Comments on: Donald Shoup on San Francisco’s Groundbreaking Parking Meter Study

By: Nikki

Nikki — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:07:47 +0000

Unfortunately, in Chicago we’ve managed to privatize our meters for 75 years so won’t be seeing any monetary returns to the metered districts. The only thing we get is price increases (going into effect today), which disincentives customers from driving.

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:32:38 +0000

All of the references to Ventura were interesting since I live there. I’ve never seen a meter downtown – I know because there is nowhere to lock my bike. There has been a lot of talk, but it is hard to believe an article that calls it a success story and uses Ventura as an example when the plan has not been implemented.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:36:56 +0000

@Zvi: Personally, I tend to agree with you on incremental pricing. It was explored but will not be part of the initial implementation since most people seemed to find it punitive. The idea behind pay as you go with no time limit helps to reduce the “stress of penalty” that result from current metering systems. While a higher rate for a second hour is much less of a penalty than receiving a ticket for an expired meter, it was enough to sour people from the idea.

By: Eric McClure

Eric McClure — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:10:27 +0000

Um, that’s “professor.”

By: Eric McClure

Eric McClure — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:10:01 +0000

Profesor Shoup needs to have dinner at Aunt Suzie’s.

By: Clutch J

Clutch J — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:58:30 +0000

I agree with Shoup that in most places it’s better for meter proceeds to support district improvements (beautification, pedestrian infrastructure) over transit operations.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:24:26 +0000

This discussion needs a bit more context. First, metered curb space is a small portion of all parking in dense urban areas. Typically, a commercial street is metered and adjacent side streets are restricted by Residential Permits or time limits. Second, commercial vehicles making deliveries and providing services need to park at the curb near their destinations more than private passenger cars. Because free spots near meters are always 100% occupied and commercial vehicles still need a place to park, there is very high demand for metered spots. The net result is that meter rates based on occupancy targets will be much higher than they would need to be if more curb space was metered. Ideally, in dense urban areas, the majority of curb space would be metered — not just spots in front of retail.

By: Zvi Leve

Zvi Leve — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:51:48 +0000

I am surprised that there is little discussion of incrementally increasing parking rates with the time being paid up-front. For example, the first hour could even be free, the second is $1 ($1 for two hours), the third is $2 ($3 for 3 hours), etc. This kind of system recognizes that a car may be necessary for certain kinds of trips, but discourages long-term on-street parking, for which it is reasonable to expect people to have alternatives. Such pricing schemes are common in many other countries.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:46:35 +0000

“who wants poor people (“freeloaders”) clogging up those sidewalks anyway!”

We all already take the bus, walk, and ride our bikes. We’re already clogging up the sidewalks (and contributing 3/4 of the economic activity of a commercial district in SF) we’re just not getting there by driving, and charging more for parking won’t keep us away.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:11:25 +0000

Yes, I think he’s just trying to debunk the myth that paid parking hurts business. We’re not talking about charging exorbitant rates for parking, we’re talking about charging a fair market value for a commodity. This is important, because an excess of this commodity has been proven damaging to air quality, pedestrian travel, and other quality of life issues.

Speaking of looking out for poor people, what about those who can’t afford to have a car? Should their access be impeded so that someone in an expensive vehicle can have free parking?

What about building a society where you have to spend thousands of dollars (on a car) just to get from point A to point B, because development is designed around automobiles and their parking?

Free health care is a right, and a real social justice issue. Free university education is a right, and a real social justice issue. Free parking is not. It is petty, and turning it into a social justice issue insults real social justice issues. Pay your $5 and get over it, or walk, catch transit, bike, etcetera.

By: archie

archie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:08:29 +0000

I think he’s just trying to debunk the myth that charging for parking hurts businesses.

By: qq

qq — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:53:06 +0000

“If I were a waiter working in a restaurant, who do you think would leave a bigger tip, someone who will come only if they can find a free parking space after they have driven around long enough to find it, or someone that who is willing to pay for parking if they can easily find a space? I think the person that is willing to pay for parking is more willing to leave a bigger tip or pay more at a store or bring more business to the area than somebody who wants to be a freeloader and just won’t come to your neighborhood unless they can get free parking. When you think about it, the kind of customers you’re going to get is probably a little bit more free-spending if they can easily find a space and they’re willing to pay for parking. “

so what he’s saying is that we should all want our streets to be filled with the rich and between you and him, who wants poor people (“freeloaders”) clogging up those sidewalks anyway!