commercial district and other commercial areas. so when - if we don't manage parking there maybe less available and people can't assess businesses they want to assess, which can have adverse effects on those businesses. so san francisco is already the densest city in the country we're not manhattan but we have a density equal to new york. we have a valuable resource and what we have coming according to the regional is in another one hundred thousand people and in the last thirty years we're going to grow by another one

hundred hundred thousand people in the next thirty years. we need to have this even more so we can accommodate all the people who are going to come to san francisco. the competition we feel will only intensive as time goes on. there was a policy that was adopted by the supervisors in 1973 i would argue at the point in time at the time it was in the charter it moved into the charter system that created our agency in 1999 and transit first is not transit only it's not anticar but it does encourage

and gives the mandate as a industry to encourage making other modes of getting around the city more assessable and safer and more convenient because i think what the board of supervisors recognize 40 years ago that san francisco is going to remain the special place we love we need to manage the transportation system so the streets don't end up clogged with air and pollution. in particular just one extract from the policy this is in the charter we'll encourage the right-of-way by bikes and strive to reduce traffic and public health and safety that's the

mandate from the board of supervisors and then the voters. so another reason to manage parking particularly in commercial areas where people work is there is a clear relationship between transportation choices and the cost of them. this data on the screen reflects a survey by the transportation commission and it shows given the option of freeing parking a lot more people will choose to drive to work. that's not to say that's a choice that people will make but we have to figure out this by the lack of policies that will impact the transportation system in the city and the amount of

green highways gas emissions that will come from it. i think 40 percent of the greenhouse emissions come from transportation and 95 percent of that come from automobiles. and yet that's another reason he think it's important - and a i'm sorry can you sky a question. it talks about 36 hundred drivers in the region. driving to work maybe you categorize that as one group of people. the parking meters is more about effecting the quality of life again have you done or has the mta done anything similar around

the park being a controversial program have you dune any studies about commuter traffic going to the groceries >> the transportation authority has done quite a bit of modeling on where people traffic. both within and outside the city. one of the relevant points of commuting is where we have completely unmanaged parking. it's prone to used by commuters. in our district where it's happening i think many people in the northeast mission recognize there's some element of that happening where we have free unmanaged parking with close access to the street bar.

it's not the only thing we're looking at by it's another respect point, you know, we expect for low income youth people don't ride muni for free there are choices we make that - the choices people make around transportation. >> we've been working over the last if you years ago improving the way we manage parking and in some cases it's changing the way we manage parking over the decades and recognizing that we should not be be managing parking just for the reasons of balancing our budget by to meet the city's transportation goals. and how we manage parking more

outcome based and more transparent so we make parking decided. so one of the first steps we don't care was to to get a lot of data gathering. we didn't have good data not just within the mta but other depends are needing this information the planning department for example. so the parking availability and trying to get a handle on the various parking regulations we have around the city. another thing we strove to do was to try to make more consistency in the rule you could use to park near a parker meter and we removed a bunch of

government parking and have eliminated parking for employees. many of those things were not importantly with the city government but we thought it was important to lead by example. we try to manage better xoernlly as well that. - we have tried to make finding parking easier. you mentioned the l s f pilot 25 percent of the meter spaces in the city where we have realtime parking availability for people i referenced 20 to thirty percent of the traffic is people

circling for people but it created distracted parks. you're more inclined to make abrupt stropz so there's safety involved. there's dynamicly adjusting parking to manage demand so where demand is high in the pilot area we've been increasing the cost of the meter and where demand is low we reduce the costs of the meter to manage to throughout more geographic areas to we have less circling for parking. we've done similar in the

parking garages of trying to serve the commercial areas so we've raised the cost of long term parking and lowered the cost of short term parking. so that we don't by the way, seth prices for an incentive looking for parking when we've got a parking garage sitting there empty. we're in the process of upgrading all our parking meters i think 25 percent of the meters september credit cards and now we have smart phone text messaging and over the course we'll be upgrading our meters there will be no more coin

meters >> so in one of the early slides in terms of revenue. what are we looking at in terms of revenue and where did he see that going? >> the overall operating budget was under 3 hundred and 5 believe million dollar off that (2) 800-0000 comes from parking and about half of that comes from about 50 million is parking meter and 50 million is park garages. what we've seen as it is easier

to pay for parking and i didn't mention is relaxing some of the pilot areas going up to the 4 hours and eliminating time limits it's making is easier to find we're seeing citations going down. so people not having the running out of time we'd much rather get the money from the citations and not the - >> i menu is 2 hundred parking the -- i hear a lot of comments

from my district this is just a revenue sources for the mta and it's not going to, you know, being expending the hours it's not to enhance turnover or what have you i want to give you a chance to aid that if you increase the meter pay and lesson the citations they're on me like crazy. my family bills have gone up because of meter citations. can you address that southern are certain >> i appreciate the question i certainly hear that as well. first i'll say the city made a deliberate decision to direct

all parking revenues to transportation. so that was deliberately done so the parking revenues are providing some of the costs for the muni another cost for the transportation. i've mentioned a couple of times. a dive time in the past there have been a time to use parking meter to generate income. the proof in the pigd is we're lowering the parking rates is that we have very clear goals and a clear process in terms of availability and we are adjusting based on the data that creates that availability pr the turnover as you called that. and one thing we found it pricing is a better de.

but relaxing the time limits we're not adversely impacting the availability. what we're doing in those pilot programs we're adjusting the price roughly one or two available spaces that on o on would block at any given time. i've tried to lay out many of the reasons to reduce congestion on the streets and reduce pedestrian traffic. but we can't do that without managing parking. it occurs on the public right-of-way occurs on the streets and again, the growth in the overall meter revenues has

been offset by the decline in citations so at least in recent time i can go back and get the recent data. >> okay. so we've also been trying to make parking more understandable so we've spent time on mundane things on the signs and a parking meters i know that sometimes, it's confusing and we're trying to make that clearer. again, we want people to be able to legitimately pay for parking and adhere to the regulations and not get a ticket.

we're trying to make improvements in our parking endangers through sign age through lighting through revenue bond that you all have approved we're going to be making system up grates to make them attractive to people they can find parking off the street instead of circling and looking for parking on the street. that was meant to be context for why we manage parking. now i'm going to jump into what we're doing specifically. we're trying to manage it specifically. i spoke to the park a little bit where we can use pricing to

manage demand that could reduce congestion. we've pursuing car - we're including significantly morphine concentration into the outer areas of the city thanks to supervisor cowen's feedback. one of the ways to manage the demand is that over time that one car share vehicle can replace up to 10 vehicles owned by people and generally residing on the streets. so just like they said there was good muni either or taxi service

and if you're going back earlier to the motion slide driving cars is the predominantly way people get around san francisco. and car sharing is a way for people to use transportation. we've also have late been working with the mayor's office on disability to improve parking for people with sdments and again addressing that issue will-less on the demand on the parking lot zones in our city. the other part of are you going demand is making the other modes of transportation more viable. so to encourage more people to

make more trips to those modes to improve taxi service and then, of course, the backbone of all transportation outside of automobiles it the transit system and i think theirs certainly a fair criticism and a i'm sure we'll hear them in public comment where we need to improve transit as we're put parking into place we have to be reliable transportation. we're working on and i think we all recognize there's certainly a lot of work to be done in that area. and then we get to managing parking where and when that's needs -- >> the question as you talk about you mention are you going parking demanded.

i have folks coming up to me saying hey, we have to drive. we can't take the bus it's not a viable option for us. one of the things i'm sympathetic to because of my own life of children who have to drive to school and the use of the car is necessary to go between work and have you. i'd like to take a bus to work. i chudz to therefore drive to work. how do you think about that?. i don't like hearing in the paper when folks think it's a alumnus u losing situation. one of the things i'm focusing on and it's been talked about is

the flight issue in san francisco. the parents would love to be in the mode where they can only take public transportation but it's not possible for multiple family members. how do we incorporate that into the dialog? >> i think that's a great question. it's the mode slide showed the predominant mode of getting around san francisco is by car. it's been that way for a longtime sing post world war ii. and the board set of - the mode of getting transportation is every other trip as a taken by car. there are many trips.

taken in san francisco because of time of day and because of personal situation where a car is going to be the best option. we recognize that that were what we're trying to do by managing parking demand is to capture at least on the viability of the alternatives to capture more trips is people would have a choice in transit were more viable or would have a choice if they knew they could get a taxi at the end of the trip. by pulling the demands out of cars we're going to make parking more assessable and the street for more people who really need that. and as more people come to san francisco there's going to be more trips to san francisco. so if we shift the mode we're

going to have to keep it that way. in terms of friendlyness i have kids here, too. i totally appreciate the issue thanks to supervisor campos comments. but while there's no question that there are many trips in san francisco and for different populations and different times of day where the car is the only preferable option there's quite a few of the in the middle if that trip downtown on muni didn't take twice the trip as my car i would be happy to pay for parking dentist. and that's part of the investments we need to make.

when people go out at night and they don't want to take a taxi they take the car. there will also be trips that makes sense e make sense to be made by car. i know that our agency and sometimes the city has had a anticar situation innovates not reasonable and it doesn't serve anybody. but i believe we can accommodate many more trips so when people need to take the trips in car they can >> what i continue to hear from the folks is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. do you make public transportation so much more attractive that people will choose to ban their cars or make

it so changing and a frustrating to drive the car increase parking rates and what have you that people this is an extreme people give up and take public transportation. i think a lot of people say it's the latter and not the former. (clapping). and i think it's a challenge. i know it's a change for you and how for us to respond to that as well. i want to make sure you hear you know from me and other folks that i hear that time and time again. and i think that i am all for increasing the viability of public modes of transportation investing more so have a better

transportation by to me that's the right step to do that first to have is a voluntarily system pr there was someone in silicon that talked about hybrid cars he said i have four dangerous and a kid and a can't get a prius. i think you find that a lot in san francisco by it's about which one comes first. we have to be very translate - transparent >> the one thing i want to add to this discussion that there are a number of families though

for that whom driving a car may not be an option financially. and we have seen them in different parts of the city and certainly their parts of my district who don't have the lecturer of being able to afford to buy a car and can't actually use anything but muni to take their kids to an after school program. so i that we have to figure out a way to do everything in balance. the key here is in terms of performances of muni if you can get munis on time performances anywhere near the on time performances of that meter maid when your meter is about to run

i think more people will be riding public transit but please continue and i appreciate that. >> it's a good benchmark to strive for. i think in terms of supervisor farrell do we kind of fix everything first and draw folks out or punish - i didn't come and do public service to coerce people to do things they don't want to do. i don't think we can be very effective of that. we inside to make those other forms of transportation so people want to move in that direction. we want to make it easier for people to find parking and

reduceing the rates. as as opposed to what do we do first. what do we do to make up for decades of this issue. we must improve the on time performances of taxi service and if we wait for each stage of doing that that will be a long time in addressing our needs. if i may continue. one of the ways we're trying to manage parking is to do that when and where needed you made reference to enforce the parking meters on sunday. when the meters were first put in place