Yesterday we learned from the Twittersphere that "new angled spots have arrived on Castro Street" between 24th and Jersey Streets. A fly-by and quick check on Mapjack confirms there is a gain of four parking spots on this block of Castro (there were six, now ten). Four spots were lost to trial of the parklets on 24th St. Coincidence?
Interestingly, earlier diagonal parking on Castro took years. But when Isa Muhawieh moved his salon to Jersey and Castro in 2005, he pushed through a "trial" that easily became permanent. With the parklets taking away 4 spots on 24th Street, the Noe Valley Merchants Association is rumored to have brokered a back-room deal to add this new parking to Castro St at 24th. The parklets are a six month trial with no guarantee of permanency, but it's unclear if the parking spaces on Castro are a trial or a done deal.
In other words plazas and parklets are controversial, but apparently adding parking places is just fine. For previous opponents of the plaza who objected to the NVMPA making decisions by fiat, where's the outrage? And for fans of the parklets, are you OK with this horse trade?
For the record, I believe the net gain of these new Castro St. diag's are two parking places (according to the Oct Rumors in the NVV)not four.
ReplyDeleteI'm betting on NVSF.
ReplyDeleteI wish that they had used back-in angle parking instead of front-in. Much safer for a variety of reasons. When you back into a spot, you can see what you are backing into. When you back into traffic, you can't. And for those loading stuff into the trunk/hatch of a car, you can do it from the sidewalk instead of in traffic.
I like this a lot, regardless of "horse trade. It is much better to have more parking just off 24th than on it, and these spots are accessible only if you are coming down Castro from the South. If it's known that there is ample parking when you add up the Castro St spots and the Walgreens lot, substantially more traffic will now drive down Jersey Street to get to those spots instead of driving down 24th Street.
Wait a minute ;)
"Back room deals?" Nonsense and irresponsible reporting here.
ReplyDeleteThere were NVMPA and NVA meetings on the parking last year, and then public hearings on this last fall, and also then reported in the Noe Valley Voice.
This sounds like the sour grapes are still sour for the pro-plaza activists including this blog. Talking about "back rooms" in this blog is two-faced since the person or persons of the NVSF are faceless and write this blog anonymously. Step out of the back room, NVSF, so we all know who you are. (It looks like Murphstahoe knows exactly who you are--maybe he can tell us who it is he "betting on") I'll sign my name when you all sign yours.
I've been sworn to secrecy until the blog author finishes his term as D8 supervisor next month.
ReplyDeleteThe added parking on Castro is great - except it should be back-in, not pull-in. I was surprised at this - SF was supposedly going to all back-in - they converted pull-in to back-in on Townsend Street and it's a big improvement.
Seems like a win-win if we get parklets and not lose that many parking spots. Everybody wins.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's strange that there wasn't more public notice about the new parking changes (especially given the uproar over the plaza this summer). And I also agree in this case the parking additions are a win-win.
ReplyDeleteIt's fortunate we all seem to like it. I just wonder how we'd all feel about the process for this change if it was for something we *didn't* like.
Just sayin...
Angled parking has a tendency to reduce speeding by narrowing excessively wide roadways. Castro is wider because it used to carry a streetcar in days gone by.
ReplyDeleteIf whoever writes this blog purports to really know what's going on in the neighborhood then they would not have "learned from the Twittersphere that new angled spots have arrived on Castro Street" -- they would have done like people that actually live in the neighborhood do: gotten their information firsthand.
ReplyDeleteMurph/tahoe--"D8 Supervisor"...huh?
ReplyDeleteHe is a lame duck now....and you will be lame duck forever. Like the author of this blog: Very adroit at ducking answering hard questions.
Anon:6:25 - why are you reading this blog? Isn't it redundant, given you get all your information "firsthand"?
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, nothing like heresay news here in the 'hood; and, my first-hand memories of a cup of coffee at Herb's Fine Foods. Neither is tasty.
ReplyDeleteAngled, "back in" parking is insane and impossible. Think about it. You're driving down castro headed north and try to back into an angled spot.
ReplyDeleteMurph is nuts for even saying that.
I don't like back in parking, period, because the longer rear end of a vehicle typically overhangs more over the sidewalk, making the sidewalk for PEOPLE even narrower than before, plus it affects trees and sidewalk landscaping.
Stupid idea.
Please go talk to these guys and set them straight!
ReplyDeleteThey're office is on Market Street so it's not far. And if you don't, then this insanity will start to pervade all of San Francisco!
Silly traffic engineers and safety consultants. What do they know.
erf... "Their office" I blame my iPhone. Apple good for nothings and their huge buses!
ReplyDeleteI don't like back in parking, period, because the longer rear end of a vehicle typically overhangs more over the sidewalk, making the sidewalk for PEOPLE even narrower than before, plus it affects trees and sidewalk landscaping.
ReplyDelete--> These are metered spots. How can you back up further than the meter? And are people walking through the meters? Are we planting trees between the meter and the curb?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Fremont testing out back in angled parking
ReplyDelete