Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe wrote an article about San Francisco’s SFPark, a pilot program of applying variable parking prices and putting Don Shoup’s market-based parking theories to trial.

Whilst the article presents a good view of the program in general, the waters get very muddy when it introduces the concept of what it feels is ‘fair’ and equitable in the parking provisions:

“…inevitably, attempts to bring demand-based pricing to America’s cities will involve a reckoning with difficult questions about fairness, as city officials and citizens ask themselves whether it’s right to allocate a highly desirable public resource based on who can afford to pay the most for it.”

Fair enough, until they bring the question of ‘legal rights’ into the argument:

“… (As parking spaces adjusted) to a market price, lower-income drivers would effectively lose access to parking spaces that they have as much legal right to as anyone else. The result, ultimately, would be a city where the rich have access to whatever spots they want, while everybody else has to settle for what’s affordable.”

Paul Barter, Singapore-based academic and author of the blog “Reinventing Parking”, picks up from here:

“How does having the 'legal right' to park have anything to do with how parking should be priced? I have a 'legal right' to rent an apartment in the most prestigious street in my city. The fact that I, like most people, can't afford to do so has nothing to do with whether apartments should be market-priced. Of course, if significant numbers of people can't afford any decent shelter we must look for solutions. In market economies, those solutions are (usually) targeted and don't abolish market pricing for real estate generally. In any case, surely parking in busy urban streets is much less of a basic need than housing.”

We agree with Paul: The US, like Australia, is such a high car dependant society that a mindset of “can’t park = can’t go” prevails, often subconsciously ignoring a range of other transportation options. We believe that cars, as well as car parks, are a privilege, not a right. Although the latter may be publically owned, a lower price doesn’t necessarily mean that more people will be able to use the resource. 

Figures released this week from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries said that only 49 electric cars were sold in Australia last year, in a market that topped 1 million total vehicles for the first time. According to the SMH, the number of electric vehicles sold declined by 9.9 per cent on 2010.

Whilst politicians are calling for Australian manufacturers to build electric cars, customers are shunning them in favour of larger soft-roaders and cars with more powerful engines. Even some of the best-selling small cars in Australia - including many Mazda3s - aren't that fuel-efficient. Whilst we’ve previously discussed how the improving cost and emission efficiency of petrol vehicles will be the biggest threat to the EVs, these figures indicate that Australian buyers are not driven by efficiency as much as price.

The price of hybrids continues to remain high, with the cheapest model currently available in Australia retailing from $48,000 plus costs. With more hybrid models due to arrive soon (including one model from $25,000), this sub-segment may finally see some form of mainstream traction in Australia.

Meanwhile in California, car manufacturers are being forced to build electric vehicles, adopting rules that mean manufacturers will have to produce about 1.4 million advanced vehicles for sale in California alone by 2025. Adoption of California’s new rules comes as the state and the US Environmental Protection Agency match regulations for carbon exhaust and other pollutants. Read more about this here.

Across the border in Canada, the body corporate of an apartment block in Ottawa is up in arms over one of their residents who is using the apartment block’s electricity to recharge his electric car. The article says residents share the electricity bill for the complex, and the body corporate decided that because it does not pay for the fuel of other vehicles, it should not have to pay for the Volt’s recharging, at less than $1 per day.

The electric vehicle market is a very interesting one at the moment – it certainly seems to be at a tipping point. The only question is – which way will it fall? Wider acceptance, or consigned to history?

The parking privileges of Canberra’s senior bureaucrats are to be further reduced as the National Capital Authority (NCA) attempts to end free parking in Canberra’s parliamentary triangle.

According to The Canberra Times, the NCA says that moves are being made to try and prevent public servants from using short-term car parks meant for visitors to national institutions, and eradicate the use of nature strips and verges as free-all-day car parks.

The Australian Capital Territory government sees the availability of thousands of free car parks, when workers in most of Canberra's town centres must pay to park, as a barrier to its desire to increase public transport passenger numbers.

We came across a beautiful mural in a private Sydney residence, which brings the car park to life; it seems a shame to put cars in it! See more below and on the Craig and Karl website here. 

We love examples of thinking that’s different and brings a new perspective to planning and transportation. We came across an article on Slate.com this week that discussed British consultant Charles Leadbeater’s matrix for re-thinking city design and management.

Based on the psychologist Simon Baron-Choen’s work with Asperger’s patients, Leadbeater divided city transportation and management on two axes: ‘system’ (organisation, patterns, attention to detail) and ‘empathy’ (an understanding of the human relationships of a situation). For cities, “system” implied things like infrastructure and institutions, while empathy implied the cultural texture of a place. His underlying question: how can cities be designed and optimised to be high on both measures?

The author of the article on Slate.com, Tom Vanderbilt, explores both options (transport running frequently and on time, versus the pleasure of the ride, and offering a superior ‘ride experience’ to the car - such as free wi-fi), before settling his opinion in favour of ‘systems’, in favour of the quantity over the quality of the experience, on factors such as ease of use, wayfinding, ticketing, connections, price and parking.

It’s certainly an interesting way to look at transport options, and one likely to offer an alternative viewpoint to mainstream transportation planning. We’re of the opinion that getting it right involves equal amounts of both efficiency and empathy. What do you think?

If you’re interested in Charles Leadbeater’s thinking, you may also be interested in a recent talk he delivered at TED on innovation. Watch and enjoy!

Last week, the Australasian Railway Association claimed that Australia was being ‘left behind’ as the only continent without a high-speed rail network.

The federal government released a study last August on the feasibility of a high-speed rail system on the east coast, linking Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. The $20-million study said a 1,600-kilometre speed network could reduce travel time between Melbourne and Sydney to three hours, with customers needing to pay $99 for the trip.

The proposed Melbourne to Sydney high-speed rail network could cost between $61 billion and $108 billion. Due to the very high cost of the project, the government has commissioned a second study, due to be finished by November 2012.

Should a project of this scale get the green light, it would see major tunnelling construction work expected to begin in 2014. It would be the biggest transport infrastructure project in Sydney since work started 90 years ago on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and supplement the harbour and rail network system being put in place across Australia to serve the storage and rail and sea transport requirements of the country's booming resources sector.

A while ago, we posted about the ‘Cheap Parking’ application for iPhones – it will tell you the prices charged at all of the car parks around you at any given time of day, with the aim of helping you find the cheapest parking for your needs.

The company behind the app has recently published a list of some of the most and least expensive parking in each of the major capital cities of Australia.

The information published includes most expensive and cheapest 1 hour rate, most expensive and least expensive 9 hour rate, and most expensive and cheapest Early Bird rate, covering Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

Unsurprisingly, Sydney took out the highest rates for all three categories, with the highest rates being $40 for one hour; $142 for nine hours, and $42 as the most expensive early bird rate.

The ‘car parking guru’ website has also published several other findings from their parking rate surveys, including an analysis of demand for car parking. They found that there are more searches for car parking as the week goes on, peaking on Friday. They also found that the peak demand for parking, again not surprisingly, is between 10am and 12pm.

Useful data for all of us, and not just for use in our car parking data projections! 

Melbourne Airport has introduced a new ‘Ring and Ride’ waiting area in its long term car park, where drivers can wait for arriving passengers to phone to say that they are ready to be picked up from the airport’s terminal.

According to the Australian Business Traveller, Airport CEO Chris Woodruff explained that the Ring & Ride area was created in response to "growing concern about drivers parking illegally on the Tullamarine Freeway or other roadways while they waited to pick up arriving passengers." Melbourne Airport is also hoping that this will reduce congestion in front of the terminal.

The first twenty minutes in the Ring & Ride zone will be free, while a 20-40 minute wait will cost $2 and up to an hour, $4. After the hour, regular long term parking charges will apply.

Ten extra pick-up bays will also come into play at the terminals this week, following the extensive forecourt reconstruction works that have taken place over the past few months.

In the UK, Westminster City Council has announced that free parking is to be abolished in the district, preventing around 1,200 cars from parking without charge. According to the Fitzrovia News site, the move has been welcomed by residents who complain about cars blocking streets and circulating looking for free parking spaces.

But it has also been met with significant resistance from the motoring lobby and its supporters as well as politicians who have jumped on the case.

Westminster’s Labour councillors are opposing the parking changes because of the “huge damage that this will do to the West End economy, including the loss of over 5,000 jobs”. We love Fitzrovia News’s response: “If all these jobs rely on the workers having to drive in their own cars to park for free in the middle of London, then these jobs are not sustainable. Why aren’t employers introducing environmentally-friendly and sustainable working practices?”

Central London is served by a huge amount of public transport and it’s at the heart of the UK’s rail network. It is the most well-connected city in the UK and has a comprehensive night bus network, giving it a huge competitive advantage over other cities.

Fitzrovia goes on to suggest that if businesses fear their employees would no longer be able to afford to work in central London, then they should pay them a living wage. If politicians fear that people will suffer because of public safety concerns or the inadequacies of public transport, then it is those issues they should be addressing and not opposing measures to control traffic.

Penned by a resident in the local area fed up by the congestion, it’s a well-researched piece that supports the reduction in private car use in a heavily urbanised city; we recommend that our readers (planners in particular) read more on the Fitzrovia News site here.

According to an article published on the Greater Greater Washington site, the variable pricing component of the SFPark program in San Francisco is not having the intended effect. Even with higher rates, the more popular blocks still fill up, and other blocks remain under-filled, even at low prices.

The City has just implemented another meter rate adjustment, increasing the spread between the least expensive and the most expensive blocks. Those blocks covered by the program which do not achieve their target occupancy will again have their prices reduced during the next round of adjustments. This will be the third adjustment since the program’s launch in 2010.

As the program continues, there are several learnings becoming apparent. On high-demand blocks, drivers are very insensitive to price increases. It is also apparent that parking demand is highly localised, with price differences of as much as 100% continuing even through two adjustment cycles.

The site goes on to suggest that the keys of the program are to achieve higher turnover in available spaces and reduce the number of drivers hunting for parking. Whilst they don’t have the answers yet, these are the ultimate objectives of the program.

Watch this space for more news as the SFPark program continues!