San Francisco’s new parking meters easily defrauded
In 2003, San Francisco started a $35m pilot to test out 23,000 smart parking meters, representing $30m of revenue which the SFMTA uses to fund services such as Muni’s bus and light rail service.
According to security research published today, the brand of meter that San Francisco uses, along with other major cities, can be defrauded to allow unlimited free parking, among other security issues. See the paper on how this works as well as the news story.
I can understand the motivation to game the system. I am tempted.
As a driver I don’t mind subsidizing public transit as it cannot stand on its own. But SF Parking Meter polices are predatory. If you get delayed in a grocery checkout line or lose track of time in a coffee shop it can cost $50. That is outrageous. It would be okay if there were parking lots or garages nearby as an alternative. But the enviro-wackos won’t allow that to happen.
I often use Muni where it is more convenient than driving. But I do need my car for essential errands.
This isn’t about “the environment”. (misused as that word is)
In a city where the mere price of car ownership and gas is not a problem for many people, convenience needs to be the motivator.
Public transit, car sharing and biking(*) need to be made more convenient, car ownership needs to be made less convenient.
Garages just add another convenience. Parking meters take it away.
More free parking spaces for CAR SHARE CUSTOMERS would disincentivize inconvenient car ownership and reward convenient car sharing – not merely a fee for something bad and a rebate for something good, but a feebate.
It’s all psychological, not “environmental”.
Car shares can be reserved by phone/web and picked up at many convenient corners. Transit CAN be an all or nothing mode for those who chose to, but all or nothing also confuses many drivers who don’t realize they can keep the car for weekends (or do car sharing/rental) and commute by transit during the week as it’s still cheaper to add public transit costs to car ownership costs than paying for parking/bridge/gas getting to work.
And Safeway delivers for $9 so “heavy groceries” are no excuse for needing a car. Don’t want to get delivery? Share a car and ideally, get free parking.
____________________________
Back to psychological vs environmental – a $3 floor on gasoline created by a fluctuating gas tax that kicks in when gas is below $3 and reduces as the actual price goes up to keep the price at $3 would keep people focused on alternatives and not lulled into ill-convenience.
Consumer damaged thinking doesn’t mind paying $2.99, but $3.00? That’s too much.
(*) safe/separated/curbed bike lanes not just “any” bike lane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo
I agree, in a City where price is not a problem convenience is the issue. If Muni becomes more convenient and/or cars more expensive there will be a shift in behavior. In congested areas public transit is often more convenient. When visiting New York, where a car can be a burden, I can walk to the grocery store and get a cab back or have the groceries delivered. But SF is not New York City; thank God.
Proving convenient alternatives to owning an automobile is a good idea, and those alternatives will be used as the cost of owning a car goes up or an area becomes more congested. But there is nothing wrong with owing a car that is convenient. There is no good reason to provide disincentives to car ownership.