App parking system shuts down in San Francisco(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
App parking system shuts down in San Francisco
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28261843
5 comments
Well, technically parking spaces aren't public goods in the sense of goods freely distributed by the city.
At least in downtown, "public parking" is rented by the city at the rate they set. You may claim the rate city sets is too low, yes. But that doesn't actually entitle you (or anyone else) to lay claim to parking spaces and auction them as you please - since, well, they don't actually belong to you.
This doesn't really have much to do with "publicness" actually. Rental car companies would be equally upset if people developed an app for car renters to extract a surcharge for handing a rental off to their "friends".
At least in downtown, "public parking" is rented by the city at the rate they set. You may claim the rate city sets is too low, yes. But that doesn't actually entitle you (or anyone else) to lay claim to parking spaces and auction them as you please - since, well, they don't actually belong to you.
This doesn't really have much to do with "publicness" actually. Rental car companies would be equally upset if people developed an app for car renters to extract a surcharge for handing a rental off to their "friends".
I agree the app should be shut down, but only because the city should build its own so it can take the money directly.
The poor can't afford smartphones. If your plan were implemented, how would they find parking? If they aren't able to participate in your system, then that will add a lot of time to their daily commute.
Poor people are already penalized for being poor due to overdraft fees, predatory credit, etc. Taking an extra hour of their life each day just so the wealthy can find parking more easily doesn't seem best.
The poor can't afford smartphones. If your plan were implemented, how would they find parking? If they aren't able to participate in your system, then that will add a lot of time to their daily commute.
Poor people are already penalized for being poor due to overdraft fees, predatory credit, etc. Taking an extra hour of their life each day just so the wealthy can find parking more easily doesn't seem best.
If the poor can't afford smartphones, then they probably can't afford parking violations either, and would probably do better using subsidized public transportation than owning and maintaining a car, right?
The poor can't find parking as it is, and neither can the wealthy. Instead, everyone wastes their time driving around looking for a spot.
Does anyone know of a city that has an open API for accessing whether or not there are cars parked at it's metered spots[1]?
For cities that haven't switched to shared muni-meters, the existing parking meters seem like the natural place to add hardware that checks for availability. If the meters are network connected then at the very least they could report back whether or not they are in use or "expired". A lot of the newer meters allow for credit card payments so I'm assuming they have some kind of network connectivity.
It'd be awesome if a city provided this data to the public. Then anybody could just make an app/website[3] that shows the closest place you can park. Forget trying to make a buck off of reselling your existing spot, the savings on traffic, pollution, and frustration would justify it (less needless circling).
[1]: All spots would be even better but I'm assuming a spot that doesn't have a meter isn't going to have any hardware there that could tell whether a car is present.
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muni_Meter
[3]: Or even better integration with your smart phone's existing maps/nav app.
For cities that haven't switched to shared muni-meters, the existing parking meters seem like the natural place to add hardware that checks for availability. If the meters are network connected then at the very least they could report back whether or not they are in use or "expired". A lot of the newer meters allow for credit card payments so I'm assuming they have some kind of network connectivity.
It'd be awesome if a city provided this data to the public. Then anybody could just make an app/website[3] that shows the closest place you can park. Forget trying to make a buck off of reselling your existing spot, the savings on traffic, pollution, and frustration would justify it (less needless circling).
[1]: All spots would be even better but I'm assuming a spot that doesn't have a meter isn't going to have any hardware there that could tell whether a car is present.
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muni_Meter
[3]: Or even better integration with your smart phone's existing maps/nav app.
San Francisco had real time information about a large percentage of it's parking spots and it was available as an API. Apparently, though, this is no longer the case:
http://sfpark.org/how-it-works/open-data-page/
"As of December 30, 2013, the parking sensors in the street will be turned off and their data feed will no longer be available as parking sensor batteries have reached the end of their useful lives. This means that the real-time information on parking space occupancy will not be available for mobile apps and similar uses. The SFpark data feed and app will continue to show meter parking rates, as well as real-time space availability and rates at parking garages."
http://sfpark.org/how-it-works/open-data-page/
"As of December 30, 2013, the parking sensors in the street will be turned off and their data feed will no longer be available as parking sensor batteries have reached the end of their useful lives. This means that the real-time information on parking space occupancy will not be available for mobile apps and similar uses. The SFpark data feed and app will continue to show meter parking rates, as well as real-time space availability and rates at parking garages."
Yes, Montreal.
Every single possible parking spot at a busy Old Montreal city has a numbered spot and it has either parking pay machine nearby or iPhone/Android app payment methods.
It is a really great solution.
It is a really great solution.
Seems like it should be a FIFO queue weighted on verified proximity/travel-distance to the locale you are trying to park in, if such a system were to be put in place.
Singapore has it to some extent.
ParkerMeister (one of our apps) is using it.
I'm not a lawyer, but how can San Francisco possibly have jurisdiction over this? Could someone with more legal experience explain?
MonkeyParking is not located in San Francisco. MonkeyParking is not even in the United States (the company is based in Rome, Italy). The founders aren't US citizens. If the mayor of some random Iranian town demanded an American app shut down, because locals were using it to coordinate protests against Islam in violation of Iranian law, there's no way in hell an American software company would listen. Do US courts simply claim that their laws apply to everyone, everywhere?
MonkeyParking is not located in San Francisco. MonkeyParking is not even in the United States (the company is based in Rome, Italy). The founders aren't US citizens. If the mayor of some random Iranian town demanded an American app shut down, because locals were using it to coordinate protests against Islam in violation of Iranian law, there's no way in hell an American software company would listen. Do US courts simply claim that their laws apply to everyone, everywhere?
The company intentionally targeted the San Francisco market. It's making payments to and contracting with San Francisco residents. That's usually enough to trigger jurisdiction. This isn't a uniquely American position to take. The EU goes after American companies all the time for violations of EU law.
The real issue is whether a judgment in another country can be enforced. If MonkeyParking has any physical U.S. presence (bank accounts, servers, etc.), San Francisco could try going after those items. They're an iPhone app, so SF could certainly go after Apple. Assuming none of those options are available to SF though, SF would have to go to an Italian court and ask that court to enforce the U.S. judgment. At that point, whether the decision is enforceable would hinge on international treaties and Italian law.
In your Iran hypothetical, Iran could certainly claim jurisdiction over an American software company for intentionally violating Iranian law. But the American First Amendment prohibits American courts from helping Iran enforce that judgment.
The real issue is whether a judgment in another country can be enforced. If MonkeyParking has any physical U.S. presence (bank accounts, servers, etc.), San Francisco could try going after those items. They're an iPhone app, so SF could certainly go after Apple. Assuming none of those options are available to SF though, SF would have to go to an Italian court and ask that court to enforce the U.S. judgment. At that point, whether the decision is enforceable would hinge on international treaties and Italian law.
In your Iran hypothetical, Iran could certainly claim jurisdiction over an American software company for intentionally violating Iranian law. But the American First Amendment prohibits American courts from helping Iran enforce that judgment.
There's a significant difference between those two scenarios. You'll find Americans are far more willing to intercede if speech was at stake here.
The right to speech and free expression is protected in the U.S. (for the most part) whereas the right to affordable parking is an arguable point. The primary issue San Francisco had in this whole episode is that they didn't come up with it first. This was all about revenue.
The right to speech and free expression is protected in the U.S. (for the most part) whereas the right to affordable parking is an arguable point. The primary issue San Francisco had in this whole episode is that they didn't come up with it first. This was all about revenue.
It seems like a more effective strategy than trying to lob legal threats at a foreign corporation is to target the people actually using the app. Pass a city ordinance with 100x damages for people who sell their public parking spot. Run a few stings; write a few $1-2k tickets. Problem solved.
It sounds like you're suggesting pursuing tens or hundreds of small offenders whom many people would likely find sympathetic (caught in a sting -- for taking $4 for telling someone about a parking spot?) instead of a single offender that's making the whole problem possible. That approach depends on publicity from the people you catch to dissuade other people, but that publicity could be very negative for the city. Plus, you have to catch enough people for it to be compelling.
Well it just feels quixotic to me to sabre-rattle at some company in a place you have absolutely no jurisdiction over. And to me the real douchebags are the ones selling their parking spaces, so I'd welcome if they were the targets of enforcement. And if busting them does rouse public sympathy, you have to question if what they're doing should really be illegal.
Maybe I also didn't fully understand how this app works. I thought it was one person camping out in their parking spot until the "buyer" arrives. If they are merely selling the information that their spot is now available, it's probably the same in practice, but the essence of it feels subtly different. Law is fascinating like that.
Maybe I also didn't fully understand how this app works. I thought it was one person camping out in their parking spot until the "buyer" arrives. If they are merely selling the information that their spot is now available, it's probably the same in practice, but the essence of it feels subtly different. Law is fascinating like that.
[deleted]
"San Francisco banned the use of the MonkeyParking app in late June declaring that it would not allow the creation of a 'predatory private market for public parking spaces'".
San Francisco: Only we can have a predatory market for public parking spaces.
San Francisco: Only we can have a predatory market for public parking spaces.
You do realize that this app meant the city is not charging enough (market rate) for parking right?
But is it in the public interest to charge market rate? That's the issue here. Should poorer people in SF be unable to park anywhere? Is that a good use of public resources?
Attempts to artificially control prices for a scarce asset in the names of protecting equality will always fail. Prices will inevitably rise to their market level, the only difference is whether the owner of the good (the city) will reap the full benefit of the transaction, or whether the fruits will be split between (initially) secondary sellers and (later) law enforcement efforts.
The most important effect is that the incentives that might have favoured innovation to improve the efficiency of the use of the good and offer affordable alternatives are distorted in favour of incentives which favour unscrupulous competition for arbitrage gains.
The most important effect is that the incentives that might have favoured innovation to improve the efficiency of the use of the good and offer affordable alternatives are distorted in favour of incentives which favour unscrupulous competition for arbitrage gains.
Well - ignoring the fact that city maintained street parking is a public resource - I believe you are ignoring the cost of time (of the person searching for parking) in your analysis which, in effect, creates a perfect market equilibrium....or something.
A scarce resource is a scarce resource. It doesn't matter what intentions it was made with, or what rhetoric is used to justify a clearly defective pricing strategy.
time spent looking for parking is waste, aka deadweigt lost. Better to transfer money (zero sum) than waste time (negative sum)
[Citation Needed]
If the issue is fairness, there are two things people generally have they can give up: time and money. Right now finding parking is based on random chance. A better system, if we decide time is the thing people pay with, would involve people having to wait a pre-determined amount of time before they can take ownership of a parking spot, which would increase as demand did and vice versa. Additionally this duration could be determined by the amount of time they spend in the spot.
The status quo is obviously broken. The question is if there is an easy and effective way to improve fairness.
The status quo is obviously broken. The question is if there is an easy and effective way to improve fairness.
Forcing people to waste time is just wasteful. Everyone should pay, and certain desrving people (however that is decided) can get financial support or nontransferable credits (bit these have practical challenges)
It wouldn't be a matter of wasting time, it would be a manner of a person having to plan ahead before parking. If you want to park in a busy neighborhood, you may find that you can't actually do so for several hours, if others ahead of you in line have reserved those spaces. This is completely fair since everyone is treated equally, there is no 'wasted time' in this system that wouldn't have been wasted in the current system provided the spots are maximally full at all times. The current system results in some people getting lucky, others driving around in circles trying to find a spot, and others completely giving up. All of that time is being wasted. Beyond that the folks driving around are congesting the roadways, resulting in additional negative effects on the overall efficiency of allocating parking.
The main issue with designing a reservation based system is how efficient it is with regards to spots being continually filled, along with the constraint that it be considered fair by all participants. It seems like a design challenge but the current greedy algorithm probably sets the bar pretty low. It would be interesting to simulate.
The main issue with designing a reservation based system is how efficient it is with regards to spots being continually filled, along with the constraint that it be considered fair by all participants. It seems like a design challenge but the current greedy algorithm probably sets the bar pretty low. It would be interesting to simulate.
Fwiw, SF is actually moving to market-rate pricing for meters and garages, with a pilot in a subset of spaces currently underway: http://sfpark.org/
[deleted]
[deleted]
Should the city start charging market rate for schools, parks, and libraries?
The important distinction is congestion. Users should pay auction prices for contested resources (how much someone else would have to pay to get access). Windfall gains should then be used for general welfare spending for the community (maybe building more of the scarce resources). This is how shared infrastructure can finance its development, in a way that incentivize efficient use age patterns (smoothing/flattening the demand across time)
Marginal cost of a non-fully -occupied library is approximately zero.
Marginal cost of a non-fully -occupied library is approximately zero.
Why not?
Libraries are a form of insurance against the societal costs of illiteracy, which is related to crime.
http://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/if-you-wa...
---
Though the library may appear to be free, the truth is quite different; it is not that the library borrower is getting things for free, it is that they have already paid. Libraries are the result of a community pooling resources (often gathered through taxes) for the funding and purchasing of materials that are then made available to all members of that community.
... Just as a community invests in infrastructure like roads, bridges and water management systems – a community invests in a library. Libraries, if you will, represent educational and intellectual infrastructure. A recognition that just as a road makes it easier to reach your destination, so too does access to information enable one to complete a journey of another sort.
... what occurs in a library is the development and maintenance through the economy of a genuine structure for sharing. Numerous people contribute a little and from this are able to get a lot, but the value they extract from their investment is not in the form of a sack of money with a dollar sign on it, but a larger social value. It is a value that would be diminished by turning it simply into a profit-generating scheme.
---
http://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/if-you-wa...
---
Though the library may appear to be free, the truth is quite different; it is not that the library borrower is getting things for free, it is that they have already paid. Libraries are the result of a community pooling resources (often gathered through taxes) for the funding and purchasing of materials that are then made available to all members of that community.
... Just as a community invests in infrastructure like roads, bridges and water management systems – a community invests in a library. Libraries, if you will, represent educational and intellectual infrastructure. A recognition that just as a road makes it easier to reach your destination, so too does access to information enable one to complete a journey of another sort.
... what occurs in a library is the development and maintenance through the economy of a genuine structure for sharing. Numerous people contribute a little and from this are able to get a lot, but the value they extract from their investment is not in the form of a sack of money with a dollar sign on it, but a larger social value. It is a value that would be diminished by turning it simply into a profit-generating scheme.
---
Well that's very rousing, but only someone working for a chronically underfunded and at-risk institution would feel the need to write such flowery prose. If I was a rich taxpayer whose money was on the line I don't think I would be convinced.
Yeah some wanted to turn NYC's flagship research library into a glorified starbucks, removing book stacks. Pesky enlightenment democracy and city elections had a diferent opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/arts/design/public-library...
---
In a striking about-face, the New York Public Library has abandoned its much-disputed renovation plan to turn part of its research flagship on Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street into a circulating library and instead will refurbish the nearby Mid-Manhattan Library, several library trustees said
.. This shift is something of a defeat for the library, which had already paid the British architect Norman Foster $9 million in private funds for his firm’s work on the plan for the flagship, a 1911 Beaux-Arts landmark.
---
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/arts/design/public-library...
---
In a striking about-face, the New York Public Library has abandoned its much-disputed renovation plan to turn part of its research flagship on Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street into a circulating library and instead will refurbish the nearby Mid-Manhattan Library, several library trustees said
.. This shift is something of a defeat for the library, which had already paid the British architect Norman Foster $9 million in private funds for his firm’s work on the plan for the flagship, a 1911 Beaux-Arts landmark.
---
The short-sightedness of the current crop of the upper class is a problem.
[deleted]
* SF has a large number of private parking garages. Anyone willing to pay market rate can use them. The city is choosing to charge the rate that it finds most useful.
* The existence of the app in no way demonstrates that the city doesn't charge market rate. The people who "sell" their parking spaces in the app don't have the same cost structure as the city since, among other things, they don't actually own these parking spaces and are simply engaging in a scam.
* The existence of the app in no way demonstrates that the city doesn't charge market rate. The people who "sell" their parking spaces in the app don't have the same cost structure as the city since, among other things, they don't actually own these parking spaces and are simply engaging in a scam.
Are these factual statements or conjecture? Someone else stated the city is working in charging market rate in some areas, which doesn't mesh with the statement that the city is currently charging what is most useful for them
Of course the city is charging what they feel is most useful to them, for whatever reasons they choose. The statement is true virtually by definition.
The city may not be charging you think is most to it, but hey, the city probably isn't concerned with what lone hackers somewhere think, why should it be.
The city may not be charging you think is most to it, but hey, the city probably isn't concerned with what lone hackers somewhere think, why should it be.
Related 99% Invisible episode:
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-08-99-free-par...
i've lived in both NYC and SF.. NYC is far worse. I've seen people fight over parking spots.
SF would be a lot easier if everyone didn't have a garage. I would be willing to bet a good percentage of people with a garage might not have a car.
SF would be a lot easier if everyone didn't have a garage. I would be willing to bet a good percentage of people with a garage might not have a car.
But on-street parking in crowded urban areas with good public transportation? Absolutely not. Why should I take the subway or bus, yet have my tax dollars subsidize a select few who want to park on the street for free, or park for less than a market-clearing rate?
This app is great because it highlights how much money the city, and therefore taxpayers, are losing. I agree the app should be shut down, but only because the city should build its own so it can take the money directly.