CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
So many cars, so little room. On any given day, San Francisco has more than 485,000 cars on the street, with only 343,000 parking spots. Do 142,000 cars have nowhere to park? Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is questioning why The City is not using its $27.5 million Parking Revenue Fund to build parking facilities.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - San Francisco has not built a new parking garage in five years, despite having a multimillion-dollar fund to help create parking in a city that hosts 750,000 cars during peak times.
Although a fund to create parking totaled more than $27 million last year, the last city-built parking garage was opened in 2002 in North Beach, and was only the second to open since the parking fund was created.
As the debate boils as to whether San Francisco should relax its restrictive policies on adding parking spaces, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is raising questions about why The City has not built a new parking garage in the hopes of alleviating pressure on city streets, particularly in neighborhood commercial areas such as Chestnut and Union streets, which are in her district.
There are 320,000 on-street parking spaces in San Francisco, 20 parking garages with 15,000 spaces — of which 11,400 are in the downtown area — and 20 metered parking lots with about 600 spaces, according to Bond Yee, director of the Department of Parking and Traffic.
Since the 1970s, The City has restricted the number of parking spaces that could be created in an effort to promote use of alternative modes of transportation.
Alito-Pier said the restrictions are not reducing the number of cars and the lack of available parking is hurting businesses. Her comments come as voters will decide this November whether to approve a ballot measure that would allow for more parking citywide.
During a Monday hearing on parking issues before the Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee, Alioto-Pier questioned why the money that accumulates in The City’s so-called Parking Revenue Fund is not being used to build parking facilities.
In fiscal year 2005-06, the fund totaled $27.5 million, according to a report from the Budget Analyst’s Office. The fund annually receives money from such sources as parking garages.
Yee was unable to offer details on the use of the money in the fund, although he said: “It’s all gone into operation of [Municipal Transportation Agency] as well as debt financing and all these other things that are required.”
Alioto-Pier said she will hold a follow-up hearing in September to address unanswered questions about the parking fund.
City parking by the numbers
» 450,000: Registered cars in San Francisco
» 35,000: Additional cars in The City every day
» 320,000: On-street parking spaces
» 23,000: Total metered parking spaces
» 20: Parking garages, totaling 15,000 spaces
» 11,400: Garage parking spaces in the downtown area
» 20: Metered parking lots with a total of 600 parking spaces
Do you prefer more parking or better public transit?
Share your comments below.
Comments from Examiner Readers
5:37 PM MST on Thu., Aug. 9, 2007 re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
9:19 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 9, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
3:39 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 9, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
12:36 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 9, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
9:55 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
9:44 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
7:07 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
4:44 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "Hearing, initiative drive seek answers in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
3:45 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
1:57 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
1:44 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
1:44 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
10:35 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
10:11 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "S.F. parking debate in overdrive"
Report as inappropriate
12:26 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
4:24 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Opponents ask for space on S.F. parking issue"
Report as inappropriate
11:23 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 26, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
5:22 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
5:19 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
4:34 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
12:20 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
10:49 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 24, 2007
re: "S.F. parking: Full coffers, no empty spots"
Report as inappropriate
6:15 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "Hearing, initiative drive seek answers in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
3:28 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "Hearing, initiative drive seek answers in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
6:14 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "Hearing, initiative drive seek answers in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
Gretchen said:
There are two types of parking - base and destination. "Base" is "at home" where you park the car except when you need to shop at Costco, Home Depot, etc. You can use public transit for repetitive transit - to work, the gym, etc. But, without adequate offstreet base parking, people drive to work on "street cleaning days" because it's easier than finding another on-street space. We need more "base" parking. "Destination" parking is when you need a space at a destination. Without spaces near shopping areas people won't shop - you need a way to transport purchases. Also, taking Granny to the Doctor or whatever pretty much requires a parking space. Many elderly are not able to manage getting around solely by bus. Destination parking is a must for a vibrant economy, however you can price it to discourage daily go-to-work drivers. Simply price it @ $1 for first hour, $2 for the 2nd hour, $5 for the 3rd, $10 for the 4th etc. Properly priced destination parking supports Transit Fir
222 agree | 155 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Herb Cohn said:
Ok... let's talk about "ideological untruths". "No one has ever put forth policies of transit only". That's a flat out lie. I would suggest you emerge from behind your computer screen and enter the real world, where projects routinely are subjected to the assertion that they would be better off without any parking. Yes... I said any parking. Rather than deal in outdated "ideology", I prefer to operate in a rational real world setting, one that understands that transit first policies are important, but that also recognizes the need for automobile transportation as well. As long as we're discussing "ideologies", the assertion that additional parking spaces means more traffic is ridiculous. Additional parking, whether in residences or in needed new public parking garages, simply de-stresses the existing out-of-control parking crisis in San Francisco. Building new proposed housing without adequate parking is a recipe for disaster.
220 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
please we need parking
199 agree | 166 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tim Donnelly said:
San Francisco should build satelite garages where visitors who drive into the City can park and take muni to their destination, therefore avoid clogging our streets with their cars.
202 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I try to take alternative transportation when I can, but sometimes there's no getting around using the car to get things done. Cars are a fact of life and kudos to those who can do without them, but a realistic approach is 1:1 parking. That said, I definitely feel more can be done to encourage alt transport. Muni needs a smell test to screen people (currently, I see it as a carrier of disease) and they need to work on reliability. If we achieve this, I think alt transportation will reach 80-90%. Give it a try.
201 agree | 178 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
“I think it’s important that people know that sensible solutions can be achieved" Peskin said. LOL! Fat chance in this town!
197 agree | 176 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
City resident said:
"Transit first is admirable, but not when it turns into transit only." This statement represents the ideological untruth fueling this parking initiative. No one ever talks about "forcing" zero parking or "everyone must take transit." It is untrue, and anyone claiming that "Transit First" is being construed as "transit only" ought to be ignored as trying to fuel angst unnecessarily. No one at the Planning Dept, Board of Supes, anyone, has ever put forward policies of "transit only" or "no parking ever." What this debate is about is about a spectrum of policy, not "all transit and no parking." Transit First means that policies, rules and resources need to to accommodate, but discourage driving and deliberately push people toward choosing transit. It is a demonstrable fact that the availability and price of parking strongly influences people's travel choices. More people would drive if unconstrained. That's just a fact. The city can't grow based on the notion that we can cram more cars
215 agree | 189 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Those of us living in neighborhoods with lots of restaurants and bars in the area must compete on a seemingly daily basis with patrons needing to park. Do the "transit first" people think it's going to go away? Who are you kidding. Americans are not give up the automobile any time soon and neither is San Francisco. This city can't change it even if you think you can by establishing a "transit only" policy...lol. Anybody driving here from other cities care about a "transit only" policy?..lol Remember when you go to park your car on our streets and go to bars, shopping, or eating my fellow residents will be on their phones giving up free spaces to each other. Welcome to San Francisco! I am surprised San Francisco took this long to make parking a political issue.The city reports loosing valuable dollars because of parking meter issues. Think the city will see free parking garages as a simple alternative? Think again....hold on I have a call coming in.
218 agree | 195 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
keenplanner said:
Herb, if your neighborhood businesses are not doing well, your neighborhood needs either more magnet businesses (like a movie theatre) or more density, and good planning. Things that poison an urban shopping district? Curb cuts, garage doors, blank walls. Cars don't shop. People on the sidewalks shop. The last thing we need is more parking. More housing without parking is good for neighborhood businesses, and for neighborhood civility. Cars are anti-enighborhood, and anti-social, and dangerous.
173 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Herb: What more-parking advocates seem to ignore is that plentiful parking will encourage more driving. While at the destination, parking may be a quick process, the getting-to-the-destination means more cars will be filling the streets as they travel to that destination. I'm sorry that we're advocating forcing people out of cars, but as populations increase everywhere, we are going to have to force ourselves to do a lot of things (and hopefully in the process, walking or biking will be an alternative that will make us a healthier society) When you see the number of single-occupied cars plying and filling up the streets, you have to wonder how long it can continue to increase. How about a little forward thinking? Be creative! If you're in a merchants group, fund a roving van service that will pick up customers (can make request via cellphone; GIS offers best routes for drivers) in a neighborhood and deposit them at some key commercial spots. In reverse drivers can assist w/package
163 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Problem would be solved if the employees did not drive to work and then feed the meter all day" There is actually, in my observation, suspiciously little movement (or turnover) in parallel parking along streets such as Van Ness, which suggests it's employees using the meters. Which is why I believe placing the Bus Rapid Transit along the curb (rather than in median strip) and eliminating most curbside parking along these streets won't have a great effect, as long as employees use the speedier transit alternative.
218 agree | 153 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Problem would be solved if the employees did not drive to work and then feed the meter all day" There is actually, in my observation, suspiciously little movement (or turnover) in parallel parking along streets such as Van Ness, which suggests it's employees using the meters. Which is why I believe placing the Bus Rapid Transit along the curb (rather than in median strip) and eliminating most curbside parking along these streets won't have a great effect, as long as employees use the speedier transit alternative.
181 agree | 162 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Problem would be solved if the employees did not drive to work and then feed the meter all day. Businesses can whine all day it is their own people causing a lot of the parking issues.
175 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Alarm Dude said:
A City has to have BOTH good public transit and parking. When I go downtown for a ball game, movie or play, I just hop on BART and away I go! However, when I have an assignment for work - which is every day - I need to bring my mini truck full of tools and spare parts. That's not going to fit on BART or MUNI! Transit first, OK. But Transit Only? Roll up the sidewalks because downtown will grind to a halt.
177 agree | 139 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Herb Cohn said:
The reason the parking initiative went on the ballot in the first place is that neighborhoods are tired of having their pleas for more parking ignored at the Planning Department. Merchants around the city hear about their customers' inability to find parking on a daily basis. The result is that these potential purchasers give up and drive to Daly City.. where they can actually park and shop, instead of incessantly circling over-stressed San Francisco streets. Transit first is admirable, but not when it turns into transit only. The solution is simple. Improve our transit infrastrucure to encourage people getting out of cars, but abandon current dictator-like Planning Department strategies that attempt to force that result. We are rational thinking adults, not children who need to be educated.. especially when transit only doctrine is misguided. Allow new residential buildings 1:1 parking. This will free up parking on the street, making businesses happier, not increasing traffic
184 agree | 190 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
keenplanner said:
BOYCOTT THE GAP!! The city doesn't owe the Mayor's greedy Republican friends like Don Fisher anything. They see a huge defeat doming in November and now they want to cut a deal!?! No Compromise! The SF Planning Documents already represent a more than sensible compromise on allowing parking. Project sponsors can already build 1:1 parking in the more 'suburban' parts of the city. What about my campaign to end privatizing public parking by outlawing new curb cuts, or at least make them VERY expensive? Let them run their campaign to fill the city with traffic and pollution. I'm sure at least Gavin Newsom and Ken Garcia will vote for it. BOYCOTT THE GAP!!
219 agree | 220 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Robert Passmore said:
Sustainable transportation should be San Francisco's goal. Use the right mode of transportation for the trip needed. The car is not always needed, the best or most efficient. However continued car ownership is probable, and an off street parking space is desirable. However driveways should resuklt in an net increase in parking spaces, not a loss of of curb spaces and public transit flow. Public (curb) spaces are of more value than private spaces for an individual. Perpendicular and angled curb parking should be considered more. Parking violations for parking on sidewalks, interefing with pedestrians should be strongly enforced. The public should be educated in the (economic value) of car share and rentals. More taxis are needed. Mechanical parking devices should be use to create more off-street parking.
210 agree | 189 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
People who live in SF but commute to work outside the city need a car. People should be able to come home to a parking spot without having to drive around burning gas and polluting the air for half an hour a day. If people don't want to ride the bus then stop trying to force it on them.
227 agree | 243 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm a huge believe in the environment + ped/bike safety, but the reality is that we live in modern times where people have to do 10 things in an hour - people have complex lives. The longer we're in denial about this, the bigger the problems get and the more expensive the solutions. I have 1 pkg space in my building that I don't use. This month, I've been approached by 2 neighbors if they could rent my spot. Just because one has a pkg space, doesn't mean one has to use it, but it does give you the flexibility. Conversely, if there's a 1 unit to .25 pkg space, then there's no going back once that building is built. Whether or not there are realistic pkg restrictions, people are going to buy their cars if they have a compelling reason to do so. So what happens to the spill over effect? I believe 1:1 is not asking for too much. I'd rather have cars in the garages than clogging the streets searching for a parking space...
244 agree | 216 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'd like to point out the following facts: 1) Parking garages are ugly. 2) Good public transit benefits business AND the environment.
223 agree | 205 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
In the past several years there has been a huge increase in parking dedicated to motorcycles. As a scooter owner myself, I almost always choose to scoot places in the city because I have a better chance of finding a parking place plus I use gas by the tablespoon, not the gallon. Lately I've found that the (metered) motorcycle spaces are always full and I have to really search for a place to park - it's almost as bad as looking for a parking space for a car. I hope that any major parking project will also include more parking spaces for motorcycles/scooters. You can fit 6 to 8 spaces in the space for one car, but can also take advantage of those places that are big enough for four scooters but not big enough for a car. And, of course all this probably holds true for bicycles as well - more safe parking is needed.
232 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Wayne Lanier said:
We need BOTH good public transportation AND more public parking. Punishment is the least effective way to change behavior. Good public public transportation is a reward in convenience, speed, and cost. Public parking rewards by removing cars from on-street parking, where they retard the flow of traffic. A wise City would improve public parking and put large, inexpensive public lots at every freeway exit and connect those lots via good public transportation to the rest of the City.
220 agree | 206 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
8 paragraphs devoted to Alito-Pier's stupid idea, 1 paragraph barely mentions the opposing argument. Great journalism, guys. The Examiner should present the argument from the side of the Planning Commission, SPUR, and Livable City who have all spent years studying the impact of parking and traffic. By the way, why should we take parking advice from Alioto-Pier? She lives in St. Helena, not San Francisco.
246 agree | 228 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
RinconHillSF said:
I think Supervisor Alioto-Pier heard a little bit about what is needed: commuter lots OUTSIDE of the City that will bring people across the bridges or up the peninsula into the City where they can then make use of our public transit to get elsewhere within the City. Inviting more cars on our streets will also: - Increase pedestrian injuries and deaths - Increase bicyclist injuries and deaths - Slow down MUNI even more with double-parked cars and even moreso clogged up streets - Destroy our air quality and environment that much more quickly BART, the Transbay Transportation Center, and the Ferry building provide means for folks to come into the City without their darn cars - USE THEM!
242 agree | 233 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
OTTO RITE said:
Finally someone on the Board of Supervisors is addressing an issue and proposing solutions that I actually agree with: MORE PARKING! Just a few years ago it was decided by the Board of Supervisors NOT to REQUIRE more parking spaces for each residential develpment, the ratio of parking spaces to residential units was DECREASED, hopefully, it sounds like that trend might be reversed. Thousands of cars enter the City from all over driven by people who don't even live here who gobble up the available parking. There are lots of black and yellow "COMMERCIAL DELIVERY " metered parking spaces that are rarely used, in fact large delivery trucks, which are usually double parked, don't fit in those spaces and almost NEVER pay the meter (good for 30 minutes) ANYWAY! Remember when it was decided that people buying or renting below market rate housing DON'T need a parking space? How dumb was that decision? Probably the best invesment one could ever make in SF is A PARKING SPACE!
244 agree | 229 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree