OR could a bunch of carshare operators (perhaps also classic rental car operators) simply buy their own meters and install them next to parking spaces in RPP areas, just as they do... wait, don't they do this already, just without the meters, or are all their cars in lots?

I was in Redwood City the past couple of days. Fricking. Amazing.

I can't believe what they've done to that place, and what they're doing. Right there, smack dab in the middle of Redwood Crappy City, is this little slice of Heaven. It's a miracle. You have to go see it for yourself. It's almost...European. I chilled outside the Chipotle for an hour or two today -- people were out drinking, eating, walking, talking, playing, people-watching. Some balloon guy was walking around making the kids scream with delight. The train cruises by (a bit too loudly) every once in a while. I ran into people I knew -- it was like, a place you could go and just hang out and socialize -- have society and community again -- give democracy a chance again. Place was bustling. Awesome.

As for the argument that SF is not Redwood City -- blah. It's just a meaningless jibe. About the same as someone saying "SF is not Portland" whenever we try to get smart with our urban planning.

Back to the revenue -- the split should probably be 50% back to the neighborhood/sidewalk/streetscape, 25% to end homelessness, and 25% for bike and transit infrastructure. Now, giving revenue back to the community is super-important for political support (obvious), but it's an absolute must if you believe in the Green Transportation Hierarchy -- which I do. SF's pedestrian infrastructure is garbage. I don't care what WalkScore says, and I don't care if we're still better than every other US city, I want better places to walk, and that's gonna take money. Walking is just like cycling -- you have to make it possible for people to walk, in a dignified fashion, to their destinations. Once you make it possible, you'll see a mode shift. After you make it possible, then you can work on making it desirable/attractive/inspiring/uplifting/etc. -- and we should do all of those things. When you return money to the community in this way, for improving the pedestrian realm, you're spending a whole pile of cash on the most important mode of transportation that exists -- and that's exactly what we should be doing -- make the pedestrian environment frickin fantastic, and before you know it, you might have a decent place to live/work/be.

Ending homelessness should be desirable because we should want to be a decent people in a decent society, but if that's not enough of a reason, then think of how much the pedestrian and transit environments improve when we end homelessness, and the many problems that go with homelessness - drug addiction/mental illness/urine/crime/etc. Any serous walk or transit advocate must, in my opinion, also be an advocate to end homelessness.

Finally, with the remaining money, improve biking and then transit, in that order. Spending gajillions of dollars on relatively-expensive motorized transit without first spending a few bucks on walking and biking infrastructure doesn't make much sense to me. We need lots more bike parking, new bike corrals, subsidize parking racks for any business that wants some, etc. -- those bike/transit dollars can go a _long way_ with bike infrastructure.

I'm not sure of the reasoning/pricing behind residential parking permits, but $76 to have a place to park your car in SF 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for an entire year? Sheesh -- that figure needs to be $500 or $1,000, and possibly more. Drivers in this town have gotten a free ride for far too long. That's going to end.

Uh, sorry, you're wrong. Not even accounting for tickets, meter revenue is a substantial revenue generator for the SFMTA. Had you even BOTHERED to read the MTA meter study, you'd see that the estimated revenue is more than twice the estimated enforcment and maintenance costs, not even including any revenue from tickets. The net annual revenue benefit from their proposed meter expansion is over $8m per year (over $17 gross). That's not small potatoes. Also, SFMTA has their annual "fact sheet" posted on their website. The FY06-07 meter haul citywide was over $30m.

Admittedly, the parking violation ticket revenue is substantial, more than meters themselves. The 06-07 parking ticket revenue was about $90m, but that includes all parking violations, not just meter violations. I would guess that non-meter-related violations are a substantial percentage, if not a majority, of that revenue (e.g. street sweeping, peak hour towaway, RPP time-limit violation, etc.).

Of course, if MTA deigned to charge something other than an insulting pittance for RPPs (currently less than $100/yr), that would be a very substantial revenue source. Of course that might demand that they actually manage on-street parking in terms of quantity and demand in residential neighborhoods, rather than just handing out permits like there's an infinite supply.

Not true. Meter revenue probably doesn't even cover cost of enforcement. It is parking fines that bring in the big bucks. The court system should never be used as a major revenue stream because it distorts judicial impartiality. If anything, parking fine should go to California General Fund, to eliminate this conflict of interest.

By contrast, revenue from speeding tickets goes not to the city but the State. As a result, we have this screwed up sense of priorities where the city is overzealous in parking enforcement while not giving a damn about patrolling for moving violations. The reason is obvious: the city has financial motivation to go after parking violations but not the more serious problem of speeding and aggressive driving.

My comment on possibly creating more car traffic heading to San Mateo from San Francisco County is just me pondering about other costs (sales tax difference, families with strollers or seniors with mobility issues - we are an aging society after all, other special fees/taxes that end up inflating prices in San Francisco, and the possibility that neighborhood shops close with no replacement offering similar goods/services) during the evening hours (post-6pm, as proposed) that may make it easier to drive south from the western side of San Francisco than to go downtown.

However, I remain curious to Shoup's continued reference to Redwood City as a model for parking management. When Redwood City first rolled out its parking plans, it was an extremely elaborate and complex system where occupancy would be measured every 3 months, nighttime operating hours, and rates adjusted accordingly to achieve an 85% occupancy. Now, 2 years later, the complex system has whittled down to a simple system ranging from FREE (Yes, you read that right. Way to promote alternative means of travel.) to a maximum of 50 cents an hour, with meters starting at 10 am and ending at 6 pm. Doesn't seem particularly sophisticated anymore does it?

http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/Parking/New/Overview.html

Huh - Like you, I question how well and to what extent the Shoup theory can be applied to a complex San Francisco.

While I revere Professor Shoup and his work, I think his fixation on Community Benefit Districts that funnels most of meter revenue back to the neighborhood is a provincial small-town model -- Redwood City, Pasadena, etc. These places are not running multi-billion dollar transportation and transit systems. Meter revenue is a major source of revenue for our transportation system. While I think some of the money should flow back to the neighborhood for cosmetic improvements and maintenance, the majority should be available to the city at large to run and manage the transportation system as necessary. Neighborhoods should not be run like enclaves or fiefdoms. They are part of a larger whole, a network. The transportation system that supports that neighborhood -- whether it's transit or roads or sidewalks or bike lanes -- is a citywide system. A neighborhood is not an island. If these neighborhoods want someone to regularly steam clean their sidewalks and prune their trees, they should levy a supplementary property tax on themselves, like many areas have done. That money should not come from meters, which is transportation money.

Second, related to RPPs. One of my biggest frustrations with the program (among many) is that it screws residents who don't have cars and have one on an infrequent or irregular basis. My neighborhood is almost entirely governed by RPPs. I don't have a car. There have been multiple times, when, for whatever reasons, I have had to park a rental car overnight or for multiple hours, yet I can't park in my own neighborhood because I don't own a car full time. The process for getting a temporary RPP is ludicrously burdensome. As long as they're not limiting the number of RPPs in a district to a specific number and basically giving them away for free (the current price is negligible), every household in the RPP zone should be entitled to have an RPP pass that they can use for whatever car they want (e.g. like a dashboard sign). Same thing with Fastrak. People in car share vehicles get screwed. You should be able to get a Fastrak that's assigned to a person, not a vehicle, so that you can bring it in whatever vehicle you're in.

I like to think the answer is no. If you live in SF, the marginal cost of driving your car to San Mateo County is probably more than you would pay in parking - but people are only vaguely aware of the gas money they are spending and generally ignore the amortized cost of oil changes and parts replacement on their cars, and are oblivious to the expected cost of a wreck or theft.

In theory, what should happen is someone that lives 6 blocks away will walk instead of driving if they have to fish for quarters if they drive. Or perhaps they will stay more local with their shopping.

I hear threats of "I will drive from Noe Valley to Potrero Hill to go to that Whole Foods because this one does not have enough parking". I predict this threat will not be carried out. Hopefully because people start walking or heaven forbid take the 24/48 which both stop 1/2 block away.

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2009/10/san-francisco-parking-case-study-noe.html

I think "Justin" and "taomom" have it about right. Most people in the affected areas will continue to do business in the affected areas and not drive out of their way just for dinner or some shopping unless there is some really compelling alternative out of town.

Would I go to San Mateo to shop or dine because of free parking there? I can only marvel at the question. Why would I drive to San Mateo when there are twenty excellent restaurants within a mile of my house? I won't even drive to Colma any more to shop. Now, will folks from San Mateo refuse to come to San Francisco because they can't park for free? That's an entirely different question, and one that could be addressed through Bart and Caltrain if we so chose. (Lower fares in the weekends/evenings, give discounts for families and couples traveling together weekends/evenings, increase frequency and convenience, etc.)

The one thing I have trouble with concerning fluctuating rates is if I don't know the rate ahead of time, how will I make the correct pricing decision whether it's worth it to me to drive or not?

If consumers who prefer to/insist on using personal autos to do their shopping are encouraged to drive themselves to San Mateo by these parking policies instead of coming into our dense urban area that does not require personal motor transportation, then all the better.

You'll still get to throw that bowling ball, and that means my walk, bike ride, or bus ride is going to be faster and easier. So will yours. AND, business will not suffer. As the study shows, the vast majority of shoppers in San Francisco are not using personal automobiles.

I always favor discouraging the use of cars, but are we maybe encouraging more cars heading to San Mateo County to do their shopping and dining? Maybe.