Local

[Print]  [Email]        

City behind parking meters in park


July 8, 2009

Pay to park: Visitors to the eastern side of Golden Gate Park may have to pay to park near such attractions as the de Young Museum and the Academy of Sciences. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner)

SAN FRANCISCO — Enjoy the prized free roadway parking in Golden Gate Park while it lasts, because by April The City plans to charge for parking in 1,849 spaces.

The controversial proposal to install parking meters in the 1,017-acre park has surfaced and been shot down in the past, but the current budget woes in The City have officials backing the idea.

The idea is to have people pay for parking on the eastern side of Golden Gate Park, around the main attractions that include the de Young Museum, the California Academy of Sciences, the Japanese Tea Garden and the Botanical Gardens, according to Supervisor John Avalos. Drivers would then pay for the parking at one of 133 machines that are to be installed, according to the proposal.

The transformation of the more than 1,800 spaces would turn about one-fifth of the approximately 8,300 parking spots in Golden Gate Park into paid spaces.

The new metered spaces are scheduled for as early as April, and are projected to generate the Recreation and Park Department about $500,000 for the fiscal year that ends June 30. The details about the rates for the new meters are being worked out. The cost to park in San Francisco meters ranges from $3.50 per hour in downtown to just $2 for outlying areas such as the Sunset district.

The second year of service is expected to generate $1.4 million for the park department. On top of the money collected from the parking rates, there is a projection that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency — which enforces city parking meters and also runs Muni — would collect about $823,000 per year from citations from people failing to pay for the meters, providing the MTA with a $379,000 net profit. The citation prices for failing to pay at meters in The City currently are $63 for meters downtown and $53 for others.

The money that can be collected from the meters has been a driving force for support.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has previously opposed the idea, is now supporting it as part of a deal he struck last Wednesday with Avalos, chair of the Board of Supervisors budget committee.

“The mayor isn’t crazy about parking meters in Golden Gate Park,” Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said Tuesday. But the mayor is supporting the proposal “because we are strapped for cash.”

Avalos said the parking meter proposal is in line with The City’s transit first policy. He said the parking meters help with traffic and congestion while sending the right message.

“We are talking about a park that should at least have some symbol of environmentalism. Encouraging free parking in a park doesn’t make sense environmentally,” Avalos said.

Others say that it unfairly penalizes park users.

“Nobody likes to pay for parking, but at the same time, people like clean parks. We have to figure out ways to fund the maintenance of our parks,” Recreation and Park Department spokeswoman Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said.

Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on legislation authorizing the recreation department and the MTA to finalize the parking meter proposal for Golden Gate Park.

Paying for the park

Under a deal made a week ago, parking meters would be installed in Golden Gate Park as part of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposed city budget.

1,849 Number of parking metered spaces in the eastern side of Golden Gate Park

133 Number of meter collection machines for the 1,849 spaces

$206,000 Projected new revenue for Recreation and Park Department from meters in the current fiscal year

$1.41 million Projected new revenue for Recreation and Park Department from meters in the fiscal year 2010-11

April 2010 When parking meters would go into effect

Source: City Controller’s Office

jsabatini@sfexaminer.com



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Flutterbysf

Jul 8, 2009

This is more BS -- Sure it will increase a little parking revenue but will DECREASE the number of people actually going and using the park-- which is the main purpose of the park. The doesn't care about it's residents, rather they care to keep their pensions fat and failing programs maintained.

Plus -- how annoying will it be to have to leave the museums every hour to refill your parking meter.

John Avalos is an amateur idiot politician.

 

Flutterbysf

Jul 8, 2009

And another thing, Avalos --> the reason SF residents DRIVE to the park is because its' so damn far from the main areas of the city --- it takes me 1/2 an hour to drive from North Beach to GG park. If I take public transportation, as your BS arguments in favor of installing parking meters suggests, it will take me 1 hour and 1/2 to get to the park and who knows how many bus/muni transfers... that's BS and takes precious time out of my day and time should be spending at the park. YOU WILL LOSE PATRONS at the park -- NOT FAIR FOR SF residents/taxpayers to not be able to enjoy use of our beautiful park.

VOTE THIS DULLARD CORRUPT LOSER AVALOS OUT OF OFFICE NEXT TERM!!!

 

mattymatt

Jul 8, 2009

This is great news -- I live near the park and it's always a sea of circling cars, searching for free spaces. This will open the roads up for use by actual humans by moving the cars down into the garage.

I will definitely enjoy the roadway more when the parking is no longer free.

 

bdb

Jul 8, 2009

@Flutterbysf It's a nice bike ride from North Beach to the park. Get some exercise on your way :)

 

SFNative

Jul 8, 2009

This is heartbreaking for me as an SF native. What about adding a "save-the-city tax" ($10-20 a year) to each resident's property tax bill to cover some of the shortfall?

I would rather pay even $20 a year to save our city than take away the free park option to all its residents.

Is there NOTHING sacred in this city anymore???

 

freshair

Jul 8, 2009

At Flutterbysf: There are plenty of other ways to get to the park. Try cycling there, it's a lot of fun. If you take Muni and have to walk in a little bit, you might get to experience a piece of the park you've never seen.

 

crankypants

Jul 8, 2009

This is good news- for our parks, neighborhoods near parks, and our city budget. GG Park is used as a free parking lot for out of town commuters who are not using or enjoying the park facilities or visiting the institutions. Also, the meters that are to be installed will be 'smart meters' that you can feed from your cell phone. I understand that there will be a four hour limit.

 

SF-415

Jul 8, 2009

Message to John Avalos -- In order to balance the San Francisco city budget -- STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY!!!!!

 

M to the I

Jul 8, 2009

I'm not sure that I agree with adding parking meters in the park. Cars don't belong in the park in the first place. Once you start putting meters in, it will be harder to fight for a car-free park.

Sure it will give you some revenue, but once cars are banned there will be far less upkeep of roads needed that will save money.

If there has to be parking in the park, charge them and charge them a lot. But should there be parking in the park at all?

 

Mindkandy

Jul 8, 2009

I'm not sure I like parking meters in the park; they would make park roads look more like city streets.

The meters would also displace cars onto the surrounding streets where residents will find it even more difficult to locate parking spaces.

Yes, the City needs more money now, but I'd hesitate to put in such a long-term solution (meters in the park) for a financial situation that will turn around in the next few years.

 

DonnyDon

Jul 8, 2009

Once again those with $ will be able to afford to park in the prime spots and those with less will take the farther away spots. Just like BART and everything else. Make it equal for all. Shut down the roads so everyone has the same travel experience to museums. It is going to force more folks to the neighborhoods looking for parking for free anyway.

 

sickofit

Jul 8, 2009

oh please don't force the people to park in the neighborhoods. i live around here and i get really irritated when i come home and there are no parking spaces because of events in the park like concerts. i absolutely hate it when people block my driveway and i have to get a dpt over to ticket it or get it towed. it's not the regular attenders that are a problem but the concert goers that need to be more considerate

 

sfkayak

Jul 8, 2009

It's time that the supervisors started paying market rate for those parking spaces they occupy for free in front of City Hall. Most claim that are too busy to take MUNI. A choice parking space such right in front of City Hall ought to go for $400.00 a month don't you think? I wonder how many other "special" people at City Hall get free spaces at the Civic Center garage?

 

Dec 19, 2009

lowongan kerja 2010 lowongan kerja bank lowongan kerja terbaru lowongan pekerjaan lowongan cpns lowongan pekerjaan terbaru internet marketing ferri yanto angelica faustina high paying keyword

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




World

Fortune tellers: Year of Tiger isn't Tiger's year, but Obama to shine

It's the Year of the Tiger, but Chinese fortune tellers say it'll be a rough patch for the world's most famous one: disgraced golfer Tiger Woods. Full story

Local

Notorious penguin Harry survives infection

Fans of The City’s most famous penguins can... Full story

Local

Jackson doctor back in court in April to find out date for next major step in case

Michael Jackson's doctor returns to court in April to find out the date for the next major step in the case — a proceeding that will reveal for the first time the evidence the prosecution believes will show his "gross negligence" was the direct cause of the pop star's death. Full story