San Francisco rolls out new smart parking meters with 'demand-responsive pricing'
By Donald Melanson 
posted August 7th 2010 10:10AM
posted August 7th 2010 10:10AM
San Francisco has been working on making parking "smarter" for quite a while now, and it's just recently taken another big step in that direction by starting to replace over 5,000 older parking meters with the snazzy new model pictured above. Those will not only let you pay with a credit or debit card (and soon a special SFMTA card), but automatically adjust parking rates based on supply and demand, which means you could pay anywhere from $0.25 to $6.00 an hour depending on how many free spaces there are. Those rates are determined with the aid of some sensors that keep a constant watch on parking spaces, which also means you'll be able to check for free spaces in an area on your phone or your computer before you even leave the house. Hit up the link below for the complete details, and to check if the neighborhoods you frequent are included in the initial rollout.
Technology...;D
talk about nickle and diming...
@Eraser Just watch out for some Steve Jobs with his macbook connecting it to the meter and pulling out some credit card numbers.
@blenderx360
Well with the pricing part I hope that when you 'book' the park you are only charged the original rate. I can understand it fluctuating as parks fill up though. So this also would eventually completely remove the need for metre-maids right.
@Eraser It's not nickle and diming, it's supply and demand.
Crap like this makes me crazy. Inadequate parking is the direct result of poor city planning. City councils allow business to move in but do not force them to allow for the population growth.
Up to $6 an hour to park? Isn't minimum wage still around $7.50? That's not an example of supply and demand in so much is that it's an example of broke cities trying to rape every last cent out of everyone.
@blenderx360 I love android but STFU!!! HOW do u bring this shit to parking meters. I'm sooo tired of u frekn kids wit this dumb crap go 2, a nickalodian site and let adults talk here
@sweet greggo part deux Are you kidding me? You think San Francisco's streets can handle everyone driving everywhere? Higher parking prices means more people will take public transit, resulting in lower congestion and less pollution.
But the thing is, San Francisco isn't raising prices to obscene levels, it's simply raising the prices to meet the market demand! I just love how all these idiots go on about how perfect the free market is - until it means they have to pay more.
@Eraser
I think you mean credit and debiting
@blenderx360 But it's SF! He already has all of their credit card numbers!
@bobloblaw Free market is not perfect.
@sweet greggo part deux I agree. This seems like price gouging which I thought was illegal. If gas stations or hardware stores did this when say, a hurricane was approaching, it would be a crime.
@bobloblaw No, cities can NOT handle all of the traffic, that's the problem! They allow all kinds of commercial development but do not plan for the increased population of the area. No doubt city councils like developers as it buys their vacation houses with all of the money under the table, but when you allow a 50 story building to be built downtown with a parking garage too small for all of the tenants then you're going to have problems. Or my favorite: getting called for jury duty and having to park in a private lot instead the courthouse parking because it's already full at 8 am. Nothing like paying $12 a day to park! That $8 a day I get from jury duty just about covers it!
@sweet greggo part deux
wow, that insane paragraph courtesy of distracted typing. Bottom line is it's up to city councils to plan for increased population, including adequate parking when approving city growth.
@sweet greggo part deux
No matter how confusing you may have been, I agree with you. I don't live in the United States, but I think it's ridiculous to pay an extra dollar for arriving 5 minutes later. I don't think that's a factor that will lead to less traffic or pollution as another member was suggesting.
I firstly don't agree with over-paid parking (which I am every time I want to go sleep at my gf's house) and then for the city council not to offer enough conditions for everyone is incredible. So not only are we getting bad conditions, we're also overpaying for them.
And we don't have parking buildings like you do, just oversized underground garages.
@bobloblaw
You my friend are absolutely on point! This is Economics 101 simply put into motion! Why you are not highly ranked is beyond me...
@sweet greggo part deux
And I don't disagree with you either. You bring up very valid points about urban development in mega metropolises like SF. I do this kind of work in Chicago (economics and urban development) and we have our own issues with metered parking and pricing.
@bobloblaw
$6 an hour is a fair price for parking?
@bobloblaw It's nickel and diming.
@MiddleWay That doesn't change the fact that at its core it's another case of nickel and diming...simple greed under the thin veil of "economics" or business. Frankly, people like you and 'bob' are the reason this sort of profiteering disguised as supply and demand remains an ongoing problem.
A sucker is born every minute.
@sweet greggo part deux
You obviously don't know how expensive parking structures are. In a city like SF you're looking at $30,000+ PER SPACE in an above ground structure, $40,000 per space for subterranean. If city planning departments were to require even more parking, businesses would be priced out or have to increase the prices of their goods, making us all pay more for the stuff we buy. @bobloblaw has the right idea. People that live in dense cities and take public transit/walk/bike are the ones traveling most efficiently. Why should they have to pay higher prices on goods because of someone else's parking demand?
@sweet greggo part deux
Ah, the age-old dilemma: do I elect the wise few to manage our lives into blissful goodness, or will a market of free adults find the true cost of a parking space at a given time?
Having experienced both models - and given that fallible people populate both groups - I'd opt for the free market.
@sweet greggo part deux
What you say is pretty much impossible. There is no way to plan for a city of millions unless you start from scratch planning that a bunch of empty ground is going to be a metropolis larger than any city in existence at the time of SF's founding. That would mean back when SF was founded that they would have had to lay the city out with the building spacing allowing for eight lane roads when horse and buggy was the mode of travel. Once you lay out your roads and utilities like water and gas pipes and power lines you have a much larger task of changing things down the road.
Over time if you want to keep a city growing you have to expand both in population and businesses. You can never lock things down and say we are good right at this level and not allow change.
The population itself will never let the city control the rise and fall of the population or the success or failure of business that comes and goes.
If you limit the influx of new population and business you are insuring that the city will decay over time.
Also you have to have a population that is willing to submit to the city taking actions as necessary to insure the city infrastructure is able to meet the needs of the city. This would mean the population would have to be on board with the reclamation of land for new or expanded roads, parking garages, mass transit etc. as needed.
That is the biggest problem that I see in any big city. The roads are not big enough to support the number of people that live in many big cities. Yet even suggest that the city is going to claim all the land on either side of a main road in order to add a multi-lane highway and there will be 50 lawsuits filed in a matter of days to block it. Yet people will still say damn it the city needs to do something to fix this traffic. You can't have it both ways.
@sweet greggo part deux --- look, it *already* costs that much in some parts of the city. The high price of parking has nothing to do with this new tech. *if* this tech lets you run an Android app or a Google map mashup to see where you can find a less pricey spot, I'd be willing to drive and walk a few more blocks to save some money. *If* that's true, then this feature is a huge win for parkers.
@blenderx360 what the article doesn't mention is that this technology cost $25 million dollars. For that sum, you probably could've built parking structures to solve the parking shortage issue to begin with.
@bobloblaw Totally right, driving in San Francisco is a fricken' nightmare, you're better off walking or taking BART/MUNI. Plus parking in lots is like 20 bucks an hour.
@bobloblaw I don't know of a greater incentive of taking public transportation when it's practically free. No offense but the last time I was in San Fran the general pop seem to think paying for public transportation was optional. Most everyone skip paying bus fares by entering the back exit doors. Only the tourist were dumb enough to pay for the bus fares. So the only way to keep public transportation afloat when no one is paying is to jack up all the parking meters.
@sweet greggo part deux That's not very far from the truth. Last I heard Cali is in near bankruptcy so if the money ain't coming from the Feds they're going to rape someone and that might as well be the citizens of Cali.
@blenderx360 : time to hack that shit and make it 0.10 all day. :|
@sweet greggo part deux
Fun fact: parking isn't a fundamental human right
You seem to be saying the city should build in enough parking that everyone can all drive (solo, of course) downtown. Which is, of course, nuts.
Furthermore, supply and demand indicates that as demand increases the price goes up.
I suggest you buy yourself a bike, brah.
-jp
@bobloblaw Free Market
How is the SF City controlling all parking meters, locations, fees, enforcement, and citation prices a Free Market? Are there non SF City parking meters also available? No! That's what you call a Monopoly.
@sweet greggo part deux people park on the street because it's cheaper, not because of poor city planning, you have your cause and effect wrong.
@sweet greggo part deux San Francisco is like Manhattan: It's surrounded by ocean on three sides and to the south are other cities. There is nowhere to go but up, which, ignoring the huge cost of the property, have to be built to extremely strict standards to survive earthquakes, even more cost. The only people I know that actually park in San Francisco on a daily basis either have a space where they live or are getting it from their company. Otherwise people who wanna have a car can do what everyone else does: park in a BART lot and take BART into the city.
@sweet greggo part deux
what you propose will do nothing but lead to suburban sprawl. this leads to derelict downtowns, congested highways and fuel wasting. Its impossible to provide parking for every new business and keep costs under control. you want them to stave off new development which brings money into the city and neighborhoods by forcing small businesses to dump tons of money into parking?
id rather have more cities like SF than Phoenix.
@dennisheadley Wow, your post really made me want to go play Sim City. It's a wonder they never integrated parking issues into that game, as detailed as the rest of it was.
They have these in downtown LA, at least next to the department of water and power building. Fairly new, don't know of they'll have variable pricing there though
So a space is shown free. You arrive. So do 12 others. Karrang! "I was here first!", "No, I was!" Etc. Further, it seems that despite all the potential technology offers, it is actually making our lives more stressful. Name one iPhone or other OS app that actually benefits the consumer not the vendor? From the moment we're born, we're for sale.
What would be far better is smart parking, where if you know your plans in advance, you book and reserve a spot. A login on the meter (or your phone) only allows the authorised parkee to park without risk of a citation. All billing direct to your account.
PAYP, Park As You Park!
Now that is innovation and convenience in one!
@Oflife Ooops, "Pay As You Park"!
@Oflife Reserved parking spaces piss off everybody.
@Oflife
Careful! Anytime you start talking about "Consumer Protections", "Consumer Rights" or "Consumer Benefits", you'll be accussed of being a socialist or communist. Remember: As long as you are on the side of big business and trust in the free market IN EVERY ASPECT OF AMERICAN LIFE, then you are a good, god fearing, patriotic American Capitalist.
@Oflife Parking spaces would only be free (or really cheap) if there were many spaces available. So, your scenario would never happen.
now how do we trick the sensor to get those 25¢ rates?
@NathanNFM
Just pick up and move all the cars in the filled spaces.
@NathanNFM
smoke and mirrors?
@Accessgranted just mirrors should do the trick
@andthemaniam If I were Magneto I'd get the discounts
and the girls
Well this sucks..... probably never going to drive anywhere in the city again.
I wonder if that whole free after 6pm thing is going to keep going?
@megapenguinx
There, the automated parking system is already paying off. Now you'll start taking the bus / train / whatever to your work (like the majority of the poor population of the world).
When more people will start taking public transport to work etc, it in turn will help reduce pollution, less usage of global-fuel levels, as well as less rush on the roads.
I think these new technologies are great, but at the end of the day the reason government is pushing them on the people is to collect more money. So one way or another people will pay more.
Also, let's note that this is SF, tax increases are very popular there, sheep who follow and vote these liberals into the city council will support any tax increase simple because they think it is hip.
@Sea Urchin I have no idea what kind of social services there are in San Francisco, but generally if you want the government to do more stuff for people or give more stuff to people, you're gonna have to pay up with higher taxes. Reckless increases of social services without a corresponding raise in taxes is part of why California is in such a mess right now. I still wonder whose bright idea it was to require more votes to raise taxes than to add money-guzzling services.