Over the past two years, Hayes Valley has been used as the first large-scale test case for the City’s Pay or Permit Parking (PPP) program. The idea is simple: residents with permits can park for free, while visitors must pay at meters instead of following two-hour time limits. In theory, PPP is meant to increase parking availability, reduce circling, and improve air quality. In practice, Hayes Valley has experienced something very different. Our direct engagement with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) revealed deep problems with how PPP was implemented and evaluated.
PPP by the Numbers (from SFMTA’s own evaluation)
- +1 space per block (≈5% gain)
- 828 businesses in area → only 1 business response
- Residents split: 41% favorable / 28% neutral / 31% unfavorable
- 64% of residents still say parking is difficult
- Visitor compliance: 34%
- Citations: 68 → 323 → 329 (4x increase)
- 75% of protested citations overturned
- Revenue per space: $825 vs. $2,000 citywide
Full SFMTA Report
1. PPP was rolled out without consent
PPP arrived in Hayes Valley with little to no upfront dialogue. Many merchants and neighbors only learned what it entailed after the fact. This lack of transparency has been a consistent theme in how SFMTA handled the program.
2. Merchants were excluded from evaluation
According to SFMTA’s own report, 828 businesses exist in the new Hayes Valley permit area. Yet when they sent surveys to 2,030 addresses, only 113 responses came back — and just one was from a business. Despite this, SFMTA still declared PPP a “success” for the neighborhood. For a mixed-use district like Hayes Valley, leaving out merchants means leaving out a huge part of the picture.
3. The “success” story is weak
SFMTA’s headline claim is that parking availability increased by one space per block — a 5% gain. On a typical block with 15 spaces, that’s the difference between 14 cars and 13.
Meanwhile:
- Compliance collapsed — only 34% of visitors paid.
- Citations quadrupled — from 68 pre-program to more than 320 after.
- Confusion reigned — 75% of contested citations were overturned, often because of unclear signage or enforcement mistakes.
- Residents split — 41% favorable, 28% neutral, and 31% unfavorable. A majority (64%) still said parking was “difficult.”
None of this adds up to the sweeping success SFMTA has been touting.
4. Street closures went unaddressed
PPP revenue per space is already low ($825 compared to $2,000 for regular meters). When streets like Hayes are closed for events, those meters are completely offline — no access for visitors, no revenue for SFMTA. Yet this impact wasn’t even considered in the evaluation.
5. When pressed, staff cited theory, not local data
In our exchanges with SFMTA’s program manager in 2024 he admitted he had no specific Hayes Valley results to share on air quality or traffic impacts. Instead, he pointed us to policy briefs and academic studies … the same theoretical justifications that appear in the official evaluation. We called this out at the time: relying on outdated simulations and examples from cities with very different conditions is not a substitute for real neighborhood data.
6. Our engagement forced some transparency
To their credit, SFMTA recently published a Pay or Permit FAQ (something that did not exist before). This came directly after our repeated requests for clearer communication, and we specifically suggested an FAQ as a simple step the agency could take. While the FAQ makes it clearer what PPP is, it doesn’t change the fact that Hayes Valley was used as a live test without proper process.
7. The program is on hold citywide
For now, PPP expansion is paused. Pushback hasn’t been limited to Hayes Valley. In the Marina and in the Lower Haight, residents and merchants resisted PPP expansion. Despite this, SFMTA staff continued to ask us to validate Hayes Valley as a model program, something we could not do given the lived impacts here. We’ve made clear that if SFMTA revisits it in Hayes Valley or elsewhere, engagement must start from the very beginning — with residents, merchants, and small businesses at the table, not left out.
Why This Matters
PPP was pitched as an innovative model, but Hayes Valley’s experience shows what happens when theory is prioritized over lived reality. Excluding merchants, overlooking closures, and overselling marginal results is not how good policy is made. We share this account so neighbors and other districts know what to expect. Engagement does matter -but it only works when City agencies practice transparency, listen to impacted communities, and treat residents and small businesses as partners, not afterthoughts.