SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[fimiak]

I still think making people pay $5 to come into the city via highway from the South is a good idea to reduce traffic and raise revenue for mass transit. It isn't fair that visitors to SF from the North and East have to pay every time, but from the South there is no payment, simply because there are no choke points.

Controversial point: SF is a destination city, not a drive-thru, which is why 101 as the primary conduit for all Northbound and Eastbound thru traffic is so frustrating. From Oakland it can easily take an hour to cross the Bay Bridge at rush hour because we have to accommodate all thru traffic and exiting traffic as well as entering traffic..another bridge or another tunnel is necessary to relieve this as the US continues to grow in population. Another 100 million Americans in the next 50 years means we need to fix this shit ASAP. I know SF isn't Manhattan (and Oakland isn't Brooklyn), but Manhattan has 1.6m people and 16 bridges, and SF has 880,000 people and 2 bridges.

When I said to remove freeways I meant to divert 280 across the bay around Cesar Chavez st on a new bridge, and remove just the stub of 280 that currently runs into the Caltrain station. There would still be an access street, it just wouldn't be as large as 280 currently is over Mission Bay, like the mayor plans. I didn't mean to suggest I wanted to tear down 101 or something.

[botoxic]

Six Crane Casserole

@waynesutton on Twitter

[SF_Everest]

Great pic. What's the furthest-right crane for?

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by SF_Everest

Great pic. What's the furthest-right crane for?

Transbay Block 8:

A good rendering post of it: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7326535&postcount=83

The actual thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210616&page=8

[emanon]

Originally Posted by fimiak

I still think making people pay $5 to come into the city via highway from the South is a good idea to reduce traffic and raise revenue for mass transit. It isn't fair that visitors to SF from the North and East have to pay every time, but from the South there is no payment, simply because there are no choke points.

I know SF isn't Manhattan (and Oakland isn't Brooklyn), but Manhattan has 1.6m people and 16 bridges, and SF has 880,000 people and 2 bridges.

If you're worried about equity, why not eliminate tolls on the SFOBB and the GGB rather than impose a new fee on Peninsula drivers. Also, where would you put the toll booths? Draw an east/west line on a map of the Peninsula south of SF and count how many roadways cross it in a north/south direction. That's how many opportunities there are to evade any tolls implemented on 101 or 280.

Manhattan is an island, hence the number of bridges.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by emanon

If you're worried about equity, why not eliminate tolls on the SFOBB and the GGB rather than impose a new fee on Peninsula drivers. Also, where would you put the toll booths? Draw an east/west line on a map of the Peninsula south of SF and count how many roadways cross it in a north/south direction. That's how many opportunities there are to evade any tolls implemented on 101 or 280.

Manhattan is an island, hence the number of bridges.

I don't care about equity, I care about money for transit. That's why I want to charge more people who enter the city -- everyone, whether its BART, Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain, GGB or BB currently pays, except for the worst offenders of traffic, those that take 101/280 North into the city. People can evade the tolls by going on local SF streets, but their drive will take longer. Some locals could potentially be registered via license plate and not have to pay tolls through here. It would naturally divide locals out from tourists, and those who are going to go somewhere locally within SF from those who just want to cross the Bay Bridge/future Eastbound bridge. One more bridge would greatly speed up the drive of those who would want to go from East Bay to the peninsula, avoiding most SF/Bay Bridge traffic altogether.

The toll booth can be like Golden Gate Bridge with an automatic pass through. The location of the 101 booth is a little more challenging, whether it's after 3rd street exit or cesar chavez I am not sure which. With the money raised we build another transbay tunnel. Ideally the tolls would inspire some people to park in Daly City/Millbrae and take BART in..reducing traffic and increasing parking potential in the city.

Your point about Manhattan is definitely valid, but I still think it shows that more bridges is a necessary evil to manage traffic, since the Bay Bridge has become such a painful daily choke point for hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody likes tolls, but traffic is only getting worse, and I don't think the city should expect the Trump Administration to finance the things that the city wants.

[viewguysf]

Let's take this conversation to the transportation thread.

[Justbuildit]

I don't know how people handle traffic in the Bay Area. I live 80 miles east in the Central Valley and its nice to be able to zip around the city and get where I need to go without dealing with long delays.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

I don't know how people handle traffic in the Bay Area.

Easy, I grew up in LA.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I wouldn't be against that. What I would like to see which will never happen is a tunnel connecting the 101 from where it is downgraded to an at grade Boulevard to the newly reconstructed Doyle Dr. They could reduce lanes for all I care but it would be nice to have a more connected freeway system.

Speaking of freeways in tunnels and 101-80 complaints, I recently drew this up: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xZvW0TmvB4yqXbCRI1zacHA-frs&usp=sharing

Essentially, it routes the 80/101 into a new cut-and cover tunnel through industrial bits of SoMa and Potrero Hill, funded by selling a ton of developable land above. It would have to happen fairly soon, though, before the land all gets built up.

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

I don't know how people handle traffic in the Bay Area. I live 80 miles east in the Central Valley and its nice to be able to zip around the city and get where I need to go without dealing with long delays.

It's fine when it's not commute times of course. It's also nice to know that I don't have to drive more than 30 minutes to work and home each day.

[Pedestrian]

Plan to Prohibit Street Parking for a Big Building with a Small Garage
April 14, 2017

The idea behind San Francisco’s policy of restricting the number of parking spaces allowed to be included within a new development, a policy which has been in place for years, is that by limiting the number of off-street parking spaces, the residents of said buildings without an off-street parking spot will forgo car ownership and reduce congestion in the City.

At the same time, anecdotal concerns that limiting off-street parking simply increases the demand and competition for on-street parking spaces, and shifts the responsibility for accommodating the needs of new residents from private developers to the public realm, rather than effectively changing the actual demand curve for cars, appear to be on the rise.

For example, residents in Dogptach have been raising concerns that UCSF’s planned development of up to 550 units of housing for students and trainees at 566-600 Minnesota Street, with a garage that’s expected to accommodate fewer than 130 cars, will overwhelm the existing supply of on-street parking spaces and contribute to the ongoing “erosion of neighborhood parking.”

As such, [u]UCSF is proposing to fund the development of community parking lots to relieve pressure created by their projects on Minnesota and Third Street.[/b]

In addition, UCSF is proposing to disallow any future residents living in their development on Minnesota from obtaining a Residential Parking Permit for the neighborhood, in order to further, and perhaps actually, discourage car ownership . . . .

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/...-a-big-building-with-a-small-garage.html

Look at that building: squat and ugly and apparently it will be a breeder of surface parking lots to boot. I've said it for years now: The MTA and San Francisco's policies vis a vis cars are making city trafffic and the quality of life in the city worse, not better. Make the building taller, put an adequate garage for all residents likely to have a car under it, forget the notion of more suface parking lots no matter who funds them.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I've said it for years now: The MTA and San Francisco's policies vis a vis cars are making city trafffic and the quality of life in the city worse, not better.

Atleast reserve the policies for areas that have adequate transit including MUNI rail service, which this area has with the T. I am totally an advocate for some of the projects, especially on Market, that are building zero parking that are adjacent to MUNI metro stations or on the rail lines.

[Pedestrian]

Less than one parking space per unit makes more sense to me in rental buildings such as those near Market than in condos. But given the level of affluence required to buy a condo in SF these days, I find it hard to imagine such a buyer who doesn't own a car or ever expect to (even though I personally am one such in a way--I own 2 cars that are and will remain far from SF).

As an interesting aside, I saw today that the parking garage in the SOMA Grande condo building (one block off Market) was just sold to a private equity outfit. I assume the unit owners in that building who do have cars have something in their CC&Rs to protect them from being totally at the mercy of these capitalists but it could get ugly for them if there's no cap on how high the charge to rent a gaage space can go.

[Cory]

If it seems to radical, how else are we to get individuals out of their cars? There are options outside of SF. You can't have your suburbs and city too. If anything, I only wish SFMTA were mindful of the codependency it has with development in this city. SF can easily become another option in this country where living auto free is more than an ideology but a rational choice. Manhattan is one of the most affluent places in the world but 4 out of 5 households are automobile free.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Cory

If it seems to radical, how else are we to get individuals out of their cars?

Sorry--I'm not a social engineer. I don't think government compulsion can or should get people out of cars. Plenty of people want to live in the city and have a car too and they will find ways, usually via unintended consequences that are bad, to do it.

On the other hand, the right way to get some to decide not to have a car is to make the alternatives as attractive as possible. That is, make MUNI fast, convenient and safe. But, of course, that's too hard for our leaders (who by and large have cars and don't ride Muni).

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Sorry--I'm not a social engineer. I don't think government compulsion can or should get people out of cars.

Yet you argued this just a few posts ago:

"Make the building taller, put an adequate garage for all residents likely to have a car under it, forget the notion of more suface parking lots no matter who funds them."

If the developer wants to build no parking, and can sell the units in that way, are you not arguing that you'd have the city force them to build parking? How is that not government compulsion?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Gordo

If the developer wants to build no parking, and can sell the units in that way, are you not arguing that you'd have the city force them to build parking? How is that not government compulsion?

I am absolutely NOT arguing that. If there are any developers who want to build without parking and truly think they can sell or rent the units that way, I'll applaud them. And I would be totally opposed to the government trying to compel them to add parking.

I think there's a small market for this kind of development but I just doubt there are many $750,000+ condos (which is most of what's being built in SF) in it. But if marketing research says I'm wrong, great!

The comment you quoted is about a UC development. UC IS the government and I think it's doing what's politically correct, not what the market wants. That's the point of the article. Just not building parking in the building isn't enough: They also have to try to prevent building residents from grabbing all the street parking in the vicinity, if ncessary by building separate surface lots (which IMHO is much worse than having the parking in the building).

[Gordo]

Ok, fair enough. There have been dozens of condo developments over the last few years that have asked to build fewer than required or even no parking spots, so the market definitely exists. It's a different world than even 8-10 years ago, when getting financing for a building with less than 1:1 parking was difficult.

PS - I'm another another person who owns two cars but keeps neither in SF and has no parking (owned house).

[plutonicpanda]

Yeah I don't agree with telling developers how many parking spaces they can build. The government has no business telling people how to live which forcing developers to build x amount of parking or lack therof does exactly that.