California
School1234
SFParking.pdf
Kennedy School of Government Case Program
CR14‐07‐1877.0
This case was written by Andrea Broaddus, a graduate student in the John F. Kennedy School of Government�s MPP/UP program, and Professor José A. Gómez‐Ibáñez, Derek C. Bok Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy at the Graduate School of Design and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The case is based on public document and interviews and is intended for class discussion only and not as a source of primary data. (0807)
Copyright © 2007 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this publication may be reproduced, revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Program. For orders and copyright permission information, please visit our website at www.ksgcase.harvard.edu or send a written request to Case Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Parking in San Francisco
San Francisco has a reputation as a trend‐setter, a place where new ideas that address social problems can gain a foothold. And, true to that spirit, in 2006 planners in the City and County of San Francisco were promoting an overhaul of the city�s parking policy that they claimed would correct unfair and unwise subsidies for automobile users. The effort, led by Tilly Chang of the County Transportation Authority and Ken Rich of San Francisco Planning Department, was designed to allow market forces to play a greater role in determining parking costs by, among other things, raising the price of residential on‐street parking in neighborhoods where it was scarce, and raising parking meter rates on downtown streets, and amending zoning provisions that specified the minimum numbers of off‐street parking spaces that developers of new residential and commercial projects had to provide.
The effort to evaluate the proposed reforms was just beginning, but the initial reception was mixed. The strongest support came from environmentalists, growth management activists, and affordable housing advocates who believed that under‐priced on‐street parking and mandatory provision of off‐street parking encouraged excessive automobile use and high housing prices. Some neighborhood groups were also supportive, but others had misgivings that on‐street parking might become unaffordable and that reducing requirements for off‐street parking would only exacerbate the shortage of on‐street spaces. The reaction among real estate developers also varied. Builders of low‐income housing were supportive, but builders of more upscale housing were concerned that proposals to replace the minimum off‐street parking requirements with maximums would make new housing units harder to sell.
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
The High Cost of Free Parking
The changes that San Francisco was considering represented a radical departure from traditional parking policies in American cities, and were inspired in large part by the scholarship of Don Shoup, a professor of planning and economics at the University of California at Los Angeles. Shoup had just published a book summarizing his many years of research into the origins and problems of American parking policy, titled The High Cost of Free Parking1. The book and his ideas on how to reform parking policy were receiving significant attention from city planners and local politicians. Shoup argued that free parking was something most Americans expect when making travel choices. It was so routinely provided by shop owners, employers, and home developers that parking only became a consideration in trip planning when it was not free. By tradition, citizens and city planners assumed that cities would provide free curbside public parking and that developers would provide additional free off‐street parking for the traffic generated by the activities on their sites.
Cities usually required developers to provide a minimum number of off‐street parking spots based on land use. The typical municipal zoning ordinance stated that �In connection with the use of each lot, sufficient off‐street parking space shall be provided to meet the demand created by all activities on the lot.� Few cities bothered to conduct a site‐specific analysis to establish how much parking was �sufficient� but relied instead on guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The common practice was to require at least 3 to 4 off‐street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, for example, and at least 1 or 2 off‐street parking space per residential dwelling unit. If a building required zoning variances, however, the minimum parking requirement often became the base for negotiating a higher number of off‐street spaces. Planning commissions and neighborhood groups could spend hours wrangling over parking provisions, often adding project costs and delays.
Shoup argued that these expectations and requirements led to an enormous oversupply of parking that encouraged excessive automobile use and increased air pollution and traffic congestion. Free or under‐priced on‐street parking gave drivers an incentive to cruise the streets looking for an open spot rather than pay for an off‐street space. His studies suggested that cruising accounted for as much as a third of traffic in crowded business and residential districts. Cruising ate up drivers� time, slowed other motorists and public transit vehicles, and added to air pollution.
Similarly, zoning requirements to provide large numbers of off‐street spaces at offices and stores encouraged most employers and merchants to offer free parking to employees and customers. And the minimum parking requirements for residential developments insured that commuters and shoppers would have an apparently �free� parking space at home as well, since a residential unit and its associated parking spaces were typically sold by developers as a package,
1 Don Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking (Chicago: Planners Press, 2005).
2
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
or bundle, rather than separately. The reality was that off‐street parking requirements added significantly to the costs of commercial and residential developments, and these costs were passed on to homebuyers and customers in the form of higher prices.
Overabundant parking also affected urban design and how cities grew geographically. The average parking space required 300 square feet. Many suburban cities required two parking spaces per new residential unit built, so that a condominium building with 50 units would need 100 new, off‐street parking spots. It was usually cheapest to provide these spaces on a surface lot, meaning that the condominium would be surrounded by 30,000 square feet, or two‐thirds of an acre, of parking lots. Shoup estimated that there were three parking spaces for each of the 230 million motor vehicles in the United States, which meant that an area equivalent in size to the state of Connecticut was covered with parking.
The ultimate solution to managing parking supply, Shoup argued, was to let the market do the planning. �Cities can and should regulate off‐street parking to improve its quality, but they should deregulate its quantity and instead charge market prices for curb parking,� he recommended. 2 On‐street parking meters should be priced such that occupancy is 85 percent in peak hours, for example, so that drivers can find an open spot without too much cruising. The parking spots would go to those who valued them most. Thus higher parking charges would amount to a progressive tax on the wealthy, Shoup argued, even though the poorest drivers would have to walk further. Moreover, �letting market prices manage parking will take a heavy burden off city councils, which now devote endless hours of uninformed debate to micromanagement of parking for every land use�if cities let prices take care of parking, politicians will spend more time debating public issues that really matter.� 3
Parking Demand in San Francisco
The City of San Francisco was the home to about 18.6 percent of the nine‐county metropolitan region�s workers and 25 percent of its jobs. San Francisco was well served by public transportation, including MUNI, a municipally owned cable car, street car, and bus operator; BART, a regional subway system that connected downtown San Francisco with the communities on the other side of the East Bay; CalTrain, a commuter rail service to the south, and the Golden Gate Transportation Authority, which operated express buses over the Golden Gate Bridge serving the city from the north. The extensive transit services, combined with high levels of traffic congestion, meant that San Francisco residents and workers relied far less heavily on the automobile than their counterparts in other American cities. Nevertheless, there were still a substantial number of San Franciscans who used cars and parking spaces.
2 Shoup, Free Parking, p. 500. 3 Shoup, Free Parking, pp. 483-484.
3
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Residents. The largest source of parking demand in San Francisco was residents who wanted a place to park the cars they owned. San Francisco�s 776,733 residents lived in 329,700 households and owned 365,009 motor vehicles, for an average of 1.1 per household (Exhibit 1). Nearly one‐third (29 percent) of all households did not own a vehicle, and most of those with vehicles owned only one (42 percent) or two (22 percent). These 365,009 vehicles required overnight parking accessible to the owners� residences. Unless they used their car for commuting, these residents required daytime parking as well.
Commuters. A second major source of demand was commuters driving to work in San Francisco. Some 573,990 persons worked in San Francisco, half of whom drove alone or carpooled to their jobs in an estimated 246,315 vehicles. Of these, 117,155 belonged to residents (Exhibit 2).
Non‐work trips. Motorists on shopping, personal business, or other non‐work trips were a third source of demand. These motorists typically parked for only an hour or two, and there was relatively little information on how numerous they were.
Commercial vehicles. A final source of parking demand was trucks and other commercial vehicles. There were perhaps 100,000 vehicles registered to San Francisco businesses counting trucks and trailers (compare Exhibits 1 and 3). Commercial vehicles registered elsewhere also, made deliveries in the City.
Parking Supply and Revenue
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority had produced an estimate of parking supply for its long‐range plan. Officials were confident of their count of parking spots in city‐ owned parking garages and lots, but less so of their count of spots in privately owned facilities. San Francisco monitored the number of municipal garage and meter spots closely, because the lion�s share of surplus parking revenues from public‐owned facilities were dedicated by law to the municipal public transit system, MUNI. City politicians were usually reluctant to raise parking rates, but they had been forced to do so in recent years due to transit budget shortfalls.
On‐street public parking. Officials estimated that there were 601,200 parking spaces in San Francisco, of which some 320,000 spaces were on‐street and available to the public (Exhibit 4). On‐ street spaces were used by all types of parkers. A total of 22,900 on‐street spaces were metered and were intended primarily for non‐work trips. Most of the metered spaces were in the downtown, but metered parking was often available in local commercial areas as well. Meter rates varied from $3.00 to $1.50 per hour, with the highest rate charged in the downtown core, also known as the financial district (Exhibit 5). Another 12,155 on‐street spaces were restricted to special uses, such as loading zones or handicapped parking, as indicated by posted signs or curbs that were painted a distinctive color.
4
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
The bulk of the on‐street spaces were used by residents, however, who wanted to insure that they got the spaces instead of commuters, shoppers, or visitors. The City had been forced to institute a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program to protect resident parking, and citizens in 27 neighborhoods had successfully petitioned to create RPP zones. Only cars that had the appropriate zone sticker could park in an RPP zone, and stickers were issued only to households or businesses located in the zone. Each sticker was for a particular vehicle (with the license number noted on the sticker), and households and businesses were allowed up to four stickers each. The City had recently increased the annual fee it charged for a sticker from $25 to $60; although the final figures were not available since the fiscal year 2006 ended, City officials thought the number of stickers had not fallen off much.
Off‐street public parking. Another 99,700 parking spaces were in garages or surface parking lots that were open to the public. Most of the garages were privately owned and located near or in the downtown, but the City owned and operated 19 garages and lots with 14,644 spaces. The City had raised the rates at municipal garages to keep pace with the private garages, with the exception of hourly rates, which were deliberately priced lower in an effort to attract shoppers to downtown businesses. In the downtown core, for example, the municipal and private garages had the same monthly rates ($350 to $400) and daily maximums ($30) but the municipal garages charged short‐term parkers only $3 for the first hour while the private garages charged $7 (Exhibit 5).
The off‐street public parking garages and lots were used by a combination of commuters and persons on shopping or other non‐work trips. One survey suggested that only 8,700 of the 99,700 public off‐street spaces were on monthly leases, but officials though this figure low and an underestimate of commuter use. Occupancy in the municipal garages had been close to 100 percent in the mid 1990s, at the height of the �dot com� boom, but was now closer to 70 percent.
Off‐street private parking. Finally the City estimated that there were another 181,500 parking spaces that were off street but not open to the general public. These included an estimated 160,500 private residential spaces and 21,000 private commercial spaces (open only to customers or employees of the business). The figures apparently did not include off‐street spaces and loading docks for commercial trucks.
Municipal parking revenues. The City earned $175.5 million in revenue from parking in 2005 (Exhibit 6), the majority from parking fines ($84.9 million), municipal garages ($71.3 million), and parking meters ($16.5 million), with the remainder from residential permits ($2.9 million).
Raising Prices for Residential Parking Permits
One of the most controversial and sensitive reforms being considered by the planners was to raise the prices of the residential parking permits (RPPs). The basic problem was that the City
5
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
sold more residential parking permits than there were on‐street spaces in the zones, so that an RPP was, some cynics said, a �hunting license� to search for neighborhood parking. Permit holders were not guaranteed to find a spot and sometimes had to park in a distant neighborhood or pay to park in a garage or lot, especially if they came home late or went out in the evening. The City didn�t have a firm grasp as to how serious the problem was�it knew that it sold 94,000 residential permits in 2004, but it had no figures on the number of on‐street spaces in each of the 27 permit zones. Planners knew the severity of the problem varied by zone�demand for parking was more intense in the prestigious and dense Russian Hill neighborhood, for example, but less in Market‐ Octavia, where nearly 60 percent of residents did not own a car. But they were pretty sure there was a problem in every zone. The 27 zones covered roughly a quarter of the City�s territory but included more than half of its residential population. Since RPP zones were created by citizen petition, and planners had to establish that parking occupancies were high, they were unlikely to exist in neighborhoods with excess parking.
The transportation planners were thinking of setting a permit price that was more closely aligned with supply. One possibility was to simply raise the permit fee from its current level of $60 per year but keep it the same for all zones. More ambitious schemes included setting different prices for different zones based on supply and demand, or even to issue only as many permits in a zone as there were spots and have an auction to determine the price.
A potential sticking point was that the residential parking permit was a fee rather than a tax. In California, as in many other states, cities were free to charge fees for services rendered as long as they covered the costs of those services and no more. A �fee� in excess of cost was defined as a tax, however, and the authority to levy a tax had to be granted by the state legislature. If the permit fee were set above the costs of administering and enforcing the program and related parking regulations, then the courts might rule that San Francisco needed state permission.
But at least one advocacy group, Transportation for a Livable City, argued that the permit fee was currently well below cost if one considered the value of the land. The price of land in San Francisco�s residential neighborhoods was roughly $4 million per acre, the group claimed, which implied that an on‐street parking spot took up $14,000 worth of land. That land value implied a cost of at least $700 per space per year,4 far more than the $60 currently charged for a parking permit.
The main objection from San Franciscans was that many residents had modest incomes, and that raising the cost of parking might make cars cost‐prohibitive for some. �Some people can�t afford to pay $100 per month,� said neighborhood advocate Patricia Walkup, �but others would be overjoyed to pay that and not hunt for a spot.� Only one neighborhood association had expressed interest in the idea so far, and that was Hayes Valley, a community of handsome and expensive
4 Calculation by the author assuming a 5 percent per year discount rate.
6
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Victorian houses. In other neighborhoods there were proposals that existing residents be �grandfathered��that is, allowed to buy permits at the old price. But grandfathering would do nothing for newcomers to San Francisco who could not afford a permit.
Another potential idea being studied by planners was to return the increased revenues from higher parking prices back to neighborhoods in the form of transportation improvements such as streetscape improvements, sidewalk extensions and cleaning, landscaping, and better lighting. Such �parking benefit districts� would need to be created through special legislation, although there were successful precedents in several other California cities such as Pasadena and Redwood City. This idea was aligned with San Francisco�s �Transit First� policy, which prioritized investments in transit, bicycling, and walking.
Raising Prices for Parking Meters
The second reform under consideration was to raise parking meter rates. New �smart� meters could be programmed to charge different rates in different areas and at peak hours. Planners thought that people would be willing to pay more to park at meters, especially in the city�s signature neighborhood commercial areas. ʺIn upscale shopping districts, it seems ludicrous that someone would care whether they pay $2 or $4 per hour for parking. What they want is to find a spot quickly,ʺ said Ken Rich. He argued that merchants would benefit if meters were priced such that customers could always find a spot. Metered spots, intended as short‐term parking for shoppers, were often filled by shop employees who preferred to feed a meter all day rather than use higher‐priced garages a block or two away. Merchants were cautious about raising meter rates, fearing that shoppers would simply go to competing areas with free parking if meter rates were increased. And residents near commercial areas were concerned that high‐priced meters would cause spillover into neighboring residential areas, although some resident activists had begun to push for parking benefit districts. However, transit official Joe Speaks found this proposal alarming. ʺIn San Francisco, we have decided to manage meters to support transit,� he pointed out. �Using revenues for another purpose would be abusing our asset. Itʹs siphoning off resources to support driving and parking.ʺ
Neighborhood activists pointed out that a proposal to raise parking meter rates strictly for transit needs had failed last year from lack of support, and argued that the transit operators needed to work together with neighborhoods. �Raising meter rates makes the overall pie bigger, so MUNI shouldnʹt see their slice shrink,� said Rich. Speaks countered, ʺIf you can prove that I canʹt raise prices without giving away some of the revenues, then Iʹd have to consider a deal.ʺ Some advocates thought that 50 percent of meter revenues should go to transit and 50 percent to neighborhoods.
7
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Changing Off‐Street Parking Standards
A third reform being considered was to change the minimum number of off‐street parking spots required in the zoning code for new construction or when an existing building was substantially altered. San Francisco�s standard for residential developments was one parking space per dwelling unit. The parking requirements for commercial developments were expressed as a function of the number of square feet in the building. Retail and office buildings in San Francisco had to have one space per 500 square feet, for example, medical buildings one space per 250 square feet and restaurants one space per 200 square feet. These commercial standards applied only to developments in excess of 5,000 square feet, which created incentives for developers to build or substantially remodel buildings below that threshold.
The planners were most concerned with the residential parking minimums, and were proposing that the one space per dwelling unit minimum requirement be eliminated or be replaced with a maximum requirement of perhaps as few as 0.5 parking spaces per unit. They believed that a maximum rather than a minimum was more appropriate given the external social costs associated with car use, particularly congestion and air pollution. As Ken Rich of the Planning Department explained, their goal was to place more of the cost of driving on drivers, �Itʹs unrealistic to think that people simply wonʹt drive anymore. Pricing is the most important tool to influence transportation decisions. As long as there is cheap and easy parking, then people create externalities and donʹt use transit, which creates a vicious cycle. But unbundling means you don�t have to pay for parking unless you want it.� The idea of a parking maximum was seen as a remedy for forcing residents who didn�t own cars to pay for parking. There was evidence that bundling housing and parking costs together left some residents with more parking than they wanted�one could find off‐street spaces for rent from individuals for $150 to $300 per month, depending on the neighborhood.
Other advocates of parking reform agreed. ʺEspecially in transit‐rich places, you donʹt need a one‐to‐one minimum requirement, because not everyone has a car, and people will self‐ select. Thereʹs no downside to someone moving in without a car, so we should allow that and empower that,ʺ said Tom Radulovich, executive director of transportation for a Livable City. He also pointed out that minimum parking requirements suppressed development of low‐income housing, because the expense of building required parking made such projects infeasible. The most obvious example was elderly housing developments, where the minimum parking requirement greatly exceeded the needs of residents who typically could not drive. Off‐street parking requirements also make certain types of infill development, including housing over ground‐floor retail or secondary units in existing buildings, infeasible.
Some developers said they would welcome a shift from away from minimum parking requirements. The existing minimums often made it impossible to rehabilitate or redevelop older apartment or commercial buildings without a zoning variance. Applying for a variance was
8
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
considered risky, entailing additional costs, legal fees, and delays. Parking minimums also made it difficult to build small and affordable units, such as a type of budget housing known as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units. A typical SRO unit is approximately 350‐500 square feet, with minimal bathroom and kitchen facilities. San Francisco had modified its zoning code in the 1990s to allow SROs, in hopes of reducing homelessness among the very poor. SROs were limited to certain neighborhoods transitioning from industrial to residential use, but the parking requirement was only 20‐to‐1 (twenty units per spot) and there was no limit on the floor‐to‐area (FAR) ratio.5 One SRO developer, Charles Breidinger, thought such units would also appeal to young, recent college graduates who would rent and commute to jobs in the financial district, or take the commuter railroad (CalTrain) to San Jose. Breidinger�s SRO was within ten minutes� walk of two grocery stores, MUNI, and Caltrain. �If you have convenient shopping nearby, together with good transit, units are saleable without parking,ʺ he explained.
But many developers were opposed to replacing parking minimums with parking maximums. The high price of land underlying the cost of development in San Francisco drove up the price of new housing units. As a result, most market‐rate units were for sale rather than rent, and many were luxury homes aimed at a wealthy clientele. Steve Vettel, a land use lawyer representing large developers, claimed that a maximum of less than one space per unit would deny market realities. �Most households investing in market‐rate condos have cars. If you�re investing $1 million, you expect a parking spot,� he explained. Moreover, many developers thought parking was profitable�often they could build an underground space for around $30,000 but it added at least $50,000 to the price they could charge for housing unit.
Vettel also argued that many city‐dwellers stored a car for weekend recreation, or multiple cars because they had children, and were not to blame for the social costs of concern to planners. �It is suburban workers who are driving to the city and causing congestion, not people who live downtown, who tend to walk and take transit to work. If people want to live in the city and are willing to pay for a spot, why shouldnʹt they be able to? Why shouldnʹt people be able to store a car and use it on the weekends�they arenʹt clogging streets at peak times? A parking maximum of less than one‐to‐one sends the message to those families that they belong in the suburbs.� He pointed out that minimum parking requirements for commercial development should be reviewed, saying �low cost commercial parking for workers is what causes people to drive to work, not the fact that they have a parking space at home.�
If the developers were divided, so were neighborhood groups. Some neighborhoods had supported requests for variances from the minimum parking requirements, particularly for developers of affordable housing. In the Octavia‐Market neighborhood, for example, several affordable buildings had been approved with a three‐to‐one unit‐to‐parking ratio. But it was more common for existing residents to press developers to create as much new off‐street parking as 5 The FAR is the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the building lot on which it stands. The greater the
allowable FAR, the taller the building a developer can build.
9
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
possible, because they didn�t want to compete for scarce on‐street spots with the new residents. Affordable housing advocate Kate White explained, �Neighbors usually complain that thereʹs not enough parking already, and if youʹre going to build new housing, you need to build it with one‐ to‐one parking. Developers usually offer more parking in exchange for neighborhood support of a zoning variance for something like height or FAR.� The planners recognized that unless on‐street parking was managed properly, neighbors were going demand that developers provide more off‐ street parking with new projects, making it difficult to muster political support for a parking maximum.
San Francisco officials had commissioned a consultant to prepare a more detailed study of the parking situation for the spring of 2007. That study would provide the planners with better information on some key issues, such as refining the estimates of how many parking spots there actually were in the city, and how demand for parking might respond to prices changes and other incentives. But it would also give the planners a chance to more thoroughly consult the neighborhoods, developers, businesses, environmentalists, and other interested groups and establish a viable parking management strategy.
10
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Exhibit 1 Vehicle Ownership by San Francisco Residents, 20006
Number of Households Percent of Households
No vehicle 94,178 28.6 1 vehicle 138,526 42.0 2 vehicles 73,017 22.1 3 vehicles 17,582 5.3 4 vehicles 4,282 1.4 5 or more vehicles 2,115 0.6 Total 329,700 100.0 Total vehicles available to households 365,009 Vehicles per household 1.11
Exhibit 2 Commuting to Jobs in San Francisco, 20007
Living in
San Francisco Living outside San Francisco Total
Working in San Francisco 322,010 251,980 573,990 Commuting mode: Automobile
Drive Alone Carpool Total Vehicles8
102,850 31,595 117,155
110,490 45,085 129,160
213,340 76,680 246,315
Public transit 116,280 90,858 207,138 Walk or bike 45,540 1,065 46,605 Work at home 19,375 n.a. 19,375
Exhibit 3 Motor Vehicles Registered in San Francisco, 20029
Automobiles 380,795 Trucks 62,823 Motorcycles 18,659 Trailers 12,262 Total 474,539
6 Source: US Census as reported in San Francisco Department of Transportation and Parking, “San Francisco
Transportation Fact Sheet,” June 2004. 7 Source: US Census, Journey to Work data, 2000 as reported by the Metropolitan Planning Commission, the
regional planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. 8 The number of single-occupancy and multiple-occupancy vehicles driven. 9 Source: California Department of Motor Vehicles as reported in San Francisco Department of Transportation and
Parking, “San Francisco Transportation Fact Sheet,” June 2004.
11
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Exhibit 4 Parking Spaces in San Francisco10
Type Spaces Notes
On‐street Metered 22,900 Signage 4,280 Colored curbs 7,875
Restricted to special uses such as loading or handicapped
Other 284,900 Includes 27 residential permit zones Subtotal 320,000 Off‐street public Private garage 85,056 Municipal garage 14,644 Subtotal 99,700 Off‐street private Residential 160,500 Commercial 21,000
Includes private off‐street parking for employees, but not for customers or commercial trucks
Subtotal 181,500 All types 601,200
Exhibit 5 Parking Meter, Garage and Lot Charges in San Francisco11
Downtown Core
Periphery of Downtown Core
Fisherman�s Wharf
All Other Areas
Meters Hourly, 2005 $3.00 $2.50 $2.50 $1.50 Hourly, 2003 $2.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.00
Municipal garages and lots Monthly, 2005 $360 $250 Daily max, 2005 $30 $22 First hour, 2005 $7 $3
Private garages and lots Monthly, 2005 $350‐$400 $250
Daily max, 2005 $30 $20 or $7 at surface lots
First hour, 2005 $7 $7
10 Source: San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Long Range Plan, Appendix H. 11 Source: Ron Szeto, manager of the municipal parking garages for the San Francisco Department of Parking and
Traffic.
12
Parking in San Francisco _____________________________________________________ CR14‐07‐1877.0
Exhibit 6 Gross Revenue to the City of San Francisco from Parking Activities12
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Parking fines $69.2 $83.4 $84.9 Parking garages $64.5 $69.4 $71.3 Parking meters $12.4 $12.9 $16.5 Parking permits $2.8 $2.9 $2.8
Total $148.9 $168.6 $175.5
12 Source: US Census as reported in San Francisco Department of Transportation and Parking, “San Francisco
Transportation Fact Sheet,” June 2004; Ron Szeto, manager of the municipal parking garages for the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic; and Jerry Robbins, Transportation Planning Manager for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
13
