The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has been adding hundreds of parking meters around AT&T Park over the last couple months. These parking meters will go into effect on March 4th. These meters are a part of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s SFpark program. The SFpark program’s main goal is to deter people from driving in high demand places, such as AT&T Park, to reduce congestion. This is a demonstration of an agency trying to exercise their power over people through social control.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency isn’t actually removing any parking spots near AT&T Park, they are just going to start charging an hourly rate of up to $7 an hour to park there. So there is no guarantee that this plan will have an effect besides just raking in money for their agency. They seem to believe that charging outlandish parking rates will encourage people to take public transit instead of driving to the park and congesting the roadways.
This new policy seems a bit naïve to me. It looks like it’s going to negatively affect people of lower socio-economic levels much more than those at a higher level. Imagine a family that has saved up for a little bit to take their child to a baseball game for his birthday. It took them a decent amount of saving just to afford tickets to the game, there is no way they would be able to pay the extra thirty or so dollars to park at the stadium. Instead they will have to gather their family and take a much longer, and possibly much more crowded, bus ride to the ballpark. On the way to the game, the kids will probably be so excited that they get to see a game that they grow extremely restless on the bus ride and try to run around a bit, making the ride worse for everyone on it. On the way home, they’re likely to be tired out from the excitement of the game and want to sleep, but they’re stuck on an uncomfortable, packed, bus instead of their car. This family would be extremely negatively affected by the change. Consider a couple who buy season tickets every year. They, coming from a higher socio-economic class, probably wouldn’t mind paying for parking because it comes with the convenience of taking their own vehicle. The couple, while spending more money to go to the game, is much less inconvenienced than the family who has to put up with taking public transit to and from the game.
As stated earlier, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency isn’t removing any of the parking spots near AT&T Park. So while poorer people may be forced into taking public transportation, or just not going at all, people with means will be able to find spots even closer to the stadium since some people will be forced out of driving. This method of social control seems to be an effort to suppress poorer people from coming to ballgames.
Interesting, how might you relate this to Beckett and Herbert? Also, have you looked at what the average cost would be for a family of 4 to attend a Giants baseball game at AT&T? Compare that to Oakland A's cost.
ReplyDeleteI just looked up the pricing mentioned in the above comment. The minimum of $2 compared to vs. $4 for just one ticket doesn't seem like that big of a difference if you don't want good seats. It definitely goes up to a lot more in each place though, but it seems like both would cost a lot. :(
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the post, I honestly don't think I ever thought of parking the way Randy described. I'm from San Francisco and I've always thought it was way easier to go places just by taking public transit. Although there are tons of people on it and it's annoying at times, I find it much more of a hassle to go around and try to find parking. If you want to go anywhere that has a good amount of people, it's almost pointless to drive there unless you can get dropped off and picked up because you can spend a good half an hour or so just driving around to look for parking (unless you want to park far away). It actually makes a lot of sense though since going around with kids is much easier in a car, where they are more contained. I tend to think of it more as picking between one hassle or another, but perhaps that is because I've already been affected by my upbringing and have learned to forget about affording $7 parking.
-Anita Wu
In San- Francisco, the transport agency in the state is currently setting up parking meters that charge an overwhelming amount of parking fee. This idea is on the basis of decongesting the city center and encouraging people to take public transportation. This should not be the case since, by doing this they are making people’s lives more uncomfortable since they are unable to enjoy the fact that they own a vehicle because of the extra expenses that they have to deal with in terms of parking fee. While they may argue that it is for the greater good, but it makes life and mobility more difficult for the citizens.
ReplyDeleteSehun Lee
I live in the city of San Francisco and I am constantly amused by the rationales city officials promote as they continue to increase revenue measures and raise various fees such as parking/traffic tickets, parking meters, and so forth. Increasing the rates on parking meters, for instance, will not lead to a drastic reduction in demand for parking, especially in high traffic areas such as AT&T Park, home of the defending World Series champions. While the city government continues to promote their measures as if they serve to benefit the public, these officials continue to line their pockets at the expense of the working class.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you think charging $7 an hour can negatively impact those of lower socio-economic levels versus those who are wealthier off. However, I don't think that the transportation agency should be viewed as the bad guy here. They would like people to resort to public transportation rather than using their own vehicles, just as grocery stores recently charge 10 cents per bag if you don't bring your own recyclable bags. Is it wrong for the authorities to charge outrageous prices? Yes. But at the same time is it so wrong that they're trying to go green and prevent such activity when there are other means? Not necessarily. I do agree with you that it sucks that wealthier people can afford such parking, but I'm sure that wasn't on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's agenda.
ReplyDeleteLaci Patiga
I totally agree with your view: "So while poorer people may be forced into taking public transportation, or just not going at all, people with means will be able to find spots even closer to the stadium since some people will be forced out of driving." When I read this, I thought of indirect ways in which those with power can raise fees, impose fines, and as we see here add parking meters as a way to deter people from driving and take public transportation instead. These indirect ways can be a way to keep a certain group of people in and a certain group out.
ReplyDeleteMaria Perez
This is an interesting post. I agree that it seems that it would have the greatest effect on the people in the lower classes. This situation of deterrence would not cause me to change my method of transportation because if I were to go to a baseball game it would be a special event and I would probably only attend one game out of the season. Therefore, I would not mind paying the extra cost. This may effect however season ticket holders who frequent the baseball games as this extra fee will add up and they may look to carpool with friends or take public transportation. I think this may be able to have an affect on the methods of transportation used but it seems to be at the expense of the poorer groups.
ReplyDeleteVery thought-provoking. While I do feel that these new meters can be a form of intrusion (especially with the new electronic ones that have far greater recording and tracking capabilities), I have to agree with Anita and Laci that the SFMTA's intent is not necessarily to oppress or exploit the poorer classes. Since I was also born and raised in San Francisco, it is considered a norm to take the bus as it is much cheaper and convenient (and since driving in SF is a nightmare). Looking at it from the other way around, this might not be an attempt to exploit the poor but rather the City's way of siphoning money off the wealthy who can afford to pay the parking prices. However, I do agree that this is a subtle new form of social control and surveillance--in which the City can monitor activity and movement using E-meters--without even once using a camera. Technology can be useful but should always be scrutinized carefully.
ReplyDelete-Aaron Lee
In general the cost of sporting events its through the roof. The times when families of four could afford to watch a baseball game and buy refreshments is long gone. Now I am not sure that the main purpose of the SF Municipal Transportation Agency's main goal is to steer the public in one way or another. They want MOENY!! Not to "police" and control the masses. I also don't think that "policing or surveil" through Credit card payment of the meters is the main goal, but rather a byproduct of the signs of the time. Though I think it is more convenient for anyone (at least for me) to be able to park and pay without having to come up with change, I also think that the adding the new more convenient meters is a decision fueled by profit.
ReplyDelete