Community, Diversity, Sustainability and other Overused Words
Community, Diversity, Sustainability and other Overused Words
Whether the curb is painted red or not, you will get a ticket if you park within 20 feet of any intersection
The idea is to make congestion so terrible that people will be forced out of their cars and onto transit, says one expert
When the calendar turns over to 2025, parking in California cities will be even more of a hassle than it already is. Jan. 1 marks the day that cities can begin slapping tickets on cars parked too close to crosswalks. San Francisco is expected to lose nearly 14,000 street spaces. As many as 100,000 will be erased statewide.
The California Road Diet, which has an insatiable appetite for chewing up useful concrete and asphalt, continues.
Assembly Bill 413 passed and was signed in the fall of 2023, ostensibly to improve "visibility at intersections through a strategy referred to as 'daylighting' which involves removing parking within 20-25 feet of an intersection," according to the Assembly floor analysis.
Parking at intersections reduces visibility for oncoming traffic in several ways. It reduces visibility of pedestrians about to cross the street. It also obstructs traffic signals like stop signs both for the driver approaching the intersection and the driver behind that driver, increasing the likelihood of getting rear ended because they do not expect the first driver to come to a complete stop. It also can reduce visibility for drivers seeing oncoming traffic at an intersection [that] only contains a stop sign for one direction of traffic.
The analysis further notes that of the nearly 39,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S. in 2020, "10,626 of them were at an intersection" and 1,674 of those who lost their lives "were pedestrians representing nearly 25% of all pedestrian fatalities. Nearly half of all traffic injuries occur at intersections."
Fair enough. Street parking is being eliminated in the cause of improved safety.
It also has an added value, though, in the eyes of planners: It will make driving an even greater hassle, which is consistent with the California Road Diet, a phrase coined by Chapman University's Joel Kotkin who says "the notion animating" it "is to make congestion so terrible that people will be forced out of their cars and onto transit." (see Note 1)
"It's not planning for how to make the ways people live today more sustainable. It has, in fact, more in common with Soviet-style social engineering, which was based similarly on a particular notion of 'science' and progressive values."
A Lower Haight bar owner isn't convinced that AB 413 will improve safety. He argues, says The San Francisco Standard, "that the neighborhood is already safe for pedestrians who follow traffic rules." (see Note 2)
"It's going to take so many parking spots away," he says, and he is acutely aware of the coming impact – commuting in from Alameda, he already spends around 30 minutes searching for parking when he works late. Adding another five to 10 minutes to that means increased emissions from circling cars – isn't this now a sin in California? – and more distracted driving time by people whose focus is on finding an open spot, not watching out for pedestrians.
The bar owner further "worries that the reduced parking will hurt businesses along the corridor, particularly on weekends," says The Standard, "when '90%' of customers come from outside the city."
Stephen Green of PJ Media, who "left San Francisco 30 years ago" because even then the state was over-governed, believes that on Jan. 1, "life in San Francisco will get that much worse." (see Note 3)
Reducing parking and "road diets" have more in common with Soviet social engineering than environmental sustainability
"San Francisco losing 14,000 parking spots is like pulling six of your teeth for no good reason. Sure, you can do it, and you'd still be able to eat – but WHY?"
He also identified a "fun part."
"San Francisco will spend nearly $20,000 for every man, woman, and child next year but, according to reports, doesn't have enough money in the budget to paint the curbs red in the expanded no-parking zones. That's a lot of parking citations and ... hey, more money!?"
Some cities might tap their fiscs to paint curbs red because the law doesn't provide them with the funds to do so (or even require it). San Jose has already established no-parking zones with white plastic posts near intersections. (See Note 4) But others might see a new stream of revenue and, like San Francisco, do nothing and wait for the dollars to roll in. California drivers wouldn't be foolish if they bought themselves tape measures to keep in their cars to be sure they're legally parked, since they're unlikely to get any guidance from the government.
Kerry Jackson is the William Clement Fellow in California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.
Reader Comments(0)