Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Sounds like you should find a city that isn’t growing, and move there.



    It’s worth noting that Weiner does not support Sunday metering, and did not speak out in favor of it at yesterday’s SFMTA board meeting. He’s been very good on many issues, but not this one.

    Remember that this budget also needs to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. If a few supervisors had spoken out in favor of Sunday metering, the SFTMA Board might have reconsidered passing the budget out of concern that it would be voted down at a later stage.



    Karen, as of quite a while ago you were invited to participate in our discussions with the SFMTA to push these measures through. And we’re looking forward to seeing you at City meetings, e.g. the numerous VisionZero hearings, to do same and get them funded.
    Easy to hold forth about what can be done, but it takes actual effort to make things happen.



    Couldn’t agree more on limiting numbers of and appropriately pricing on-street parking permits. That’s how it works in Amsterdam:

    - Central locations cost more –

    - Waiting lists for permits (years long in some locations) –

    (in Dutch but google translate does a pretty good job)



    Exactly. There’s a major cultural blind spot/double standard when it comes to funding roads and parking vs other modes of transit.


    Jamison Wieser

    Studies and reviews are not bad things and prerequisites for a lot of funding and grant opportunities.

    The problem is doing all the work, then scrapping it all to placate car owners. The TEP called for two-car boarding platforms along the N-Judah line with projections for speed improvements and time savings, but that’s been scrapped to save about a dozen parking spaces.

    @murphstahoe:disqus is right about the work orders which came to exactly the same amount of money as voters approved for the SFMTA through Prop A.


    Michael Morris

    And why do we demand transit is “cost-efficient” in the first place if it’s also considered a public service/public good? Funny how things like Bay area bike share are scrutinized but we never ask ourselves if the 680 freeway is “paying for itself”


    Sean Rea

    London Breed is an idiot. Q.E.D.



    Aaron — can you please do a piece that breaks down exactly what it costs for us to build and maintain our SF roads, the Bay Bridge, and the Golden Gate Bridge?

    It’s BS that Supe Breed says things like “We’re asking drivers to basically foot the bill for all of the improvements.” I’m also incensed when I read comments that say that Bay Area Bike Share shouldn’t be expanded until the program can support fully support itself.

    We need to dispel the myths that only drivers pay for the roads, that the cost of roads is fully covered, that transit relies on public subsidy whereas roads do not, that people who walk or bicycle are “freeloaders” on the road system, etc.



    Keep fighting the good fight for Columbus!!



    In addition, let’s not forget that the meters don’t actually “turn on” until noon, in large part as a concession to churchgoers.


    Upright Biker

    I was heartened by a meeting I attended in North Beach last night about street improvements on Columbus. The car-first contingent seemed unable to mount a plausible defense of their policies, whereas the people-first crowd seemed not only to outnumber the status quo-ians, but had more resonant and cogent arguments as well.

    But then I think about how resonant and cogent arguments for Sunday metering became irrelevant to SFMTA in the face of politics, and my heart sinks again.


    Upright Biker

    I feel like SFMTA is the one who has dumped this in _our_ laps. We’re faced with voting down revenue for livability and transit improvements just to show that we want the streets to be more livable and the costs more equitable!






    “if Chinatown had free parking you’d see more traffic heading through North Beach to get there, and the 30-Stockton would get bogged down in even more traffic.”

    That’s the current situation. There is no meter enforcement in Chinatown, double parking is rampant, and traffic is at a standstill, then add in that there is barely any enforcement or that businesses feed the meter all day.


    Jym Dyer

    It is completely insane to base policy on a pair of dishonest gossip columnists and the people they choose to quote.


    Jym Dyer

    FWIW, my reply on SFGate:

    That strategy would more accurately be described as removing the encouragements that fuel driving. No need to actively discourage it, just stop propping it up with insane policies and tons and tons of cash.


    Jym Dyer

    I am also finding some great inspiration amongst the populace in Calgary:



    How about Mario Tanev for mayor?



    Meanwhile, the Port meters have no issues operating 7 days a week, 7am until 11pm at night.



    Idiotic, right?



    I will be voting no on the GO Bond and VLF because the SFMTA is playing political games and have really left SoMa to rot in a glut of traffic congestion, air pollution, and no local bus line as used to exist prior to December 5, 2009 when the 12 Folsom ran all the way to The Embarcadero (before thousands of new homes popped up in SoMa). Come back to SoMa in 2015 with an equitable TEP plan. For now, go piss up a tree if you aren’t going to charge out of town commuters for using up our parking spaces while increasing the bus fares for transit riders.

    Remember this fall that only John Avalos asked for Sunday meter enforcement to be left alone. The silence from the rest represents cowardice, not leadership IMHO


    Lee Ross

    I will never again vote for any bond issue promoted by Mayor Lee. I totally agree there is nothing you can do to placate motorists. They want it all. Streets totally given over to cars with free parking. This Mayor is a total disaster and regrettably we will probably have to suffer through his banal administration until the end of 2019. Where are the Progressives? Too busy protesting the Google shuttle, I guess.



    the money disappear into SFPD work orders




    I won’t go that far because some have been forcibly removed from the City and they have friends in the City. Then again, I was “forcibly removed” from the City and I have new friends. Hmm.


    Karen Lynn Allen

    Any church dependent on out-of-town parishoners is a dead church within five years. Any one who has moved out of town is best off creating connections to the community they now live in. We are doing no one favors bending over backwards to abet city churches to have suburban congregations. If you like your city church, maybe that’s a good reason not to move from the city. If you have to move from the city, maybe that’s a good time to find a new church.

    We’ve used inexpensive transportation provided by cheap gasoline to try to solve all sorts of social and personal problems, from bussing to drive-till-you-qualify homeownership. It’s just not going to be possible in the future. We need to solve these issues another way.



    You really might be worried now about the support from the livable streets contingent for these measures. I for one am sick and tired of throwing money at the SFMTA every few years to see nothing change and the money disappear into endless studies, environmental reviews, and outreach. I need to know the SFMTA’s already bloated budget is being used wisely – which from the lack of progress on almost all fronts, I’m not sure I can do.



    Also – the bonds. Vote no on the bonds. SFMTA will then have 2 choices. Cut service drastically or charge motorists more. I like dumping that choice in their lap.



    I’m not on the wrong side of history. I’m on the right side of the General Motors – Mike Carabee


    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    I don’t know that she’s playing devil’s advocate so much as she’s playing Fillmore advocate. It’s no secret that her positions are primarily founded in the views of her base and then occasionally stretch from there. She’s dancing with the one who brought her.


    Morgan Fitzgibbons

    Good point!


    Karen Lynn Allen

    There is a political game called being on the wrong side of history. When a politician panders to car owners (at the expense of non-car owners), a buzzer goes off, a light flashes red, and he/she is disqualified from future office. It’s an exciting game. I’m sure we can get many contestants to play.

    So don’t have any bond measures. Simply daylight every intersection, lower vehicle speeds on most streets, and install protected bike lanes according to the bike plan. For the amount of curb space left after this, each year auction off, by neighborhood, permits for public parking to those who wish a space. (The permits should vary in price depending on length of car.) But don’t auction off more permits in a neighborhood than curb space exists to accommodate them. (This current practice of the SFMTA is quite cruel.) Use this parking rent money plus all the additional money dropping into SF city coffers from property taxes due to new construction to fund a reasonable transit system.

    Real estate has value. A parking space contains valuable real estate. We all collectively own our street space just as we own our parks. It is entirely fair to charge a market-based rent on its use and have that money go towards the good of all. If state law stubbornly prevents this, then have a lottery for parking permits (all San Franciscans can enter!) and allow winners to sell their permits. This will also create a market-based price for parking, only the rent will accrue to lucky individuals rather than the whole. This would still be fairer than what is happening now.

    Our property taxes should fund and maintain infrastructure in this city. This is why we agree to pay them. (That and the law.) Transit is infrastructure. Sidewalks are infrastructure. Bike lanes are infrastructure. Just as we don’t subsidize self-storage units for people who have an extra couch, we should not be funding private car storage.



    This is odd.

    The biggest opponents of Sunday meters are church leaders. They claim they have a lot of parishoners who have moved out of the city but come back on Sundays to their old church to get that connection to their community. We are going to repeal Sunday meters in large part to try to pass a bond measure. But the primary constituency that “benefits” from free meters lives outside the City and can’t vote on the measure.

    Do I get that right?


    Mario Tanev

    I propose that we use different language to describe “free parking”. “fully-subsidized parking”, “publicly subsidized parking”, “full public subsidy parking” and so on are more appropriate names.



    Dude – do you have to curse so much….



    [Henderson] pointed to the case of a sidewalk extension at Market and Dolores Streets that replaced several parking spaces and part of a traffic lane. Some of the most ardent opponents are now fans of the mini plaza outside the new condo building and Whole Foods Market, he said.

    The best part is the new crosswalk — it bridges a gap that was kind of terrifying to cross before. Funny how a couple small tweaks can have such a big impact.



    Breed is trying to play devil’s advocate, much like the reason she left twitter. Grow up and be an adult already, you’re a damn elected official.


    Jamison Wieser

    Which is odd since you’d think there would be at least some overlap between Christens and Muni riders, wouldn’t you?


    Jamison Wieser

    Local control defeats the purpose of holistic parking management and murphstahoe is not very far off from one of the problems solved by SF Park. There were two successful pilot projects which preceded and helped shape SF Park which were conducted jointly by the Port Authority and the SFMTA.

    One of the problems they both faced was the odd mishmash of who owned what property lead to wildly different policies, hours, and rates from block to block, that lead to a lot of circling and of traffic. As a result the parking around Fisherman’s Wharf is all unified under SF Park which optimized for 15% availability per block (1-2 spaces normally) by adjusting the price up or down. The proven principal is that a lot of drivers will choose to drive an extra block or two in order to pay less (or nothing) so the price get rejiggered every six weeks, up or down no more than 25¢ until it evens out around that 15% number. Hurray for the free market!

    Because of how SF Park works if you start offering neighborhood CBDs a cut of the revenue, there’s a chance that’s a negative number.

    I know that’s a lot of history, but…

    I do think you’re totally onto something with incentivizing neighborhoods to embrace SF Park. Promising revenue could end up looking deceitful, but what could the SFMTA offer for expanding SF Park? Bay Area Bike Share Stations? Some kind of neighborhood improvement grant the neighborhood could decide how to spend? Prioritizing TEP projects for the neighborhood?



    MaceKelly: it’s not 1995. You need to get over your past association between bicycling and Critical Mass. Bicycling has exploded beyond that and we have moved into an era were bicycling is being done by people who just want to ride as a form of transportation and aren’t trying to be part of some alternative culture.

    But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that somebody who thinks our cities should be designed around cars instead of people — an anachronistic idea — thinks that bicycles = Critical Mass. You gotta wake up and look around at who is riding bicycles and get over your past stereotypes.


    Dark Soul

    Very Interesting……..

    This is not about research is depending what San Francisco people want so let see which side wins the vote (Either Free or Remain Paid Meter)

    Discussion or Opinions is not needed. They decided to go for the good side.



    And SFPD. And where are cries from the SFFD about blocking lanes that we heard when bulb outs were recently being proposed? Total pandering and the usual SF political hijinks. Politicos pandering for votes and bureaucrats sacrificing the greater good to their own self interest.



    Anyone who uses “I was here first!” as part of their argument has already lost it.


    Mario Tanev

    Dark Soul,

    Here is where you are wrong.

    You think a lot of car drivers see a metered spot, but ignore it roaming for free parking. Certainly there are some drivers who do that.

    But the data overwhelmingly shows that there are significantly more drivers unable to find a spot, thus roaming for any parking spot, free or paid. The research shows that FEWER drivers roam for parking when there are meters, because there are no overnight parkers and shoppers tend to do their errands faster.


    Mario Tanev

    No, the Church leaders demanded they be allowed to double park for free, in addition to free parking.



    Sure. Let the Chinatown CBD do that for a few months, and then watch them reverse it once they realize that no-one can visit their neighborhood because so many people have parked their cars there for free. Let the cost of doing it hit their budget and affect their neighborhood directly rather than hitting the MTA’s budget and spreading the cost over the whole city in a less measurable way.

    As many board members said at the meeting, the SFMTA has failed to convince people of the benefits of market based parking pricing. We don’t have to support free parking to acknowledge that this is the case. So if we are confident of our arguments we should let the neighborhoods try themselves, fail themselves, and learn the lessons in a more tangible way.

    The biggest argument against this idea is that the CBDs are not always democratic, yet they would now be in charge of an additional aspect of public life. Another point is that the negative impacts of free parking are not confined to the neighborhoods – for example, if Chinatown had free parking you’d see more traffic heading through North Beach to get there, and the 30-Stockton would get bogged down in even more traffic. But hopefully those impacts would only be temporary until the neighborhood figured out the high cost of free parking, to coin a phrase.

    Just throwing it out there as an idea.






    Last time I checked Campos is not the same person as Avalos.

    I would say both Wiener and Avalos have been more consistent than the other supes, although not about the same things. Chiu and Campos are both spineless and Breed is almost always a wild card.



    Yeah, I grimaced when I hit send. Wiener went so far as to send out a mailer when he was running for Supervisor saying that he would not extend parking meter hours. Inexplicable. He’s also been an opponent of the Free MUNI for Youth program which to me pencils out easily.

    You just can’t win around here. Wiener voted for the toll increase on the Golden Gate Bridge to help fund transit, and Campos/Breed voted against it, making the same nickel and dime argument that Lee is using – applying mostly to rich Marin commuters. Campos has been an opponent of new meters in the Mission which really could use them.

    These guys are nothing if not inconsistent, but Wiener to me is the most consistent.



    Interesting idea, that’s a big part of Shoup’s suggestions for better parking as far as I understand. By using the money to benefit the neighborhood it’s easier to get local buy in. Getting something like that done in this town though would not be an easy task I’d imagine.