erformance In such a 21st century parking system, enforcement officers


are deployed, rather than sent on patrol. This increases staff effi- ciency, the number of citations and enforcement revenue for cash- strapped cities. PEOs will no longer chalk tires and then come back and


write tickets (two trips). Instead, theywill be able to enforce rules and regulations pertaining to loading zones, waiting areas and short-termparking areas in one trip. Better enforcement of parking spaces thus has a positive


effect on the finances of a municipal parking operator and the surrounding business district due to the issuance of more cita- tions, cost savings fromimproved patrol efficiency, and improved parking compliance. Retailer revenues, and therefore sales tax receipts, also


increase due to higher space turnover. Eventually, the area will change and peoplewill pay for parking or adhere to posted time limits and parking restrictions. Efficient enforcement is a win for cities, a win for businesses, and a win for motorists looking for parking.


High accuracy, low ‘latency’ The key to this is a parking management system that pro-


vides highly accurate detection with low “latency” to maximize revenue and avoid pitfalls. Such a systemmust be able to reliably detect the presence or


absence of a vehicle in a parking space and quickly transmit that data to a central management system. It must meet the highest standards in accuracy and latency or face costly problems. Sensors must operate with a high level of accuracy in real-


world conditions (including excessive radio frequency and other electromagnetic noise, dirt and grime, adverse weather, etc.), not just in a laboratory. Current acceptable standards require greater than 90%accuracy. Lower levels of accuracy lead to three major problems: with


one’s staff,with lost revenues and,most seriously,with the public. An inaccurate systemcannot effectively or efficiently replace


old parking enforcement methods. If the system cannot be trust- ed, then staff will have to double-check it using previous meth- ods. Once that occurs, there is no efficiency benefit to using the newtechnology. If SystemAoperates at a 70%accuracy level and SystemB at


a 90% accuracy level, System B is 28.5% more accurate. In practi- cal terms, System B will generate an additional $1,000 in enforce- ment revenue per space per year by just increased sensor accura- cy, based on prevailing fines and capture rates. For a deployment of 100 spaces, that results in $100,000 in extra revenue to the park- ing authority every year. Erroneously citing legally parked motorists will undermine


the credibility of the technology in the publicmind. Even isolated mistakes can erode political support and overshadow an other- wise successful deployment. Precision in detection technology and business logic is absolutely crucial for public acceptance. “Latency” refers to how quickly information is processed


Parking Today www.parkingtoday.com


and ends up in the decision-maker’s hands. One needs a system that responds in near-real-time to changes as vehicles come and go and as payments aremade. Current acceptable standards hold that events that happen in the field should be reflected on com- puter andmobile device displayswithin 120 seconds at least 85% of the time. Higher latency causes problems similar to those of low accu-


racy, namely that potential revenue is left on the table and public trust is undermined.


Missed citations = missed revenue Parking enforcement officers are constantly on the move. If


information comes late to their mobile devices, then they could be walking past vehicles in violation without knowing it.When PEOs are not aware of violations near their current location, they must spend time traveling to a different area to continue writing citations. The opportunity cost ofmore time traveling is less timewrit-


ing tickets. Furthermore, vehicles that should have been cited either are let off or requiremore staff time for officers to backtrack – both costlymistakes. The worst possible outcome is for PEOs to cite a vehicle in a


space that has just turned over. This kind of erroneous citation costs staff time to undo themistake and, rightfully, damages pub- lic trust in the parking authority. If a business district, for exam- ple, gains a reputation for this kind of parking hassle, that deters customers and ultimately undermines whatever benefits well- managed parking provides tomotorists and businesses. As said in the article in the March 2011 issue of Parking


Today, the 21st century is here, and the parking world now has the chance to embrace it fully. Innovative partnerships and innovative technology are two sides of the same coin. Investment in new technology made pos-


Erroneously citing legally parked motorists will undermine the credibility of the technology in the public mind.


sible by private sector involvement increases efficiency and rev- enue at a timewhen both are needed inmunicipal governance. On-street parking management systems are now available


that can be installed achieving 90% accuracy, 90% turn of infor- mation within 120 seconds, and 99% reliability – far exceeding current standards and practices. The efficiency gains and increased revenue from meeting


these exacting standardsmore than offset the cost differential of a quality system, offering a solution to the high cost of low per- formance and improving on-street management with a curb- parking assetmanagement system.


Michael R. Kodama is President of Michael R. Kodama Planning Consultants (MK) and a Professor at the University of Southern California. Contact him at mkodama@mkplanners.com. Alan Huynh, a transportation planner with the firm, can be reached at ahuynh@mkplanners.com.


PT 9


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68