IBM Launches Parking Meter Analytics System

itwbennett writes "It's not just a parking spot, think of it as a 'revenue-producing asset,' says Vinodh Swaminathan, IBM's director of intelligent transportation systems. Working with San Francisco-based startup Streetline, IBM has launched a system designed to help cities ease parking congestion and collect more parking fees. Streetline's remote sensors can determine if a parking space is taken by a car, whether a customer has paid, and how much time is left on the meter. And IBM's business intelligence software parses the data and generates reports and statistics for government managers. Drivers can benefit too: A free mobile phone app can help locate available parking spaces."

Comments

and how well will the sensors stand up to the weat

[Joe_Dragon]

and how well will the sensors stand up to the weather? cars? people defacing meters?

Good for drivers, not for profits

[Glarimore]

Well, if Boston is like other parts of the country/world, the meter maids are already pretty good about making sure that as soon as your meter is up (sometimes even a couple minutes before) there is a ticket on your window. It's hard for me to see this increasing profits for cities (aside from saving money on meter maids).

Should this parking-spot-finding mobile app come to fruition, the real winners here are drivers.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[ShiftyOne]

I would assume most cities are not nearly as prolific at handing out tickets than Boston. Generating parking revenue is one area where they have their act together. Cambridge even puts yoga images to calm you down after handing you a $25 ticket.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[sprior]

I think systems like this will reset any time left on the meter as soon as the car pulls out, so nobody can come in and park "for free" by using the left over minutes. That's what increases the revenue.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[retchdog]

they can fire the meter maids. duh.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[Reece400]

They've already done this in a lot of places by using pay and display meteres, where the time if on the ticket on your dash (sure, you can still pass the ticket on, but that's much less likely that just leaving the meter with the time on it).

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[stephanruby]

$25!! That Cambridge area must be in the boondocks!

In San Francisco, our fines for expired meters are $68. In Berkeley, it's $43. And of course, other kinds of parking violations have much higher fines.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[lakeland]

As you say, the saving comes from fewer meter maids.

Even at a low hourly rate, being able to make redundant a couple dozen people would pay for the system soon enough.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[Fnord666]

I think systems like this will reset any time left on the meter as soon as the car pulls out, so nobody can come in and park "for free" by using the left over minutes. That's what increases the revenue.

The article makes this sound like a strictly passive system. They add two sensors to an existing parking meter, one to monitor the space and one to read the display. The system relays analytical data to a central server to generate reporting on usage, etc. It also sounds like it doesn't generate any sort of ticketing by itself. At best there might be an application that meter maids could use to more quickly target delinquent parkers.

one of the interesting points is that the data will be fed into an installation of the Cognos BI software suite, which IBM purchased a year or so ago. Looks like they are trying to find new markets to sell the software to by finding new ways to feed data in for analysis. Whether this will actually result in anyone besides IBM making money I have no idea.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[lucifuge31337]

Oh yeah? In Oakland they just take your car. Or was that something else that happened?

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[mallyn]

I remember in the old days (1976) in Lewiston, Maine, the fine for overtime parking was $.50. Yes. That's 50 cents. I did not get a ticket, but I saw the pad of tickets at the police station when I had to go in to file a police report on some vandalism at my radio station.

Re:Good for drivers, not for profits

[Hyperhaplo]

Been there - in the old fashioned way.

I pulled into a carpark right after someone pulled out, saw that there was 30 min left on the meter, and started to walk away.

A parking inspector came up and said he was going to ticket me. I asked what for. He said because I had not paided. I pointed to the meter, which was showing 30 minutes or so left.

To avoid a pointless argument with an idiot I put 10c in (yes, this was a while back, around 10 years ago), which added another 10 minutes and wandered away.

I swear that if that parking inspector could have reset the meter he would have.

Interestingly, around here there are only a few places left where you can park for 2 hours for free. Most places require you to pay 60c up front. In a lot of places this really puts people off shopping there. Perhaps this is the point here.. to get people to move on quickly.. come, buy and leave.

Although, that doesn't work well for the local place. You get 2 hours free during business days (free outside of hours - after 7pm (catches out all of the office workers)) but the problem is that most people spend 2 hours shopping.. then have a bite to eat, put the groceries in the car and then go to the stores. The local shops were first complaining about a lack of customers.. and now they have been slowly closing. The local downturn hasn't helped. Yet, they still restrict free parking. Makes you wonder.

If they do the nasty with this system, then it'll be interesting to see how this system goes. Nothing like the real world to iron out someone's brilliant idea and highlight the negatives.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[hamisht]

I can understand parking meters, but people defacing meters? What sort of metrics are collected for that: type of defacement? degree of defacing? How much does each defacement cost?

I go palces that require paying to park

[DigiTechGuy]

My solution to this conundrum is simply to not go anywhere you must pay to park. This pretty much rules our most big cities, or at least most areas of big cities. This has the nice side effect of keeping me out of high crime areas. If you're going to charge me to park on a public road, funded by tax dollars, some of which came from me, I will not park there. If I don't park there, I of course won't be spending money in the surrounding areas. Their loss not mine, I hate cities.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[vlm]

My solution to this conundrum is simply to not go anywhere you must pay to park. This pretty much rules our most big cities, or at least most areas of big cities. This has the nice side effect of keeping me out of high crime areas. If you're going to charge me to park on a public road, funded by tax dollars, some of which came from me, I will not park there. If I don't park there, I of course won't be spending money in the surrounding areas. Their loss not mine, I hate cities.

I've found places that try to nickel and dime me to death also have horrendous traffic, yet another good reason to stay away. And the nickel and dime mentality extends to the retail and service providers in the area, so I get better cheaper service by going somewhere "better"

I would like an app showing where I can park for free...

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[0123456]

We don't miss you, nor your lack of comprehension of how user fees work.

You may not, but the store owners do. Where I used to live in the UK there used to be a thriving street full of stores in the mdidle of town, but after the council increased the price of parking to insane levels it became a street full of restaurants (due to free parking after 6pm), charity shops and betting shops (i.e. stores for people who are too poor to own a car).

Treat parking as a revenue source and you'll probably find that pretty soon you're losing far more revenue from all the stores that went out of business.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[bzipitidoo]

User fees? I'm with the original poster. I won't park in a metered spot in which the "problem" of overstaying or not paying is "solved" with punitive fines. I'll use a metered spot if there aren't the fines. In some systems, they issue a timestamp, and collect the appropriate amount at the exit, when you leave. No fines involved. But parking meters almost always mean a system rigged to cause violations. I won't participate in those.

If avoiding the parking meter means I don't visit certain places, so be it. There are plenty of other places to go. Don't see why I should reward any muni for running a parking meter scam. Why didn't the businesses get the council to undo the changes before they were ruined?

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

State College, Bellefonte, Huntingdon have paid parking as well... they're all in PA.
Other than looking to score some drunk coed tail, there is no reason to visit or park in any of those towns.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

Funny thing about the public roads with tax dollars that you fund -- other people pay those taxes too.

I was not long ago at a public meeting about putting in some bike lanes on a neighborhood road with peak parking utilization measured well under 40%; this required taking out parking on one side of the street. The road in question was a great candidate -- its position relative to a major highway makes it a poor thoroughfare for motorists (who are subject to a one-way-only turn preventing them from using it to get towards the north central side of town) but a great one for cyclists (who, by virtue of the privilege of getting off the bike and turning into a pedestrian at that major intersection, are able to cross in a direction that motorists legally cannot).

We had a very vocal minority of neighbors talking about "their" parking that "they" paid for. City street, paid for by city property and sales taxes? Guess what -- folks commuting by bike pay those taxes too. Perhaps even moreso, since we're not sending a good chunk of each paycheck to a typically out-of-state bank funding a typically foreign-made vehicle, and thus have more money left to spend locally.

Point is? The other people you're sharing this parking space with also pay the same taxes you do. Does this give you more right than they have? If not, why should you have the ability to take advantage of first-come-first-serve rules to get unlimited use of a very scarce resource -- thereby blocking others, who already paid in those same taxes, from access to the same?

[For the uninitiated -- gas taxes, vehicle registration, and the like pay for highways, not city streets].

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[DigiTechGuy]

Point is? The other people you're sharing this parking space with also pay the same taxes you do. Does this give you more right than they have? If not, why should you have the ability to take advantage of first-come-first-serve rules to get unlimited use of a very scarce resource -- thereby blocking others, who already paid in those same taxes, from access to the same?

[For the uninitiated -- gas taxes, vehicle registration, and the like pay for highways, not city streets].

It gives no more right to a given parking spot than anyone else, which is why it should simply be first come first serve. Charging additional for use of a resource already paid for is wrong. Government does not exist to rake in money above the operating and maintenance cost of a given resource. Government is supposed to be small and limited. Adding the expense of meters and enforcement raises the cost of the government to operate, and then they need not only the paid parking income but also many fines for violations both parking and non-parking related to cover costs of the enforcement by police and meter maids (of the non-violent and victimless crime of parking on a public road in an already paid for parking space).

This is the cycle of big government creating a police state which leans heavily on making more things illegal and punishable by large fines in a rigged court where people have no hope of being found innocent by a judge who has no interest in doing anything except bringing in as much revenue as possible to the city or municipality. True, local governments can do whatever they want in that regard, but I'll opt to spend my money in another town that doesn't nickel and dime me. I prefer to not support big government everywhere I have a choice, as I wholeheartedly disagree with the threat and use of violent force.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

Charging additional for use of a resource already paid for is wrong.

First, "already paid for" is... a very controversial choice of words. Transportation funding is expensive and ongoing, and maintenance of preexisting roads is a large part of that -- they don't just sit there forever once they're built any more than electric lines do.

Second, what you're asking for is a effectively a subsidy -- an expensive public resource (and making the roads wider to accommodate parking is considerably more expensive than building roads for through traffic only -- even ignoring the cost of rights-of-way, which often dwarfs those of construction in areas where parking availability is an issue) to be given away for free.

You talk about wanting smaller government -- but when it comes to a specific function of government that you care about, suddenly it's a ${DEITY}-given right to get your "free" parking. Do you also hold that municipally-owned electric and water utilities should be all-you-can-eat free-of-charge first-come-first-serve?

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[DigiTechGuy]

The taxes that pay for these roads with parking along the side are ongoing taxes, just as the maintenance costs are ongoing. It is paid for without the need to bloat government and make it into a larger police state depending on violations for ongoing operations. The fact is that governments, especially where I live, tax the daylights out of homeowners and even more so out of businesses. There is no reason there should not be enough money to repave already established roads, including the parking area to the sides, once every couple decades, and patch them up inbetween. If parking along public roads is to be charged for and the police state grown for such enforcement, then there should be no public parking. Leave it to businesses to provide parking as they see fit, and LOWER property taxes the town accordingly.

I believe all most areas of government should be downsized or preferably eliminated. I pay for by consumption for my usage of minicipal water and other utilities, as it should be. I see what you're getting at though I don't necessarily agree with it. Part of a functional and useful public road system is parking in certain areas that would logically require parking. Though it's very rare that I use public parking, I do acknowledge that it makes sense to have it in areas where there simply is no land for private parking, and roads are wide enough. To address your other point about bike lanes, there are bike lanes in many of the towns around here (that also have free public parking along the roads) and I have no problem with the bike lanes. I think it makes sense in most areas they have put them as it segregates bike and motorized traffic to keep motorized traffic moving faster and bikers safer. It's a win/win and there is still sufficient "free" parking.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

I pay for by consumption for my usage of minicipal water and other utilities, as it should be. I see what you're getting at though I don't necessarily agree with it. Part of a functional and useful public road system is parking in certain areas that would logically require parking.

It's also not a very "functional and useful" water utility if you don't actually get any water to consume -- yet you're fine with water not actually being delivered unless you pay use fees on top of the base infrastructure maintenance costs, whereas that same logic doesn't hold for public parking in places where it's scarce.

I can agree with some of the points you make about active policing with high fines -- I hope that technical measures such as the ones discussed in this article can help provide an alternative to that. It'd be considerably easier if anyone with a recognised in-state plate could be billed an uninflated rate after-the-fact (with the caveat that this would need to include overhead for the billing system itself) rather than the existing guess-how-long-you'll-be-or-pay-a-fine approach. I'd also like to see this kind of technical measure make the pricing more effective at following demand -- there's no reason to charge for parking when a street is empty, whereas in the restaurant district at 9pm, if pricing isn't high there'll be nowhere to park.

It's in the best interests of not just the city but also folks who own businesses on a street to have prime parking used by high-turnover customers rather than individuals working nearby. Appropriately calibrated hourly parking fees increase turnover while leaving utilisation levels high (ideally ~85% rather than the 100% too-quickly reached without them), and thereby maximise the value of this public resource.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[DigiTechGuy]

Water is different. You are getting a physical resource which costs money to treat and transport. You are continually using more, and pay for that usage. Water utilities are limited by law in many areas (particularly drought prone areas) which causes problems. Nobody has the right to water. It is a scarce resource which costs money. In many places laws are made to prevent utilities from raising rates, this results in overuse which exascerbates drought conditions. In a free market the costs would steadily increase as the water is used and reservoirs go dry (very visible, to me anyway as a recreational boater on those reservoirs). The increasing rates would result in increased awareness of usage and of course most folks would use significantly less as rates increased during droughts.

Parking is not the same as a physical resource such as water. I see the similarities, but it is different. You are artificially inflating the cost by paying for it, especially only during certain hours (as is the case in most towns/cities near me) Sure those business owners may want parking to be used by higher turnover customers, but they likely also want their employees to have a place to park so they can open their doors for the day. Charging at all ,or different rates at different times eliminates some portion of potential customers, like myself. If I know I must pay to park I will not go to that town or city. If I know it's free, but may be hard to find parking I will go, but either adjust my time to before or after the peak time, or simply not even look for parking in the "prime" spots, but rather farther away from my destination where are more parking spots or less demand for them. I don't mind walking, and I do typically park near the back of parking lots just to be able to park quickly and not worry about finding a spot. The same applies in those less common instances that I use on street parking. Ignoring other factors, charging for parking will eliminate some portion of the customer base for businesses in that town or city, and result in less business.

A parking spot does not cost the state or town any money when it is in use, nor does it cost any when it is not in use. While not a true one time expense, it is close to it. Parking spots do not take the same abuse as roads and do not require anywhere near the smae level of maintenance or frequency of replacing. To compare a parking space to water is a poor choice as they are quite different.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

To compare a parking space to water is a poor choice as they are quite different.

The economic concept of scarcity applies to both -- and this is precisely what my argument hinges on.

High-demand parking spaces are also scarce. That the costs to produce them and maintain them are paid on a less-frequent basis and amortized over time doesn't make those costs disappear, no matter how much you might prefer to believe the contrary.

Indeed, buying a single private parking space in high-demand areas can be a six-figure investment... and cities routinely pay hundreds of millions for parking garages. Even amortized over the lifespan of the space, we're not talking about negligible expense... yet you're insisting you have an entitlement to get them for free.

Ignoring other factors, charging for parking will eliminate some portion of the customer base for businesses in that town or city, and result in less business.

Absolutely not, because increased turnover means more business from the same number of spaces.

Charging at all, or different rates at different times eliminates some portion of potential customers, like myself.

Sure -- but if it eliminated too many potential customers, the spots would be empty. So -- if it's even possible to get an 85% fill rate with paid parking (and there's no question that it is!), the minority of customers who object on philosophical grounds are moot.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

I'm kicking myself for not drawing a stronger parallel here --

In a free market the costs would steadily increase as the water is used and reservoirs go dry (very visible, to me anyway as a recreational boater on those reservoirs). The increasing rates would result in increased awareness of usage and of course most folks would use significantly less as rates increased during droughts.

This is exactly why parking should have market pricing as well! When downtown parking is scarce -- a "drought" -- hourly parking charges encourage turnover or alternate means of transport -- conservation.

The system you're saying you want -- wherein parking is first-come-first-serve all-you-can-eat -- is exactly like the thing you're saying is bad -- wherein utilities are unable to raise water rates when demand is high, resulting in supply being exhausted.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[DigiTechGuy]

While parking and water may appear similar on the surface, they are not the same. When parking gets scarce, more parking can be made either by the local government with tax funds or by private companies adding smaller free to their customer lots, or larger paid use lots or garages. If there is demand, there will be profit and incentive to do this. Government does not exist to make profit. Regardless, new parking space can be made any time and there is no cost to deliver it. New water cannot be made on demand. Delivering that water from a local reservoir to your tap requires a fair amount of treatment, filtering, and transportation costs. These costs are what you pay for in your water bill. It's a different concept and different model than paying for parking.

Re:I go palces that require paying to park

[cduffy]

Regardless, new parking space can be made any time and there is no cost to deliver it.

First off, "can be made any time" is... not so clear. Hundreds of millions of dollars to build a garage, remember, and that's after acquiring the land (and in dense urban spaces, where parking demand is high, acquiring the land can be the most expensive part). Roads with high rises and expensive hotels aren't exactly cheap to widen either. Keep in mind, it's not the total amount of parking in the city that counts, but the total amount of parking in the high-demand area.

Second, even if there's no cost to deliver -- the cost to build gets spread over time regardless (via paying off municipal bonds over time) -- once it's built, the city is still paying. The question, then, is whether those bonds are paid by the people who actually use the resource, or spread to everyone via the general fund. The "make everyone pay for something only a few people use" approach strikes me as something which has been... ahem... remarkably out of favor in the American right wing recently.

Third, you're again ignoring the argument which you make so clearly regarding water -- that adjusting price based on availability is important to encourage conservation.

Working with San Francisco-based startup...

[swan5566]

SF already charges an arm and two legs for parking downtown, and they want to collect more fees? If this gets out to SF residents, these guys may not want to wear their Streetline shirts when walking around town, and especially around cars with tickets on them.

Re:Working with San Francisco-based startup...

[Megahard]

If the rates are increased enough, eventually there will come a time when you will be able to find a parking spot.

Re:Working with San Francisco-based startup...

[SkimTony]

Incidentally, city officials (from various cities) have give parking turnover as the primary reason to have parking meters, and to charge as much as they do.

Re:Working with San Francisco-based startup...

[Fnord666]

SF already charges an arm and two legs for parking downtown, and they want to collect more fees?

I guess Steve Austin must have been one of their early customers.

How much you want to bet...

[roc97007]

...that far from increasing revenue, this will be a money pit and will never work quite right? That it'll start out a stellar idea, but in implementation, as more and more people and companies get connected to the project, it drowns in cost overruns and performance shortfalls? A strong mayor will pull the plug at some point and go back to meter maids. A weak mayor will see it through, ending up paying several times the cost for less than what he started with.

Re:How much you want to bet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah! I see you've worked with IBM before?

Re:How much you want to bet...

[roc97007]

With and for.

It's a sparking pot!

[Mister Liberty]

n/t

Municipalities already do

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not just a parking spot, think of it as a 'revenue-producing asset,' says Vinodh Swaminathan, IBM's director of intelligent transportation systems. Working with San Francisco-based startup Streetline, IBM has launched a system designed to help cities ease parking congestion and collect more parking fees.

Hi Vinodh. All municipalities already do. They have more 'revenue-producing assets' like red-light cameras, speeding cameras, etc. This is why you get business areas where the big box stores make sure there is plenty of free parking. The little retailer downtown, that usually isn't able to keep up the same pricing level, is only saved by people that have to be there anyway or are that dependent on public transportation.

That aside, I was in a city in Germany (Trier or Cologne, not sure which it was) that had a system where they had displays around time that indicated how many spaces were available in a number of downtown parkades.

Re:Municipalities already do

[redcaboodle]

That aside, I was in a city in Germany (Trier or Cologne, not sure which it was) that had a system where they had displays around time that indicated how many spaces were available in a number of downtown parkades.

Cologne has had these for at least 25 years. By now every city has them. They simple count vehicles going in and out at the bar and compute the number of free spaces.

Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting Anonymously because we evaluated a very similar system with IBM. We evaluated a very similar sounding system from IBM. When we looked at it best case after roll-out costs we were just shy of breaking even worst case we were big time in the hole. IBM's solution to the dollar gap was raising hourly parking rates, drastically raising fines, or automatically collecting fines. Raising rates wasn't an option because it's not easy to get rate raises past city council because raising rates mean a chance of not being re-elected and if we were just going to raise rates, why not raise them and keep all the money. Raising fines was also a big issue but more tolerable then raising rates, see the city council again, but raising fines also causes other issues, because there are other fines not related to parking which we have to make the good faith effort of keeping in line, for example the fine for parking in the wrong spot shouldn't be more than the fine for smashing someones windshield. It puts us in a situation where we would need to start reevaluating all of our fines, and since we're an old city with tons of old laws it's a serious undertaking, and yes I know we should clean up our books, but that's a serious undertaking. Automatically collecting fines or generating tickets got ruled out almost instantly. We viewed this as even more trouble than the red light camera issues we went through. Plus when we put sanity rules around an automatic alert we found our parking authority agents responded faster then the system 90+% of the time. The spot empty features don't work well either. Our meters already do a spot empty check to clear existing funds out of the meter when someone leaves. After a couple months the majority of sensors no longer work, gum stickers, grime etc always mess it up to the point it's unreliable. The response time IBM claimed to updating spot availability was on the order of a couple minutes. No spots stay open in city center where we have the majority of our meters that long. So spots would only be advertised as open a period of time after they had been filled. Every other year IBM comes and tries to sell us on some Smarter City initiative, smarter parking, smarter traffic, smarter blah blah blah. Every time we look at the numbers it works to be break even at best and a big cost at the worst, except for IBM who would make a fortune in either scenario.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[rayzat]

This sounds so very IBM. How can I help you help me make money.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this applies to many machines that replace human workers. You can employ a (reasonably) intelligent human for ~$30k/year. They are friendly, exercise judgement in exceptional cases, and generally work very well. A machine and the associated infrastructure cost several years wages each, and it's yet to be proven that there's any cost savings at all to be had in the long run. Not to mention that you are now left with the societal problem of figuring out how to retrain and employ the displaced workers. I don't buy arguments that technology companies aren't at all responsible for workers displaced by technology. Companies operate in the context of society. When companies make choices to increase their own profits at the expense of society, they can't simply shrug off their responsibility to the society that has allowed them to flourish.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[TheCarp]

I think you hit at the problem exactly with the cycle of thinking on rates vs fines.

In the end, its just an extension of the failed attempts to control a problem of social attitudes and infrastructure investment, with the wrong tool for the job.

If there are so many cars, there should be places to park them. The answer is really to look into how you get people using other transportation OR provide ample parking. Seriously, its a failure to plan upfront. An understandable one but... that is what is really being addressed here. No amount of tweaking the system of fines and penalties is going to magically fix the parking issues.

 

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[madajb]

Our meters already do a spot empty check to clear existing funds out of the meter when someone leaves.

This is a serious dick move. Seriously. Just a dick move.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[rayzat]

I've often wondered if it time we really need to start thinking about a shorter work week or more vacation time. For the longest time we always had a labor shortage, of varying degrees, where is we automated one job, there was another area that would sink those people, or a large chunk of them. Today, where are those people going to go? I read an article about a power company switching to smart meters that would automate meter reading and they were planning to lay off some 8000 meter readers. They're obviously not highly skilled workers, but they're also not no skill workers. I think it's one of the problems with this economic recovery and the past couple we're replacing lost jobs with increased efficiency and no organization is going to willingly become less efficient.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[Dr Max]

If it's so easy to hire an intelligent, friendly human who exercise good judgment why do we fill police stations with wankers. On a more serious note this is only the start of the robot revolution when the industrial revolution started people were saying the same thing, no machine can match an experienced trained craftsman, and I’m sure the first factories were plagued with problems. Also

they can't simply shrug off their responsibility to the society that has allowed them to flourish.

Wanna bet, apple was given all their first IP for free. Now how much ip have they given away to garage start ups? It's because companies are driven by profit not a need to support society, that's why they pay their taxes. Not all companies are ruthless but most of the biggest usually are, because that's how they became the big in the first place.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[jquirke]

Our meters already do a spot empty check to clear existing funds out of the meter when someone leaves.

This is a serious dick move. Seriously. Just a dick move.

Agreed. The meter is paid, who cares who paid for it? Stop double dipping.

Though on the topic of dick moves, the US has it pretty easy. Look for these vermin (The Melbourne City Council) are up to:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/MediaReleases/Pages/NewparkingtechnologyforCityofMelbourne.aspx

  In ground sensors - a device that records when a vehicle moves in and out of a parking bay. A five minute grace period will be built in and once a vehicle has overstayed the limit a signal will be sent to the nearest parking officer’s hand-held device. The in ground sensors will be progressively rolled out to 4,619 single marked bays across the CBD from 1 July to 30 October.

  Licence plate recognition systems – image processing technology used to identify a vehicle via its number plate in some residential areas. The system consists of a high speed digital camera, integrated GPS system and optical character recognition software. Two systems will be in operation in Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne and Carlton. The license plate recognition technology will be on the road from 1 July.

Re:Spending 20 to save 10, my experience

[transami]

Get rid of the meters, they deter business. Ask local business, which need parking, to take on a local 1% sales tax and use the money to improve the area including the addition of parking lots.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[plover]

There's a very well documented case of defacing meters. It's a good thing it was recorded on video, because the meter communications mesh afterwards, well, what we got here is ... failure to communicate.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[vlm]

Peak G force at impact.

I'm only half way kidding... A network of seismometers could have some scientific value, or at least be a cool hack, or "educational".

Re:Hope it goes better than their past programs.

[HBI]

Someone else who read that hatchet job about IBM and the holocaust, I see. They supplied Hollerith card machines to Germany, so therefore what was done with them was IBM's fault. Great logic.

Irony...

[HockeyPuck]

Motorists looking for parking can take advantage of this data through a free Streetline free mobile phone application for the iPhone and Android. Called Parker, this app can alert users of nearby parking spaces. The cities can also expose the data for other third-party applications as well.

This system is being debuted in California for you to use your smartphone to check park spot availability which is also where it is illegal to use your smartphone while operating a moving vehicle.

This will also result in 'race conditions' whereby 50 people all get a text message saying "Parking spot available at 3270 Embarcadero by Pier 39" and all will race to get there.

Re:Irony...

[PPH]

This will also result in 'race conditions' whereby 50 people all get a text message saying "Parking spot available at 3270 Embarcadero by Pier 39" and all will race to get there.

Or I'll hack it and send messages to the effect that my block is full to keep 'my' space open.

Re:Irony...

[idontgno]

Ah, the 21st Century version of Chicago dibs chairs. I like it.

Automatic Parking Tickets coming soon!

[Lashat]

It says it all right there. The units will know they space is occupied and whether or not it has been paid for.
"You are in violation of Parking Enforcement Code #236. Tender payment immediately. You have 15 seconds to comply."

In related news....
Thank you for your service Meter Maid/Man. We now can collect revenue without the added overhead of ... you. You may now join the ranks of the jobless. Good Luck on your career transition. We are sure you will find another position that allows you to aggravate regular citizens as they attempt to go about their lives. We have automatically forwarded your resume to the TSA as part of your exit package.

Re:"collect more parking fees"

[srmalloy]

The data collection will allow them to 'high-grade' parking meters by demand -- set lower maximum times for areas where they either want more turnover or a greater likelihood that the meter will expire before the driver gets back, allowing more ticketing.

And I would not put it past the design to incorporate the capability to alter the cost 'on the fly', raising the parking rates during peak times or when there is an event that's going to draw lots of people.

How about a parking space auction?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Two cars fighting for the same parking place? Hold an short instant auction; the highest bidder gets the space. Hey, think of it of a tax on people with too much money to spend on a good parking space. Maybe even offer B-Celebrity, A-Celebrity and VIP spots for folks who like to flaunt their wealth?

Oh, the poor? Well, I guess they'll just have to walk or take public transportation. Unfair? Yes, but it sort of fits into the way most societies work anyway.

"I'm a doctor, Jim, not a 'revenue-producing asset'!"

Fender Bender because of Smart Phone App

[Crock23A]

Driver 1 rear-ends Driver 2 because he was using his iPhone to find a parking spot.
Apps designed to be used behind the wheel shouldn't be made.

Re:Fender Bender because of Smart Phone App

[werfele]

Apps designed to be used behind the wheel shouldn't be made.

I heard a SF official interviewed about this, and the official position is that the intention is that you would check overall parking availability before you leave wherever it is that you were.

Re:Fender Bender because of Smart Phone App

[DigiShaman]

I could see that happening in Austin, TX of all places. It's next to fucking impossible to find a parking spot anywhere. In fact, the city has grown in population beyond intended scope. Too crowded for the motorist, and to a lesser extent, cyclists too.

Fix the meters

[9jack9]

Here in DC they should start by fixing the meters.

It'll never happen, but...

[Corant]

I could get behind this if, and only if, they released an app that you could use to 'top off' the meter if you were about to run out. Might want to cap the time you can stay in certain areas of course, but that would take it from the money grab it is into what I would consider something actually useful to the community.

Mobile Phone App?

[erilane]

I thought it was illegal to use your mobile phone while driving.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[stephanruby]

There is no need for metrics if IBM is willing to warranty them against defacement, or at least guarantee that their replacement/repair costs don't go past a certain maximum amount. After all, standing up against tampering is their primary function. If the city could trust people, it wouldn't need meters, it would just need buckets in front of parking spaces, that people would just throw coins into as necessary.

!Revenue Producing Asset

[Demonantis]

Parking meters are not suppose to be a source of income when they started. It has been twisted over the years. It was suppose to motivate people to use a limited resource(parking spots) as efficiently as possible. It motivates people to only use the space as long as they need it and not to just leave their car there. This idea has the same failings as red light cameras written all over it.

Can't solve the problem

[russotto]

If there's more people who want spaces than there are spaces, an app which tells you what you already know isn't going to help. By the time it tells you about an available space, it will be gone, to the lucky driver who happened to be cruising by. Only ways to fix this problem are
1) raise parking rates through the roof, until demand drops enough for supply to exceed it.
2) Eliminate whatever it is that causes people to want to park there.
3) Add more parking spots (e.g. garages and lots)

Most city governments hate #3 on principle. And they reasonably believe #2 is stupid, unless whatever businesses are causing the interest are considered "bad" anyway. So that leaves #1. The new system will provide a wonderful excuse to raise rates.

Handicapped

[Taelron]

Vehicles equiped with Handicapped plates and placards are able to park in on the street metered parking without paying. There is nothing in this system as far as the RTFA states to take that into consideration.

Raising fees would also lead one to believe this system will be tied in with SFPD's parking enforcement officers letting them know where to go to write tickets. This system will have them driving to every handicapped vehicle in the city needlessly since they are parked in a metered space without paying.

How reliable is their analysis data if those factors are ignored?

Re:Handicapped

[number17]

In my city, the merc's and bmw's with handicap signs don't tend to park in legal parking spots. They park wherever they want.

Is that what it means?

[amightywind]

Is that what it means to have a 'more intelligent planet', to game the nanny state? Glad I park my Tahoe in my 3 car garage.

Another reason to use public transportation

[foolish_to_be_here]

Another reason to use public transportation when available. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it can be abused by vandals or the authorities it will,...in time.

And at some point, writing tickets is fool's gold

[unassimilatible]

In many areas of West Los Angeles, I simply will not park and do business in the city and be victimized by this predatory tax, and many I know feel this way. How can you possibly enjoy a meal or shopping when you are worried about a ticket? It's fool's gold, as it discourages commerce in your city. Beverly Hills, OTOH, gives two free hours parking and has large parking structures to encourage people to come and shop and eat.

Parts of Westwood have been called a "ghost town" due to its business-unfriendly climate. There's even a Facebook page dedicated to the parking oppressiveness in Westwood - which hits UCLA students the worst.

If you want less of something, tax it. And that includes parking in your city.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[lucifuge31337]

Even in a small town, this is a known quantity.

I live in a small town and do the IT support for the municipality on the side. The two guys at public works absolutely know exactly how many meters were defaced, and how much in parts and time each one cost to repair. You have to remember, municipalities work off of work orders and loads paperwork in general. This data exists. I can be collected and aggregated. For a single municipality like SF, it's probably its own budget line.

Re:Hope it goes better than their past programs.

[HBI]

I missed the part with the knives and bullets firing from the Hollerith machines.

I think you must've missed the part where the people doing the servicing were also German nationals working for the German subsidiary of IBM that would have been nationalized instantly if IBM had even attempted resistance from afar.

You leftists really lack critical thinking skills.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[mallyn]

Simple solution for vandalism.

Meters can be easily equipped with low cost webcams.

Since these meters will need wifi or some other connection to have their data collected, why not piggy back a webcam's stream as well.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[sonamchauhan]

> If the city could trust people, it wouldn't need meters, it would just need buckets in front of parking spaces, ...

Or just a promise to return it to the government, come tax time.

Hmm... how about a camera that scan license plates and uses DMV information to pre-populate IRS forms at tax time? (Which could then pass on the monies to local government as needed). Maybe we could have the option to do our returns monthly. :D

Re:"collect more parking fees"

[Renraku]

My city actually closes a ton of parking meters for football game days for two reasons:

1) To force people to go to those $20 parking lots that it runs.

2) To ticket people that abso-fucking-lutely cannot find a space within ten miles for a day before or after the game and have to park there.

(optional)

3) To come back and ticket people that were parked at the meters before they put the 'no parking' hoods over them, after they put them on them.

I thought parking meters were bad for business

[rossdee]

I thought parking meters were bad for business - people don't want to pay, so instead of parking and shopping downtown, they drive out to the malls and Walmarts, Targets, KMarts etc.where parking is free. This leads to shops closing in the inner city.

Re:I thought parking meters were bad for business

[adeft]

Some stores have good enough beer and food to warrant me kicking a couple quarters in a parking meter. I can't think of any other thing I would pay a premium to have the privelage to buy. Anything that is a mass produced product (clothes, drumsets, notebooks) does not warrant a stop in a small town with parking meters.

Greed?

[FatSean]

I like services. Services cost money. You're just a whiner who takes cost increases personally.

Why do you hate Social Security?

[FatSean]

Too socialist for your tastes?

Just like the US Government!

[FatSean]

I mean, they're not just facilitating the deaths of women and children, they're actually doing it! And people volunteer!

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[cduffy]

If the people could trust the city, we wouldn't need to deal with this shit all over the world.

News flash: In places where it matters, parking spaces are a scarce resource. Giving scarce resources away for free first-come-first-serve leads to some people hogging them and others not getting any.

I want parking to be expensive, because it means that in the rare occasions when I take my car downtown (and I do mean rare -- most of the time I bike or take the train), I can actually find a space. This also means that the city's incentives for folks to use lower-impact transportation (such as free parking for motorcycles, scooters and bicycles -- all of which use far less of this scarce resource) carry considerably more weight.

"Greed"? Market forces regulating distribution of a scarce resource isn't greed -- it's economics... and when technical solutions like this one let the market rate float with demand, it means that the economics are able to do a better job of matchmaking supply and demand.

Re:and how well will the sensors stand up to the w

[gazelam]

My company helped build the antennas for Streetline's sensor packages. All the electronics, batteries, and antenna gets potted up in epoxy and is every bit as durable as any other raised pavement marker. Of course, that makes it every bit as vulnerable to snowplows, unless they are recessed into the pavement. You can beat them up if you've a mind to, but rubber tires are not a significant threat, no matter how much weight is on top of the tires.