'm beginning to think that City Hall is waiting to see the outcome of the supervisor's election in District 5"

Oh come on. The only thing I can remember this city ever doing in a timely fashion was the Ross Mirkarimi fiasco. Occam's razor - if the City is moving slowly it is because they are incompetent.

"Of course Page and Hayes would do just as well to access the Wiggle, but part of the deal with you bike folks is fucking with motorists."

No. Fell is flat. Hayes and Page are not. All things being equal, I prefer the flatter route. Nothing against motorists, just fighting for my own best interest, like any normal human being.

Get over yourself.

 
At 9:55 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

There's no indication that the city is delaying either the Panhandle bike lanes or the Masonic Avenue project due to incompetence. Your claim is rank ingratitude toward a city government that has given you bike fanatics everything you've asked for.

The city's justification for taking away 90 street parking spaces in a neighborhood where parking is a challenge: to make you and your small minority more "comfortable" riding your bikes on Fell and Oak Streets. This is typical of the narcissism of your essentially juvenile movement.

There are no significant hills on Hayes Street, and the only real hill on Page Street is between Divisadero and Broderick. Big deal. Your arrogant, selfish minority has overreached with this power grab on the Panhandle.

 
At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your claim is rank ingratitude toward a city government that has given you bike fanatics everything you've asked for.

I thought you just said they weren't???

 
At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no significant hills on Hayes Street, and the only real hill on Page Street is between Divisadero and Broderick.

Let's see you ride up the hills on Hayes. I'll lend you a bike.

 
At 5:12 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Hayes Street is too steep for cyclists? It's really dumb to pretend that you're the only one who knows these streets. Like me many of my readers live in this neighborhood and/or know city streets well.

As the city told us in its PowerPoint presentation for the Panhandle bike lanes, the main rationale for the project is to make cyclists more "comfortable" riding their bikes on Oak and Fell Streets. That is, your comfort---taking away 90 parking spaces to make bike lanes---trumps the interests of the many people who own cars in the neighborhood and have to park on the street.

 
At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is, your comfort---taking away 90 parking spaces to make bike lanes---trumps the interests of the many people who own cars in the neighborhood and have to park on the street.

The right to safe mobility is grounded in the constitution of the United States. The right to park your heap of shit on public property - not so much.

 
At 5:18 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Mobility" is in the Constitution? Can you provide some specifics for that claim?

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll say it again since you ignored it the first time:

If parking is so limited, why is there no RPPP for that area? Must not be too bad. Which means you are lying.

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I used to live on Grove Street and moved my roommates car when she was out of town, so I have painful, first-hand experience with the parking supply in that neighborhood. I bet anyone else who owns a car in that area---and doesn't have a garage---has the same experience.

 
At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, then why isn't there RPPP??

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

What's an RPPP???

 
At 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Rob doesn't even know what residential preferred parking permits are.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pperm/indxpkperm.htm

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I don't know and I don't care. But I do know that parking in the neighborhood around the Panhandle is difficult and that removing 90 parking spaces just to make you jerks "comfortable" riding your bikes on Oak and Fell Streets is bad public policy.

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

And you're a pedant and a horse's ass. Still waiting to hear a good argument justifying removing all that street parking in a neighborhood where it's scarce just to make you jerks "comfortable" riding on your child's toy.

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If parking is an issue then parking permits for residents would help alleviate some of that pain. Until that time, you can't say what removing 75 (actual #, not your inflated 90) will do because the parking issue isn't even handled properly now.

End of discussion.

 
At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hyperbole. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Since it's my blog, the discussion doesn't end until I decide that it does. I counted the parking spaces to be removed, and it came to at least 90, give or take a few, since some aren't delineated on those streets.

I can in fact say what it will do to remove 90 parking spaces from streets of that area: it will make parking there a lot worse than it already is.

 
At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since you are not on the SFMTA or the SFBOS, the discussion in fact does end despite your objections.

 
At 9:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But I do know that parking in the neighborhood around the Panhandle is difficult and that removing 90 parking spaces just to make you jerks "comfortable" riding your bikes on Oak and Fell Streets is bad public policy.

Under the proposed plan, 57 of the 103 parking spaces displaced by the bike lanes would be replaced.

103 minus 57 equals 90. Can you bike-nuts shut up now?

 
At 9:35 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Not good enough. The city should leave the Panhandle alone. Your "comfort" isn't worth the loss of a single parking space.

 
At 10:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks John Boehner

 
At 2:36 AM, Blogger alai said...

Re: Page & Hayes.

This graph shows exactly what the problem is with that idea: link.

I posted this comment on the Hollywood thread, somehow-- feel free to delete that one if you wish.

 
At 8:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Logic has no place on this blog. Have you learned nothing!

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SFMTA meeting opens with director praising SFBC.

 
At 3:19 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Not surprising, since the SFBC is a subdivision of the SFMTA---or is it the other way around?

 
At 7:53 AM, Anonymous bike-nut said...

Hey Rob, you're welcome!

http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/04/more-cycling-good-for-everyone-not-just-cyclists/

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home