Primus speaking with SFMTA Sustainable Streets Director Bond Yee at the installation of SFPark meters in March. Photo: SFMTA/Flickr

Primus got in touch yesterday when the Streetsblog Network highlighted a blog post from Michael Perkins at Greater Greater Washington which claimed that the results of the experiment, which began in April, are showing that “prices affect parking less than San Francisco expected.”

“To date,” wrote Perkins, “the most crowded blocks have typically continued to be crowded even after adjusting the prices upward, while under-occupied blocks have not filled up even after dropping the price.”

Primus responded in the comments and spoke with Streetsblog to address points raised by Perkins and other readers. “The ‘expectations’ that Michael wrote of are simply and nothing more than his own expectations,” Primus said. It’s also worth pointing out that Perkins’ post didn’t include any specific data or sources that support his assertion.

“SFMTA has taken a very empirical approach with SFPark,” said Primus, “and this is a demonstration project that is just getting started, so it’s a little early for anyone to say how well it’s working, especially without proper analysis and evaluation.”

See the full statement from Primus after the break:

It is premature to make conclusions about the effectiveness of demand-responsive pricing for parking. Before evaluating its effectiveness, people need time to become aware of rate differences between blocks, time of day, and/or between on- and off-street alternatives (as we have largely lowered rates in garages). These changes do not happen overnight.

Several people have commented that, essentially, “demand-responsive pricing at meters won’t work because drivers will not know prices at different meters or garages”. We disagree.  Not everyone needs to know about the differences in parking rates. To create more parking availability, we only need a few people to know about rate changes and choose to park somewhere else.

Who knows about the differences in parking rates? At least some people, whether because they use an app to see rates (as well as availability), park so frequently in the same area that they are “experts” that end up noticing rate differences, or because people will generally start to realize that it now costs less to park in garages than on-street. It is still very early days and it takes time to learn and adjust.

When evaluating the effects of parking pricing on parking demand, it is also important to recognize that parking demand is not constant. Many factors besides price influence parking demand, including seasonal variations (e.g., summer vs. fall), employment levels, and fuel prices. SFpark is a demonstration project, and we are gathering data that will enable a rigorous evaluation to better understand how price, as well as other factors, influence demand for parking. After a longer period (say, 18-24 months) of demand-responsive rate changes, we will all be in a better position to rigorously evaluate how demand-responsive pricing delivers benefits and changes parking, or travel, behavior.

At a conference last Friday, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan showed this slide featuring the app for SFPark and announced that New York City's own smart parking system would be ready next year. The image on the right appears to come from Spanish firm Libelium.

New York City is moving forward with plans to use sensors to improve parking management, along the lines of San Francisco’s pioneering SFPark system. The program will be unveiled next year, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan announced at a conference on transportation and technology held last Friday at Columbia University.

For now, DOT is only dropping tantalizing hints about the program. During her presentation Sadik-Khan showed an illustration of parking sensors and an SFPark smartphone app guiding drivers to open parking spaces. When asked by an audience member whether the new system would only be used to alert motorists to parking opportunities or to manage the pricing of on-street spaces as well, Sadik-Khan replied, “both.”

Using sensors to manage the price of parking could be transformative. SFPark covers eight San Francisco neighborhoods and roughly one-quarter of the city’s metered spaces. Data gathered from sensors embedded in the road, enables the city to adjust meter prices with the goal of ensuring that there is always one parking space available on each block, reducing the traffic caused by cruising.

Last year, DOT put out a request for expressions of interest in a program that could be even more far-reaching. At the time, the agency expressed interest in a system that could not only enable dynamic pricing of parking, but also automatically alert the NYPD to parking meter violations, crack down on parking placard abuse and synchronize with pay-by-phone technology.

DOT did not respond to Streetsblog inquiries seeking more information about Sadik-Khan’s announcement, so it is not yet clear how robust a program will be rolled out next year. The possibilities, though, are substantial.

"I think SFPark will give San Francisco the best of both worlds. If it works it will make San Francisco an even better place to live and work and visit and do business. It will be another feather in the city's cap and other cities around the world will copy you," said UCLA professor and parking guru Donald Shoup. Photo: Bryan Goebel

San Francisco launched the world’s most ambitious and innovative parking project yesterday, a federally-funded trial that could revolutionize the way cities manage the public supply of parking. SFPark promises to make it easier for motorists to find spaces in busy commercial districts, while reducing congestion, speeding transit, increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and improving air quality.

The milestone for SFPark was celebrated at a packed press conference in the North Light Court at City Hall yesterday morning. SFMTA Chief Nat Ford was joined by Mayor Ed Lee, parking guru and UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, and other dignitaries to announce the SFPark iPhone application and real-time parking availability data.

The demand-based parking pilot is being implemented over the coming months, covering 7,000 of the city’s 28,800 metered spaces and 12,250 garage spaces. Drivers, thanks to street sensors, or magnetometers, will be able to check their iPhone application (an app will be available for Android in the coming weeks), or computer, to get real-time data on the availability and cost of parking spaces in 15 commercial districts.

“How many of you have been dumb in your past? How many of you have acted dumb? I know I have,” said Mayor Lee. “You know, when you’re driving around looking for a parking space and you’re double parking and you’re running around trying to see whether something will open, you’re dumb.”

“We want to be less dumb about this, and that’s why I’m so happy to launch today’s pilot program, SFPark,” Lee said. “That’s going to be our San Francisco version of congestion pricing.”

From left, Board of Supes Prez David Chiu, SFMTA Chief Nat Ford, UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, SFCTA Executive Director Jose Luis Moskovich, and Supervisor and TA Board Chair Ross Mirkarimi.

Lee said that parking meter translated in Chinese as “the lion machine,” and in Chinese culture “when you are confronted with a lion, the lion eats you.” Because of SFPark, he said, parking meters will be “less of a beast,” and drivers will be so happy they found a spot “you’ll want to Tweet it out.”

“SFPark creates a perfect marriage of technology, real-time information and pricing to make it easier for people to park here in downtown San Francisco,” said Federal Highway Administration Deputy Director Greg Nadeau. “This is not just about technology or pricing. It’s about making it easier to park in a major city and all the benefits that flow from addressing that one issue.”

Nadeau said the federal government was happy to award a $20 million grant to make SFPark happen, and that it was consistent with the livability goals of the U.S. Department of Transportation, led by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Click to enlarge this image of the SFPark iPhone App, now available in the iTunes Store and the SFPark site. Image: SFMTA

“I’m so glad that we’re welcoming your not ordinary smart meter into San Francisco. Finally we have a smart meter that doesn’t cause headaches, it actually helps them,” joked Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, the chair of the San Francisco Transportation Authority Board, in reference to the turmoil over PG&E’s electricity smart meters. “There are over 200,000 vehicles that enter San Francisco’s borders every single day and it’s incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to try to alleviate that congestion.”

Professor Shoup said the central idea behind SFPark is that you can’t set the right price for curb parking without first knowing how people are using that parking.

“SFPark sets a clear principle for setting the prices for curb parking, the lowest price the city can charge without creating a shortage. So, the right price for curb parking in San Francisco is rather like the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography: I know it when I see it.”

He pointed out that thirty percent of San Francisco households don’t own a car and the city uses parking meter revenue to subsidize Muni. Oftentimes, transit riders “are mired in traffic congested by richer drivers who are cruising for under-priced curb parking.”

“You pay every time you board a bus and that makes you think about whether you want to ride the bus. If you also pay the market price for curb parking every time you pull into a space it will also make you think about whether you want to drive,” Shoup told the crowd, adding that SFPark has the potential to tame the politics surrounding parking because “wanting more money will no longer justify raising the price of parking.”

Today’s City Hall event marked the culmination of years of work by the SFMTA on the project, which initially faced a wave of resistance, and now enjoys the full support of the city’s political establishment. SFMTA staffers, led by SFPark Manager Jay Primus and SFMTA CFO Sonali Bose, worked tirelessly over the past three years conducting outreach to elected officials, merchants and neighborhood groups.

“The people who are working on SFPark are the smartest and most talented and most overworked civil servants I have ever met,” said Shoup. “If SFPark is a success, it will be in large part due to the heroic determination to make it work here.”

And if it doesn’t work?

“Well, then you can always blame it on a dumb professor from Los Angeles,” Shoup said.

One of SFPark's 5,000 "coin and card" meters. SFPark will result in less congestion in busy commercial corridors, which will mean improved conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Photo: Bryan Goebel

You might be shocked at how much traffic consists of drivers who have already arrived at their destination but find themselves cruising the streets, searching for an open parking spot. In some city neighborhoods, cruising makes up as much as 40 percent of all traffic. All this unnecessary traffic slows down buses, endangers cyclists and pedestrians, delays other motorists, and produces harmful emissions. The key to eliminating it is to get the price of parking right.

So what’s the right price for curbside parking? According to UCLA professor Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, “the right price is the lowest price you can charge and still have one or two spaces available on each block.” Depending on the demand for parking at a given location, the right price could be higher or lower than the static prices you see at traditional meters. You need a dynamic system that adjusts the price based on demand.

The city of San Francisco has been putting Shoup’s ideas into practice on an unprecedented scale with its SFpark program, which will fully launch later this week. In addition to strategically adjusting curbside meter rates, SFpark sets prices in city garages to make them an attractive alternative to on-street spots, and distributes real-time information about parking availability to help drivers find open spaces. It is the most ambitious project in the United States to cut traffic and improve quality of life by getting the price of parking right.

Hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians — and more than a few elected officials — turned out on Friday afternoon last week to cut the ribbon on an impressive piece of infrastructure for human-powered travel — the long-awaited Cal Park Tunnel in Marin County, California.

The project has been talked about since the late 1970s and in active development for the last 12 years. For Marin cyclists, the 1.2 mile path/tunnel combo adds a critical, safe link to the north-south bikeway that will eventually run from the Golden Gate Bridge to Cloverdale in Sonoma County.  It is expected to shave nearly 15 minutes off of trips and serve up to 800,000 riders a year. And just as important: The rail right-of-way has been maintained so that in the future, SMART light rail vehicles can use the tunnel too.

The Cal Park Tunnel has some top-notch features: ample lighting, cell phone reception, emergency phone call boxes, a ventilation system and smooth pavement.  To read up on loads more history of the tunnel and information, check out Streetsblog SF’s great recap from last week.

In a refreshing turn, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni and manages the streets of San Francisco, has produced an informative and whimsical animated short explaining how their dynamic parking management pilot, SFPark, will work.

The video (and pretty much everything else about the SFPark.org website) uses a cute Sim-City aesthetic to explain an otherwise wonky parking policy. It's an interesting approach to take with complicated material, but I think the video does a great job of demonstrating how the system should work, and it does so in just under three minutes.

After covering this beat for over a year and a half, I also learned a few things. For instance, most people don't realize the cost of parking could come down if demand is anemic in a particular area, but I didn't realize the price could theoretically go as low as $.25/hour if the demand requires it. If the good parking managers at the SFMTA are looking to blunt possible public criticism, I think they will do well to highlight the fact that rates can decline.

Parking guru Donald Shoup already picked up on the sim and tweeted it to his followers, calling it a "great new video."

Will something as cute as this do anything to ameliorate the visceral rage parking meters inspire in many drivers? Tell us what you think in the comments below.

Starting June 27, 570 bus stops across New York City could disappear. Unless Congress delivers an 11th hour reprieve -- still a distinct possibility -- service cuts will axe or reroute dozens of bus lines, raising the question of what to do with all the curbside real estate at these potentially defunct stops.

Any plan to re-purpose bus stops will be provisional, since the cuts might be averted or service could be restored at a later date. But at least one other city forced to cope with bus cuts has used its defunct stops to promote sustainable transportation and improve the quality of public space.

In San Francisco's Mission District, five bus stops were converted to bike corrals, each of which has parking for between six and twelve bikes. In another location, the city made room for a "parklet," a temporary public plaza, by shifting two parking spaces from down the street into the freed-up bus stop space.

Here in New York City, it looks like DOT's contingency plan does not include re-purposing street space for pedestrian or bike improvements.

At most closed-down bus stops, said an agency spokesperson, the curbside area will simply take on the regulations of the adjoining area. If the street has parking along the curb, for example, the bus stop will become parking. In a few cases, the bus stop might be used for something like a truck loading zone instead.

Advocates are calling for DOT to think creatively about this new space, if the need arises. "Every neighborhood is different and there's definitely no cookie-cutter solution for all of these bus stops," said Transportation Alternatives' Wiley Norvell, but in many neighborhoods, the curbside area could be used "to create green space or open space for leisure and recreation." While TA's goal is to ultimately see bus service restored, said Norvell, "we really hope that the city is using the biggest possible toolbox when reprogramming the space."

A "parklet" in San Francisco, built on two former parking spaces that were moved to the site of a former bus stop. Photo: Matthew Roth.

In San Francisco, the Pavement to Parks program has launched an initiative that may someday alter the way U.S. cities treat their commercial strips.

Taking the PARK(ing) Day concept a step further, the Parklets Program is experimenting with allowing businesses to convert parking spaces into public spaces and cafes. The first was installed in March outside the Mojo Bicycle Cafe on Divisadero Street, where two parking spaces were reallocated. Now cafe tables and chairs, benches, bike parking, and plants sit on a raised platform over the asphalt. If all goes well through the evaluation period, the idea is to eventually implement a regular permitting process that business groups and communities can apply for. It looks good: Owners of Mojo say business is up 30 percent and they have had to hire more staff.

The Pavement to Parks program has already transformed a number of community spaces in the Castro, Showplace Triangle and Guerrero Park.

"The Wiggle" is one of San Francisco's most beloved bike routes, guiding riders between two nasty hills. It even has its own Wikipedia entry.

It's so popular, it's hard to stand there at any time of day and not see packs of cyclists passing through! (Note: This is a camera person's dream.) Recently, after a judge partially lifted the legal injunction on new bike amenities in the city, San Francisco striped a unique combo to help cyclists safely navigate one of the Wiggle's twists. A green bike box on Scott Street -- believed to be California's first -- allows riders to safely wait and queue up for a dedicated left turn lane which runs the length of the entire next block.

Andy Thornley from the San Francisco Bike Coalition showed us around to see how it works -- and we heard from riders who voiced their appreciation.

Meters along the Embarcadero are part of the Port of San Francisco's SFPark trial. Photo: Matthew Roth

The total number of spaces, as Mayor Gavin Newsom recently announced on his Youtube site, is 441,541. Of the total, over 280,000 are on-street spaces, 25,000 of which are metered. For just the on-street spaces, that is roughly the equivalent area of Golden Gate Park.

"Most cities have very little knowledge of their parking inventory," said Rachel Weinberger, a planning professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former transportation policy adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Weinberger called the parking census a "tremendous effort."

"Without the basic knowledge [city planners] have no basis on which to make decisions about future supply policy, about current management policy or even about how their transportation systems are working."

Don Shoup, planning professor at UCLA and author of the definitive book on the history of parking, The High Cost of Free Parking, was excited to hear the news. "San Francisco’s census of parking spaces is a great achievement, and the first of its kind anywhere," he said.

The release of the public parking space census coincides with the redesign of the website for SFPark, an occupancy-based parking management trial funded with a $19.8 million federal congestion mitigation grant, which among many objectives, seeks to manage the supply of parking by adjusting the cost to match demand. To put that in laymen's terms, if SFPark works well, there should be enough parking at the curb so that drivers don't have to circle the block endlessly searching for that elusive space. By gradually adjusting the price of parking up or down in the pilot areas, the city expects to create roughly one or two free spaces per block face at any time, the original purpose of parking meters when they were introduced in the 1930s.

Jay Primus, who directs the SFPark trial for the MTA, said the parking census was the first step toward a better understanding of how parking works in San Francisco, filling a void where city planners could only make rough estimates previously. "If you can't manage what you can't count, doing a careful survey and documenting all publicly available parking was a critical first step for the MTA for how we manage parking more intelligently," he said.

Primus explained that his team combed through copious records to determine total public garage spaces, including the MTA's own facilities and city tax records for private facilities. For on-street unmetered spaces, he sent interns out across the city to count every fifth block, a 20 percent sample size. At every free opportunity, he sends out more interns and recently estimated they had increased their sample size to 35 percent. Time willing, he hoped to count every single space on every street.

Aside from satisfying his own penchant for good data, Primus said the data was essential if they expect the SFPark pilots to succeed in making parking more convenient for drivers and reducing traffic.

Click image to enlarge. Map depicting SFPark trial areas. Courtesy: sfpark.org

In order to expand the impact of the data, the MTA has released it to third-party developers on the Data SF Website, which the agency hopes will spur creative applications for smart phones much as software engineers have done with the MTA's route and schedule information. With these applications, Primus expected to "see less circling for parking, less wasted fuel, and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. It could help to save people both time and money," he said.

"San Francisco is on the forefront of parking management," said Mayor Newsom, who has championed open data through DataSF. "By combining this data with our innovative approach to local government open data, we continue to transform government to work better for all of us."

Beyond the benefits to drivers and the savings from reduced congestion, the parking census data will inform the general discussion of parking supply and development, which can become highly contentious and emotional.

Jason Henderson, a San Francisco State University Geography Professor, said San Francisco Planning Commission hearings sometimes devolve into unhelpful arguments over the supply of parking without good data to back up either side's assertions.

"It's very important to have as fact-based a conversation as possible," said Henderson.

The San Francisco Planning Department's Joshua Switzky agreed with the importance of the data. "It's the kind of information that always comes up during review of big projects, especially when parking is being debated," he said. "Everyone -- from neighborhood groups, to planning commissioners, to transit advocates -- wants to know the general parking supply in an area."

Now that the publicly accessible spaces have been counted, the MTA plans to move forward with a count of private garages. Some of those interviewed for this story imagined there could be as many as 800,000 spaces in total, or at least one parking space for every San Franciscan.

Should San Francisco have a parking space for every person residing in the city? Should the city continue to mandate one new parking space for every residential unit built, the metric required in planning code in much of the city?

Using data from the MTA's Transportation Fact Sheet, Weinberger noted that despite 28.5 percent of San Francisco households not owning cars, "enough households have multiple vehicles that the city's population, collectively, owns over 8 percent more vehicles than households."

"As we all know, the more parking there is available, the more convenient car use becomes relative to other travel options," said Weinberger. "The more convenient car use is the more likely a car will be used."

Shoup marveled at how much parking in San Francisco is free, especially when compared with the price of housing. "One surprising result is that 72 percent of all the publicly-available parking spaces in the city are free," he said. "In San Francisco, housing is expensive for people but free for most cars."

Todd Litman, the director of the Canadian think-tank Victoria Transport Policy Institute, said the census showed that "in many situations there is not actually a shortage of parking spaces, rather, the available spaces are not being well-utilized." Litman said the solutions were parking management strategies such as more car sharing, efficient pricing, and parking cash out, which "can address parking problems in ways that also help achieve economic, social and environmental objectives."

All the parking experts agreed that San Francisco was leading the way in the effort to better understand the relationship between parking policy and the context of the urban environment.

"Parking policy is a pretty powerful tool for shaping street use, urban fabric and mode choice," said Weinberger. "The true power in this information rests on what the city decides to use it for."

When it comes to making a public commitment to taming lawless driving and making streets safe for biking, police departments in major west coast cities are starting to leave Ray Kelly's NYPD in their wake.

Advocates in Los Angeles recently started regular meetings with LAPD about traffic enforcement, crash responses, and other issues related to cyclist safety. Police chief Charlie Beck pledged at a City Council hearing last month to "change the culture" at LAPD with respect to cycling.

In San Francisco, police chief George Gascon has pledged to improve communication between SFPD and local cyclists. Making good on a commitment he made to Streetsblog San Francisco editor Bryan Goebel last September, Gascon recently joined a group of bicycle advocates for a short ride and agreed to go for a second ride later this year. Clarence Eckerson captured the occasion for posterity. He reports:

The chief's message isn't complicated. "We all need to co-exist," and motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists need to respect each other's rights and safety, he says. He's working toward fostering that goal through education and establishing a liaison to the cycling community.

Yes, what we're seeing in L.A. and San Francisco so far is largely symbolic, but you've got to start somewhere, and advocates in both cities say they're encouraged by the sincerity of these first steps from police.

In New York, the most common police-cyclist interactions seem to be stings that target cyclists for non-offenses, like riding outside the bike lane. While NYPD precinct chiefs say they don't single out cyclists, they also seem to base their enforcement decisions in large part on who complains the loudest at community meetings, not necessarily what poses the greatest danger on the streets. Meanwhile, crashes that injure and kill cyclists seldom result in prosecution, and the department keeps a tight lid on its investigations, shielding important information from public view.

Maybe police would see things differently if they biked down Adams Street to the Brooklyn Bridge, negotiating all the double-parked cars and impatient motorists. So here's a standing invitation to Commissioner Ray Kelly, Chief of Patrol James Hall, and traffic chief James Tuller: Come for a ride, see what it's like to bike the streets of New York.

SF MTA Chief Nat Ford and Mayor Gavin Newsom work the green rollers. Photo: Matthew Roth.

Meanwhile, here in New York, we've been shouting and muttering curses over the loss of a well-used bike lane segment in Williamsburg. So I figured it might lift everyone's spirits to share some of the good vibes emanating from Streetsblog SF. Here are some highlights from just the past few days:

Andy Thornley of the SF Bicycle Coalition rides the new left-turn bike lane on Scott Street. Photo: sfbike/Flickr.

The city stripes its first new bike lane since 2006, a left-turn bike lane at that.

Photo: Bryan Goebel.

Mayor Newsom announces that Clear Channel is backing out of its bike-share deal with San Francisco, but that he intends to launch a robust public bike network with 2,700 bikes in the pilot phase.

Photo: Bryan Goebel.

UCLA professor and parking policy superstar Donald Shoup.

This Tuesday, the San Francisco MTA released a long-awaited parking meter study, which calls for increasing meter hours in commercial districts where parking occupancy rises above 85 percent and businesses are open late on weekdays and Sundays. Afterward, Streetsblog called UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking and arguably the world's foremost parking expert, and asked for his thoughts on the study.

Professor Shoup had read the document and called it "pathbreaking," lauding the MTA for being thorough and data-driven, and for embracing occupancy targets to manage parking supply.

Shoup also reiterated the importance of Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) as a tool for selling parking reform to the public. In CBDs, a portion of the new meter revenue collected in commercial districts is returned to that district for sidewalk repair, street trees, enhanced street cleaning, etc., so that businesses can see firsthand how parking revenue improves their streets.

Professor Shoup also pointed to Redwood City, Ventura, and Old Pasadena for best practice examples of occupancy-based parking policy changes that have revitalized neighborhoods and facilitated business. Here is an edited transcript of our interview. [For a longer version, head over to Streetsblog San Francisco.]

Matthew Roth: What are your impressions of the MTA's new parking meter study?

Donald Shoup: It's pathbreaking. There's never been anything like it anywhere before. I think they've done the right thing to say, 'we're aiming for an occupancy rate.'  You want the spaces to be well used, but readily available. Well used means almost full, but readily available means not quite full. You have to be very careful to make sure you get that right. They're willing to adjust it if they get it wrong. I think the right price for parking is sort of like the Supreme Court's definition for pornography: I know it when I see it. There's no way to say the price is right except by looking at the result and San Francisco is committed to change the price wherever they get it wrong.

I think they did it with a very careful goal in mind and that is: set the lowest possible price they could charge and still have spaces available on every block. So that's different prices at different times of the day and at different locations, but I think if they aim for this policy, if they've chosen the lowest price they can charge and still have available spaces, it means if they go any lower, all the spaces will be filled and people will say there's no place to park. And if they go higher than that, there will be a lot of vacant spaces. Some of the supply will be mismanaged. 

MR: How important are Community Benefit Districts for selling parking reform to the public?

DS: Well, I think it is the key to getting political support. As you probably know, Redwood City has this policy and Ventura in Southern California, they just started it. From the merchants' point of view, they think that the revenue return is the most important part of the entire policy. They realize that it's going to cut down on cruising and maybe greenhouse gas emissions, but the important thing to them is seeing improvements right in front of their businesses. Without that it seems to be hard to support the idea.

It's also true in Washington, D.C. They installed it around a new ballpark and they returned 75 percent of the revenue to the metered districts. And this can be for transportation improvements. I think that something visible and sharing with the community is very important. If they don't do that it's hard to show and prove and have pictures of the benefits.  

I think it's important for getting people to understand the workings of the program. I don't think the community benefit district will change anything about the right price for parking. I do, however, think they will make the policies seem much more reasonable to everybody. If they use the money to make sidewalk improvements, one of the most important transportation pieces of infrastructure in San Francisco. I think the sidewalks are almost as important as the bus system. If they said we'll use some of the money to improve the sidewalks and the streetscapes on the metered streets, everybody would see that the city is giving back something and not just taking. I think if you give back something that's very visible and very valuable, the metered communities will see the benefits right in front of their eyes. Everybody wants better bus service and more frequent bus service, but that's hard to see, especially if you're a struggling merchant. I think that it's easy to see very clean sidewalks, very well-policed sidewalks in front of your restaurant, rapid responses to any cracks in your sidewalks, maybe much more frequent cleaning.

MR: Some businesses complain that extending meter hours or raising rates will drive customers away, that they'll go to suburban malls where parking is plentiful and free. How do you contend with that assertion?

DS: You have to emphasize that the pricing is to keep the spaces almost entirely, but not quite, full. So you can't say the people are being chased away if almost all the spaces are full almost all of the time. You just wonder, where are they being chased? For the businesses, the important thing is that people are being chased away because the spaces will be occupied, but they will be occupied by people who will be willing to pay for parking if they can easily find a space.

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.  

In terms of the economics of it, Old Pasadena simply took off economically the year they installed meters. The sales-tax revenue is about six times higher than it was when they put in the meters in 1992. That is because, at least in Old Pasadena, the meter money has greatly improved the public infrastructure of that neighborhood. In San Francisco, they're talking about using most of the money for public transit, so there won't be the physical improvements. You're probably attracting a more free-spending group of customers and maybe more carpools, because they'll be splitting the cost of the curb parking. Maybe two dollars an hour won't seem like such a punitive payment if there are four people in the car and they're staying in an area for four hours. The solo driver will object to paying for parking. But if I were a business person, I'd rather see the cars arriving with four people in them rather than one.

MR: What should San Francisco, or any city trying to reform parking policy, do about time limits?

DS: The other thing I think that San Francisco is doing and that Redwood City did and that Ventura has done is eliminate any time limits on the meters. They removed the time limits and they rely on pricing to create turnover and vacancies and this has been the most popular part of the policy in Redwood City. People now don't have to worry -- a driver and three friends want to go for dinner some place and they park -- they don't have to worry that they have to get back to their meter in an hour or two hours. Whatever they're doing, they don't feel like they're pushed around so much by the city.  It still creates a lot of turnover because the price is higher, but the user is more in control of their life than when somebody who manages meters says you can only stay here for an hour or two hours.

The advantage of using prices to manage parking is that you don't need to have these arbitrary time limits. I think when people say they're going to run meters in the evening, it seems ridiculous because people want to park once and walk around for the evening. Turnover is not important for that, but pricing is important to make sure that some of the spaces remain available. So I would say that whenever you talk about running the meters in the evening, you have to say there's no time limit on them. You can put enough money in to stay for the entire evening, park once and go to dinner, a movie, a bar, and then walk around for as long as you want. You have to break this automatic assumption that a meter means that you have to leave in an hour or two hours.

MR: In the MTA study, during metered hours, Columbus Avenue had 71-81 percent occupancy.  Does that mean the meter prices are too high?

DS: Yes, I think it's quite common for meter prices to be too high, especially in the morning. Definitely on some days and at some hours the prices will definitely come down. 

MR: Is 85 percent occupancy target a firm benchmark? Are there situations where you want more or less occupancy?

DS: Well, it's short-hand. It just means you shouldn't have too much of an hour that is totally full. You shouldn't have much of an hour that is less than 70 percent, but somewhere around 85 percent. Sometimes it's going to be higher and sometimes its going to be absolutely full. What you'll see is variation around 85 percent, but I think what you mainly want is to make sure it isn't full more than 10 or 15 minutes out of any hour.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Photo: Gawker

Mayor Gavin Newsom has been quietly pressuring MTA Chief Nat Ford to delay or prevent proposals to extend parking meter hours on weeknights and Sundays, despite a looming mid-year MTA budget deficit and studies that show it's good policy, Streetsblog has learned. ...

"The Mayor thinks it's the wrong time to make these moves," said Nathan Ballard, Newsom's communications director. "Right now, with the economy where it is, the burden on ordinary people for city services is already stretched to the max, and so he hasn't seen anything that convinces him otherwise. He's open to arguments, but he's still where he was."

The "we can't change policy in a bad economy" argument is familiar to Capitol Hill transportation watchers, who saw the Obama administration use the recession to rule out a gas tax hike or per-mile vehicle fee earlier this year.

But in Newsom's case, as Matt and Bryan point out, San Francisco is lagging behind its fellow major cities when it comes to charging for parking. In Los Angeles, where voters will soon be looking at Newsom's credentials, meters remain on until 2 a.m. New York City keeps meters on until midnight, and Washington D.C.'s stay on until 10 p.m.

And with the city transit authority facing possible fare hikes or service cuts in the wake of a budget deficit, it's tough to see how not extending parking meter hours doesn't hit non-car-owning voters where it hurts.

After covering PARK(ing) Day events since 2006, this year we took it down a notch. We figured it was about time we got to relax a little and enjoy the space and -- frankly -- not get dehydrated from bicycling about all day. So sit back and enjoy.

This year more than 20 countries participated. New York City featured about 50 spaces filled to the gills with people, sod, chairs, food, fun, games, and, in one case, bubble-wrap galore! You'll also get a look at "Hex Pack Patio," the POP.Park design competition winner from Samina Iqbal.

After the jump, more scenes from Park(ing) Day in San Francisco, courtesy of John Hamilton.

Police chief George Gascón, center, fields a question from Streetsblog's Bryan Goebel. Photo: Michael Rhodes.

Gascón goes on the record with positions on speed cameras, pedestrian and cyclist safety, and police chases. He says traffic enforcement resources should be allocated to the most hazardous areas, and he'll consider appointing a liaison to address the concerns of cyclists. You don't hear him commit to lowering speed limits or rotating cops through bike patrol duty, but you do get a feel for how he views traffic enforcement and the responsibilities of different road users.

As Bryan notes, Gascón's willingness to sit for an interview stands in marked contrast to his predecessor, Heather Fong, "who often steered clear of reporters, and ignored efforts to establish closer working relationships with transit advocates." By fielding questions about traffic enforcement, Gascón is sending the message that street safety is worth his time and attention.

Here in New York, we have yet to see a comparable level of seriousness about street safety from Ray Kelly or NYPD's public information office. This week, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne has not returned requests for comment, submitted by fax and email, about the fact that traffic fatalities in New York City are on the rise. While every other city agency Streetsblog has dealt with returns phone calls and provides statements on the record, the NYPD has ignored our every request for information beyond the most basic facts about traffic collisions. This is entirely consistent with the public statements on traffic crime from Gascón's counterpart, Ray Kelly.

Shown documentation last month that motorists commit traffic violations virtually unchecked on city streets, Kelly gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug, citing the number of tickets NYPD hands out. No word on whether those tickets actually deterred dangerous driving, or whether Kelly has given a moment's pause to the idea that we can measure the rate of traffic crime as we do violent crime, and track progress on safety accordingly.

Not that the commissioner isn't a voluble fellow. If you do score 30 minutes of face time with Kelly, just stick to questions about neckwear, like the Times did a few days ago, and you'll get an earful.

For many American cities, 2009 marks the second time around for car-free events modeled after Bogotá's Ciclovía. In San Francisco, like New York, last year's innovation is this year's tradition, as you'll see in this Streetfilm from John Hamilton:

Despite a blanket of fog, the last San Francisco Sunday Streets of 2009 was, from all accounts, a smashing success, one of the most popular so far, with thousands of people enjoying four activity-filled hours of pristine car-free space through Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway. Kids, families, bicyclists, skaters, dancers, and even the MTA Chief Nat Ford came out to enjoy the car-free zone.

Don't miss the Fun Cycle, also known as the Conference Bike, which is like an all-ages version of the beer bike.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

First he was rumored to have been considered for a job in the Obama administration. Then, it was the executive director opening at the LA MTA, a position insiders say he was interviewed for but didn't get. And even now, despite a pledge he made in an interview with Streetsblog that his "career goal" is "to focus on the San Francisco MTA," rumors persist within the MTA and at City Hall that MTA Chief Nat Ford continues to look elsewhere.

As late as this week, a spokesperson told Streetsblog SF that Ford "is not looking," and remains "committed to the SFMTA." We'll let you know if our west coast colleagues hear otherwise.

Just about everyone who visits San Francisco's grand Market Street is awed by its hustle and bustle, myriad modes of transportation, and beautiful architecture. But just about everyone also agrees that Market Street has much bigger potential as a space that accommodates its users in more efficient and human terms.

Streetfilms was able to talk to many advocates who would like to see a different configuration of Market Street -- folks who have already invested in making it better, and passersby who use it as a daily commuting option. It's fair to say not all ideas are universally accepted among all stakeholders, but hopefully their thoughts can serve as a springboard to a bigger discussion on what to do when Market Street is finally re-examined and re-paved.

From the new San Francisco branch of Streetfilms, Janel Sterbentz takes a look at one of the city's main bicycle routes -- Valencia Street -- and asks how it would function if signals were timed to give cyclists the "Green Wave" instead of cars. Cyclists would get a smoother ride and feel less compelled to roll through red lights. Pedestrians would benefit from slower vehicle speeds and more predictable cyclist behavior. As for transit vehicles, Janel reports, average travel times for trams and buses have improved on Amsterdam streets with a cyclist green wave. Even motorists, it turns out, should be rooting this on:

While naysayers may object that this will increase traffic congestion, it is more than reasonable to counter that real-time traffic conditions on Valencia Street have already slowed to a general range of 8 to 20 mph. It makes logical sense that retiming traffic signals for actual traffic speeds would increase traffic flow, reduce idling, and minimize stop-and-go movements, thus decreasing pollution.

Portland, Oregon has already realized this and implemented a citywide traffic signal optimization project, which saves motorists over 1,750,000 gallons of gas and 15,460 tons of CO2 each year. It cost $533,000, which was paid for by the Climate Trust of Oregon carbon offset program. In downtown Portland nearly every street is timed for 12 mph, making these streets de facto Green Waves.

Despite data from its own models that suggest drivers on Valencia Street would reap similar efficiencies from slower signal timing, the San Francisco MTA refuses to fund a pilot study. In New York, we could see cyclist green waves bringing a more civilized pace to numerous avenues that currently function as speedways, but let's get specific. Tell us which New York City corridors are outright begging for bike-centric signal timing.