Streetwise

 

 

Guests

Dr. Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking

Frans Anton Vermast, Amsterdam Smart City Ambassador

 

Description

Can cities be smart? Can streets be wise? Can the curb be intelligently, managed and priced dynamically to keep shoppers circulating and paid parking occupancy where it needs to be to drive community re-investment. Today’s push for smarter cities and battle for the curb are part of rich and contentious history that’s as old as the city itself From the first arrival of cars and paid parking to the world’s most advanced smart city models, in this episode of Engage, host Kelly Lawetz and David Chauvin drawn a line through history with a specific focus on the new battle for the curb. From the unconventional wisdom of world-renowned parking guru Dr. Donald Shoup of UCLA, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, over to Europe with Amsterdam Smart City Ambassador Frans Anton Vermast and how the next great wave of city development there is being built on data, and less on cars drivers and parking.

 

Transcript

DAVID CHAUVIN (HOST): Welcome to Engage, a Genetec podcast.  

   

KELLY LAWETZ: Today's push for smarter cities and the battle for the curb is part of a rich and contentious history that's as old as the city itself. Now, what's involved in making your city a better place? Things like housing, industrial development, better streets, and highways. Improving all these things adds up to a better city.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: From the first arrival of cars and paid parking to the world's most advanced smart city models. In this episode of Engage, we draw a line through history with a specific focus on the new battle for the curb.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: I'm David Chauvin.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  And I'm Kelly Lawetz.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: And this is Engage, a Genetec podcast.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  From the unconventional wisdom of world-renowned parking guru Dr. Donald Shoup of UCLA, author of The High Cost of Free Parking.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Over to Europe and a view of the car that couldn't be more different, where we'll hear from Amsterdam, Smart City Ambassador Anton Vermast on how the next great wave of city development there is being built on data and less on cars, drivers, and parking.   

   

"Parents start looking for spaces. Oh, you're never going to find a space on Jerry's block; just put it in a garage. Look, I have my system first. I look for the dream spot right in front of the door, and I slowly expand out in concentric circles."   

   

"The problem is that we have politicized what should be a market decision. If we handle anything else in the economy the way we handle parking, everybody would join the Tea Party."   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  One of the more significant marketing challenges for any industry is charging for something that used to be free. Think about online newspapers air for tires at the gas station or everyone's favorite, quite literally—anything extra on an airplane. At the same time, the distaste for parking meters has certainly stayed with us. I started by asking Dr. Shoup how they were perceived when they first came in.   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Many people thought they were just an informal combination of a slot machine and an alarm clock. You put your money in and hope to get back before your time runs out. So, you can imagine what they were new, that people were horrified at the idea of paying for something they'd already been getting for free.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  okay, so take me back to that time. When was it, and what was the impetus?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: It was 1935 that it was the most significant depression, and cities were nearly bankrupt or were bankrupt, and they were put in to get rapid information, but they also managed traffic. One of the smart meter companies offered to put the parking meters for free. The more prominent company would collect the revenue until the city paid the meters off. Once paid, the city would get all the money from the meters. So, the cities weren't risking anything. Another thing that they did was put the meters in on one side of the street and not on the other so people could see the difference. On the side, without meters, the employees who worked there would arrive early to get the space and stay there. On the metered side, people came and did some shopping, left and there was room for another car. It created a turnover. Once the city saw how it worked, the stores on the side without meters said, can we have a meter?   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  Immediately, you can see historical support for your thesis summed up in the title of your book; The High Cost of Free Parking, the market demand not just for parking, but for paid parking. What's wrong with unmetered parking meter parking?  

   

DONALD SHOUP:Almost always abused even at the time levels. If it's a two-hour time lineup, the employees will move their cars every two hours. It's just wholly misallocating the best parking spaces in the city for the best parking spaces right in front of where you're going.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ: : In your book, you identify a handful of core policy principles, including perhaps the most shocking and appealing that of removing off-street parking rules.   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Well, that comes as the third thing I've recommended. I'm looking at three policies, one choice, the right price for parking, the lowest price that you can charge a good chance is to have one or two vacant spaces. Two is to spend the revenue as a public servant is on the street. And the third is to remove all street parking requirements and city, remove all the possible conditions on the mall, have many empty parking spaces left to use the land for other purposes, and convert the dead malls into junior colleagues for housing. So, I think the system works a lot better, incredibly, if the meters are priced right. By that, I mean priced to manage demand, but the need goes up, the price goes up, demand goes down, the price goes down. Much of the time, the cost would be zero because it's isn't about the middle of the night. But I think the technology now is so much better than the nineteen thirty-five. Nevertheless, most parking meters in the United States are identical to the ones installed in 1935. And so, you put your money in and hope to get back before your time is up. And can you think of any other payment mechanism that is not changed since 1935 credit cards and debit cards and PayPal?   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  Why has it been so slow to evolve, like a lag regarding parking payment methods?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Well, I think the parking industry was perhaps the most moribund part of the economy outside North Korea, maybe until around 2003 or 2011. Then we saw this explosion of new technology coming from the oil company. All the things that I thought could be done when I wrote my book are more complicated than I'd imagined for occupancy monitoring. My recommendation was that the city should set the parking price depending on the open spaces on every block. If half of the parking spots were empty, the price should go down, and if all the spaces are full, the price should go up. I didn't think that would be very difficult. But now, the cities can choose the cost of parking without touching the meter, and you could pay with an app. And I think smart technology, like your company, enables smart policies and cities to give a smart policy to increase the demand for smart technology. So, I think it's a sort of virtuous cycle. The technology's getting better, and cities want to use better technology. There's an awful lot of competition in the parking industry. So, I think technology has skyrocketed in the past 20 years.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  Certainly, it has. But you remain a clear-eyed critic when it comes to parking and, more recently, curb management. Where do you think the technology and, more specifically, its application are falling short?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: I always thought the license plate recognition vehicles would measure the occupancy of parking spaces. If they drive around just counting license plates, they should be counting the number of parked cars. Yet, I haven't seen much talk about using license plate recognition vehicles to report as a byproduct the occupancy rate automatically? Every block that you probably got.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  In your book, The High Cost of Free Parking, you gave a clear metric for parking at 85 percent occupancy. Is there an ideal metric to optimize the curb?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: For parking? I think for parking cars, I think 85 percent is what you should aim for. So, space as well, you can also make rapidly available just what everybody wants to see. Well, the depth of their destination. There's an open space right on the back where they are heading. The parking may not be the best use of the land. So, I think if restaurants would be willing to pay for parking on some of the spaces should be that the restaurants. Well, I guess for shared cars, if it's car-sharing, companies want curb space or several curb spaces that they could have. They'd have to pay people to the vehicle for the spaces. I'm sure of that, you know, like Zipcar, that they would be willing to pay more for parking at the curb. Somebody wants to store their car long-term.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  So, let's talk about the elephant in the room. COVID-19 is now in the next phase, and some say the next wave of the pandemic. We've all seen the disruption to our businesses, our schools, and our lives in general. How do you think this is going to impact the cities in the long term? What do you think they've gotten right, and what do you think they've gotten wrong?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Well, I've made so many wrong predictions, and I shouldn't make anymore, but I would say that the pandemic has made good parking management even more critical. Some say they have acknowledged some role for variable prices. They just turned off their meters during the pandemic, not just to be free again, but no time limits, and that's not the way to respond to a pandemic. I think we've for an 85 percent occupancy rate follow through in any recession, the price of parking will go down. It will go down automatically. The city council will have to make any decision about anything on or off. As demand is reduced, the price will decrease to be about 85 percent occupancy still. And this will help the merchants, instead of keeping the price the same and having a lot of empty spaces, lowering the cost. The cars will keep coming and help preserve the employment of more waiters, cooks, and things like that. Instead of waiting and saying, oh, my God, the house has been ready, let's turn off the parking meters. It ought to be automatic. I think that's how they respond to have their back is to, and they have to have much more e-commerce delivery coming up. The prices for e-commerce delivery should also go up and build spaces away from the point. I think the way we handled the pandemic is over, and it's just turning off the meters. If we had said that the price goes down when demand goes down, it would be better for the drivers. It would be better for the merchants. It would be better for everybody and suppose people say that to their bodies or, well, all the firmer participation, the price. In that case, you go up and remember, if the money goes to pay for public services, this is a good thing.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  Do you think that we could also use parking policy or curbside management as a tool to bring about more significant social equity?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Definitely, I think so, because the most impoverished people don't own a car, and even low-income people, if they own the vehicles, are much less likely than they the rich people. Therefore, we started charging for parking we can spend that pay on for free bus passes for everybody. I'm sure that will be much more desirable for low-income people and minorities than having it go free for the cars of people who are rich enough to own one. As I said, the same thing is true: low-income people don't own cars. They have to walk or bike or take transit to where they are going, and when they get there, they'll be free parking for people who have cars. Well, just because a driver doesn't pay for the parking doesn't mean that cost goes away. It still has to be paid by somebody and that somebody is everybody, even if you're too poor to own a car. So, I think long-term parking policies actively discriminate against low-income people and, unfortunately, also minorities.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  You've had a significant impact on urban and city policies and planning. You mentioned before that you're working on many other things. So, what's next?   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Well, I'm looking at the scandal of disabled parking in California. If you have a disabled placard for parking in California, you can park free anywhere for as long as you want. That has led to a scandalous misuse of disabled parking in downtown LA. You can walk along with some blocks, and every car will have a disabled placard because the rules for giving them out are lax. It's almost like ask and receive a placard. More than 10 percent of all California drivers have a disabled placard, and then there are the additional fake placards. People who don't have a mobility impairment will quickly get a disabled placard because it's a free pass-through parking pass for any meter anywhere. That has to be a small percentage of the population who misuse it completely overwhelmed all the parking spaces downtown. So, I think that there's a solution that I recommend pushing on now. Oh, yes, they do. The Westwood Village is a 15 more commercial area next to UCLA. We are by Students Television. Several years ago, the small city blocks that the city is over a million dollars a year, revenue to the disabled placard. You know, all of it is fraudulent, of course. Still, many of it is unnecessary because you never see people getting out of a Lamborghini, pulling up their disabled placards, and just walking away. You know that they're about the same, but they don't have to pay for parking. So that's another one of the things I'm working on.   

   

KELLY LAWETZ:  Well, we look forward to your further research, Dr. Shoup. It's been a great pleasure speaking with you today. And thank you so much for coming to the show.   

   

DONALD SHOUP: Well, thanks for inviting me.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Can cities be smart? Can streets be wise?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST:  It's this beautiful, complex web of things that makes the city what it is when we look across the spectrum of all the problems generated by urbanization. There is the extraordinary realization that these problems have been around for the last hundred years in cities.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Our guest today is Frans-Anton Vermast. He is the Strategic Advisor and International Smart City Ambassador at Amsterdam Smart City. So, again, thanks for being with us, Frans-Anton. You've been working in the world of smart cities for a while now. What does a smart city mean to you? Could you give us a quick elevator pitch? We hear that term so much, but what does it mean to be a smart city?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: In our perspective, it is all about the city's livability and what makes the city a pleasant place for the people who live, work, and play there. Our focus is on the end-user, the citizen. We try to engage them as much as possible through a bottom-up approach and by learning, by doing concepts.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: What has Amsterdam done on this journey of becoming a smart city?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Basically, we started in 2008, and that was a coincidence, two-fold from two sides. One of them was that electricity and the telecom companies began to talk to each other about new policies. So, we figured out that if these guys were talking, we could ask them to put charging points for electric vehicles in the public space in Amsterdam. Secondly, the starting point of 2008 was also the start of the financial crisis. So, there wasn't any money available anymore within the local government. So, we had to reach out to the private sector. And that's how we started with a public-private partnership. And being on the road now for about 12 years means that we made many mistakes, we learned a lot. We try to be a kind of facilitator for cities around the globe and help them make their city or metropolitan area a better place for the citizens.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Do you see this trend now as kind of the standard for cities?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: It's a mainstream thing for many cities. But again, if you talk about smart cities in India, you're probably talking about sanitation. And on the other end of the spectrum, Amsterdam is doing tons of artificial intelligence. So, anywhere in between. And as you may know, if you're typing in the search engine, smart cities, there are, I think, three rather than 80 different definitions. So, every town means another thing for other cities; there's not a one-size-fits-all. We even figured out that even in the small city of Amsterdam, the people in the city center have entirely different dynamics than the people who live on South Coast. And that's where we figured out that you have to treat it, look at the very local scale, build it up from there, and don't try to push it from the top down. So, it is mainstream. And some people have just started the journey. As I mentioned, we are on the road for about 12 years. And again, there are different phases, also tricky political situations. If you have a less democratic government, it is sometimes beneficial, and we are a very democratic thing. So, we have to engage all the citizens to make it a success. But there's no wrong. There's no right. Look, for example, at Singapore, what they're doing with their innovative nations, smart city. It works for them. And what we try to do is provide a toolbox for other cities, and they pick out the tools that they think apply to their situations.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: When it comes to collecting data, you mentioned some projects where citizens might even contribute to collecting or creating data. For the most part, I assume the city itself makes data, whether it's video surveillance cameras, license plate readers, environmental sensors, etc. Do you feel like the better approach is for a city to generate data and share it with the world in an open-source format? Or do you feel like the city also has some level of responsibility for analyzing that data?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: No, we think we should manage those data. But we are collecting in collaboration, for example, with the mobile phone operators' data and put it on a platform and make that available. There's no analysis done other than what the city needs to do for its purpose. But it's raw data. And we have a database which is called Data.Amsterdam.nl, where many data sets are available, and people can do what they want. You have to have an open strategy when it comes to data. Of course, as long as public safety or public security is not in the equation, you can share all data. We have a policy; all data is open by default. If you use the Amsterdam citizens' data and build an app, you have to give back the information you generate based on the data for free.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN:  What are some of the strategies for the city to monetize all the data they're generating?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: For example, in the Canal District, people's cars are in front of their door doing absolutely nothing for six out of seven days. So, we took a look into that data. We came up with a kind of valet parking system. These cars can be removed from the street voluntarily to a transfer trillium or colossal parking garage at the city's edge. The guarantee is that your vehicle will always be at your front door within half an hour. The city did that by analyzing that data, by seeing that cars haven't moved for several days.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Is that an analysis that Amsterdam has done with that real estate? When you say they're removing the cars from the street, are they looking at more efficient ways to use that space?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Yeah, we give the space back to make, for example, children's playgrounds. However, we also figured out that, for example, if you make a green area out of 10 parking spaces, it also reduces the heat in the city. And it has a beneficial impact on, for example, flooding in the town because the water is contained in that green area. Instead of that, it flushes straight to the sewage. So, we want to give the parking spaces back to the public space to the community.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: The last thing I want to discuss is public safety, another big pillar of smart cities. And that one's a bit harder sometimes to accept by citizens because of the implications on privacy. And has Amsterdam deployed a lot of new technologies for public safety? And if so, what has been the reaction of the public there?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: This is another example of never waste a good crisis. So, the COVID-19, we have implemented many cameras that anonymize and measure if people are on one point five meters distance instead of putting people in front of the park and counting. We use mobile phone data actually to estimate how many people are in the area. We did a test last Thursday with a soccer match with four and a half thousand people. How can we measure with these cameras that these people are one point five meters from each other that are not in danger? How do you monitor and manage all these crowds in a football stadium? We use many new technology and artificial intelligence for how busy it is on some shopping streets. So, you can see on a map of Amsterdam if you should go to that street there if you're afraid of getting COVID-19. So, you can make a good decision based on that data gathered by all kinds of new technologies.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: That data is generated by the city but then shared transparently and publicly for other companies to analyze it. Is that correct?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Yeah, it's open. In the database, we put an application on the website that shows how busy uses real-time. So, for example, shopping streets, parks, etc., and companies, NGOs, anybody can use that data.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: And so, with all that data post-COVID-19, do you think it will be a challenge for people to accept this as the new standard? And if they make a comparison but go back to the U.S. right after 9/11, the government loosened many regulations a bit for public safety, and people accepted it. They said, well, it's for the greater good, it's okay. And then, after a few years, many people said, well, wait a minute, if it's no longer needed, we want to go back to how it was before. So, do you think we'll see that same pushback?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: I think that will be a pushback. As long as you can show and communicate all the benefits of collecting this data, monitoring them, showing them, and visualizing them, many people will be okay with it. But, of course, there's always a certain percentage within society that doesn't trust anyone, including local government. There was a considerable debate 20 years ago in the Netherlands. Should we have surveillance cameras, yes or no? And then it's not an issue anymore. So, I think it will be the same with all these new technologies. So, of course, there will be pushes. But, still, I think overall, people will accept as long as it will increase their livability. It will improve their quality of life.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: So then, it's all about trust between the people and the government.   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Yeah, that's a huge issue. How can we regain that trust from the citizens? Why do they trust Facebook with all their data, and why don't they trust the local government? And that's one of the things which gives a lot of tension. And how can we encourage people to make their data available and on a personal basis for local government?   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: It's no secret, I think, that the concept of smart cities has been a lot more successful so far, at least in Europe and Asia compared to North America. Many cities in North America have programs that have published things on them. But in terms of actual implementation, North America is still behind. What's your personal opinion on the (why?) Do you think it's due to more significant trust issues between the public and the government here in North America? Or do you think there are other factors in play?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Oh, that's a difficult one. There may be one issue that the European Commission here encourages many smart city projects and encourages money-wise. And suppose you want to apply for a grant or subsidy from the European Union. In that case, you have to collaborate with other cities within Europe. And I think that's pretty much a facilitator for thinking that that's more TDR taking off. I don't want to generalize, but I think democracy is not always the priority in Asia. And so, they have to power actually to push things through. And in our opinion and democracy, it wouldn't work to have that top-down approach. But, in Asia and Asian countries, it's working better.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: If you look at your crystal ball and predict the future if we look five years down the road, what do you think is the most exciting thing ahead of us in the world of smart cities?   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: I think that we all go from ownership towards availability, so if people do not own a car anymore, but as long as there's a car available, I think that's a significant change. I think we'll go from OPEC before we go much more to OpEX instead of CapEx. So, for example, a company wouldn't sell smart lightning bolts, but we'll invest together with the city. The city will lease these lightning bolts, so there's no considerable capital expenditure anymore for the city. So Golftec is going to play an important role. And I think, and I hope that governments should take back the lead when it comes to the data discussion instead of being dictated by big private companies.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Well, thank you for that insight. Once again, Frans Anton Vermast, strategy advisor and international smarted ambassador at Amsterdam Smart City, Frans Anton, was a pleasure talking to you today. Thank you very much for all your insights.   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Pleasure is mine. Totally. Thank you for having me.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Well, thanks again. And stay safe!   

   

FRANS-ANTON VERMAST: Okay, you have a lovely day. Thank you very much.   

   

DAVID CHAUVIN: Thanks for listening, everyone. And we'll catch you on the next episode of Engage, a Genetec podcast.   

   

Engage, a Genetec podcast is produced by Bren Tully Walsh. The executive producer is Tracey Ades, and sound design is provided by Vladislav Pronin with production assistance from Caroline Shaughnessy. Engage, a Genetec podcast is a production of Genetec Inc. the views expressed by the guests are not necessarily those of Genetec, its partners, or customers. For more episodes, visit our website at www.Genetec.com on your favorite podcasting app or ask your smart speaker.