Skip to content

Recent Comments


    SF Guest

    Doesn’t anyone else recall the RPP was a ballot measure with an annual fee of $10 or less passed by the voters way before the SFMTA was created? There wasn’t all this impertinent discussion about how much a parking space is worth. That is an entirely different topic.

    ““We definitely do want to evolve the RPP program so it reflects the changing reality of how San Franciscans and visitors live and work, including the changing nature of car ownership,” said Rose.”

    The objective behind the program was to prevent non-SF commuters from driving into the city and parking in residential neighborhoods for free during business hours. That’s what voters approved and passed (I voted No).

    Using my perspective of the RPP’s intended goal no one would disagree non-SF commuters should not be allowed to park in SF residential neighborhoods for extended periods during regular business hours.

    Anyone’s opinion on how much those parking spaces are worth or how much the City can gain by converting them into a different function is irrelevant to the RPP’s intended goal or its implementation which is to prevent SF residential parking spaces from being hoarded by outsiders.

    Murph, BTW, we both know the SFMTA would charge market rates to implement the RPP if not for the state law which limits their fees to the cost of administering the program.



    Yes this is a good solution for parking woes. I would add in that poor people get subsidized on a sliding scale.


    SF Guest

    What makes you think that hasn’t already happened?



    Palo Alto decided not to sue, but Atherton might (closed session today at 11:30), and now MP has scheduled a closed session, ugh.



    A quick SB search on his replacement:

    Despite being involved in negative stories, seems like Mannix is willing to pick up the phone when SB calls.



    They could rent out a really expensive office with high wages paid to few people to jack up the “administrative costs”…



    We sure stopped a bunch of freeways from being built. My guess is that poorer, disenfranchised communities did not speak up because their residents were not involved in the political process.



    Hey sockpuppet, why not get an account, instead of posting multiple times under “Guest”?

    Having faster, less crowded bus line benefits everyone, especially the poor, who overwhelmingly depend on buses to get around. When is the last time you rode Muni?



    Extra bus service was added to the 14, including the 14L to make up for the loss of the 26. I greatly prefer the extra frequency and faster service of the 14 and 14L and don’t mind walking the extra block. Everyone I know agrees with me on this, that the TEP changes to the 14 were a huge win. You have your agenda backwards, you are supporting car drivers over Muni bus riders. Bus riders are poorer and need more help.

    Mostly you drive an agenda that supports wealthier car drivers, including business owners who drive in from the suburbs, over the people who actually live in the neighborhood. You disguise your agenda by trying to claim that you are supporting the working class.

    If you really want to support poor car drivers, lend your support to SF Park and help get an exemption for low income people.



    Transit only lanes are only as effective as the enforcement. And we all know how seriously SFPD enforces traffic laws, right?


    Thomas Rogers

    Commander Ali is no longer in charge of the SFPD Traffic Company, FYI:


    Erick Arguello

    Your right its not the only thing, we do see it as a part and it picked things up quickly. New higher end business’s that were wanting to come into the area plus developers where part influenced by the physical changes made. They told us themselves when we would meet them.



    “State law limits the price of residential parking permits to the cost of administering the program”

    Does the law require that each element of the program cover its own costs, so the price of single-day permits must cover the higher administrative cost of issuing single-day permits?

    I doubt it. I expect that all the revenues from the program must cover all the costs of the program.

    If so, they can lower the price of single-day permits and raise the cost of yearly permits a bit, to eliminate discrimination against those who buy single-day permits.



    The Hoodline piece about the Haight St. signal comes off as anti-signal. Last I checked, though, most of the comments on that article were people from the Lower Haight touting the need for the signal and the benefits it would bring.


    Dave Moore

    It seems like a system could be devised where
    - All (or at least more) spots are metered
    - Meters can take credit cards or Clipper or phones by NFC. Fastrak could be used so you could just park and walk away.
    - Meters in the neighborhoods have different properties than those downtown or near commercial areas. The ones in the neighborhoods are geared towards longer term parking, so you can park at them for up to 72 hours.
    - You be auto charged for your spot (instead of having to guess how long you were going to be there).
    - Residents can buy the right to park at meters near them for a lower monthly rate than non residents. That program would be stored on their Clipper account.
    - The existing 72 hour limit could be enforced for everyone.
    - Parkers could be notified of impending problems (72 hour limit, street cleaning).

    The cost of the monthly pass would be a big sticking point. It would probably vary neighborhood by neighborhood. You’d want it to be more expensive where there was high demand, much in the way SFPark does things. Same thing for the hourly rates. The monthly one could be repriced far less frequently.


    old mission

    Let the Mission Street sidewalks be clean & safe! Does wanting this make me gentry?



    Don’t think that’s usually the case. If driving to work was really something they didn’t want to do, they would just move their car in the morning or after work (or on the weekend). It makes absolutely no sense to drive all the way to work when it would be much easier to just move your car. Your co-workers are trying to make excuses for driving when they know they really shouldn’t be, and that is not something that should be guiding policy.



    The residential parking permits could cost a lot more. My street in Area I is restricted to 1 hour parking. I buy a permit for my car, to use when I want to put a visitor in my garage. But many of my visitor’s cars don’t easily fit in my garage. If I could buy a daily pass via an app or online, I would. $12/day seems OK to me. I would also buy a pass when I go to visit my kid in the soon-to be Area Q.

    I currently see people moving their cars a few inches, or erasing the chalk mark on the back tire, to avoid tickets. I also see people who ONLY use their cars when they move them on street sweeping day. That is not good pollution wise.

    There could be subsidized residential permits for those who can’t afford to pay.

    The process should be no more annoying than waiting in line at the kiosk in the Powell Street station, to show papers proving you are a senior for a reduced rate Clipper Card.



    “When did I say anything about SF?”

    It was right around here, when you said “the city”: “When *motorists* are at risk of getting hit by other motorists, then the city will pull out all stops to do everything to make sure they are protected, i.e. add medians or barriers.”



    In Amsterdam the max is 1 permit per household, if that is not working for a household they will have to rent a expensive spot in a garage or move out of the city.

    I think the 72 hour rule and street cleaning are creating a lot of car usage. Frequently i hear my coworkers who normaly walk or bike say they came by car because they had to move it. A parked car is better than a moving car that is going to circle the blocks looking for parking two extra times that day and takes up parking space most of the day anyway. Moving a car is not lowering the space it needs.



    Proportionally, no–cities like Santa Clara and Sunnyvale double their respective populations during the weekday. San Francisco does not even come close to that mismatch.



    YES. I’d would very much like to see transit-only lanes on the 1 run full-time between Larkin and Downtown. The only problem I see with this is my neighborhood association *cough*



    How about we peg the price of parking permit to that of a muni pass? $68 for monthly parking a steal compared to the $300 going rate at parking garages.


    Greg Costikyan

    As a (non-car owner) I think I disagree. Residential parking permits serve several useful purposes: They impose -some- cost on parking, even if it is far below market. They are often popular with local residents, because they make it more difficult for non-residents to park locally. By doing so, they free up some parking spaces, meaning others wander about looking for parking less. And they provide locals with an incentive to support further restrictions on parking by non-residents.

    You can certainly argue that the price ought to be increased closer to what the market will bear; but on the whole, the existence of resident parking permits is preferable to their non-existence.

    (I used to live in the area near Alamo Square that will be covered by ‘area Q’ — and I think its implementation is a good thing. Not that it would have been material to me, as I commuted by bicycle.)



    SFMTA should:
    1) Double the permit over three years. Then double it again. It will still be cheap, and staggered increases mean people have time to adjust their habits if it’s too expensive.
    2) Limit the number of permits to three per household, but maximum one per PERSON. Currently, nothing prevents somebody from permitting four old vans and using them for storage.
    3) Enforce the 72-hour street parking maximum. That would ensure that people who need the vehicles are actually using them. Unfortunately parking enforcement seems mostly concerned with meters and street cleaning, ignoring double-parking, sidewalk parking, 72-hour parking, etc.



    I wouldn’t say their hands are tied. The city frequently asks Sacramento to pass legislation to allow things it wants, such as transit lane enforcement cameras on buses. But it has to start with the SFMTA actually wanting to end the car-promoting subsidy of underpriced parking.



    Four permits per household seems excessive. Are there any figures that would account how many such four or even three permit households there are in SF? How would these numbers compare with the numbers of issued handicapped placards against a normative population where such permits don’t get one free parking?

    Are policies around number subject to state regulation the same as mandated cost? Is there political will to take on changing the cost scheme for RPPs?



    Yes, god forbid that gentrification finally arrives in the Mission.



    The momentum behind the re-urbanization of the affluent-American population will not be slowed by a lack of bulb-outs or sidewalk planters. Quite the opposite actually. The visceral grittiness of the Mission is what makes the neighborhood attractive in the eyes of the suburban gentrifier.

    Hats off to the commercial property owners who are enjoying a windfall in value without having to make the prerequisite property investments.



    In addition to the red treatment on Clay, the transit-only lanes on both Clay and Sacramento need expanded hours. It’s disappointing that the lane on Sacramento ends at 6pm from Kearny to Larkin. The lane stretching from Drumm to Larkin should end at a later time, perhaps 8pm. Traffic on Sacramento is always backed up in the evening by drivers wanting to turn left onto Stockton, Powell, and Mason.


    Chris Brown

    Fighting tree planting is now an “incident of resistance?” Do you not even realize how utterly silly that sounds?

    I am perfectly fine with taking money away from the Mission if the the folks there do not want it and instead having it spent in other parts of town.

    I live on the other side of town, and by all means, I would love for the city to take the millions of tax dollars that would have been spent on fixing up the streets and improving transit for these silly people (tax money that I and my neighbors helped contributed toward) and spend it in my neighborhood instead! In fact, I would be happy to see the Mission get no more tax dollars and no more attention, as it is time to focus on the rest of the city.

    If this means that ultimately the city will not spend more money in the Mission, this is great news for us, as it means the money will be spent elsewhere. There are several public improvements we would like to see the city carry out in our neighborhood.


    Chris Brown

    There is no “burden of proof” required to plant trees. Gentrification will occur with or without trees, and people are really wasting their energy fighting tree planting if they think it will somehow stop or slow gentrification.

    It would help if people started using their brains, instead of just being shrill and angry. Shrill and angry people eventually end up being ignored completely.


    Chris Brown

    So, trees are now threatening? I always laugh at the small, but vocal group of idiots who help make San Francisco seem so parochial, so backwards, and so plain stupid sometimes.

    Thankfully, the shrill folks are being ignored more and more often, as the rest of the community and the elected officials have finally learned you don’t have to listen to people just because they scream loudly.

    Plant trees, widening the sidewalks, and damn the critics–they will find something else to whine about.


    Judy B




    This is a seriously big deal to me as a non-car-owner who rents frequently. The city I live in has similar issues that make it very expensive and impractical to store a rental car for short duration in your neighborhood if you happen to live in an RPP area.

    Expensive as they are in SF, at least you can get up to 20…it seems like as a resident of a neighborhood you should be eligible for a permit that can be used for any vehicle. Where is the gap in my logic?



    Let me see if I get this right.

    “gussy up the sidewalks” – meh. Useless.
    “repave the street” – good.


    Judy B

    If this plan were to pave the street(s) themselves then I think everyone would be on board. But that’s not the plan.
    The intention is to gussy up the sidewalks, which we the voters gave permission to do via Prop A (Nov 4 2014) and Prop B (Nov 8 2011).

    The text of these measures is specific to include “sidewalk/streetscape” (not “street”) improvements.

    If you read the text of the measures you see that the money isn’t specifically aimed at improving the streets at all, even though the titles of these two measures does not mention sidewalks or “streetscapes” (The bonds’ titles are respectively: “Road Repaving and Street Safety Bonds” and “San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond”).
    The bulk of the bonds’ funds was not earmarked for paving/re-paving, but for projects such as the Mission Street project being discussed here

    If both of those measures had failed, then streetscape (not street) “improvements” wouldn’t be on the agenda now.



    BMR housing is a band-aid, not a solution. SF simply does not have enough housing stock for all the people who want to live there. There are limits to how much BMR housing you can get built, unless you’re proposing that the city start directly funding projects? Also BMR does not address the middle class, who don’t qualify for it but who are still getting priced out.

    Housing stock *must* keep up with demand. This is rule 1 for a sustainable city. If you break it, well, you’re seeing the consequences in SF right now.



    “We completed sidewalk and curb repairs and repaved all of 24th. We also included some street lights. During our process we noticed a large increase in prospecting along 24th.”

    Evictions and high pressures to force out businesses/residents sucks, and I totally support fighting it. However, implicating street improvements as a primary cause is really tenuous. It kind of seems like you’re not sure what to blame, so you just blame *something*.


    Un La

    LOL. What a bunch of idiots. As if not improving the streets is going to stop gentrification. If only it is that easy! Guess what, gentrification is going to happen regardless, so may as well enjoy a new and improved street while your rent is being raised… Oh wait. Your rent CAN’T be raised because it is under rent control. Hmm….. WTF is this really about?



    It’s impossible to build “market rate” housing when everyone’s house is increased by 20% to build subsidized housing for everyone else.



    Transit and increased policing? The horror!



    next they should look at Hopkins ave, where people routinely do 45 down a 25


    Cherokee Schill

    That is because you are not supposed to ride next to the sharrow. You are supposed to place yourself directly on the sharrows. Motorists are lazy and won’t change lanes to pass if they think they have enough space to squeeze by you in the lane. Control your lane.


    Cherokee Schill

    Two words: Door Zone.
    The project needs to be done and it needs to be done with pedestrian and cyclist safety as their first priority. The proposal as they have it, puts cyclists at risk. There isn’t a 3 foot space buffer between the cyclist and passing traffic. The lane does not have a buffer for driver drift. Such as the one where the Bishop killed the cyclist in the bike lane. Same type of road. The on street parking is welfare for cars and that needs to be moved or eliminated.
    I’d like to see a wider sidewalk, an 8 foot wide buffered lane on each side which filters into sharrows at intersections and puts cyclist in the field of vision of motorists. I would really be wary of anything with a door zone and no buffer.



    The hit and run at Via Monte and Almaden Expy. in San Jose highlights the need to restore full crosswalks at intersection. Via Monte/Almaden has crosswalks on only 3 of the 4 crosswalk links. The victim was crossing Almaden on the south side of the intersection where there is no crosswalk. She could have used the other 3 crosswalks for the same journey but that takes more time and exposes you to 3X as many conflict points.

    It is no surprise that people attempt to cross on the side without a crosswalk because it is easier and faster. The county should restore the 4th crosswalk at this and other 3/4 complete expressway intersections. Create a new pedestrian phase for the new crosswalk when the button is pressed. If there’s not much pedestrian demand then it will have no substantial impact on expressway thruput. And if there is significant pedestrian demand then it should be served on equal grounds with automobile traffic. These 3/4 crosswalk intersections embody the county’s unstated policy that automobile traffic is more important than pedestrian traffic.



    “…thinly veiled effort to exploit the Mission into a theme park for Google.” Ah, the new lexicon of political pandering in San Francisco.


    Jeffrey Baker

    It would be pretty rich for SF to sue any other city for having too little housing. SF is far and away the regional champion for having way more jobs than housing. Every other city just wants to get part of that nut.



    That’s not a good idea here. Descending cyclists are able to keep up with the pace of vehicle traffic (if it’s not speeding) and drivers exiting their vehicles would be at risk. Climbing cyclists are slow enough that they are easily passed in a timely fashion.



    Is this the same Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District that is trying to close a $30M deficit – and considering putting a toll on pedestrians and cyclists on the bridge to close it? While spending $30M on a median for motorists yet providing abysmal conditions on the cycling path?