Sidewalks Are For Everyone

News from Streetsblog SF about the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired's current campaign against sidewalk parking, Sidewalks are for Everyone (SAFE).

The aim of SAFE is to discourage sidewalk parking not punishing them through enforcement measures, but by gently but pointedly reminding drivers of the consequences of their actions. I hope it works, and I commend them for making the effort.

As I type this, however, my freaking jaw is on the floor:

SFPD Sergeant Steve Quon of the Taraval Station said he's not inclined to enforce sidewalk parking, except in instances where there are significant complaints. "There are so many cars on the sidewalk on 19th Avenue, if we cited one, we'd have to cite all of them. That's a lot of citations. There's not a lot of pedestrian traffic on 19th. As you can see, there's nobody on it right now."

When it was suggested he's missing out on a lot of fine revenue, he replied: "We don't look at it that way. We can't look at it from a money factor, because it doesn't really go into our pockets. We don't get a percentage or anything." (Streetsblog SF)

My first thought is that nobody walks on 19th Avenue because there's no enforcement of parking and traffic violations. I'd have to be insane to walk on a sidewalk dotted with parked cars, along a street with one of the highest pedestrian injury and death rates in the city! Any talk of improving the situation along 19th Ave is useless if we won't even make the most bare minimum effort to enforce violations.

And the inference that PCOs have no interest in enforcing the law because they don't get a cut of the fines... what?! I'm speechless.

SFMTA spokesman Judson True assured Streetsblog San Francisco managers at the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) have told their employees to enforce any instance of sidewalk parking they encounter. (Streetsblog SF)

This runs counter to both Sgt Quon's statement above and to my own experience. More that once I have called the DPT hotline and reported a sidewalk parker, only to have nobody show up to cite the offender. I can go onto everyblock.com to see the resolution of my report, and read with my own eyes that no action was taken. If you like, you can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house on street sweeping day and watch the PCOs ticket cars parked on the street and ignore those on the sidewalk. They are clearlty not enforcing "any instance of sidewalk parking they encounter." Not even the low-hanging ones.

Congestion hooey?

Editor - As a former San Franciscan who now lives in the North Bay, my response to the proposed "congestion pricing" schemes is: "Are you kidding?"

For a city that fiscally depends on outsiders - tourists, commuters, shoppers and diners - congestion pricing is a really stupid idea. There is no good public transportation to get to San Francisco from the North Bay unless you are commuting to the downtown business district. Outside commute hours, the ferries and buses run infrequently, and after a late dinner, there is no way to get back to Marin. Even finding a taxi is practically impossible.

In addition, those proposing this idea might look at a map. Most of the time I'm driving through the "ring" I'm not driving to San Francisco, I'm driving through it to get to the airport or somewhere else on the Peninsula. Want to relieve congestion? Build a freeway from the Golden Gate Bridge to the intersection of 101 and 280 just south of Parkmerced, and you won't have to worry about us again.

SARAH CAMERON LERER

Inverness

Letters to the Editor, SF Chronicle, January 1, 2009

No, Ms. Lerer, we're not kidding. San Francisco, specifically the older, denser northeaster corner of the city, has been suffering under the burden of motor vehicle congestion for decades!

It's difficult to know where to begin tearing this letter apart, but her specific arguments don't even weigh against the specific plan for downtown San Francisco. She is worried that the only public transit options from the North Bay take you to the downtown, and are only reliable during commute hours. Fortunately, this is the only part of town, and the only time of day that will be affected by the congestion fee.

She also laments that the fee is unfair because she's only passing through the congestion zone, not visiting it. She even suggests that we build a freeway through our city to get her to I-280. This is exactly the kind of trip that worsens congestion without providing any benefits to the local economy, and it's exactly what congestion pricing is designed to prevent or move to off-peak hours.

If you want to push one of my hot buttons, try suggesting that the elevated freeways that scar our city are a good thing, or that we need more of them. Building a freeway the entire length of San Francisco won't mean we never have to worry about those cars or the people in them ever again, it will mean blight, crime, higher rates of asthma, heart disease and a slew of the other unarguable effects of high vehicle traffic volumes. What's more, California Highway 1 already runs the entire route she wants, via Park Presidio Blvd and 19th Ave. The status quo along that gem of a roadway is unacceptable exactly because it's overused by Ms. Lerer and her ilk.

The city of San Francisco doesn't owe suburban residents a free ride through our neighborhoods. Congestion pricing is not punitive, it offsets real costs that the city has been shouldering all these years. The plan is sound and serves to allow drivers, cyclists, and those who walk and take the bus to make more well-informed economic decisions about their transportation options.