San Francisco is getting a smarter parking meter system(sfpark.org)
sfpark.org
San Francisco is getting a smarter parking meter system
http://sfpark.org/how-it-works/
17 comments
Why should parking cost a whole lot more in the future? This system is being managed with the goal of ~85% occupancy - if there is less than that, prices will be lowered, eventually to $0, to seek optimal occupancy at all times.
The only way that parking would, in general, cost a whole lot more in the future was if there was a whole lot more demand - and I'm not sure anyone is predicting that we are facing an imminent increase in the number of cars seeking to park in San Francisco.
The only way that parking would, in general, cost a whole lot more in the future was if there was a whole lot more demand - and I'm not sure anyone is predicting that we are facing an imminent increase in the number of cars seeking to park in San Francisco.
Some call it "Demand Pricing" others call it "AdWords for Parking" -- why yes, we'll be happy to extract the maximum possible value out of our inventory!
Didn't some company used to have a marketplace for public utilities? Remind me how that worked out for California?
With sensors and networking becoming a commodity, I have a feeling these realtime marketplaces are going to start popping up in industries nobody really expects.
Didn't some company used to have a marketplace for public utilities? Remind me how that worked out for California?
With sensors and networking becoming a commodity, I have a feeling these realtime marketplaces are going to start popping up in industries nobody really expects.
I don't understand how this variable pricing thing is going to work. Will raising the price really make people give up looking for parking and go home?
It seems to me that once you've gotten in your car and driven to your destination, you're pretty much committed to parking there. How high do the prices need to be in order to keep you from parking at that point?
And how many pieces will the meter be smashed into as a result of the rage that these prices induce?
It seems to me that once you've gotten in your car and driven to your destination, you're pretty much committed to parking there. How high do the prices need to be in order to keep you from parking at that point?
And how many pieces will the meter be smashed into as a result of the rage that these prices induce?
I imagine they'll put a ceiling on the price, but no floor. But if not, at the margin people will choose other means to travel at busy parking times because they know -- at least after the first trip -- that they will be charged $50/hour on the fourth of July. Also, people may choose to leave the city more quickly if the parking price is high. If demand for parking remains consistently high, this may also make it more feasible to build larger parking structures or improve the ones that already exist. Also, the higher prevailing prices for streetside parking may bring other players into the game (like hotels or office buildings) that had before not seen the economic advantage to opening their parking to non-tenants.
It's not as though people only become economic participants in the parking market when they arrive; they make the choice to participate when they choose to leave the house and when they choose to stay in the city for four hours rather than two.
Regarding the smashed meter problem, it should be a simple matter to add cameras to the devices.
It's not as though people only become economic participants in the parking market when they arrive; they make the choice to participate when they choose to leave the house and when they choose to stay in the city for four hours rather than two.
Regarding the smashed meter problem, it should be a simple matter to add cameras to the devices.
The ceiling, in this case, is $6/hour. The floor is $.25 per hour. Yep, in some areas at some times of day, parking that was formerly expensive (but lightly used) could become free.
I think the idea is that there will be cheaper spaces somewhere else and you can park somewhere else, pay less and take a walk.
Of course the problem is that you have to know where those places are. Hopefully they can put little signs on the meters that point people to cheaper parking.
Of course the problem is that you have to know where those places are. Hopefully they can put little signs on the meters that point people to cheaper parking.
according to the website, there will be smart phone applications that tell you where parking is available and/or cheaper
Excellent, I look forward to getting run over by some jerk cruising around the block while staring at his iPhone.
A smartphone contract costs what, $2k? Those aren't the people who would be forced out of the city by higher parking costs.
Will raising the price really make people give up looking for parking and go home?
I've actually done this before, on account of parking being too much of a pain or too expensive. It is, however, a "fool me once" scenario, since I'll now only go to the city for business, not pleasure (nor business-pleasure, like company holiday parties).
I've actually done this before, on account of parking being too much of a pain or too expensive. It is, however, a "fool me once" scenario, since I'll now only go to the city for business, not pleasure (nor business-pleasure, like company holiday parties).
And of course the new smart system will enable parking enforcers to give you a ticket more quickly and efficiently as they will certainly have devices in their cars that indicate immediately when any meter in the neighborhood expires while a car is still parked there. I suspect this is the major motivation.
I can't find the article now, but there was something here a month or so ago about the new parking meters in San Fran. I believe you'll be able to add time to your meter and get alerts that you're running low via mobile phone with these new meters.
You make a lot more money off parking tickets than you make off of parking meters.
Source?
San Francisco parking fine revenue is on the order of $100 million, annually: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-01/bay-area/17122003_1_me...
Parking meter revenue for three years doesn't match that: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-25/bay-area/17226881_1_me...
True, not all tickets are written for meters, but it's clearly in the city's revenue-earning interest to make it more difficult to legally park and write more tickets. And since a parking meter earns $55-65 with a ticket but only $2-3.50 for an hour of legitimate parking, an entire day or two of legitimate meter use earns the city exactly as much money as a single meter violation. Some municipalities--Seattle, as I recall--expressly prohibit paying a parking meter that isn't yours; the only reasonable rationale for this is to increase ticketing rates.
Parking meter revenue for three years doesn't match that: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-25/bay-area/17226881_1_me...
True, not all tickets are written for meters, but it's clearly in the city's revenue-earning interest to make it more difficult to legally park and write more tickets. And since a parking meter earns $55-65 with a ticket but only $2-3.50 for an hour of legitimate parking, an entire day or two of legitimate meter use earns the city exactly as much money as a single meter violation. Some municipalities--Seattle, as I recall--expressly prohibit paying a parking meter that isn't yours; the only reasonable rationale for this is to increase ticketing rates.
Mash live parking data against Google Maps? Yes please. I willingly hand over whatever increase in parking rates you want.
There's more that's not being mentioned, and understandably so. San Francisco will reap huge rewards in parking ticket revenue. SFpark is so smart that it knows when a space is occupied and the meter has expired. Parking Enforcement officers don't have to drive/walk around looking for violations -- their handhelds will pinpoint them! Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing SFpark in action. I think it brings more good than harm.
I'm also in the parking (ticket) business, but on the other side of the coin: http://parkzing.com
I'm also in the parking (ticket) business, but on the other side of the coin: http://parkzing.com
Maybe I am alone in this line of thinking, but shouldn't people who are illegally parked get tickets? Ticketing illegal parking is a good thing. It's not in any way liberty-infringing or anything.
There's one more nice side effect of having ~1 open space on every block -- drivers don't need to circle around the neighborhood multiple times looking for spaces, so the streets clear up a bit.
I know some folks at City gov, I would _love_ to city a public API for this. So I'm about to stick my oar in. I'll let you know how it goes.
Meanwhile, here in Philadelphia, we recently upgraded from quarter-feeding meters to smartcard meters. Unfortunately, the smartcards spontaneously lose their value with worrying frequency, so everyone just uses quarters anyway.
Supposedly there's going to be mobile phone apps that show you exactly where the nearest parking spaces are. That will be amazing.
Of course this system also allows them to ticket expired meters much more efficiently.
Of course this system also allows them to ticket expired meters much more efficiently.
These new systems suck because there is never free time left on a spot when you find one. They automatically reset when the last car pulls away, increasing overall parking costs for consumers.
Sorry, in this case you are mistaken - the sensors in San Francisco will not be used for meter-zeroing. In fact, they can't be used for meter-zeroing - while they are fairly accurate, they are not accurate enough for this feature. Imagine if the meter was zeroed before you'd actually left!
I can't decide what I think of this. In general I almost never park in a metered space because I grew up thinking parking should be free and I'm quite happy to walk an extra fifteen minutes in order to avoid reaching into my pocket. This is why I rarely go into San Francisco except at night and on Sundays.
On second thoughts, they're probably going to use this as an excuse to extend metered hours to nights and Sundays, aren't they?
Car-unfriendliness is probably the worst thing about San Francisco. If it had a good public transport system it might be tolerable, but it doesn't.
On second thoughts, they're probably going to use this as an excuse to extend metered hours to nights and Sundays, aren't they?
Car-unfriendliness is probably the worst thing about San Francisco. If it had a good public transport system it might be tolerable, but it doesn't.
There's a city planner who believes parking should never be free - http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988 - I believe he's involved with this project.
Ah, and this gets to the crux of what bothers me about this: I suspect that it's being motivated largely by people who have an ideological objection to cars. They're not interested in enabling me to park more efficiently, they're interested in (eventually) forcing me not to drive at all.
Ideology is boring, but there are lots of practical objections to cars, especially within cities, and even more practical objections to letting car-friendliness overrule all other considerations:
-Cars don't scale. Cities like LA, Houston, and Phoenix which are designed to be car friendly still have traffic jams.
-Car friendliness is necessarily opposed to pedestrian friendliness, bicycle friendliness, and possibly even mass transit friendliness. For any given street, you're going to have to make a direct design tradeoff between car-friendly and human-friendly.
-Cars are unsafe.
-Cars are energy-inefficient.
-Good urban development patterns--mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods and the like--are incompatible with car-friendliness.
It turns out you can either have car friendliness, or you can have almost everything else that makes for a good place to live. Of course, as you say, it would be better if SF had better public transit than it does--but there's only so much space and money to go around, and highways are pretty expensive, too. (Up in my state, we're spending billions of dollars to replace a damaged viaduct before it collapses and crushes lots of precious, sacred parking close to our sports stadiums. I'd love to say "fuck the viaduct" and improve public transit instead, but then carheads would complain.)
-Cars don't scale. Cities like LA, Houston, and Phoenix which are designed to be car friendly still have traffic jams.
-Car friendliness is necessarily opposed to pedestrian friendliness, bicycle friendliness, and possibly even mass transit friendliness. For any given street, you're going to have to make a direct design tradeoff between car-friendly and human-friendly.
-Cars are unsafe.
-Cars are energy-inefficient.
-Good urban development patterns--mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods and the like--are incompatible with car-friendliness.
It turns out you can either have car friendliness, or you can have almost everything else that makes for a good place to live. Of course, as you say, it would be better if SF had better public transit than it does--but there's only so much space and money to go around, and highways are pretty expensive, too. (Up in my state, we're spending billions of dollars to replace a damaged viaduct before it collapses and crushes lots of precious, sacred parking close to our sports stadiums. I'd love to say "fuck the viaduct" and improve public transit instead, but then carheads would complain.)
Cars don't scale. Cities like LA, Houston, and Phoenix which are designed to be car friendly still have traffic jams.
Actually I'd say cities don't scale, at least not beyond the ~5 million people mark. Despite traffic, LA is still reasonably navigable by car, and the LA metropolitan area is about as big as any city should ever be.
Car friendliness is necessarily opposed to pedestrian friendliness, bicycle friendliness, and possibly even mass transit friendliness. For any given street, you're going to have to make a direct design tradeoff between car-friendly and human-friendly
Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others.
Cars are unsafe.
Not especially so, compared to a lot of other things.
Cars are energy-inefficient
Caring if other people use energy efficiently sounds way too much like ideology to me.
Good urban development patterns--mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods and the like--are incompatible with car-friendliness
As I said, car-unfriendliness is incompatible with quarter-acre blocks and giving your children a yard to play in. Besides, there's no reason why mixed-use neighbourhoods can't be car-friendly.
Actually I'd say cities don't scale, at least not beyond the ~5 million people mark. Despite traffic, LA is still reasonably navigable by car, and the LA metropolitan area is about as big as any city should ever be.
Car friendliness is necessarily opposed to pedestrian friendliness, bicycle friendliness, and possibly even mass transit friendliness. For any given street, you're going to have to make a direct design tradeoff between car-friendly and human-friendly
Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others.
Cars are unsafe.
Not especially so, compared to a lot of other things.
Cars are energy-inefficient
Caring if other people use energy efficiently sounds way too much like ideology to me.
Good urban development patterns--mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods and the like--are incompatible with car-friendliness
As I said, car-unfriendliness is incompatible with quarter-acre blocks and giving your children a yard to play in. Besides, there's no reason why mixed-use neighbourhoods can't be car-friendly.
Actually I'd say cities don't scale, at least not beyond the ~5 million people mark.
So fucking false. Ever been to a city in Asia, like Tokyo? The fact that the city exists means that there is demand for things like retail stores and public transportation. There's pretty much a train line between any two points in the city. You can actually go to a retail store and buy something useful. (Never happened to me in the US, except IKEA.)
Cities like London and New York (well, Manhattan) do pretty well too. Once you hit a certain number of people, infrastructure becomes possible. Everything gets closer together, and everyone benefits from that.
Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others.
Ok, whatever, but why should I subsidize that lifestyle? The OP is about paying for parking. If you want to drive your car into the city from the suburbs, you should build the road and pay market price for the real estate that your car sits on while you're here. Too expensive? Now you know why cities exist -- infrastructure costs less because more people can share the same infrastructure. When we build a superhighway to from the city to your house in the middle of nowhere, the cost is high but the benefit is minimal. When we build a transit line from the city along a high-density corridor, the cost is high but the benefit is also high. That's the point of cities -- more for less.
As I said, car-unfriendliness is incompatible with quarter-acre blocks and giving your children a yard to play in. Besides, there's no reason why mixed-use neighbourhoods can't be car-friendly.
Not true. It's incompatible with pretending that there's nobody else in the world but you, however.
So fucking false. Ever been to a city in Asia, like Tokyo? The fact that the city exists means that there is demand for things like retail stores and public transportation. There's pretty much a train line between any two points in the city. You can actually go to a retail store and buy something useful. (Never happened to me in the US, except IKEA.)
Cities like London and New York (well, Manhattan) do pretty well too. Once you hit a certain number of people, infrastructure becomes possible. Everything gets closer together, and everyone benefits from that.
Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others.
Ok, whatever, but why should I subsidize that lifestyle? The OP is about paying for parking. If you want to drive your car into the city from the suburbs, you should build the road and pay market price for the real estate that your car sits on while you're here. Too expensive? Now you know why cities exist -- infrastructure costs less because more people can share the same infrastructure. When we build a superhighway to from the city to your house in the middle of nowhere, the cost is high but the benefit is minimal. When we build a transit line from the city along a high-density corridor, the cost is high but the benefit is also high. That's the point of cities -- more for less.
As I said, car-unfriendliness is incompatible with quarter-acre blocks and giving your children a yard to play in. Besides, there's no reason why mixed-use neighbourhoods can't be car-friendly.
Not true. It's incompatible with pretending that there's nobody else in the world but you, however.
"Cars are unsafe.
Not especially so, compared to a lot of other things."
Compared to other forms of intracity transportation they are horrifically unsafe. They are the leading cause of accidental death in America. They are safer than motorcycles but far, far, far more dangerous than other forms of transportation (which themselves are often dangerous only because of the risk of being hit by cars).
"Caring if other people use energy efficiently sounds way too much like ideology to me."
Highways are public infrastructure. Public infrastructure is by definition a public decision--you can't use public money to build freeways all over the place, fail to allow any other form of transportation, and then pretend it's a matter of individual choice whether people drive cars. And it's impossible to build car-friendly infrastructure without making unusable all other forms of transportation infrastructure as well.
Since public infrastructure is already a public choice, we have to consider all the consequences of that choice, which include safety and energy efficiency.
"Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others."
Research shows that human beings are not actually all that happy living in suburbs, especially if they have to commute two hours a day through traffic jams on freeways. People like towns just fine, but not suburbs. And a town doesn't have to be car friendly either.
Not especially so, compared to a lot of other things."
Compared to other forms of intracity transportation they are horrifically unsafe. They are the leading cause of accidental death in America. They are safer than motorcycles but far, far, far more dangerous than other forms of transportation (which themselves are often dangerous only because of the risk of being hit by cars).
"Caring if other people use energy efficiently sounds way too much like ideology to me."
Highways are public infrastructure. Public infrastructure is by definition a public decision--you can't use public money to build freeways all over the place, fail to allow any other form of transportation, and then pretend it's a matter of individual choice whether people drive cars. And it's impossible to build car-friendly infrastructure without making unusable all other forms of transportation infrastructure as well.
Since public infrastructure is already a public choice, we have to consider all the consequences of that choice, which include safety and energy efficiency.
"Perhaps, but pedestrian-friendliness, bicycle-friendliness and mass transit friendliness are directly opposed to another kind of human-friendliness: the kind that allows people, especially families, to live at a comfortable density. The only way to make a city navigable by non-car means is to cram people in at high density: okay for some (heck, I live in a thirty-storey building myself) but not for others."
Research shows that human beings are not actually all that happy living in suburbs, especially if they have to commute two hours a day through traffic jams on freeways. People like towns just fine, but not suburbs. And a town doesn't have to be car friendly either.
I think they just want you to pay the true cost of driving rather than be subsidized by others.
"Parking should be free" is an interesting discussion point. Leaving out the issue of promoting turnover, it seems reasonable to me that a municipality should be able to charge rent for storage of private property (i.e. my car) on public property (i.e. the street).
On the other hand, I also grew up in an area with ample free parking, so I certainly understand the visceral annoyance. To me, the convenience of being able to pay with credit/debit cards (rather than having to hunt the seat cushions for loose change) might go a long way toward mitigating that effect, though.
On the other hand, I also grew up in an area with ample free parking, so I certainly understand the visceral annoyance. To me, the convenience of being able to pay with credit/debit cards (rather than having to hunt the seat cushions for loose change) might go a long way toward mitigating that effect, though.
Oh yes, I certainly wouldn't defend "parking should be free" as a moral or political point, I just harbour a strong and possibly irrational dislike towards paying for it.
Does San Francisco not have pay by phone parking meters?
We've had them in Vancouver for awhile now, and it's so handy (after you setup an account the first time). They text you 10 minutes before your meter expires and you can just call and add extra minutes if you're going to be longer than expected.
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/parking/paybyphone.htm
We've had them in Vancouver for awhile now, and it's so handy (after you setup an account the first time). They text you 10 minutes before your meter expires and you can just call and add extra minutes if you're going to be longer than expected.
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/parking/paybyphone.htm
Parking tickets are far more lucrative than parking meters--it's actually against the interests of meter enforcement to do this.
This is big news for holders of disabled placards.
Why is that? Are they still going to be able to get free parking? Can they currently get free parking?
Sorry for not making it clear whether I even meant good or bad news. Under CA law they get free parking at meters as well as in (most) restricted-time zones. It seems like that would continue here, and now the city has the goal of upping the rates to always keep spaces open on every block.
How exactly are the benefits going to cascade to pedestrians and cyclists?
Part of the hope is that it will reduce overall car traffic by shortening the amount of time people are just driving in circles (distractedly) looking for parking. Apparently this makes up a surprisingly big percentage of the time spent in cars in SF.
I can't wait to see the live data feed that comes out of this.
This should have included *by late 2012.
I worked out a system two years ago for doing something like this, but with the idea of networking all of the commercial parking lots in San Francisco together, and creating algorithms & equipment to allow for either instantaneous variable-rate pricing, or to suggest parking "deals" for lot managers to announce in order to try and keep their lots full.
In the end, I realized that this was price-fixing and that I would probably be sued for it. The government, however, is allowed to do things to the citizen that the citizen may not do.
In the end, I realized that this was price-fixing and that I would probably be sued for it. The government, however, is allowed to do things to the citizen that the citizen may not do.
The demand-responsive pricing aspect is the most interesting:
>"SFpark will charge the lowest possible hourly rate to achieve the right level of availability in both garages and at metered spaces. This project is not about raising parking revenue; it’s about making parking easier to find. SFpark is designed so each block and each garage maintains have about, an average, 20% availability."
>"SFpark will charge the lowest possible hourly rate to achieve the right level of availability in both garages and at metered spaces. This project is not about raising parking revenue; it’s about making parking easier to find. SFpark is designed so each block and each garage maintains have about, an average, 20% availability."
This from the municipality that had to put a network engineer in prison in order to get access to their DWDM equipment? Then again, parking is like a $125m per year profit center for San Francisco, so they're more likely to get parking collections right than, well, anything else.
This is neither here nor there, since street parking in SF is probably much too cheap now. But doublespeak is doublespeak.