The recommendations in the MTA's new parking study, which Streetsblog reported on yesterday, are designed to make it easier for customers to find a place to park when they visit businesses on evenings and Sundays. The study comprehensively examines the demand for parking in all of the city's major commercial districts, aiming to extend meter hours only when and where demand overwhelms the number of available spots. If the MTA doesn't act quickly and strategically to sell the changes to businesses, however, the study's great promise could be overwhelmed by protests from merchants who don't yet see how the plan will benefit them.

"It gives the city more opportunity to just sting the patrons," said Dallas Udovich, president of the Taraval Parkside Merchants Association, and owner of Oceanside Sheet Metal.

In interviews with business owners and merchant associations across the city, it's clear the MTA has a big task ahead of it: conveying to merchants that extending meter hours beyond 6 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, and adding enforcement on Sundays, will ultimately make it more convenient for their driving customers to park.

"I hope the MTA moves very cautiously on this whole issue and they had better do their homework, or there will be a revolt similar to what happened in Oakland," said Ken Cleaveland, Director of Government and Public Affairs for the San Francisco Building Owners and Management Association.

The MTA, though, is now armed with a formidable body of data collected during a 90-day citywide study period that it hopes to distribute as widely as possible. The agency did a considerable amount of outreach, conducting informal interviews with many merchant associations, business owners, residents, and neighborhood groups. Among residents, forty-two percent supported weeknight meter enforcement completely, and an additional 15 percent supported it if certain conditions are met, compared to 40 percent who opposed it. A total of 42 percent of residents supported Sunday enforcement completely or conditionally, compared to 52 percent who said "no." While the numbers supporting the changes may seem low, the figures actually exceeded the agency's expectations.

Christopher Duderstadt, who owns Christopher Duderstadt Machine Design near 10th Avenue and Irving Street, said it's important merchants take a closer look at the study. "I can understand how merchants that didn't understand the study would say, 'well, people aren't going to come to my business if they don't have free parking,'" he said, "[but] the reality is, people can't come to their business if there's no parking."

Representatives from merchant groups and community benefit districts (CBDs) in the Castro, the Mission, Noe Valley and North Beach all had concerns about the plan, including impacts on customers and residents. Several also felt the MTA should focus first on tackling disabled parking placard abuse. Since many of the groups Streetsblog talked to were interviewed by the MTA during the study process, some of their biggest concerns were already addressed in the plan, including extending meter time limits on weeknights and Sundays to four hours, and extending weeknight hours on a per-district basis, depending on demand, instead of increasing enforcement to 10 p.m. across the city.

Though many business groups cited concerns about the plan's impact on residents, Duderstadt said the study strongly suggests that residents will benefit as well. "One of the criticisms of the study is what would be the impact on the neighborhood, would it push commercial customers into the neighborhood? [The MTA] would argue it works just the other direction: if you provide an open space per block, people don't circle the block," causing congestion as visitors look for spots on residential streets.

Click to expand: Many of the city's most popular retail streets are overwhelmed with drivers looking for parking spaces on Sundays. Download PDF here.

In Union Square, the study found on-street parking is scarce at nearly any hour. Linda Mjellem, a spokesperson for the Union Square Association, said she'd welcome a program that encourages drivers to use the existing off-street parking structures, which are often far from full. In fact, the study recommends "[reducing] hourly meter rates in SFMTA parking lots when and where parking occupancy does not exceed 60 percent," in conjunction with expanding meter hours, which might ultimately nudge drivers toward the structures.

Mjellem touched on an approach that the city has been more open to recently: temporary pilot programs. "I like that they've been willing to pilot some things, and not fix them in cement," said Mjellem. She hadn't discussed the plan extensively with her organization yet, but speaking on her own behalf, Mjellem said she "probably would be open to a pilot" of the parking plan.

Several other merchant associations were similarly wary but not doggedly opposed, leaving the MTA with a crucial window of time to make its case. Stephen Adams, president of the Merchants of Upper Market and Castro, said his group is opposed to any meter enforcement extensions, but could probably live with the longer hours on weeknights. On Sundays, he said, parking isn't a big problem.

Indeed, many merchants said they don't think parking availability is a big issue on evenings and Sundays. The survey results in the MTA's study suggest otherwise, however, as occupancy rates indicated that customers in many districts are struggling to find spaces more than ever when the meters shut down. That may seem like common sense, of course, to anyone who's ever tried to find a parking spot near Clement Street after 6 p.m. or on a Sunday morning for dim sum.

One strategy for winning over businesses might be to do what parking guru Donald Shoup suggests: funnel parking revenue back to the neighborhoods it comes from. Even if a small portion were allocated to maintaining and improving local business district streetscapes, the perception of the plan as a revenue grab by the MTA could change drastically.

"What they should do is give 10 percent of the profits from doing that back to the CDBs, since we're doing the services that the city should be doing," said Debra Niemann, community representative for the Noe Valley Association CBD. "The least you could do is give some of it back." While Niemann is generally opposed to extending parking hours, she said such a change would cause her to drop her opposition.

Asked by Streetsblog about directing some funds to CBDs, or even pairing Muni service improvements to areas where meter hours would be extended, MTA executive director Nat Ford didn't rule out the possibility, but said it's beyond the scope of the study.

"I don't know if we're prepared to answer that at this juncture," said Ford. "The way we've always looked at this whole process is to not make it a neighborhood or political discussion in terms of this study. This study really just looks at the clear data in terms of occupancy, on availability for parking, and the business activity based on hours. It really didn't look at certain areas and whether those investments would go back into those particular areas. That's pretty far down the line in terms of this discussion."

Photo: Bryan Goebel

MTA Chief Nat Ford, at a reporters' round table today, released the long-anticipated parking study conducted by his agency to measure the traffic impacts of increasing parking meter hours on weekday evenings and on Sundays [Summary PDF] [Full Study PDF].

The study recommends that the agency extend parking meter hours in specific commercial districts on Sundays and until as late as midnight in some districts on weekdays when parking occupancy is over 85 percent or businesses are open. This would be done on targeted commercial corridors and would not be a blanket application across all of the more than 25,000 metered spaces the MTA manages.

"We've moved away from a blunt instrument to something that is much sharper and based in data that is pretty straight forward," said Ford, referring to a previous proposal to extend meter hours to 8 pm citywide.

MTA CFO Sonali Bose explained the details of the study, which compiled numerous customer intercept surveys, business interviews, and massive data gathering at meters across the city. Bose said that San Francisco parking policies haven't been significantly updated for decades and many of the meter hours are based on a time when fewer businesses in the city were open late on weeknights or on Sundays.

One of the more interesting findings in the study was that the vast majority of people don't drive to shop. Intercept surveys found data consistent with previous San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA) studies that roughly three quarters of shoppers walk, take transit, or ride a bike to do their shopping. Further, for businesses that are worried increasing meter rates would drive away customers, the study notes that increased turnover is good for business. For instance, extending parking meter hours would allow 12 cars to park in one space, instead of seven, a 71 percent increase in potential customers.

When and how the study's proposals will be implemented is not certain. In response to a question about the timeline for rolling the study out, Ford said there was none.

"Right now, the only timeline we can truly bank on is October 20th, presenting this at the MTA Board," said Ford. "Based on what we get back, both formally and informally in terms of support or opposition, then we'll start building a schedule in terms of implementation. Or maybe this is a discussion and implementation is something that is discussed more earnestly in terms of next year's budget."

Although Ford and Bose tried to explain the MTA's parking study is different from the situation in Oakland because it is based on hard data and good parking policy, and because increased revenue would support transit, Oakland parallels were ubiquitous.

"I hope that the MTA leadership has taken heed of what happened in Oakland and will think twice about extending meter hours in this recessionary time," said Ken Cleaveland, spokesperson for the Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA). "Let's delay that conversation for a later date."

MTA Board Chairman Tom Nolan countered that Oakland and San Francisco should not be equated. "I think everyone is taken aback by the strong and effective rebellion in Oakland. But this is a transit-first city,"  said Nolan, who reiterated the dire financial situation the MTA faces with the budget deficit, which he estimated at $30 million.

When pressed whether the MTA Board would stand up to Mayor Gavin Newsom if it believed extending meter hours was better for the MTA and the city, Nolan admitted the board hadn't opposed the mayor "really in much of anything." But, he added, "We keep turning down revenue options, if it's not going to be on the revenue side, it's going to be on the service side."

Supervisor John Avalos was concerned that Mayor Newsom was more concerned with bad publicity than with balancing the MTA budget. "
I believe the mayor's office is not thinking about what's best for the city and trying to ward off possible outcry that could result from people opposed to the changes."

He added, "I think [the MTA] came forward with this despite the pressure because they have a huge hole to fill. They have a growing budget deficit that they need to move on. To not do that would be irresponsible."

Vowing to push the MTA to action if the Mayor and Board President David Chiu did not, Avalos said, "I will do what I did last May, trying to push for the MTA to be funded by different funding streams, including reducing subsidies for drivers."

Parking Study in Detail

Click to enlarge. Download PDF here.

• 3rd Street in Bayview would add Sundays, but evening hours would end at 6 pm, as they do currently
• Parts of the Financial district and parts of Mission Street in the Excelsior, West Portal, Taraval, Irving, Balboa, and parts of Geary and Clement in the Inner Richmond would add Sundays, with evening hours until 6 pm Monday through Thursday and 9 pm Friday and Saturday
• Most of SoMa, Hayes Valley, Civic Center, Parts of Chinatown, Union Street, and parts of Geary and Clement in the Outer Richmond would add Sundays, with evening hours until 9 pm Monday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday
• Inner Mission and Valencia Streets, Upper Market Street, parts of Castro, Inner Geary, parts of Chinatown, Columbus Avenue, and parts of Fisherman's Wharf not operated by the Port would add Sundays, with evening hours until midnight Monday through Saturday
  

The MTA proposal also suggests changing other parking policies to complement the increased meter hours, including:

• Provide four-hour time limits after 6 pm and on Sundays
• Provide option for residents to extend Residential Parking Permit enforcement hours to match or exceed meter hours
• Improve availability of MTA parking cards
• Reduce meter rates at MTA parking lots when and where occupancy does not exceed 60 percent
• Ensure that all metered commercial areas have tow-hour time limits.
  

The expected impacts and benefits from the proposal include:

• Muni customers: Muni will be faster and more reliable because of fewer unpredictable delays
• Drivers: Will have an easier time finding parking spaces and can park for four hours
• Businesses: Improved access to stores should support economic vitality; customers can park for four hours
• Residents: No net loss of parking spaces; residential parking demand will be focused in residential areas
• Environment/Safety: Less unnecessary circling will improve safety for all road users, save fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  

A study on the parking management and revenue implications of expanded meter enforcement, which Ford promised within 90 days, was initiated as part of a "compromise" in late May to prevent the Board of Supervisors from rejecting the MTA's 2009-10 budget. It has now been more than 120 days and the study has not been made public, although Streetsblog has spoken to sources who have seen a summary of the draft.

"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."

Ballard said the study "is nearing completion" and would eventually be made available to the public. Judson True, the MTA spokesperson, said the agency is working to finalize it. "[It] will be a thorough effort based on sound parking-management ideas and extensive stakeholder outreach. We hope that it will elevate some of the recent discussions on parking."

The delay, however, is troubling, considering the pledge made to the Board of Supervisors, particularly BOS Prez David Chiu, who rescinded his motion to reject the MTA budget after receiving assurances from the Mayor the study would be forthcoming.

In an interview, Chiu pointed out, as he did during the budget crisis, that working class families and Muni riders were forced to bear four times the burden of what drivers were asked, in the way of fare increases and service cuts.

"Everyone agreed that a parking study would be done to figure out the fairest way to have car owners carry their fair share," said Chiu. "Given that it is highly likely there will be a more significant mid-year budget deficit, we need to consider all options before we consider service cuts to Muni and other public transit options."

After that exhaustive supervisors meeting May 27, Ford was asked by Streetsblog how he could promise serious consideration of extended meters given Newsom's adamant opposition. His response?

"I think that's premature at this point to assume that. I think, if we have a reasonable plan that takes into account all the impacts, I have found with the Mayor, as well as the Board of Supervisors, that they've been supportive of some of those suggestions we've made and in this case we need a little bit of time."

According to our sources who've seen the summary, the study affirms that extending meter hours is good parking management that will improve driver convenience and create turnover for businesses. The agency is said to have compared more than twenty commercial streets on Wednesday and Friday nights, and Sunday during the day, and apparently found that commercial districts across the city are seeing occupancy rates near 100 percent not long after meters are turned off. Streetsblog has been informed that the study found the problem is especially acute on Sundays, when commercial streets in the study areas see near total occupancy while the majority of the businesses on those streets on average are still open.

Cities all across the country leave their meters on much later than 6 p.m., regardless of the current state of the economy. Take Los Angeles: Santa Monica, Old Pasadena, and West Hollywood leave meters on until 2 a.m. New York City, Milwaukee, and Miami Beach, run meters until midnight. Denver, Las Vegas, and Washington, DC, run meters until 10 p.m. How is San Francisco going to be the most innovative parking demand-management city and implement SFpark if it can't even get the nerve to keep meters on as long as Bethesda, Maryland (10 p.m.) or Park City, Utah (8 p.m.)?

In a city with a stated Transit First policy and an MTA with the power to apply parking revenue directly to transit operations, there is no excuse to throw good money down the drain. According to our sources who have seen the MTA study's summary, increasing parking meter hours in targeted commercial districts would generate a significant amount of money for an agency that desperately needs any source of revenue it has available for transit operations.

Not only would killing the proposals amount to bad parking management, it wouldn't be responsive to the public's stated priorities. According to surveys from the recently finished SFCTA On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study, respondents ranked price of parking spaces behind parking availability, flexibility, proximity and safety. While the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce has not been supportive of extending meters on weekdays, they would like the city to extend meter hours on Sundays. The Port recently extended meter hours until 11 p.m. and there is no indication businesses are hurting.

If the Mayor is nervous about a fallout similar to what has happened in parts of Oakland around parking meter times and fee increases, he should take the lead on the issue by brandishing a study based on substantial data and make the argument that increasing meter hours will free up parking spaces in commercial districts to improve business. What's more, unlike Oakland, the MTA would not lump the increased parking meter revenue into a general fund as a budget stop-gap, but would use the money to improve transit.

Mayor Newsom should embrace the MTA's study, let Ford and the MTA Board implement extended metering and help the agency find additional new sources of revenue instead of trying to quash some of the most important, sensible options on the table.

A newly installed SFpark parking meter in San Francisco. The SFpark program was inspired by Donald Shoup's theories on parking management. Photo: Bryan Goebel

After the Oakland City Council raised parking fines and extended parking meter hours to help balance the city's books, some merchants raised an outcry. Merchants, lead by Grand Lake Theater owner Allen Michaan, said the new policies were hurting business, and threatened to recall the entire City Council if the changes weren't rolled back.

Shoup, whose market-driven parking management theories are the inspiration for San Francisco's SFpark pilot program, told the East Bay Express the merchants may have some legitimate complaints about how the city made the changes:

First, the council shouldn't be using parking meters as a cash register for its general fund, [Shoup] said. "You shouldn't set the price to raise money, but to manage supply," he explained.

Second, the council is micromanaging when it sets parking meter prices for every district in the city, he said. Instead, the council should delegate those responsibilities to city staffers who then set prices based on how difficult it is to park. As a result, it makes no sense for parking prices to be the same in busy districts, such as Rockridge and Lakeshore, as they are in less crowded ones. In addition, parking meter prices should fluctuate during the day, based on how tough it is to find a place to park. It makes no sense, Shoup said, to charge the same price at 8 a.m. when stores are closed, as at 1 p.m., during the height of the lunchtime rush.

The East Bay Express also notes that San Francisco is making some not-so-Shoupian moves of its own with the SFpark program, including sending all revenue to the MTA instead of funneling a portion back to the districts that it originates from for streetscape and other improvements.

An anonymous photographer snapped the above photo last Wednesday on Terry Francois Boulevard, across from AT&T Park, where SFpark electronic meters were recently installed. It seems one driver got the wacky idea that the new meters require cars to park perpendicularly, across the bike lanes, and the other drivers followed?

We're not quite sure why it happened, or why it was confusing to drivers. As of Sunday, it looks like things have been sorted out, and drivers are handling the new smart parking system just fine. 

See more pictures of the new SFpark meters, and cars parked correctly, after the jump.

Got a photo you think would make a great Eyes on the Street? Add it to our Flickr pool.

By Sunday, cars were parked correctly on Terry Francois Blvd. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Photo: Bryan Goebel

The new SFpark meters up close. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Residential Parking Permit (RPP) zones. Courtesy: TA

Throughout the study, the TA clearly embraced Shoup's market principles for pricing the curb in accord with demand for space so that parking, particularly in commercial districts and spillover neighborhoods, is best utilized to serve the city's competing interests for the scarce resource.

The study is enormous and at the end of the presentation by the TA, the Board decided to extend its review for one month, as requested by Board President David Chiu. Chiu was concerned that the study didn't properly address issues for "the low-income neighborhoods, Mission, Chinatown, Tenderloin, where low-income folks who have cars don't have access to garages. I think that if you go forward with some of the recommendations here it could create really adverse conditions that I don't think were thoroughly vetted in their study."

"I do think at the end of it we'll probably end up approving the study," he added, though he said he wants to bring the stakeholders he assumes would be effected together to air their grievances.

The study estimated there are more than 600,000 parking spaces in San Francisco, of which 320,000 are on-street and only 24,000 are regulated with parking meters. Residential parking permits (RPPs), as evidenced by the map above, have been added throughout the city in an ad-hoc fashion and in many areas are not synthesized with metered parking.

The study recommends charging more for RPPs and adjusting them to better integrate with metered parking spaces. From the study:

The current RPP program provides benefits to a select group of parkers—those who store their car(s) on-street during weekday mid-days—and does not set an appropriate price level that recognizes the value and scarcity of on-street spaces. The price of a residential permit should be increased, and this action should be carried out in conjunction with restructured regulations that provide permit holders with a tangible benefit (e.g., extending hours of regulation, limiting overall permit supply, etc.).

Given the long time-frame of the study, parking management solutions like SFPark have come online and will test many of the recommendations in real-time, such as replacing individual meters with multi-space meters, improving variable payment options, adding directional signage with real-time parking data, and improving enforcement efficiencies.

One of the more politically interesting recommendations from the study is the Parking Benefit District (PBD), a Shoupian principle that would direct a portion of new revenues generated from increasing parking regulation fees to transportation objectives in the local district, such as improved sidewalks, transit enhancements, bicycle parking, etc.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who initially bristled at the PBD proposal, which could add meters to residential streets around commercial districts to deal with overflow from the commercial destinations, seemed to concede the point if the metering decisions were left to neighborhoods where the districts would be established.

Giving control of parking pricing back to local neighborhoods, however, appears to contradict Proposition A's intent to depoliticize parking by taking control of traffic decisions from the Board of Supervisors and giving it to the MTA.

"The voters have made clear that parking-related revenue goes to the MTA and our transit system," said MTA Spokesperson Judson True, referring to Proposition A. "That makes complete sense because transit has to be an attractive alternative to driving for smarter parking management strategies to work."

Parking Benefit Districts In Detail

From the study: "As discussed throughout this report, pricing is the most efficacious means of managing on-street parking when occupancy routinely exceeds practical capacity. A (PBD) program could be made available to neighborhoods facing parking challenges, regardless of whether the neighborhood is currently covered by an RPP."

A PBD program would incorporate the following components:

• Allow neighborhoods to opt-in. Neighborhoods could elect (through an adopted administrative process) to create a PBD. If the neighborhood is currently covered by a [residential parking permit] RPP, the PBD would replace the RPP (or applicable portion thereof).
  

• Employ price-based regulation and associated elements. Variable pricing is necessary to effectively manage on-street parking in high-demand neighborhoods. New technology would be deployed to allow for variable pricing, user information, and enhanced enforcement. The hours during which parking is priced would be evaluated and modified as necessary. Conventional strategies, such as provision of loading zones, would be reevaluated and adjusted appropriately.
  

• Expand metering to areas with peak parking demands in excess of 85 percent. All blocks with practical capacity issues warrant price-based management. Expansion of metering into areas traditionally designated as “residential” could potentially be paired with an exemption for preferential permit holders (priced at higher than current rates, as discussed above) at all or some times of day.
  

• Provide parking privileges to preferential permit holders at an appropriate price point. Residents of the neighborhood would be permitted to purchase monthly permits for on-street parking on residential streets in the neighborhood. Permits should be priced at a high enough level to appropriately value on-street space and reduce demand for on-street parking (by encouraging off-street parking, reduced vehicle ownership, etc.).
  

• Invest a portion of net new revenues within the neighborhood and involve the community in prioritizing expenditures. This is the central element of PBDs. By pairing the PBD concept with price-based regulation there is even greater opportunity for neighborhoods to reap the benefits of pricing—through improved parking reductions and a reduction in traffic volumes, as well as through funding available to invest in local transportation projects.
  

• Recognize the limits of fully addressing peak demand in residential areas. In many neighborhoods, demand for overnight on-street parking is especially high. Overnight parking demand is likely to be managed to some extent by higher preferential permit fees, but even a price-based PBD program must recognize the limits of using price during very late hours when enforcement is more of a challenge. It is important to note that on-street occupancies in excess of 85 percent may be more tolerable during the late-night periods, when traffic volumes are light, and businesses and other.
  

The biggest menace to motoring since pedestrians. Photo: Matthew Roth

Your story today on SFPark is a new low, infantilizing a parking management pilot that is the envy of municipalities across the country and has the attention of cities as far-flung as Tokyo, Japan. For an agency that is getting more than enough bad publicity on things that it does poorly--and we're the first in line to harp on the negative--the MTA deserves credit for coordinating with the Port to develop the largest and most sophisticated parking management system in the world, which will allow city managers to finally measure with precision the driving and parking patterns in San Francisco so that the streets can become more efficient and less congested.

How do you cover this giant leap for parking-kind? You exaggerate a simple learning curve for a new multi-space meter as though it were a technological Berlin Wall.

"These newfangled meters take much more skill to operate than simply dropping coins into a slot," writes Rachel Gordon, who I'm hard pressed to believe took this editorial tack on her own, given that she rides transit regularly, has been covering transportation issues for awhile and isn't as bound to the windshield perspective as her editors seem to be.

Just how much more skill do these "newfangled meters" take?

Drivers have to remember the number assigned to their space and then log in the information on a keypad. Then they have to decide whether to pay with a credit card, debit card or coins, and finally they have to figure out how to select how much time they want.

To steal from SNL's Weekend Update: Really? Really?!?

However will the piteous parkers decide what form of payment to use and how much time they're planning to park? I guess they should just give up before they begin, not come into San Francisco at all, and spend their dollars at the mall in Walnut Creek, where parking is so much more civilized and free (what's more ridiculous is that some of the comments on the story essentially say as much).

MTA spokesperson Judson True, ever more diplomatic than me, acknowledged that this kind of coverage is unfortunate.

It's a little frustrating to have the focus be on the challenges that are natural with any new program, but we are working hard to improve the signage and fundamentally we know that these new meters and all new SFPark meters are going to bring better parking management to San Francisco.  That's going to be more convenient for people and better for the city as a whole.

The story comes around at the end with a compensatory nod to one of the primary benefits of SFPark, namely that it provides more payment options for motorists. Not to mention the radical departure it will mark from the catch-as-catch-can parking management, enforcement, and meter maintenance that passes for street management currently. With future iterations of SFPark likely to include real-time parking information beamed to cell phones, static directional signs, and on-board navigation systems, San Francisco will see a great reduction in cruising for parking and the attendant environmental and congestion impacts of what, in some cities, is as much as 45 percent of all traffic.

There's gold in them thar shoes. Flickr photo: Billy Quach

The data contradict the stereotype that shoppers drive to shop and by consequence need on-street parking or free parking to attract them to downtown and prevent them from shopping at malls in suburban areas.

From the study:

Comparing the recreational activity spending amounts by mode, drivers and carpoolers spent more per visit than all other modes, at an average of $88 each. Considering that they came into downtown San Francisco an average of four days per month for recreational purposes and comprised 17% of all respondents, the monthly total for each driver averaged to $259. Transit riders, spent an average of $40 per visit, but traveled to downtown at almost double the frequency, an average of seven days a month. Therefore, over the course of the month, transit riders spent an average of $274. With transit riders comprising the majority of respondents, 60%, the results show that they generate substantial business in downtown. Walkers outspent both transit riders and drivers, spending $291 per month and came to downtown eight days a month.

TA Transportation Planner Zabe Bent explained that the surveys for the mode choice study were conducted at three locations downtown (Union Square near the parking garage, Stockton and Market, and 4th and Mission near the parking garage) that were meant to capture drivers and transit riders equally.  The surveys were collected on weekdays during peak holiday shopping in late November, 2007, and again during weekdays in April, 2008. 

In a complementary study conducted by the TA, 72 percent of business owners surveyed in commercial districts said they thought their customers drove alone to shop, while another 15 percent assume customers drove some of the time (PDF).  Further TA data show that while commercial districts in high car ownership neighborhoods like West Portal see up to 41 percent driving shoppers, nothing comes close to the near 90 percent perception among business owners (PDF).

The vast majority of shoppers don't drive to downtown San Francisco to shop. Image courtesy TA.

Kit Hodge, Director of the Great Streets Project cautioned that reaching out and educating business owners about the findings should be done strategically.  "It's important to engage merchants at all points along any planning process so that they are heard and they get to hear these numbers first hand," she said. "Engaged merchants who care about their street can make a huge difference in the success of any street. They're on the front lines."

A spokesperson for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Marketing Vice President Laura Milloy, wasn't convinced the study's results were significant and didn't indicate they would use the results to try to dispel any perception among their members that most shoppers drive. She also reiterated the Chamber's opposition to congestion pricing, assuming this study was meant to add fuel to that fire. 

"I think that we generally know that people come downtown by lots of different modes, but I don't think that [the numbers] tell the whole story - it needs to be about choice," she said. "We think that we're a Transit First city in a number of ways and these numbers support that, but if we want to continue to be a vibrant economy we need to not be punitive to any mode, like a tax in a congestion zone."

Milloy added that while the Chamber supports dynamic parking pricing, such as SFPark, they are concerned about restrictions on drivers that would make it less appealing for them to travel to San Francisco to shop. "We are competing with a lot of other shopping districts in areas and we are trying to have as many options as possible," she said. 

The TA's Bent countered the Chamber's argument by pointing to the 71 percent of survey respondents in Stonestown, Walnut Creek and Marin that said they didn't go to downtown San Francisco to shop because of distance from home, versus 9 percent who said they didn't go because of parking availability and 9 percent because of the price of parking. "When we talked to people in neighborhoods and suburban centers, they said the number one reason they didn't go downtown was the distance, not the lack of parking."

She also dismissed the idea that San Francisco needs to compete with the vast parking lots in suburban malls. "I don't know that we'll ever be able to provide enough parking as the other shopping malls do, so we need to be sure the other modes are competitive," added Bent. "We need better pedestrian amenities, better bicycling facilities, efficient transit. The things that attract people to the downtown, to any dense urban environment, are the variety of shops, the variety of activities, and the walkability."

Flickr photo: andreil

Why is San Francisco -- considered by many around the world to be a “progressive” and “green" city with a Transit First policy -- still debating whether to extend meter hours and parking enforcement, even in the face of a crippling Muni budget deficit? Didn't we merge Muni with the Department of Parking and Traffic precisely so policy decisions about management of the streets would benefit the operations of transit, bicycling, and walking?

Some politicians, including the Mayor, apparently can't stop viewing these issues from behind the wheels of their SUVs. They can't see past the myth that raising parking fees will drive away business, thus perpetuating an erroneous stereotype that most urban shoppers drive. My colleague Matthew Roth wrote a great piece debunking that popular fallacy, noting that the majority of shoppers don't drive to shop in areas like North Beach and that in aggregate, transit riders, cyclists and walkers spend more than drivers. Other cities that have managed street space in accord with Shoupian market-rate pricing and curbside vacancy targets, and have invested additional revenues in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, have seen a rise in business, not a drop.

San Francisco could and should do the same, but the MTA -- namely its chief, Nat Ford, and its Board, all appointees who rarely act independently -- has bowed to pressure from the Mayor, and Supervisors Carmen Chu and Bevan Dufty and taken Sunday and evening parking enforcement until 10 p.m. off the table as a much-needed revenue measure to fund Muni. Instead, the MTA is going to study extending it to 8 p.m. Supervisor John Avalos and four of his colleagues on the Board want it penciled back in the budget. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who was on the fence, is coming around and might join other members of the Board of Supervisors next week in rejecting the MTA budget if Ford doesn't follow the recommendations of a "Transit Justice Package," and make some changes. As Supervisor David Campos has noted, asking for a $15 million readjustment is not a radical proposal.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, responding to a question from Streetsblog last week, seemed stuck to his windshield perspective. When I asked him what he thinks about the fact that Muni riders are taking a much bigger hit than drivers in this year's budget, he responded: "Look at what we’ve done in the last few years. There have been dramatic increases in parking, fines and fees related to automobile use. So, you have to look at the totality of the last few years and I think assess it in proportion to what’s happened over the years."

Nonsense. How about the last decades? We've bent over backwards to accommodate cars and vehicle ownership while transit service has deteriorated calamitously.

We're supposed to be a Transit First city, but we're not taking advantage of the enormous revenue opportunities that options like metered enforcement represent, and we haven't raised meter rates since 2005. There are an estimated 320,000 on-street parking spaces, of which only 25,000 are metered, and those metered spaces are far from market-rate. If the average parking space is about 200 square feet, that amounts to roughly 60,000,000 square feet of real estate that we're giving away for free or next to nothing so people can store their private property in public. Of the 83,000 residential parking permits (RPP) doled out each year, we practically give them away for $74. How does that make any economic sense?  We need to change the vehicle code that prevents the MTA from raising RPP rates, which are only priced at cost recovery (the amount to administer the program), and we need to charge a fee that approximates private lots and garages.

While SFPark is a great start at better management of the curbside, it will apply to only 6,000 on-street spaces and is not meant primarily as a revenue generator.  The kind of change we need is sea change, a complete transition away from 60 years of externalizing the costs of car ownership.  This kind of political leadership isn't coming from the top and seems fleeting among the majority of supervisors.

Chu and Dufty won't give in on their reticence. Chu, who gets around mostly by car, said in an interview earlier this year that she believes San Francisco has a parking shortage. Dufty was also feeling heat from the Mayor, but said he was also taking into account concerns from some Castro merchants. But really, if Chu wants available parking, she should back stronger market-priced meter enforcement. If Dufty wants more business in the Castro, he should back extended meter enforcement.

From Donald Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking":

"Market-priced curb parking will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption caused by cruising and also make curb parking more convenient. Eliminating the need for off-street parking requirements will, in turn, reduce development costs, make the land market more efficient, and improve urban design. Finally, the revenue from curb parking will either improve public services or reduce taxes that distort the economy, or both."

Other cities have already done what the MTA originally proposed last month. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Pasadena, Montreal and Princeton, New Jersey are examples of cities that have implemented parking enforcement on Sundays. Pasadena extends its evening meters to 12 a.m. on weekends, and 10 p.m. during the week. But in San Francisco? Most metering ends at 6 p.m.

Source: SFMTA

If the MTA is going to truly be an independent agency, then Nat Ford needs to stand up to Gavin Newsom for once, putting aside his political loyalties. Don't study extending metering hours, just do it! Ford went along with these parking enforcement proposals in the first place. If he doesn't make these changes, we might have to go back to the voters and change the governing structure of the MTA to get the kind of Transit First city we all deserve.

Matthew Roth contributed to this piece.

The Port of San Francisco last week installed the first 8 of more than 100 new multi-space meters along the Embarcadero from the Ferry Building south to AT&T Park in what will become San Francisco's new pilot in dynamic parking management, SFPark. The Port meters are the first of what will be a year and a half trial with 6,000 curbside spaces and 11,500 garage spaces in seven pilot areas around the city, most of them downtown and in heavy-traffic tourist destinations (see map below).

As we've reported, it will be the largest pilot to test parking icon Donald Shoup's theories about parking vacancy targets and measure the results of the data collection with precision unmatched by any other city.  As Shoup said to Streetsblog about the SFPark pilot, "You can't manage what you can't measure. [This] will allow San Francisco to measure what has never been measured before: real-time occupancy rates for curb parking.  Once city managers understand what these occupancy sensors can do, they'll wonder how they ever got along without them."

The occupancy sensors, which have not yet been installed on the Embarcadero, will network wirelessly with meters and send data to transmission boxes mounted on poles and buildings. The various transmission boxes throughout pilot areas create a peered network that gives parking managers the ability to access real-time payment and occupancy data, which will greatly refine enforcement efforts, as well as real-time meter functionality, thus making maintenance and repair much more efficient. 

MTA spokesperson Judson True was very upbeat about the progress that SFPark represents for the city and suggested this is merely the beginning of managing streets and parking in a much more sophisticated manner.

This represents a degree of coordination that we've never seen between the SFMTA and the Port, and we're excited because we think about all the policy progress this represents, but we know that this is better for residents and visitors of San Francisco. The goal of the coordination is to improve the experience of people using meters around San Francisco.

Much of the funding for SFPark comes from federal funds as part of San Francisco's Urban Partnership Agreement for congestion reduction. True explained that they have yet to select the vendor for the occupancy sensors and networking, but he was confident that all the pilot areas would be operational by fall 2009.  He likewise expressed optimism that future funding from the Urban Partnership program or other federal sources would be available, given San Francisco's unique position to demonstrate the potential for dynamic management throughout so much of the city.

The new pay stations on Embarcadero

Tina Olson, CFO for the Port, shared True's excitement and explained that the Port viewed the parking pilot from the perspective of improving convenience for users. "If you go up and down the Embarcadero near Fisherman's Wharf, it's packed and you can't find parking, but if you're south of the Bay Bridge, it's empty.  When something is priced appropriately, it's available. If people want parking spaces to be available, they need to be priced appropriately."

Olsen explained that the Port was not part of the Urban Partnership grant, so they are looking to improve revenue from facilities that are currently under-priced. "The Port is a unique animal," she said. "We're private sector on the revenue side, but government on the expenditure side. We have to make money based on the use of our facilities and we didn't seem to be optimizing our revenue nor our management of the spaces."

Like the MTA, Olson explained that the Port made an agreement with its governing commission to adjust parking rates in the pilot areas up or down by a maximum of $.50 every 4-6 weeks. Special events are a different matter. With many of the new meters located near AT&T Park, the Port will experiment with event pricing pegged to nearby garage rates, meaning parking at the curb near the ballpark during a game will cost around $20.

Building from the results of the Port's pilot study on parking management from 2006 [PDF], they will be much more fluid with time limits where that is appropriate. Olson said that in their pilot study area around Fisherman's Wharf, nearly 95 percent of drivers parked at the curb for two hours or less, so they will keep the two hour limit there.  South of Bryant, where there is less competition for space on non-event days, parking limits will be as long as 12 hours for paid spaces.  The Port's meters will also run until 11 pm.

When asked whether the Port is worried about backlash similar to what happened in Los Angeles when parking meter rates were raised substantially without thorough public outreach, Olson said that they have seven public advisory committees that have been involved with this for three years and they've done ample outreach.

"There will be some people we didn't hit, but we've hit all the people who are most interested in the public realm. Now when I talk about it with them, their eyes glaze over and they ask when they're going to be implemented."

She added: "This represents the future of parking management in San Francisco and we're on track to deliver it and the project is moving forward well. It's really an exciting time in the meter world."

Single space meters have been covered with instructions for paying at new multi-space pay stations.

SF Park Pilot Areas - Richmond and West Portal control areas not featured

Photo by Bryan Goebel

I also asked him about criticism from some advocates and officials in other agencies that the Mayor has hamstrung the MTA in some areas, preventing bold action to make San Francisco a true Transit First city.  

"I think, from my meetings with the mayor, there’s some situations where he wishes we were moving a whole lot faster," said Ford. "There are situations where we are very aggressive, and then there’s some situations where we need to be a little bit more deliberate in what we’re doing."

Part II of the interview with me and reporter Matthew Roth was recorded on April 8th:

On the funding crisis facing transit agencies:  "All of us are working very hard to develop a strategy to talk about the relevance of the funding, and it is very interesting to me at a time where we are seeing ridership increases over the last year or two that now is the time we’re going to have a difficult time trying to increase our service capacity.  So this couldn’t come at a worse time.  We are working hard to educate our local legislators; we’ve sent letters to them.  Two weeks ago, there was a state lobbying day for all of the transit systems.  We participated in that.  But we have a lot of work ahead of us, because I think the voters, this was a mandate from the voters; they wanted this state transit assistance program to be part of the state budget, and now for it to be raided and divvied up at a time that the citizens probably need transit more than they ever needed it for their transportation needs, it’s unfortunate.  So we will be working closely with our colleagues across the state."

On criticism the Mayor is preventing bold action at the MTA: "From my meetings with the mayor, I think there’s some situations where he wishes we were moving a whole lot faster, but for resource constraints and things of that nature, we want to be very deliberate in what we’re doing.  We are testing out some things with the pavements, the parks strategy in terms of projects that make the city more walkable and enjoyable, and there are situations where we are very aggressive, and then there’s some situations where we need to be a little bit more deliberate in what we’re doing.  I think we’re fortunate between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors, we have passionate people about transit.  They may have different opinions about how we go about it.  Passionate about transit, but passionate about pedestrians, passionate about bicyclists.  So we’re not short for any passion and advocacy on any of those fronts. We get an adequate amount of pressure to move things along, but I mean for example, with the bike plan, what is it, shoot and then aim?  And I think in this case we shot and then ended up with an injunction that slowed us down significantly, because we wanted to be very aggressive in terms of expanding the bike network.  I think that should be a lesson to all of us that while we all feel we have the greatest idea and the timing is right to move forward rapidly, not everyone agrees with us and there’s ways...legally, through the courts...to make sure that we adequately review what we’re doing before we implement it. "

On moving the Bike Plan forward:  "As soon as we get from under the injunction, we’re moving rapidly forward with the projects that are listed out in the plan.  We do have to bring this back to the MTA Board to get their approval before we go forward, and full disclosure, one of the challenges that we’re seeing for I’d say a small percentage of the projects, is there are trade offs and some controversial trade offs as it relates to its impact on Muni versus impact to automobiles versus impact to pedestrians, and I think that’s a difficult challenge the staff will have to try and balance out.  We have a transit first mantra, and that’s the city’s charter policy in terms of transportation decisions, but we do recognize that there is a shared use of our rider ways and our conveyances, and we need to balance that out.  So I think the vast majority of the project is pretty straightforward; it’s striping, it’s building and getting some infrastructure in place, and we’re excited about that.  And then we do have the more difficult trade off type situations that we just need to think through and make sure we’re trying to make the right decision." 

How do you balance the different modes? "I’ll tell you, I think that’s the type of stuff that keeps me awake at night and keeps a lot of our staff challenged and we’ll go in my conference room and we’ll lock the doors and we’ll come out hopefully with something that the vast majority of our citizens would prefer.  The challenge that we do have is we live in a dynamic environment, and there’s no kind of cookie-cutter policy on these things. I guess some would say it’s cut and dry, transit first, bikes, pedestrians.  We have to be very careful in that, and we want to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the city.  I think it’s very clear, there’s a large majority of individuals that feel that automobiles should be last on the list, and automobile or parking infrastructure, parking availability should be last on the list, and we take that very seriously.  We are transit first.  We want everyone to ride Muni, and if they’re not on Muni, either walking or riding a bike, and we’ll put those filters into place when we make those decisions."

What are the MTA's goals for reducing the amount of auto trips? "Well one, our goal, initially I think our primary goal, is to get them on a reliable transit system, and then if people do choose and need to use an automobile, that when we provide our parking resources, that they’re adequately priced, so they help out the transit system. If there is a parking need, that availability is readily available so people don’t have to circle around to find a parking spot, thereby creating more greenhouse emissions, thereby creating more congestion.  Our SF Go and SF Park projects are kind of build around that, primarily the SF Park project, which is real time information on parking availability, but also pricing that parking based on the availability at that moment.  So it’s not going to be easier to park, but if you need to park, we’re going to make it readily available for you to quickly get in your parking spot, and then we’re going to charge you what the appropriate rate is to discourage you from doing it, but also to support the transit system and the bike infrastructure and the pedestrian infrastructure in the city.  So that’s our global strategy in trying to deal with that.  There are some people that definitely need to use an automobile, but we’re going to make sure all the other conveyances are first rate, and then if they choose to, that they’re doing it in a very orderly fashion."

Next in Part III: Pedestrian safety and infrastructure in the city.

Listen to Part I.

Curb cuts, also known as driveways, theoretically provide vehicle access from the street into a private garage.  New development in San Francisco has been required to include off-street parking since the 50s, in an effort to ensure a convenient supply of on-street parking.  But as documented by Mary Brown’s comprehensive investigation in the Mission District, 49-percent of all residential garages are used for storage, not parking.

Moreover, a resident is permitted to park at the curb blocking his own driveway, whereas if someone else parked in front of said driveway, her car would be towed away.  In effect, the curb cut has become a reserved, free parking space on a public street, financed by the taxpayer.  Meanwhile, on-street parking is so scarce that people will kill for it. 

Curb cuts not only deplete on-street parking for shoppers and visitors who do not have their own driveway to occupy.  Curb cuts dramatically decrease the available space on the sidewalk for trees, street furniture, transit shelters, lighting, or any other use that could preclude car access.  Driveways also pose a safety hazard to cyclists and pedestrians, and decrease transit speeds when buses are forced to stop for driveway maneuvers.

Recent neighborhood plans have focused on increasing livability by flipping the previous parking minimums for new developments into parking maximums.  However, in most neighborhoods, the parking code still requires a developer to build an off-street parking space for every residential unit constructed, even a studio apartment.  Office space and commercial uses also have minimum parking requirements.  In fact, according to the planning code, once a parking space is constructed, it can never be removed!  It is well understood that requiring new housing construction to include off-street parking, along with prohibitions on converting existing garages into apartments, drive up the cost of new and existing housing.

To improve Muni’s budget, the agency chartered a Revenue Panel to investigate the feasibility of a variety of new revenue sources for the agency.  Ideas floated range from fare hikes and payroll taxes to bridge tolls and vehicle registration fees.  As the panel has evaluated options, most have been summarily dismissed as hostile to business or tourist interests.  A curb cut fee would not negatively impact business or tourism, and would complement the MTA’s innovative demand-responsive parking program, SFpark.

In January, the MTA Citizens’ Advisory Council, in forwarding recommendations to the Revenue Panel, advised that the panel study a curb cut fee, levied on all existing driveways and with proceeds benefiting the MTA.  The fee could be based on the number of parking spaces accessed by the curb cut, so that large parking structures pay proportionally more than a residential garage.  Residents with garages used for storage could opt out of the fee by painting their driveway brown, which would declare the curb cut as abandoned and free the curb space for public parking.  The CAC also recommended that staff study the elimination of minimum parking requirements in the planning code.

Hopefully, the Revenue Panel will give consideration to a curb cut fee.  It would not negatively impact business or tourism, and could increase on-street parking.  In keeping with the City’s Transit First policy, it would discourage private auto use while raising funds for transit and streetscape improvements. 

After seven rounds of voting and nearly an hour of exasperating political theater, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors chose newly elected District 3 Supervisor David Chiu as its president.  A voluble cheer erupted in the North Light Court at City Hall, the overflow room where more than three hundred people crowded around a television monitor.

Supervisor Chiu, the son of immigrant Chinese parents, is the first Chinese-American president of the Board of Supervisors, and will preside over the first "majority minority" board in San Francisco.  His district, which includes Fisherman's Wharf and parts of the downtown business district, will be the epicenter of the fight over congestion pricing. It will also host Sunday Streets this summer and play a significant role in the pilot zone for SFPark.

Supervisor Chiu lives car-free, utilizing a car-share service when a vehicle is needed, and regularly extols the benefits of mass transit and cycling.  In his campaign, he said he would support measures to reduce the number of private automobile trips and increase the mode share of transit and cycling even if it means making driving and parking more difficult.

Livable Streets advocates were understandably thrilled with the outcome.

"David is somebody who understands sustainable transportation and understands how we need to prioritize walking, biking and transit," said San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) Executive Director Leah Shahum.  "He's a regular bicyclist himself--he's not one of those guys who just says he rides--I've encountered him on a bike, in his suit, with his briefcase, on his way to work.  He will bring a breath of fresh air to the board."

"The Decider," District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi

The vote saw the five moderates on the board steadfast in their support for Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, while the progressive wing leaned first toward Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, then shifted to Chiu when it was clear Mirkarimi wouldn't get the required six of eleven votes.  Ironically, it was Mirkarimi who cast the deciding yea for Chiu, a fact he was quick to point out in an interview later in his offices.  Laughing, he dubbed himself "The Decider."

When asked about what the city's transportation priorities should be even moderates who voted for Supervisor Maxwell struck a promising tone on transportation policy.  Supervisor Bevan Dufty said his priorities were increased funding for transit, especially the J-line, and community plans to widen sidewalks and improve pedestrian amenities on Castro Street and at the Duboce and Church transit hub.  Supervisor Maxwell said she was very excited to see the continuation of Sunday Streets in 2009.

Photos: Matthew Roth

The Municipal Transportation Agency's federally-funded parking experiment, SFPark, is shaping up to be the most powerful tool remaining in the city's traffic-busting toolbox considering the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce's criticism of congestion pricing and Mayor Newsom's recent tempered support for the plan.

SFPark is the largest dynamic parking demand management project in the world, with 6,000 curbside parking spaces and 11,500 off-street spaces in city-owned garages. The pilot will last for a year-and-a-half and focus on seven target areas, most in the downtown business district and tourist areas along the Embarcadero and Fisherman’s Wharf.

Assuming the time line isn't delayed, the MTA will release a request for proposals by the end of January for vendors to install the technology required to map parking patterns in the pilot areas.   With $19.8 million in federal funding from San Francisco's Urban Partnerhip Agreement set to roll into city coffers in February, the MTA will install meters, sensors and networks within two months and start collecting baseline data in May.  After sixty days, parking managers will start adjusting parking rates, which by law can be raised by no more than $.50/hour every 30 days in the pilot zones; the control zones will not see any change in pricing throughout the trial.

Jay Primus, the MTA's SFPark project leader, believes the public outreach that has already occurred with businesses, transportation experts, environmental advocates, and community stakeholders will facilitate its acceptance. If the pilot works as projected, Primus said the MTA expects the rate of parking fines will be reduced.  Though San Francisco's parking fines are 57% of parking revenues (PDF, page 3)--a far cry from New York City's parking woes, where parking fines are half a billion dollars annually and more than 500% of parking revenues--the agency hopes to fulfill its mandate to voters to improve the management of city streets

"Part of [SFPark] is to continue to realize the original promise of the MTA," Primus said.

Better parking data should reduce traffic from cruising.

The theoretical framework of dynamic parking management was popularized by Donald Shoup in 2005 with The High Cost of Free Parking, a nearly 800-page parking and land use bible.  Shoup’s dynamic management principles borrow from the example of telecommunications systems operating during peak load capacity periods.  Like telephone lines, parking in a city is essentially a fixed supply, though demand can fluctuate wildly by time of day and location.  When there is more demand for parking than supply, drivers waste a great deal of time and fuel looking for scarce spaces. 

Shoup argues that parking managers should price parking in accordance with market demands, raising the cost during peak usage periods and lowering it when there are surplus vacancies.

Shoup demonstrated that because of curbside saturation from under-priced parking, drivers in a 15-block area in Westwood, Los Angeles, traveled the equivalent of two round trips from the Earth to the Moon and burned over 47,000 gallons of fuel each year looking for parking.  In Park Slope, Brooklyn, Transportation Alternatives found that  45% of traffic is circling the block looking for a place to park.

Most advocates, like Tom Radulovich of San Francisco's Livable City,  hold out hope SFPark will deliver as advertised:

The way we manage on-street parking creates shortages and the political response is to create a lot more off-street parking.  It doesn’t fix the on-street problem, but drives up the cost of building, makes housing less affordable, and generates more traffic.  Hopefully SFPark will show San Franciscans that the solution to the problems with on-street parking is not to require more off-street parking but to manage on-street parking better.