Comments on: “Sensible” Parking Initiative Coming In February; No Campaign Against Muni Reform Now?

By: Rescue Muni » Blog Archive » Chron on Prop H: “The most dangerous measure on the ballot”

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:38:22 +0000

[…] points out the dealing in bad faith that has led to No on A mailers being sent to voters despite a supposed deal between proponents of better Muni service and opponents of San Francisco’s transit-first […]

By: ECadvocate

ECadvocate — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:04:34 +0000

TEST QUESTIONS:

Chicken or the egg - which came first?

Transit use or parking/traffic - which came first?

ANSWER KEY:
chicken = egg
parking = traffic
transit = less traffic

By: Don

Don — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:57:30 +0000

Trying to stop auto traffic from further increasing is like trying to stop the tide. Adapting should be the strategy.

With more building there will be more traffic of all kinds. For Muni you have the answer: enforce transit lanes and give signal priority. Automobile traffic will also be worse for automobiles. That will encourage more people to use Muni.

I am not sure allowing more parking will make that much difference. It depends on what kind: Residential, commuter, shopping. It is not clear how much of what kind will be built even if allowed. I see that SOMA condo developers are tying to attract Silicon Valley types. That could make the reverse commute worse. If mostly aging boomers and local workers move in, then most will leave their cars garaged most of the time.

The T line issue can be engineered. I have taken the 1 California and I have driven. There was at time long ago when I could get downtown by car in 10-15 minutes and park near my destination. I now allow 30-45 minutes and pay dearly for parking. Muni, when it works, is a good alternative.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:30:32 +0000

Actually the point is to stop auto traffic from further increasing, making the hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans who take Muni every day EVEN LATER. Increasing parking downtown will certainly have that effect - particularly on the majority of Muni services that are above ground.

Don, have you ridden a 1-California lately? Or even a T-Third through the awful Fourth and King intersection? You can’t deny that auto traffic is the main cause of delays. More parking will lead to more traffic, ergo more delays.

Of course if SF would actually enforce its bus lanes and ensure that transit has priority at EVERY signal, we would be in better shape, but this has up to now not happened. So reducing traffic has to be part of the mix.

By: pt123

pt123 — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:34:39 +0000

Those drivers should get out of the car and suffer like the rest of the Muni riders. Everyone should ride Muni, be late to work, late to pick up their kids from schools. Misery loves company.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:12:44 +0000

The compromise is good. Muni reform and Parking should be unbundled. The notion that pro-parker’s are out to destroy Muni is paranoid. Pro-parking is not anti-transit. “Downtown interests” will benefit from improved public transit.

Taking public transit in a congested urban area has obvious advantages even with more parking. The two articles from the progressive press you cited are mostly irrelevant but seem to agree that an attractive Muni would provide an alternative to automobiles. The problem is making Muni more attractive. There is no evidence that limited parking has improved Muni. In fact, it seems to have made Muni worse.

It could be that providing more parking will improve Muni service. It could provide some relief for the overcrowded Muni Metro and give Muni some breathing room to get ahead of the game rather than playing catch-up. Build it and they shall return!