on-street parking management and pricing study · pricing, with a focus on the weekday peak periods...

Final Report

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITY BOARD, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

ON-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PRICING STUDY

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Background and PurposeIntroduction 5Study Purpose and Objectives 5Parking Pricing and Congestion Pricing 6Report Organization 8

Chapter 2: Existing Parking Policies and Programs Policy Framework 10Existing On-Street Parking Supply and Management 11Disabled Placard Parking 13Residential Parking Permit Program 13Off-Street Parking 16Parking Revenue 16SFpark 18

Chapter 3: Neighborhood Case Studies and Market ResearchNeighborhood Case Studies 20Market Research 22Neighborhood Case Studies and Market Research Summary Findings 26

Chapter 4: On-street Parking Management StrategiesEnforcement 28Technology 28Conventional Regulation 29Price-Based Regulation 29Combining the Elements: The Full On-Street Parking Toolkit 33

Chapter 5: Residential Parking—Issues and StrategiesRPP Program: Issues 38Reforming Residential Parking Management 39

Chapter 6: Study Findings and RecommendationsStudy Findings 38Recommendations 39Conclusion—The Role of Parking Pricing and the Road User Pricing Toolkit 46

Resources and References 47

FINAL REPORT • SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 • SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authority is indebted to the team of staff and consultants who helped with make this study possible. Tilly Chang, Deputy Director for Planning, oversaw the study and guided the preparation of the report, with assistance from Transportation Planner Jesse Koehler and previous Authority staff, Ryan Harris and Lisa Young. The Authority’s consultant team (Bill Hurrell of Wilbur Smith Associates, Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research, Chi-Hsin Shao of CHS Consulting Group, and Michael Kodama of Kodama Planning Consultants) provided support on neighborhood parking assessment, market research, policy review, and peer cities research.

Agency Partners

Jerry Robbins, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Ken Rich, San Francisco Planning Department

This Study was made possible through a grant of Proposition K Local Transportation Sales Tax Funds.

1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103tel 415.522.4800 fax 415.522.4829

email [email protected] web www.sfcta.org

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R TAT I O N A U T H O R I T Y

FIGURES1-1. Downtown Parking Supply (quantity of spaces)1-2. SFpark Pilot Locations2-1. San Francisco On-Street Parking2-2. San Francisco Meter Districts2-3. Meter District Rates (per hour)2-4. New Port of San Francisco Meter Rates (per hour)2-5. San Francisco Residential Parking Permit Zones2-6. SFMTA Parking Revenues3-1. Parking Occupancy, Summary3-2. Parking Turnover, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas3-3. Parking Duration, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas3-4. Intercept Survey, Drivers and Non-Drivers by Primary Trip Purpose3-5. Resident Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes (average among respondents)3-6. Resident Survey, Experience with Parking Attributes (average among respondents)3-7. Business Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes to Customers3-8. Business Survey, Perceived Willingness of Customers to Pay for Enhancements3-9. Business Survey, Impact on Support for Rate Increase if Dedicated to Improvements

APPENDICESPeer Cities: Review of Relevant Programs and PlansNeighborhood Case Study ObservationsMarket Research Activities

San Francisco’s on-street parking management toolkit has historically relied upon conventional strategies, specifically: time limits; colored curbs; meters; low-cost residential permits; and manual enforcement. These strategies, which have evolved incrementally over time, address block faces designated as “commercial” or “residential” independently, rather than in an integrated manner at the neighborhood or area level. In the past, variable pricing of parking has not been utilized for vari-ous reasons, but the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board recently authorized a pilot program known as SFpark. This program will assess the effectiveness of using pricing and comple-mentary strategies as a way to manage demand for parking at on-street locations and off-street facilities managed by SFMTA.

1. 2 Study Purpose and ObjectivesParking management is a crucial element of comprehensive transpor-tation system and demand man-agement. The 2004 San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan calls for better parking manage-ment through a variety of strategies, including pricing mechanisms.

The San Francisco County Trans-portation Authority (Authority) undertook the On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study (Study) to:

• Review San Francisco’s existing on-street parking management pro-grams and neighborhood parking conditions;

• Consider various strategies for improved management of on-street spaces;

• Investigate the potential for using innovative technologies and ap-proaches, including variable pricing

of on-street parking, more widely to manage demand and increase availability;

• Discuss residential parking management issues and explore the use of potential new parking revenues to support neighborhood trans-portation enhancements; and

• Make recommendations for comprehensive neighborhood park-ing management to improve parking conditions and support policy goals.

The Study was particularly focused on investigating strategies to im-prove parking management in San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods. Bay Area land use projections forecast focused growth in the region’s urbanized areas, including well over 150,000 additional San Francisco

BACKGROUNDAND PURPOSE1

1. 1 Introduction

Under-regulated on-street parking results in limited parking avail-

ability, inefficient utilization of spaces, and excess vehicular circula-

tion. As population and economic growth occur, parking demand in

neighborhoods can be expected to rise, exceeding on-street supply in

many cases. On-street parking spaces are a finite commodity, and it

is important for neighborhoods to efficiently and effectively manage

existing facilities as a scarce and valuable resource.


PAGE 5

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • FINAL REPORT • SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

1.3 Parking Pricing and Congestion PricingThe Authority is also currently studying the feasibility of using congestion pricing to manage congestion through area-wide pricing, with a focus on the weekday peak periods when San Francisco congestion is worst and most severely affected by com-mute trips. This effort, the Mobility, Access and Pricing Study (MAPS), is complemen-tary to both this Study and the SFpark program.3 While they are related and complementary tools in the comprehen-sive demand management toolkit, parking pricing and congestion pricing address two different challenges:

• Variable parking pricing addresses on-street parking shortages and can be expected to have a limited effect on peak-period road use in San Francisco’s most congested areas.

• Roadway congestion pricing is targeted at peak-period congestion and would likely have a stronger effect on peak-pe-riod traffic, particularly commute trips.

The distinction regarding the effect of each program on reducing peak-period conges-tion stems from the different markets that each strategy targets, as well as the total supply of road space each program affects. The SFpark program’s focus on metered on-street parking and City-owned park-ing garages means that it primarily targets short-term, non-work trip purposes—such as shopping trips, personal business, and office visits. In contrast, peak-period traf-fic is largely associated with work trips and other long-term parking purposes. Although work trips account for approxi-mately 25 percent of total daily travel in San Francisco, the majority of peak-period travel in the city’s downtown is made up of commute trips.4

3 For more information on MAPS, visit http://www.sfmobility.org.4 Source: SF-CHAMP for MAPS. During the A.M. peak period, ap-

residents.1 Since the 1970s, the City has successfully pursued strategies to minimize the parking impacts associated with employment growth in the downtown core, primarily through limitations on the provision of parking supply and significant investment in transit infrastructure. Future growth will differ significantly in pace and character from historic San Francisco development trends. Substantial residential growth in the city, in conjunction with rising incomes and reduced off-street parking requirements in many areas, can be expected to increase the demand for on-street parking. There is a need to explore innovative strategies to manage parking demand, both to address constrained parking condi-tions that presently exist and to develop strategies to confront future challenges.

Since the Study’s initiation, a number of developments have resulted in a substantive shift in the context for the Study’s analyses and recommen-dations. In 2007, two parking-related propositions were placed on the ballot. In November 2007, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, which shifted responsibility for parking regulations, fees, and fines from the Board of Supervisors to SFMTA.2 In addition, the Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) applied for and received a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Urban Partner-ship Program grant, which includes $19.4 million for a demonstration of variable parking pricing as part of the Federal initiative to fight congestion. SFMTA will lead the implementation of the variable parking pilots through the SFpark program. The SFpark pilots will utilize new pricing approaches and technology to improve the management of San Francisco’s parking supply in several locations in the city. The innovative approaches envi-sioned by SFpark are generally consistent with the strategies explored in this Study, which center on managing parking as a scarce resource through variable pricing, new technology, and improved enforcement.

Given SFMTA’s current efforts to design and demonstrate new parking strategies through SFpark, it is an opportune time to review existing parking policies, assess neighborhood parking conditions, evaluate pub-lic opinion, and make recommendations for both the SFpark program and future initiatives.

1 Association of Bay Area Governments.2 Prop A gave the SFMTA Board all legislative authority for parking and traffic regulations that are not otherwise preempted by state law or reserved to the Board of Supervisors. Prop A gives the Board of Supervisors authority to enact legislation establishing review procedures to allow the Board of Supervisors, at public request, to review SFMTA actions relating to the following: stop signs, bicycle lanes, preferential parking zones, parking meter zones, parking time limits, and disabled parking privileges. The Board of Supervisors has not approved an ordinance establishing such review procedures.

While they are related and complementary tools in the comprehensive demand management toolkit, parking pricing and congestion pricing address two different challenges.


PAGE 7

CHAPTER ONE

town on-street parking supply is further reduced during peak periods by the conversion of curbside spaces to travel lanes on certain corridors.

The central rationale for parking pricing is the need to address parking availability and to improve the efficiency of on-street parking utiliza-tion. However, reductions in excess vehicular circulation resulting from appropriately-priced on-street parking are an important secondary benefit of parking pricing programs. These congestion mitigation effects have the potential to improve transit operations in the city. This benefit is especially important for numerous Muni routes identified in SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) Rapid Network, such as the 22-Fill-more, which must navigate constrained local commercial corridors with high levels of parking activity and double parking impacts—locations where localized congestion is not primarily caused by commute travel.

Figure 1-1. Downtown Parking Supply (quantity of spaces)DOWNTOWN CORE GREATER DOWNTOWN

City-Owned Garages 9,300 10,700

SFpark On-Street Pilot Areas 1,500 4,200

Total Parking Supply 49,400 66,800

Source: Authority calculations based on information from SFMTA (SFpark) and the Planning Department (Downtown Plan Monitoring Report, 2004).

Note: Greater Downtown refers to Census Superdistrict 1. The Downtown Core quantities shown for City-owned garage spaces and SFpark on-street pilots correspond with SFpark’s “Downtown” pilot area, which aligns closely with the C-3 downtown office district.

Variable parking pricing and roadway congestion pricing programs both address an important need to better manage scarce transportation resources and institute appropriate price signals to encourage more ef-ficient travel behaviors. Both programs also utilize new technologies to benefit users and system operators alike, as well as potentially gener-ate significant new sources of revenue for transportation services and infrastructure.

Report OrganizationIn order to gain a better understanding of neighborhood parking condi-tions and public attitudes regarding parking, and to identify and assess parking management strategies, the Study used a variety of approaches. This report documents Study components as follows:

• Chapter 2: Existing Policies. The report first reviews San Francisco’s existing on-street parking policies and programs.

• Chapter 3: Neighborhood Case Studies and Market Research. Extensive citywide market research and neighborhood-level assessment were conducted as part of the Study. This chapter discusses the results of the four neighborhood parking evaluations and market research activities.

• Chapter 4: Parking Management Strategies. This chapter discusses the issues associated with the four primary elements of on-street parking management—enforcement, technology, conventional regulation, and price-based regulation—as well as the role for each element.

• Chapter 5: Residential Parking Management: Issues and Strategies. This chapter discusses a number of issues associated with current

The areas most affected by chronic peak-period congestion are generally the areas with the largest quantity of commuter-serving privately provided off-street parking spaces. These spaces will not be affected by SFpark and are in general much more difficult for the City to effectively regulate. In the downtown core, parking managed by the City represents less than 20 percent of the overall supply. Figure 1-1 (right), compares the supply of parking controlled by the City to the total supply of available parking, and Figure 1-2 (next page) displays the locations of SFpark pric-ing pilot areas.

Although some spaces in City-owned garages are currently rented by commut-ers (where excess capacity exists), a core tenet of San Francisco’s Transit First policy is that these parking resources be priori-tized for short-term use, to support retail commercial and visitor-related activities. In addition, more than half of the curbside spaces in the downtown core are reserved for commercial loading activities.5 Down-proximately 75 percent of person trips to and from the downtown core are work-related trips.5 Source: SFMTA, Parking Policy Board Memorandum, April 23, 2007: “more than 52% of the spaces in the downtown core (excluding motor-cycle parking) are designated for commercial loading and unloading.”

CHAPTER ONE


management approaches for on-street parking in residential areas. Potential near-term reforms are discussed.

• Chapter 6: Study Findings and Recommendations. This chapter begins with a summary of the Study’s principal findings. These findings frame the subsequent presentation of recommendations for improv-ing San Francisco’s use of each element of the parking management toolkit. These recommendations are followed by a number of specific recommendations relating to the SFpark pilot projects. This chapter then presents a summary roadmap for improving the management of on-street parking in San Francisco’s neighborhoods. The report concludes with a brief discussion of the advantages and limitations of parking pricing and a reiteration of the relationship of parking pricing to other transportation pricing initiatives.


PAGE 9

CHAPTER ONE

Figure 1-2. SFpark Pilot LocationsSOURCE: Authority, based on SFMTA data.


PAGE 11

CHAPTER TWO

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

The San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element7 sets the overall policy framework for transportation and parking policies in San Francis-co. The key general objective of the General Plan Transportation Element is to meet the needs of all residents and visitors for safe and convenient travel, while maintaining a high-quality living environment. The General Plan also promotes a multimodal systems approach, sets a “Transit First” policy, and calls for transportation demand management strategies to meet overall transportation needs.

The General Plan’s parking policies seek to accommodate short-term parking needs while discouraging use of on-street spaces for long-term commuter parking. The Transportation Element advocates managing

parking demand through appropri-ate pricing policies that “reflect the full costs, monetary and environ-mental, of parking in the city”.8 Specifically, the Plan calls for: the use of premium rates near employ-ment centers well served by transit, walking, and bicycling; and progres-sive rate structures to encourage turnover and the efficient use of parking. It also advocates demand management strategies to reduce parking demand at employment centers.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTYWIDE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The General Plan Transportation El-ement establishes goals, objectives, and policies that guide transporta-tion planning, which are used to analyze and make recommendations regarding specific land development proposals. The Countywide Trans-portation Plan is the 30-year invest-ment blueprint for transportation system development within that policy framework. The Countywide

Plan is prepared by the Authority in its role as San Francisco’s Conges-tion Management Agency (CMA).

The Authority’s 2004 Countywide Plan calls for improved parking man-agement through a variety of means, including supply-side and demand-side approaches.9 The Plan recognizes the key role of parking manage-ment in overall travel demand management. Specifically, the Countywide Plan calls for:

• Prioritizing short-term parking over long-term parking through price regulations;

7 See http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_page.asp?id=41415. 8 General Plan Transportation Element, Objective 31.9 See http://www.sfcta.org/cwtp.

The Authority’s 2004 Countywide Plan made a conservative es-

timate of the city’s parking supply, totaling over 600,000 spaces.

About 320,000 of these spaces are on-street; the remainder are

off-street, including private residential parking.

2.1 Policy Framework

Two key documents establish an overall parking policy framework:

the San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element and the San

Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan.6

6 In addition to the General Plan and the Countywide Plan, other policy documents relevant to parking management include the following: San Francisco Planning Code, SFMTA Short-Range Transit Plan, San Francisco Climate Action Plan, SFMTA Climate Action Plan, and numerous neighborhood-level plans adopted by the Authority and various City agencies.

EXISTING PARKING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS2


CHAPTER TWO

dedicated commercial loading zone spaces (yellow spaces, frequently metered).

There are four meter districts in the city: Downtown, Downtown Periphery, Fisher-man’s Wharf, and “All Other Areas”, each with its own rate structure. Extending time paid at meters or “feeding the meter” past the designated time limit is prohibited but difficult to enforce with existing meters. A map of the meter districts and current rates are shown at right in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.

Prior to 2009, parking meter rates were last raised in 2005 by the Board of Supervi-sors. With authority for meter rates now assigned to SFMTA (per Prop A), a meter rate hike effective July 1 is included in the agency’s Fiscal Year 2009/10 budget (as shown in Figure 2-3). The original SFMTA staff budget proposal included an extension of metered hours until 10:00 p.m. and initiation of Sunday metering in Meter Districts 1, 2, and 3 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, the SFMTA Board amended the proposed budget to remove these extensions of metering. In the pro-cess of seeking the Board of Supervisors’ required approval of the budget, SFMTA agreed to study extending meter hours until 8:00 p.m.

In addition to SFMTA-operated meters, the Port of San Francisco operates ap-proximately 1,000 metered spaces along 45 blocks within its jurisdiction. Port meters are enforced 365 days per year. In the past, the Port’s meters have been in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In spring 2009, the Port began replacing its meters with new multi-space pay stations. This change is the soft launch of the SFpark program (see Section 2.7, below), with the Port meters acting as an additional pilot area.13 The

13 In conjunction with the introduction of new Port meters, SFMTA has been contracted by the Port to operate, maintain, and enforce the Port’s on-street parking.

• Regularly increasing parking fees to keep pace with inflation and demand;

• Reform of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program to update the cost of permits and rationalize their distribution;

• Management of parking supplies at the neighborhood level;

• Shared parking; and

• Parking assessment/benefit districts.

Within the policy framework established by these documents, SFMTA has adopted a set of specific goals and principles to guide the SFpark pro-gram. The “SFpark Vision, Goals, and Principles” document was adopted by the SFMTA Board in April 2008.10 The parking management principles articulated therein are as follows: managing parking to achieve broader transportation system benefits, including improved transit performance; enhancing parking convenience through improved availability, particu-larly to support access in commercial districts; utilizing demand-respon-sive parking pricing as the principal strategy for achieving availability and turnover goals; and improving parking enforcement by pursuing best practices.

2.2 Existing On-Street Parking Supply and ManagementThere are a total of approximately 320,000 on-street parking spaces in San Francisco (see Figure 2-1, below). With the exception of spaces under the control of the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, responsibility for on-street parking operations, regulation, and enforcement is under the jurisdiction of SFMTA, through the agency’s Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT).11

SFMTA regulates these spaces through metering, time restrictions, curb coloring, and the RPP program. Approximately 24,000 of these spaces are metered, typically allowing 1- or 2-hour parking sessions, as well as some 15-minute and 30-minute spaces.12

Figure 2-1. San Francisco On-Street Parking

TYPE OF PARKING SPACE QUANTITY

Total On-Street Parking 320,000 (includes meters)

White zones (passenger loading) 1,575

Green zones (short-term) 337

Yellow zones (freight loading) 3,981

Blue zones (disabled) 541

Taxi zones 56

Metered spaces (approximate) 24,000

Source: SFMTA.

Time-restricted/limited spaces are typically designated to allow 30 min-ute, 1-hour, or 2-hour parking. On-street loading needs are currently ad-dressed through the commercial loading zone program, which provides

10 See http://www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/documents/4-15-08SFparkcalendaritemJPeditsforaccessibility2.pdf.11 Prop E, approved in November 1999, established SFMTA to administer DPT and the Municipal Railway (Muni). SFMTA assumed full responsibility for DPT on July 1, 2002 when the Parking and Traffic Commission was dissolved.12 Metering of on-street spaces by local jurisdictions is authorized by the state Vehicle Code (Section 22508). The Vehicle Code is silent as to the manner of administration of collection and expenditure of meter revenues, leaving the issue to the local jurisdiction.


PAGE 13

CHAPTER TWO

Figure 2-2. San Francisco Meter Districts

Figure 2-3. Meter District Rates (per hour)

METER DISTRICT

HOURLY RATE MOTORCYCLE RATE

QUANTITY OF METERS METERING HOURS

BEFORE JULY 1, 2009

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009

BEFORE JULY 1, 2009

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009

1. Downtown $3.00 $3.50 $0.25 $0.70 3,391 7am-6pm, Mon-Sat

2. Downtown Periphery $2.50 $3.00 $0.15 $0.60 4,348 7am-6pm, Mon-Sat

3. All Other Areas $1.50 $2.00 $0.10 $0.40 15,069 9am-6pm, Mon-Sat

4. Fisherman’s Wharf $2.50 $3.00 $0.15 $0.60 488 7am-7pm, Mon-Sun

Source: SFMTA. Note: the quantity of meters does not include metered spaces designated for motorcycles, which total 1,361 across the city.

Source: SFMTA.


CHAPTER TWO

which makes it easy to transfer placards to vehicles not serving disabled individuals.

The City has no direct control over the issuance of DP Placards and is only able to enforce the lawful use of the placards and confiscate counterfeit or misused placards. Combating placard abuse will require ac-tion at both the local and state levels. A number of local and state legislative initia-tives have been proposed in recent years seeking to address abuse and enforcement issues. Most recently, in May 2009, the State Assembly nearly unanimously ap-proved a bill (AB 144) to allow local juris-dictions to process various placard-related

Port’s new meter rates vary based on geography and time-of-day, as shown in Figure 2-4, below.

Figure 2-4. New Port of San Francisco Meter Rates (per hour)ZONE 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. – 11:00 P.M.

South of Bryant Street $1.00 (12 hour time limit)

$0.25 (12 hour time limit)

Bryant Street to Broadway (Ferry Plaza area)



Broadway to Pier 39 $2.00 (4 hour time limit)


West of Pier 39 (Fisherman’s Wharf)



Source: Port of San Francisco. Note: Rates will be higher during special events, such as baseball games.

2.3 Disabled Placard ParkingThe California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issues Disabled Person (DP) Parking Placards or License Plates to individuals who are mobility impaired.14 In order to qualify for the program, applicants must provide a licensed medical professional’s certification of conditions for the impaired mobility.15 There are four types of DP Parking Placards available to eligible persons—permanent, temporary, travel for Califor-nia residents, and travel for nonresidents. Placards are issued and valid for a range of time periods starting at 30 days (travel parking placard for California residents) up to two years (permanent parking placard). Valid dates for individual placards are determined by these maximum time periods or by the date noted by the certifying medical professional, whichever is less.

Persons with DP Placard or Plates are granted parking privileges that include the ability to park for free for up to 72 hours in the following types of spaces:

• Curbside green zones (designated short-term);

• Curbside blue zones (designated disable only);

• City-owned metered lots; and

• All other legal curbside spaces (i.e., metered, time-restricted, and non-regulated spaces).

The fee exemption does not extend to City-owned parking garages.16 About 52,000 San Francisco residents have valid DP Placards or Plates. During a 2007 on-street parking technology and policy demonstration project conducted for the Port’s on-street meters, it was found that 13 percent of parked vehicles were displaying a DP Placard.17

Given the nature of DP Placard parking privileges—essentially waiving all on-street parking fees and time limits—the temptation to abuse the pro-gram is significant. This is compounded by the portability of DP Placards,

14 See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr07.htm.15 Under the state Vehicle Code, allowable conditions include certain vision problems (including low-vision or partial sightedness), heart or circulatory disease, lung disease, or loss of the use of one or both lower extremities or both hands. Veterans, who as a result of an injury or disease that occurred while on active duty are mobility impaired, are also eligible for the Disabled Veterans (DV) License Plates. DV Plates allow the same parking privileges as DP Placards or Plates.16 For more information regarding disabled parking in San Francisco, see: City and County of San Francisco, 2007. Park-ing for the Disabled – Abuse or Over-Use?. Civil Grand Jury Report, released July 2007.17 See Appendix A.

Given the nature of DP Placard parking privileges—essentially waiving all on-street parking fees and time limits—the temptation to abuse the program is significant.


PAGE 15

it will be easier for violators to be cited by enabling enforcement officials to issue parking tickets for these offenses.

2.4 Residential Parking Permit Program The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program was established in 1976 to address parking spillover challenges faced by neighborhoods adjacent to major long-term parking generators, such as BART stations, universi-

abuses as either misdemeanors or as park-ing citations subject to a penalty between $250 and $1000.18 Currently, illegal use or counterfeit of placards is considered a misdemeanor. If the legislation is enacted,

18 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20090511_amended_asm_v96.pdf.

CHAPTER TWO

Source: SFMTA. Note: this map does not show RPP zone “DD”, which was recently established (April 2009) for a portion of the Merced Manor neighborhood.

Figure 2-5. San Francisco Residential Parking Permit Zones


CHAPTER TWO

Year 2006/07, the revenue collected from RPP permit fees was approximately $5.75 million. The RPP enforcement unit is the one of the largest details in DPT’s Enforce-ment Division. There were approximately 185,000 RPP violations issued in Fiscal Year 2006/07. A parking citation for a residential parking permit violation is $63 ($60 prior to July 1, 2009).

ESTABLISHMENT AND MODIFICATION

OF RPP ZONES

New RPP zones are established through a petition process. To establish a new permit area, the proposed blocks must contain a minimum of one mile of street front-age, and the neighborhood must submit a petition signed by at least 250 households in the proposed area. At least 50 percent of the vehicles parked on the streets in the proposed area during daytime hours must be non-resident vehicles, and at least 80 percent of the legal on-street parking spaces within the proposed area must be occupied during daytime hours.

To add a street to an existing RPP, the proposed block must be contiguous to an existing RPP area, a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the households on the proposed block must be submitted, and at least 80 percent of the legal on-street parking spaces within

the proposed area must be occupied during the day.

2.5 Off-Street Parking San Francisco’s off-street parking supply includes both private and public parking lots and garages, as well as private residen-

ties, hospitals, and commercial corridors. Currently the city has 28 RPP zones (see Figure 2-5, previous page). In Fiscal Year 2006/07, DPT issued 89,271 annual permits and 2,867 temporary (visitor) permits.

The RPP program operates by exempting permitted vehicles from the parking time limits established for non-metered on-street spaces within the zone.19 Depending on the zone, these time limits are in effect during daytime hours either Monday through Friday or Monday through Satur-day. Most zones are signed for the RPP time limit exemption to be in ef-fect from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. However, some zones (or portions thereof) are signed for a few additional evening hours (e.g., portions of the S zone, which are signed until 9 p.m.).

In effect, the program allows permit-holders to store their vehicle on-street during the day without violating signed time restrictions. Holding a permit does not guarantee the availability of a space.

The number of RPPs issued annually does not have a relationship with the total number of on-street parking spaces available in a particular zone. A 2002 report20 of the Legislative Analyst found that in 2001 there were 3 percent more residential parking permits issued than there were curbside spaces within the then designated RPP zones.

Each household located within an RPP zone is allowed to purchase up to four RPPs, or more if a special request is made and a waiver is obtained. There is no maximum number of permits issued per RPP zone. The cost for an RPP is $76 per year ($74 prior to July 1, 2009), regardless of zone.

If a household obtains a waiver allowing more than four permits, a graduated fee structure applies to the additional permit(s). A household can also purchase visitor permits, valid for 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-week periods, for $26, $38, $50, or $64, respectively. Business owners within an RPP zone can purchase (at the same price) one permit per business and up to three additional permits for delivery vehicles with commercial license plates registered to that business address.

Permit fees are considered a regulatory fee, and the price level is set using a cost recovery model based on the costs determined by SFMTA to be directly related to the administration of the program. In Fiscal 19 The RPP program is authorized by the California Vehicle Code (Section 22507) and codified in the San Francisco Transportation Code (Section 905). The state Vehicle Code specifies that on designated streets, a permit system can be established to exempt resident and/or business permit holders from parking restrictions otherwise in effect. (The state Code also allows permits to be extended to other groups, such as school personnel, if the jurisdiction elects to do so.)20 Office of the Legislative Analyst, San Francisco Board of Supervisors (2002). 24-Hour Residential Parking Permits. File No. 01149. Available online: <http://sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=5057>.

The program allows permit-holders to store their vehicle on-street during the day without violating signed time restrictions.


PAGE 17

CHAPTER TWO

available parking is subject to the City’s 25 percent flat tax on parking fees. (Metered spaces are exempt from this tax, including off-street me-tered lots.)

This Study did not focus on off-street parking conditions and management strategies, only considering off-street supply and management as it relates to that of on-street supply and management. The relationship between the two is very important for effective parking and traffic manage-ment: where on-street park-ing is underpriced relative to

off-street parking, motorists are encouraged to avoid off-street facilities and instead circle the local area looking for an available (and inexpen-sive) on-street space. This “cruising” behavior results in significant excess vehicular circulation, contributing to local congestion, safety conflicts, and emissions.

2.6 Parking Revenue Many of the parking-related services that SFMTA charges for, such as curb painting, towing, boot removal, and residential permits, only cover the administrative and directs costs of the specific activity and do not generate additional revenue. Meter fees, however, do generate additional revenue, and parking- related revenues are an important component of SFMTA’s budget. With the passage of Prop A in 2007, jurisdiction for meter rates and parking fines was transferred from the Board of Supervi-sors to SFMTA.

SFMTA has a Parking Enforcement Division, which is responsible for enforcing parking violations. There are currently 310 Parking Control Officer (PCO) positions in this Division, with PCOs assigned to either General Enforcement beats or one of several special enforcement squads, such as street-cleaning or driveway blockage. SFMTA issues approximate-ly 1.9 million parking citations each year. Effective July 1, 2009, fines range from $36 to $303 per violation, reflecting a $3 increase to all fines that was adopted in SFMTA’s Fiscal Year 2009/10 budget. Total annual fine revenue is approximately $90 million dollars.

tial parking. The San Francisco Planning Department is responsible for approving all proposed off-street parking facilities. The Planning Code regulates the number of spaces and type of parking facilities allowed and/or required for new develop-ments.

The Parking Authority (now a division of SFMTA) was established in 1949 under the State Parking Law for the purpose of acquiring, financing, constructing, and managing parking garages and other off-street parking facilities (i.e., metered parking lots). SFMTA manages the opera-tions of 20 City-owned off-street parking garages (14,575 spaces total). SFMTA also operates 21 off-street metered parking lots (591 spaces total).

Some City-owned parking garages offer monthly parking, where short-term park-ing demand is less than the total supply of parking at the garage. In these cases, the monthly rate is set to be competitive with nearby commercial garages. All publicly-

Where on-street parking is underpriced relative to off-street parking, motorists are encouraged to avoid off-street facilities and instead circle the local area looking for an available (and inexpensive) on-street space.


CHAPTER TWO

PARKING REVENUES IN STATE LAW

Government revenues can be generally classified into three categories: taxes, user charges, and other revenues. (Impact fees are an example of “other” revenue.) Though the distinction between taxes and user charges is sometimes unclear (thus the significant amount of court involvement in making such distinctions), user charges generally refer to fees imposed by gov-ernment for a specific service in order to recover the costs of providing that service.

The California Constitution restricts the ability of local jurisdictions to impose taxes without voter approval (Prop 13, 1978). There have been legal challenges in the state asserting that parking fees constitute illegal taxes where the amounts collected exceed direct administration and enforce-ment costs. The resulting jurisprudence indicates that this excess revenue is not a tax provided that the jurisdiction has implemented the parking charges in order to regulate parking and traffic rather than to generate general funds. In other words, parking user charges are a regulatory fee that should be obligated to transportation-related expenditures. In San Francisco, the City’s Transit First policy articulates the connection between parking, traffic, and transit that is the basis for expending park-ing revenues in this manner.

2.7 SFpark SFpark is SFMTA’s new approach to parking management. As noted elsewhere in this report, these approaches are generally con-sistent with the strategies reviewed in the Study. The current SFpark pilot projects will test new networked parking meters, parking occupancy sensors, and parking information systems. Price-based regula-tory strategies will be deployed, including variable pricing and progressive pricing.

The pilot projects are distributed across

The City assesses a 25 percent tax on off-street parking fees, as noted in Section 2.5, above. Prior to Fiscal Year 2008/09, 40 percent of these parking tax revenues were dedicated to SFMTA. Pursuant to Prop A, this percentage is now 80 percent, with the remaining 20 percent continuing to flow to the General Fund. The 80 percent share amounts to approxi-mately $50 million per year in total. Figure 2-6, below, presents SFMTA parking-related revenues from Fiscal Year 2006/07.

Figure 2-6. SFMTA Parking Revenues

REVENUE SOURCEFISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 AMOUNT ($ THOUSANDS)

Parking Citation Revenue 89,913

Parking Garage Revenue 34,003

Parking Meter Revenue 30,516

Share of City Parking Tax (then 40 percent) 25,905

Residential Parking Permit Fees 5,749

Off-Street Parking Lot Revenue 844

Boot Removal Fees 330

Source: SFMTA.

Both before and after the passage of Prop A, the San Francisco City Charter has directed most parking-related revenues to SFMTA. The Char-ter directs to SFMTA all City revenues from the following sources: SFMTA-operated meters (i.e., all meters except those operated by the Port and the Recreation and Park Department); off-street parking facilities; and parking violations (e.g., tickets). The General Fund was and continues to be an important revenue source for the SFMTA budget.

The Charter articulates the policy of using parking-related revenues to support transit, except where they are required by law to be used for other purposes.21 Prop A amended the Charter to explicitly direct SFMTA’s additional share of off-street parking tax revenues to support the implementation of the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) and to support the creation of a Labor-Management and Service Improvement Committee.

Proposition E (1999), which created SFMTA, limits the Parking Author-ity’s ability to expand or construct new parking facilities.22 The last City-owned garage to be constructed was the North Beach garage, which began operations in 2002. Other parking-related capital investments that have been made in recent years include electronic real-time park-ing information signage and static signs in the downtown area, as well as new parking meter technology. New electronic single-space meters were installed in 2002 and 2003; the meters were designed to accept SFMTA’s parking debit cards, which were introduced in 2005. The SFpark pilot projects will test new networked meters, in advance of the planned replacement of all SFMTA meters.

21 For example, the City has obligations to use some parking revenues to pay financing costs for debts assumed in the past by the Parking Revenue Fund, the Parking Meter Revenue Account, and the Off-Street Parking Fund. These gener-ally include parking-related capital investments (e.g., parking garages) financed by parking revenues when they were implemented.22 Section 8A.113 of the City Charter, as amended by Prop E and Prop A, directs that SFMTA “manage the Parking Au-thority so that it does not acquire or construct new or expanded parking facilities unless the Agency finds that the costs resulting from such acquisition, construction, or expansion and the operation of such facilities will not reduce the level of funding to the Municipal Railway from parking and garage revenues under Section 16.110 to an amount less than that provided for fiscal year 1999-2000, as adjusted by the Controller for inflation”.


PAGE 19

CHAPTER TWO

parking prices within these ranges as well as adjust the initial availabil-ity standards and targets. In October 2008, the Port Commission had passed a resolution to establish equivalent program parameters.24

Key issues and considerations in the design and implementation of price-based parking management programs are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of this report.

PRICING STRUCTURE

The pricing structure of SFpark will be significantly different than the pricing structure currently used elsewhere in the city. On-street parking in the pilot areas is currently priced at a flat rate (see Figure 2-3). The price ranges for SFpark allow both lower and higher prices to be charged depending on demand, as follows:

• On-street parking: $0.25 to $6.00 per hour;

• On-street parking (during special events): $0.25 to $18.00 per hour; and

• Off-street parking (City-owned garages): $1.00 to $10.00 per hour.

In addition to the greater price range, the pricing structure for SFpark also introduces more variability into pricing. Depending on the location, the rate structure in the pilot parking areas will be flat or variable. Vari-able pricing will be based either on time of day, length of stay (progres-sive pricing), or a combination of these two approaches.

AVAILABILITY STANDARDS AND TARGET

Meter rates will be adjusted over time in order to achieve meet availabil-ity objectives. Prices will be adjusting using the following guidelines:

• Prices will be set for a minimum of 30 days;

• Every 4 to 6 weeks, SFMTA will adjust prices as necessary; and

• Prices will be adjusted by no more than $0.50 per hour at a time.

The “availability standard” is the desired availability percentage for differ-ent types of parking. The “availability target” is the amount of time that the availability standards are met. SFMTA will establish initial availability standards between 10 and 35 percent (i.e., 65 to 90 percent occupied) for the following types of parking:

• Metered on-street parking (automobile);

• Metered on-street parking (motorcycle);

• Metered commercial loading parking (yellow zones);

• Metered on-street short term “pick-up/drop-off” parking (green zones); and

• Parking garages and lots.

The SFMTA Board set the initial availability target at 80 percent. In other words, the SFpark pilots will seek to achieve desired parking occupan-cies at least 80 percent of the time. Per the resolution, SFMTA staff may change the availability standards and target during the pilot period based on monitored performance, in order to help achieve overall pro-gram goals.

24 See http://www.sfport.com/site/uploadedfiles/port/meetings/supporting/2008/Item%209a%20Meter%20Rates.pdf. (Port Commission Resolution 08-68.)

eight areas, as shown in Figure 1-1 (Chap-ter 1). As noted in Section 2.2, the Port’s meters are acting as one of the SFpark dem-onstration areas and, as the first location to come online, are functioning as the pro-gram’s soft launch. Parking conditions will also be monitored in three control areas.

In order to implement the new pricing structures, both SFMTA and the Port were required to make regulatory changes. In November 2008, the SFMTA Board ap-proved the ranges for parking pricing that will be used in the pilots as well as the initial availability standards and targets.23 SFMTA staff may implement changes to

23 See http://www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/documents/SFMTABoardNo-vember182008calendaritems.pdf. (SFMTA Board Resolution 08-192.)

The current SFpark pilot projects will test new networked parking meters, parking occupancy sensors, and parking information systems.


PAGE 21

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Neighborhood Case Studies The Study team selected four representative San Francisco neighbor-hoods to be the subjects of an in-depth study of existing parking condi-tions. The goal was to select a set of neighborhoods that varied in land use mix and density, demographics, transit supply, parking issues, and geographic location. As such, four neighborhoods were chosen: Bernal Heights, Cow Hollow, Hayes Valley, and West Portal. All or a portion of each neighborhood’s non-metered on-street parking supply is covered by the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program.

Existing parking conditions were observed and assessed in each of the four study neighborhoods. For each neighborhood, a representa-tive eight block area was selected for inventory and observation. These

representative blocks were selected to include both commercial and residential areas. (See Appendix A for maps of these areas.)

Two types of observations were con-ducted in the neighborhoods. First, on-street parking occupancy was calculated. (See Box 1, next page, for definitions of occupancy and other key parking terms.) Occupancy was calculated by observing the number of parked vehicles as compared to the total inventory of spaces. In each study neighborhood, parking occupancy was observed in both the residential and commercial portions of the representative area. Figure 3-1, following page, summarizes the parking occupancy observations.

The table presents average occupan-cies across each neighborhood’s representative residential and com-mercial areas. Occupancies in excess of practical capacity (85 percent

occupied) are highlighted in bold. At the block-level, occupancies varied significantly, sometimes exceeding 100 percent (indicating the pres-ence of illegal parking activity). These differences are illustrative of the geographic variation in the intensity of parking demand across an area’s overall parking supply.

Second, parking behavior at individual spaces was observed in each neighborhood’s commercial area. In these areas, vehicle license plates were observed at intervals over a given time period to determine how long each vehicle was parked and how many vehicles occupied a specific space. This data allowed the calculation of parking turnover and dura-tion. Turnover and duration were calculated for each study neighbor-hood’s commercial area during the weekday mid-day through evening period. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 (next page) summarize the turnover and duration observations.

The Study included an intensive effort to assess neighborhood park-

ing conditions and explore public attitudes regarding parking. Four

neighborhoods were examined in detail through the collection of

on-street parking data and completion of intercept surveys. Citywide

market research was also conducted to evaluate preferences and

opinions regarding parking conditions and potential management

strategies.

NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDIES AND MARKET RESEARCH 3


CHAPTER THREE

Each neighborhood experiences con-strained parking availability to varying extents at different times during a typical week. The turnover and duration data indicate that on-street spaces are not being utilized as efficiently as possible. (In the above two tables, parking observations indicating low turnover and long duration are highlighted in bold.) The observations suggest that there is a mismatch between time limits and the competing demands of short- and long-term users. The dura-tion observations also indicate a need for improved enforcement and policies which encourage long-term parkers to switch to off-street parking. The observations may also have been impacted by parkers utiliz-ing disabled placards (see Section 2.3). Finally, the data confirm that vehicles with residential permits typically have much longer average parking sessions.

More detailed summaries of the neighbor-hood parking observations are included as Appendix B to this report.

3.2 Market Research Extensive market research was undertaken for the Study to obtain information about individuals’ and businesses’ preferences,

Figure 3-1. Parking Occupancy, Summary

NEIGHBORHOOD

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

EARLY MORNING MID-DAY EVENING MID-DAY EVENING

Bernal Heights 99% weekday 63% weekday 77% weekday 87% weekday 87% weekday

80% weekend 96% weekend

Cow Hollow 92% weekday 96% weekday 92% weekday 93% weekday 97% weekday


Hayes Valley 80% weekday 81% weekday 92% weekday 75% weekday 73% weekday


West Portal 42% weekday 66% weekday 71% weekday 87% weekday 84% weekday


Source: Wilbur Smith Associates.

BOX 1. Parking ConceptsOccupancy: The percentage of parking spaces in an area or facility that are in use at a given time. For example, a neighborhood experiencing 75 percent on-street parking occupancy has vehicles parked in three-quarters of the legal curbside spaces.

Availability (Vacancy): The percentage of parking spaces in an area or facility that are not in use at a given time. Availability (also known as vacancy) expresses the same concept as occupancy, as it is equal to 100 percent minus the occupancy percentage. Availability is a useful concept because it is the way in which the user (i.e., the driver searching for parking) experiences the prevailing occupancy rate.

Practical Capacity: The occupancy rate at which on-street parking is well utilized though still reasonably available. On-street parking oc-cupancy rates at or close to 100 percent are generally undesirable. When available on-street spaces are scarce, and off-street spaces are high-priced relative to on-street spaces, drivers circulate or “cruise” to find an available on-street space. Drivers are also tempted to park illegally. An on-street parking occupancy of 85 percent has been demonstrated by parking experts, most notably Donald Shoup of UCLA, as the benchmark for the practical capacity of on-street parking. At 85 percent occupancy, approximately one available space is expected per block, thus limiting the cruising phenomenon and generally assuring the availability of a space.

Turnover: The number of vehicles occupying a space in a given period. Turnover is typically expressed in vehicles per hour or another time pe-riod. For a given area, turnover is expressed as an average across spaces of the same type (such as same time limit) within the area. Turnover is an indicator of the productivity or efficiency of a parking space (i.e., quantity of users served).

Duration: The length of a time that an individual vehicle is parked in a space. Duration is typically expressed as the average length of individual parking sessions in a given area during a period of interest. Duration is an indicator of the effectiveness of time limits and enforcement.

Meter Productivity: The percentage of service hours that a meter is collecting revenue. For example, for a metered space that requires payment for 10 hours each day, 70 percent productivity means that the space served seven hours of paid parking on a given day. If occupancy during meter-regulated hours is significantly higher than productivity this likely indicates a lack of enforcement and/or a large number of legal non-paid parking sessions.


PAGE 23

CHAPTER THREE

opinions, and attitudes regarding parking. In particular, the market research focused on willingness to pay for better parking conditions and other benefits.

INTERCEPT SURVEY

A parking “intercept survey” was admin-istered in each Study neighborhood to gather information about travel behavior and perceptions in the area. The surveys were conducted by an interview team, which posed questions to random individ-uals encountered on the street. A total of 400 hundred surveys were conducted (100 per Study neighborhood) during a typical weekday mid-day.

In the intercept survey, neighborhood residents were least likely to be traveling via automobile when surveyed. The largest quantity of drivers were individuals in the neighborhoods for employment. The inter-cept survey also found that the majority of individuals surveyed had not driven to the neighborhood, dispelling a commonly held perception on the part of many merchants that virtually all customers drive to the neighborhood. (In the business survey discussed below, businesses reported their perception that 72 percent of customers “drive exclusively” in order to patronize their establishment.) Figure 3-4, right, illustrates the split between drivers and non-drivers across varying trip purposes.

Respondents who reported driving to the neighborhood were asked a few additional survey questions. The majority of visitors who drove parked on-street, and 25 to 40 percent of the drivers (depending on neighborhood) spent 5 or more minutes finding parking. Drivers reported a wide range of planned parking duration, with demand for both short- and long-term parking sessions. There is an expectation of free parking in certain neighborhoods, such as Bernal Heights where more than

Figure 3-2. Parking Turnover, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas

AVERAGE VEHICLE TURNOVER (NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN A SIX-HOUR TIME PERIOD)

30 MINUTE METERED

1 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR LIMITED

Bernal Heights 5.1 veh. 5.4 veh. n/a 1.5 veh.1

3.8 veh.

Cow Hollow n/a n/a 5.1 veh. 1.6 veh.1

3.3 veh.

Hayes Valley 2.9 veh. 3.4 veh. n/a 2.0 veh.1

West Portal 8.0 veh. n/a 6.2 veh. 1.9 veh.1

3.1 veh.

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Note: 1 Indicates observations for vehicles with RPPs.

Figure 3-3. Parking Duration, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas

AVERAGE VEHICLE DURATION PER SPACE (HOURS)

30 MINUTE METERED

1 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR LIMITED

Bernal Heights 0.7 hrs. 1.2 hrs. n/a 6+ hrs. 1

1.7 hrs.

Cow Hollow n/a n/a 1.4 hrs. 6+ hrs. 1

2.4 hrs.

Hayes Valley 1.0 hr. 1.7 hrs. n/a 3.6 hrs. 1

West Portal 0.7 hrs. n/a 1.4 hrs. 3 to 6+ hrs. 1

1.75 hrs.

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Note: 1 Indicates observations for vehicles with RPPs.

Figure 3-4. Intercept Survey, Drivers and Non-Drivers by Primary Trip Purpose



CHAPTER THREE

San Francisco residents value parking availability as the most important aspect of on-street parking. Residents also desire meters that allow sufficient time to allow the completion of activities at a destina-tion.

After gauging the importance of these characteristics of on-street parking, respondents were asked to rate the same list of nine attributes in terms of their own experience with these aspects of parking. Responses to this question were coded such that Excellent resulted in an experi-ence rating of 4; Good, 3; Fair, 2; and Poor, 1. The average results of these ratings are presented in Figure 3-6 at left.

The availability parking spaces and provi-sion of multiple payment options are the two parking attributes with which San Francisco residents report the worst experience.

The survey then asked individuals whether

75 percent of drivers anticipated not paying for parking. In Cow Hol-low—overall, the most parking constrained of the four neighborhoods—less than 40 percent of surveyed drivers expected to not pay for parking.

RESIDENT SURVEY

A random household mail survey was issued citywide to 24,000 house-holds. A total of 3,000 completed surveys were returned, representing a cross-section of citywide resident opinions with a very high response rate for typical mail surveys. Respondents were asked to rate the im-portance of nine attributes of on-street parking on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important). The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 3-5, below.

Figure 3-5. Resident Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes (average among respondents)

ON-STREET PARKING ATTRIBUTEAVERAGE RATING

Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 3.4 s More

importantMeter time limit (sufficient time to complete business) 3.2

Safety around on-street parking locations 2.9

Convenience (proximity to destination) 2.9

Cost of metered parking 2.7

Condition of on-street spaces 2.5

Availability of different payment options 2.4

Effective enforcement of on-street parking regulations 2.2 t

Less important

Information about available on-street parking 2.2

Source: Godbe Research.

Figure 3-6. Resident Survey, Experience with Parking Attributes (aver-age among respondents)


Safety around on-street parking locations 2.8s Better experienceEffective enforcement of on-street parking

regulations 2.6




Meter time limit (sufficient time to complete business) 2.1

Information about available on-street parking2.0

Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 1.7 t

Worse experience




PAGE 25

CHAPTER THREE

parking rates. Low-income respondents were more likely than the overall survey pool to strongly support investing a portion of parking revenues in neighborhood-level transportation improvements. It is likely that such a policy would be progressive on balance, due to lower rates of auto-ownership among lower-income populations in San Francisco and the benefits that such residents could reap from the investment of parking fees (in transit and other purposes) collected from neighborhood visitors and higher-income area residents.

BUSINESS SURVEY

A telephone interview survey was conducted to collect information on business establishments’ perceptions of the parking behavior and prefer-ences of their customers and employees. A total of 201 business owners or general managers were surveyed, after screening to survey only busi-nesses with less than 50 employees. Respondents were asked to rate the importance to their customers of nine parking attributes (in the same manner as the resident survey). The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 3-7, above.

Businesses ranked the parking attributes similarly to respondents of the resident survey—availability topped the list.

Business owners/managers were then given a list of four potential enhancements and were asked if they thought their customers would be

they would be willing to pay higher fees for improved on-street parking and which of three areas would be most important to improve in conjunction with higher parking fees. The survey tested three areas of improvement: availability, convenience, and investment in neighborhood improve-ments. After indicating their preference among various combinations of potential improvements and meter rate increases, respondents indicated how likely they would be willing to pay for their preferred option. The pricing analysis confirmed availability as the most important parking attribute to be improved in conjunction with higher parking fees. With respect to neighborhood improvements, although it was less of a priority than improved availability and convenience, those that did prioritize dedication of increased meter revenue for this purpose expressed among the highest levels of willingness-to-pay—up to 77 percent willing—compared to 61 percent, the highest level of reported willingness-to-pay for increased parking availability.

The resident survey was concerned with increases in parking fees (rather than cur-rent levels); respondents were not queried regarding existing parking charges and the current prioritization of such revenues to support transit. Given the support San Francisco voters have expressed for this policy, it can be anticipated that there will be continued support for dedicating a significant portion of future additional parking revenues to this purpose. Nota-bly, respondents who favored significant neighborhood improvements were more likely than the overall survey pool to be regular users of public transportation (3–7 days per week). Lower-income respondents in the resident survey were about equally as likely as other groups to support higher

Figure 3-7. Business Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes to Cus-tomers


Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 3.2s More importantSafety around on-street parking locations 3.1






Effective enforcement of on-street parking regulations 2.5 t

Less important



Figure 3-8. Business Survey, Perceived Willingness of Customers to Pay for Enhancements

POTENTIAL PARKING ENHANCEMENTAVERAGE RATING

Being able to find a parking space more quickly 3.0s More willingExtended parking meter time limits 2.9

Parking closer to business establishment 2.7

t Less

willingImproved landscaping, lighting, maintenance and safety 2.4



CHAPTER THREE

the neighborhoods that were assessed in detail for the Study confronts unique parking chal-lenges. Effective parking management requires a tailored approach that is executed in a coor-dinated fashion at the neighborhood level.

Parking availability is a pervasive challenge and a public prior-ity. Despite varying parking demands and conditions, each neighborhood experiences parking occupancies in excess of practical capacity at different times during a typical week. Across a series of questions in both the resident and business surveys, parking availability consistently emerged as the most important aspect of on-street park-ing to respondents. Parking availability scored the lowest in terms of residents’ current user experience. Business opera-tors in San Francisco believe that their customers would be most willing to pay more for parking if they could find parking more quickly.

The public desires flexible time restrictions, and non-compliance with current time limits is common. Both the resident and business surveys indicate a strong desire for longer or more flexible time limits. In the neighborhood observations, duration and turnover data indicate that average stays were often in excess of posted time limits. Administratively set time limits are likely to become outdated over time, and it may be more effective in some locations to allow parkers flexibility in their length of stay, subject to appropriate progressive meter rates.

Existing management strategies are insuffi-cient to effectively confront key challenges. Many parking spaces are unregulated or under-regulated, particularly at night.

willing to pay more per hour for each of the enhancements. Responses to this question were coded as follows: Definitely Willing to Pay, 4; Probably Willing, 3; Probably Unwilling, 2; and Definitely Unwilling, 1. The aver-age results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 3-8 (previous page).

Business owners/managers reported that customers would be most likely willing to pay for enhanced parking availability, confirming the results of the pricing analysis performed in the resident survey.

Respondents in the business survey were also asked about their own likelihood of supporting a potential increase in the on-street parking rate if a portion of the increased parking revenues were used to pay for neighborhood improvements, such as landscaping, sidewalk mainte-nance, pedestrian safety, and street-lighting. Figure 3-9, below, presents the results of this question.

Figure 3-9. Business Survey, Impact on Support for Rate Increase if Dedicated to Improvements

IMPACT% OF RESPONDENTS

Much more likely to support 20%

Somewhat more likely to support 32%

Somewhat less likely to support 9%

Much less likely to support 22%

No impact 9%

Don’t know/no answer/refused 9%


Fifty-two percent of business owners/general managers were somewhat more likely or much more likely to support a parking rate increase if a portion of revenues were invested in neighborhood improvements.

More detailed summaries of the market research activities are included as Appendix C to this report.

3.3 Neighborhood Case Studies and Market Research – Summary FindingsThe market research activities and in-depth neighborhood investigations conducted for the Study point to a number of key findings with respect to on-street parking conditions and attitudes.

Every neighborhood has unique parking conditions and needs. Each of

Business owners reported that customers would be most likely willing to pay for enhanced parking availability.


Parking is not generally managed at the neighborhood level, and the regulations in place may not align with a neighborhood’s demand profile. The RPP program is not an effective tool for addressing pressing park-ing issues in many neighborhoods. (The RPP program is discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.)

BOX 2. Columbus Avenue Neighborhood Transportation Study: Parking-Related FindingsAs part of the Authority’s Columbus Avenue Neighborhood Transportation Study, a survey of parking occupancy and turnover rates was conducted in the Study Area along Columbus Avenue and adjacent blocks. A parking inventory was also performed to assess overall supply, including off-street parking facilities in the area. The survey was conducted in April 2008 on a Friday be-tween 3:00 p.m. and 11:00 pm, and on a Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. These time periods were chosen because parking demand peaks for the Study Area on ;Friday evenings and weekends.

The survey area encompassed Columbus Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Greenwich Street, along with one major block-length of all cross streets in either direction, including any minor streets intersecting these cross streets within the major block-length. The area includes high-density residential land uses with little off-street parking that border four major commercial corridors—Co-lumbus, Broadway, Stockton Street, and Grant Avenue.

FINDINGS

The below table summarizes the Study’s key findings with respect to parking in the Columbus Avenue corridor:

SUPPLY Seventy-six percent of all curbside parking spaces in the study area are either regular metered spaces or RPP spaces available for general use.

Approximately 56 percent of the survey area’s general use auto spaces are located in off-street lots and garages.

Prices for short-term parking (less than two hours) at off-street sites are, on average, roughly two to six times higher than meter rates.

OCCUPANCY On-street spaces are largely full, while off-street spaces are below capacity.

On-street parking remains near capacity on Saturday even when it is priced, suggesting that on-street parking is underpriced and that awareness of off-street parking options is low.

On-street parking is not priced at all during its peak period (evenings).

Long-term parking by residents contributes to the shortage of available short-term parking.

TURNOVER Meter violation rates are greater than 20 percent.

Residents complete with visitors for on-street parking.

There are three main conclusions from the Columbus Avenue Study that are relevant to this report. First, the study area experi-ences its greatest parking demand on weekends, particularly during the evening. Current parking policies in San Francisco are geared towards weekday, business hour management; thus in the Columbus corridor, the periods during which parking manage-ment is most needed are precisely those hours in which it largely does not exist.

Second, the Study area does not suffer from an overall shortage of parking; the central issue is the scarcity of short-term park-ing. This is primarily due to residents and other long-term parkers occupying on-street parking. If some long-term parkers could be encouraged to park in off-street sites, on-street parking would be more available for short-term uses.

Finally, there is a large discrepancy between the amounts paid to park on-street versus off-street. The Columbus Study found that approximately 40 percent of respondents who drive to the area do not pay for parking, while drivers that park off-street typically pay more than $10 to do so. Given that there is a strong relationship between the price of and demand for parking in the survey area, current pricing policies encourage parkers to circle in search of cheap on-street spaces rather than use available, but more expensive, off-street supplies.

Source: Columbus Avenue Neighborhood Transportation Study, 2009. See http://www.sfcta.org/columbus.

Willingness to pay generally improves if parking is improved and/or neighborhood improvements are provided. In both the resident and business surveys, respondents prioritized availability and convenience for improvement in conjunction with higher parking rates. Although neighborhood improvements were less frequently the top priority, those that did strongly favor neighborhood improvements expressed among the highest willingness-to-pay. In the business survey, more than half of business owners/general managers reported that they would be more


CHAPTER THREE

likely to support a parking rate increase if some revenues were dedicated to neighborhood improvements. Though parking availability is the most important rationale for parking pricing, the use of proceeds from higher parking rates to fund neighborhood improvements is an important associated benefit that helps generate support for parking pricing by returning tangible improvements and/or services to the neighborhood.

Box 2, previous page, presents key parking-related findings from the Au-thority’s Columbus Avenue Neighborhood Transportation Study, which will be completed in 2009. The Columbus Study’s findings echo many of the issues raised in this chapter.

Though parking availability is the most important rationale for parking pricing, the use of proceeds from higher parking rates to fund neighborhood improvements is an important associated benefit that helps generate support for parking pricing by returning tangible improvements and/or services to the neighborhood.


PAGE 29

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 EnforcementThe enforcement of parking regula-tions is typically accomplished by the issuance of parking citations/fines, as well as further measures such as towing and booting. Effec-tive and sufficient enforcement is crucial to ensuring the efficacy of parking regulations and is a neces-sary component of any parking management program. Enforce-ment also serves to support certain public safety and transit and traffic management objectives, such as through maintaining access to fire hydrants and removing double-parked vehicles and vehicles parked in tow-away or transit-only lanes.

On-street parking enforcement in San Francisco is constrained by the limited number of parking control officers (PCOs). More effective on-

street parking management through improved enforcement is desirable but faces two primary challenges: 1) surmounting the growth in public skepticism, evasion, and hostility as parking rates and fines have risen in recent years; and 2) enhancing the effectiveness and responsiveness of parking control activities.

An important strategy to help reduce public tensions and enhance compliance is to improve parking convenience and demonstrate more comprehensive parking and transportation benefits to those who pay parking charges and to the public in general. This includes investment in new payment options to increase convenience for parkers; networked detection and payment technologies to enable more targeted enforce-ment and increase cost-effectiveness; real-time information about park-ing availability and pricing to aid motorist decision-making; and more re-sponsive, up-to-date regulation to balance on-street demand and supply.

Ultimately, enforcement is only effective if the underlying regulations

Cities have a wide range of strategies at their disposal for more ef-

fectively utilizing and managing scarce on-street parking supplies.

These management strategies typically involve some combination of

four primary elements: enforcement, technology, conventional regu-

lation, and price-based regulation. This chapter discusses important

considerations and issues associated with the deployment of each of

these elements, including their interrelationships.

ON-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 4


CHAPTER FOUR

a number of weaknesses. It is not very responsive, because institutional capacities limit the scale and frequency of assess-ments of area parking conditions. Sec-ondly, the process is not transparent to the public, particularly the affected neighbor-hoods. Under the current system, residents may not perceive a clear rationale for the particular parking management regime in their neighborhood (e.g., why certain blocks are regulated in a particular manner while others may be managed differently).

Conventional regulation also has a tenuous connection to broader Transit First policy goals. This is largely due to the fact that it is a challenge to leverage conventional strategies to meet specific performance objectives that would support the City’s transportation goals. Even if the mix of regulations is adjusted to better shape a neighborhood’s desired demand profile (such as by setting and enforcing time limits to encourage short-term use), con-ventional regulations are inadequate for tackling parking challenges when demand is high and practical capacity limits are routinely exceeded.

Despite the limitations of conventional regulation, this element of parking man-

are appropriate and sufficient to address the parking challenges in a given area and enforcement officials have the appropriate tools to carry out their work. Enforcement is a necessary but not sufficient element of comprehensive parking management; other technology and regula-tory strategies are necessary to improve parking conditions and support overall goals for the transportation system.

4.2 TechnologyTechnology, as with enforcement, is a cross-cutting element of the park-

ing management toolkit. Technology can be expected to play a role in any initiative to enhance enforcement, improve con-ventional regulation, and/or implement price-based regulation. The use of more advanced technology in parking manage-ment is increasing and includes such strategies as electronic and mobile device payment options, networked meters and occupancy sensors, and real-time information that can be disseminated via on-street signage and the internet.

The implementation and operating costs of new technologies varies considerably. In general, a significant investment is necessary, and the expected revenue stream (including operations and maintenance costs) should be assessed in order to evaluate lifecycle cost-effectiveness. The SFpark pilot projects are a crucial opportunity to assess these costs and revenues in a comprehensive and transparent manner.

System architecture and design is an important dimension of on-street parking technology. Highly-networked systems—such as those necessary for pay-by-phone channels and real-time user and operator information—are appealing in terms of the variety of potential applica-tions. However, such systems require expert network management and administration. Even more sophisticated interoperability capabilities are already on SFMTA’s radar, such as integration of parking payment systems with regional payment platforms (i.e., FasTrak, TransLink) and of parking information systems with local and regional networks (e.g., 311, 511). In the future, there are likely to be further opportunities for cross-functionality, such as by including parking-payment features in the design of transit ticket vending machines (TVMs) or vice versa.

4.3 Conventional RegulationConventional regulatory strategies have long been the cornerstone of on-street parking policies and programs in San Francisco and include: traditional metering, time limits, residential permits, and colored curbs. Although some of these strategies utilize a fee, as in the case of meters, conventional regulation does not utilize variable or demand-based pric-ing as a central tool in meeting performance objectives for availability or utilization of on-street parking supply.

Conventional regulation necessitates an administrative process by which parking conditions are periodically observed and modifications to the “mix” of regulations are undertaken. This administrative process has

Conventional regulatory strategies have long been the cornerstone of on-street parking policies and programs in San Francisco and include: traditional metering, time limits, residential permits, and colored curbs.


PAGE 31

CHAPTER FOUR

approaches provide a neces-sary but often insufficient set of strategies for address-ing the imbalance be-tween parking supply and demand—and associated negative impacts, namely, excess traffic from circling vehicles—in parking-con-strained neighborhoods.

It is important to note that price-based regulation should be accompa-nied by a clear exposition of the use of incremental revenue, if any is generated. Policies regarding the use of revenue should be transparent, demonstrate a nexus with the payer (parker), and seek the support of key neighborhood stakeholders—e.g., merchants and residents in the area being priced. Examples of the reinvestment of funds to benefit parkers include real-time parking information systems and provision of multiple payment channels. Examples of mechanisms to benefit the priced neighborhood include local transportation projects, improved enforcement, and increased transit service. This revenue approach is es-sential for demonstrating comprehensive pricing policy and for gener-ating public support by delivering direct benefits to those who pay for parking and to the areas affected by the pricing program.

SUPPORTING STRATEGIES FOR PRICE-BASED MANAGEMENT

Effective price-based regulation requires attention to several associated strategies:

• Coordinate on- and off-street parking prices. On- and off-street spaces should not be expected to be equal, but a closer level of parity be-tween the two will reduce parkers’ tendency to search for on-street parking.

• Adjust metering time periods. This strategy is dependent on a diag-nosis of parking demand through parking occupancy studies and is balanced by the feasibility of providing sufficient enforcement during additional metered time periods, particularly late at night.

• Deploy new technology to improve the user experience and enhance system operation. Variable pricing requires meters that allow rates to vary according to a given pricing policy. These “smart” technologies also improve payment convenience and can provide real-time infor-mation to the end-user and system manager. To date, the City’s cash based parking meter technology has been a barrier to using price as a primary form of regulation. The introduction of DPT’s stored-value parking cards in 2005 offered some opportunity to raise rates, but these cards are not widely available in neighborhood outlets and are not easy for occasional parkers to utilize.

• Improve the use of conventional strategies and manage parking on an area-wide basis. Conventional strategies, such as designating sufficient space for commercial loading, remain important when price-based regulation is employed. The implementation of demand-responsive parking pricing heightens the need to manage parking at the neighborhood or area level. Parking pricing should be coordi-

agement provides a host of useful tools, which are familiar to the public and are readily implemented and administered. These tools—paired with effective and sufficient enforcement—play a key role in on-street parking management, and are quite effective at managing on-street park-ing supplies in those areas without severe parking availability issues.

4.4 Price-Based RegulationPrice-based regulation encompasses strategies which leverage the sensitivity of drivers to parking price in order to achieve one or more performance objectives. The primary price-based strategies are as fol-lows:

• Set on-street parking rates to achieve an availability target. This strategy is referred to as variable pricing. Meter rates are set (and periodically ad-justed) with the goal of achieving an occupancy level of approximately 85 percent. Prices can vary in multiples ways: across the course of the day as demand varies (time-of-day pricing); and geographically as demand varies with distance from high-demand areas such as a commercial core (geographic/differential pricing).

• Charge higher rates for successive time periods. This strategy is referred to as progressive pricing or length-of-stay pricing. Progressive pricing can be implemented in conjunction with re-laxed time limits. By charging a higher hourly meter rate for each additional hour, short-term parking is encouraged and turnover increases, while providing flexibility and convenience to users.

Price-based regulation differs from conven-tional regulation in that pricing acts as the central mechanism for managing the inter-action of supply and demand. Convention-al parking management and enforcement

Price-based regulation should be accompanied by a clear exposition of the use of incremental revenue, if any is generated.


CHAPTER FOUR

ly lower rates as a function of distance from the neighborhood core. Existing conditions surveys, as well as ongo-ing monitoring and evaluation, must inform the need for specific policies in different locations.

• Performance Objectives. As this Study stresses, parking availability is the primary performance objective of on-street parking pricing. Occupancy can be readily measured using inexpensive space-level sensor technology. A park-ing pricing program can also target a utilization objective by setting a goal for the desired minimum number of vehicles utilizing a certain type of space on average each day.

• Evaluation and Adjustment. Demand-responsive parking rates must be flexible to allow parkers to adjust to the new program, to allow managers to find a price structure that achieves the availability target, and to subsequently allow rates to be periodically adjusted as land use and travel behavior change over time. Adjustments to parking rates should be conducted in a trans-parent manner and performed regu-larly according to an adopted schedule, such as monthly or quarterly.

• Accounting. The nature of the revenue stream associated with price-based management is typically much different than that of conventional metering and enforcement. For example, the propor-tion of parking revenues from meters versus fines can be expected to change. Overall fee revenue is likely to rise in the locations with variable pricing (i.e., high parking demand areas), especially if credit cards and other convenient payment options are offered. As this occurs, however, fine revenue may decline. Capital, maintenance, and ad-ministration costs should also be evalu-ated. A high degree of transparency

nated with the conven-tional strategies utilized both in the variably-priced zone and in the adjacent areas.

• Provide sufficient enforcement. When parking policies change, enforcement is espe-cially important. New technologies put in place to facilitate vari-able pricing can also help to improve the responsiveness and effectiveness of parking enforcement.

DIMENSIONS OF A PRICE-BASED PROGRAM

Because it is a new tool in the parking management toolkit, it is useful to elaborate on several key considerations for any implementation of vari-able parking pricing. The central dimensions requiring attention when designing and administering a parking pricing program are as follows:

• Geography; Time Periods. Demand-responsive pricing is warranted in any area/time period where practical on-street parking capacity (85 percent occupied) is exceeded on a regular basis. In practice, this principle is tempered in some cases by the feasibility (and/or public acceptability) of certain metering, such as very late at night.

• Price Levels. Demand-responsive pricing programs often observe an adopted price ceiling—an hourly price that meters will not exceed, even if high parking demand results in occupancies in excess of what is desirable. This is to ensure some public policy attention to user equity and accessibility concerns. A program may also observe a price floor—the lowest hourly price in effect during enforced hours. The number of unique rates should be kept to a minimum and should be in simple increments.

• Equity Issues. The planning and implementation of price-based park-ing management strategies require particular attention to issues of transportation equity. As noted in the above discussion of price levels, there may be a need and/or desire to include certain program elements to mitigate potential impacts on particular user classes. This depends on an assessment and articulation of program costs and revenues, including how net revenues are expended. Impacts of the parking management program should be assessed in light of the over-all transportation funding, service, and management environment.

• Pricing Strategy. The two primary price-based strategies for on-street parking are variable pricing and progressive (length-of-stay) pricing. The strategies can be implemented individually; under somewhat more elaborate pricing structures, the two strategies can be imple-mented simultaneously. Either or both may be combined with geo-graphic/differential pricing, which assigns the highest hourly rates to the main commercial corridor in the neighborhood, with progressive-

Demand-responsive parking rates must be flexible to allow parkers to adjust to the new program, managers to find a price structure that achieves the availability target, and rates to be periodically adjusted as land use and travel behavior change.


PAGE 33

CHAPTER FOUR

of the program in meeting these objectives. The demonstrable system performance focus (rather than revenue generation) helps to mitigate public skepticism of parking regulation, particularly a program that utilizes price as the central management mechanism. A transparent and comprehensive accounting of program costs and revenues is also neces-sary to demonstrate the efficacy and impacts of a demand-responsive approach.

Because land use, parking demand, price sensitivity, and myriad other factors vary across locations, variable pricing must be tailored to the needs and conditions of individual neighborhoods. To a significant extent, this will occur naturally as different neighborhoods will require

and public accounting of parking costs and revenues is a crucial component of gaining public trust and support for price-based regulation. Careful account-ing is also a component of program evaluation, especially the assessment of how different neighborhoods or areas respond to different price levels and pricing strategies.

• Use of Revenues. Price-based manage-ment requires clear and accountable policies regarding the use of on-street parking revenues. A neighborhood-spe-cific approach is supported by dedicat-ing a significant portion of net new revenue from pricing to investments in the area in which the new parking revenue is collected. This helps to: ensure that tangible benefits accrue to areas that are priced; mitigate local im-pacts; and generate public support. The investment program must be subject to the input of the general public with targeted outreach to stakeholders in the affected community. Parking Ben-efit Districts, discussed in Box 3, right, have been successfully implemented in other cities to facilitate neighborhood-level prioritization of a portion of parking-related revenues.

• Education and Outreach. Most users are unfamiliar with variably priced on-street parking. As such, efforts are necessary to educate the public and neighborhood stakeholders regarding any new program. Front-end systems should be intuitively designed and convenient to use.

The multiple dimensions of price-based regulation must function collectively and coherently for a program to be success-ful—that is, meet performance objectives, be financially feasible, and enjoy public support. The setting of clear and rational performance objectives is supported by ongoing monitoring to assess the success

BOX 3. Parking Benefit Districts and the San Diego ExampleA useful tool for both conventional and—in particular—priced-based management strategies has been the designation of parking benefit dis-tricts (PBDs) where some or all parking revenue is reinvested in parking and transportation improvements in the area in which parking fees are collected. PBDs receive some or all of the net parking revenue generat-ed within the district and invest the funds to support a variety of parking

and transportation-related improvement projects. Numerous cities such as Pasadena, Redwood City, San Diego, and Austin (Tex-as) have created parking district programs that use parking revenues to improve local areas. Often, the use of district funds is prioritized by a community-designated (or

appointed) body. San Diego’s program is briefly described below. Further detail and examples from other cities are included in Appendix A.

SAN DIEGO’S COMMUNITY PARKING DISTRICTS PROGRAM

In 1997, the City of San Diego established the Community Parking District (CPD) program. The CPD program returns 45 percent of the revenue from parking meters and certain other parking-related revenues (e.g., parking in-lieu development fees and valet parking fees) to the designated parking districts. The CPDs then prioritize these funds for projects that manage parking supply, including demand management through investment in alternative modes.

There are currently six CPDs, each with its own Advisory Board. When each CPD is established, it must propose a legal entity, either existing or new, to be its Advisory Board. The governing legislation allows the following entities to be so designated: business improvement districts; redevelopment corporations; community-development organization; or non-profits organizations approved by the City Council.

Each Advisory Board has its own selection process, and members usually consist of local residents and business representatives. For example, the Advisory Board for the La Jolla CPD has nine board members, seven of which are appointees from local community organizations and two of which are at-large positions (one a business owner and one a resident).

The Advisory Board for each CPD also sets the district’s priorities (within the confines of allowable expenditures) and develops a plan for submittal to the City Council regarding the use of parking revenues for neighborhood projects. Each CPD recommends a member of its Board to fill a seat on the citywide Community Parking District Advisory Board.


CHAPTER FOUR

different policies (e.g., price level, hours of regulation, etc.) in order for each to meet comparable availability targets.

Implementation of demand-responsive pricing should also improve the effectiveness of enforcement activity and reduce illegal parking and the likelihood of receiving a citation. New technology deployed for

demand-responsive pricing facilitates more convenient payment through multiple channels, can provide real-time parking information to users, and allows for re-laxation (or elimination, in appropriate cases) of time limit regulations. Relaxed time limits allow users to pay progressive rates to park for a more extended period (if they are willing to pay) without risking

a citation. New technologies can also improve the responsiveness and productivity of enforcement personnel. Regulations guided by a prin-ciple (i.e., target occupancy), paired with effective enforcement, will tend to improve public acceptance of enforcement, because the enforcement activities support specific goals rather than being perceived as primarily punitive or revenue-generating.

4.5 Combining the Elements—The Full On-Street Parking Management ToolkitThe four elements of parking management can be combined in multiple ways. Enforcement and technology are the cross-cutting elements, which have a role under any type of parking management program. Under a price-based program, conventional strategies play a supporting role while also remaining the primary regulatory approach in those areas not subject to variable pricing.

An improved system of conventional regulations will help address many of the parking challenges present in San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Parking conditions should be periodically monitored, and adjustments to the regulatory regime should be made in response. In neighborhoods that do not regularly experience parking occupancy in excess of practical capacity, this approach is sufficient, and is quite effective when conduct-ed at a neighborhood level and paired with enforcement.

Conventional regulation does not address the imbalance between supply and demand that results in severe parking “crunches” in high-demand areas. In these neighborhoods, price-based regulation provides an effec-tive set of tools for managing parking and realizing numerous secondary benefits. A price-based program requires attention to all four elements of parking management and derives benefits from all the elements being utilized in concert.

The multiple dimensions of price-based regulation must function collectively and coherently for a program to meet performance objectives, be financially feasible, and enjoy public support.


PAGE 35

CHAPTER FIVE

As part of the SFpark program, SFMTA intends to explore new approach-es to residential parking management. The introduction of variable pricing heightens the need to more proactively manage residential blocks that are currently minimally regulated.

5.1 RPP Program—IssuesThe RPP program as it is currently structured presents several funda-mental problems:

• The program provides benefits to a narrow class of users—those who store their vehicle(s) on-street during weekday mid-days—while doing very little to manage parking during important periods of high demand, which frequently occur in evening periods as commuters

return home and evening parking generators in adjacent commercial areas simultaneously affect residen-tial blocks. In most zones, the RPP ends at 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and is not in effect on Saturdays; RPP is not in effect on Sundays in all zones. If the non-permit time limit is 2-hours, this in effect means that parking is wholly unregulated begin-ning at 4:00 p.m. in locations where RPP regulations end at 6:00 p.m.

• Existing policies create an artificial distinction between blocks desig-nated as commercial and residential. The management of metered blocks is essentially conducted indepen-dently of the management of other on-street spaces in a given neighbor-hood. While it may be frequently necessary and appropriate to man-age adjacent blocks differently in light of desired priority users, the two markets should be regulated holistically, in recognition of the

cross-effects of one market on the other, and to encourage meaning-ful dialogue within neighborhoods about parking management.

• The incremental evolution of the program has resulted in a regula-tory regime that may be confusing to the public and that is often misaligned with parking conditions and management needs. The size and shape of permit areas is based on block-level opt-in actions and is not otherwise regulated by the City. Some zones are quite large, and include multiple distinct commercial corridors and neighbor-hood residential areas (such as Zone S). Other zones are so small and/or oddly shaped as to call into question the value of administer-ing and enforcing the program (such as Zone BB, which is wholly surrounded by Zones L and P.)

• The program has a weak link to Transit First policy goals. The RPP underprices valuable on-street space, effectively subsidizing car own-ership and storage for a narrow class of users. Underpricing leads to

Originally instituted in response to parking spillover issues, San

Francisco’s RPP program has since evolved beyond its original pur-

pose and is not able to effectively address key parking concerns and

constraints present in many residential areas. This chapter discusses

issues with the existing RPP program and explores a number of po-

tential reforms to the management of on-street parking in residen-

tial areas.

RESIDENTIAL PARKING—ISSUES AND STRATEGIES5


CHAPTER FIVE

revenue “loss” for the City and encourages a black market in permits for nonresident motorists that seek to park in permit areas (“park and hide” behavior).

• Finally, the RPP program does not make a connection between the supply of parking in a neighborhood and the quantity of permits is-sued or the privileges associated with permits.

The RPP program does not address parking availability if overall demand is high—especially if this demand is primarily associated with vehicles owned by residents of an RPP zone. The RPP program is of limited utility as a parking demand management tool: permit fees are low, and there is no link between an area’s supply of parking and the quantity of issued permits. The program promotes a sense of entitlement to inexpensive parking. New approaches need not abandon worthwhile elements of the RPP program—namely, discouraging the use of on-street parking by nonresident commuters.

Overall permit demand has been relatively flat in recent years, averag-ing about 90,000 permits annually (across all zones). No area has ever dropped out of the RPP program. These facts do not obviate the need to explore more comprehensive and flexible solutions to neighborhood parking challenges. The stagnant growth in permit usage in recent years is most likely due to the following: RPP having already been implemented in most areas with significant daytime spillover issues; and the inability of the program to address other pressing neighborhood parking chal-lenges, which center on scarce availability in the face of current demand and future increases in demand.

5.2 Reforming Residential Parking ManagementThe RPP program has substantial weaknesses and fails to address impor-tant on-street parking management needs in San Francisco neighbor-hoods. There are a number of steps that should be pursued to reform residential parking management. These reforms seek to accomplish a combination of the following:

• More appropriately value scarce on-street parking spaces and provide meaningful benefits to permit holders;

• Take into account neighborhood conditions (e.g., on-street supply and demand, accessibility by alternative modes, etc.);

• Rationalize the size and shape of neighborhood parking management zones;

• Create a more multimodal program for the mobility of residents in coordination with other transportation initiatives; and

• Rethink neighborhood parking management programs to increase community involvement, manage demand, and return benefits to the neighborhood.

PRICING OF PREFERENTIAL PERMITS

An annual RPP costs $76, or just over $6 per month. The nominal RPP fee contributes to the over-demand for on-street spaces. Preferential permits, where provided, should be priced more rationally. This would require that the pricing of such permits, whether through a modified RPP program and/or a new program, be raised to reflect a broader set of

costs, in recognition of the marginal social costs of parking. This set of costs should consider the broader set of parking and traffic regulation and control costs borne by the City.

There are a number of “markers” that help to provide a preliminary indication of the potential price range of a more appropri-ately-priced on-street permit:

• Visitor permit price. As noted in Chapter 2, SFMTA currently makes visitor permits available for RPP zones in 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-week periods, for $26, $38, $50, and $64, respectively. This cor-responds to a price range of approxi-mately $35 to $56 per month.

• Monthly transit pass. Although they are not direct substitutes, both a transit pass and a residential permit are a type of “mobility user fee for service/privi-lege.” This rationale would set the price of a permit at $55, the cost of a Muni Adult FastPass.

• Off-street parking cost. Both on- and off-street spaces provide a roughly equivalent service. Off-street space is more desirable because it provides additional security and is typically guaranteed. However, the market price of off-street parking in a given neigh-borhood could be used as a reference

The residential parking permit program underprices valuable on-street space, effectively subsidizing car ownership and storage for a narrow class of users.


PAGE 37

CHAPTER FIVE

permits in each regulated area. Permits could then be traded and sold among residents and other preferential users of on-street space (e.g., business vehicles, school personnel). The number of available permits would have to be determined as a reasonable proportion of the overall supply of on-street parking in the neighborhood, taking into account turnover rates and non-permit parking demand.

BENEFITS FOR PERMIT HOLDERS

More appropriately-priced preferential permits should be accompanied by measures that allow the program to provide a meaningful benefit to permit holders. Currently, the program provides benefits to a narrow class of users—those who store their vehicle(s) on-street during week-day mid-days. The RPP provides no benefit to permit holders during the evening/overnight when parking demand is often extremely high and on-street spaces are largely unregulated. These measures could include some combination of the following: extending the period that time re-strictions are in place; limiting the number of permits that are available;

and instituting metering on high-demand resi-dential blocks, for which holders of appropriately-priced permits could be exempted for some or all of the day.

Additionally, parking management zones themselves warrant modifications such that they are reasonably defined and designated based on observed parking conditions. Due to the administrative process by which zones are established and

amended, current zone structures frequently have little connection to functional neighborhoods.

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

Preferential permit programs are authorized by the state Vehicle Code (Section 22507). The Vehicle Code grants local jurisdictions wide latitude to design a permit program, specifying that the governing local legisla-tion “may contain provisions that are reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program.” If the appropriately-priced permits are part of an overall program to improve neighborhood on-street parking, higher permit fees would be integral to achieving program objectives by managing demand through price. If revenues are reinvested programmatically in transportation, such a program would meet the parameters of a user fee (see Section 2.6). In other words, higher preferential permit prices would be expected to meet state legal requirements if such fees are tied to making the program work (by im-proving parking conditions) and if net fee revenues are used to support

point for more appropriately pricing on-street parking. An on-street permit could be set at a percentage of the aver-age cost of an off-street parking space in the neighborhood. A reasonable percentage would be 25 percent; thus, in a neighborhood where off-street spaces are rented for $300 on average, an on-street permit would be priced at $75 per month.

The following two approaches also merit consideration in a reformed preferential permit program:

• Graduated pricing. In recognition of the marginal impact and cost of each new vehicle on the transportation system, a graduated price structure should be applied to permit purchases. Under this measure, each successive permit acquired by an individual household or business would have a higher price (this is currently only the case for permits purchased by households in excess of the four allowed by right). For example, a second permit could cost 50 percent more than the first; a third permit could cost 50 percent more than the second; etc. This would deter households from purchasing unneces-sary additional permits and encour-age off-street parking and/or reduced automobile ownership.

• Set at a bundled rate with Transit Pass. Preferential permits could also be integrated into a more multimodal program by bundling permit fees with transit fees. An RPP purchase could include a monthly transit pass, a set amount of transit vouchers, or a Trans-Link account credit.

In the longer term, as residential parking management is reformed, there should be opportunities to utilize market-based strategies for pricing of permits, such as the auctioning of a limited number of


CHAPTER FIVE

the program’s goals (improving parking through parking-related invest-ments and projects that help to manage parking demand, including investments in non-automobile modes).

FURTHER INITIATIVES

Reforming residential parking management to better reflect the value of on-street parking and more rationally set regulations is an interim step that should be pursued in the near-term. Ultimately, the RPP program is an inadequate tool for managing growing demand for on-street parking in San Francisco’s neighborhoods. As was explored by the Legislative Analyst report mentioned in Section 2.3, simply extending RPP hours and improving enforcement will not address the fundamental issue of high demand and finite supply. Substantial residential growth in the city, in conjunction with rising incomes and reduced off-street parking requirements in many areas, will increase the demand for on-street park-ing. Piecemeal strategies, such as restricting the RPP eligibility of new residential developments, increase the inequity of the program and are ultimately unsustainable.25

Beyond interim reforms, neighborhoods should be permitted and en-couraged to pursue further measures to manage residential parking de-mand, such as setting up shared parking or shared valet parking. Many neighborhoods confront parking challenges beyond those associated with nonresident spillover activity; yet, the RPP is the only management tool currently available to the city’s residential areas. In Box 3, above, the concept of Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) is reviewed. PBDs can be an effective mechanism for increasing community support for parking pric-ing, for tailoring parking management solutions to individual neighbor-hood conditions, and for returning benefits to neighborhoods willing to try innovative strategies. As will be discussed in the report’s closing chapter, neighborhoods that so choose should be allowed to establish PBDs in order to raise permit and meter rates at the neighborhood level and reinvest new revenues in neighborhood transportation projects.

25 In recent years, the City has prohibited residents of many new housing developments from obtaining RPPs. For example, the Loyola Village development at the University of San Francisco was approved with the condition that it could not participate in the RPP program.


PAGE 39

CHAPTER SIX

This chapter also presents a high-level roadmap for improving neighbor-hood parking management over time. The roadmap focuses on the de-velopment of more comprehensive and flexible management approaches that are able to improve neighborhood parking conditions and return benefits to neighborhoods, while supporting policy goals and involving the public. The report ends with a brief conclusion that highlights the advantages and limitations of parking pricing and reiterates the relation-ship of parking pricing to other transportation pricing initiatives.

6.1 Study FindingsThe central findings of the Study are as follows:

• Effective parking management requires a neighborhood-level approach. Within a neighborhood, consider-ation must be given to the appropri-ate mix of strategies for a particular block and to the implications of that approach on adjoining areas (and vice versa). On-street parking management should be planned and coordinated at the neighborhood level, with attention to the tradeoffs associated with any strategy and the interactions between component parts of the parking supply (i.e., individual block faces and off-street supplies).

• San Francisco’s diverse neighbor-hoods confront different parking challenges, but availability and utilization are central issues. Neigh-borhood-level parking management requires flexible approaches that can be tailored to an area’s conditions, needs, and priorities, as well as evolve over time to reflect chang-

ing land use and travel patterns. That said, certain challenges are prevalent throughout the city. Each of the neighborhoods assessed in detail for the Study experiences constrained on-street parking avail-ability. Inefficient utilization, low turnover, and insufficient enforce-ment are also common.

• Existing management strategies are ill-suited for confronting key park-ing challenges. On-street parking regulations have developed incre-mentally over time, such that many neighborhoods are subject to an uncoordinated management regime that is misaligned with parking conditions and management needs. The existing set of conventional strategies is unable to address parking availability when there is an imbalance between supply and demand.

• The most promising management approach for addressing imbalances between supply and demand is price-based regulation, which also has significant secondary benefits. Variable pricing of on-street spaces according to parking demand is a strategy to ensure sufficient avail-ability, improve utilization, and value on-street space appropriately.

This closing chapter presents the key findings of the Study. These

findings frame a set of recommendations for improving San Fran-

cisco’s use of all four elements of the parking management toolkit:

enforcement, technology, conventional regulation, and price-based

regulation. In addition, a number of recommendations are made

with respect to the SFpark pilot projects.

STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6


CHAPTER SIX

regulation. This section presents recom-mendations for each of these elements.

ENFORCEMENT—RECOMMENDED

STRATEGIES

The following are enforcement strategies that should be pursued to improve parking management in San Francisco neighbor-hoods:

• Improve the user experience. Parking enforcement tends to be perceived as a primarily revenue-generating activity. Certainly, fine levels need to be suffi-ciently high to prompt compliance with parking regulations. However, parkers need not perceive the system as solely punitive. There should be convenient ways to pay, helpful signage and guid-ance systems, and appropriate regula-

Addressing availability—within the confines of finite supply in an urban environment—is the central purpose and benefit of parking pricing. Secondary benefits include a reduction in “cruising” behavior and the opportunity to reinvest new parking revenues in transporta-tion improvements.

• Underpriced parking theoretically represents a significant source of untapped revenue that could be dedicated to transit-first uses; attempts to close this pricing gap must be planned and executed carefully, in a manner that the public will understand and support. Given that on-street parking in many areas is currently minimally regulated, future revenue gains have the potential to be substantial. It is doubtful that the public will support widespread parking charge increases without a clear link to tangible transportation improvements in the city’s neighborhoods. The “user fee” principle is also supported by provid-ing a high-quality parking experience through improved payment options, real-time information, and flexible time limits. Currently, parking revenues are a crucial source of locally-generated and locally-controlled funding, which is prioritized to support Muni operations. Reinvestment of a portion of future new revenues will encourage neighborhood-level support for parking pricing, thus increasing the overall pool of funds from which transit stands to benefit.

• SFpark is a promising program that has the potential to demonstrate the technical and public feasibility of price-based regulation. This Study makes a number of specific recommendations for the SFpark pilot projects as well as future broader implementation of variable parking pricing. The SFpark pilots are a crucial opportunity to test various strategies, evaluate new technologies, and—crucially—introduce the public to pricing as a tool for transportation system management and investment. The pilots must be conducted and documented with care, including a full accounting of program costs and revenues. In general, the SFpark pilot program is a welcome first step toward more proactively managing the city’s parking supply, and SFpark has the potential to be the nation’s premier example of advanced parking management.

• The RPP program has a weak link to Transit First policy goals, is ineffec-tive at addressing key neighborhood parking challenges, and warrants significant reform. Reforms to residential parking management are warranted to better value on-street space, create a more multimodal program, and provide more equitably distributed costs and benefits. Neighborhoods should have the ability to utilize pricing strategies to manage parking demand while returning benefits to the area in which revenues are collected.

A central theme of the Study is the need to comprehensively manage parking at the neighborhood level. In addition, the Study recognizes that pricing is the primary tool for addressing on-street parking avail-ability challenges in a city such as San Francisco, where on-street parking supply is limited and policy goals restrict the provision of new off-street supplies.

6.2 RecommendationsChapter 4 discusses the four elements of the parking management tool-kit: enforcement, technology, conventional regulation, and price-based

It is doubtful that the public will support widespread parking charge increases without a clear link to tangible transportation improvements in the city’s neighborhoods.


PAGE 41

CHAPTER SIX

TECHNOLOGY—RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

The following are technology-based strategies that should be pursued to improve parking management in San Francisco neighborhoods:

Replace meters with consolidated, networked pay stations or other advanced metering technology, taking into account lifecycle cost-effec-tiveness. These new meters can support a wide variety of functions, including: consumer convenience through multiple cashless payment options and real-time information; collection and provision of planning data; and support for more targeted and responsive enforcement. Nu-merous options are available for replacing existing meters. The SFpark pilots will de-ploy and evaluate new meter technology.

Allow multiple methods of payment, including pay-by-phone. New metering technologies typically allow for payment with cash and credit cards, with some systems allowing further payment channels such as smart cards and mobile devices. These applications may be funded by assessing a user surcharge or premium fee for the conve-nience offered to the user.

Improve enforcement effectiveness by providing PCOs with handheld networked technology. Networked handheld devices can perform vari-ous street-level functions for PCOs, with different capabilities depending on the overall system architecture.

Gather real-time information to enhance the parking experience and improve system management. Current technology allows the occupancy status of individual on-street spaces to be detected by occupancy sensors in real-time. This sensor data can be used to provide information to trav-elers regarding parking availability (e.g., via 511). The information also allows system managers to monitor and evaluate system performance and more responsively enforce parking regulations.

CONVENTIONAL REGULATION—RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Recommended improvements to the conventional regulatory regime are as follows:

• Re-balance the allocation of on-street spaces. Pur-suing this strategy requires periodic adjustments to the allocation of regulation types and space typologies based on current adja-cent land uses, traffic conditions,

tions that match local conditions and parking needs, such as more flexible time limits where adjacent land uses may involve longer duration activities.

• Seek fairness and transparency. The sys-tem of on-street parking management should be perceived as fair and dif-ficult to “game”. For example, parking enforcement routines should be altered every so often, to combat the predict-ability of PCO enforcement schedules. In high-demand areas, the eligibility of RPP-holders should be periodically verified by checking the residential reg-istration of vehicles displaying permits. The abuse of the disabled placard park-ing fee exemption also needs to be held in check through enforcement activities and legislative reforms, as discussed in Section 2.3.

• Dedicate more PCOs to their parking-related functions. The recent agreement to enable SFMTA to manage the San Francisco Police Department’s Traffic Detail to a greater degree should allow the deployment of more PCOs to the parking enforcement functions instead of utilizing these resources to help manage traffic during events and peak periods.

• Utilize more advanced technology to im-prove the effectiveness and responsive-ness of parking enforcement activities. Networked meter technologies can support targeted enforcement but may not be cost-effective to deploy citywide. Other cities have deployed “smart” handheld devices and other technolo-gies to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of parking enforcement. Enhanced enforcement technology is unlikely to be deployed unless accom-panied by changes in parking regula-tions that necessitate new parking equipment, such as through the SFpark program.


CHAPTER SIX

tion 6.3, below, presents a roadmap for pursuing more comprehensive neigh-borhood parking management; Box 4 presents a proposed approach.

Solutions to parking challenges need to be tailored to neighborhood conditions and community priorities. In some cases, land uses have changed and no longer align with designated color curb regulations or time limit restrictions. In other cases, spaces that are not currently regulated may now warrant management. The neighbor-hood case study observations indicate that on-street parking supplies in many areas deserve more proactive regulation (includ-ing sufficient enforcement) in order to improve availability and utilization.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

PRICE-BASED MANAGEMENT

The following are several recommendations that are applicable to price-based manage-ment programs, including the SFpark pilot projects, and any future expanded imple-mentation of variable parking pricing:

• Establish a policy on the use of new incremental parking revenue. SFMTA has not articulated a clear policy on the use of any revenue gains associated with implementation of demand- respon-sive pricing. It is important to affirm the policy of applying the revenues to parking improvements and transit-first uses. SFMTA should clarify this policy and allow for public review and input into this decision.

• Share some portion of net new revenues with the areas in which the monies are collected. By investing in the neighbor-hoods affected by parking pricing, tan-gible benefits will accrue to the areas that are priced and local impacts are mitigated. The public will be skeptical of any program that simply provides in-cremental revenue to an opaque budget

and observed parking behavior. The goal of re-balancing is to better accommodate varying demands within the confines of scarce supply. Examples of re-balancing include periodic consideration of the de-mand for commercial loading zones and evaluation of the appropri-ateness of various time limitations. This assessment should be done in cooperation with neighborhood residents and merchants, and other strategies and tools should be considered along with conven-tional regulatory strategies.

• Regulate unregulated or under-regulated spaces. In areas where it is warranted, currently metered areas could be expanded, or unregu-

lated spaces could be otherwise regulated. For example, studies in the Glen Park and Balboa Park neigh-borhoods26 revealed a substantial number of unregulated spaces that contributed to parking shortages and low turnover; these issues have since been remedied or are in the process of being addressed. A technical evalua-tion is required to identify the best regulatory design (e.g., meter vs. time limit vs. color curb). Typically, meters have been confined to the downtown area and neighborhood commercial corridors (and some adjoining blocks). Extending metering hours into the evening (until

10:00 p.m., for example) is appropriate in those areas with evening parking generators, such as restaurants or nightlife, where turnover is desirable, provided that adequate enforcement can be provided.27 Extension of metering into evening hours can provide a significant benefit to local commercial activity, by prioritizing metered spaces during high demand periods for shorter-term uses (rather than overnight storage).

• Reform residential parking permit management. The existing RPP pro-gram provides benefits to a small group—eligible permit holders that store their car(s) on-street during weekday mid-days. Issues with the existing RPP system were discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. Sec-

26 San Francisco Planning Department. Glen Park Community Plan (2003) and Balboa Park Station Area Plan (2008).27 As noted in Chapter 2, the Port has begun enforcing its meters until 11:00 p.m.

Extension of metering into evening hours can provide a significant benefit to local commercial activity, by prioritizing metered spaces during high demand periods for shorter-term uses (rather than overnight storage).


PAGE 43

CHAPTER SIX

that funds programs across the entire city. Specifically, it is recommended that if demand-responsive pricing results in at least 50 percent growth in parking revenue in a neighborhood, at least 25 percent of the net new revenue should be returned directly to the area in which it was collected. The affected community should have an opportuni-ty to provide input into the program of projects funded by the parking revenue. This will help generate support for pric-ing programs, as well as increase the overall pool of funds from which Muni stands to benefit.

• Pursue data-driven pricing policy, in sup-port of articulated performance objec-tives. Ongoing system monitoring is a crucial component of demand-respon-sive parking pricing. This monitoring and analysis facilitates ongoing man-agement and operation of the system guided by street-level outcomes.

• Adjust parking rates systematically. In order to be effective, demand-respon-sive pricing requires periodic adjust-ments to parking rates. These adjust-ments must be performed frequently enough to seek the desired availabil-ity target but not so frequently as to obscure the behavior response. Overly frequent rate changes are also likely to engender public consternation and con-fusion. Monthly adjustments are ap-propriate for the first several months of implementation in a given area to allow for program managers to find the nec-essary price structure to meet perfor-mance objectives. Following the initial period, less frequent adjustments (such as quarterly) are warranted.

• Coordinate demand-responsive pricing implementations in metered areas with the regulations in place on unmetered blocks, including warranted expansions

BOX 4. A Recommended Approach to Neighborhood Management: Parking Benefit DistrictsAs discussed throughout this report, pricing is the most efficacious means of managing on-street parking when occupancy routinely exceeds practical capacity. A Parking Benefit District (PBD) program could be made available to neighborhoods facing parking challenges, regardless of whether the neighborhood is currently covered by an RPP. The 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 an RPP, the PBD would replace the RPP (or ap-plicable 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 pref-erential 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 appropri-ate 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 ap-propriately value on-street space and reduce demand for on-street park-ing (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 el-ement 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 toler-able during the late-night periods, when traffic volumes are light, and businesses and other activities are less dependent on prioritizing short-term parking and ensuring sufficient availability.

Pursuing all of the above strategies would represent a significant change for any neighborhood. As such, neighborhoods should be involved in choosing the amount and type of price-based regulation and supporting strategies that are desired in a given area. Because more aggressive strategies will provide more revenue, higher levels of benefit should returned to those neighborhoods that are most willing to proactively manage on-street parking through price-based regulation and restruc-tured residential permit parking.


CHAPTER SIX

of metered areas. The implementation of demand-responsive pricing is a unique opportunity to better manage parking on a neighborhood or area level. Current policies create an artificial distinction between blocks designated as commercial and residential. As demand-respon-sive pricing is implemented in neighborhoods, an assessment of parking conditions in metered and unmetered blocks is necessary. This assessment may reveal a need to expand the metered areas and/or metered time periods as new payment technologies and pricing

strategies are implemented.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE

SFPARK PILOT PROJECTS

Currently, the SFpark program is focused on deploying smart meter technology and demand- responsive pricing in several pilot areas, as discussed in Section 2.7. These pilots will be a key step in the upcoming replace-ment of all SFMTA meters, a process scheduled to begin in 2010.

In the pilot areas, SFMTA will utilize networked parking meters, parking occupancy sensors, and parking information systems. This technol-ogy will allow SFMTA to test and evaluate demand-responsive variable pricing. In select areas, SFMTA also plans to test relaxed time limits in conjunction with progressive pricing. These approaches are consistent with the strategies discussed in this report.

The SFpark pilots will be an important milestone for assessing the usefulness of new technology and pricing approaches to San Francisco. The pilots will also be the first time that most of the city’s drivers are exposed to both networked meter technology and variable pricing of on-street parking. This Study recommends the following with respect to the SFpark pilots:

• Conduct comprehensive baseline monitoring for a sufficient period. A thorough assessment of baseline parking conditions must be conducted in each area before demand-responsive pricing is instituted. A baseline evaluation period of at least three months is recommended, during which time occupancy, turnover, and duration should be monitored and analyzed for demand conditions across geographic areas and time periods. The existing amount of parking revenue collected in the area must also be established and documented as part of the baseline monitoring program.

• Conduct a comparable monitoring process as variable pricing is implemented. Following the baseline period, the piloting of demand-responsive pricing can begin. As previously, in addition to monitor-ing parking conditions (occupancy, etc.), the revenue response will be critical to evaluate and document during this period.

• Support the pilots with sufficient outreach, marketing, and public rela-tions strategies. The use of pricing and new technology to manage parking is new to many residents and should be implemented with care. The user experience for an individual parking activity should be straightforward and easy to become familiar with. The programmatic message associated with the pilots should stress user convenience,

improved availability, and associated project benefits.

• Demonstrate the costs and revenues associated with variable pricing. A com-prehensive accounting of the pilots’ revenue impact must be performed and made available to the public. The pilots should establish SFMTA’s commitment to a high degree of transparency and reporting of the financial accounting of parking costs and revenues in order to build up public trust and confidence in these areas. Among other reasons, this is important as other forms of transportation pricing are studied and introduced in the city and region.

• Promote neighborhood-level manage-ment and explore reforms to residen-tial parking management. The federal seed money that the SFpark pilots are utilizing represents an extremely unique opportunity test a range of new parking management approaches. In addition to assessing variable and progressive pricing, the demonstration projects should assess and improve current residential parking manage-ment strategies, which have severe shortcomings (as discussed in Chapter 5). The introduction of pricing strate-gies makes the need to manage parking comprehensively at the neighborhood level even more important, particularly as pricing in metered areas impacts adjacent unmetered locations.

The introduction of pricing strategies makes the need to manage parking comprehensively at the neighborhood level even more important.


PAGE 45

CHAPTER SIX

pending in part on the following: the specific revenue source(s) reserved for neighborhood prioritization; the types of projects eligible for funding with these revenues; and the institutional arrangement for administer-ing the program.

The Study recommends that neighborhoods with an interest in proac-tively managing on-street parking be given the opportunity to establish Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs). A local resolution would need to estab-lish the parameters of a PBD program, including, but not limited to:

• The process for establishing districts, including eligible organizations that could be designated as PBDs;

• Specific parking revenues available for PBD prioritization;

• Requirements for PBD activities and management, including develop-ment of plans for the use of available parking funds;

• Allowable uses of funds prioritized by PBDs; and.

• Process for approving PBD recommendations regarding projects for funding (i.e., requiring Board approval of PBD plans following their submission).

In addition to the local legislation establishing the program, the City Charter would likely need to be amended, as discussed above, to allow a portion of certain new parking funds to be directed to PBD prioritiza-tion.

In 2005, legislation was introduced by Supervisor Michaela Alioto-Pier to place such a Charter Amendment on the ballot. The proposed amend-ment would have authorized the Board of Supervisors to designate “Neighborhood Parking Meter Improvement Districts”.28 The proposed Districts would have instituted metering on Sundays and dedicated net revenues in each district to pedestrian, street, and other neighborhood improvements within the district.

6.3 Roadmap for Improving Neighborhood Parking ManagementThe following summary recommendations constitute a roadmap for improving the management of on-street parking in San Francisco’s neighborhoods:

• Institute near-term reforms to the RPP program to better value scarce on-street parking supplies. The current RPP program provides ben-efits 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.).

• Reevaluate conventional regulations, and periodically adjust in response to parking conditions. Conventional regulations play a vital role in managing the parking supply and are sufficient in those areas that do not experience parking demand that regularly exceeds practi-cal capacity. To be effective, these policies must be adjusted periodi-

28 See http://maps.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=32175. Proposed Charter Amendment, introduced May 24, 2005, #050926.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

As a policy-level document, this report does not attempt to address in detail all issues of legal or jurisdictional author-ity that would be of consequence to the implementation of its recommendations. It does highlight areas where additional legal authority may be required. Many of the Study’s recommendations involve relatively minor improvements and modi-fications to existing programs. Some of the Study’s recommendations have legal implications; the City Attorney’s opinion and review would be required prior to pur-suing such recommendations. In general, the Study’s recommendations present what appear to be minor legal issues. With respect to state requirements for parking programs and local user fee programs, the recommendations to rationalize on-street parking pricing and pursue PBDs are within the confines of state law and jurispru-dence (see sections 2.6 and 5.2). Demand-responsive parking pricing is already in the process of being implemented through the SFpark program.

The more complex legal issues relate to provisions of the City Charter. As dis-cussed in Section 2.6, the Charter sets the City’s policy of prioritizing parking-related revenues to support transit. Pursuit of the Study’s recommendations (including more widespread implementation of SFpark strategies provided the pilots are success-ful) could result in increased parking rev-enues both from meter charges and from more appropriately-priced preferential permit fees. The Study recommends that if the City pursues programs that could substantially increase parking revenues, affected neighborhoods should share in the benefits of these changes by dedicating a portion of new parking funds to neighbor-hood-level transportation improvements. In order to pursue this recommendation, a Charter amendment may be required, de-


cally by observing parking conditions and re-balancing the mix of regulations and instituting appropriate regulations for unregulated and under-regulated spaces as needed.

• Coordinate variable pricing implementations in existing metered areas with regulations on unmetered blocks, including warranted expansions of metered areas. This recommendation was introduced above with regard to implementation of demand-responsive pricing in areas throughout the city.

• Conduct a demonstration project for a Parking Benefit District (PBD) that utilizes price-based regulation to manage demand and return revenue to the neighborhood. A price-based PBD program (discussed in Box 4, above) would more comprehensively address parking in the neighborhoods by managing demand through price, providing ben-efits to residents and local businesses, and involving the community in prioritizing the use of new parking revenues. A demonstration project should be conducted in a suitable neighborhood to test the feasibility of such a program and assess benefits and impacts.

• Allow neighborhoods to elect to establish PBDs, which would replace any RPP zone (or portion thereof) in effect in the neighborhood. Pro-vided that the demonstration project or projects are successful, the PBD program should be expanded to neighborhoods that seek to bet-ter manage on-street parking. The individual PBDs should be tailored to each neighborhood’s parking conditions and represent a variety of mixes of management strategies. Neighborhoods that currently do not participate in the RPP program should be eligible, as well as those in which an existing RPP would be subsumed by a comprehensive PBD program.

• Provide higher levels of benefit to those neighborhoods that pursue the most comprehensive parking management policies. Flexibility will allow neighborhoods to be involved in identifying the amount and type of price-based regulation instituted in the area. Because more aggressive strategies will provide more revenue, higher levels of benefit should be returned to those neighborhoods that are most willing to proactively manage on-street parking through price-based regulation and restructured residential permit parking.

6.4 Conclusion—The Role of Parking Pricing and the Road User Pricing ToolkitParking pricing is new and presents many opportunities for improving parking management at the neighborhood level. There are also a number of risks and limitations to parking pricing.

ADVANTAGES

The key advantage of parking pricing is in the ability of the strategy to effectively confront pressing parking management needs where other strategies have fallen short. Implementation of parking pricing is less difficult to implement than other transportation pricing policies—driv-ers are generally accustomed to paying for parking. The key benefit of parking pricing, improved availability, is the most important and valued aspect of parking for drivers (and for local businesses).

Parking pricing also has secondary benefits, primarily the reduction in

Individual PBDs should be tailored to each neighborhood’s parking conditions and represent a variety of mixes of management strategies.


PAGE 47

CHAPTER SIX

THE INFLUENCE OF PARKING PRICING ON OTHER PRICING INITIATIVES

Parking pricing can be a powerful and effective policy. It will also act as an important step in introducing the public to pricing as a transporta-tion management tool. Early trials need to be clear about objectives and

demonstrate the “user fee” approach through the rein-vestment of funds. Transparency and accountability regard-ing the use of funds is crucial to gain public support.

Parking pricing is an important tool in the “road user pric-ing” toolkit, which also includes such strategies as conges-tion pricing and HOT lanes. The primary

purpose of parking pricing is as a management tool to encourage more efficient utilization of on-street spaces and provide sufficient availability. Parking pricing may have some effect on congestion, through a reduction in excess vehicle circulation, but this effect is likely to be limited during peak periods. Parking pricing is a useful and essential companion to (not a substitute for) roadway pricing programs.

excess vehicular circulation associated with drivers “cruising” for inexpensive curbside space. Parking pricing supports Transit First policy objectives. Fee revenues can be reinvested to improve the transportation system.

LIMITATIONS

Though it is an important and promising strategy, parking pricing has a number of limitations. Parking pricing plays a narrow role in congestion management. Most peak-period congestion in the city’s core areas is from long-term parkers utilizing off-street stocks. The City-owned supply of off-street parking is limited and is priori-tized for short-term purposes. The major-ity of off-street supply is privately owned and thus difficult to regulate.29 That said, reductions in excess vehicular circulation from appropriately-priced on-street park-ing are an important benefit of parking pricing programs, particularly to improve surface transit performance in constrained local commercial corridors with high levels of parking activity and double parking im-pacts—locations where localized conges-tion is not primarily caused by commute travel.

Effective parking pricing is also limited by other factors. In areas with substantial demand, parking rates may need to go very high if performance objectives are to be met. The sensitivity of drivers to parking price is also likely to be tempered by the ability to use non-cash payment options. In addition, at times or locations of lower demand there may be some resistance to lowering parking rates below existing levels since meters have long acted as a municipal revenue mechanism.

29 There a number of ways to regulate off-street parking, including more aggressive parking cash-out requirements and programs, and other legislative options that can be explored separately.

The key advantage of parking pricing is in the ability of the strategy to effectively confront pressing parking management needs where other strategies have fallen short.


RESOURCES

PARKING MANAGEMENT RESOURCES AND REFERENCES

BooksTodd Litman, 2006. Parking Management Best Practices. Planners Press, 2006.

Authored by the head of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, this book reviews more than two dozen parking management strategies. A 30-page summary document can be downloaded at http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.

Donald Shoup, 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press, 2005.

Shoup is the nation’s foremost planning expert specializing in parking issues. Download the first chapter of his influential book at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Chapter1.pdf.

Other Resources and ReferencesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. Parking Spaces / Commu-nity Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2007. Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross-Cutting Study. http://www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14318.htm.

Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, 2003. “Turning Small Change Into Big Changes,” Access 23, pp. 2-7. University of California Transpor-tation Center. http://www.uctc.net/access/access23.shtml.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2007a. Developing Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local Jurisdictions: Best Practices. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/BestPractices.pdf.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2007b. Toolbox/Hand-book: Parking Best Practices & Strategies for Supporting Transit Oriented Development in the San Francisco Bay Area. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf.

Donald Shoup, 2007. “Cruising for Parking,” Access 30, pp. 16-22. Uni-versity of California Transportation Center. http://www.uctc.net/access/access30.shtml.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2009. Parking Management: Compre-hensive Implementation Guide. http://www.vtpi.org/park_man_comp.pdf.


PAGE A.1

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A.PEER CITIES — REVIEW OF RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND PLANS

1. San Diego, CA A.2Community Parking District Program A.2Shared Parking Program A.3

2. Redwood City, CA A.4Parking Occupancy and On-Street Parking Policy A.4

3. Pasadena, CA A.5Old Pasadena Parking Meter Zone A.5

4. San Francisco, CA A.6Port of San Francisco On-Street Parking Pricing Pilot Project A.6

5. New York, NY A.8Midtown Commercial Parking Pricing Program A.8

6. Vancouver, British Columbia A.9Payment of Parking via Cell Phone A.9

7. Cambridge, MA A.9MIT—Integrated Parking and Transit Fee Study A.9

8. Portland, OR A.11Lloyd District On-Street Parking A.11

9. Austin, TX A.11Parking Benefit District Pilot Program A.11

10. Houston, TX A.12Parking Ambassadors Program A.12

Contributors A.14

References A.11

PAGE A.2


APPENDIX A

On-street parking provides convenient access to destinations and is an important source of parking supply in urban areas. A successful on-street parking system relies upon a coordinated parking management program. This report reviews notable on-street parking management programs, policies, and planning studies in peer cities, including one demonstration project in San Francisco.

1. San Diego, CA

COMMUNITY PARKING DISTRICT PROGRAM

In 1997, the City of San Diego’s Department of Community and Economic Development established the Community Parking District (CPD) program. The program is designed to help neighborhoods develop specific parking management so-lutions that meet their individual needs. The CPD program returns 45 percent of the revenue from parking meters and cer-tain other parking related revenues (e.g., parking in-lieu development fees and valet parking fees) to the designated parking districts. The CPDs then use these funds to implement solutions—such as parking management, mobility information, community shuttles, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian projects, maintenance, landscaping, and security—to manage parking supply and address transportation issues (City of San Diego, 2009).

There are currently six CPDs in San Diego, each with its own advisory board. When each CPD is established, it must propose a legal entity, either existing or new, to be its Advisory Board. The existing board of the following types of organizations may be designated or approved by the City Council as the Advisory Board for the CPD (City of San Diego, 2004):

• Business Improvement District

• A Redevelopment Corporation

• A Community Development Organization

• Non-profit organization approved by the City Council

Each CPD’s Advisory Board has its own selection process, and members usually consist of local residents and business people. For example, the Promote La Jolla Advisory Board (for the La Jolla CPD) has nine board members, 7 of which are appointees from local community organizations and 2 of which are at-large positions for a business owner and a resident (City of San Diego, 2009).

The Advisory Board for each CPD also sets its own priorities, and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the use of parking revenues for neighborhood improvements. The board is required to annually “develop, through com-munity input, and recommend to the City Council an annual improvement/implementation plan and budget for the next year”, which must then be approved by the City Council (City of San Diego, 2004). Additionally, each CPD must recom-mend a member of its board to fill a seat on the Parking Advisory Board.

Figure 1, at right, provides an overview of the San Diego CPD program, including each CPD’s designated advisory board and their priorities for the use of parking funds.

SHARED PARKING

As part of its Downtown Community Plan, the City of San Diego has also developed a shared parking program. Through this program, the City allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements as mandated in the city’s Land Develop-ment Code through shared parking agreements. In a shared parking agreement, owners of existing properties with excess parking may agree to provide parking to new developments. Agreements can be structured to allow the use of a specific number of spots in the existing parking facility as well as only allow shared parking during certain times of day.

Shared parking can also be used to provide more efficient use of existing parking facilities. One example of an implemented shared parking approach in San Diego is the agreement between the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and a local theater owner. In this agreement, MTDB agreed to share the Grossman Station parking lot with the local theater and the theater agreed to share its parking lot with MTDB. In this situation, “theater-goers can use Trolley Station park-


PAGE A.3

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. Parking Priorities by Community Parking DistrictPARKING DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD PRIORITIES FOR USE OF PARKING FUNDS

Downtown/ Centre City

Centre City Development Corporation Construction of new parking facilities

On-street revenue collection

Meter upgrades (multi-space)

La Jolla Promote La Jolla (representatives selected to represent property owners, businesses, residents, elected officials, and community organizations)

Employee parking and education programs

Time limits

Residential parking

Pedestrian enhancements

Enforcement

Signage and wayfinding

Community shuttles

Public transportation enhancements

Disabled access

Security

Mid-City 3 boards represent 3 sub-districts:

The El Cajon Boulevard Business Improvement Association (Greater Mid-City)

Greater Golden Hill Community Development Corporation (Golden Hill)

University Heights Community Development Corporation (University Heights)

Parking card program

Angled parking program

Old Town Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce Angled parking

Colored curb management

Parking signage

On- and off-street parking improvements

Residential parking management

Pacific Beach Discover Pacific Beach Variably-priced on-street parking

Residential permit parking

Parking validation program

Parking information

Shared parking

Enforcement

Uptown Uptown Partnership, Inc Parking supply provision

Traffic circulation improvements

Public parking information

Public transportation improvements

Streetscape reconstruction projects

Source: City of San Diego

PAGE A.4


APPENDIX A

ing on evenings and weekends, and Trolley Park-and riders can use theater parking spaces Monday through Friday, from early morning to early evening” (Cervero et al, 2004). Thus, this arrangement effectively expands capacity for both venues without building more parking spaces. Not only did this arrangement provide extra parking for both the theater and the station, it also generated $40,000 in annual lease revenues for MTDB, providing a win-win situation for both parties (Cer-vero et al, 2004).

2. Redwood City, CA

PARKING OCCUPANCY AND ON-STREET PARKING POLICY

The Downtown Redwood City Parking Management Plan was adopted in July 2005. The comprehensive plan introduced a variety of parking initiatives to the City ranging from market-rate pricing to technology. The Plan detailed five overarching actions, which are outlined in Figure 2, at right.

The City Council unanimously passed the ordinance approving the Parking Management Plan and providing the required legal mechanisms to implement the plan in July 2005. The plan was generally well received by the public because, as noted by parking expert Donald Shoup, “The Redwood City merchants and property owners all supported the new policy when they learned what the meter revenue would help pay for” (Shoup 2007).

• Some of the specifics mandated by the ordinance include (City of Redwood City, 2005b):

• The hourly meter rate shall not exceed $1.50

• The target occupancy rate is 85%

The Parking Manager must survey the average occupancy at least annually and no more frequently than quarterly and adjust the metered parking rates up or down in $0.25 intervals in order to achieve the target occupancy rate

Additionally, the ordinance stipulates that revenues generated from on- or off-street parking in the Downtown Meter Zone must be kept separate from other City funds. The funds must then be used exclusively for the expenses related to the park-ing program itself, traffic control, and other uses that will directly benefit the Meter Zone.

3. Pasadena, CA

OLD PASADENA PARKING METER ZONE

The City of Pasadena implemented paid on-street parking to better utilize the parking supply while also generating revenue to beautify Old Pasadena, the city’s primary tourist-centered commercial area. The on-street parking supply is a part of a parking system designed to provide adequate parking for customers, visitors, and employees. In Old Pasadena, there are an estimated 750 on-street parking spaces and 8,000 off-street spaces. The City created a parking management program for on-street parking, which utilizes meters calibrated to reduce “cruising” for spaces and encourage the use of off-street parking. According to the Kolozsvari and Shoup (2003) study, in order to implement the parking management program, the City of Pasadena:

• Gained support of merchants to install the meters by agreeing that the revenue stays in the Old Pasadena District;

• Coordinated efforts with the Old Pasadena Business Improvement District (BID) to create boundaries for the Old Pasa-dena Parking Meter Zone (PMZ);

• Founded the Old Pasadena PMZ Advisory Board which was made up of businesses and property owners. The members provided input for parking policies and spending priorities for area’s meter revenues;

• Installed parking meters to manage on-street parking supply and increased available parking by pricing the on-street spaces;

• Allocated revenues for public investment in the Old Pasadena District; and

• Conducted a marketing campaign to inform shoppers of the benefits of meter revenues.


PAGE A.5

APPENDIX A

In partnership with the City of Pasadena, the Old Pasadena Business Improvement District (BID) makes recommendations for the reinvestment of parking revenues in the district. The BID Board, which consists of business and property owners, determines spending priorities and makes investment recommendations to the City of Pasadena. The first implemented project was the Old Pasadena Streetscape and Alleyways Project. This $5 million project replaced street furniture, trees, and historic lighting fixtures. Since then, the BID has prioritized parking funds for a variety of projects, including wayfinding enhancements, maintenance of streetscape fixtures, and parking informational materials.

Figure 2. Summary of the Downtown Redwood City Parking Management Plan ACTION SUMMARY

1. Institute Market-Rate Pricing The initial price structure will be set as follows:

• Weekdays 10am-6pm: $0.25-$0.50 per hour

• Weekdays 6pm-10pm and Weekends 10am-10pm: Free - $0.75 per hour

The prices will then be adjusted up or down to attain an 85% occupancy rate

2. Eliminate Time Limits The program is set up so that market-rate prices will encourage turn-over and thus, there is no need for time limits, especially since they are perceived as aggravating to customers. With the removal of time limits, “occupancy shall be rigorously monitored in order to ensure that the prices are sufficient to generate the needed 15% vacancy rate”.

3. Convert the Core to Computerized “Pay-By-Space” Meters

Throughout the downtown, the city will install “pay-by space” meters that can accept coins, bills, and credit cards for payment. These meters will be connected to a computer at City Hall, which will allow prices to be easily adjusted when necessary.

The choice of “pay-by-space” instead of “pay-and-display” meters will add to the convenience of multi-space parking meters since customers will not have to worry about paper tickets and can add time from any machine or via cell phone. This choice will also lead to easier enforcement since officers will not have to look at each dashboard to determine which cars are in violation, but rather can use the central machines or a handheld device.

4. Keep Downtown Meter Revenue in Downtown

Surplus parking revenue (amount remaining after parking costs are paid) will be used exclusively for improvements to the Downtown. Only areas with parking meters will be eligible for improvements. The City Council, under the advisement of the Parking Fund Advisory Committee made up of Downtown merchants, will determine the use of the funds.

5. Modify the Parking Permit Program

The purpose of the parking permit program is to encourage employees not to use prime customer parking areas. The former permit program allowed employees to purchase two different permits: a Marshall Garage Permit Level permit or a 10-Hour Meter permit. These permits were only valid during traditional business hours.

The new program will work as follows:

• Permits will be issued for garages and parking lots only (no metered parking). Two different permits will be available for different garage/parking lot combina-tions.

• Each permit will have three levels of time-of-day access (including a 24-hour pass) that can be purchased. The price will increase in price as access increases.

Source: City of Redwood City, 2005a

PAGE A.6


APPENDIX A

4. San Francisco, CA

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO ON-STREET PARKING PRICING PILOT PROJECT

The Port of San Francisco manages a limited amount of on- and off-street parking in the areas on and adjacent to Port property. In 2005, the Port, in conjunction with the San Francisco Planning Department, completed a study that explored how parking supply could be more efficiently managed in the Northeastern Waterfront Area (Port of San Francisco, 2005). The study was followed by a parking technology and pricing demonstration project, which was completed in 2007 (Port of San Francisco, 2007).

The goal of the demonstration project was to increase Port parking meter revenues while ensuring parking availability for Port tenants and their customers; and manage the on-street parking resources under Port jurisdiction more effectively. The pilot project involved a test of market-based pricing coupled with the introduction of new parking payment technologies. The project was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved baseline data collection prior to any change in parking rates or equipment. Sensors to detect the presence of a vehicle at individual spaces were installed to provide a comprehen-sive record of payment versus occupancy of each sampled parking space.

Phase II involved testing the new rate structure and the parking revenue collection equipment. For Phase II, the Port Com-mission adopted a four hour parking limit and a progressive pricing strategy. The progressive rates—first hour, $3; second, $3; third, $4; fourth, $5—were intended to encourage one- to two-hour parking sessions with less reliance on enforce-ment, while adding flexibility for drivers, thereby generating turnover at on-street spaces and encouraging use of available off-street space. In fall of 2006, five vendors programmed their systems to support the above revised time limits and pric-ing strategy and deployed their systems on seven blocks. The fee for the first hour represented a 50 percent increase in the base hourly rate for parking, which had been $2.

During both the baseline and pilot study periods, 24-hour data was collected from 200 parking spaces over 180 days of operation. The key findings of the study were:

• Location and time of day are the biggest predictors of parking demand;

• Non-compliance is a significant issue—only 41 percent of parking sessions were paid;

• Parking by disabled parking placard holders is substantial (13 percent);

• Enforcement is highly variable and overall quite low; and

• Drivers parked an average of 75 minutes both during the baseline and pilot study periods.

In general, the increased parking fees, the graduated parking payment fee schedule, and the new parking revenue collection equipment resulted in minimal change in parking utilization characteristics between the Phase I baseline and the Phase II study periods. The 50 percent fee increase for the first two-hours of parking resulted in a 25 percent increase in revenue (37 percent when two blocks with equipment malfunctions were eliminated). Another key finding was the high non-pay-ment or unpaid usage of the spaces; this was similar to the findings of the City Controller’s Office 2007 report regarding citywide metered parking.

The overall findings suggest that the sensitivity to parking price is very inelastic for the 200 metered spaces involved in the study. However, the high rate of non-payment and the use of handicapped placards made it difficult to derive precise elasticity findings. One explanation is that as the prices rose in a condition of variable and typically minimal enforcement, more individuals opted to not pay at all or to reduce the amount of time that they purchase.

5. New York, NY

MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL PARKING PRICING PROGRAM

New York City’s Midtown Manhattan Commercial Parking Pricing Program sets on-street rates for multi-space meters (pay and display) at $2.00 for one hour, $5.00 for two hours, and $9.00 for three hours. Evaluation of the program following


PAGE A.7

APPENDIX A

implementation indicated a significant decrease in average parking time and a reduction in occupancy rates from 120 per-cent (indicating illegal parking activity) to 85 percent (New York City Department of Transportation, 2006).

In Midtown, the priority user of on-street parking is the commercial vehicle. Prior to the implementation of the pricing program, these vehicles frequently parked for extended periods and bore any parking ticket as a cost of doing business. Commercial vehicles had minimal incentive to complete their business promptly and depart the area. As a result, curbside spaces became increasingly unavailable, causing excessive circulation, as well as hydrant, bus stop, and double parking violations.

Under the Commercial Parking Pricing Program, commercial vehicles may not park on designated streets unless they have parked, paid at a consolidated “muni-meter”, and displayed a receipt on the vehicle dashboard. Since the commercial vehi-cles are subject to progressive pricing, they conduct their business more quickly, resulting in space turnover and improved availability of legal parking locations. During evenings and weekends, commercial parking zones are made available for non-commercial vehicles on selected streets within the program area. Rates are $2.00 per hour. This rate is in effect from 6 p.m. through midnight, Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to midnight Saturday and Sunday.

The program encompasses approximately 8,000 spaces in Midtown, governed by 1,000 multi-space meters. Revenue from the program increased from $3.53 million in Fiscal Year 2004 to $6.42 million in Fiscal Year 2006.

6. Vancouver, British Columbia

PAYMENT OF PARKING VIA CELL PHONE

In 2006, Vancouver introduced a new service that allows drivers to use their cell phone to pay parking meter charges (Boei, 2006). The service allows parkers to (City of Vancouver, 2009):

• Save money by paying only for the time actually parked;

• Receive text message reminders, resulting in less chance of receiving a citation;

• Access consolidated parking expense reports online;

• Eliminate the need to carry around large quantities of coins; and

• Receive parking receipts by email.

The system can send a text message warning when an individual’s paid meter period is about to expire; the driver can then add additional time to the meter remotely via cell phone. The service is paid through a 30-cent surcharge paid by the driver. Users can arrange to have receipts emailed to them, or they can print a record of their use from the plan’s website.

7. Cambridge, MA

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT)—INTEGRATED PARKING AND TRANSIT FEE STUDY

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts, pursues several strategies to discourage travel to its urban campus by single occupancy vehicle (SOV). Under current policies, the constrained supply of on-campus parking is available to eligible permit holders for an annual fee in excess of $700. Transit use is encouraged by provision of subsidized transit passes to members of the campus community. Despite these policies, the continued growth in MIT’s population and expansion of campus building stock presented a challenge. The seemingly high parking fees nonetheless represent a significant subsidy to motorists—the average annualized cost of providing an on-campus parking space is $2,300. In Spring 2007, a graduate seminar proposed a Universal Transportation Program to integrate parking prices, tran-sit subsidies, and shuttle services (Block-Schachter et al, 2007). Although the report analyzes multiple policy alternatives, the alternatives centered on two components: 1) provision of a heavily-subsidized mobility pass to all members of the cam-pus community; and 2) assessment of parking fees for campus commuters on a daily basis, with prices varying among lots.

PAGE A.8


APPENDIX A

THE UNIVERSAL MOBILITY PASS

The MIT mobility pass program would give all eligible employees and students an unlimited pass to allow full use of the Boston area MBTA bus and rail system. The “co-pay” associated with the mobility pass would be set at or below the current $15.50 monthly charge for an MIT-subsidized local bus pass. By providing transit passes to all or most of the campus, MIT would be able to provide a significantly lower rate per pass, which would be negotiated with MBTA based on expected us-age. In order to manage opposition to such a compulsory program, the pass could be phased in over several years and/or an opt-out option could be made available after a fully-subsidized introductory period. Under the new policy, parking permits would be bundled with the mobility pass. Thus, persons choosing to regularly reach campus by private automobile would be required to participate in the program.

RESTRUCTURED PARKING PRICING

The current parking program charges flat-rate annual parking fees. However with the new parking policy, this would change to a system where commuters would pay a daily rate whenever they park on campus. A yearly base fee would be assessed to obtain a permit and defray administrative costs. The yearly charge would also enroll drivers in the mobility pass program, described above. By bundling a transit pass with the parking fee, MIT would increase participation in the mobility pass program and lower its negotiated rate with MBTA.

The proposal also recommends that daily parking rates be set in tiers, with the most central facilities assessing a higher fee. Under each alternative, rates at several lots would be set at or below the current daily cost of parking (approximately $3). In combination with improved shuttle service, this program design would alleviate equity concerns, particularly for those with poor transit access and inability to absorb a sizeable increase in parking cost.

INTEGRATED PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY

By restricting parking and subsidizing transit, MIT policy engenders high shares of travel by alternative modes. Imple-mentation of a Universal Transportation Program would address some of the perverse incentives inherent in the current system. Currently, commuters are asked, in effect, to make a single modal decision for all trips to campus in a given year. Once a driver has obtained his/her annual pass, he/she has little incentive to ever switch modes, given the zero marginal cost of daily parking.

Integrated parking and transit policy recognizes that a reduction in SOV commuting can be achieved without a wholesale shift in travel mode among the campus population. For example, a reduction in AM peak auto trips of 200 vehicles does not require that 200 persons who currently drive alone switch to transit. The same outcome is achieved if 1,000 motorists are persuaded to switch to an alternative mode an average of one day per week. By bundling transit and parking permits, motorists have an incentive to use transit on those occasions that their schedule or situation permits. Conversely, the benefits of occasional auto access can be extended to more individuals.

FINDINGS

The proposed Universal Transportation Program creates a coherent policy environment in which pricing structures are aligned with desired outcomes, without imposing severe costs to those that choose to drive. Such a program could be a key tool in addressing the future parking challenges faced by MIT. Given the prohibitive cost of fully replacing of lost surface parking areas (with structured and/or underground parking), any reduction in parking demand is financially beneficial. The program would also be more flexible for users and encourage transit ridership.

8. Portland, OR

LLOYD DISTRICT ON-STREET PARKING

The Lloyd District meter district is located immediately across the Willamette River from downtown Portland. A majority of the meter revenues collected in the Lloyd District are allocated to transportation improvements and programs within


PAGE A.9

APPENDIX A

the district (Williams et al, 2005).

The Lloyd District meter district includes nearly 2,000 metered parking spaces serving a mixed-use business center in Port-land. Established in 1997, the program includes:

• Elimination of free commuter parking and a commitment to on-street and off-street parking pricing;

• Development of aggressive maximum parking ratios for development projects;

• Agreement to purchase annual employee transit passes through the establishment of the Lloyd District PASSport Program;

• Restrictions on surface parking lot development;

• Design guidelines and restrictions on parking near the MAX light rail system;

• New direct route transit;

• Extension of the downtown fare-free transit area to include the Lloyd District;

• Provision of operating funds for the Lloyd District Transportation Management Association; and

• Investment in pedestrian improvements including sidewalks, intersection crossings, and lighting.

At the time of the initiation of the planning process in the Lloyd District, the commute mode split for transit was 10 per-cent. By the end of 2005, the area’s transit commute share had risen to 41 percent (Williams, 2006). During this time, the district experienced economic growth with over 1.3 million square feet of new development and a decrease in the commer-cial office vacancy rate from 12 percent (2001) to 3 percent (2005).

9. Austin, TX

PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT PILOT PROGRAM

Funded in part by a grant from the Mobile Source Outreach Assistance program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the City of Austin has launched a pilot program that allows residents to elect to price on-street parking spaces in their neighborhood and use the revenue for community improvements (City of Austin, 2009). On July 28, 2005, the Aus-tin City Council approved this new program to help residents benefit from more rationally priced on-street parking while managing competing parking demands, including spillover impacts.

Under the program, Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) are created by pricing on-street parking (with pay stations or meters) and dedicating the parking revenue to the community. Revenues are dedicated to improvements that “promote walk-ing, cycling, and transit use, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and bicycle lanes” (City of Austin, 2009). The revenue from the meters/pay stations is saved in a Capital Improvement (CIP) account specifically for the neighborhood. Each year, the neighborhood has the opportunity to inform staff and the City Council if they want to use revenue for improvements or wait until more revenue is saved. The PBD may also be used in conjunction with a residential permit program in order to prioritize some parking for residents and their visitors within the PBD.

The first PBD was established in January 2006 in the West Campus District. Also in 2006, this area of Austin was approved for a zoning overaly that aims to increase residential density. Thus, the PBD revenue from parking meters will specifically be used towards streetscape improvements in order “to improve the pedestrian environment as the residential density of West Campus increases” (City of Austin, 2009).

10. Houston, TX

PARKING AMBASSADORS PROGRAM

In an effort to improve customer service and ease parking issues, the city of Houston has trained their parking enforce-ment officers (PEOs) with additional skills and knowledge to serve as “Ambassadors” for residents and visitors and improve the parking experience. The Ambassador Program is a partnership between the Houston Police Department and the Park-

PAGE A.10


APPENDIX A

ing Management division of the City of Houston Convention and Entertainment Facilities Department (City of Houston, 2006).

In addition to their standard training, the Houston Parking Ambassadors are trained in CPR and crowd control techniques and can direct individuals to nearby destinations and assist with wayfinding around Houston. As Director of the City of Houston Convention and Entertainment Facilities Department, Dawn Ullrich notes “Ambassadors will have the ability to assist with everything from finding a great nearby restaurant to locating a downtown landmark or giving directions for the quickest route to a particular destination”, which will add to their already important role within the City (City of Houston, 2006).

ContributorsWilbur Smith Associates

Michael R. Kodama Planning Consultants

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

ReferencesBlock-Schachter, David, Michael Kay, Francesca Napolitan, and Tegin Teich, 2007. Sustainable Transportation @ MIT: Final Report. <http://ocw.mit.edu/Ocw Web/Civil-and-Environmen tal-Engineering/1-963Spring-2007/Projects/index.htm>.

Boei, Bill, 2006. “Top Up Your Parking Meter with a Cell Call.” Vancouver Sun, 27 June 2006.

Cervero, Robert et. al, 2004. TCRP Report 102: Transit Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challeng-es, and Prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program.

City of Austin, 2009. Parking Benefit District. <https://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parkingdistrict/default.htm>.

City of Houston, 2006. Parking Management – News. Parking Enforcement Officers to Serve as Downtown Ambassadors. <http://www.houstontx.gov/parking/20060718.htm>.

City of Redwood City, 2005a. The Downtown Redwood City Parking Management Plan.

City of Redwood City, 2005b. City Ordinance 242.

City of San Diego, 2004. Community Parking District Policy, Council Policy 100-18. Adopted 15 November 2004.

City of San Diego, 2009. Community Parking District Program. <http://www.sandiego.gov/economic-development/busi-ness-assistance/small-business/pmd.shtml>.

City of Vancouver, 2009. Pay By Phone Parking: FAQ. <http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/parking/payparking_faq.htm>.

Kolozsvari, Douglas, and Donald Shoup, 2003. “Turning Small Change Into Big Changes,” Access 23, pp. 2-7. University of California Transportation Center.

New York City Department of Transportation, 2006. Midtown Commercial Parking Pricing Program.

Port of San Francisco, 2007. Parking Systems Pilot Results and Pricing Options. San Francisco Port Steering Committee.

Shoup, Donald. 2007. “Gone Parkin’.” The New York Times, 29 March 2007.

Williams, Rick, Wilbur Smith Associates, Richard Willson, and Michael Kodama, 2005. Los Angeles Downtown Parking Management Ordinance Implementation Project: Best Practices in Parking Management. Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles.

Williams, Rick, 2006. Lloyd District Regional Center Plan and Progress. Portland, OR.


PAGE B.1

APPENDIX B. NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDY OBSERVATIONS

The Authority, SFMTA, the Planning Department, and project consultants developed a draft matrix of San Francisco neighborhoods to consider for in-depth study of existing parking conditions. The study team’s goal was to select a set of neighborhoods that varied in land use mix and density, demographics, transit supply, parking issues, and geographic loca-tion. The study team considered the neighborhood’s existing parking issues, including use of parking meters, inclusion in a residential permit zone, presence of large institutions, and supply of off-street parking.

Given the study’s focus on neighborhood commercial and residential streets, areas in the downtown core and areas with little commercial activity were eliminated. Large neighborhoods (such as the Richmond or Mission districts) were eliminat-ed as they would be out of the scope of this limited study. (Many of the strategies and solutions explored in this study are applicable to such neighborhoods, but the large areas would make it difficult to collect and analyze meaningful on-street data within a limited budget.) The team also eliminated neighborhoods where the Port of San Francisco holds responsibili-ties for managing some parking supplies.

As such, four neighborhoods were chosen: Bernal Heights, Cow Hollow, Hayes Valley, and West Portal.

Case Study NeighborhoodsThe final four neighborhoods were chosen so that there was a range of transit access, supply of public off-street parking, major institutions, income levels, and geographic distribution across the city. Each neighborhood is briefly discussed below, and Figure 1, below, summarizes this information. Maps of the neighborhoods are included at the end of this document.

Figure 1: Case Study NeighborhoodsBERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

Population 19,170 18,800 12,300 5,646

Residents/acre 41/acre 38/acre 56/acre 18/acre

% Employed 59% 70% 50% 63%

Median HH Income $63,800 $95,800 $35,200 $97,000

Commute Mode (Census Journey-to-Work)

56% auto 53% auto 40% auto 60% auto

30% transit 30% transit 37% transit 26% transit

14% walk/bike 17% walk/bike 24% walk/bike 17% walk/bike

Off-Street Parking few private garages, commercial lots

small public lots large public lots small public lots

Source: Census 2000. (Off-street parking information is from field observations, Wilbur Smith Associates.)

BERNAL HEIGHTS

The study area for the Bernal Heights neighborhood was defined as the area bounded by Cesar Chavez Street to the north, Folsom Street to the east, Dolores Street to the west, and Elsie and Santa Marina Streets to the south. Situated in the southeast portion of the city, Bernal Heights is within close proximity of two major regional roadways, US-101 and I-280. Mission Street is the neighborhood’s main commercial corridor with various local businesses, primary community-serving such as small restaurants, doctor’s offices, and auto repair businesses. Bernal Heights also includes several community institutions including a major hospital (St. Luke’s), local churches, and a job-training center (One Stop Career Link Center).

APPENDIX B

PAGE B.2


The median household income of Bernal Heights residents as reported by the 2000 Census is approximately $63,800. The neighborhood is well served by transit with bus lines providing service at regular frequencies during the morning, midday, and evening periods.

COW HOLLOW

The study area for the Cow Hollow neighborhood was defined as the area bounded by Greenwich Street to the north, Franklin Street to the east, Divisadero Street to the west, and Vallejo Street to the south. Located in the northwest part of the city, the neighborhood is defined by Union Street, its main commercial corridor with various specialty food shops, small fashion boutiques, larger anchor retail stores, and financial and professional offices. The neighborhood’s commercial area is local and regional-serving. The median household income of Cow Hollow residents as reported by the 2000 Cen-sus is approximately $95,800. The neighborhood is well served by transit with five bus lines providing service at regular frequencies during the morning, midday, and evening periods.

HAYES VALLEY

The study area for the Hayes Valley neighborhood was defined as the area bounded by McAllister Street to the north, Van Ness Street to the east, Fillmore Street to the west, and Oak Street to the south. Situated in the northeast portion of the City, Hayes Valley is within close proximity of a major regional roadway, US-101. The neighborhood is further accessed by several major arterials, including Octavia Boulevard and Franklin, Gough, Fell, and Oak Streets. In the neighborhood, the aforementioned streets function as one-way couplets such that Franklin and Gough Streets run north and south respec-tively, and Fell and Oak Streets run west and east respectively. Octavia Boulevard is the major arterial providing access to the regional freeway network via US-101. Hayes Street is the neighborhood’s main commercial corridor with numerous businesses including restaurants and specialized retail shops. The neighborhood also includes several community institu-tions including the Hayes Valley Recreation Center, the San Francisco Opera, Ballet, and Symphony, and several churches. The median income of Hayes Valley residents according to Census 2000 data is approximately $35,200. The neighborhood is multifunctional, serving as one of the City’s key cultural and arts centers. The neighborhood is well served by five transit lines that provide service at regular frequencies.

WEST PORTAL

The study area for the West Portal neighborhood was defined as the area bounded by Taraval Street to the north, Kensing-ton Way to the east, 15th Avenue to the west, and Portola Drive to the south. Situated in the southwestern portion of the city, West Portal is defined by its main commercial street, West Portal Drive, which runs southwest-northwest through its center and attracts a significant amount of pedestrian activity. West Portal Drive runs the length of the neighborhood and is fronted by small retail businesses and restaurants. Unlike the row housing characteristic of many other San Francisco neighborhoods, West Portal is characterized by single family detached homes with small yards, housing approximately 5,646 residents within the designated study area. The median income of West Portal residents as reported by the 2000 Census was approximately $97,000. The neighborhood has high transit connectivity with five Muni lines serving the neighborhood, notably three Muni Metro lines and two surface bus lines.

Data Collection and MethodologyExisting parking conditions were observed and assessed to understand parking issues in each of the four study neighbor-hoods. For each neighborhood, a representative eight block area was selected for inventory and observation. These repre-sentative areas were selected to include both commercial and residential areas. Figure 2, next page, presents the inventory of spaces within each neighborhood’s representative area during the observation period.

APPENDIX B


PAGE B.3

Figure 2: Neighborhood Representative Areas, On-Street Parking InventoryBERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

2-hour limited, RPP excepted

78 (Zone “Z”)

303 (Zone “K”)

49 (Zones “R”, “S”)

350 (Zone “O”)

2-hour metered — 99 28 118

1-hour metered 66 — 84 —

30-minute metered 4 12 6 39

30-minute Yellow metered 13 5 8 4

Yellow unmetered — 3 3 —

Loading 4 — 4 6

Disabled 2 1 — 4

Taxi — 1 — —

Unregulated 228 — 90 —

Total 395 424 272 521


Two types of observations were conducted in the neighborhoods. First, on-street parking occupancy was calculated. Oc-cupancy was calculated by observing the number of parked vehicles as compared to the total inventory of spaces. In each study neighborhood, parking occupancy was observed in both the residential and commercial portions of the representa-tive area.

Second, parking behavior at individual spaces was observed in each neighborhood’s commercial area. In these areas, vehicle license plates were observed at 30 minute intervals over a given time period to determine how long each vehicle was parked and how many vehicles occupied a specific space. This data allowed the calculation of parking turnover and dura-tion.

On-Street Parking ObservationsParking observations were conducted on two typical weekdays (both Wednesdays) and one weekend day (a Saturday) in each neighborhood. Weekday data was averaged across the two observation days. Weekday observations were conducted for three time periods: early morning (6 a.m. to 7 a.m.), mid-day (11 a.m. to 3 p.m.), and evening (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.). Week-end observations were conducted for the mid-day period only. The following summary is organized by observation day and period.

WEEKDAY EARLY MORNING—RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Weekday early morning observations were conducted in each neighborhood’s residential area. Because of the early observa-tion hour, this information is a good indicator of overnight parking demand. Figure 3, below, summarizes the early morn-ing occupancy observations.

Figure 3: Parking Occupancy, Weekday Early Morning Residential AreasNEIGHBORHOOD PARKING SUPPLY WITHOUT PERMIT WITH PERMIT TOTAL OCCUPIED OCCUPANCY

Bernal Heights 229 205 21 226 99%

Cow Hollow 224 90 116 205 92%

Hayes Valley 147 90 27 117 80%

West Portal 226 36 59 95 42%

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Field observations were conducted in February, March, and April of 2006.

APPENDIX B


The primary use of on-street parking supply in most residential areas at this time can be assumed to be overnight storage by residents and their visitors; however, in some locations spillover parking from large long-term parking generators may have an effect. Overnight parking is quite constrained in the Bernal Heights and Cow Hollow neighborhoods. In Bernal Heights, two of the five representative residential blocks are adjacent to a large parking generator—St. Luke’s Hospital—which likely contributes to the high early morning occupancy rates. (On-street parking occupancies near the hospital were observed at rates in excess of 100 percent during the early morning.) It is also important to note that the Residential Park-ing Permit (RPP) program does not have any impact during the overnight/early morning period. The RPP exempts permit-ted vehicles from time regulations that are in effect during the daytime only.

WEEKDAY MID-DAY—RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS

Weekday mid-day observations were conducted in each neighborhood’s residential and commercial areas. Figures 4 and 5, below, summarize the weekday mid-day occupancy observations.

Figure 4: Parking Occupancy, Weekday Mid-Day Residential Areas

NEIGHBORHOODPARKING SUPPLY

WITHOUT PERMIT

WITH PERMIT

AVERAGE OCCUPIED OCCUPANCY

Bernal Heights 229 127 17 144 63%

Cow Hollow 224 114 100 214 96%

Hayes Valley 147 102 17 119 81%

West Portal 226 74 76 150 66%


Figure 5: Parking Occupancy, Weekday Mid-Day Commercial Areas


AVERAGE OCCUPIED OCCUPANCY

Bernal Heights 166 145 87%

Cow Hollow 208 194 93%

Hayes Valley 125 94 75%

West Portal 328 284 87%


Weekday mid-day parking occupancy rates were observed to be high in all of the neighborhoods, approaching or exceed-ing practical capacity in either or both the residential and commercial areas. The Cow Hollow neighborhood experiences a significant “parking crunch” during the mid-day period along both commercial and residential blocks, likely due to the high attractiveness of the area’s retail corridor, which draws both local and regional visitors. Nearly half of the vehicles parked in Cow Hollow’s residential area were observed displaying an RPP, indicating that the high parking demand in this neighbor-hood provides an incentive for residents and other eligible permit holders (e.g., businesses) to participate in the program.

WEEKDAY EVENING—RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS

Weekday evening observations were conducted in each neighborhood’s residential and commercial areas. Figures 6 and 7, below, summarize the weekday evening occupancy observations.

Figure 6: Parking Occupancy, Weekday Evening Residential Areas


WITHOUT PERMIT

WITH PERMIT

TOTAL OCCUPIED OCCUPANCY

Bernal Heights 229 159 17 176 77%

Cow Hollow 224 112 94 206 92%

Hayes Valley 147 108 27 135 92%

West Portal 226 80 80 160 71%



PAGE B.5

APPENDIX B

Figure 7: Parking Occupancy, Weekday Evening Commercial Areas








Weekday evening parking occupancies were observed to be high in all of the neighborhoods, approaching or exceeding practical occupancy in either or both the residential and commercial areas. Weekday evening parking is constrained in the neighborhoods for a variety of reasons. In most locations, on-street parking regulations end at 6 p.m. Meters are no longer enforced, and the RPP no longer provides any benefit to permit holders in time-regulated spaces. In neighborhoods with popular commercial corridors, the evening is a high-activity period as visitors come to the neighborhood for dinner, theatre, and other recreational purposes; this is particularly observed in Cow Hollow and Hayes Valley both of which have a high quantity of evening attractions. Finally, observations indicated that parking occupancies increased during the evening period in residential areas as residents returned home.

WEEKEND MID-DAY—RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS

Weekend observations were conducted for occupancy in the neighborhoods during the mid-day period (between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.) for both the commercial and residential blocks. Figures 8 and 9, below, summarize the weekend occupancy observations.

Figure 8: Parking Occupancy, Weekend Mid-Day Residential Areas








Figure 9: Parking Occupancy, Weekend Mid-Day Commercial Areas








Weekends are clearly a time of high parking demand for the study neighborhoods. Commercial areas are especially im-pacted with three of the neighborhoods exhibiting occupancies in excess of 85 percent on the surveyed commercial blocks.

PAGE B.6


APPENDIX B

TURNOVER AND DURATION OBSERVATIONS—COMMERCIAL AREAS

On-street parking turnover and duration was calculated for each study neighborhood’s commercial area during the week-day mid-day and evening periods. As described in Box 3-A, above, parking turnover refers to the number of vehicles oc-cupying a space throughout an observed time period, and duration refers to the amount of time a vehicle occupies a space. Turnover is an indicator of the efficiency of parking utilization, while duration is an indicator of the effectiveness of time limits and enforcement. Figures 10 and 11, below, present the turnover and duration observations.

Figure 10: Parking Turnover, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas AVERAGE VEHICLE TURNOVER (NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN A SIX-HOUR TIME PERIOD)

30 MINUTE METERED

1 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR LIMITED

Bernal Heights 5.1 veh. 5.4 veh. n/a 1.5 veh.1

3.8 veh.

Cow Hollow n/a n/a 5.1 veh. 1.6 veh.1

3.3 veh.

Hayes Valley 2.9 veh. 3.4 veh. n/a 2.0 veh.1

West Portal 8.0 veh. n/a 6.2 veh. 1.9 veh.1

3.1 veh.

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Field observations were conducted in February, March, and April of 2006. Notes: 1 Indicates observations for vehicles with RPPs.

Figure 11: Parking Duration, Weekday Mid-day/Evening Commercial Areas

AVERAGE VEHICLE DURATION PER SPACE (HOURS)

30 MINUTE METERED

1 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR METERED

2 HOUR LIMITED

Bernal Heights 0.7 hrs. 1.2 hrs. n/a 6+ hrs. 1

1.7 hrs.

Cow Hollow n/a n/a 1.4 hrs. 6+ hrs. 1

2.4 hrs.

Hayes Valley 1.0 hr. 1.7 hrs. n/a 3.6 hrs. 1

West Portal 0.7 hrs. n/a 1.4 hrs. 3 to 6+ hrs. 1

1.75 hrs.

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Field observations were conducted in February, March, and April of 2006. Notes: 1 Indicates observations for vehicles with RPPs.

The turnover and duration data indicate that on-street spaces are not being utilized as efficiently as possible. For example, note that the average vehicle duration in many cases is in excess of the posted time limit. This contributes to the poor park-ing availability in the neighborhoods. Use of RPP permits clearly results in long parking sessions (i.e., daytime storage) by permit holders. Long parking durations and insufficient turnover is attributable to some combination of multiple factors, including combination of insufficient enforcement, unsuitable allocation of space types, and pricing strategies that do not prioritize short-term uses. In general, utilization will be more efficient as a neighborhood’s on-street parking supply is more highly and appropriately regulated.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING OBSERVATIONS—SUMMARY FINDINGS

All of the observed neighborhoods experience practical capacity issues at different times of the week. Figure 12, next page, summarizes the parking occupancy observations.


PAGE B.7

APPENDIX B

Figure 12: Parking Occupancy, Summary

NEIGHBORHOOD

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

EARLY MORNING MID-DAY EVENING MID-DAY EVENING

Bernal Heights 99% weekday 63% weekday 77% weekday 87% weekday 87% weekday


Cow Hollow 92% weekday 96% weekday 92% weekday 93% weekday 97% weekday


Hayes Valley 80% weekday 81% weekday 92% weekday 75% weekday 73% weekday


West Portal 42% weekday 66% weekday 71% weekday 87% weekday 84% weekday



Each neighborhood experiences constrained parking availability to varying extents at different times during a typical week. Solutions to parking challenges need to be tailored to neighborhood conditions and community priorities. However, the occupancy information indicates that parking supplies should be more proactively regulated (including sufficient enforce-ment) in order to improve availability and the efficiency of utilization.

Turnover and duration observations suggest that there is a mismatch between time limits and the competing demands of short- and long-term users. A progressive pricing structure that is paired with relaxed time limits encourages turnover and prioritizes short-term use while allowing longer parking sessions for those who are willing to pay higher rates for addition-al time. The duration observations also indicate a need for enhanced enforcement and policies which encourage long-term parkers to switch to off-street parking and/or reduced household automobile ownership.

Case Studies: Off-Street Parking ObservationsA reconnaissance of each study neighborhood was conducted to account for off-street parking facilities. The reconnaissance included an inventory of both public and private facilities within each neighborhood study area. In addition, parking opera-tors were interviewed to assess parking utilization.

INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY

In each neighborhood, off-street lots and garages were classified as either public or private based on who was allowed to use the facility. Private lots are generally defined as those owned and used by businesses to provide parking for their customers and employees. Public parking facilities offer parking to the general public for a fee that is either regulated by timed meters or the purchase of a parking permit. (Note that “public” facilities may include both City-owned garages and metered lots as well as privately-operated off-street facilities open to the general public on a daily basis.) In each neighbor-hood, parking occupancy of the off-street facilities was observed during a typical weekday. Figure 13 (next page), presents a summary of the off-street parking supply and occupancy observations.

PAGE B.8


APPENDIX B

Figure 13: Off-Street Parking Inventory and Occupancy (weekday)

NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC/PRIVATE – LOT/GARAGE SUPPLYEARLY AM (6-8 AM)

MID-DAY (11 AM -3PM)

EVENING (5-7 PM)

Bernal Heights Public—Lots 324 73% 87% 52%

Private—Lots 527 52% 73% 65%

Bernal Heights Total 851 60% 78% 60%

Cow Hollow Public—Garages 245 15% 58% 36% 1

Public—Garage (monthly only) 18 not observed 94%

Cow Hollow Total 263 n/a n/a 40%

Hayes Valley Public—Lots 136 60% 96% 37%

Public—Garage 600 30% 60% 65%

Private—Lots 269 39% 86% 84%

Hayes Valley Total 1,005 37% 72% 66% 2

West Portal Public—Lots 42 43% 90% 95%

Private—Lot 17 6% not observed 47%

West Portal Total 59 32% n/a 81%

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Field observations were conducted in February, March, and April of 2006. Notes: 1 Occupancy reported for a typical weekday. Friday and Saturday evening occupancy was reported by facility operators as significantly higher (approximately 70%). 2 Occupancy frequently approaches 100% on evenings with a scheduled performance at one of the nearby cultural institutions (e.g., San Francisco Opera).


PAGE C.1

APPENDIX C. MARKET RESEARCH SUMMARY

1. Neighborhood Intercept SurveyFor the purposes of this study, a parking “intercept survey” was administered in each study neighborhood to gather infor-mation about public attitudes and perceptions regarding parking in the area. The surveys were conducted by an interview team, which posed questions to random individuals encountered on the street. As such, a total of 400 hundred surveys were conducted (100 per neighborhood) during a typical weekday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in April 2006. The survey included questions about respondents’ behaviors, concerns, and opinions regarding parking. Questions were also asked to gauge respondents’ sensitivity with respect potential new parking policies and programs. The following section presents a summary of the survey results.

RESPONDENT PROFILES

Introductory questions were posed to all respondents to assess the nature of individuals’ activity (or trip purpose) in the neighborhood and travel mode. Figure 1, below, summarizes the profiles of respondents in each neighborhood.

Figure 1: Intercept Survey, Respondent ProfileBERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

Primary reason for visit, most common response Residence (32%) Residence (23%), Work (23%)

Residence (37%) Shopping (24%)

Primary reason for visit, 2nd-most common response Work (30%) Work (22%) Residence (20%)

Residence, survey neighborhood/adjacent neighborhood 67% 50% 51% 68%

Residence, elsewhere in San Francisco 21% 26% 20% 17%

Residence, Bay Area other than San Francisco 1 11% 24% 21% 10%

Travel mode, Auto 19% 29% 30% 41%

Travel mode, Transit 37% 31% 24% 41%

Travel mode, Walk 39% 32% 36% 18%

Travel mode, Bike 3% 2% 3% 1%

Travel mode, Drop-off 2% 3% 2% 0%

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Notes: 1 Residence percentages may not add to 100% due to respondents that did not provide a residence location and/or respondents that reside outside of the Bay Area. In general, neighborhood residents were least likely to be traveling via automobile when surveyed. The largest quantity of drivers were individuals in the neighborhoods for employment. Figure 2 (next page), illustrates the split between drivers and non-drivers across varying trip purposes.

PARKING EXPERIENCE

In each neighborhood, survey respondents who indicated that they had driven to the area were asked about their parking experience that day. Respondents provided their primary reason for driving, parking location, time spent looking for park-ing, and proximity of their parking location to their destination. The most frequently cited reason for driving was conve-nience; other reasons included having multiple passengers, transporting large packages, need for car due to work-related activities, and inaccessibility of alternative modes. Figure 3 (next page), summarizes the additional results of the parking experience questions.

APPENDIX C

PAGE C.2


APPENDIX C

Figure 3: Intercept Survey, Parking ExperienceBERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

Parking location: on-street 58% 73% 84% 77%

Parking location: off-street 32% 17% 13% 21%

Time spent finding parking: less than 5 minutes 63% 57% 55% 58%

Time spent finding parking: 5 to 10 minutes 21% 27% 32% 33%

Time spent finding parking: more than 10 min. 5% 7% 10% 7%

Parking proximity: within 1 block 79% 53% 61% 49%

Parking proximity: more than 1 block 11% 37% 39% 51%

Length of stay: less than 1 hour 16% 27% 16% 35%

Length of stay: 1 to 2 hours 26% 27% 45% 44%

Length of stay: greater than 2 hours 37% 37% 29% 19%

Anticipated parking cost: $0 79% 37% 68% 49%

Anticipated parking cost: less than $1 0% 3% 3% 12%

Anticipated parking cost: $1 to $3 5% 23% 13% 28%

Anticipated parking cost: $4 to $10 0% 10% 6% 5%

Anticipated parking cost: more than $10 0% 10% 0% 0%

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to non-responses and/or “other” response.

Figure 2: Intercept Survey, Drivers and Non-Drivers by Primary Trip Purpose


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Residen

ceWork

Shoppin

g

Persona

l Busines

sMedi

cal

Errands Visit

or

Recreat

ion Other

Primary Trip Purpose

Perce

ntage

of R

espo

nden

ts

Non-DriverDriver


PAGE C.3

APPENDIX C

The majority of visitors who drove parked on-street, and approximately 25 to 40 percent of the drivers spent 5 or more minutes finding parking. There is a wide range of length of time that drivers anticipate spending in the neighborhood, with demand for both short- and long-term parking sessions. There is an expectation of free parking in certain neighborhoods, such as Bernal Heights where 79 percent of drivers anticipated not paying for parking. In Cow Hollow—overall, the most parking constrained of the four neighborhoods—only 37 percent of surveyed drivers expected not to pay for parking.

PARKING ATTRIBUTES

Respondents who indicated that they drove were asked to rate the importance of several parking attributes on a five point scale (higher numbers indicate greater higher importance). Figure 4, below, presents the average ratings by neighborhood for the parking attributes.

Figure 4: Intercept Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes (average among respondents)ATTRIBUTE BERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

Availability 3.89 4.75 4.55 4.07

Convenience 3.78 4.36 3.90 4.02

Price 3.33 3.89 3.90 4.05

Payment Methods 2.67 3.36 2.73 3.10

Information 3.06 3.26 3.25 3.19

Safety 4.33 3.29 4.26 3.70

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. Note: Respondents rated the importance of each attribute on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicating very low importance and 5 indicating very high importance. Values reported in this table for each attribute are the average among respondents who reported a level of importance.

Availability was reported as an especially important attribute, ranking highest in all neighborhoods except for Bernal Heights where safety was reported as important. Convenience was also reported as an important attribute and ranked nearly as high as availability in all of the neighborhoods. For all four neighborhoods, availability was more highly ranked than price.

PRICE SENSITIVITIES

Respondents who indicated that they drove were asked how much they would be willing to pay for convenient on- and off-street parking, as well as for improved on-street parking. Figure 5, below, presents the average price points by neigh-borhood, as well as the percentage of respondents who reported a willingness to pay if revenues were invested in local improvements.

Figure 5: Intercept Survey, Willingness to Pay for Parking (per hour, average among respondents)PARKING TYPE BERNAL HEIGHTS COW HOLLOW HAYES VALLEY WEST PORTAL

Convenient on-street parking $1.88 $2.69 $1.64 $1.31

On-street parking with most important attribute improved $2.58 $2.58 $1.93 $1.54

Convenient off-street parking $2.50 $4.81 $2.65 $1.68

Percent willing to pay if revenues invested in local improvements 84% 37% 61% 56%


Note: A small number of respondents reported a willingness to pay for off-street parking of “greater than $10” per hour. These responses were valued at $12 for purposes of averaging.

In all of the neighborhoods except for Cow Hollow, willingness to pay rose if parking was improved. Cow Hollow was

PAGE C.4


APPENDIX C

also the only neighborhood in which less than half of respondents were willing to pay if revenues were invested in local improvements. This is likely due to both the current highly-constrained parking in the neighborhood—making conditions seem intractable—as well as the high proportion of regional travelers in the area who are less interested in local improve-ments.

2. Citywide Market Research—Resident SurveyIn addition to the neighborhood-level intercept survey, citywide market research was conducted to obtain information about individuals’ preferences, opinions, and attitudes about parking. In particular the market research was focused on willingness to pay for better parking conditions and other benefits.

A random household mail survey was issued in July 2006 to citywide to 24,000 households. The survey materials included a cover letter, questionnaire, and business reply envelope. Residents of zip codes within the city with high concentrations of Chinese or Spanish speakers received two copies of the cover letter and questionnaire, one in English and the other in Chinese or Spanish. A total of 3,000 completed surveys were returned, representing a cross-section of citywide resident opinions with a very high response rate for typical mail surveys (12 ½ percent), resulting in a margin of error of ±1.8 per-cent. The collected data was compared to US Census Bureau 2004 population data for San Francisco; after examining the demographic profile of respondents, the data were weighted to the actual proportions of gender and age groups within the city. The survey collected information from respondents regarding:

• driving behavior (purpose, destination, frequency, etc.);

• importance of various parking attributes (availability, convenience, safety, etc.);

• user experience with regard to parking attributes; and

• willingness to pay for improved parking availability, convenience, and/or neighborhood improvements.

DRIVING BEHAVIOR

Respondents provided information on how often they drive, primary reason for driving, and their typical driving destina-tion. The results of these questions are summarized in Figure 6, below.

Figure 6: Resident Survey, Driving Behavior

Driving frequency Everyday 56%

At least once per week 39%

Once per month or less 5%

Primary driving purpose Work and personal 32%

Personal 25%

Work 24%

Other/no response 19%

Typical driving destination Within San Francisco 58%

Within and outside SF 33%

Uutside of SF 9%


Many San Francisco residents drive regularly, for both work and personal reasons. The most typical driving destination is within San Francisco.

PARKING ATTRIBUTES

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of nine attributes of on-street parking on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important). The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 7, next page.


PAGE C.5

APPENDIX C

Figure 7: Resident Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes (average among respondents)ON-STREET PARKING ATTRIBUTE AVERAGE RATING

Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 3.4s More importantMeter time limit (sufficient time to complete business) 3.2

Safety around on-street parking locations 2.9





Effective enforcement of on-street parking regulations 2.2 t Less

importantInformation about available on-street parking 2.2


San Francisco residents value parking availability as the most important aspect of on-street parking. Residents also want meters to allow sufficient time to allow the completion of activities at a destination. The cost of metered parking was the fifth-ranked on-street parking attribute.

After gauging the importance of these characteristics of on-street parking, respondents were asked to rate the same list of nine attributes in terms of their own experience with these parking features. Responses to this question were coded such that Excellent resulted in an experience rating of 4; Good, 3; Fair, 2; and Poor, 1. The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 8, below.

Figure 8: Resident Survey, Experience with Parking Attributes (average among respondents)

ON-STREET PARKING ATTRIBUTE AVERAGE RATING

Safety around on-street parking locations 2.8s Better experienceEffective enforcement of on-street parking regulations 2.6






Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 1.7 t Worse

experienceAvailability of different payment options 1.7


The availability of different payment options and the availability of parking spaces are the two parking attributes with which San Francisco residents have the worst experience. Safety and enforcement are the two best performing parking at-tributes in terms of user experience. Parking cost rated approximately “Fair” on average.

PREFERRED PRICING AND IMPROVEMENTS—FORCED CHOICE

The survey asked individuals whether they would be willing to pay for improved on-street parking. The survey tested three areas of improvement: availability (ease of finding a space), convenience (proximity to destination), and investment in neighborhood improvements. In addition, two levels of rate increase were tested: “$0.50 to $1.00 more per hour” and “$1.50 to $2.00 more per hour.” Combining the different rate increases and areas of improvement resulted in six scenarios (for example, “pay $0.50 to $1.00 more per hour for modest improvements to the neighborhood where I park”).

PAGE C.6


APPENDIX C

The survey utilized a force-choice format whereby respondents indicated their preferred scenario between two presented options. Because the six scenarios can be coupled to form 15 unique pairs, the 15 pairs were split into three survey ver-sions, taken by three different groups of respondents. Thus on each survey, a respondent completed 5 force choice ques-tions. Figure 9, below, presents the results of the force-choice questions in ranked order, where “low” indicates a test of the $0.50-$1.00 rate increase and “high” indicates a test of the $1.50-$2.00 rate increase. (For example, “neighborhood/low” corresponds to a preference for neighborhood improvements at the lower hourly rate increase.)

Figure 9, Resident Survey, Preferred Options% RESPONDENTS PREFERRING A

FORCED CHOICE: A OR B % RESPONDENTS PREFERRING B

A B

81% Availability/low Convenience/high 18%

80% Neighborhood/low Neighborhood/high 20%

78% Convenience/low Convenience/high 21%

75% Availability/low Neighborhood/high 25%

74% Availability/low Availability/high 25%

74% Availability/low Convenience/low 26%

71% Convenience/low Neighborhood/high 29%

66% Neighborhood/low Convenience/high 33%

65% Availability/low Neighborhood/low 35%

65% Availability/high Neighborhood/high 34%

64% Availability/high Convenience/high 35%

60% Convenience/high Neighborhood/high 38%

59% Neighborhood/low Availability/high 41%

57% Convenience/low Availability/high 42%

53% Convenience/low Neighborhood/low 47%


Overall, the pricing analysis revealed stronger respondent support for all the parking features at lower price levels than at high price levels. In addition, out of the three parking features tested, availability was the most chosen attribute. Improved parking availability at the lower price point was more highly favored in each pairing in which it was presented.

For each choice, after indicating their preference among the two options, respondents rated how likely they would be will-ing to pay for their preferred option at the associated rate increase as either “definitely willing to pay”, “probably willing to pay”, “probably unwilling to pay”, or “definitely unwilling to pay”. Respondents were most likely to be willing to pay for better availability.

3. Citywide Market Research – Business SurveyA telephone interview survey was conducted to collect information on business establishments’ perceptions of the parking behavior and preferences of customers and employees. A total of 201 business owners or general managers were surveyed in July 2006. Respondents were screened such that completed surveys were from businesses with fewer than 50 employ-ees and that serve customers primarily between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Each interview lasted approximately 12 minutes and the margin of error for the survey was ±6.9 percent. The survey queried respondents regarding:

• importance of various parking attributes to customers;

• customers’ willingness to pay for various parking enhancements;


PAGE C.7

APPENDIX C

• importance of various parking attributes to employees;

• employees’ willing to pay for various parking enhancements; and

• likelihood of businesses’ support for parking rate increase if new revenues were used for neighborhood improvements.

PARKING ATTRIBUTES

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of nine attributes of on-street parking to their business customers on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important). The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 10, below.

Figure 10: Business Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes to Customers


Availability (ease of finding an on-street space) 3.2s More importantSafety around on-street parking locations 3.1









Business owners/general managers perceive parking availability to be the most important attribute of on-street parking for their customers. Safety, convenience, and sufficient time limits were also highly ranked as important to customers. The cost of parking was the middlemost parking attribute for customers as ranked in the business survey.

Business owners/general managers were also asked to rate the importance of parking characteristics for their employees. The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 11, below; the rating scale is equivalent to that used in Figure 10, above.

Figure 11: Business Survey, Importance of Parking Attributes to Employees


Safety around on-street parking locations 2.9s More importantAvailability (ease of finding an on-street space) 2.9

Meter time limit (sufficient time to complete work) 2.8








Business owners/general managers ranked safety as the most important parking attribute for their employees. Parking availability and sufficient meter time limits were also rated as important.

PAGE C.8


APPENDIX C

PRICING IMPLICATIONS

Business owners/general managers were given a list of four potential enhancements and were asked if they thought that their customers would be willing to pay more per hour for each of the enhancements. Responses to this question were coded as follows: Definitely Willing to Pay, 4; Probably Willing, 3; Probably Unwilling, 2; and Definitely Unwilling, 1. The average results of these ratings are displayed in Figure 12, below.

Figure 12: Business Survey, Perceived Willingness of Customers to Pay for Enhancements

POTENTIAL PARKING ENHANCEMENT AVERAGE RATING

Being able to find a parking space more quickly 3.0 s More willingExtended parking meter time limits 2.9

Parking closer to business establishment 2.7t

Less willingImproved landscaping, lighting, maintenance and safety 2.4


Business owners/general managers reported that customers would be most likely willing to pay for enhanced parking avail-ability and longer parking time limits.

Respondents in the business survey were asked about their likelihood of supporting a potential increase in the on-street parking rate if a portion of the increased parking revenues were used to pay for neighborhood improvements, such as landscaping, sidewalk maintenance, pedestrian safety, and street-lighting. Figure 13, below, presents the results of this question.

Figure 13, Business Survey, Impact on support for rate increase if dedicated to improvementsIMPACT % OF RESPONDENTS

Much more likely to support 20%

Somewhat more likely to support 32%

Somewhat less likely to support 9%

Much less likely to support 22%

No impact 9%

Don’t know/no answer/refused 9%


Fifty-two percent of business owners/general managers were somewhat more likely or much more likely to support a park-ing rate increase if a portion of revenues were invested in neighborhood improvements.

on-street parking management and pricing study · pricing, with a focus on the weekday peak periods...

Documents