Comments on: New York Assembly Approves Citywide Surface Parking Lots

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:16:19 +0000

I’m well aware of what her quote was. Perhaps the quotation marks obscure this, but the wording here was intended to be a summation/abbreviation. Which was the point of linking to a source containing the full wording.

EDIT: Quotation marks removed.

By: John

John — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:12:22 +0000

Your quotation of Mary Peters is not entirely accurate. Your quotation should read “[Bike paths or trails] are not transportation.” Her statement was precisely:
“Well, there’s about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails.”

It could be construed to mean that she does not see bicycles as a transportation option, sure, but she could also be referring to recreational bike paths/trails. I don’t know much about her or her ideas so for the moment I’ve got to give her the benefit of the doubt.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:11:18 +0000

How about Transit and Commercial Loading only on Market? It would speed up the surface transit on Market and make crossing Market easier as well.

Peninsula Toll on 101 seems like it could work where 101 goes around San Bruno Mtn, but where on 280 can you avoid having people exit for city streets to avoid the toll?

By: PhilSironi

PhilSironi — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:09:08 +0000

Public transit is very good on Market Street and Financial District (to where a high percentage of people commute) but north of those are (and especially north of Broadway) it’s a different story. I’m totally pro a Penisula toll.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:19:30 +0000

in the previous post, by crossed i mean crossed without paying a fee

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:15:03 +0000

To be clear, I don’t think that there is a lack of transit to van ness if you are at or near Market, but as you make you way north to broadway and some blocks east, the nuber of transfers can become difficult. Maybe a Market Street Zone that can only be crossed at Van Ness or The Embarcadero (plus a few blocks north and south) could be a starter.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:05:46 +0000

It’s a balancing act. I agree that we should start small to test the waters, and get bigger; indeed, that’s exactly what London has done. On the other hand, a congestion charge should be accompanied by substantial improvements — there needs to be a clear relationship between the assessed fees and palpable improvements to transit, streetscape, etc. If we begin too meekly, we run the risk of not generating a sufficiently robust fund to pursue these improvements as quickly as we might like.

In terms of people saying current transit isn’t good enough — first of all, I’m not convinced that transit isn’t good enough going all the way to Van Ness, as opposed to Stockton, just as a general matter. But if we’re assessing current transit’s ability to handle increased riders, all that will depend on how successful the plan is, which obviously depends on what the plan will be. The point here is that all of these factors need to be carefully quantified, so any random statement in isolation that transit isn’t good enough is necessarily extremely speculative, because it isn’t based on a specific plan form. And transit will improve as we get more funds from the congestion fee, and hopefully traffic will decrease as well — both of which pave the way for increased capacity over time.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:51:58 +0000

I have heard the large downtown suggestion, but I often hear people say that there isn’t good enough transit to that whole area (which may be somewhat true, or may just mean they don’t want to take the bus all the time). My point was that maybe SF should start small, with just the downtown core that is very well-served by Muni and BART.

A peninsula toll might push up the BART (park-and)ridership from the stations south of the toll. Since the parking lots don’t fill up (so I am told) this might be a decent use of existing resources.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:53:37 +0000

Hi Mike, yes, congestion pricing here is already being investigated. One of the plans under consideration is a zone, possibly bounded roughly by Broadway, Van Ness, the Central Freeway, Harrison, and the Embarcadero. Another possible plan might assess fees at key gateway points into the city — particularly coming from the south, where no tolls are currently charged. I’m actually hoping to go into much greater depth on SF congestion pricing on this site in the future. That is, in fact, the main reason why I’ve posted a few times on congestion pricing outside of SF — just to set up a context of sorts.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:33:06 +0000

People here might have interesting ideas so I’ll bring it up here- is there a zone of the downtown core of San Francisco that would be appropriate for Congestion Pricing? I regularly hear “we can’t have congestion pricing here because transit isn’t good enough” but there is an awful lot of transit on or below Market Street. What about a congestion pricing zone from Justin Herman Plaza (excluding the Embarcadero) to Stockton/4th streets, extending north and southeast some walking distance? There seems to be plenty of transit to that area. Rather than just look at New York, shouldn’t we look at our own city?