City plans to remove 20 residential parking spaces for car share companies

Parking is going to get even tougher for residents in the outer Richmond if the SFMTA gets approval tomorrow to convert 20 residential parking spaces into car share zones.

The Friday, July 11 the Sustainable Streets Division of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency will hold a public hearing in which 10 different proposals will be considered to change street parking spaces into ones reserved for car share companies.

The detailed list of where these proposed changes is below, which includes spaces on 27th, 28th, 33rd, 34th, and 42nd Avenues, as well as Anza, Balboa and Cabrillo Streets. In total, it calls for 20 parking spaces to be changed to parking that is restricted to car share company vehicles only.

The 20 spaces being proposed in the outer Richmond District are just a small piece of the 900 total spaces that the SFMTA wants to convert across the city for a 2 year test program for car sharing.

Three car sharing companies – Zipcar, Bay Area nonprofit City CarShare and San Francisco’s Getaround – will be the recipients of the spaces. According to the Chronicle, the SFMTA approved the program after a smaller two-year test, involving a dozen street spaces, was deemed a success.

According to the agreement with the car sharing companies, at least 30 percent of the spaces have to be in the outer two-thirds of the city, and the price charged to the companies for spaces becomes less expensive in neighborhoods distant from downtown, as a way to encourage them to spread their vehicle fleet around the city. The monthly fee ranges from $50 per space per month in the outer third of the city to $150 in closer-in neighborhoods to $225 in the downtown area. [SFGate]

Some residents will be less than thrilled with this development, given how hard it can be for Richmond District residents to park in their own neighborhood. Reader Aram G. wrote us and said “this is yet another assault on Long term residents of San Francisco and needs to be stopped!!”

Still others, who don’t own cars, will find the ease of access to car sharing a welcome convenience.

“We appreciate that it’s a pretty big leap of faith,” Andy Thornley, project leader for the MTA told Pando this week. “And its important to remember that this is an experiment and not a forever thing, necessarily.”

Tomorrow’s SFMTA hearing takes place at City Hall (1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place) at 10am in Room 416 (Hearing Room 4) (view full meeting agenda). The public is welcome to attend and make comments.

Sarah B.

A. 27th Avenue, east side, from 24 feet to 64 feet north of Geary Boulevard (40-foot zone removes Post IDs #127-4660, #127-04640, for 2 car share parking permits–Z004 & Z095)
B. 28th Avenue, east side, from Clement Street to 38 feet northerly (38-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z001 & Z094)
C. 33rd Avenue, west side, from 16 feet to 52 feet south of Balboa Street (36-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z003 & Z093)
D. 34th Avenue, west side, from 16 feet to 52 feet north of Geary Boulevard (36-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z092 & Z002)
E. 42nd Avenue, east side, from 16 feet to 52 feet south of Geary Boulevard (36-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z005 & Z090)
F. 42nd Avenue, east side, from Balboa Street to 35 feet northerly (35-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z006 & Z091)
G. Anza Street, north side, from 9 feet to 29 feet east of 44th Avenue (20-foot zone, for 1 car share parking permit space–G038)
H. Balboa Street, south side, from 3 feet to 37 feet west of 20th Avenue (34-foot zone, for 2 car share parking permits–Z030 & Z096)
I. Balboa Street, south side, from 28 feet to 71 feet west of 6th Avenue (43-foot zone removes Post IDs #321-05050, #321-05070, for 2 car share parking permits–Z031 & Z098)
J. Cabrillo Street, south side, from 20 feet east of 37th Avenue (20-foot zone, for 1 car share parking permit space–G040)


  1. Ape tired of SFMTA abuses! Send orang-utan army to SFMTA!

  2. some company will pay just $50 month to 100% own a parking spot in the Richmond? sounds like a Real Steal

  3. Thanks for posting this! This is an interesting program that should actually make parking easier in the Richmond long term.

    Why? Lot of people own cars that they only use on occasion, like weekends or certain work assignments. Carsharing is proven to reduce overall car ownership because it gives people an alternative to owning and parking their own car 24/7.

    Here is one report that explains how it works out: http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_carsharing_ownership.shtml

    Of course, we want this to work, and that means only picking the right locations. If you or someone you know has a concern, send me a message and I’ll get you in contact with the key people at the MTA ASAP.

    Peter Lauterborn
    Legislative Aide
    Supervisor Eric Mar, District 1
    Office: (415) 554-7411
    Cell: (415) 793-4454

  4. why not have the companies rent out the spots at the parking lots of the grocery stores around the district instead?

  5. kevin – right! Heck, I’ll offer the City twice that, $100 a month!

    Look forward to the lawsuits on this one… your tax dollars at work.

  6. Living in a city necessarily means making compromises. As a car owner, is it annoying to find parking at night in the Richmond sometimes? Yes. Is street parking somewhat risky? (dents / vandalism / wear / tear) Yes. Does having access to a car sharing program two blocks away help me? Yes – weekend trips, last minute trips, airport pickups, and when I eventually sell my car. For long-term residents that don’t own cars (another cost to an already expensive city), car sharing programs in close proximity enable more mobility without the burden of ownership. I want to support my community in these programs at very little cost to me. I don’t own the streets, we all do.

  7. Actually, more car share spaces leads to more convenient use of car share, leads to less need to own a car, leads to fewer cars on the street, leads to more parking for those that cannot or will not give up their cars. It’s a great idea.

  8. Subsidize for-profit companies at the expense of SF residents! Give private restaurants and cafes free use of spaces for parklets…Give car “sharing” companies almost free spaces…Shame on you Eric Mar and Peter Lauterborn! This is enough to give me pause when voting in the next D1 election. Be forewarned, many others here will agree.

  9. Does anyone have a sense of which companies will be getting which spots? Inferring from the permit IDs (prefix “Z” for zip, “G” for getaround, “C” for City Carshare), it looks like could be essentially just an expansion of zipcar into the neighborhood, with little or no additional footprint for City CarShare. Which would be a shame.

  10. The opening line of the article just got it wrong. Parking is about to get a whole lot easier for the outer Richmond. Every car share replaces 9 to 13 privately-owned cars (based on the authoritative study of the topic http://carsharingus.blogspot.com/…/how-many-vehicles…)

    So, providing these 20 car share spots will cause about 200 *fewer* cars to be competing over parking spots. That’s just smart planning and makes the city easier for everybody.

  11. I think I would rather subsidize a private car-sharing company than SFMTA.

  12. Guys, have you walked through our hood lately? There are way too many cars in our neighborhood that aren’t even being used. If you can afford the luxury of even buying a car, to have it just sit covered in your driveway day in, day out or you just drive it once a week to avoid street cleaning tickets, get over yourselves. We can better utilize our streets for efforts like these and give mobility to people who aren’t as privileged as you are.

  13. This is short-term pain for long-term gain as some have pointed out. IMHO.

  14. Using neighborhood street spaces for this ride sharing experiment doesn’t benefit anyone in the already strapped Richmond District. There are other alternatives to taking away street parking in the RD. We have Ross Parking garage that seats empty, Fresh and Easy Roof parking, Office Depot on Arguello, Safeway at the beach, Target complex on Masonic, parking behind Walgreens by Sutro also the parking spaces off Lake and 15th Ave. I think these alternative spaces cover the inner, outer, and central Richmond District. Also, I am not clear how the MTA can rent public curb parking spaces. Didn’t City Attorney Herrera state when they were going after the Monkey Parking App that it was against the City Code to rent or sell public parking spaces?? What’s Up?

  15. One of my favorite things about living in the inner Richmond is the easy access to carsharing. There are at least 4 different carshare spots within a 3 block radius of my apartment. This makes living without a car doable, which is a necessity for many given how high rent is these days. If this pilot makes access to carsharing easier for my neighbors in the Outer Richmond, I’m all for it.

  16. Not sure I really object to this, but it would be nice if they paved Geary while they’re at it. Car share cars are usually Priuses or something similar, and cars like that are not easy to drive on the stretches of Geary, like those around 25th-27th and others, that are like a warzone with lots of unevenness and decay, or through the park where it is a virtual patchwork of repair jobs. I have reported some of these spots multiple times over the years and they never get fixed! If you want to encourage car share, encourage driving in the first place by not letting roads decay and remain unfixed for years.

  17. The reason I don’t object to the car share deal in general is because of the general number of cars around. I suspect everyone in the Richmond right now owns between six and twelve 1993 Toyota Previas. I imagine part of the reason there are so many cars on the street is because there are a lot of people being packed into each house and garage. The garages aren’t being used for their intended use but rather general storage, and there are a lot of illegal (or now legal?) in-law units, thus more cars out on the street than there used to be. Wouldn’t hurt if there was a little more pressure on people to use their own garages – maybe people would be less inclined to own so many barely utilized vehicles if there were less places to park, and we’d have a better general picture for parking in the Richmond. Sort of backwards, I know, but that’s the way I see it.

  18. I agree with Julie. At 42nd Avenue near Geary, SFMTA would be better off taking four 1-hour limit parking spaces behind Walgreens rather than the residential parking spaces that residents actually use. There are so many multi-adult, multi-vehicle households in this area that street parking is already challenge. Why eliminate residential parking spaces when there are so many commercial parking spaces available and readily accessible by public transit? The fact is that people need reliable transportation for work, to drop off and pick up their kids, and to buy more than one bag of groceries at a time. With the MUNI sickout and BART strikes still fresh in our memories, SF is not in a position to punish residents for needing street parking for their private vehicles. Car share is a good experiment, but use the commercial spaces and leave residential street parking alone.

  19. @Amy Yes, not to mention that those Walgreens spaces have never ever been kept up by the store. They are always full of trash and the street sweepers miss ’em – maybe this would bring more attention to that.

  20. Actually as a regular City Car Share user in the Outer Richmond, I would benefit greatly from this program, as I currently spend at least 15-20 minutes each way commuting by bus to the nearest car share spot on 24th & Clement. Some of the new spots are a minute or less walking distance from my home. But I’d be totally fine with Fresh and Easy/CVS and other local car sharing companies into their lot–actually kind of surprised that hasn’t happened already. I just wonder if there are enough large apartment buildings with extra spaces and/or large commercial lots in the Outer Richmond to provide as much car share coverage as there is in the Inner Richmond.

  21. If you’re lucky enough to get one of those spaces in front of your house I imagine the value of your house will go down $25 – 50K if not more. Neighboring houses should feel some of the crunch too. There’s an easy alternative – the private for profit companies can buy a couple of properties in the Richmond District, tear down the buildings, and put in their own private parking lots.

  22. Of course these could be placed in places that don’t really affect residents. They could be placed on Geary in front of commercial buildings and on the south side of Fulton (on the Golden Gate Park side). There’s also lots of commercial blocks on Balboa where spaces could be assigned that don’t impact residential parking.

  23. @Richmond Resident I agree. With this, and with the shuttles going to Mountain View, my question is, why are we giving them special privilege? We’re not saying they can’t run, we’re saying they can’t use a public good for free. It never seemed to be discussed that Google, one of the most valuable companies in the world, might have the budget to just buy a lot in each neighborhood, for their buses to stop. I don’t understand why they are getting such special treatment. As for the ‘the environmental benefit is so great’ – the road to hell is paid with good intentions. It seems like a fairly week argument considering that Google, for example, is worth 400 Billion dollars and not letting them use the stops is not going to be a dead end for them, not at all. Though the car share companies aren’t this rich, it seems in the same vein, and I agree that although I like the idea of the company, I would be upset if the stop was put in front of my house, for sure.

  24. Wikipedia tells us “On 14 March 2013, Avis Budget Group purchased Zipcar for about US$500 million in cash.” Sounds to me that’s there probably some other money available to buy whatever parking spaces they might want. I’ve got some doubts about some of the organizations that are supposedly “community based” to support car-sharing. Sure they sound very politically correct but are they just sham organizations conveniently organized to open the political doors for the big money companies to cash-in?

  25. I agree with both Julie and Amy. I have lived in the Bay Area for over 25 years and I have seen the availability of residential parking spaces in the Richmond District and parking spaces in general in San Francisco slowly disappear. The parking spaces behind Walgreens are ideal for any proposed car share zones near 42nd and Geary.

  26. Comments can be made to the following contacts:
    You can email “sustainable.streets@sfmta.com” — must put “Public Hearing” as the subject header.
    You can also fax comments to 415-701-4737.
    You can make comments in person: Friday July 11, 10:00 a.m., Room 416, City Hall.

    I think these may be relevant questions for our government representatives to consider:
    1. Query the right of the government to “take” this valuable public resource: does the government have the right to assert exclusive use over the parking spaces such that it can then assign their use to a private entity?
    2. Under an eminent domain analysis, what study did the government perform to determine that asserting domain over these parking spaces is the least invasive and most mitigated means of providing the greatest good for this identified purpose?
    3. What is the basis for the analysis as to the payment to the City for the proposed use of this valuable public resource?

  27. Why is parking becoming more and more of a problem in the Richmond? Walk around and notice the “for sale” signs on single-family houses–the relatively few we still have here. 99% will be bought and transformed into 3- or 4-unit apartments. The single-family house may lend itself to one or two cars. Each unit in an apartment building probably averages 1-2 cars. Do the math. Same footprint, but with 3 times as many vehicles. (EIRs are a joke in this city.) And yet, people posting to this blog and other blogs are begging for more, more, more apartment complexes of several stories. Can’t have it both ways, folks.

  28. What about using the abandoned parking lots at the Alexandria? Oh, wait, mar has all taken care of that problem since he did a walk through.

    This is just another diversion from how little his office has actually done for the Richmond.

  29. The abandoned lots at the Alexandria is a great suggestion. Anyone who really wants parking can negotiate for it. They can buy a house, rent a garage. These organizations can simply do the same. If someone can’t/doesn’t want to negotiate for their own parking they are still protected by the city’s ”
    Transit First” policy.

    The rates proposed for these spaces are likely far less then what these car sharing organizations/companies likely have to pay for their existing dedicated spaces at gas stations etc.

  30. With Uber/Lyft etc around these old school car sharing services are functionally obsolete.

  31. I think in general this is a good idea, and that Elizabeth Keane and Peter Lauterborn have it right. Julie lists the number of lots, etc. that might be used for carshare programs–but the problem is that many of these are far away from those who might use them: people do not want to walk a mile or more to get/return their carshare vehicle. The additional spaces put carshares within reach. The lots at the Alexandria are not “abandoned.” They are often full, and in any case will be a construction site at some point, hopefully soon. And jzj is confused about eminent domain: these spots are public spaces, owned by the city, not a taking of private property for public use.

  32. I’m all for attempting to try car sharing and a new solution to the eternal parking problems of SF. SF street parking was never designed to handle the amount of residents packed into houses in the Richmond. I have a neighbor who has at least 2 large families sharing a single family home and 4 cars (none of which are in the garage as the garage is completely converted into un-permited housing) that just rotate around our street. I don’t know if any of these residents would actually use car sharing, but the idea that we aren’t going to try it because they need all 4 parking spots is ridiculous. There isn’t a solution to try other than something like car sharing or improving our public transport to the point where more people stop using their cars. Any major city around the world has parking issues, this is not unique to SF or the Richmond District. The only caveat I have is that I would be hesitant to put my own car into a car sharing pool, as I’m sure some of these ignorant Richmond neighbors will be messing with (keying, etc) the cars that are in their hood taking up “their” spots.

  33. Car sharing is a great idea, and I agree that there should be more car sharing cars in the outer Richmond, but residential spaces are a valuable commodity, especially since there are so many multi-unit, multi families in outer Richmond The City should consider the underutilized spaces like the parking area behind Walgreens or the lots around Ocean Beach. And why haven’t the car sharing companies looked into getting spaces at Safeway, Fresh & Easy? All of these spaces would be equally accessible to the ones planned and would not take away any residential parking.

  34. There is no good reason to use residential parking spaces for this program. It’s a commercial enterprise that belongs in commercial areas, of which there are plenty in the Outer Richmond. It’s also more convenient for car share users to have the vehicles located in commercial areas near public transit. The amount of pedestrian traffic in commercial areas and proximity to public transit might discourage vandalism of the vehicles or attacks on lone drivers. Importantly, people will be encouraged to give up their cars when they see how well car share works in their neighborhood and for their neighbors, rather than be forced to give up their cars because there is no place for them to park. As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey . . .

  35. Placing these cars in commercial areas (Safeway parking lots, Ocean Beach etc) would not make these car sharing services viable. Think it through people…there are vast areas of the Richmond that are not within walking distance of the Alexandria lot or the Safeway lot. In order for people to actually use these, they need to be able to walk just a couple of blocks…these are lazy Americans we are talking about. If you have to walk 10 blocks or take a bus to the Safeway parking lot to go grab a car share, it’s not going to get used much. This is about convenience, so you have to have these cars sprinkled throughout all neighborhoods for them to actually be used. The fact that there are multiple families living in Single Family units with no garage is the main reason there are so few parking spaces.

  36. To put car sharing on 6th & Balboa is ridiculous. I can’t think of a street that has less parking and now you are taking more away (what are you and Eric M sniffing, Peter L?)? No wonder that stretch of Balboa has abandoned empty businesses. It’s a pain to go there and there’s no parking! Just kill more businesses why don’t you.

    Those are for profit companies. If we are going to give up spaces for their rental cars (it’s a rental car, let’s face it. It’s not car sharing. People are renting a car!), they city can go ahead and charge more than what they are charging now. They are stealing from taxpayers with that ridiculously low space rental while making profits hand over fist with what they are charging for a car rental.

    If you want people to give up their personal cars and rent a car, what will happen to your beloved vehicle registration fees that you were counting on robbing the citizens, ERic Marr? Yup, that will dry up. What then? Are you going to tax us for renting cars?

  37. Should anyone care to adopt this letter, here is what I wrote to the appropriate authority on this subject:

    addressee: sustainable.streets@sfmta.com

    subject: re Public Hearing on Friday July 11, 10:00 a.m., Room 416, City Hall concerning Item 16 — Car Share taking of public parking spaces

    As a Richmond District resident, I object to the present incomplete scheme to give public street parking spaces to private car share entities. I request that the following analyses first be undertaken. Without these steps, I reject the City’s right to exercise this proposed eminent domain condemnation of an undervalued public resource.

    1. Has the City Attorney performed an analysis concerning the right of the government to “take” this valuable public resource: does the government have the right to assert exclusive use over the parking spaces such that it can then assign their use to a private entity?
    2. Has the City Attorney performed an analysis under an eminent domain analysis, including performance of a study to determine that asserting domain over these parking spaces is the least invasive and most mitigated means of providing the greatest good for this identified purpose?
    3. Has the City Attorney (from a legal perspective under the takings and eminent domain analyses) and has the Board of Supervisors Budget & Legislative Analyst (from a comparative value perspective) performed an analysis as to sufficiency of the the payment to the City for the proposed use of this valuable public resource?

    Thank you.

  38. Putting car share spaces in commercial, high pedestrian traffic area would essentially advertise for car share companies, making it a more viable & attractive option in the future.

  39. I live at 8th Ave and Fulton, far from any commercial strips, and yet I hope this service will be located in close enough to be convenient for my family. To me, there is no difference between making spots available for residents to store their own cars versus having spots for shared cars. If anything, there is a question of why several people using a car share have to pay for the spot while a single person gets to have the spot for free.

  40. The City has lost thousands of parking spots due to construction and the creation of bike lanes. Residential parking spaces near 42nd and Geary are extremely limited. Removing residential parking spaces increases the likelihood of double parking and accidents. The parking spaces behind Walgreens are ideal for this for-profit, car sharing venture. If the spot behind Walgreens was good enough for the Hustler truck, it is good enough for a car sharing zone.

  41. I’m excited to see this pilot going forward. A number of Zipcar and City Car Share’s locations see heavy use so expansion will mean more opportunities for the sharing programs to succeed. It makes it easier to not own a car and instead share one, taking cars off the road/reducing overall demand on parking too. Plus, there are a myriad of studies that illustrate that when people join car-sharing they reduce their overall driving and are more likely to sell their own car. This means more space available overall because we’re being more efficient with the space we have.

    To jzj and sfresident: they’re private companies but anyone with a driver’s license and a decent driving history can join; it’s not exclusive. Heck, City CarShare is a non-profit. Plenty of people park their cars for days on end, especially if there’s no time limit or restrictions. At least with the car share different people can truly share the spaces.

    Further, because you can select a car for just the time(s) you need it, others can use the same car at other times. It’s a far more efficient use of one parking spot than just having one person park their car for x amount of time without it seeing use. This a far “greater good” (your words) than to retain the status quo. We can’t expect our transportation systems (including parking & driving) to improve if we design our streets and policies that make it hard to NOT own a car.

  42. “The amount of pedestrian traffic in commercial areas and proximity to public transit might discourage vandalism of the vehicles”

    Interesting. Given this proclivity for vandalism, how is it that Richmond residents are willing to park their cars on the streets? Note – if you give up your car and decide to go with a car-share car, if that car gets vandalized, it’s Zipcar’s problem, not yours.

    Anyone who owns a house fronting one of the new car share spots can notify me of their willingness to sell the house at current valuation, and I will reap the profits from the increased value of having a car available with a guaranteed spot, right in front of said house, a convenience greater than the inconvenience of having to plan when to reserve the car.

  43. I vote for the spots behind Walgreens, with the provision that the company has to keep it clear of trash. You give a little, you get a little.

  44. Why are the parking spaces selected for the car share vehicles so long? The standard building lot out here is 25 feet with about a third being driveway. These spaces average 18-20 feet, most parking spaces are nowhere near this size.

  45. I already own the space in front of my house… it’s called a curb cut. And it’s free!

  46. There’s a thought– allow people to rent their curb cut space to car share companies. Half the time, the cars won’t even be there, and the other half, the owner can get a special pass to move the car whenever they need to. Plus, owners who aren’t using their garages to store a car would jump at the chance. Win-win for everybody.

    Has the City Attorney performed an analysis concerning the right of the government to “take” this valuable public resource: does the government have the right to assert exclusive use over the parking spaces such that it can then assign their use to a private entity?

    Hm… one could ask exactly the same question of newly-constructed curb cuts: they take the valuable public resource, assert exclusive use, and assign it to a private entity.

  47. SF’s reckless indifference to children continues, I see. We have a toddler. We need a car. A safe car seat takes 10-15 minutes to install. And it’s heavy. My wife is petite and isn’t strong enough to snap the belt clips in, heck it’s tough for me and I’m over 200 pounds. Lugging it out to a share-car and installing it isn’t feasible. It’s not about residential parking for us, we use our garage space. But when we need to go to Clement or Balboa it’s often so difficult to park that we just give up. I’m not against the parklets or car-share spots categorically, but this just seems to be part of a callous indifference to those of us with little kids (and others for whom buses & bikes aren’t so easy) as parking spots rapidly disappear. Maybe if I didn’t see over half of all parking spots occupied by cars with disabled placards I wouldn’t mind losing a few more to this, but enough already. Stop the disabled placard fraud & abuse AND THEN let’s consider another innovation that cramps families with kids. Just because we have to push a stroller doesn’t mean we should be confined to where we can push it on foot.

  48. As a rough estimate, there are 300 blocks in the Richmond. Each block has about 60 street parking spaces surrounding it. That’s roughly 18,000 street parking spaces in the Richmond.

    Devoting 20, or even 200 spaces to car-sharing programs hardly makes a dent in that. That the parking issues are so difficult here is simply a testament to the high value people place on space here (what is it now– $25 per square foot per month?), and that most parking is free, or close to it ($9 a month). There’s just no way it’s not going to be packed all the time, and devoting some spaces to car share won’t change that. May as well open a restaurant that sells burgers for a dime, and then wonder why the lines are so long.

  49. There is another space earmarked for car share. It’s at 22nd and Fulton. The crazy thing with this space is why didn’t they use Fulton at the park side instead of 22nd in front of an apartment building. Obviously they are aware of the car break ins and don’t want their vehicles damaged. Looks like one set of rules for profit companies and one for residents. Shame on you Mr. Mar. Just for once can you give a crap about the people who put into that job.

  50. I wonder what we are paying for in aids to our Supervisors when they make comments like:

    “Carsharing is proven to reduce overall car ownership because it gives people an alternative to owning and parking their own car 24/7.”

    If you go and read the study cited it never uses the work “proves” but merely says the “data supports”…

    Of course if you actually read the study the only thing that it supports is Car Sharing across the entire group it surveyed which is the entire county not any one specific city. It does not account for a particular city’s variables. San Francisco has great transit, many of the cities that the survey respondents live in do not. San Francisco has a much higher median income than the other cites they survived. The list goes on and on. Using such a report to defend or direct public policy in San Francisco is tantamount to making it up or wishful thinking.

    Of particular note is the fact that the survey did not seem to qualify for people who lived in a place with off street parking. I would make a good bet, subject to good research, that 99% of the people who gave up a car did not have off street parking. That said, the comments about San Francisco putting some teeth into getting private garages cleaned up and illegal units taken out would do more to impact parking that anything else in San Francisco.

    The actual value of the car sharing movement and using public resources for it are something that should be looked at. However, we need policy based on solid science unique to San Francisco and not some blanket science that may or may not apply. We also need “legislative analysts” that know how to analyze.

  51. Oh dandy. So now if I want to invite friends from the peninsular or east bay or marine to come over for dinner I need to tell them they must ‘car share through zipp because otherwise they will never find parking? (Not that it is so easy to find it now). I am so sick of the way this city is run, of their arrogant disregard to the actual needs of families and people who work; of our appalling ugly public transportation that they are pushing us to use by making car use hell, instead of making transport clean, safe, reliable and fast and attractive!! What an incompetent, pretentious bunch in charge of one of the most important cities in the world!

  52. Car sharing studies about how great this program works is done by the car sharing companies. They state that car sharing has been a great success in other areas. But ,SF is not like other areas we are only 49sq miles total. These other areas are spread out. Cars parked on the street in the Richmond have to move for street clean(car share would be exempt ). There is also a 72 hour limit for a car to be parked in one spot. Just call 311. Property owners pay property tax we should be able to park in front of our house on the street. Public spaces should not be for sell.

  53. @julie – well said. We pay high taxes, get reduced services, while the city is selling /renting off public spaces like parking and the GG park, arboretum and on and on. It never cease to amaze me how they always claim to be lacking money for what needs doing, but to me it looks that what they are lacking is accountability.

  54. The core issue with regard to parking is that you have about twice as many people living in the neighborhood as it was designed for. To get the highest rent possible, landlords are packing in 4 occupants paying $1000 instead of one family paying, say $3000. The in-law units, which for reasons beyond my understanding have now been legalized instead of enforced, are making it so that you have all the more people. And figure one car per every three people, just to estimate. Not to get all GOP on you, but if the city wants to solve the parking problem, enforce the laws that were already on your books, instead of not enforcing them and then reversing them. There’s never going to be enough housing in the city, anyway, so you might as well have the neighborhoods serve their original function instead of just packing in as many people possible. It should be a signal when you have people literally parking on the sidewalk that it is time for change.

  55. @Julie, Property owners don’t own the sidewalk or the parking space in front of their real property, but City Hall will fine them if they don’t maintain the sidewalk and all the City-government promoted accessories (not utilities) on said sidewalk. The Richmond was developed in a time when there were five streetcar lines serving it, most women did not work outside the home, groceries were delivered (as well as meat, milk, bread, coal and ice for the ice box) and neighborhood schools served the neighborhood. The tree on my sidewalk was planted by a City-promoted non-profit predecessor to Friends of the Urban Forest during the Save A Tree campaign in the early 1970s. One of the first actions the part time City-wide supervisors took as soon as Proposition 13 took effect was to abnegate the City’s promise to maintain these trees. While “money” was tight at City Hall after the ability to balance expenditures based on how much to raise property taxes after a very short meeting, there was more balance in overall public works maintenance before the Supes no longer required outside employment to maintain their lifestyles. Public-private partnerships have not been the glowing successes the PR machine in this now one paper town like to boast; they’ve led to Disneyfication and financial scandals.

    I’d love to know what is happening to the windfall in property tax revenues now that the average single family dwelling is assessed at roughly 30X their value at the passage of Prop 13 and 220X their original purchase in the 1910s and 1920s. The average taxpayer is not seeing the result.

  56. The absence of any spaces being reserved for Fulton Street speaks volumes. It makes much more sense to use the commercial area spaces rather than reducing residential parking further.
    In addition to the comments that note housing costs here result in more adults and more cars for each residence, it’s worth noting as well that not all spaces can accommodate all cars. The garages and curb cuts in the Outer Richmond date from a much earlier era and even mid-sized cars have limited places where they can be parked.

  57. they propose to take 2 spaces in the area I usually circle around to find parking during street cleaning. even though yes parking is terrible…. took 20 min. to find a space 4 blocks from my home at around 6:30pm… but taking just two spaces is not going to make things appreciably worse IMO. I did not read the report, but I don’t expect to see more space open up b/c people are rushing to sell their cars. There are still many household that own multiple cars that aren’t going to sell them b/c they really need them.

  58. @4thGenRichmond “I’d love to know what is happening to the windfall in property tax revenues ”
    You are I both. Do you know that the city found a way to gouge small property owners for absurd amounts of money on top of the taxes they assess per law? It turns out that on many properties that had appealed their very high tax assessments when the market crashed in 2009-2011 and property value wend down about 25% , the city is collecting what they had reduced on appeal+additional % back from NEW owners. The city says that they understand it is not really fair, but their SOFTWARE is set up in such a way that they have no choice. And with all that they constantly claim to be short of funds to provide services and sell off our public spaces.

  59. While tax revenues go up, up, and up, the SF Democratic Party monopoly continues to spend, spend, and spend without a conscious. Yet, people blindly vote for the same political party over and over without question. Sadly, District 1 deserves what it gets. No surprises, no accountability, no fiscal sense.

  60. I’m glad Franz brought up 22nd Ave & Fulton. I was wondering why it was left off the list here.

    I, too, don’t understand why SFMTA didn’t pick a spot on Fulton instead. There’s a bus stop at the pedestrian entrance to GG Park, and the spot could be easily put in front of it. From talking to people who live around this intersection, I know that many of us had the exact same idea about putting the parking place on Fulton next to the Park. I hope that they all sent comments in (I did) or attended the hearing.

    Now I just hope SFMTA listens.

  61. How will the Car Share services handle street sweeping day?! If they are exempt, then it just causes more issues for the rest of the street.

    How hard have the car share services tried to rent/lease private spots in these areas first? I see many listed as suggestions, but I think SFMTA is just looking to make more rent from our streets so are not working with the car share companies to utilize off street parking first.

  62. @Susan – The car share vehicles will not be subject to street cleaning, so they can remain in their spots and will not be ticketed during street cleaning.

    Sarah B.

  63. this is great. We are a one car family and this would allow us to stay that way. Current ZipCar and City Car Share spots are too far away to be useful. I have to ride my bike there and leave my bike locked to something all day.

    Having better transit and car sharing in the outer richmond will help us be a cleaner, more efficient city.

    Not sure why everyone is worried about whether the car share companies are for or non profit. The city rents government space to private entities all the time. All the concessions in Golden Gate Park (Stow lake, Japanese Tea Garden) are private. The Giants ballpark land is rented for a $1/year for 99 years.

    Having one car share parking spot likely keeps a dozen or more cars from being purchased and used in our neighborhood thus actually keeping parking available as the neighborhood grows.

    or maybe folks want the outer richmond to be walled off from any change….

  64. SF Jimbo:

    The concern over for profit vs. non-profit is that the stupid SFMTA is renting out the spaces for less than they are worth and these for profit car rental companies (they are not sharing a car with you, they are renting you a car. I’m not sure why we are putting a happy face on this and making it sound like they are doing us such a big favor) are asking for what is essentially a public hand out from the taxpayers. Since parking is at a premium, the City should charge more for these car rental companies. As a taxpayer, I refuse to give them a subsidy (I’d rather it gets thrown to the homeless if we are talking about wasting money) so they can make a profit off our backs. They are a for profit company – they should pay premium prices for the honor of parking in our streets. This is the same as the Google buses. $1 per stop? Really? Someone needs to learn how to balance the books in the city.

    I hope some vandals go and smash all the windows off these car rentals while they are parked in taxpayer paid spots.

  65. Can someone list all the Car shares in the Outer Richmond? I would like to know. Thanks

  66. The fact that the car share cars will not have to be moved on street sweeping days proves that street sweeping is a shakedown to extract money from residents. I used to be foolish enough to think that tickets were handed out because the streets ACTUALLY had to be kept clean. Thanks San Francisco for your continued anti-family policies.

  67. Mink – I fully agree!!! If the rules don’t apply… then why are we all moving cars every two weeks?!!!

  68. Here’s something else: Mar & Campos have proposed that any City & County revenue that exceeds what was budgeted as revenue for the year ended June 30 be used to give raises to **non-profit** employees whose non-profits contract with the City. I am well aware of the relationship of these non-profits with the SEIU, but they are not City employees.

    Susan & Mink: Street cleaning used to happen every week, when the economy crashed all non-downtown areas were reduced to every two weeks so that the City could “lay off” workers (rather loads of seniority bumps played musical chairs across many departments). Several months after the reduction in service (with no corresponding reduction in taxes) took place, the City realized it was losing close to $80 million/year in parking ticket revenue. FYI, I cannot drive (head injury when run over on sidewalk in 3rd grade) so I have only a small dog in the carsharing hunt. But I have a big dog in the fiscal mismanagement of my tax dollars.

  69. These are public parking spaces, everyone deserves to have a chance to park, not for any special group. Are all our streets now corporate? Residents pay taxes and spaces should not be sold to companies. Car share are still cars being used all the time, how is that different than owning a car? Why are car owners penalized and villanized? Are they really exempt from street cleaning?

  70. I agree with JD—the analysis is completely inadequate, but I disagree that SF has good public transit—it could be a lot better.

    I don’t understand why these spaces are being rented at such a low rate? What is the justification for these prices? If the city rented these spaces for something like the market price, the companies would soon be telling the city if it was worthwhile to keep their cars in these spots. And in the meantime, the city could use the money received for the benefit of residents. Why isn’t the city offering several metered spaces right around the corner from the spaces on 27th and 28th Avenues?

    Using these spaces for car share companies WILL deplete the parking spaces available to residents. In areas that don’t have metered spaces or parking lots available for these companies to rent, I could understand offering one or two spaces on city streets. But the 27th and 28th Avenue locations are located near large parking lots and metered parking.

    It’s very hard to park in the Richmond. The city should offer metered parking spaces for $50 a month to these companies and track if more parking becomes available in the Richmond. If they can prove that more parking is available because of this program, then residents will be able to accept the loss of one or two parking spaces. Let the city give up the income from several metered spaces to see if their hypothesis has any merit, before asking residents to drive around in an endless search for a place to park near their homes.

  71. It’s great to see so many commenters insisting that parking has a market rate price. Can we finally agree that curb space in the city is scarce and we should not be giving it away for free? Not to car share companies, not to google buses and not to private vehicle owners?

  72. I’m sure Nick from Mar’s office is watching this… but Mr. Mar is too busy focused on his soda tax issue…. instead of handling things that those of us in the Richmond are concerned about!

  73. ? You’ve got the wrong verb in the headline. In fact the city plans to OPTIMIZE parking spaces. #FTFY

Comments are closed.