Well, my argument is that auto traffic -- while it contributes to Muni
reliability problems on some routes -- is not the leading cause of
Muni's problems of reliability, and that improving Muni reliability is a
better way to extract people from their cars than any other options at
our disposal.
If we make it hard for people to get around in cars, but Muni
reliability isn't improved, what have we done? Given people good reason
to spend their money in the suburbs.
The only way the city can reduce auto traffic significantly, short of
erecting concrete barriers at the border, is to raise the cost of
parking. In the long run, I think this is a good idea. I don't think
it will help Muni very much, but I think it's good urban planning. What
Muni needs *first* is to be made reliable enough that serious
transitheads like me aren't piling into the car to get from home (on a
major streetcar line) to downtown.
If, ten years ago (when Muni was still troubled, but not as bad as it is
today), you told me I'd be using a car to go to the symphony about
20-25% of the time because the streetcar is MIA that often, I'd have
thought you were crazy. The UCSF stop to Van Ness Station is a nice
short trip (one of the many amenities of living in the Inner Sunset).
Parking at the symphony can be difficult some nights, especially if,
like us, you tend to eat dinner in the neighborhood afterward, when the
Performing Arts Garage is closed...
-- Daniel