Parking Meter and Time Limit Preliminary...

DECEMBER 12, 2011

Parking Meter and Time Limit

Preliminary Evaluation

PARKING METER AND TIME LIMIT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION/ PAGE 2

DECEMBER 12, 2011

Executive Summary The following report evaluates the effects of new SFpark parking meters and extended time limits on

meter revenue and parking meter-related citations during the first six months of 2011, before SFpark

made any demand-responsive meter rate adjustments.

As part of SFpark, the SFMTA has installed new, credit card-enabled meters at about 7,000 of the City’s

26,800 metered parking spaces since early 2010. The SFMTA also extended time limits at SFpark meters

to four hours, and in some places time limits were eliminated altogether. The new meters had the

following effects:

Parking meter-related citations decreased by 35 percent at the new meters compared to a 21

percent decrease at meters that were not upgraded.

Net meter revenue (not including parking meter-related citations) increased by 20 percent at the

new meters, compared to the rest of the City’s older meters that generated 7 percent less

revenue than the previous year.

Extending time limits in April tripled the net revenue increase at the new meters from 11 percent

in January through March to 37 percent in May and June.

Adding together meter revenue and meter-related citations, the new meters are generating more

revenue than meters that were not upgraded compared to last year. Combined revenue at the

new meters decreased by about 3 percent, while combined revenue decreased by 14 percent at

meters that were not upgraded.

In 2012 the SFMTA will evaluate whether the new meters lower coin collection or meter maintenance

costs, the effect of demand-responsive pricing, as well as complete a more thorough, longer-term

evaluation of how SFpark has affected overall parking revenues, whether from meters, citations, garages,

parking tax, or other sources.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Overview

As part of SFpark, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has installed new

meters that accept both coins and SFMTA parking cards as well as credit cards at about 7,000 of San

Francisco’s 26,800 metered on-street parking spaces since the start of 2010. This report evaluates the

effects of those new parking meters. It compares data from over 4,500 metered parking spaces that had

old meters from January to June 2010 and new meters from to January to June 2011, and also evaluates

the effects of lengthening parking time limits (implemented in April 2011) in SFpark areas. Specifically,

this report evaluates how:

New parking meters affected gross and net meter revenue

New parking meters affected parking meter-related citations

Longer time limits affected parking meter revenue

Longer time limits affected parking meter-related citations

New meters and longer time limits affected parking behavior (e.g., overall occupancy and how

long people park)

In addition to enabling the SFMTA to implement SFpark, the new meters are part of the agency’s strategy

to make paying for parking more convenient, and shift parking revenue away from parking tickets and

towards payment at the meter. At older parking meters that only accept coins and SFMTA parking cards,

compliance rates are relatively low, and citations are common. By making it easier to pay – both by

accepting credit cards and by extending time limits – the SFMTA hopes to increase compliance and

reduce the need for citations. Just as the SFMTA is working to reduce fare evasion on Muni, the agency

is striving to increase compliance at the meter.

Evaluating the new meters This report evaluates the new parking meters in comparison to the older meters they have replaced. It

uses several metrics, including revenue, operation costs, citations, and parking space occupancy levels.

Parking revenue and citations vary from year to year for a variety of reasons. In order to control for this,

the report also includes an evaluation of the same revenue metrics for meters that were not upgraded.

This provides a clearer picture of how much revenue has varied across the city for other reasons, and

how much of the variance is uniquely attributable to the new meters or extended time limits.

The key question for this report is whether increases in revenue at the new parking meters make up for

the added cost of operating them and for any lost revenue as a result of fewer citations, all other factors

being equal. The report does not analyze changes to coin collection costs because data is not yet

available, but these costs may decrease at new meters.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

This report is presented with the caveat that this is a preliminary analysis, and while some trends are

evident, this report is by no means conclusive. In 2012, the agency will update its evaluation of their

performance.

Chart 1: Year-over-year change in revenue: 2010-2011

Findings

1. New meters increased gross revenue. Gross revenue at the new meters increased by 29

percent in the first half of 2011 compared to the old meters in place during the first half of 2010.

New fees associated with the new meters, such as credit card fees and data transmission fees,

reduced the total revenue gain by about a third. Accounting for these additional costs, the net

increase in revenue compared to 2010 was about 20 percent. During the same period, revenue at

meters that were not upgraded decreased by 7 percent.

o Credit cards accounted for about a quarter of the total number of transactions at the new

meters, but over half the revenue, because people who used credit cards tended to

purchase larger amounts of time.

o Areas with higher meter rates, like Fisherman’s Wharf and Downtown, had larger

percentage increases in revenue as a result of the new meters compared to areas with

lower rates like the Mission and the Marina.

‐80%

‐60%

‐40%

‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

January February March April May June

Yea

r-O

ver-

Ye

ar C

han

ge

in R

even

ue:

201

0-20

11

Meters upgradedto smart meters(gross)

Meters upgradedto smart meters(net)

Old meters thatwere notupgraded

Citations atmeters that wereupgraded tosmart meters

Citations atmeters that werenot upgraded tosmart meters


DECEMBER 12, 2011

2. Longer time limits further increased revenue. The combination of accepting credit cards and

extending time limits increased revenue. Extending the time limits to four hours or removing them

altogether at the new meters doubled the year-over-year increase in gross revenue from about 20

percent in January through March 2011 (before time limits were extended at SFpark meters) to

about 46 percent in May and June 2011 (after time limits were extended at SFpark meters).

3. New parking meters reduced parking citations. Parking meter-related citations dropped by 35

percent at the new meters compared to 2010, compared to a 21 percent drop at meters that were

not upgraded. The combined revenue from meters and citations at the new meters was 3 percent

lower than in 2010, compared to the meters that were not upgraded, which had a 14 percent

decrease.

The new meters shifted the ratio of revenue towards greater income from payment at the meter

and less from citations. In 2010, at the old meters, 55 percent of revenue came from payment,

with 45 percent from citations. In 2011, after the new meters were installed, 70 percent of

revenue was from meter payment, with 30 percent from citations.

4. New parking meters and extended time limits did not significantly change parking

behavior. During the analysis period, parking occupancy and length of stay did not change

significantly in areas with new meters and longer time limits, even though meter revenue

increased.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Meter Data Evaluation Methodology

Meters included in the sample San Francisco uses two types of next-generation meters on its streets that accept credit cards. The first

model is a single-space meter, similar in appearance to traditional parking meters, and the other model is

a multi-space meter that manages several spaces from one machine. Both accept credit cards in addition

to coins and the SFMTA parking card, and both immediately transmit transaction data back to the SFpark

database. They are also both capable of being programmed remotely, and can charge different rates at

different times of day.

This report compares the performance of the older parking meters in the first six months of 2010 with the

performance of the new meters at the same parking spaces in the first six months of 2011. This includes

about 4,300 single-space meters and 55 multi-space meters that manage about 230 parking spaces. Not

all new parking meters are included in the sample; some were installed in spaces that did not previously

have parking meters, and others were installed after the start of the full six-month evaluation period.

All of the parking spaces included in the sample meet the following criteria:

Must have been previously covered by a MacKay single-space meter (which do not accept credit

cards) for the entire period between January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010

Must have been covered by a new meter that accepts credit cards for the entire period between

January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011

Must be in an SFpark pilot area

Must be an automobile parking space (motorcycle parking is not included)

Just under two-thirds of San Francisco’s parking meters that accept credit cards meet all of the above

criteria, for a total of about 4,513 total spaces (4,284 single-space IPS meters and 35 Duncan multi-space

meters covering about 229 parking spaces). Revenue data for meters that were not upgraded is also

included in many of the following sections for comparison to the new meters.

In this report, IPS sample meters or single-space sample meters refer to the 4,284 spaces covered by

IPS meters that meet all the criteria above. Duncan sample meters or multi-space sample meters refer

to the 229 parking spaces covered by multi-space Duncan parking meters that meet all the criteria above.

For both samples, year-over-year comparisons are based on comparison to the exact same parking

spaces in the first half of 2010, which were then covered by MacKay single-space parking meters that did

not accept credit cards. Taken together, the single-space sample meters and the multi-space sample

meters comprise the full smart meter sample of 4,513 meters. All of the meters in the smart meter

sample are SFpark meters, though some SFpark meters are not included in the sample. In addition,

MacKay sample meters refer to the 16,032 spaces covered by older MacKay meters that were not

upgraded in 2011 and did not have their time limits extended, and thus serve as a citywide control group.

The MacKay sample meters do not accept credit cards.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Figure 1: Parking meters evaluated in this report

New IPS parking meter New Duncan parking meter Older MacKay parking meter

Figure 2: All of the shown be

SFpark pilo

next-generatielow.

t areas

on meters ev

PAR

valuated in thi

KING METER

s report are lo

AND TIME LIM

ocated in the

MIT PRELIMIN

D

seven SFpar

NARY EVALUA/ PA

DECEMBER 12

rk pilot areas

ATIONAGE 8

2, 2011

,


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Meter Revenue

Overview Parking meters have lagged behind the rest of the world when it comes to ease of payment. Customers

have been able to use credit cards to pay for just about anything for decades, but until recently, parking

meters, particularly single-space meters, have only accepted coins and custom parking smart cards.

One of the premises of SFpark is that by making it easier to pay for parking, next-generation meters will

increase the amount of revenue the SFMTA collects at parking meters. At the old meters, when a

customer parks, the amount of time they purchase is often limited by the number of quarters they have in

their pocket or car. At smart meters, customers can easily pay for as much parking as they want using a

credit card, including buffer time to reduce the possibility of receiving a citation.

Until recently, drivers in San Francisco were also limited by short time limits at parking meters, which

typically allowed people to pay for one or two hours. At SFpark meters, including all meters evaluated in

this report, time limits have been extended to four hours or eliminated altogether because SFpark uses

price to achieve availability goals instead of time limits. The limits were extended over the course of

several weeks in mid-April 2011, midway through the six month evaluation period, allowing this report to

analyze the revenue impacts of this change.

Please note that all revenue figures refer to gross revenue (not including additional transaction costs the

SFMTA pays) unless stated otherwise.

Changes in overall revenue The year-over-year increase in revenue for the new meters evaluated in this report is significant. During

the first six months of 2011, revenue at parking meters that were not upgraded to smart meters

decreased by 7 percent, while new meters included in this evaluation had revenues 29 percent greater

than the older meters that they replaced.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Chart 2: Change in gross parking meter revenue in first six months of 2010 and 2011: Smart meter

sample and MacKay sample meters

Table 1: Average gross revenue per meter: Smart meter sample

Average Revenue Per Meter

Month 2010 2011 Change

January $133 $167 26%

February $137 $166 21%

March $167 $192 15%

April $159 $194 22%

May $152 $229 50%

June $161 $228 42%

TOTAL $909 $1,176 29%

‐30%

‐20%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


MacKaysample

Smart metersample(gross)


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Chart 3: Average gross revenue per meter: Smart meter sample

On the whole, the old meters that were replaced by the next-generation meters were not unusual in their

revenue performance prior to being upgraded.

The MacKay meters that were later upgraded to smart meters averaged $152 in monthly revenue

in the first six months of 2010, compared to the MacKay meters that were not upgraded, which

averaged $131 during the period (a 16 percent difference).

In the first six months of 2011, the MacKay sample meters decreased to $123, while the smart

meter sample meters increased to $196 (59 percent higher than the MacKay sample average

during that period).

Changes in payment mode Today, about a quarter of San Francisco’s meters accept credit cards, a change from early 2010 when

customers could only pay with coins and SFMTA parking cards. The citywide average amount of credit

card revenue per month has increased steadily throughout 2011, without reducing coin or parking card

revenue in the process. Average credit card revenue nearly doubled between January and June, even as

combined parking card and coin revenue held steady.

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250


2010

2011


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 2: Average revenue per meter by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

Revenue

Month Credit Card

Parking Card

Coin Total

January $68 $18 $80 $167

February $70 $17 $79 $166

March $82 $20 $90 $192

April $93 $20 $81 $194

May $128 $19 $82 $229

June $129 $20 $79 $228

Chart 4: Average revenue per meter by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

At the next-generation meters that accept credit cards, credit card payments have captured the majority

of payment by value:

At smart meter sample meters, credit card payments accounted for 57 percent of revenue in June

2011.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140


Credit Card

Parking Card

Coin


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Total average monthly revenue per meter at smart meter sample meters during the first half of

2011 grew from $167 to $228, entirely due to the growth in credit card revenue.

Table 3: Share of revenue by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

Revenue

Month Credit Card

Parking Card

Coin

January 41% 11% 48%

February 42% 10% 48%

March 43% 10% 47%

April 48% 10% 42%

May 56% 8% 36%

June 57% 9% 34%

Chart 5: Share of revenue by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

As a result of the increase in average credit card payment size, credit cards grew as a share of payment

mode at the smart meter sample meters (Table 3), but not through taking the existing market from coins

or parking cards. This is further illustrated by the average transaction size for credit cards compared to

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


CreditCard

ParkingCard

Coin


DECEMBER 12, 2011

parking cards and coins: while credit cards averaged $4 or more by June 2011 at smart meter sample

meters, coin transactions averaged well under $2.

The introduction of credit cards seems to have enabled customers to pay for much more parking than

they could in the past with coins: a customer can easily pay for $4 of parking with a credit card, but the

equivalent payment in cash would require 16 quarters – far more than most people have readily available.

Changes in payment by area The revenue performance of the new parking meters is notably correlated to meter rates, with revenue at

higher-rate areas increasing by larger percentages than revenue at lower-rate areas. The smart meter

sample meters are spread across seven different neighborhoods, corresponding with SFpark’s pilot

areas. These are the Civic Center, Downtown, Fisherman’s Wharf, the Marina, the Mission, and South

Embarcadero.

Table 4: Change in revenue by area in the first six months of 2010 and 2011: Smart meter sample

Area Average Hourly Rate

Year-over-year

revenue growth

Fillmore $2.00 9%

Marina $2.00 7%

Mission $2.00 7%

Civic Center $2.65 35% Fisherman's Wharf

$2.99 40%

Downtown $3.45 37% South Embarcadero

$3.48 69%


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Chart 6: Change in revenue by area in the first six months of 2011 compared to 2010 (with average hourly rate in parentheses): Smart meter sample

One possible explanation for the variance in meter revenue by rate area is that at meters with higher

rates, customers are more likely to use their credit card and are therefore more able to add extra time to

avoid a ticket. Previously, customers may not have had enough coins to add their desired cushion. This

effect is especially strong with extended time limits, which allow customers to add even more cushion

time.

Effects of time limit changes In addition to installing new parking meters that make it easier to pay, the SFMTA extended the time limits

for parking at all SFpark meters. Previously, most meters allowed people to park for just one or two hours.

During the course of April 2011, time limits at all SFpark meters were either extended to four hours, or the

time limit was removed altogether.

Extending the time limits appears to be responsible for a large increase in revenue at these meters in the

months after the change:

In the first three months of 2011, prior to the extended time limits, revenue at the smart meter

sample meters included in this evaluation increased by 26 percent in January, 21 percent in

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fillmore($2.00)

Marina ($2.00) Mission($2.00)

Civic Center($2.65)

Fisherman'sWharf ($2.99)

Downtown($3.45)

SouthEmbarcadero

($3.48)


DECEMBER 12, 2011

February, and 15 percent in March, compared to the same months the previous year, before the

installation of smart meters (see Table 1).

In the two full months after time limits were extended, May and June, revenue at the smart meter

sample meters increased by 50 percent and 42 percent respectively compared to 2010 (see

Table 1).

While the smart meters were already greatly outperforming their predecessors before time limits

were extended, the time limit extension seems to have doubled the increase at the smart meter

sample meters.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Chart 7: Number of transactions by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

Chart 8: Average transaction size by payment mode in 2011: Smart meter sample

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000


Coin

Parking Card

Credit Card

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50


Credit Card

Parking Card

Coin

Total


DECEMBER 12, 2011

An analysis of the total number of transactions per month and the average transaction size reveals the

following:

The number of transactions stayed about the same at the new meters (Chart 7), but this was

coupled with a large increase in the average transaction size (Chart 8).

Credit cards payments grew faster as a share of total revenue at the new meters after the time

limit change in April (Table 3).

There are two likely explanations for the increase in transaction size:

Extended time limits, in conjunction with the ability to pay with a credit card, may have eliminated

some meter feeding. Instead of filling a meter with coins to their maximum amount every few

hours, more customers may now be simply paying for all the time they want at once.

The increase in overall parking revenue seen at the new meters after time limits were extended

may also be the result of the same phenomenon discussed in the previous section: like the ability

to pay with a credit card, extended time limits give customers more flexibility to err on the side of

caution and pay for more time than they anticipate using, as opposed to coin transactions with

shorter time limits, which restrict customers’ ability to pay for larger amounts of time. (Meters do

not zero-out when customers overpay, however, so the next person to park at a space may not

have to pay as much, since some time may remain on the meter. This would tend to reduce

transaction sizes.)

There is one more important consideration in evaluating the effect of extended time limits. When time

limits were extended in April at new meters included in this evaluation, the default payment amount for

credit cards was increased. Before April, the credit card default amount was $0.25, and customers could

increase their purchase amount in $0.25 intervals. After April, the default credit card amount was set to

two hours’ worth of parking, which varies in cost depending on the rate area. For instance, meters that

charge $2 an hour were set to a default of $4, and meters that charge $3 an hour were set to a default of

$6. Customers can still adjust the payment amount in $0.25 increments.

It is likely that the default amount affected how much time customers chose to purchase, although it is not

possible to separate out the effect of the changed default time from the effect of extended time limits,

since they were rolled-out simultaneously.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Meter Costs

Overview The new features of next-generation parking meters come with new costs. There are five primary ongoing

fees associated with the new meters that the older meters do not have: a communications services fee

(essentially a wireless data plan), a gateway fee for each credit card transaction, merchant fees and

activity charges for credit card payment processing, and a licensing fee for the meter management

system software associated with the new meters.

This section evaluates how much of the revenue growth at the new meters was offset by these new fees.

This does not include certain important factors, such as changes in maintenance cost and coin collection

cost, since there is not adequate data available yet.

Table 5: Ongoing Costs: IPS sample meters and Duncan sample meters

Fee IPS Duncan Communications services fees

$24/year per meter

$420/year per meter

MMS licensing fees

$18/year per meter

N/A (bundled with communications)

Gateway fee $0.16 per transaction

$0.06 per transaction

Merchant fees Varies Varies

Bank of America activity charges

Varies Varies

Some of these fees are fixed at a per-meter annual rate, and others are per-transaction (or a hybrid of

both) (Table 5). Because some costs are fixed, the share of total revenue that goes towards fees declines

as transaction sizes increase.

In the following charts and tables, “gross revenue” refers to the total amount of revenue collected at the

meters, and “net revenue” refers to revenue minus all of the costs described above (not including

collection costs).

None of the meters had these additional costs in the first half of 2010 (aside from collection costs), so this

report does not distinguish “gross revenue” and “net revenue” for that period. This is also the case for the

MacKay sample meters, which do not have additional costs (aside from collection).


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Results

The added costs associated with the next-generation meters considered in this evaluation are less than

their additional revenue.

Table 6: Gross and net revenue during the first six months of 2010 and 2011: Duncan sample

meters and IPS sample meters

IPS Sample Meters Revenue ($1,000s)

Duncan Sample Meters Revenue ($1,000s)

Combined Smart Meter Sample Meters

Revenue ($1,000s)

Month 2010 2011

(gross) 2011 (net) 2010

2011 (gross)

2011 (net) 2010

2011 (gross)

2011 (net)

January $576 $722 $666 $24 $31 $28 $600 $753 $694 February $592 $716 $660 $26 $33 $30 $618 $750 $690 March $725 $824 $760 $30 $44 $40 $755 $867 $801 April $687 $831 $769 $31 $45 $41 $718 $876 $811 May $660 $986 $925 $27 $47 $43 $687 $1,033 $969

June $696 $986 $925 $29 $41 $38 $726 $1,028 $962 Total $3,937 $5,065 $4,705 $167 $240 $220 $4,104 $5,308 $4,925

Table 7: Percent increase in gross and net revenue during the first six months of 2011 compared

to 2010: Duncan sample meters and IPS sample meters

IPS Sample Meters Duncan Sample

Meters Combined Smart

Meter Sample

Month

2011 Gross

Increase

2011 Net

Increase

2011 Gross

Increase

2011 Net

Increase

2011 Gross

Increase

2011 Net

IncreaseJanuary 25% 16% 28% 16% 26% 16% February 21% 11% 28% 16% 21% 12% March 14% 5% 45% 33% 15% 6% April 21% 12% 47% 35% 22% 13% May 50% 40% 70% 57% 50% 41% June 42% 33% 39% 28% 42% 33% Total 29% 20% 44% 31% 29% 20%


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Chart 9: Change in total parking meter revenue (gross and net) in first six months of 2010 and

2011: MacKay sample meters and smart meter sample

At the IPS meters included in this evaluation (4,282 single-space meters):

New fees were equivalent to about a third of the additional revenue the meters brought in

compared to 2010. In total, the new fees associated with the IPS sample meters added up to

$0.36 million in the first six months of 2011, while the total growth in revenue was $1.13 million

during that period (Table 6).

After fees, net revenue grew by 20 percent compared to 2010, before the smart meters were in

place.

In the two months after time limits were extended, IPS meter net revenue – total revenue minus

extra fees – grew by 36 percent.

At the Duncan meters included in this evaluation (covering 229 parking spaces):

Fees were equivalent to about 28 percent of the increase in revenue. New fees totaled $20,406

during the first six months of 2011, and the total year-over-year increase in revenue was $72,871.

After fees, net revenue grew by 31 percent.

The higher share of fees at Duncan meters may be partially due to the much smaller fleet size.

‐30%

‐20%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


MacKay sample Smart meter sample (gross) Smart Meter Sample (net)


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 8: Net change in revenue per space in first six months of 2011 compared to first six months

of 2010: Duncan sample meters and IPS sample meters

Net increase in revenue per space

Month

IPS sample meters

Duncan sample meters

Combined smart meter

sample January $21 $17 $21

February $16 $18 $16

March $8 $44 $10

April $19 $47 $21

May $62 $68 $62

June $53 $36 $52

Total $179 $229 $182

As Table 8 illustrates, the net increase in revenue per parking space over just half a year is sizeable –

$182 for the smart meter sample meters – particularly after time limits were extended in mid-April.

These results suggest that, while credit cards come with additional fees for the SFMTA, their additional

revenue more than offset their costs. Enabling customers to pay with credit cards also enables them to

purchase more time, which ultimately covers the extra fees and increases customer convenience and

satisfaction.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Citations

Overview One of the goals of SFpark is to make paying for parking more convenient and shift the share of parking

revenue that comes from citations towards that from payment at the meter. After introducing meters that

accept credit cards and coins, as well as extending parking time limits, citation issuance has decreased

more at SFpark meters than the citywide average.

Interpreting the citation data The citation data in this analysis presents information about the number and value of parking meter-

related citations issued, not the amount actually collected, since not all citations are paid in full. As a

result, the actual share of revenue from citations is somewhat smaller than included here.

It is also important to note that citation rates increased by $2 on April 1, 2010. For example, citations that

used to be $53 increased to $55 and citations that used to be $63 increased to $65. Monthly citation

revenue data was not readily available before March 2010, so this only affects one month of data, and

has a relatively small impact compared to other factors. The multi-space sample meters are not included

in this analysis because of their very small sample size (229 parking spaces) and the difficulty of

determining citation location data for them.

Results As anticipated, parking meter-related citations decreased once SFpark meters were installed, roughly in

proportion to the net increase in revenue from payment at the meters. The net effect was a small drop in

revenue (from meter payment plus citations) compared to the previous year. This compares very

favorably, however, to meters that were not upgraded, which had a much larger decrease in total revenue

(meter payments plus citations), despite a smaller decrease in citation revenue.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 9: Value of citations issued in March through June of 2010 and 2011: MacKay sample meters

Citation Revenue


March $1,786,913 $1,506,085 -16%

April $1,715,800 $872,080 -49%

May $1,469,855 $1,371,485 -7%

June $1,276,680 $1,163,195 -9%

Table 10: Net revenue per meter in March through June of 2010 and 2011, including citation

revenue and regular revenue: MacKay sample meters

Citation Value Per Meter Meter Revenue

Total Revenue Per Meter (Payment and Citations)

Change in Total Revenue Per

Meter

Month

2010 Citation Revenue


2010 Meter

Revenue

2011 Meter

Revenue

Total Revenue

2010

Total Revenue

2011 $ %

March $111 $94 $145 $120 $256 $214 -$42 -16%

April $107 $54 $134 $123 $241 $177 -$64 -27%

May $92 $86 $131 $130 $223 $216 -$7 -3%

June $80 $73 $133 $127 $212 $199 -$13 -6%

Total $390 $306 $543 $500 $933 $807 -$126 -14%

Table 11: Value of citations issued in March through June of 2010 and 2011: IPS sample meters

Citation Revenue


March $627,550 $448,890 -28%

April $585,495 $258,460 -56%

May $543,450 $369,450 -32%

June $446,925 $356,505 -20%


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 12: Number of citations in the first six months of 2010 and 2011: IPS sample meters

Number of Citations


January 7,445 7,513 1%

February 9,406 7,094 -25%

March 10,840 7,411 -32%

April 9,815 4,258 -57%

May 9,088 6,068 -33%

June 7,480 5,840 -22%

Table 13: Net revenue per meter in March through June of 2010 and 2011, including citation

revenue and regular revenue: IPS sample meters

Citation Value Per Meter

Net Meter Revenue (after subtracting

costs)

Total Revenue Per Meter (payment and citations)

Change in Total Revenue Per

Meter

Month



2010 Meter

Revenue

2011 Meter

Revenue

Total Revenue

2010

Total Revenue

2011 $ %

March $148 $106 $169 $178 $317 $283 -$34 -11%

April $138 $61 $160 $180 $298 $240 -$58 -19%

May $128 $87 $154 $216 $282 $303 $21 7%

June $105 $84 $163 $216 $268 $300 $32 12%

Total $519 $338 $646 $789 $1,165 $1,126 -$39 -3%

Overall revenue impacts:

At the single-space SFpark meters, the average value of citations issued per meter decreased by

35 percent in early 2011 compared to the same period in 2010, before SFpark meters were

installed.

Factoring in the increased revenue from payment at the meter, net revenue was down by 3

percent at single-space SFpark meters.

Despite the small net decrease in revenue, SFpark meters outperformed parking meters that

were not upgraded, which had a smaller drop in the value of citations issued (21 percent) but also

had a significant drop in revenue from payment at the meter, leading to a net revenue decrease

of 14 percent.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Thus, while the city’s older parking meters had a net decrease of 14 percent in revenue from payment at

the meter and citations, the SFpark meters had a smaller decrease of 3 percent. Citation revenue has

been decreasing at parking meters for the past several years, but it is not being offset by increased

revenue from the meters themselves at the city’s older meters.

SFpark meters have also improved the ratio of revenue from payment at the meters versus citations:

In March through June of 2010, before SFpark meters were installed, the ratio of revenue from

payment at the meter was 55 percent at spaces that were eventually upgraded. Revenue from

citations was 45 percent.

In March through June 2011, after SFpark single-space meters were installed in those spaces,

the ratio of revenue from payment at the meter increased to 70 percent, with 30 percent of

revenue from citations.

At meters that were not upgraded, the ratio of revenue from payment at the meter was 58 percent

in March through June 2010 and increased to 62 percent in March through June 2011.

While the ratio of payment to value of citations issued improved somewhat at meters that were

not upgraded, the increase was much smaller than at SFpark meters, and was mostly due to a

decrease in citations, without a corresponding increase in revenue from payment at the meter.

Effects of extending time limits:

With only two months of data available before and after the change, respectively, it is difficult to

draw conclusions, but from the limited data available, extending time limits appears to increase

revenue from payment at the meter without decreasing citations.

As Table 11 and Table 12 illustrate, extending the time limits at SFpark meters does not seem to

have decreased citations. There is significant variability in the number and size of citations

written, but little evidence that extending time limits in late April 2011 led to a decrease in citations

in the following two months.

As a result, net revenue from citations and payment at the meter at the single-space SFpark

meters was about 10 percent higher in these two months than it was in the previous year.

While metered spaces that were upgraded to SFpark meters had a greater decrease in value of citations

issued than the city’s older meters did between 2010 and 2011 (35 percent versus 21 percent), it is

impossible to determine how much of the difference is due to the new meters, and how much is

attributable to other factors, including meter location.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 14: Value of citations issued by area in March-June 2010 and 2011: IPS sample meters

Total Value of Citations Issued Average Citation Value per Meter

Area (and hourly rate)

Meter Count 2010 2011

% Change 2010 2011

Area 1: Downtown ($3.50) 1,573 $699,925 $541,580 -23% $445 $344 Area 2: Downtown Periphery ($3.00) 362 $137,658 $78,170 -43% $380 $216 Area 3: Neighborhoods ($2.00) 1,848 $1,041,710 $665,645 -36% $564 $360 Area 4: Fisherman's Wharf ($3.50) 461 $323,140 $146,855 -55% $701 $319

Total 4,244 $2,202,433 $1,432,250 -35% $519 $337

Table 15: Value of citations issued by area in March-June 2010 and 2011: MacKay sample meters

Total Value of Citations Issued Average Citation

Revenue per Meter Area (and hourly rate)

Meter Count 2010 2011

% Change 2010 2011

Area 1: Downtown ($3.50) 2,185 $1,236,051 $914,680 -26% $566 $419 Area 2: Downtown Periphery ($3.00) 2,841 $973,047 $820,960 -16% $343 $289 Area 3: Neighborhoods ($2.00) 11,006 $4,040,150 $3,177,205 -21% $367 $289

Total 16,032 $6,249,248 $4,912,845 -21% $390 $306

Further examination of the citation data by area reveals some surprising results at the new meters. At

meters that were not upgraded, citation value declined relatively evenly at all rate areas (see Table 15).

Downtown meters had the largest decrease in citation value, while citations at the neighborhood main

streets declined somewhat less. The patterns at SFpark meters are notably different: high-rate meters in

Downtown actually had a smaller drop in citation value than downtown meters that were not upgraded (23

percent versus 26 percent), while neighborhood meters posted a sharper drop (36 percent) (see Table

15). The new meters downtown not only had the largest gains in payment revenue, they also had less

precipitous drops in citation value, suggesting that SFpark meters did not necessarily cause an additional

decline in citations despite bringing in additional payment revenue.

The new meters seem to have had a more direct impact on citations at Fisherman’s Wharf, which used to

have the highest value of citations issued per meter in the city. At those meters, revenue from payment at

the meter increased by 40 percent, but value of citations issued decreased by 55 percent. The

introduction of the new meters seems to have aided visitors in complying with the rules, ultimately


DECEMBER 12, 2011

generating roughly the same net revenue as the previous year. It is likely that by making it easier for

visitors to pay for parking, the SFMTA has made it much easier for visitors to avoid parking tickets, and

thus improve their overall experience in San Francisco.

Many other types of parking-related citations across the city have decreased in the past several years, for

reasons that are not fully known, in some cases by even larger percentages than the drop at SFpark

meters. Clearly, additional undetermined factors are involved. This warrants further examination in the

future. The SFMTA Enforcement Division reports that enforcement levels and deployment patterns were

roughly the same between 2010 and 2011, so changes in enforcement patterns do not appear to be a

significant factor in this citywide drop in citations.


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Occupancy

Overview The SFMTA began collecting occupancy data at metered parking spaces in SFpark pilot areas in early

2011, using electronic sensors installed in the pavement. Occupancy data is not available for 2010, so it

is not possible to compare occupancy at the new meters to the previous year, before the new meters

were installed. However, this data can be used to analyze the impacts of extending time limits at SFpark

meters during April 2011. There are also two neighborhoods that have parking sensors but still have older

meters: the Inner Richmond and West Portal. Time limits were not extended at these meters, so they

serve as an occupancy data control group to the SFpark meters.

The “before” period includes weekdays from February 10, 2011 to March 31, 2011. The “after” period

includes weekdays from May 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011.

This evaluation is preliminary and does not take into account other factors, such as possible seasonal

variations in parking demand, which later analysis will evaluate.

Results Preliminary occupancy data reveals that:

Overall occupancy at single-space parking meters that accept credit cards increased by about 5

percent after time limits were extended, while overall occupancy increased by less than 1 percent

at West Portal and Inner Richmond meters, where time limits were not extended.

After time limits were extended, a larger share of parking sessions lasted more than an hour. At

meters that switched to no time limits and meters that switched to four-hour time limits, the

average share of parking sessions of more than four hours increased by about the same amount.

The increase in parking occupancy after time limits were extended at single-space next-

generation meters (5 percent) was much smaller than increase in gross revenue, which was

about 25 percent (in addition to the increase in revenue that accompanied the installation of

meters that accept credit cards).

Table 20: Change in share of parking sessions by length of stay before and after time limit

change: IPS sample meters and control meters

Average Length of Stay

Singe-space meters: 4 hours

Singe-space meters: No limit

Control Meters

<1 hour -3.7% -1.9% -1.7% 1-2 hours 1.2% 0.1% 0.7% 2-4 hours 1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 4-8 hours 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 8+ hours 0.5% 0.5% 0.2%


DECEMBER 12, 2011

Table 21: Average occupancy before and after time limit change

New Time Limit Before After

4 hours 61% 66%

No Limit 59% 64%

Control (No change) 70% 71%

These results suggest that extended time limits may have increased overall occupancy and parking

session lengths slightly.

Parking Meter and Time Limit Preliminary...

Documents

Transcript of Parking Meter and Time Limit Preliminary...