More on Hartlaub, Chabner, and anti-carism

In his exchange with Howard Chabner, except for the curb-cut issue, the Chronicle's Peter Hartlaub didn't respond to any of the points Chabner made in his critique of the anti-car "utopia" column.

Chabner lists some of those who have to use cars in San Francisco, including parents who drive their children to and from school and to after-school events; contractors and tradespeople, like carpenters, electricians, painters, etc. who bring tools and materials necessary for their work; physical therapists and other medical workers who make house calls for their patients.

If they have a hard time finding parking, that makes their jobs---and the lives of those they're trying to serve---much more difficult.

Chabner to Hartlaub:

Contrary to the implication in your piece, San Francisco hasn’t been escalating vehicle infrastructure. For years it’s been doing the opposite — reducing vehicle travel lanes, eliminating (“repurposing,” in MTA-speak) parking spaces, and restricting parking.

My neighborhood is an example of parking loss. Parking capacity has been greatly diminished during the past five years or so. The Masonic cycle track project removed all parking[167 spaces] on both sides of Masonic from Fell through Geary...

Several spaces on Fell west of Masonic were removed to provide exclusive parking for private corporate shuttle buses. Several spaces in the neighborhood were removed to provide exclusive parking for private short-term car rental companies. Many spaces on Central, Grove and Fell were removed for bike rental installations. Spaces have been eliminated for day-lighting at many intersections. Bus stops have been lengthened. Very recently, around 15 to 20 spaces on Fell were removed as part of the new temporary bike lane along the Panhandle. Yet there remain only three blue (disabled) parking spaces in the area bordered by Fulton, Fell, Masonic and Stanyan...

You say: “With cars returning, potentially in much greater numbers because of the fears and elevated pandemic risk associated with crowded BART and Muni options, San Franciscans will have to make a choice.” 

You then argue that we should choose to radically de-escalate vehicle infrastructure. But if cars return in the same or much greater numbers, what would happen if vehicle  infrastructure was radically reduced? There would be even more congestion than pre-SIP[shelter-in-place]. Everyone’s safety might be compromised. The efficiency of the buses and above-ground Muni Metro would be reduced. And why should vehicle infrastructure be radically de-escalated when you acknowledge that public transportation has an elevated pandemic risk?

Rob's comment:

Yes, of course Muni buses have to use the same streets that cars and everyone else uses. The MTA's aptly named Slow Streets program is designed to make traffic worse. (The Slow Streets lie).

Maybe City Hall's long-range goal is to make traffic so bad that it will justify implementing Congestion Pricing---that is, charge everyone a $5 fee when they drive downtown. 

That would punish those who drive those wicked motor vehicles and, just as important, help pay for the MTA's bloated payroll of more than 7,000 employees.

Chabner on the downtown issue:

You call for limiting vehicles from a large portion of downtown, with the goal of a car-free utopia for bikers, walkers and transit. Vehicles already have been limited downtown for years, especially during the day. 

More and more sections of Market Street have been closed to vehicles over the past decade. All of Market Street east of Van Ness is now permanently closed to vehicles...Central Subway construction has eliminated vehicles from some streets. Many metered spaces have been converted from general parking to commercial parking or loading zones in recent years, and general parking hours have been shortened. The cost of parking at garages and at metered street spaces has increased.

Pre-SIP[Shelter-in-Place], many downtown retail spaces were vacant. Fewer people were going downtown for shopping, restaurants, entertainment, cultural events and doctor’s appointments. There were many reasons for this, including the difficulty of driving and parking downtown...It makes sense to continue to close Maiden Lane to vehicles. It would make no sense to close Sutter or Bush, for example.  

Chabner on how the city is damaging restaurants downtown:

For many years, the parking meters on Bush east of Kearny and some of the nearby streets were commercial parking or loading until 6 PM, with general, free parking thereafter. 

A few years ago, MTA changed it to 7 PM and, last year or early this year, 8 PM. That made it much more difficult for people having dinner at the restaurants at Belden Place, Bush and the vicinity to find parking. 

I’ve been there since the change to 8 PM, and it is much more difficult to find parking. The popular dinner times in that area are before 8 PM. The management and staff at a restaurant I go to are quite unhappy that MTA has made it harder for their patrons to find parking. 

There shouldn’t be general public parking on those blocks during the day. But by around 6:30 PM, and certainly 7 PM, there’s little vehicle traffic on those blocks of Bush and Pine, and there was no valid reason for extending the parking restriction. This is an example of MTA being oblivious to the needs of businesses and customers, and having an overly restrictive parking policy.

Rob's comment:

City Hall has long treated neighborhood businesses with negligence and contempt when it makes its anti-car "improvements," like eliminating street parking small businesses rely on for their customers to make bike lanes.