Parking meters are just one form of a set of policies called “congestion pricing.” Under congestion pricing policies, municipalities charge users of public goods, such as roads and parking spaces, a small fee. Congestion pricing can be flexible, with higher prices at peak hours of use, like rush hour. The goal is to reduce congestion on public right-of-ways so everyone using them can get where they need to be in a fast and time-efficient manner.
Around the world, congestion pricing systems have successfully supported their goals. Washington, D.C., implemented a dynamic parking pricing system in 2017 that reduced the perceived time spent searching for parking by seven minutes within two years. London and Stockholm, early implementers of congestion pricing in small inner-city neighborhoods, saw traffic reductions of more than 20% in the areas covered by the policy.
As a side benefit, congestion pricing generates revenue cities can use to invest in better transit infrastructure. Though setting up the systems requires an initial investment, jurisdictions can break even after three to four years and start turning a profit. D.C.’s parking management trial increased overall parking revenues from the area by 17% in its first two years, even though revenue generation was not the policy’s intent. Although it reduced traffic overall, Stockholms’s traffic pricing system generated over $70 million in operating profit annually.
The revenue can help support additional investments in transit infrastructure. London’s pricing system generated £80 million in annual operating income to invest in other transit infrastructure. Additionally, congestion pricing tends to lead to increased public transit usage, leading to substantial greenhouse gas reductions.
Recommended for you
Even though the evidence is clear, localities across San Mateo County have historically tried to reduce traffic another way: blocking housing. Until approximately 2017, local jurisdictions had near infinite ability to restrict new development. As a result, until only recently, most San Mateo County jurisdictions had a slow growth rate. Even now, the pace of development is much slower than historic levels in the mid-20th century, when housing was more affordable.
Blocking housing locally only makes traffic worse across the entire region. In large part, because cities were so effective at preventing new homes, a housing shortage has caused prices across the area to increase massively.
The housing shortage prices teachers, police officers, store clerks and other essential workers out of our communities. As a result, San Mateo has more super commuters – workers who must commute at least 90 minutes each way to their jobs – entering the county every day than ever, despite the temporary reduction in commuting initiated by the recent coronavirus pandemic.
Preventing housing for the full spectrum of our community members causes all of San Mateo County to suffer the negative externalities of widespread traffic. Traffic volumes have largely rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and wasting time. Many middle-class households working on the Peninsula must commute from out of the area, often from the fringes of Contra Costa or Solano counties.
If San Bruno and the rest of the Peninsula’s local jurisdictions want to get serious about stopping traffic, then they’ll pursue dynamic congestion pricing more broadly for both parking and driving. The only way to really stop traffic is to put a price on it.
Mia Clapham is a San Bruno resident who enjoys volunteering at the Peninsula Humane Society.
Anticipated consequence… more folks will patronize establishments with free parking. Similar to the anticipated consequences of continually raising developer fees and property taxes and assessments and expecting “affordable” housing will be built. I guess you could increase income limits to claim affordable housing, which makes affordable housing even less affordable for those in the lower half. Speaking of making things less affordable, parking meters and congestion pricing. Now how much has been, or will be spent, on this revenue idea? And what is the expected ROI?
Mia - interesting how you infuse your argument with the banning of vehicles in some European cities. What you are not mentioning is that those very city centers are now emptying out. Shopping centers, previously unheard of, and office buildings are now constructed outside those city limits. Why? Because of parking that is just easier outside the cities. We have a bit of proof here in the doomed City of San Francisco. I am probably not as good as you are in terms of planning but be aware of unintended consequences. Your parking meters will eventually rust away along with the merchants.
We can’t compare our public transportation options with London or Stockholm. Our transportation systems need to be coordinated, run more frequently and extend into our city centers to encourage people to leave their cars at home.
While we await improvements in public transit, making it more costly to drive and park does have benefits. Like putting a price on carbon pollution, anything that increases the cost or inconvenience of driving can spur innovation. And in the near term, any reduction in auto use makes commercial areas safer for pedestrians, bike riders, strollers, scooters, etc.
CSandoval y - take a look at what has been happening in Europe. Their governments are using the automobile owners as a cash cow. The tax hikes, the gasoline cost and parking restrictions have had zero results. In fact car ownership is still increasing and EVs are losing their desirability for a plethora of reasons. The fact is that owning a vehicle means liberty and convenience, Ford figured that out 100 years ago. Public transportation is important but it must be affordable, safe and convenient. Your social engineering attempts are just a costly interference in what we have a right to own.
So true. Ignorant people here still trying to import what will never work here. We are in London frequently. Do not try to do what they do. They have Great crosswalks, left turn signals everywhere and signs telling you what road or the street is. In San Mateo, they cannot even do the Basics. Need streetlights, street signs for the streets designating what street you are turning on, coordinated signals on El Camino, traffic cops everywhere writing tickets, people with actual drivers licenses. Start there, actually doing something called Common Sense and the Basics. Get rid of big ideas and start doing work.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(7) comments
Anticipated consequence… more folks will patronize establishments with free parking. Similar to the anticipated consequences of continually raising developer fees and property taxes and assessments and expecting “affordable” housing will be built. I guess you could increase income limits to claim affordable housing, which makes affordable housing even less affordable for those in the lower half. Speaking of making things less affordable, parking meters and congestion pricing. Now how much has been, or will be spent, on this revenue idea? And what is the expected ROI?
Mia - interesting how you infuse your argument with the banning of vehicles in some European cities. What you are not mentioning is that those very city centers are now emptying out. Shopping centers, previously unheard of, and office buildings are now constructed outside those city limits. Why? Because of parking that is just easier outside the cities. We have a bit of proof here in the doomed City of San Francisco. I am probably not as good as you are in terms of planning but be aware of unintended consequences. Your parking meters will eventually rust away along with the merchants.
Thanks Mia, enjoyed your well written perspective!
We can’t compare our public transportation options with London or Stockholm. Our transportation systems need to be coordinated, run more frequently and extend into our city centers to encourage people to leave their cars at home.
While we await improvements in public transit, making it more costly to drive and park does have benefits. Like putting a price on carbon pollution, anything that increases the cost or inconvenience of driving can spur innovation. And in the near term, any reduction in auto use makes commercial areas safer for pedestrians, bike riders, strollers, scooters, etc.
CSandoval y - take a look at what has been happening in Europe. Their governments are using the automobile owners as a cash cow. The tax hikes, the gasoline cost and parking restrictions have had zero results. In fact car ownership is still increasing and EVs are losing their desirability for a plethora of reasons. The fact is that owning a vehicle means liberty and convenience, Ford figured that out 100 years ago. Public transportation is important but it must be affordable, safe and convenient. Your social engineering attempts are just a costly interference in what we have a right to own.
So true. Ignorant people here still trying to import what will never work here. We are in London frequently. Do not try to do what they do. They have Great crosswalks, left turn signals everywhere and signs telling you what road or the street is. In San Mateo, they cannot even do the Basics. Need streetlights, street signs for the streets designating what street you are turning on, coordinated signals on El Camino, traffic cops everywhere writing tickets, people with actual drivers licenses. Start there, actually doing something called Common Sense and the Basics. Get rid of big ideas and start doing work.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.