Today’s Headlines

  • Reminder: BART Pilot Will Allow Bikes On Board During All Hours Next Week (SF Examiner)
  • Former Supe Contender Tony Kelly Wants Parking Meters to Be Free for Permit Holders in NE Mission
  • Ridership on Heavily-Subsidized Alameda-South City Ferry Far Below Projections (SF Examiner)
  • More on Sup. Wiener’s Proposals to Streamline Ped Safety Improvements (City Insider)
  • Wiener on CPMC Deal: “Once Again… Transit Comes Out On the Short End” (SF Examiner)
  • Controversy Resurfaces Around Islam-Hating Ads on Muni (SF Examiner)
  • DPW Finds a Couple Dozen Bikes in Homeless Encampment (SFGate)
  • Driver Crashes Into Fire Hydrant and Divisadero and Hayes (SFist)
  • SF Examiner: Focusing on Switchbacks Ignores Muni’s Bigger Picture
  • Supes Criticize Lack of Upzoned Office Development Near 4th/King in Approved West SoMa Plan (SFBG)
  • AC Transit Considers Lowering Fares (CoCo Times)
  • Sonoma County Supes Give Initial Approval for Bike/Ped Anti-Harassment Law (PD, Cyclelicious)
  • Daly City Driver Who Killed Three in Car Crash Was Drinking, Prosecutor Says (KTVU)
  • Campbell Driver Drifts Into Shoulder, Kills Cyclist, Flees, Then Returns at Father’s Behest (Merc, Cycle)
  • Vibrant Bay Area Shows the Path Towards Transit-Oriented Development (1, 2, 34, 5)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Mario Tanev

    I think the Tony Kelly headline is a bit misleading. The idea is that parking meters are installed at more places, but permit holders are allowed to park at them (or some of them). Such an approach would both allow expansion of parking meters, thus improving parking management and revenue for SFMTA, and provide acceptance from residents, who whether we like it or not will always have the strongest voice about what happens in their neighborhoods.

    Please read the article and form your own opinion. I think the solution Tony Kelly proposes generally makes sense, although the devil is in the details. For example, permit holders should NOT be allowed to park at fully commercial areas, only on mixed, light-commerce areas.
    This could actually be a solution to the Polk St controversy. Install meters on Hyde and Leavenworth but allow residents to park with their permit on some or all parts of those, or some parts of the day. Polk St itself would be off limits to permit holders. Thus the nearby streets can handle some of the commercial demand. You could then have a spectrum instead of extremes. The epicenter, Polk St gets solely meter parking, while the further away from the epicenter you go, it transitions into more and more resident-only parking.

  • @google-cd6ac603016b207eed1e6a32f6c3abfa:disqus I’m not seeing how it’s misleading. Here’s how he described it:

    “First, create a residential parking area for the northeast Mission, just like the residential parking areas in all the other parts of town. Residents can pay for bumper stickers allowing them to park in the area.
    Then, put parking meters on the same blocks as well. If you have a permit sticker on your car, you don’t have to feed the meter.”

    So, in other words, parking meters would be free for permit holders.

  • Anonymous

    Matier and Ross imply, without stating it, that if you’re homeless and have a bicycle, you must have stolen it. Imagine, 30 people possessing 25 bicycles between them–obviously a criminal racket! Crappy journalism.

  • Petaluma’s in Sonoma County, not Marin. Just FYI.

  • mikesonn

    Then why not North Beach? or Marina? or Pac Heights? Now we’ll have some meters that will allow permit holders (already paying WAY less than they should for the privilege, mind you) and some meters that don’t allow free permit parking? What about weekends when the main push of commuters is gone but now shops need those stalls open for customers? Isn’t that the whole point of Sunday metering?

    I do not agree with his proposal. Yes, there should be RPP in North Mission as well as meters, but they shouldn’t be mixed and especially shouldn’t have RPP holders parking in meters all day for free.

  • Tony Kelly

    aaron’s headline is very misleading, and it continues the canard that permit parking is ‘free.’  it isn’t, and it has been a big part of City parking management for decades.  if aaron or anyone is interested in changing that policy citywide, or for substantially raising the fees for parking permits, i would be very happy to join that discussion.  but instead, the MTA is proposing one policy for san francisco and another policy for the mission.  that is disingenuous at best, and aaron has been like that before regarding my positions and statements.

    aaron:  please stop trying to stereotype me.  you have my number and my email if you are interested in talking to me, instead of the false version of me you have in my head.  thanks.

  • mikesonn

    Tony, they are working in Sacramento to allow municipalities to charge more than admin costs for RPP. I assume you’ve already sent a letter of support.

  • Tony Kelly

    i should add that mario’s discussion about the details and polk street is right on.

    and i had a typo in my comment below that apparently can’t be edited: aaron bialick’s false version of me exists in aaron’s head, not mine.  hah.

    if anyone wants to discuss the ideas in this article with me directly, my email is

  • @558936c1717f1e0ed411148c639921eb:disqus How is the description not accurate? Parking meters would be free for permit holders in NE Mission under your proposal, implying that holders paid their ~$.30/day for the permit.

  •  Tony – if we are going to discuss misleading…

    continues the canard that permit parking is ‘free.’  it isn’t, and it has been a big part of City parking management for decades

    That statement is meant as a sly ad hominem towards Aaron, and the reader without detailed knowledge would just assume Aaron is saying something that is expensive is actually free. But permit parking is $100 per year in a neighborhood where parking would typically run $300 per month – a permit is two percent of the market value. That’s what an economist calls “free”.

  • March 25 is the date for the opening of the tunnels past Devil’s Slide.

    We ride over Devil’s slide with nominal frequency. The tunnels will be bike legal (and presumably somewhat safe) but I’d prefer to ride over the slide with no cars. Would our crackerjack reporter like to track down the status of when bikes will be allowed to ride on the former CA-1 in that area?

  • Anonymous

    The SFist article says another driver crashed into the fire hydrant. The (suspected) Uber black car was involved somehow in the collision and sustained only minor damage. May want to revise your headline!

  • Mario Tanev


    I only believe it’s slightly misleading, because it assumes that permits will be so cheap forever, and because I think this proposal is compatible with differentiation for some meters. Definitely parking permit holders should not be allowed to park without feeding the meter on Valencia. Existing commercial meter areas should be off-limits to permit holders. But as SFMTA expands into more mixed-use areas, it can accommodate residents by having some meters be flexible.

    And yes, it may turn out it won’t work very well because some residents may park for weeks and clog up the meters. But the point is that this is going to be on currently unmetered territory, so if it doesn’t work, SFMTA can learn from it and revise (e.g. maybe some spots on every block will be off-limits from residents, and maybe some spots will be off-limits from non-residents).

    I think this proposal has a lot of potential, but the devil is in the details.

  • mikesonn

    “I only believe it’s slightly misleading, because it assumes that permits will be so cheap forever,”

    REALLY? Come on Mario.

    ” I think this proposal is compatible with differentiation for some meters.”

    This just adds a huge layer of confusion which will be a point of contention for years to come. Another type of meter in which RPP only can park at for no cost? What about other neighborhoods like North Beach?

  • Mario Tanev


    Coexistence of parking meters and permits is a technical problem and can be solved with a technical solution. If that solves a political problem (expand meters wherever there is need to reduce congestion, without getting so much opposition delaying or killing projects forever), then I am all for it, because I don’t know good political solutions. Plus this is a problem that will keep increasing, given that the city has taken the positive direction of more mixed-uses.

    There are many places in the world where permit holders are permitted to park at a parking meter (or the equivalent thereof). That is not to say that they have necessarily worked out all the details about this, but I don’t understand why the argument here is about how complicated and confusing this would be.

    Also, I think the entire Telegraph Hill, North Beach and Chinatown should be plastered with meters where there are none. Initially, permit holders can be allowed to park at all NEW meters and the 2-hour limit for non-permits can be removed (they will be required to pay the meter). Then SFMTA can measure how much revenue they’ve gained and how much turnover has improved. Maybe residents occupy all spaces all the time, which would be bad, but I don’t think that can be assumed, since a lot of tourists and visitors do park residential (for the 2 hour limit).

    The point I am making is that this proposal can allow SFMTA a much grander access to parking management, improving business conditions, reducing congestion, serving residents and not angering them as much. And will bring much needed revenue to SFMTA, which with the current proposals isn’t happening.

  • Mario Tanev

    I think state law should be changed to change the permit from an entitlement to a bulk discount. A permit should be like a Muni monthly pass. You pay the market price for it, where the market is restricted to those around your neighborhood. So the more neighbors who want to drive and park, the higher the price. That will encourage fewer people to own cars. Because the market is restricted to locals (and potentially employees of businesses), the price is actually lower than if it were on the open market, hence the discount.

    When you park you will have to tap your Clipper card, and untap when you’re done. It will refuse (or deduct cash) if you park on Columbus, Fillmore, Valencia, etc, but will accept it if you are in some in-between residential area.

    Where is the confusion here? You only assume confusion because you assume status quo FOR EVERYTHING. It need not be this way. We’re a city that should learn to innovate. This is not rocket science.

  • Mario

    I have my thoughts collected now. By misleading I meant that it was leading the reader to a very specific conclusion: Valencia would be free for residents, which would be horrible. The proposal however doesn’t mean that. Existing parking meters can continue to be off limits for residents. The issue really is one of how we can get more meters in the city without this huge backlash.

  • Aaron’s headline is beyond reproach. Free metered parking for permit holders is exactly what Tony Kelly is proposing. Even if permits cost $5000 dollars a year, the headline would still be accurate. Buying a residential permit has *nothing* to do with buying time at a metered parking space.

    Meanwhile, Tony Kelly’s citation of the transit-first policy to back up his attack on a city proposal to price the curb, is, in fact, incredibly misleading.

  • Mario Tanev

    I agree that Tony Kelly’s use of “transit-first” is misleading. And I can see that the the headline can be viewed as literally factual. But it is out of context and misleading as follows:

    1. There are currently NO parking meters in the North East Mission, whereas the headline leads one to imagine that Tony Kelly is advocating for free parking for RPP holders at existing parking meters. This proposal is only in response to SFMTA plans to expand parking meters to some mixed use blocks.

    2. The link anchor is to the text “Wants parking meters to be free”, leaving “for permit holders” outside of the link. In most browsers, a link is highlighted in someway, making it sound like “wants parking meters to be free” is the gist of the proposal, which it is not.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    For years the city has allowed meters to be ripped out to establish new RPP zones.  I see coexistence as an improvement.

  • All that putting meters in the area with RPP permit holders being able to park for free would result in is people paying $100 per year to park for free, moving their cars into the now easy parking on the street, and renting their garages out for $300 a month.

  • Mario Tanev


    But your logic applies to existing RPP areas as well. Maybe what you are saying is that you are against the RPP program in general because it encourages people to rent out their garage. But clearly, then, RPP + meters should be better than just RPP. There must be something I am not getting …

  •  Mario – there is a difference, the other RPP zones are not metered, which means that additional cars will filter in and out for longer periods because the meters aren’t encouraging turnover.